HEAL Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, May 27, 2002

1535

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.))

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

The Chair

1540

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

The Chair

1545

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Dr. Claire Franklin (Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health)

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham (Head, Regulatory Affairs, Alternative Strategies and Regulatory Affairs Division, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health)

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1550

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.)

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

1555

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

1600

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Scherrer

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1605

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

1610

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Scherrer

Dr. Claire Franklin

1615

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Torsney

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

Mr. Basil Stapleton (Legal Counsel, Department of Justice)

1620

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

1625

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1630

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1635

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

1640

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Basil Stapleton

1645

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Basil Stapleton

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

1650

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Paddy Torsney

1655

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Dr. Claire Franklin

1700

The Chair

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1705

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1710

Mr. Basil Stapleton

Dr. Claire Franklin

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Dr. Claire Franklin

1715

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Basil Stapleton

Ms. Paddy Torsney

1720

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. John Herron

1725

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

1730

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

Mr. Basil Stapleton

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Basil Stapleton

1735

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

1820

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

1825

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Paddy Torsney

1830

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

1835

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

1840

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Geraldine Graham

1845

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

1850

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

1855

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

1900

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. John Herron

Dr. Claire Franklin

A Voice

The Chair

1905

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Dr. Claire Franklin

1910

The Chair

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher)

1915

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

1920

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Ms. Hedy Fry

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1925

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

1930

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

1935

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

Dr. Claire Franklin

1940

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

1945

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

1950

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. John Herron

1955

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

2000

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

2005

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

NUMBER 081

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, May 27, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm calling this meeting to order. It is our second session of clause-by-clause evaluation of Bill C-53. You will recall that we got to page 28, although we did not deal with that.

You have a new package of amendments before you. You will find that the ones that we either failed to pass or ruled out of order are not in there. However, the package is the same size because some people have submitted more amendments, so we're running two steps forward and one step back.

I figured out that we are taking about five minutes per amendment. I don't have enough experience to know whether that's good or bad, but if in fact we continue that, it will take us 17 more hours to get through this bill. Mr. Herron from the environment committee says that's not too bad, but we don't plan to move at that pace. So I feel that if we get an amendment on the table, I would like to have one speaker for and one speaker against--unless you all wave at me and show me that you really care about a certain amendment--and then call the question. As a general rule, let's have somebody who moves it speak to it, and if somebody opposes it, oppose it, and let's try not to have six people speaking to every amendment.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Chair, because you've gone through the witness period, perhaps you could flag some of those larger issues like the precautionary principle or the timeline that you may be amenable to having a further debate on. That idea could be considered.

The Chair: Yes, that's the way I would do it. If I could see any agitation in my group, then I would extend it to more than two speakers, but in a general way, I think we can deal with some of these a little more quickly than we have.

Here's the problem. When we were going through pages 1 to 27 at the beginning, the amendment on page 24 was ruled out of order because it was beyond the parameters of the bill and it was actually against the spirit of the bill. It was Mr. Merrifield's amendment. He has resubmitted it, and you have in front of you another piece of paper that says page 24 at the bottom. This is his replacement, so I'd like to start there. I also have two more amendments, one on page 27-1 and another on page 21.

We don't have anything on the table, unless you want to speak about the process, Ms. Fry.

¹ (1540)

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): No, I have something I want to put on the table before we move on about where we left off the last time on formulant, which we accepted.

The Chair: I think we will have another chance at it, because as I look at page 21-1, I see that it's about formulant, so I think you'd be able to say anything you want at that point.

The three new amendments that we have that precede the place in the package where we left off are on pages 21, 24, and 27. I suggest that we start with page 21, and by the time we get to page 28 for the second time, we'll have finished with that section.

The one that I have labelled page 21-1, and apparently you don't have it, says “Clause 2, page 5” in the top right-hand corner. Can you find that? Page 21 in your package was amendment NDP-6. If you would turn the page and insert this new one that says “Clause 2, page 5” and has Hedy Fry's very distinctive signature at the top into your package, I'll ask Ms. Fry to move this amendment.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Madam Chair, I have a point of order. I don't think we've received that one.

The Chair: Well, no, only I have that one with the signature. It's distributed, but they don't have a signature.

I'm sorry, I thought everyone had one. Do you have one that says “clause 2, page 5”?

¹ (1545)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It hasn't been handed out yet.

The Chair: No one has it, so we have to pause until we get it handed out, to keep working sequentially.

Okay, everybody has it. You can see that it's about formulant. Ms. Fry wants to present this.

Go ahead, Ms. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Thank you, Madame Chair.

On page 5, clause 2, after line 19, since we have now begun to talk about formulants, we felt that this would add a definition of “formulant” that is consistent with the way in which “active ingredient” is defined. So what I would like to propose is adding: “formulant” means any component of a pest control product that is added intentionally to the product and that is not an active ingredient.

The Chair: So, people, it's another definition. Does anybody have any objections?

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Can I get a clarification from the mover as to why that wording was chosen and not the one presented earlier?

Ms. Hedy Fry: We didn't have one earlier.

The Chair: I think we had set it aside.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, it was presented and set aside, and the wording is significantly different from the one just presented. So I'm wondering what's the point of the new wording and what's the difference between the two.

Ms. Hedy Fry: First and foremost, we wanted to maintain consistency in how the term “active ingredient” is defined. So if you're going to add a formulant that is not an active ingredient, intentionally, as a pesticide per se, then we need to be consistent with that definition.

The Chair: Okay, just before that, pages 20 and 21 have two other suggestions as definitions of “formulant”, and you'll remember that we set this aside. Ms. Fry has added a third one.

I believe we had a discussion about pages 20 and 21, so if you want to figure out which one of these you want to adopt, just take a minute to do so.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Why do we have the word “intentionally”?

The Chair: Ms. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: If it is unintentional, then nobody knows it's there. It could be water or some sort of emulsion, any of those kinds of things. People can't know what they didn't add. If it's intentional, you know you put it in so you can state that it's there. But if it's unintentional, how can you know it's there? How can you refer to something that's unintentional?

The Chair: Perhaps the staff can tell us if they think the word “intentionally” has any substantive impact on this.

Dr. Claire Franklin (Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health): When you're evaluating the active ingredient and the formulants, of course you have to be sure there aren't contaminants in them. But that's a separate issue. The formulants are put there on purpose for a reason. So that's just what the formulants are.

The Chair: Is that clear enough for everybody?

Ms. Geraldine Graham (Head, Regulatory Affairs, Alternative Strategies and Regulatory Affairs Division, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health): It's the working definition. You have your active ingredients and your formulants. If there is anything that is not intentional, as Ms. Fry said, you have to deal with that. Your active ingredients and formulants should be as pure as possible. You would be looking at whether or not any of the contaminants needed to be controlled. But they would be in the active ingredient or in the formulant.

We discussed with the drafters whether we should give examples, etc. The definition of active ingredient includes examples of what the active ingredient is not, which is really the formulants. So they suggested a very simple definition that says it's really everything else, which is the most comprehensive.

The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I do not understand the use of the word “intentional”. We're talking about a manufacturer of a pesticide who puts in ingredients. Some are active to do the work of controlling pests, and some are non-active, because they're needed to make the ingredients active. It's all intentional. I do not understand the use of the word, other than for it to be a way for a manufacturer to get around the intentions of the act and to avoid accounting to the public for all the ingredients it puts in. It just blows me away.

¹ (1550)

Ms. Hedy Fry: I would think it's consistent with the concept of fairness. If somebody didn't intentionally put something in, how can they say that it was there? How can they declare that it is there if they didn't intentionally put it in? The word “intentional” is exactly what you're talking about. A formulant is intentionally put in. Therefore, we are going to add “intentionally”, because it is a formulant. But if it's unintentional, it's a contaminant or something else, then you can't expect somebody to know that. So you have to be fair to them. If they didn't know, you can't ask them to say that it's there.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): I have a question for departmental officials. Ms. Fry's amendment contains a reference to a “pest control product that is added intentionally to the product and that is not an active ingredient”. The amendments proposed by my colleague Mr. Herron and by the NDP mentioned the following: “solvent, diluent, adjuvant, emulsifier”. I'd like to know if everything that is not an active ingredient and that is included in this definition, namely any solvent, diluent, adjuvant or emulsifier, would be automatically covered.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: It's my intent to support Madam Fry's amendment. It replaces mine, which was stood down. I had a list there, but I think this is comprehensive enough. I think the fact that we've included a definition of “formulant” is a win for the bill, so I'm going to support it.

The Chair: So you're withdrawing PC-8.

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, are you withdrawing NDP-6 for the same reason?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

The Chair: We'll now vote on LL-1.

(Amendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We'll now move to page 24, which is Mr. Merrifield's replacement for his that was ruled out of order or something the last time. So we're on page 24. Please put this one in.

Mr. Merrifield, would you like to speak to it?

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Yes. I was questioning it the last time we sat as to why it would be ruled out of order. I had a written explanation as well as I talked to them after. There were really two things. There was an “and” that should have been put in place instead of an “or”, so it took the responsibility of the minister out of it, and as well there was a specific number of hectares that was a problem with it.

On reflection, I could understand that, so we changed it. I think this complies, because we've been working with them. What we have there would not be a problem, and I think it should be considered.

The only thing I would say is that it may be inappropriate to vote on it right now. We may want to just put it off until we have the amendments on minor use that have been proposed later in the bill. We did that before, and I would certainly think that would be a wise way to go if there's resistance to putting it in now.

The Chair: Mr. Speller, did you want to comment on this?

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to let the committee know that I have an amendment similar to this. The difference is that my amendment respecting minor uses puts them into the regulations. I think that's really where the definition should be. I don't think we want to restrict ourselves by putting this in legislation. If, for instance, crop.... I forget where you had it there; I think it was 120,000 or so.... If that changes, well, it's going to be a lot more difficult to amend a bill than it is to change a regulation.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's why it's not there, the number of hectares.

Mr. Bob Speller: That's why I think it's important that we have this definition, but it's important that it turn up in the regulations and not in the legislation.

The Chair: Okay, that's Mr. Speller's point of view.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I think Mr. Merrifield may be on to something. If we at this juncture stand this part of it down, then if a minor use amendment passes down the road, where it's incumbent on the committee to amend the definitions, we don't have to close off this clause. That way we can go forward at that point. There's no need to have a definition the same way we did with formulants.

Access to minor use is critical to the agricultural community, so whether it's done via the Speller process or Mr. Merrifield's, it's acceptable as long as we get the end game here.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: It seems as if this comes up about page 91, where we're considering this next one. The mover is suggesting we take it out and put it in where it comes up in a substantive way and deal with it at that point. My best guess is that it's about page 91. That's where I'm putting it and the subsequent ones Mr. Merrifield had attached to it.

Thank you very much.

We're moving to page 27. The government has just given us an amendment that is exactly the same as the one we just passed, PC-11. We've already agreed on the substance of this.

Mr. Speller.

Mr. Bob Speller: It says it differently. You can see it is different.

The Chair: It just says “that consists of”, but it addresses a line in the bill we have already passed. The only way an amendment could be worded would be if it simply said to put “that consists” in, with those two words on the page and not the repetition of the whole line we've already passed.

We can't do it. It would have to come differently.

Mr. Bob Speller: I'm sorry, I don't understand that.

The Chair: When you've dealt with a clause in the bill and you have passed something that is added to it or changes it, if you get a subsequent amendment because somebody isn't happy with that clause, it has to be exactly what you are changing. The only thing that is different on this piece of paper we just got today are the words “that consists of”. So those would be the three words that would be on the page that would come as an amendment; otherwise, it's a replication.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, it does have a significance, in that if you recall, one of the things that was of deep concern to Health Canada was they didn't want to have to register formulants. That was one of the reasons we agreed that we would accept formulants here. Now, if you put “that consists of” an active ingredient--you're still maintaining that a pest control product that consists of an active ingredient--then you add formulant, it means that you don't have to register formulants; you still have to register the pest control product. One of the problems was that we would have to keep registering formulants, which would increase the registration process interminably.

Mr. John Herron: Madam Chair, I can find you five minutes on this.

The Chair: The clerk is telling me the committee can only amend the same line in the bill once, and that a subsequent change to it would have to come at report stage. That seems to be the rule.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: On that, Madam Chair, because we were the movers of this amendment and this committee endorsed this amendment, if you want to seek unanimous consent of the table, which you may, to allow a friendly amendment to include Ms. Fry's language we'd be amenable to that. You don't have to do it at report stage and we can go forward again.

º (1600)

The Chair: Do I have unanimous consent to process this addition “that consists of”, because we really couldn't do it unless you all agreed? Is everybody agreeing?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Ms. Fry, this amendment 27.1, “that consists of”, is on the table. You've already explained it.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: This is where we got to NDP-8 on page 28, and we're back there.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Chair, at the end of our last meeting I had withdrawn this motion, since it's redundant.

The Chair: Not moved, right.

So we're on page 29 for PC-12. Mr. Herron, you're on for PC-12.

Mr. John Herron: Madam Chair, what we're trying to advocate here is to have the strongest possible definition that we can have with respect to....

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): What page are we on?

The Chair: We're back into the regular book, page 29, Madame Scherrer. Page 29 in the package.

Mr. John Herron: Madam Chair, what we're trying to do is dovetail two of the principal pieces of legislation we have for controlled use of toxins in our environment. The definition that we're advocating here is the definition that comes directly from the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This principle focuses on avoiding the creation of pollutants in the first place, rather than trying to manage them after the fact. This is the sentiment that has been expressed by the environment committee during our review.

It's not a definition just out of the air; we already have it entrenched in the law right now. For the sake of consistency of government legislation, I think it would be incumbent on us to utilize the same definition, because the acts converge in their intent.

(Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Page 30, PC-13, we have a definition of the precautionary principle.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Madam Chair, after that stimulating debate on the last one, I'm moving this particular amendment because this definition of the precautionary principle is the one the Standing Committee on the Environment essentially endorsed when we undertook a very short review of a mere eight months. This was the definition that we advocated.

I understand that you folks have heard testimony from the PMRA that says yes, we in fact use the precautionary principle; we even use a higher standard than the real definition. Well, good. If that's the case, then let's use one higher than the real definition. That's the testimony we heard here at the particular table.

I might add, Madam Chair, I have a little trepidation, since the precautionary principle is not used by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency in the comprehensive way that we might say. If you do a word search on the term “precautionary principle” on the PMRA website, you get one document back. You only get one document back on the entire word search in the whole agency. The point is that if it's not included in their own documentation, I think it's incumbent on us to have as strong a review as we can.

My last point on this is that we would like to see a shorter review of seeing this legislation within five years, but given that there's a ten-year review, I think it's incumbent on us to have the most stringent and pioneering definition that we could have.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

I would point out to the members that this is identical to NDP-9 on page 31 and also to LL-5 on page 32. They're not all identical but they're on the same subject. So would you please review those three pages.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, did you want to speak to that part, which is slightly different?

Who is moving it? Mr. Lincoln, okay.

Have you had enough time, people, to compare the three definitions?

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm not going to quibble about the slight difference in wording between the Tory amendment and ours. The basic issue at hand is the inclusion of the precautionary principle in this bill. I certainly support the general definition that we're considering presently and would urge members to support it.

I think this is pretty basic to the work we have before us. By defining it as it is and placing it in this part of the act, we're putting it in the context of all decision-making pursuant to the bill. It then allows us the opportunity to have it operationalized at every possible place within the act.

º (1605)

The Chair: PC-13 is on the table. That's page 30. Are there any other speakers?

Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Madam Chair, regarding the principle which we discussed earlier, I get the distinct impression that in many cases, the principle will favour decisions not necessarily based on scientific evidence. It may even prove to be counter-productive. I think the principle will be adhered to when a product is re-evaluated.

However, when an initial request is made for product registration, some caution is warranted, because a definition can prove to be counter-productive. As we well know, before a product is registered, a series of measures are taken to ensure that this product does not pose a health or environmental risk. I think that quite often, these measures prove to be more restrictive that the principle itself which may eventually be challenged by the people seeking to have the product registered.

For these reasons, I'm not inclined to support the proposal at this time.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: On the other hand, Madam Chair, I'm completely in favour of including this definition. Need I remind people that when the Environment Commissioner testified before the committee several weeks ago, she was very clear on this point. If Canada wants to be in tune with the times and uphold its international commitments in the area of environmental protection and sustainable development, it's important that it incorporate the precautionary principle not just into this particular piece of legislation, but into all legislation.

Canada must uphold its international commitments. We need to follow the advice of the Environment Commissioner and incorporate the precautionary principle as formulated.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Ms. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, on page 20 of the bill, under “precautionary principle”, subclause 20(2), it's my understanding we already have it quite clearly:

“20(2) Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent adverse health impact or environmental degradation.”

We have it. Why are we putting it in here now? It's already in the bill. We already added, at the front end, the whole concept, defined in the Rio Declaration and in CEPA, where there is reasonable certainty that there is no harm. It's the acceptable risk principle we already accepted. This seems to me to be a kind of overkill. We already said it twice earlier on. Now we're going to be saying it in subclause 20(2).

I don't understand. I'm sorry.

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield.

º (1610)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Recognizing absolutely, on page 20 in subclause 20(2), there is a problem, one or the other would have to change. We'd either have to change the definition to reflect this or the other way round. To have both would be a contradiction, I believe.

The Chair: The principle on page 20 talks about the likeliness to cause harm, even though there is no conclusive evidence. Subclause 20(2) says “threats of serious or irreversible damage”, which is a lot stronger than plain “harm”.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: This has been one of the principal debates on the bill. In places in the bill the precautionary principle is used, not with the definition that we'd like, on re-evaluation, but not on registration. It's the reason why it's in there twice.

The second thing I would say to members is on the argument made by Ms. Fry. I'll try to be cooperative.

If you think the definition is okay because it was in CEPA, as CEPA is our principal bill on the control and use of toxins in the environment, and that's why we should use it, why did we vote against a definition that was in CEPA on pollution prevention?

We'd like to have some consistency in the debate and logic on that part of it, because this is going to come up again later on.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I also have a little problem when you are as clear, as you're saying here, on the precautionary principle where there's reason to believe that a pest control product is likely to cause harm even though there is no conclusive evidence to that effect.

One of the problems is with Europe, where there are trade protectionist barriers. They are going to have absolutely no reason, for strawberries coming out of Canada, to say they don't have to prove it and there's no burden of proof necessary. The precautionary principle says they're not going to buy it. We have to be careful about what's there in the real world.

It is one of the reasons why we looked at the acceptable risk earlier on and put it in. We're now looking at, later on, putting in subclause 20(2). I think this is so open-ended, it could create a problem for us in terms of real life and real world problems.

Mr. John Herron: This is the message we're trying to export.

The Chair: Madam Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Would the officials care to share their opinion on this matter with us? At some point, it all becomes rather confusing.

[English]

Dr. Claire Franklin: The definition of the precautionary principle we have put in the bill to deal with products currently on the market is in an appropriate place. The product is out there. If there's any indication there's a serious threat or irreversible damage, we can take action very quickly by utilizing the precautionary principle while we would be doing the review, to find out whether the scientific evidence is absolutely supportive of that. So I think this really is appropriate. You have a product on the market.

We need to be very careful when we draw analogies with CEPA, because we're dealing here with commodities that do not get on the market if they're not registered. This is very different from the context of CEPA. So as we go through this, I think we have to be very cautious in drawing too many analogies to the effect that if it's in CEPA, then it should be here.

The precautionary principle, with the CEPA definition, is an appropriate definition for products that are on the market and could cause harm. When we're dealing with pre-market products, we have a much higher standard than the precautionary principle. The one we have, which the government moved, is that there be reasonable certainty of no unacceptable harm. That's really important. We're dealing pre-market with a no-harm position, versus indication there is something going on. So it truly is a different and more specific standard.

But again, if we have any questions when we're doing our review we do not register the product. It's incumbent upon the registrant to answer all of the questions before the product is registered. This is very different from dealing with something that is getting out there. You really need to have whatever tools are possible to be able to take action quickly.

º (1615)

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I appreciate that explanation. However, it seems to me that over a number of years the debate around the precautionary principle has been resolved, in terms of any area of legislation dealing with health protection or protection of the environment. When CEPA was crafted, I think the point of the debate was to enshrine within law a general concept that would apply to any number of circumstances. It was not always to compare and make analogies, but a general principle that when it comes to health protection we, as a government, believe the onus should be on government and industry to prove safety--not on the consumer to prove harm.

So when dealing with products that pose a risk to consumers, anything we can do ought to take that into account. I think the point of this amendment is to ensure it is a guiding principle throughout the entire law--a broad, far-reaching notion providing a guiding framework for decisions in the future--not just to apply in clause 20, when we deal with re-evaluations.

We had this debate at health committee with respect to assisted human reproduction. We recommended as a committee that the precautionary principle be included in that act. It didn't show up. We have concerns and still have to deal with that situation. But we made that decision for a very good reason: when it comes to health protection and sustainability of the environment, we have to take every possible precaution. It is incumbent upon us to ensure it's in the defining section of this legislation.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): First of all, I think it's important that people recognize that the section being dealt with right now is definitions. The definitions are to guide you when things are referenced later on.

As Dr. Fry has already identified, what you really want are the operative clauses. You want the clauses that are going to ensure that you do follow through on the actions you would like to see in a precautionary manner. That is in fact the operative paragraph in subclause 20(2). So it's there. That's the important part, which is needed. So I would not be in favour of this amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Speller.

Mr. Bob Speller: Could Mr. Stapleton comment on what this may do and the importance of a science-based system and its impact on the criminal law power?

Mr. Basil Stapleton (Legal Counsel, Department of Justice): To begin with, as I noted before, talking about the precautionary principle and then bringing forward several variations of it is really confusing. It suggests there is a universal precautionary approach that will apply equally well in all circumstances.

We've tried to address that by indicating that even the Rio Declaration, of course, didn't purport to propose an approach that would be universally applicable; it simply provided a recommended approach that would be used in certain circumstances. And those are the circumstances that we reflect in subclause 20(2) because that is the only place in our regulatory system where those circumstances actually appear.

When it comes to pre-market approval, we're dealing with a whole other situation. We are taking a precautionary approach. It's called the “acceptable risk approach”. We're not calling it a precautionary principle because that wouldn't advance the cause. To call it “the precautionary principle”, we'd only be adding to the confusion by suggesting there is another “the precautionary principle”.

Where the debate gets confused is in failing to recognize we're talking really about precautionary approaches, and that the appropriate approach to use is the one that serves the best interests of the public in a particular set of circumstances.

In the case of a decision to register or not to register a pest control product, the approach that will be used in the bill and that is currently used is to assess on a scientific basis whether there is any likelihood of harm resulting to the public if this product is registered for the proposed use. If the answer to that question is yes, then the precautionary measure is taken to refuse the registration. It's as simple as that. If the answer is no, there is no likelihood of harm when the science is evaluated, again using scientific standards and methods, then the answer is we don't need to take a precautionary measure here because there is no likelihood of harm. It's as simple as that.

If we define another precautionary principle along with the definition of acceptable risk, then in effect we're calling a precautionary approach a principle and calling a precautionary approach an acceptability of risk test. Then we have another definition of precautionary principle in subclause 20(2).

As a matter of drafting and as a matter of statutory interpretation, that simply wouldn't make any sense. We have to decide the appropriate precautionary approach to take in a regulatory regime where it is not an after-the-fact determination as to whether precaution should be taken to remove a threat.

What we're talking about up front is determining whether the threat should even be allowed to appear, because until the product is registered, there is no threat. There is at most a potential threat. But if the determination on the basis of science is that there is no likelihood of harm, then there is no threat to be moved against.

I don't know if that really answers your question fully. I think we can get tied up in a terrible semantic tangle here, when in fact we should be talking about simply determining what are the circumstances where we need to use precaution and what type of precaution should we use. What approach should we use? On what basis should we take the precautionary measure of refusing to register a product or getting rid of one that's already registered? It's as simple as that.

Mr. Bob Speller: Thank you.

º (1620)

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Chair, in my opinion, Mr. Stapleton has just given us all of the right reasons for incorporating this definition of the precautionary principle. As he himself just said, there are several definitions with varying consequences. Therefore, since we've made the effort to define such words as “biotechnology”, “ecosystem”, “packaging”, “distribution” and “workplace”, I think it's critically important to define the precautionary principle. As Mr. Stapleton said, it's a difficult concept to define.

I think we need to make an attempt at defining this principle to guard against the bill being ambiguous. The public expects us to adopt a clear bill. Therefore, it's critical, in my view, that we incorporate a definition of this principle.

[English]

The Chair: I call the question on page 30, amendment PC-13.

(Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We're now on page 31, amendment NDP-9. I don't think we need further debate.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We would like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: LL-5 has not been moved. It's identical to one of the ones we've just defeated.

We're now on page 33, NDP-10. It is identical to LL-6 and similar to BQ-3. Again, there are three pages with three options. Would you look at them, please.

Ms. Torsney.

º (1625)

Ms. Paddy Torsney: What is LL-6? There's no person identified on any of these. Is someone moving this?

The Chair: It's Clifford Lincoln's submission. In some cases they've decided to move it, and in other cases they've decided not to. I don't think everyone's even read them yet, so I'm just asking people to review those three pages first, because we will be voting on amendment NDP-10 first anyway.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any questions on these, or are you ready to vote?

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's not a question. I'll just make a couple of comments about why we suggested this amendment.

Although we just defeated putting the precautionary principle under the definitions section, I think it's important at every opportunity to try to urge the committee to reconsider reference to this important principle wherever we can.

This motion actually recognizes that science and precaution are not mutually exclusive. We certainly want to acknowledge the fact that decisions made using the precautionary principle must also be science-informed. It's not a question of making decisions in the absence of the science, and it's not a question of restraining action because all the science isn't in yet. This is an attempt to simply say that we must use science but also must recognize that we cannot wait for scientific certainty before taking preventative measures.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Are there any other comments? Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I'm sure you can understand, Madam Chair, why I'm concerned about the NDP amendment. We should not take any action that might postpone any preventive measures. There is the whole issue of the acceptable risk level associated with certain pesticides that could be on the market. Therefore, the precautionary principle should be taken into account when establishing scientific evidence.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I am going to call the question on amendment NDP-10.

(Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: As amendments LL-6 and BQ-3 are almost identical, I think we can assume they would fail to carry also.

We are now on page 36, amendment NDP-11. There are at least two that are identical. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, did you want to explain why you wanted this included in the definitions?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Members will know that the terms “acceptable” and “unacceptable” are used in different ways throughout the act. It's our view it would make for a more meaningful piece of legislation if in fact we defined the use of the terms used through the act, and therefore have proposed a definition for “unacceptable risk”. It seems to me, and to others, I believe, that in fact we need to clearly define this concept so that all parties understand the basis upon which decisions are being made. We were interested in trying to remove as much as possible the subjective basis upon which a minister currently makes decisions and to help in fact provide the best possible framework legislation in the definition of “acceptable risk”. “Unacceptable risk”, in our view, is clearly part of that.

º (1630)

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Anybody else? Ms. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Yes, Madam Chair. While I understand what Ms. Wasylycia-Leis is saying, it seems to me again to be redundant. Remember at the beginning when we moved the definition of “acceptable risk”, which is actually almost exactly similar except it has “un” in front of it. It said:

“For the purposes of this act, the health or environmental risks of a pest control product are acceptable if there is reasonable certainty that no harm to human health or the environment will result from exposure to or use of the product, taking into account its conditions or proposed conditions of registration.”

We passed that amendment, Madam Chair, and that now becomes subclause 2(2) on page 7 . So I think we're being redundant again. We're just adding stuff for the sake of adding it, when we've already clearly defined it.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I'll call the question on NDP-11.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: LL-7 is identical.

We're now on page 38, CA-2A. The clause is to be amended by deleting line 9 on page 7, so you'll have to check your legislation. Oh, it's just the word “efficacy”.

Would anybody like to speak to this? Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: When it comes to value--and that's what we're talking about, determining the value of product--to use efficacy as a measurement of value is something I would question as to whether that's wise for us to do. To use information coming and forcing companies to come up with efficacy is fine, but for us to determine that, for us to put the value on, I don't think should be there at all. The marketplace determines the value of it. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what we come up with, whether it's the efficacy or not. The value of a product is not determined by the efficacy of it; it's determined by the effect it has, by the health and safety environment--all those things. Efficacy is not something that should be there.

The Chair: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Unless there's something that I don't know about, namely that the government is supposed to facilitate snake oil salesmen, I would think that efficacy would be a pretty important factor. As a consumer product organization, or an organization that exists to help consumers make decisions, I would think efficacy would be a primary concern to my constituents.

The Chair: It's very frightening that Ms. Torsney's riding is right next to mine, and as soon as Mr. Merrifield was speaking, the term “snake oil salesman” went through my mind.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's that southern Ontario thing.

The Chair: It's that southern Ontario thinking.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I don't know if there's snake oil used in southern Ontario, but I'm sure if it doesn't work, you won't use it.

The Chair: No, but people made a lot of money in the old days selling things like that, and it wasn't efficacious.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, make the companies bring forward the efficacy, not us.

The Chair: I'll call the question on CA-2A, page 38.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Page 39. I'm getting really excited. We've actually covered 11 pages.

BQ-4, Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Still with respect to the definition of “value”, I move that Bill C-53 in clause 2 be amended by replacing line 14 on page 7 with the following:

benefits and social and economic impact, but does exclude cosmetic considerations.

The committee heard a number of presentations and extensive testimony during consideration of this bill. However, I remind members that the Environment Committee notes on page 76 of its report that in the opinion of a number of groups, including community groups, the cosmetic use of pesticides had no value but rather posed a public health risk. According to the Committee's report:

The committee agrees that the risks arising from cosmetic uses of pesticides far outweigh the benefits and that these uses should be deemed to have no value.

Therefore, Madam Chair, we need to comply with the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Environment, which was represented by all of its members seated here at this table, perhaps not these very same members, but at least by members from all parties.

º (1635)

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think this amendment would do the exact opposite. It would in fact encourage the agency to look at things and encourage them to look at cosmetic considerations, and I don't think that's what they should be doing. I think there's a wording error here.

By including a reference to...does not exclude cosmetic considerations. It encourages the agency.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: No, no...exclusion.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It does exclude the cosmetic considerations.

Frankly, I don't think this should be considered in the first place. I don't think it should be included in there. By adding some references to it I think you open up that whole kettle of fish.

The Chair: Seeing no further hands, I'll call the question on amendment BQ-4.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: There's a possibility now we could have some kind of a motion that closes off clause 2, but the clerk is suggesting to me that it might be better to come back to it after we finish more of the substance, just in case we want to change something.

(Clause 2 allowed to stand)

(On clause 4--Primary objective)

The Chair: Okay, so now we're on page 42. We have amendment PC-14 in front of us and it compares with amendment NDP-12 and amendment BQ-5. If you pass amendment PC-14, the other two cannot be put on the table, so I think you'd better look at all of them.

The clerk has just consulted with me. I don't think amendment NDP-12 is relevant any more because we did not include the definition that it depends on in the definition section. We already voted it down. So NDP-12 is no longer relevant.

Amendment PC-14 is still relevant and it has something to do with amendment BQ-5. Okay, let us look at amendment PC-14 on its own, then.

Mr. Herron, did you want to speak to it?

Mr. John Herron: I certainly do.

The mandate of the act should be to adopt an aspect the Minister of Agriculture speaks to quite often, enhancing integrated pest management itself. The primary objective of the act guides the interpretation of the application.

There are a couple of points that would be augmented by this amendment. It would describe as part of its mandate a decrease in the burden from pest control products on human health and the ecosystem. Second, it would define and enshrine integrated pest management as a fundamental tool to improve environmental sustainability and pest management, to promote decreased reliance on pesticides, and to ensure the reduction of risks from pesticides over time. That's the cumulative effect, as I'm sure the members know.

Integrated pest management combines the use of pest control methods, including of course pesticides as well as alternatives to pesticides. The amendment itself is endorsed by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, the Canadian Institute of Child Health, and Citizens for Alternatives to Pesticides, as well as very learned environmental NGOs.

People will talk about integrated pest management. For us not to have that as part of the mandate of the act would, I think, be to severely limit the act. I move this amendment. I think it's quite pioneering, and in our opinion it's one of the more substantive amendments that have been proposed here.

º (1640)

The Chair: Can we have speakers? Here's Ms. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: While I accept what we're talking about, we've already had it at the beginning under the acceptable risks piece. At the same time, reducing the risk of pest control products is infringing on what the provinces do. It is not an appropriate thing for the federal government to involve itself in right now.

The primary objective of this act is to protect human health and the environment from harm. It says that for the purposes of this act, the health and environmental risks, and the pest control agency--blah, blah, blah--with no harm to human health or to future generations. It's already been said.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I might add is that we had a very similar amendment in the context of the Species at Risk Act--which is having a bit difficulty at the moment. We tabled a stewardship plan for protecting species by rewarding responsible behaviour in that nature, a plan Mr. Speller would, I'm sure, be quite amenable to. What it did was that it actually enshrined that stewardship should be a principal aspect as opposed to purely using sticks in protecting species at risk. This aspect is showing that there's a tool kit for ensuring that we have a multiple approach on integrated pest management. If it's what we say we do, why don't we actually have that aspect as a component of this act and as part of its mandate?

And it's not infringing on the provinces' jurisdiction because what we're talking about here is the licensing of the substances themselves to encourage reduced risk in integrated pest management. The provinces only deal with the application thereof, so this act isn't different with respect to licensing.

The Chair: The question of PC-14 is before you.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: NDP-12 is now irrelevant.

As to BQ-5, we did not put a definition of the precautionary principle in, and therefore it's my judgment that this is now beyond the bill as defined. Do you agree, Mr. Bigras?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I have a few questions. If we fail to define the precautionary principle in the act, does this mean that we can no longer debate certain clauses in the bill? I'd like to put that question to the clerk. If certain basic concepts are not defined in the bill, does this mean that we can no longer debate them? I don't see how failing to define the principle beforehand precludes our incorporating it into certain provisions. I'm wondering because the problem could arise more than once.

[English]

The Chair: I think the officials could respond to this idea. In other words, is it harmful to put the idea of precautionary principle in, even though it's not defined at the front? You were saying the definition would probably create a narrowing effect, but the phrase itself could be interpreted by the reader, essentially.

Mr. Basil Stapleton: That's one of the main problems, Madam Chair. It's not a term of art. Everybody seems to be using “precautionary principle” to mean something different. Without a definition, nobody would really know what its inclusion in a particular provision was intended to communicate. That would leave every decision taken under the act open to challenge because somebody's notion of precautionary principle was not applied in the process. So it's really very dangerous.

Of course, we also use the term itself very specifically in subclause 20(2). If it picks up its meaning from that particular provision, I'm sure it will defeat the intention of people who want to insert it here, in any event. I don't think the intention of those who are promoting it--although I certainly wouldn't want to put words in their mouths--is to have the Rio declaration applied to all decision-making within the bill.

So it would be quite mischievous to use a term that had no definition in law and no common understanding. We've already been presented here with several interpretations of what it should mean.

º (1645)

The Chair: Mr. Bigras would like to comment.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I'd like you to clarify something for me. If the principle hasn't been defined, how then do you explain a reference to it in clause 20(1)(b)? In that case, why couldn't there be a reference to this principle elsewhere in the bill?

[English]

Mr. Basil Stapleton: With respect, that provision actually does provide the definition of the circumstances in which the principle is to be applied. It uses the wording of the Rio Declaration. In effect, we do have an interpretative provision right there. It couldn't be mistaken for any other view of what the precautionary principle is.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I would just like to make a couple of points on it, as well.

I see no harm in utilizing a term that is in the act already, when we get to subclause 20(2). That's a point of fact--it's already in the act. There's nothing detrimental to actually including words that are already in the act.

With respect to its status under law, the Supreme Court of Canada referenced the precautionary principle in its decision on the Hudson case, therefore it has status under the law. I don't see any reason for us not to be able to use the precautionary principle, since it has been given status by the Supreme Court of Canada, and we have utilized it in subclause 20(2), so the act already has it.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I'll call the question on amendment BQ-5 on page 44.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Chair, may I now speak to my amendment?

[English]

The Chair: I thought you just did. I asked you to speak to it. Didn't you just speak?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: No. To my understanding, you deemed my amendment to be out of order because the expression had not been defined. If you say we can put the matter to a vote, then that means I can speak to the amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, go ahead, Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you very much.

Therefore, I move that clause 4 be amended by replacing line 27 on page 7 with the following:

ment from the use of pest control products, and to base all of his or her decisions on the precautionary principle.

Such was the desire expressed, Madam Chair, by a number of the witnesses who testified before this committee as well as before the Standing Committee on Environment. They asked that binding provisions contained in the legislation and in the new Pest Control Products Act take this principle into account. The witnesses repeatedly alluded to this principle and I think it must be incorporated into the bill's provisions and binding measures.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have a question for Ms. Franklin. It would appear that clause 20 is discussing when amending something that's currently registered. So I guess that's part of the re-evaluation. You're using the precautionary principle, if I'm not mistaken. But in the clause under consideration, it's talking about the mandate in general. It would be my presumption that in the first registration of products you'd actually be tougher than in anything that's currently under evaluation. So I would wonder whether the test that you're going to apply under clause 4 is in fact higher than even that suggested under clause 20. But you'd have to address that; I'm not sure. That's my impression from the work we had done on the committee about what we desired.

º (1650)

The Chair: That point has been made quite clearly, that at the initial application the standard is extremely high, because we don't want to let anything go on the market that might have any harmful effects; and at the re-evaluation, the definition of how it's going to be done is under clause 20.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Right. So in fact if amendment BQ-5 were to be included, it would actually weaken the mandate that this bill seeks to give the minister.

The Chair: Yes, particularly with regard to new and emerging products.

I think that's a fair assessment, Ms. Torsney. Thank you.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Amendment NDP-12a, on page 45, is consequential to the vote on amendment NDP-5, so it's gone.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Chair, I believe this motion would be in order as pursuant to the discussion we just had on amendment BQ-5.

The Chair: It's in order.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Oh, I thought you said it was gone. I was just going to move the motion and speak on it.

The Chair: I have a feeling.... Is this not going to be a rehash of the debate we just had on the previous amendment?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I just want to make a couple of points that had been touched on by other colleagues.

The Chair: All right, go ahead.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Again, I think the broad concept of precautionary principle needs to be in this act wherever possible.

I think there is a general understanding of the definition. We've been through that in other legislation. The fact that it's defined in CEPA gives us a good grounding and a good basis for the work that needs to be done with this act.

I'm not so sure I understand Mr. Stapleton's point that we're all over the map on this issue. I think we have a pretty clear idea. It's really more a question of this concept being entrenched in law and whether we agree or do not agree with the use of the term and the leadership we're going to show through this bill. Even though we've lost the battle on defining “precautionary principle” in the bill, that shouldn't rule out reference to it wherever possible.

There are other terms in this bill where we don't define the use of the term, and it has been argued, in fact, that it would be problematic if we did. So using that same logic in this case, I would suggest that this motion ought to be supported and seen as a guiding principle for the entire administration of the act.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have to disagree. I would hope that the minister would be using the precautionary principle in re-evaluating products that are currently on the market, but when it comes to new products, I want full scientific certainty before that product is introduced. So that's a higher test than the precautionary principle. That's what it means.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Maybe we should just pause for a moment and get some clarification on this, because I think what we've all been saying is that we need to apply the highest scientific standards possible, as well as the precautionary principle, and know that they are not mutually exclusive. When science clearly gives us the information we need to be absolutely certain that a product is--

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Safe.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: --a hazard to human health, then we have the wherewithal to act. But there are many times when in fact science is not conclusive, and we need to exercise the “do no harm” principle as an extra precaution to protect people from unforeseen risks and hazards down the road.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Right. But in licensing new products, the minister should be seeking full scientific certainty, not a balance of probability. It's in relicensing old products that you want to apply the precautionary principle. She doesn't have to have full scientific certainty. She has freedom to act. But if it's a new product coming onto the market, they should have to demonstrate full scientific certainty, in which case the precautionary principle isn't the highest standard.

º (1655)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Members well know that we're getting into a subjective area in terms of decision-making.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm trying to remember the subjectivity.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: There are many examples--and hours of debate--where we could reference products that have been approved because it is believed the science suggests that they are safe beyond reasonable doubt, when in fact there's been a bias in the information presented, there's been incomplete investigative work done on the particular matter, or someone has fallen down on the job. There are any number of cases in which the straight belief that science will prevail and lead to the right decisions doesn't always work, where you need that extra provision within the law to guide, to encourage, to urge caution for the sake of exposure down the road and unforeseen problems.

The Chair: Ms. Fry is the last speaker on this point.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, in clause 2, definitions, which we just finished, doesn't the concept of reasonable certainty in the term “acceptable risk” address what you're talking about? I would think it does. Reasonable certainty doesn't depend on hard science only. There's an element of the subjectivity that you're looking for in that. We all accepted that, and we accepted that it would apply to future generations, to the environment, etc.

I think the argument that everyone has been making is that we keep having different definitions repeated over and over, and then at the end of the day we don't really know what we're referring to. I thought we had agreed that was a broad concept.

Then in terms of post-registration, we have this concept where we said that scientific...in clause 20, which we already have there.

Mr. Stapleton made the comment that at the end of the day, if we have five or six different understandings of what we're saying, anybody can use that if they wish to say that we really don't know what we're saying, and they can use it to define whatever they want to define.

Again, I think we're repeating ourselves when we've already made decisions. We've agreed that some subjectivity is important in terms of reasonable certainty.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It was a point raised by others around the table. If we don't have disagreement over the idea that we really do intend this bill to practise the notion of the precautionary principle and ensure that any products on the market are safe beyond a reasonable doubt, then what would be wrong with including the reference to a term that is now well used, as the Conservative critic mentioned? It's entrenched in law. It's well used internationally. It's recognized by consumers. It's a notion that is understood. Why not include it to give the act that extra clout, the extra emphasis, the extra guarantee that people are looking for?

The Chair: Maybe Claire Franklin can help us. There seem to be two ways of looking at this kind of bill. I don't know if I'm right on this. One would be to do all the terminology with regard to precautions, precautionary principle, and all that sort of thing. The other way of looking at it, which requires a totally different set of language, is the language of acceptable and unacceptable risk. Really, it's pretty hard to synthesize those two. So because you've chosen to go the route of acceptable and unacceptable risk, you don't want to confuse the subject by bringing in this whole idea of precaution. Is that correct?

Dr. Claire Franklin: That is correct, Madam Chair. The issue with the precautionary principle as it has been developed over the years was to assist when in fact there was not an opportunity to have full scientific certainty. So it provided a way to take action when you had some evidence, but not all of the evidence you would like.

When dealing with pesticides, which are pre-market products and fully registered commodities, we are dealing with very different commodities than what we regulate under CEPA. There's no question, as I said earlier, one has to be very careful about extrapolating from one to the other. We have full opportunity not to put a product on the market if the risks are unacceptable, or to take it off. As you've indicated, this is really why we've gone with the route that's there.

We have included the precautionary principle to give us that extra piece of rapid action for products on the market. It is an appropriate tool for the government to have. But with the varying definitions and ways it can be interpreted, it's not a tool as precise or one giving us as strong a mechanism as we have when not putting the product on the market, if we don't have full evidence to be able to make that decision.

» (1700)

The Chair: Let me ask you this question: how are the Americans doing it? Is their act in this area built on acceptable and unacceptable risk, or the precautionary principle?

Dr. Claire Franklin: To the best of my knowledge, decisions taken around the world are based on acceptable and unacceptable risks, because they allow that level of control.

The Chair: In Europe as well, to your knowledge?

Dr. Claire Franklin: In the legislation in Europe as well. As I recollect, they've had a discussion on the precautionary principle, along the terms we are proposing be utilized in this legislation.

To the best of my knowledge, the term “precautionary principle” is not in the American legislation.

The Chair: But you think this risk methodology in dealing with this subject matter is the most universal. Is this what you're saying?

Dr. Claire Franklin: Yes.

Pre-market--or before the product is put on the market--you have a full slate of evidence or information you need to make the decision. It's the applicant's responsibility to provide the evidence to show the product can be used safely.

When the product is on the market, we also have a requirement for the registrant to provide information as we look at whether there have been any new scientific developments over the years. So we still apply that test on re-evaluation. But the precautionary principle would let us take immediate action while we're getting that information.

The Chair: I think our level of discomfort is related to the mail we get. We all received so many letters saying “You've got to have the precautionary principle in, you've got to have it defined in there,” etc. I'm wondering if these letters are a bit of a hangover from the CEPA discussions, from people who don't understand how pest management legislation around the world is done in a different way.

Dr. Claire Franklin: That could certainly be part of the concern people have expressed.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sorry to belabour this point, but I think it is key to the whole bill and we should spend a little time on it. I'm not sure it's worthwhile necessarily looking to the United States for a model.

» (1705)

The Chair: I asked about Europe, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, believe me.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Right. The United States has been leading the charge internationally to stay away from entrenchment in law of the precautionary principle. There has been an ongoing battle at the World Trade Organization table with the United States, often supported by Canada, against the European Union and other countries that have recognized the validity of the term.

I think we have to pursue our own course, consistent with Canadian values. I think our approach has been to actually actively pursue the idea of the precautionary principle as an important concept to be entrenched in law.

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to distinguish between CEPA, pest management legislation, therapeutic drugs, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. We're talking about health protection. We're talking about how products get on the market.

What do you do when you have reason to believe there might be a danger to the public? When a product slips into the marketplace, what do you do in order to get it off? How do you actually, as a government, regulate the area?

I think we have to be pretty clear. We want a proactive regulatory approach grounded on the “do no harm” principle, not to go down the path of a risk management model, which is really what we're ending up with in this piece of legislation.

There are so many products on the market now that should be pulled off. I shouldn't say there are so many; there are at least several where we've had witnesses outline concerns. Dursban and Lindane are a couple of examples. If the precautionary principle were alive and well somewhere in Health Canada, maybe we would have pulled them off the market by now, as opposed to sitting back and letting people be unnecessarily exposed.

I think the real questions then are on the registration process. What will kick in, in terms of ensuring that some products we know could be hazardous but aren't defined in this act are not allowed to be registered? What would, for example, the PMRA do if a product with an ingredient that was a suspected endocrine disrupter appeared before approval for registration? How is the current bill going to prevent the product from being approved when we haven't even defined an endocrine disrupter? How do we ensure the precautionary approach has been applied at the registration process?

It's a good example of where the science isn't conclusive. There are still questions and work being done. It's a perfect example where you have to interrelate your scientific material with the precautionary approach to do what's in the best interests of the Canadian public.

The Chair: Hold the question in your mind, Dr. Franklin. We'll go to Madam Scherrer. I have a feeling we may get a few questions that they'll want you to answer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Still on the same subject, Madam Chair, I think the question raised earlier was the right one. Are we not getting bogged down in the two definitions, namely that of the precautionary principle and the definition of a framework for a precautionary principle? I agree with you that some kind of precautionary principle is needed, but I prefer to go with the definition initially set out in the bill with the reference to “health risk”, “environmental risk” and “reasonable certainty”.

To my mind, the definition of “precautionary principle“ is much broader and more inclusive than the one you constantly come back to. As I see it, that definition is more specific and applies, for instance, to serious or irreversible harm or damage. The definition that we decided to use for the purposes of our study of this bill refers to “reasonable certainty that no harm to human health or the environment will result from exposure to or use of the product”.

I have nothing against the precautionary principle, but I equate this with “acceptable risk”. We defined “acceptable risk” at the outset. I see this as being far more inclusive and as having more weight than a mere reference to serious or irreversible harm. I don't agree with that. I prefer our definition which mentions “reasonable certainty and “acceptable risk”. I see the precautionary principle as being reflected throughout the bill by way of this definition.

Therefore, I would go along with the precautionary principle, but not necessarily with the one formulated here. I prefer going with a definition of “acceptable risk”.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield had his hand up.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I was going to suggest that we have an answer from the clerk.

The Chair: Yes, an answer to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Mr. Bigras, did you want to get in?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I won't make any comparisons with the United States or Europe. However, I do want us to take into account Canada's international commitments. Earlier, I was looking for a quote. Ms. Johanne Gélinas is the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and reports to the Office of the Auditor General. Hers is a position of some importance. Parliamentarians respect her and respect the recommendations issued by her office. In response to a question concerning the preponderance of the precautionary principle in terms of Canada's international commitments, she noted the following, and I quote:

Madam Chair, to the extent that federal government documents reflect a clear, firm commitment, I do not see why this could not be included in the preamble to all new Canadian laws dealing with environmental and sustainable development issues.

Of course, you're going to tell me that we are not talking about the preamble, but rather examining the various clauses. However, I can assure you that we plan to bring up the Commissioner's words every time.

Mr. Stapleton, do you think it's important to comply with the Commissioner's recommendation? The Commissioner is telling us that if Canada truly wants to uphold its international commitments, it's critical to incorporate the principle into the preamble. You're saying otherwise, that Canada can in fact meet its international environmental and sustainable development obligations without incorporating this principle into the preamble or into other provisions of the legislation. Therefore, I'd appreciate hearing your views on this matter.

» (1710)

[English]

Mr. Basil Stapleton: The nature of international obligations of course has to be determined in terms of the particular international instrument one is dealing with, and for the Auditor General or anybody else to say that we have to meet those by using the precautionary principle is really not telling us a great deal, because she may not be using the term “precautionary principle” in the same way it's being used around this table, for example.

It's interesting that the definitions that were proposed earlier today are not the definition that was adopted in CEPA, for example. So to say that the precautionary principle is now in law because it's in CEPA is telling us that therefore the precautionary principle we should be using in this act, in all circumstances, is the Rio Declaration, but that is not consistent with the definition that was presented by the members earlier today in fact.

On the one hand we have that we should be adopting the precautionary principle because it's in CEPA, but we should adopt a definition that's different from the one that's in CEPA, or we should simply make a reference in the act to following the precautionary principle without definition.

With respect, we don't have to call a precautionary approach a principle in order to make it an effective approach, and the fact that we talk about acceptability of risk as the test that will be used to determine whether products are registered doesn't reduce it at all in effectiveness, because we're not talking about it as a principle. Basically, we should be talking about approaches. To talk about the precautionary principle when even in international instruments there are at least 14 different iterations of precautionary approaches is really terribly misleading.

I think we have to be very careful. If the definitions of precautionary principle that were proposed were not seen as acceptable for use in the bill because we already have the acceptability of risk test and the use of the Rio Declaration in subclause 20(2), then why use the term elsewhere in the bill without definition? I think it really is a danger, frankly.

Dr. Claire Franklin: I may need a little help for a specific aspect of the question that you had raised. If I reword it, in essence, if there's a suspicion or evidence or some suggestion of an effect that may occur for a product that's already registered, how would we then do something about that, the way the bill is currently constructed? Is that the gist of the point?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I appreciate that when it comes to re-evaluation there is a reference to the precautionary principle. So my question really is this. If there's an application for registration before you, and with that product there is a suspicion of, for example, an endocrine disrupter, how would that be handled now in the context of this bill?

Dr. Claire Franklin: Well, in the context of this bill, as we're indicating, reasonable certainty of no harm... And if we specifically focus on endocrine disruption, we have many studies that are a requirement as part of the package that we get. There has to be a multi-generation reproduction study so that we would be looking at all aspects of reproduction. If there were endocrine effects that would in fact impact on the reproductive capacity in the test animals, we would certainly be able to pick up on that. We look at the effects on all tissues, including reproductive tissues, in our various studies, so that if there were any impacts on these tissues, that information would be available as well.

The other aspect is that testing, of course, is done in several different species, so that if we see either a trend or if we see something in one, then we have a lot of information there to be able to pick up on that.

We would then look to see when the product is used according to what would be on the label, what would the levels be. What would the potential be? Would we be at the effect level that we've seen in the test animals? How far below that would we be at the point in time the product would be used? So we have all of that kind of information to be able to take that determination. As we've pointed out, if we believe that there will be harm--in other words, if there would be endocrine-disrupting effects from a chemical that we would be evaluating at that point in time, that the levels of exposure would be such to cause it--we would not register the product.

So it's not a matter that we don't have that information and it's not a matter that we don't use that. If we have any questions and need more data, we would ask the registrant to supply more studies as well.

» (1715)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I haven't been on this one. I know you look at me with not a lot of excitement about my remarks, but this is my first foray and my last one.

I want to make sure that we have a little consistency of argument.

Ms. Franklin is absolutely correct in her remarks, in that we do use a risk-based agenda to evaluate our pesticides. That's why the environment committee advocated the factor-of-ten aspect, because that's the system we utilized and that's what's used for the most part. There's nothing that would preclude us from taking the precautionary approach by using the term as we choose to do in subclause 20(2), as Ms. Torsney referenced a little while ago.

So I'm square with that argument, but when we put a definition for “precautionary principle”--which I do agree was different from the real definition or even the CEPA definition in that regard.... We're in opposition here, filling a legislative void, because there was no definition put forth by the government. So on one hand, to be critical that our definition wasn't consistent for what should be utilized, and then to say there's no definition, well, perhaps we should have had a definition in the first place.

There is the reference Mr. Stapleton used with respect to not wanting to use a precautionary principle because there is no definition. On Bill C-10 before this House right now, there is a reference to a precautionary principle where there is no definition. So consistency of logic has to come into play in these points.

The other point is that I'd like to ask Mr. Stapleton to explain what our obligations would be with respect to the precautionary principle under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, because that's clearly referenced, and where eight of the twelve chemicals are in fact pesticides. So how do you incorporate that aspect of it as well? I think it would have been incumbent upon the government to have a definition, regardless of what definition they wanted to use under the definition section of pesticides.

When we start pulling out, well, there's no definition here. We can't. We have to have consistency of logic by the Department of Justice when we're writing these laws, and those have to transcend here at the table.

That's my comment, Madam Chair.

I did also have a question for Mr. Stapleton on the POPs in Stockholm. It was a very clear question. At one point he mentioned that we don't know which precautionary principle we'd utilize, so it's very difficult under international agreements. Well, here's an international agreement using a precautionary principle exactly opposite to what you stated just moments ago, where eight of those twelve chemicals happened to be pesticides.

Mr. Basil Stapleton: The simple answer is that we have in this bill the ability to respond positively to all our international obligations with respect to pesticides. We've had clearly in mind our obligations under POPs and PIC, so the fact that we're not calling the approach that we use here a principle doesn't mean that we will therefore not be in a position to respond to our international obligations. In fact, we've been very careful to ensure that the minister is provided with the power under this act to meet the international obligations, because--

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just a second. On a point of order, the gentleman who asked the question is no longer at the table. The answers being given, are we going to have to endure--not endure, no disrespect--this answer many times over? Could members of Parliament not turn off their cell phones?

» (1720)

The Chair: I'm going to end this discussion. I've been trying to give a lot of latitude around this idea of the precautionary principle because I know what pressure members have been under from pressure groups and letter writers. There are many more amendments with the words “precautionary principle” in them, so I want to be clear and settle this question once and for all.

If this NDP-12A passes, it gives a totally different colouration to the rest of our discussion, and if it fails to pass I'm going to rule that we're not going to deal with this again. In other words, if someone has another amendment they would have the right to pull those words out of it and still present the rest of the substance. But we're not going to have this debate any further.

I'm sorry, Mr. Herron, you asked a question, the answer was given, you were on the phone. I'm ending that.

Mr. John Herron: No, on the point you're raising right now--

The Chair: Excuse me--

Mr. John Herron: On a point of order if I may, Madam Chair, it's that--

The Chair: What point of order?

Mr. John Herron: The point of order would be that if the government utilizes in clause 20 the words “precautionary principle”, are you calling that out of order as well? Just because the government utilizes that term, it doesn't mean that other members cannot utilize that term throughout this act.

The Chair: Provided the other members understand that if they use “precautionary principle” in theirs, it means exactly the explanation the government has given in clause 20.

Mr. John Herron: Right, that's fine.

The Chair: But that's not what I've been hearing from the people proposing the use of precautionary principle. They're talking about Rio, they're talking about CEPA, they're talking about other kinds of definitions of--

Mr. John Herron: We have no choice any more. It's because right now the only one that's in play is clause 20.

The Chair: That's right. We're going to call NDP-12A now.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Can we have a recorded vote?

The Chair: A recorded vote, Mr. Clerk.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 3—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Thank you.

We're now on page 46 with PC-15. Based upon what he just said, should I remind him that it applies to the precautionary principle in this amendment too?

Mr. John Herron: I may be able to help you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: I'm very worried about your help.

Mr. John Herron: Early on we were able to do some things here, but on this amendment I would like to pull everything except for paragraph (g).

The Chair: That's good. That is helpful.

We're now on page 47. So all of the first page would be deleted, other than that the such and such be amended by--and there would have to be a little bit of editing there--and the amendment would include that and the text of (g).

Mr. John Herron: All I'm adding is paragraph (g), which would become a--

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On a point of order, this amendment isn't in the right order. One of your other amendments comes first now because it doesn't relate to the lines that are being discussed. Paragraph (g) would be on page 8, not on page 7, and there are others that start on page 7.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you, Paddy.

» (1725)

The Chair: I think we need to put 7 on page 8 with (g). Isn't (g) on page 8?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But there isn't a (g) right now.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: There isn't one; he's just adding one.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Herron: But it would actually become an (e) if the current....

The Chair: You're leaving in proposed paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), according to this.

But the problem is these others that conflict.

Ms. Torsney is correct. With what the mover is suggesting in PC-15, LL-8 would come before it. So turn to amendments page 48, because that line is on page 7 of the bill--line 41 on page 7.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It hasn't been moved, though.

The Chair: That's right. Is anyone going to move LL-8? Seeing no movers, LL-8 is not on the table.

Then there's CA-3. Is that on page 7 as well?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, it's on page 8, but it's line 3, and his would be line 7.

The Chair: Great, okay.

Mr. Merrifield, the legislative clerk is suggesting to me that because this has the words “minor use” in it, it should be delayed until page 91, where you stuck something else in a few minutes ago.

I'm just going to take it out and put it back there.

This is going in with all the package about “minor use” that essentially in your book is page 91.

Now, could we look at NDP-13? Is that line 7 on page 8?

Mr. John Herron: That's where I would be taking us to.

The Chair: So that's where yours would be; we're back to PC-15, then.

Do you want to add PC-15, proposed paragraph 4(1)(g), to this clause?

Mr. John Herron: And if I remove (a), (b), (c), it should become an (e) instead of a (g).

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield has an (e) ready.

Mr. John Herron: Okay.

The Chair: Let's just leave it a (g) for the time being. That kind of thing can be sorted out afterwards. It's the clause--whether you want it in or not.

Are there any speakers to this?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Does this motion supercede Mr. Merrifield's?

The Chair: We took his out and put it back to deal with it as the “minor use” section. The minor use issue will take a debate on its own, Ms. Torsney; therefore we're pulling it out and putting it back there.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So he's not moving the process to the end?

The Chair: No. We'll just wait and do it all at once.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.

The Chair: Are there any speakers to Mr. Herron's...?

Madame Scherrer.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: He should speak to it first.

The Chair: Well, he usually does, but he's had so many turns.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Thank you. I'm really not comfortable with the definition. For example, when we talk about “using the principles of integrated pest management”, my impression is that we are infringing on an area of provincial jurisdiction. Pest management is a provincial responsibility and that's why I think we should leave this to the provinces and focus on the main purpose of the bill, namely the acceptability of various products.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Madam Chair, I would say to my learned friend on the environment committee--which I served on--that this by no means infringes on provincial jurisdiction in any shape, way, or form, and particularly, any more than what we have in the act right now in paragaph 4(1)(c), because if you read paragraph (c) of this subclause, you “encourage public awareness”. You're going to “encourage public awareness” in relation to products for which the province decides how they're applied.

So if you're comfortable with (c), if you're willing to encourage public awareness in relation to pest control products where the province deems how they're applied--because we only license them--there is nothing more infringing from a provincial jurisdiction perspective in what we're doing than in what the Government of Canada says it wants to do.

I have a reference and a press release here of May 23 where, in a joint press release between the agricultural community and Health Canada and Agriculture, they highlight their integrated pest management approach. All we're saying here is to “improve the environmental and economic sustainability of pest management systems”.

Of course we do that already when we're licensing our pesticides. There's nothing infringing from a constitutional perspective--or even confrontationally with the provinces--in using the principles of integrated pest management. This is a very benign reference--I reiterate, a benign reference--to what we had in this other larger one I had before, and the argument on provincial jurisdiction doesn't hold any water whatsoever if you're going to read paragraph 4(1)(c).

» (1730)

The Chair: Mr. Speller.

Mr. Bob Speller: I'm wondering, Madam Chair, if I can get a comment from the witnesses. The idea of the principles of integrated pest management is a great idea. It follows a lot of the work we're doing now with the provinces.

John, you probably know that right now we work very closely with the provinces in that.

I'm wondering if the witnesses can comment on this.

Mr. Basil Stapleton: Well, as a matter of constitutional law I think it does make a difference how you word these things. If you look at the earlier clauses of subclause (2), you will see that there is no intent to impose anything on anybody or on any of the provinces. If you talk about “the Minister shall support sustainable development...seek to minimize health and environmental risks...encourage public awareness”, then we come to “shall improve”, and that is an obligation that requires the actual doing and imposing of systems, programs, whether it's in accordance with provincial desires or not.

If it were to say “shall seek to improve” or “shall encourage the improvement of” or whatever, then you're looking to a cooperative approach in which you're recognizing that the basic jurisdiction lies with the provinces and the minister simply engages in activities that are consistent with encouraging.

But at the same time, if you look back at paragraph (b), in any event, I think you'll see that what's being proposed in the new (e) is already dealt with in (b) by way of seeking to get things done.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, I am in sympathy with Mr. Herron's amendment, but again I would really like him to explain to me how it is different from paragraph (b), because pest management strategies include integrated pest management and other ones. Pest management strategies are any kinds of strategies that you can develop that would improve seeking to minimize. But it is seeking to minimize. It is working with the provinces. It's in keeping with that press release you just read.

If we're going to do anything, we're going to do it because the provinces agree that they want to work with us and we come together and we work with them on that. That is in keeping with this kind of seeking to minimize and seeking to encourage. So I think it's there. The term “sustainable pest management strategies” is an open-ended kind of thing. It doesn't limit it at all, whereas “integrated pest management” limits it to one type of strategy only in any case.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I'd also like to say something about the jurisdiction issue. Paragraph (g) on the next page notes the following with respect to pest control systems: “improve the environmental and economic sustainability of pest management systems...”.

That is the issue here, is it not? Does the fact, as you said, that the word “co-operation” is not included in the amendment pose a risk of interference or lack of co-operation? Like Ms. Scherrer, I still have some concerns, despite what you've just said.

Did you understand my question?

[English]

Mr. Basil Stapleton: Yes. The key word, of course, appears in the introductory words to subclause (2), that is, “the Minister shall”, so anything that follows after that is obligatory. This is the minister of mandate. Then this is what the minister must do. When you tell the minister that she must do something that is within provincial jurisdiction--not that she must encourage the doing of something, not that she must cooperate with the provinces in doing something, but that she shall do it--then in effect you're telling her that she must impose her will on the provinces regardless of how they may feel about the matter.

There is that problem of how it's approached. We deliberately avoided that implication by introducing the other clauses with appropriate wording, such as “shall support”, “shall seek to minimize”, “shall encourage”--not “shall impose”, not “shall force”, but “shall assist”.

But the other important point is that what's being proposed is already in paragraph (b), in any event. If you read paragraph (b) together with the preamble as to what is integrated pest management, it's all there. I think it's redundant, frankly, and inappropriate the way it's being proposed.

» (1735)

The Chair: I think we've had enough debate on PC-15. I'll call the question.

(Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: The hour now being 5:35, I suggest we take a half-hour break for dinner and stretch our legs and reconvene at 6:10. I would invite the members to go first to the table. I would invite the committee staff and interpreters to also avail themselves of the food.

Thank you very much. The meeting is suspended.

» (1737)

¼ (1818)

The Chair: I recall the meeting to order, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. Herron has requested that he be able to put forward amendment LL-8, which we set aside because nobody moved it. I would caution him that it will have to be amended. We've now had three quite lengthy debates on the precautionary principle. We're on page 48.

Could you advise us all how you would amend that, Mr. Herron?

Mr. John Herron: I'd strike out “pollution prevention” and “the precautionary principle”.

The Chair: So it would read “maintain a commitment to by informing”.

Mr. John Herron: I'd also strike out the words “and educating”.

The Chair: So you would say “maintain a commitment to the public”?

Mr. John Herron: Just simmer down here for a second. We're not finished yet. You'll get your time in a second.

¼ (1820)

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think you're asking for consent.

Mr. John Herron: I don't need consent.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I believe Ms. Brown asked for consent.

The Chair: Excuse me. No, I didn't. He doesn't need consent for this, apparently.

Mr. John Herron: Okay. So mind your own business over there.

So it would be “maintain a commitment to informing the public about pest control products”, etc.

The Chair: So it's “inform the public”, and then the rest of it. Okay. I think it's self-explanatory. It has been amended.

Mr. John Herron: Dr. Fry could have some insight on this as well.

The Chair: No, I don't think we need to debate. It's self-explanatory. I'm going to call the question on LL-8, as moved by Mr. Herron and amended by him.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Could he read the amendment that he's proposing?

The Chair: Do you have it in front of you, Ms. Torsney?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, I do.

The Chair: He wants to eradicate the words “pollution prevention and the precautionary principle”, and the words “by” and “and educating”.

So it now reads:

“Maintain a commitment to informing the public about pest control products, the health and environmental risks associated with their use, the need to avoid non-essential uses and the availability of alternatives to the use of these products, and to encourage public awareness in relation...”

It then leads into another phrase.

So you're clear?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Oh, yes.

The Chair: Don't be sarcastic.

All right, Mr. Herron, do you wish to speak to your amendment?

Mr. John Herron: I think there are aspects of this amendment that Clifford saw that would help to encourage individuals to understand there is a cumulative effect to the use of pesticides. I'm under the understanding, or at least I thought I was, that there are other members around this table who are interested in talking about this amendment; if not, then we can vote on it.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I'd like to know what major difference you see between this proposal and the wording of paragraph (b) of the bill which says: “seek to minimize [...] and encourage the development and implementation of innovative, sustainable pest management strategies...”. To my mind, this also includes alternative solutions by facilitating access to pest control products. As I see it, this is covered in paragraph (b) and partially, in paragraph (c) which says: “encourage public awareness in relation to pest control products...”

I also have a problem with “...the need to avoid non-essential uses...”. We haven't yet touched on this aspect.

[English]

Mr. John Herron: I didn't want to take up a lot of the committee's time, so I'm done.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: All right then. Just move it.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'd like to support the amendment. I think it captures something that is not reflected in the present wording under paragraph 4(2)(c). It's a much more proactive sense that's implied in the amendment by Mr. Caccia and it is consistent with some other initiatives taken in legislation where that kind of public awareness and education is so essential. That is, when you are talking about the individual, the consumer, the citizen, playing a role in his or her own health protection and in his or her collective responsibility vis-à-vis the environment, then much more must be assumed and stated.

I think what Charles is doing with this amendment is saying it's not good enough to talk about encouraging public awareness in relation to pest control products. He's saying we want to encourage public information, awareness, and understanding of the possible ramifications of pest control products on human health and the environment, and let's entrench that in law. Let's do what we did, for example, with the Tobacco Act. Let's do what we've done with respect to CEPA. Let's do what we've done with respect to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. Let's entrench in the law a very clear wording around the public's right to know and the whole need to be educated, informed, and aware.

The Chair: Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, with this motion, if you take out “pollution prevention", “the precautionary principle”, as well as “and educating”, I like the concept of it.

The only thing I would agree with is what Madame Scherrer said on a lot of the things about innovative sustainable pest management strategies. If you left “by informing the public”, “facilitating public access to relevant information” is all about that. “Public participation in the decision-making process” is just as strong and gets what you want at the same time.

¼ (1825)

Mr. John Herron: Sure. I agree.

Would you read the amendment as suggested?

Ms. Hedy Fry: It would say “encourage public awareness in relation to pest control products by informing the public and by facilitating public access to relevant information and public participation in the decision-making process”.

The Chair: Would you say it again, Dr. Fry, or write it out?

Ms. Hedy Fry: “Encourage public awareness in relation to pest control products by informing the public”.

Actually, all you do is, after the words “by informing the public”, add “and by facilitating”. The rest is as is.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I didn't hear the question.

The Chair: Yes. I didn't hear what you said that included all the rest of the paragraph.

Ms. Hedy Fry: “Encourage public awareness in relation to pest control products by informing the public and by facilitating public access to relevant information and public participation in the decision-making process”.

The Chair: Is Mr. Herron is happy with it?

Mr. John Herron: I am excited.

The Chair: She's doing it from the bill, as opposed to the amendments.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The amendment would beg the question, how do you encourage public awareness by not informing people?

Adding “informing people” is by its very nature encouraging public awareness. You're informing people. Why would you need to add “by informing people” into a sentence about public awareness?

Ms. Hedy Fry: I would argue, in fact, you could encourage public awareness by saying go find the stuff and read it. By facilitating and providing the information, you are doing an active thing, as opposed to a passive thing.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's completely redundant. It's almost not English, in my opinion. I know, Dr. Fry, under normal circumstances, it doesn't work.

The Chair: Dr. Fry's suggestion still doesn't have what you want.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's only adding “by informing people”.

The Chair: Could you write it out on a piece of paper?

Ms. Hedy Fry: I will.

Mr. John Herron: I like the Fry-Herron amendment. I'm okay with it.

The Chair: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It might make a little more sense if it actually said “inform the public and encourage public awareness in relation to pest control products by facilitating public access to relevant information”. You're trying to inform the public.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Yes, so we've added “and by informing”.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No. You've encouraged public awareness “by informing”. It doesn't make any sense. If you want to inform the public, “inform the public and encourage public awareness”. If you're trying to suggest they're not the same thing, it would be a much stronger sentence.

The Chair: I'll fix that up.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I think the gist is that you want to be more proactive.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So “inform the public” would be proactive. Why not “inform the public and encourage public awareness”?

¼ (1830)

The Chair: I think you all have the gist of amendment LL-8, which is a more proactive approach. Ms. Torsney has some reservations about the language, but if it doesn't make sense, the editors will fix it up.

(Amendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We're now on page 50 and NDP-13. In NDP-13 the line conflict with several other amendments all has to do with the first point, “by replacing, in the English version”, etc., with the word “process”.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, the legislative clerk suggests to me that the editors would pick that up, and it's that line that is putting it in conflict with everything else.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Is that the line about “process”?

The Chair: Yes. Could you pull that line? People, I'm going to ask you to cross out part (a) on NDP-13 here. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis has agreed to pull it back, and we'll start with part (b).

Would you review part (b)? Here we have the precautionary principle again. What would you do about that, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: What I would do, pursuant to your earlier instruction, is change the first few words of proposed paragraph 4(2)(e) to read “ensure that, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage”, and so forth, right to the end of that point.

The Chair: So you have the words “ensure that” at the beginning, and that leads into “where there are”.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: That's right.

The Chair: Would you like to make a brief comment on this, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis?

¼ (1835)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, and I'll try to be brief.

Obviously, from earlier discussions I think there is general concern that the mandate as spelled out now is wanting and needs to be clear in terms of the fundamental areas of concern we have and what we heard from witnesses. The intent of the three additional paragraphs to subclause 4(2) is in fact to deal with those deficiencies.

Proposed paragraph 4(2)(e) has almost the precise wording of existing subclause 20(2). This is in effect the definition for re-evaluation in terms of the precautionary principle. The purpose of including it here is to make sure that it is seen as a fundamental part of the mandate of the bill and to send a strong message that we are in fact pursuing a “do no harm” approach, and consumers should know that.

The second part deals specifically with a stated objective we all share to reduce reliance on pest control products and to do whatever we can to pursue low-risk alternatives. It just seems to make sense to include that as a spelled-out aspect of the mandate of the act.

The third part is to further pursue the idea of alternatives and start to encourage less toxic approaches, other alternatives, and a general pollution prevention agenda.

The Chair: Seeing no other speakers, I'll call the question on amendment NDP-13.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Amendment LL-9 will not be put forward because, again, it has this editing correction, plus another phrase about the precautionary principle.

We're on PC-16 on page 53. I think this is a new clause, 4.1.

Mr. John Herron: The intent of the amendment is to ensure that for greater certainty we provide protections for some of our most vulnerable populations, those being children and pregnant women and their fetuses. That's the intent of the motion. If anyone wants to play around with the language, I'm very, very open to hearing that.

The Chair: Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Again, I understand what you're trying to say, Mr. Herron. I thought that earlier on, when we agreed to “children and future generations”, that encompassed the effects that a pregnant woman would have. To get into the fetus and human life at all stages of development, we get into this big argument on what are definitions, etc., and that has a bearing on a whole lot of other things.

Mr. John Herron: I would agree, I think, if Ms. Fry is suggesting that this is redundant or would like to modify it. I would seek her counsel.

Ms. Hedy Fry: If you said “afforded to children and future generations”, which is what we said earlier on, I don't know there should be a problem with that.

Mr. John Herron: I think that would work a lot better for me as well.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Perhaps there is a comment from the witnesses.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: What would it say?

Ms. Hedy Fry: It would say: “For greater certainty, protection and consideration afforded to children in this Act shall also extend to future generations”.

We've already said that earlier on, so it's basically repeating what we said.

The Chair: It avoids the politically charged language.

I'm going to call the question on PC-16. I'm going to ask you to look at it again. There are a lot of people who don't seem to have read it. It has been amended by the mover to say: “For greater certainty, protection and consideration afforded to children in this Act shall also extend to future generations”.

This is the same language we used in an earlier clause at the very beginning.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We're setting PC-17 aside because the mover has found that he wants to make a slight change to it. It will come back to us.

BQ-6 is inadmissible because organic farming is beyond the scope of the bill. So you're pulling it back, Mr. Bigras, because it's inadmissible. Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

I'm going to ask the legislative clerk to explain her reasoning on BQ-7. She's going to refer back to a decision we took much earlier.

BQ-7 proposes to delegate to the agency, as if it is an official agency, certain powers that according to this act the minister retains. We already discussed this whole issue and decided we wouldn't call it an “agency”, because that would imply it had a legislative mandate, which it does not. It's really just a section of Health Canada. Since you have already made that decision that we can't call it an agency, because it isn't, this thing becomes irrelevant. So we're going to have to rule BQ-7 out of order as well.

¼ (1840)

I would like you to explain PC-18 to me, Mr. Herron. This is the creation of an advisory council. I've never heard of this before.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: While Mr. Herron is thinking this through, I can give a quick clarification.

Mr. John Herron: We already have a very useful entity in the pest management advisory council, which we all know--and you folks chat with them quite often. The bill says they may have an advisory council. We think if it's such a good idea, we shall do it. That's the difference: it changes “may” to “shall”, to make it clear we're going to have a pest management advisory council of eminent Canadians, to consult the PMRA.

The Chair: That's pretty clear. Do you want a council or not?

(Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Amendment NDP-14 is identical to the other one, so we won't put it.

I'm really getting excited; we just hit page 60.

On NDP-15, Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis put this one forward. Would you speak to it, please, Judy?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: This is a straightforward amendment. I just know this is one we're going to win tonight. It's basically pursuant to the clause that says the minister may establish an advisory council to require that reports of the advisory council be made public, in the interests of the goals we share of public education, transparency, and accountability. That's it.

The Chair: That's it. Are there any speakers on this side?

Ms. Hedy Fry: I just want to know, if we get things like access to information, and so on, what does this do? Can I have an explanation?

Ms. Geraldine Graham: In actual fact, putting it in the register makes it available to the public. It's redundant, but it doesn't do any harm if you want it in.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Next is amendment BQ-8.

¼ (1845)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): I'm operating by divine intervention here.

The Chair: But wait until you have an amendment. You will see three votes missing, Howard.

Mr. Bigras, could you put forward amendment BQ-8, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I withdraw amendment BQ-8.

[English]

The Chair: Next is amendment PC-19. This all about formulants. I need Dr. Franklin, Mr. Stapleton, or somebody to go through this and tell me whether this synthesizes with what we've already decided on formulants.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: The way it starts, it's talking about the whole product, the active ingredients, the formulants' interaction, etc. I guess our concern with this is it lists certain things. It's certainly not comprehensive, as to all the things that are considered when you make a registration decision, even though it does say, at the end, any other information that may be prescribed.

When you have a level of detail and yet not everything, it makes it harder to ask for the full slate of things we really want. To put the whole slate of things in would involve hundreds of pages. So in our view, this type of detail should be in either regulations or policies. As scientific knowledge advances, you want to have your information requirements evolve, etc.

The Chair: But you didn't answer my question. Does it interfere with the previous work we've done?

Ms. Geraldine Graham: No, it doesn't interfere.

The Chair: But you think it is limiting because of the list of details?

Ms. Geraldine Graham: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. John Herron: Except for paragraph (k): “any other information that may be prescribed”.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: Yes, but we have discussed this. In various versions of the bill we discussed this type of thing. Especially when you have a fairly long list like this that's fairly specific in what it has, it just makes it harder to impose the kinds of requirements we really need.

Mr. John Herron: Can I take 15 seconds, Madam Chair, on the amendment?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Herron: I agree that list can be limiting. The point of this is that, for the comfort of Canadians, I think it's incumbent on us to be open and transparent and show clearly what we're covering off.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: Yes. That's right.

Mr. John Herron: These points are going to be done. These are the ones people are concerned about, whether it's ecosystems, whether it's harm from food products. This is the most critical list of items. For any others, that's what paragraph (k) is there for. So that's why I think that's covered off. It's there to comfort Canadians about what issues are being looked at.

Thank you.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: For one thing, there are more general, comprehensive lists already in the regulations. But the other thing is that one of the main reasons we want to have the detailed evaluation reports made public is so that people can see exactly what is evaluated. Plus, all the directives that tell companies what they have to submit are open and available to the public. So there's nothing hidden there.

This is kind of a partial list. It looks detailed, and yet it's really just a partial list.

The Chair: I'm going to call the question on PC-19.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Madam Chair, on a point of order. Since there are no proposed amendments to clauses 5 and 6, are we simply going to put them to a vote? Shouldn't we adopt them as is?

¼ (1850)

[English]

Should we vote on clauses 5 and 6?

The Chair: I have been suggesting to the clerk that you do all those votes at once. At the end of the meeting we can go back and do them all.

So amendment PC-19 failed to carry. Next is PC-20.

Mr. John Herron: I'll pull PC-20 at this time.

The Chair: Thank you.

PC-21 is close to CA-4, which is a few pages later, page 68.

Mr. John Herron: Howard, if you like yours better than mine or vice versa, then we'll go the other way.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We might be inclined to our own.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Herron: Okay, we'll go that route.

All I want to say is that instead of reinventing the wheel every time, the purpose we're trying to achieve here is that if there are clear scientific data at other OECD countries that enable us to have access to lower-risk products sooner, to make sure our farmers maintain their competitiveness, we should use that information. I think the CA amendment is worth supporting.

The Chair: Because we have agreement from the two movers, we are going to look at page 68, which is the CA amendment, which is identical except it talks about OECD countries and eliminates the European Union. Most of them are members of the other, so it doesn't really matter.

Is there anything the witnesses would like to say to us about this? Is this okay with you?

Dr. Claire Franklin: We don't believe it causes any restriction. It's not as broad as clauses that are already in the bill, but it certainly wouldn't cause--

The Chair: It wouldn't hurt.

Dr. Claire Franklin: If it clarifies, it would be all right.

The Chair: That being said, I'll call the question on CA-4.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Amendment CA-4 carries. That makes PC-21 redundant. We're now on page 66 with NDP-16.

Gosh, we did six pages in about twenty minutes. It's just too exciting.

Mr. John Herron: Remember I pulled a couple of amendments.

The Chair: You did. You are certainly the cause of all this great speed. But on the other hand, it's just making up for the time you took in the first meeting.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

We're proposing this amendment because it goes back to our discussion earlier about trying to do everything we can to, if not use the words “precautionary principle”, entrench the idea. So the amendment actually deals with the fact that this section lacks really any indication of the kind of information to be considered by the minister in determining what to do with the registration application, what to do in terms of recommending acceptability or not.

So it's an attempt to spell out some of the conditions, some of the requirements, some of the issues that must be included in the assessment process, especially important in terms of the issue we've talked about many times around protecting children, because it does actually touch on this. I reference paragraph 7.1(1)(a), which is especially important in terms of spelling out tests to be used with respect to children's health.

So again, Madam Chairperson, it's just an attempt to be a little clearer about what's at stake and what needs to be taken into account to take away some of the subjectivity and be as clear as possible.

The Chair: Good amendment.

We had a similar but not identical one. I think the witnesses explained to us that they really prefer not to have lists.

I think Mr. Hilstrom has a question or a comment.

¼ (1855)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's what I was wondering about, lists. But also when you look at some of these requests here or specifics, has anybody had a cost analysis of this done either? If it's that far out from what the applications are now, if it's that much more extensive, then that should be commented on by our director.

The Chair: Claire Franklin.

Dr. Claire Franklin: Thank you.

I think the comments are the same as they were for the other. This is only a partial list. We actually do get this kind of information, and more. So the problem with having something like this is that it makes it very difficult when we do need the information. As we have said on many occasions, if we have any questions, we do require the information. So these can be fairly problematic for us in the broader sense.

The Chair: They say, well, that wasn't on the list.

Dr. Claire Franklin: Exactly.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Several days ago, I asked Dr. Franklin if during the registration process, developmental tests carried out on children were taken into consideration in all instances, because a number of groups told us that these tests were the best way of assessing risk. Judging from what I read in the bill, these types of tests would not be mandatory, whereas with the amendment of my NDP colleague, they would become almost automatic.

My question is as follows: Is your interpretation of this amendment similar to Judy's when it comes to these learning and development tests for children? If this amendment were adopted, would such tests become mandatory?

[English]

Dr. Claire Franklin: We have requirements for some level of developmental neurotoxicity tests already. There's a great deal of scientific work going on now to determine what new or additional studies might be required for developmental neurotoxicity.

The issue isn't that because it's on here we don't want it; it's just that these lists can be very problematic for us when new tests come along. If it isn't on a list, and particularly when it's in the legislation as such, it does pose a problem for us to get the newer tests. These levels of detail are better in areas where they can be amended more easily as new information comes along.

That's not to say we don't require many of the things that are here; it's really the limitation.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I didn't get an answer to my question, but I will put it again to Mr. Stapleton. In your opinion, if the amendment put forward by my colleague Judy were adopted, would the application of these tests become mandatory?Among other things, the amendment notes the following:

(1.1) An application to register a pest control product shall include the following information on the active ingredient, the formulant and the interaction of the active ingredient and the formulant:

Mention is made of developmental neurotoxicity. Would such tests then become mandatory?

[English]

Dr. Claire Franklin: We already have a requirement that these sorts of end points need to have data so that we can assess it. The challenge with developmental neurotoxicity is that the science is really evolving as to specifically what kinds of tests can be done to identify that. So having this here isn't going to make it any more stringent than it currently is. The limitation on the levels or the kinds of tests are really because of the limitations of science at this point in time.

The Chair: I think we've had enough on amendment NDP-16. I'm going to call the question.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We did amendment CA-4. Amendment CA-5 is carried, because if CA-4 carries, CA-5 carries, and it did.

Amendment PC-22 is consequential to PC-19. Because amendment PC-19 failed to carry, so does PC-22.

This is wonderful. We're on page 71.

Okay, we have amendment L-2, that Bill C-53 in clause 7, line 23.... I think this is an editorial one from the government, is it not?

Madame Scherrer is moving it. Do you want to speak to it?

½ (1900)

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I'm simply saying that the French and English versions do not correspond.

A member: It's “ou”, not “et”.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: We have “ou” and “et”.

[English]

The Chair: The “L” at the top is the big clue it's from the Liberals. It would really be good if the Liberals voted for it.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Now to amendment L-3. This is something we all want. I think Mr. Speller would like to present and speak to L-3.

Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Herron supports me on this.

The Chair: I'm sure he will

Mr. Bob Speller: He owes me a few now. And you're right, this is clearly something everybody wants. It speaks for itself. It would help ensure that the reviews are done in an expeditious manner. I think that's what we all want.

The Chair: Particularly with the ones with lower health risks.

Mr. Bob Speller: Exactly.

The Chair: I don't think we need to talk about this.

Mr. Bob Speller: No, I think it's very clear.

The Chair: We've discussed it before.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We also have amendment PC-23 on page 74. Unfortunately, I see those words “the precautionary principle,” and proposed paragraph 7(3.1)(d) has the “agency” in it.

Mr. Herron, if you were to get rid of proposed paragraphs 7(3.1)(a) and 7(3.1)(d), you could move all the rest of it: “In conducting the evaluation, the minister shall assess and give weight...” and evaluate the ingredients, consider the value, consider the information, etc. I think everything else is okay. Do you agree to those deletions, Mr. Herron?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chair: We're going to delete proposed paragraphs 7(3.1)(a) and 7(3.1)(d). Mr. Herron is going to speak to this, succinctly.

Mr. John Herron: This amendment is to specify what kind of information should be evaluated. It clarifies, for example, that the value of the pest control product is taken into account, in addition to the precautionary principle, which isn't there any more.

I have one other briefing note to look at on amendment PC-23. I beg your infinite forgiveness here.

The amendment is to specify what kinds of information and considerations must be taken into account during an evaluation. In addition, this proposed amendment provides guidance on how the evaluation should be conducted, namely with regard to the objectives of the legislation, to the formulated product, to acute and subtle effects, to the availability of less toxic alternatives, and with due regard for available information.

I move said amendment.

The Chair: Ms. Franklin, is there anything on that list that you don't do that would be problematic?

Dr. Claire Franklin: I think it sounds the same as the previous situation. It's a list again. It's not an inclusive list, so I think it would have the same types of problems as the previous ones.

Mr. John Herron: Well at least we know that we have something done.

Dr. Claire Franklin: You know, I can't emphasize enough that when we have a list that has a certain number of details on it, it really makes our job incredibly difficult when we try to get the kind of information that isn't on the list.

A Voice: Why?

The Chair: Because the applicant will phone them back and say, “Now we're kind of concerned about this, could you send us that?” And the person at the other end of the phone would say, “Well, I read your bill, and it's not in the act. It's not in the regulations.”

So they really can operate better and more flexibly without it. That's my understanding of an earlier answer.

½ (1905)

Mr. John Herron: When we put everything into regulations, it doesn't have the same kind of accountability as it does in the Canada Gazette.

The Chair: This wouldn't even be in the regulations, as I understand it, would it, Ms. Franklin?

Mr. John Herron: The reference was made that perhaps it would be better to put it in the regulations.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: There are parts of this that are already in the bill. For instance, the last part is already in the bill. The part about the comparisons, in subclause 7(9), is there. So to add this would also confuse other provisions of the bill that are already there, because they're just worded a different way. The bill already says clearly that both risks and value have to be acceptable. It says it much more clearly than these provisions.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We're now at amendment LL-10. We need someone to move that. Seeing no mover, we'll go to amendment PC-24.

Mr. Herron, this must be yours.

Mr. John Herron: Madam Chair, the intent of this amendment is to clarify that two separate tenfold margins are to be used as margins of safety. Bill C-53 unamended, from our perspective, is insufficient. It does not ensure that the adequate protective margins are done routinely when taken to account. That's the intent of moving this amendment. It's not just our little creation. It also follows the exact sentiment of the Canadian Institute of Child Health, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Environment and Child Health Programme, and WWF, among others. It's one that has extensive support from health groups.

The Chair: May I ask you why one would apply a tenfold test twice instead of just applying a hundredfold test once? It seems to me it would be more efficient.

Mr. John Herron: I think the officials can explain that particular terminology.

The Chair: Dr. Franklin.

Dr. Claire Franklin: The explanation of the hundred is that it is 10 and 10. That's really why, but it would be a factor that would be 100.

But as it's written, this is actually very restrictive. In fact in many instances, we use factors that are higher than that. So what we have tried not to put into the act is a primer on how we do risk assessments. Where we have put in the additional one for extra protection for children was over and above what we're currently doing. So I think this would be very restrictive if it were put in as is.

The Chair: Some of our witnesses suggested that while you do these other things, the tenfold margin for children was not high enough, in their view. I think the expectation is you do all the things you do and then you multiply the risk by 10 for children, and some of our witnesses suggested you multiply it by 10 twice or by 100. You didn't answer that part of it, if in fact you yourselves are suggesting multiplying by 10 for children.

Dr. Claire Franklin: We're using an additional safety factor of 10 for children. That would be over and above other safety factors.

The Chair: I understand that. You made that clear in your first intervention. But what I'm saying to you is that some of the scientific and health witnesses suggested that even when you do all of your regular things and then multiply it by 10, they would be more comfortable with it being multiplied by 100.

Dr. Claire Franklin: The way in which the clause is written does give that flexibility when there's evidence to say that a higher factor than that additional 10 would need to be used. That's why it's written that it can go higher.

½ (1910)

The Chair: But how can we know you'll do that if it just says 10 is a must but the rest is all discretionary for you?

Dr. Claire Franklin: The way in which the public will know is that all of these documents will be put out for consultation before we finalize the decision. So every single number and end point we do will be publicly available.

Mr. John Herron: I think the chair just hit the nail on the head. You have all the discretion here, so you can go down. What we're trying to do is set a bare minimum in that regard. That's what the witnesses and the health groups said. You have all the discretion. You do have public scrutiny in terms of making that information available. But the groups wanted an additional factor of 10 for vulnerable populations. That's why the 10 and 10 aspect was utilized. It's about children. When we talked about pesticides, we all said we want to make sure that thresholds are established for our more vulnerable populations, meaning the elderly, children, and pregnant women. If we mean that, here's a chance for us to ratchet it right into the bill.

The Chair: In order not to preclude your usual test, it could say “apply at least two separate tenfold margins of safety”. If you wanted to have three or four, you could, but we're saying “apply at least”.

Ms. Graham.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: This amendment, though, is talking about line 16 on page 11. That's before we get into the part about the additional safety factors for children. This is not talking about that. This is talking about the normal stuff that's done. Then you get into the next subparagraph. I don't think it's even well supported from that point of view.

The Chair: Line 15 leads into the part about vulnerable groups.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: But if you look at the next subparagraph, which starts on line 24, you'll see that's where we get into the special protections for children. So we're not really talking about the same thing here.

Mr. John Herron: I have a time-saver.

The Chair: I think that whoever wrote this amendment for the PCs put it in the wrong subparagraph. It's not line 16. It's the next subparagraph.

Mr. John Herron: I think you might be right.

Using your wording of “at least ten times” means that the bar can never go lower. When you were questioning Ms. Franklin, you used the terminology “at least ten times”.

The Chair: No, I said “at least two separate tenfold margins”.

Mr. John Herron: That's even better. There we go.

The Chair: I should explain to newcomers that Mr. Herron is generously replacing our regular member Mr. Bachand, and you'll see Mr. Bachand's name on most of these amendments. So in some cases--I don't know what phrase to use except slang--he's flying by the seat of his pants. I'm trying to give him the courtesy of being a little bit flexible, because his party would not be represented otherwise.

Mr. Herron, they're saying there are other amendments that cover subparagraph (ii), which is what you wanted to get at.

Mr. John Herron: I think you'll see that the amendment is in the right place. We're striking out the word “appropriate” and inserting “two separate tenfold” .

The Chair: I think the phrase “appropriate margins of safety” has to do with the variety of tests they do.

Mr. John Herron: And if you follow the rest of the phrase in 7(7)(b)(i) then it goes on to say “among other relevant factors, the use of animal experimentation data and the different sensitivities to pest control products”, and it goes on to talk about pregnant women, infants, and children, so it is directly related to that.

The Chair: But there's nothing about multiplying by 10 in that one. It's in the next one.

Mr. John Herron: That's specifically the problem.

The Chair: Maybe our lawyer could help us out with this.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): I'm wondering if possibly it wasn't in order. The one, (i), deals with all pesticide control products, and because there are vulnerable groups out there and so on, an appropriate safety margin will be prescribed for that product. It doesn't go into additional safety margins. The additional ones--it's in (ii)--apply only to those products that would be used around homes and schools. That's one of the reasons why these two clauses can be distinguished: the first one applies to all products across the board and takes into consideration the vulnerable subgroups; the second one adds to that an additional safety factor because those products are used around homes and schools. It doesn't answer all of your concerns, but I think it might help to clarify a little why you have different tests in both of these subclauses.

½ (1915)

Mr. John Herron: I would say to the clerk we're talking about different beasts to some degree. This comes down to the appropriate safety margin. That's what the language is. We're saying that an appropriate safety margin should be at least the 10-and-10 concept. And that particular subparagraph 7(7)(b)(i) refers to those very vulnerable populations we're concerned about. That's why we're using 10 and 10 there.

I think we got this one right, actually, this time around. I don't know why we want to afford the government entire flexibility about where they would go. The word “appropriate” is too vague. We're setting the bar for vulnerable populations--10 and 10.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, I have a question. This has to do with the original concept brought about by Ms. Franklin.

“Appropriate” means exactly that. It means “appropriate” can be whatever has been deemed according to scientific data, which may change tomorrow and the bar that you're setting may be low. There is no room, then, for the government to be able to go with the new data that tells us that bar you set is now too low. So at the end of the day, if you leave the term “appropriate”, appropriate means appropriate according to the new data--the scientific information, whatever--relevant for these subgroups. And that is going to be new. And it can change; it can keep changing a lot. So to set a bar that is not flexible doesn't give you the opportunity to move it upward.

Mr. John Herron: I think Dr. Fry's point is extremely relevant, but I'm deferring to the health professionals because they're the people who endorse the language of this particular amendment. These are child advocate groups. These are the health professionals themselves. If they are comfortable with that bar--and that's their domain, this is what they do for a living--if they believe that is the safety factor they want to see the minimum bar at, I'm comfortable with this, because they're more learned, they're more knowledgeable on this issue of public policy than you and I are.

Normally, given the flexibility aspect needed because the science evolves, your point is entirely salient, but I'm saying if the health care professions are comfortable with that term, so am I.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I don't want to debate you. I just wanted to say that I'm a health professional and I used to sit on the committee on pesticides for the Canadian Medical Association before I went into politics.

Mr. John Herron: Excuse me, I'll rephrase: ...people of your ilk are comfortable with this.

Ms. Hedy Fry: No, but, you see, what they were trying to do was they were trying to say that is the norm now and therefore they were telling you what the norm is. I'm suggesting that while it is the norm today, if we use the term “appropriate”, “appropriate” means the norm tomorrow may be higher.

Mr. John Herron: It's vague, that's the thing.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I don't think “appropriate” is vague. “Appropriate” in scientific jargon is appropriate to the specific issue, the specific things you're talking about. It's appropriate to that. Anyway, I won't belabour it.

The Chair: The question is not so much.... Well, this is applied to that first paragraph, so I'm going to call the question on PC-24.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: I think we still have this question in our minds, but there might be something else coming up.

L-4. This is a new one, is it?

Ms. Hedy Fry: No, this is an old one.

The Chair: L-4, which is earlier in the bill, is consequential to L-6, which is later in the bill. But I don't know how we can do L-4 until we do L-6. Can we take it out and put it back there?

½ (1920)

Ms. Hedy Fry: L-6 refers to the changes made in L-4. L-6 is consequential to L-4.

The Chair: Okay, L-6--

Ms. Hedy Fry: Is consequential to L-4.

The Chair: --is simply number changes that are consequential to L-4 and L-7. I don't know why if we pass L-4 and L-7, we can't just assume L-6 passes, if it just changes the numbers.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Sure, well, let's do L-4 then.

The Chair: Okay, let's do L-4.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, in L-4 it's pretty self-evident that what we're doing is replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 11 with the following:

“(b) in relation to health risks, if a decision referred to in paragraph 28 (1)(a) or (b) is being made or has been made in relation to a pest control product,”.

Then we're adding a small (i), which says:

“among other relevant factors, consider available information on aggregate exposure to the pest control product, namely dietary exposure and exposure from other non-occupational sources, including drinking water and use in and around homes and schools, and cumulative effects of the pest control product and other pest control products that have a common mechanism of toxicity”.

What we're really doing is we're ensuring here that the total exposure from pesticides, including exposure from all sources--drinking water, cumulative effects, residential use, and others--are included right here and now. So that would bring us with a (b)(i) and then what is now (b)(i) will become (b)(ii), and (b)(ii) we'll change to (b)(iii), and all references will subsequently change.

The Chair: Are there any questions about this? It sounds like a big move forward.

Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Can Madam Fry assure me there's no duplication with the amendments she's proposing and what's subsequently renumbered, that there's no duplication in what you're putting into your new (i) with what's already in what would then become (ii) and (iii)?

Ms. Hedy Fry: No.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: There's no duplication at all.

Ms. Hedy Fry: It's just broadening the risk factors to give you total exposure--drinking water, diet, food, etc. It's broadening the concept. You want to make sure that the health risks are in relation to total exposure.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Claire Franklin.

The Chair: Claire Franklin, he wants you to comment.

Dr. Claire Franklin: Your questions are valid, but it doesn't duplicate. What it does is it adds the utilization of these factors to non-food-use products. With regard to the way in which the bill was written, it would appear that we only did these things when it was in relationship to a pesticide that was used on food. This clarifies that in fact these factors are taken into consideration for non-food uses as well.

The Chair: I'll call the question on L-4.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Who moved L-4, by the way? Ms. Fry, I think. Yes.

We're at PC-25.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Chair, may I just ask you to move NDP-17 up to the next one, since it might be a duplication of the one we just dealt with, and put PC-25 with NDP-18, because they're similar?

The Chair: You're saying that NDP-17 is very close, so we'd have to do one more page, to page 82.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis is putting this forward. It looks to me as if it's mainly clean-up. Is it, Judy?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, I like clarification. The intent of this amendment was in fact to ensure that we were including aggregate and cumulative exposure in terms of the non-food aspects as well as the food side.

Now, if L-4 does that and this is absolutely redundant, I'll withdraw it. I just wanted to check.

½ (1925)

The Chair: The clerk says that it's covered in L-4, so NDP-17 is pulled.

We'll now go back a page to PC-25. It covers “women, infants, children, women, seniors, the ill and those with environmental disabilities” where the first “women” follows “pregnant” on the previous line. He is just essentially adding “those with environmental disabilities”, isn't he?

Mr. John Herron: I'm adding “the ill and those with environmental disabilities”. I do have a curious question, though, Madam Chair, and I'm sure you're just as interested in it as I am. How come the government gets to list and we don't? They listed what vulnerable populations are here. They made a very distinct list; they put pregnant women, children, seniors, etc. How come you get to list and we don't?

Every time we list something we always get criticized for it because we leave something out. Here's an example of two entities who were left out. We left out the ill and those with environmental disabilities, and we all know as members of Parliament that we have constituents who come into our offices--

The Chair: So we're going to ask, do you want to add “the ill and those with environmental disabilities”?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I have a comment.

I have a little concern. It may be just due to my lack of knowledge, but as to environmental disabilities, it seems to me that when our troops returned from the Gulf War and when veterans returned from Vietnam with Agent Orange exposure and that, there was a lot of argument and discussion over whether or not they were environmentally disabled because of what had been used over there. I don't know if that has been settled to date. I'd like a medical doctor to indicate to me whether or not there's a real definition that can actually be applied for environmental disabilities.

The Chair: Mr. Speller, did you have a question?

Mr. Bob Speller: Yes. We're talking about environmental disabilities, and we're referring to “women, infants, women, and seniors”. Where's “men”? Are we leaving men out by putting women in?

Ms. Hedy Fry: They fit into the group of “just people”.

Mr. Bob Speller: No, I want to ask our lawyers here, and--

The Chair: That's the second question.

Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I just wanted to make a comment on the term “environmental disabilities”. The thing about putting in “environmental disabilities” is that it presents a problem, namely, while pregnant women and children are generically susceptible to a particular product, a person with an environmental disability is susceptible as an individual. For instance, if I'm allergic to strawberries or to peanuts, I have to stay away from them. It's an individual thing. Not everybody who looks like me is allergic to peanuts and such.

When you put in “environmental disabilities”, you immediately apply one person's specific and individual environmental problem generically to people at large. A product may be fine for everybody but may just be a problem for person A. Person A has to take all the necessary precautions to avoid contact with it or to protect themself against it, but it may be good for everybody else.

That's the only comment I had to make as to why that gives me a bit of a problem. It's not an enforceable thing, not really something you can apply.

½ (1930)

Mr. John Herron: Are you going to go for it?

Ms. Hedy Fry: Not with that addition.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think it's important to point out we're not talking generally about which groups are protected more than others, in terms of the whole range of the act. We're saying when we test pesticides for impact on human health, we do it with the most vulnerable population, so you set the bar the highest.

That's why the list is in here to begin with, and why it's important to add the ill and those with environmental disabilities. You're registering that if there's an impact at that level, it maybe won't be as great among the healthy, able-bodied male population, but you've set the bar at the highest possible level for risk impact.

The Chair: There are two questions on the floor for Ms. Franklin to answer. Is there any definition for those who are environmentally disabled? Isn't that a concept that's still being discussed, and in some cases, in the courts?

Dr. Claire Franklin: I'm not aware that there's any specific definition for it, nor am I aware that it's a disease recognized by the medical community. I think it's under discussion. There's a great deal of interest and concern, but because of the uncertainty as to what the underlying factors might be across a wide range of disabilities, it hasn't reached that level of recognition.

The Chair: Do you have another question, Mr. Speller?

Mr. Bob Speller: I just want to know how ill you have to be.

The Chair: How ill do you have to be? Do you mean everybody who is ill, or those who are in hospital? What do you mean there?

Mr. John Herron: Chronically ill, respiratory disease....

The Chair: This is loaded with questions.

(Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Next is amendment PC-27.

Mr. John Herron: The intent of this is to protect children. The tenfold margin of safety should be used for all products and should be mandatory. This amendment specifies that the minister must have no discretion on that factor.

You said you hoped it would come up again. Well, sometimes if you hope enough it can.

The Chair: This is a deletion, essentially.

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chair: You have to look at the bill for this. You put the period after the word “children” on line 34, if you go along with Mr. Herron. This takes the discretion away from the minister.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Why delete it? We're limiting again. We're setting the bar rigidly. If a different margin of safety were appropriate, that margin of safety could be higher.

½ (1935)

The Chair: It could also be lower.

Ms. Hedy Fry: But if it's scientifically proven that it's lower, then we know something new.

Mr. John Herron: The discretion comes into play where it says “apply appropriate margins of safety”, as we discussed earlier. The way the act is right now, we have a discretion on a discretion. At some time we have to put a stake in the sand.

The Chair: Well, I don't know if it's that, because our science researcher is saying that because there's a qualification there, if the minister were to change this margin of safety, if she were to raise it or lower it, whichever she might do, she has to file the scientific data that proves her decision. So it isn't really discretionary, because if she filed something that the scientific community thought was bogus, they would scream. It's not as if she can go in her secret cupboard and decide to change this margin of safety; she has to be public about it and say she's doing this and these are the reasons why, and this is the scientific proof.

If it didn't stand up to the science....

Mr. John Herron: I hate to raise the spectre of the endangered species legislation, but it's exactly the same philosophy that we have with the minister saying “If I don't follow the COSEWIC list, the scientific list, on whether a species is at risk or not, there will be a public outcry”. Well, as you know, that has been a real sticking point among the scientific community, saying that's the wrong approach to take.

If the health professionals--it's the same group of health professionals--are comfortable with that, as you said, Madam Chair, the discretion is in the minister's hands. It could be higher. Yes, but indeed it could be lower. If the scientific community is comfortable with a tenfold margin, are we going to make this discretionary all the time, or are we going to send a strong signal that when we mean ten times, we mean it?

Right now, the discretion is far too open. It's not reassuring Canadians that we're serious about ensuring that the health of Canadians is paramount.

The Chair: At one point we were getting really tough. We even suggested multiplying by 100. Now we're back to 10, and this says the minister could change it to five if she felt that she had the scientific data to do it. John is saying do we want to allow that, or do we want to say it has to be 10 times if it's about children and pregnant women?

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, there is a word here that I want to stress. It is called “reliable” scientific data. It's not as if what you're saying is “and toxicity to infants and children unless the minister has determined that a different margin of safety were appropriate.” It's not up to the minister; it's on the basis of reliable scientific data, and we all know that scientific data changes, in a positive or a negative way.

At the time that the birth control pill first came out, there were huge margins of population that we would not have allowed to take the birth control pill, because it was a very crude drug. It has been refined since then, so it has become more acceptable and the risks have been lowered. So you have to allow that not only does information prove that something is bad; information can prove that something is not as bad as we show it to be.

The birth control pill is the best example I can find to suggest that we learned things about it that allowed us to open it up to more women than we had previously done.

Mr. John Herron: I think I can win you over on this one.

We don't test on children; we test on adults. We will never have scientific data on children. That's why we're factoring in subparagraph 7.(7)(b)(i) to tenfold; it's for that particular safety factor, because we'll never test our margin of error on vulnerable populations like children. It will never happen. We will never have that scientific data. That is why we have to be able to have the extra factor of ten when we're applying this to children.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): I'd like to hear Ms. Franklin's comments based on that discussion.

Dr. Claire Franklin: We don't test on adults, and we don't test on children. We used animals to generate the data. We do test on all age groups. We test on pregnant women, so the fetus is exposed; the animals are tested through developmental stages.

If you look at what this clause is saying, there's an additional tenfold. So that means if the normal amount is 100, this would be up to 1,000, if the normal is higher than that. It's saying the reasons and the qualifiers on this are potential prenatal and postnatal toxicity and completeness of data.

If you have information that you're confident you're able to determine, the no-effect level and how much below that you're going to be, you don't need as large a margin. If you have uncertainty on the data, you want an even larger margin.

That's why there needs to be some flexibility in this, not to not use it and not to have scientific basis for this. That's not the intention on this. This is to make a valid scientific decision without being so overly conservative that absolutely nothing will ever get registered, and there's no reason to have that magnitude of difference between the no-effect level and the exposure level.

½ (1940)

The Chair: I'll call the question on PC-27.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We're on NDP-19. If we do one a minute, we'll have 100 done by eight o'clock.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Rule it out of order.

The Chair: I think I can pull this right out, Judy, don't you?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

The Chair: PC-28 is another long one. This is really trying to tie together several things. I don't think it has to be spoken to by the proponent. I think we have to read it and maybe have the officials comment on PC-28.

Ms. Graham.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: I guess, yes, you're right. There are a lot of things rolled in here.

First of all, this starts off with “government policy meaning that”, then the first few paragraphs are related to the TSMP, the toxic substances management policy. In the way we've defined “government policy”, it won't always be the only policy included in the definition. It's one problem.

This is talking about certain aspects of the TSMP and putting them in here. If you were going to go this way, you'd have to start defining a few other things. “Track one” would not be immediately obvious.

We don't think it's necessary. It is precisely why we say “government policy has to be taken into account”. “Government policy” means the TSMP, plus others that could be specified later.

Not only that, it's gone a little farther than the TSMP in saying “products would have to be immediately withdrawn”, instead of working towards “virtual elimination”, as is done under the TSMP.

In (d) there's another problem, in that to identify formulants of concern we would rather use lists specifically designed to capture formulants used in pest control products. We have lists in our formulant policy based on the EPA lists. We then added ones that are used only in Canada, as opposed to things designated under CEPA that would really be a small subset of the formulants used and would not always be applicable.

The Chair: I'll call the question, ladies and gentlemen, on PC-28.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: On amendment CA-6, Mr. Merrifield was moving it.

Do you have a little note on it, Mr. Hilstrom or Ms. Skelton?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes. The note we had, of course, is on the line conflict with NDP-20. NDP-20 cannot be put unless CA-6 is voted down--or as you say, “negatived”. It would be a line conflict in how the bill flowed.

The Chair: Did we do NDP-20?

A voice: No. It's coming up after this.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: If we do CA-6 first, then it will alleviate the problem and we can do NDP-20 afterwards. Yes or no?

½ (1945)

The Chair: The clerk is suggesting we move NDP-20 as a subamendment to CA-6, and then vote on CA-6 as amended. Do you see what I mean?

We would add “shall in accordance with the regulations”. Where would it go?

On “the Minister may, in accordance with the regulations”, it's really a change from “may” to “shall”. If you feel strongly about it, “shall” would strengthen it. Above, it says “the Minister shall give effect to government policy”. Down below, it says “the Minister may take into account information regarding the risks and values of other pest control”.

It's looking at other pest control products. She “may” take into account what they offer. Or in this case, the amendment says she “shall”. In other words, looking at other products is part of the job. Right?

Okay. That is NDP-20.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I don't think our amendment dealt with the idea of changing it from “may” to “shall.” As a result, if “shall” is attached to our amendment, it could be giving our amendment less chance of being approved by the committee. I'd kind of object to having that attached there, where our amendment is amended.

The Chair: We'll go back then and do CA-6. The mover does not want it mixed up with NDP-20.

What in essence are you saying here that's different from the bill?

A voice: Just the “shall” and the “may”.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: It's just that the Minister of Agriculture doesn't seem to be consulted unless we pass our amendment, which would ensure that the Minister of Agriculture is consulted.

The Chair: Are you ready to vote on this?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: NDP-20 changes “the Minister may” to “the Minister shall”, and in this case it's something about looking at other kinds of pest control products.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's not just changing “may” to “shall.” It's in the context of looking at the risks and value of a pest control product. Do you just look at that particular product on its own, or do you look at those that are similar in terms of risks and benefits?

The Chair: That's what I was trying to say. It's bringing in the necessity of comparative analysis as opposed to just looking at the applicant's little substance here and saying, “Well, it looks okay to me”.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Right.

The Chair: You're supposed to look at it and say, “What other products say they will do the job?” and then compare. If one is a lot less toxic than the other and equally effective, you might not register the other one.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Equally, if you're aware that there are certain risks and side effects from one product, that information should be applied to this new product so that you're operating again from the point of view of a precautionary principle. Dare I say the word?

The Chair: Well, comparative analysis is more likely to fly around here.

Anybody else?

Ms. Hedy Fry: I just wanted to ask a question with regard to that, of either Ms. Graham or Ms. Franklin.

If you were to do comparative risk assessments for every registration decision, would that completely slow down your registration process?

Ms. Geraldine Graham: It really would. You have to remember we're in the registration section here that deals with all types of registration decisions, from a very small change to a brand new product. To make it mandatory in every case would put a tremendous burden there.

The Chair: Excuse me, Dr. Fry. I certainly did not anticipate the idea that there would have to be all these comparisons done with every application.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: Yes, there would.

The Chair: Once you have tested a product, wouldn't you keep some data on it so that you could pull something up on the screen and say, “With this level of toxicity and this level of effectiveness, etc., how does that compare with the product I've just evaluated”? Surely you'd develop a databank.

½ (1950)

Ms. Geraldine Graham: The comparisons are not that simple because it may be slightly more risky in one area but less risky in another, and there are many end points. You would do this with new products, new active ingredients. You would be looking at cases where you suspect there's a big difference, and then you delve into it and make sure. But to do it every single time.... We do thousands of applications every year.

The Chair: I see.

I'll call the question on NDP-20.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: A new CA-7 comes next. You have CA-7 in the book, but in fact we have a new one instead. So you can throw the old one on the floor and stick the new one in. We're going to do CA-7 before we do CA-2 and CA-3, I think. We're going to do all three together, but the major one is CA-7, so I suggest you read it first and then look at how CA-2 and CA-3 affect it.

I would expect you to comment on this, Mr. Speller, because this is the section that is applicable to yours as well.

Mr. Bob Speller: I'll try.

The Chair: Could we have the witnesses' reaction to CA-7, please? To be honest, I don't really get it.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: There are a lot of things involved here. As Mr. Speller mentioned, there's another proposal later on to deal with the issue of minor uses in the regulations. To talk here about waiving data requirements, etc., seems a bit too much for the act. Plus they've put a timeline in.

Another problem is having to consult with the Minister of Agriculture. We don't think it's a good idea to start having a multi-departmental system to make decisions.

The Chair: Mr. Hilstrom, would you like to speak to the amendment?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes. The new initiative that was just announced the other day has got that very element of it--that the health and agriculture departments are working together on the initiative. So why wouldn't it be appropriate here?

Ms. Geraldine Graham: But that's different. Working together on helping to support it, generate the data, get good submissions, etc., is different from consulting on registration decisions.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I don't see anything wrong with having some timelines. If you can't measure it, you can't manage it. That's the one aspect of it. I know the timelines are always difficult for the bureaucracy because it puts on a lot of pressure.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: And what would be the consequence if we're not done? Would we register it by default? That's the problem. You don't want to do that.

Mr. John Herron: But the second point is that in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act they refer to the ministers jointly, as in the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment. In the endangered species legislation they refer to “the ministers”, meaning Indian Affairs, Heritage, Agriculture, DND the odd time as well, and Environment. That's enshrined into law.

So I think Mr. Hilstrom's point about the joint ministers is okay.

½ (1955)

Ms. Geraldine Graham: A decision was made a long time ago that pest control products would be the responsibility of the Minister of Health, not the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. John Herron: Yes. I agree with the concept, but I disagree with the debate approach, because it may come up later on.

The Chair: There are two or three things that are key here. The minister may waive certain requirements if it's a minor use. The Minister of Agriculture will be consulted. There are a couple of key things here. You're either for this or you're not. We'll call the question on the new CA-7.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Now you see how generous Mr. Herron was: he voted with you. He was your only supporter, even though you voted against his.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We have an agreement.

The Chair: The putting down of CA-7 also causes to lose CA-2, CA-3, and CA-8. CA-8 comes next. Great, we're at page 93. At one every 30 seconds we could get 100.

Page 93, Mr. Bigras. He's putting a one-year limit on organic pest control products. Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Clause 7 would be amended after line 7 so that the review and evaluation of applications for the registration of organic pest control products are completed within one year. I stress the word “organic”. The Agency has acknowledged that currently there are only 35 organic pesticides, whereas 150 such products are sold in the United States. Therefore, there is a significant gap in terms of access to these organic products. This amendment would establish a very clear timeline. Some provincial governments are already asking that the process of reviewing applications for registration of organic pest control products move more quickly. The amendment proposes to establish a timeline of one year. A number of companies, in particular those involved in landscaping, told us that if there were organic options available to them, they would not hesitate to use them. I think we need to process registration applications more quickly.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Ms. Franklin, is it possible to have a one-year limit on organic applications? Could you manage that?

Dr. Claire Franklin: Timelines are a problem in any type of legislation such as this, because we have no control over the resources we have. When the workload goes up, when we have more complicated submissions, then the only option we have is that, by default, products are registered. So it's a very serious problem to do this.

The Chair: Is there any way you could come up with an amendment to the act that would do something in favour of these organics--that would do something to fast-track them?

Ms. Geraldine Graham: Well, that was L-4.

The Chair: Do we already have that?

Dr. Claire Franklin: Yes; it was just passed: to expedite.

The Chair: Was that for organics?

Ms. Geraldine Graham: Well, it was for lower-risk products.

Dr. Claire Franklin: Lower-risk products, which includes organics: to expedite, yes.

The Chair: So you would include them in there; they would go into the faster stream?

Ms. Geraldine Graham: It was L-3, maybe; pardon me.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Would “lower risk” be things such as certain bugs that could be imported from other countries in order to control noxious weeds or something? Is that an organic pest control product?

Dr. Claire Franklin: That would come under a microbial type of product, but it would fall under the category of lower risk if one could use it instead of a non-reduced-risk chemical; it would be covered by it as well.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Well, I'm a little suspicious of this, because some of this stuff will overwinter. I'd be mighty careful about passing something like this.

Dr. Claire Franklin: We would be careful.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'm sure you would.

Dr. Claire Franklin: It's not to say it wouldn't be included.

The Chair: I think we have our answer.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Next we have amendment CA-8A. Here we are. If we could just get to a hundred, boy, we'll have broken the back of this thing.

It's on page 93.1 in the new book. This one suggests the minister herself will set out timelines for the completion of registrations, but I think the director has just told us that if business picks up those timelines become impossible to achieve. It says that within one year after the coming into force of the act, the minister shall make regulations setting out timelines for the completion of registrations and amendments of registrations of pest control products. So it's putting strict parameters around how fast things have to be approved.

Mr. Hilstrom.

¾ (2000)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We've heard in various committees and from different applicants that it takes so long to get these things through for approval--

The Chair: But that has to do with resources.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: And that has to do with accountability of the minister himself or herself, along with the accountability of the people in the PMRA. At the present time it doesn't work very well. As a result, we feel it's really important that we get this in here so that the minister consciously has to set the timeframe in which it should be done, based on knowledge of resources. And it puts some pressure on the minister to put appropriate resources into the PMRA to ensure that things are done. Otherwise, they just move along willy-nilly, doing it in whatever timeframe they want to do things in, set by the PMRA itself rather than with the minister's involvement.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: No debate?

The Chair: Did you want to speak?

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: My sole concern, Madam Chair, is that if a timeline is established, the evaluation may not be done properly and a product may be approved simply because the deadline is looming. Personally, I find that somewhat risky. It may be tempting to approve from time to time a product that poses a potential health risk.

[English]

The Chair: You don't want to just vote on this.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: This is an important question, in my opinion. In any event, perhaps we'll have an opportunity to discuss it again later. However, judging from what virtually all of the witnesses have said, regardless of where they stand on the issue, the timeline could be a problem. Therefore, I fully support the amendment, all the more so given its wording. The amendment calls on the minister to undertake to bring in regulations establishing timelines. This would not be incorporated into the legislation. It's simply a matter of making regulations. That's why as a proposal, it's fairly modest.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Your concern here is the timeline. Basically the rest of the amendment's okay. But the timeline makes it difficult.

Okay, we'll come back. Thank you. No further questions at this time.

The Chair: Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We heard in committee Madam Franklin saying that they currently set timelines themselves. They have target goals down the way, for instance, on the review of old pesticides. They have timelines for new ones and then they compare that to what the Americans do. Then they talk about maybe how the Europeans do it. As a result, we have timelines that have no reference at all to legislation or to the industry's requirement and the farmer's requirement to have these pesticides available.

I'd also mention the health requirements. For instance, in the city of Winnipeg, if something new comes along that's good for these blasted mosquitos, without having this kind of a timeline in there, we would soon find that maybe we'd go a year or two. For instance, if this Nile virus spreads from southern Ontario and gets moving out west, northwest Ontario, where there are a lot more mosquitos, we'd find a health hazard that could be hampered quite seriously by the PMRA not being able to set timelines that were appropriate and to meet those timelines.

We have to recognize, Madam Chair, that the health minister who is overseeing this act has a very big job to do. The minister, whether it's a he or a she, has to look at the Canada Health Act. In looking at the Canada Health Act, of course, there are many big issues that have to be dealt with for the health of people and the health of all these subgroups we're talking about--infants and pregnant women and people who are predisposed to being sensitive to chemicals.

With those arguments, I can't see why this bill can't include a little bit of accountability for the minister and have the minister go on down and have the PMRA actually consciously set out some timelines and some guidelines in the regulations that can be changed relatively easily by the government. That's why we have regulations.

I'd like to really strongly recommend to this committee that this motion be supported for those very reasons I gave--the health reasons, the problems that we have at the present time that aren't addressed.

In fact, I just point out that there are some strong recommendations coming from the government side that in fact the Auditor General get into the PMRA and have a look there and see what's going wrong. That indicates a lack of accountability and proper setting of guidelines and timelines to get something done. As a result, this motion, which may be the last one tonight here.... There may be more, but I'd like to talk about this one a little bit longer to emphasize very strongly that we need to have these timelines for the very reasons I've given and bring in this accountability.

¾ (2005)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: You're welcome.

The Chair: We'll now call the vote on CA-8A. Just to give you all hope, if we can get to CA-9 and PC-29, which are the next two after this one, we can close off. We'll just have to say “Shall clause 4 carry?” and those few things. So it's just a couple of votes.

Mr. John Herron: PC-29 is a really good one, though.

The Chair: Well, if we don't do PC-29, we can't finish this clause.

Shall CA-8A carry?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Madam Chair, can we have a recount? It looked pretty doggone close.

The Chair: I don't think so.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Did the clerk count?

The Chair: Those in favour of CA-8A, let's see your hands. I got four.

Some hon. members: Five.

The Chair: Okay, five. Those opposed? Seven. It's seven to five. Mr. Speller didn't vote. He's abstaining. So it's seven to five, with one abstention.

We could actually just stop here, I guess, because CA-9 and PC-29 are brand-new clauses, so they would go in proposed section 7.1. I can go back here and ask you people, and you can shout “agreed” or something.

Shall clause 5 carry as amended?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Okay, we'd better put the question.

(Clauses 5 and 6 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Those in favour of carrying clause 7, raise your hands.

An hon. member: We haven't done clause 7.

The Chair: Yes, we have done clause 7, but there will be a special clause called proposed section 7.1 for those other two. Do you understand that?

An hon. member: Yes, okay.

The Chair: So we're still on clause 7.

(Clause 7 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: The clock being 8:10, I think we'll end, but can I ask you about tomorrow? We have two hours tomorrow, eleven o'clock to one. We still have 126 amendments to do. If the clerk can find a room tomorrow from 3:30 to 5:30, are you agreeable? How many people could come from 3:30 to 5:30? Judy, can you? John?

Mr. John Herron: I don't know. I'll check with the critic.

The Chair: We will not finish this bill this week if we don't work four hours a day.

Mr. John Herron: Give me PC-29 now.

The Chair: No, because that will entice you to come back.

We'll see you tomorrow morning at eleven, and I'll see if we can arrange a meeting for tomorrow.

This meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.