AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 28, 1998

• 0906

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. I see a quorum. Good morning, everyone. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this is an examination of the mandate, management, and operation of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA.

As colleagues will recall, we got a letter from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on April 21 expressing concerns about a third-party review, the budget shortfall, harmonization, efficacy, and the Food Quality Protection Act. As a result, we're having the meeting here today to get an update on what's going on with the PMRA and how it's progressing.

This morning we have, from the PMRA, Wayne Ormrod, Wendy Sexsmith, and Elizabeth Javor. Welcome everyone. Ms. Sexsmith, are you going to make the presentation?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith (Director, Alternative Strategies and Regulatory Affairs, Pest Management Regulatory Agency): Yes, sir.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We certainly welcome the opportunity to be here today to talk a little about the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the progress I think we've been able to make over the last three years.

I'd like to apologize for Dr. Franklin not being here today. I think, however, in this case perhaps her choice was not a bad one. I know the committee and Canada as a whole have been very concerned about this new piece of legislation in the U.S., the FQPA. We've been trying very hard to have some involvement with that, and she was very recently invited to go to a high level meeting related to Al Gore's committee. So that's where she is today and that's why she isn't here. I apologize for her.

We've provided you with a package with several handouts. One provides a bit of an overview on the PMRA; one is a short piece on harmonization, just to provide a bit of an update; and there are three other pieces of information on the joint review process, the products we're actually working on or have been registered. So I'll hit on those a little later.

Just to back up a little bit on the PMRA, I think many of you know there was a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the way pesticides were being regulated in Canada, and the Minister of Agriculture in the late 1980s instituted a review called the pesticide registration review. Out of that, there was a series of recommendations in 1990.

The government did a few things between 1990 and 1995, but in 1995 cabinet decided to pick up on the issue of a single agency and a number of other things. Cabinet approved the mandate program and the budget, which was $ 34 million at that time.

One of the things I didn't put in your package, and I'd be very pleased to provide it to the clerk before the end of today, is the public document upon which the cabinet made decisions as far as putting the agency together and the key reforms. That document is actually part of the cabinet decision. So I'll get that to the clerk today, and my apologies for that. Anyway that's a bit of the background.

So when the agency was set up, it was really set up as a single agency with a mandate and programs set out for them in this purple book, which I will provide to you. The mandate, as it's written for the agency, is to protect human health and the environment, minimize risks associated with pest control products, and enable access to pest management tools and sustainable pest management strategies. That's really the line we live with as a mandate for the agency.

• 0910

The key reforms that were recommended by the pesticide registration review, which came out of a multi-stakeholder consultation, and by cabinet in 1995 are as follows. I will pick up on a number of those you raised earlier and in some of your earlier meetings and talk about the progress we've been able to make on those key reforms or key changes. I'll talk about six of them and raise about eight of them.

The key reforms are to amend legislation to reflect the reforms recommended by the PRR; develop methods to be more open and transparent; implement performance standards—the issue of international harmonization was key; develop a re-evaluation program in concert with the U.S. and other countries; develop minor use programs to facilitate access to those products in Canada; support sustainable pest management strategies and look at ways to put sustainability into decision-making processes; and implement cost recovery. These were all mandated or directed by government to the agency.

I will start with the issue of performance standards and really frame my comments on the accomplishment side, if I can. On the issue of performance standards, the recommendation out of the pesticide registration review was 18 months. Just to back up a little, the way it works with the registration submissions is that the pesticide companies develop the data. They have to provide a complete submission to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, upon which we assess health, the environment, and value from that data.

The change has been that where in the old days pieces of a submission came in, we now have to have a complete submission. It has to go through a screening process that decides whether the submission is complete. From that we have committed to an 18-month performance standard for the whole submission. So if it comes in and it's complete it will have a decision with regard to registration at the end of an 18-month period. We have also committed to a 12-month performance standard for joint reviews and minor-use submissions.

I know the issue of the backlog is of some interest. When we were set up in 1995, we inherited 1,000 complex submissions that were not registered. We have been able to work on those submissions over the last three years and expect to be out of the backlog by September. We have moved from 1,000 submissions down to 200 at this time, and the estimation is we'll be clear of the backlog by September 1998.

On the issue of efficacy, I'll just make some short comments. In the earlier part of my talk I mentioned the mandate of the agency, which is essentially a risk management mandate. Part of the decision with regard to risk management and risk assessment relates to knowing that we're looking at the lowest effective application rate. I guess one way of putting it would be to say that minimum dose equals maximum safety. So the issue of efficacy is really a health and safety concern.

On the issue of international harmonization, there are really two areas we are working on. One is under the North American Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. and Mexico, and we have 28 projects on the go. The other area is in the more global perspective under the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and there are 17 projects on the go there. I'll touch on some of those.

The goal—and I think it's something that certainly the growers in Canada are interested in—is really, through our work in harmonization both with the U.S. and other countries, to be able to improve efficiency in our registration process. That will lead—has led already, I think—to more timely access to newer and safer products.

• 0915

These harmonization activities are meant to address all aspects, including an issue that I know is very important, the issue of tolerances and maximum residue limits. We're looking at reducing trade barriers and coming up with a level playing field, certainly in the North American context, and broader as time goes on. We certainly make efforts to ensure that all stakeholders are informed of our harmonization activities.

To sort of step down to how we're doing this within the NAFTA and the OECD context, we looking at a common approach to data requirements, to formatting submissions, to the risk assessment process, and to regulatory decision-making. Essentially, we see these four pieces as key to removing barriers to simultaneous submissions and allowing for joint reviews and work sharing. That really goes to the whole issue of efficiency and timely access.

As far as accomplishments go, in the three years we have been an agency, and clearly working in this area of harmonization, one of the accomplishments has been to develop a common residue map for the U.S. and Canada so that if a study in a contiguous area in the U.S. is done, it will be accepted in Canada. That means you don't have to do two different sets of studies for a prairie region in the North American context.

We are working on the same type of concept for environmental fate data. A recent accomplishment has been that as a result of working with the U.S., we have ended up with the same spray drift model to be able to more easily assess spray drift and deposit. This will reduce the number of studies that registrants will have to do, and it will make our risk assessment process more efficient.

We have been able to make progress in the area of harmonized data requirements. We have accomplished that in the area of pheromone pest control products, the chemistry side of the data package, the residue guidelines, and we're working on a number of other areas, including microbials.

We implemented in 1996 the reduced risk joint review process. What that means is that for the traditional chemical side of the world, companies can submit to both the U.S. and Canada if they meet the U.S.'s reduced risk criteria, and we commit to review that type of product within a year. We actually have just completed that in April of this year. Cyprodinyl was registered as a result of a U.S.-Canada joint review process.

As well, for biopesticides a similar joint review process was implemented by us in 1997. We have two products in the works as we speak, and a number circulating. On the reduced risk chemical side, we have a number of other products where registrants have approached the agency and are looking to come in for joint reviews. We actually have another one inside.

We're doing work sharing where we can—that is, the U.S. and Canada sharing in each other's work—on various products. Through the NAFTA process, the MRL on Prometryn, for example, has been established.

The other issue is formatting. I know that's of interest to everybody. Through the OECD process there has been a lot of work on common formats for all countries. Canada is now in a position to accept OECD and Canadian formats.

On the issue of re-evaluation and FQPA, I'll review a little bit the FQPA issue. I think you know that the U.S. recently passed a new law that really sets out requirements to assess cumulative exposure to products that have a common mode of action, and that OPs, or organo-phosphates and carbamates, which tend to be fairly important in agriculture in Canada and the U.S., are going to be the first to be re-evaluated. We do know there's a potential for real impact on products and tolerances in Canada.

• 0920

PMRA has responded by flagging to the EPA this concern, through NAFTA. As I said earlier, Dr. Franklin, the head of the agency, is involved in these high-level talks to try to make sure Canada's position is heard.

We are in Canada working with the growers, through the provinces, to facilitate the identification of critical products so that we can use that information to both alert EPA and make sure our agency is alert to this so that we can put in place strategies to help facilitate replacements.

We are, of course, and have been for some time, encouraging registrants to apply for registration in both countries simultaneously. This will be a critical piece in dealing with the FQPA issue.

On the issue of minor use programs, just to be clear, in Canada we do not have an acreage definition. I know the U.S. has a 300,000-acreage definition, below which is minor use and above which is not. Our definition in Canada is a bit more open, I would say. It's based on potential for low volume of sales, not on acreage.

What we have tried to do in the last couple of years is find ways to facilitate access to minor-use products. We have a proposal on the street for minor-use registrations whereby registrants can apply to Canada if the product is registered in the U.S. and not in Canada, and also, in the label expansion program that is in place, whereby products that are registered in Canada can be expanded to minor-use crops.

We have seen a 100% increase in minor-use registrations in the last year, and there is a NAFTA project proposed to improve the coordination of residue data production.

On the issue of sustainable pest management and alternative products, there are a couple of areas we have been working on. One is looking at ways to facilitate access to these technologies by harmonizing data requirements and that type of thing and also working directly with growers and provinces to develop integrated pest management strategies, both to encourage the use of all tools and to facilitate access to these types of products.

On the budget issue, we do anticipate a shortfall for this fiscal year. The options at this point are to reduce the program. With regard to additional government funding, this is the minister's decision. There will be no fee increase. That option has already been taken off the table.

On the third-party review issue, that is being carried out by a consultant. The idea is to look at the economic analysis of efficiency standards, service standards, and user fees, and compare them with the United Kingdom, Australia, the U.S. and us. The target for completion is the end of June, and the follow-up action will be a PMRA action plan addressing the issues that come up.

In summary, what I tried to lay out for you were the key reforms that cabinet directed us to do. I tried to give you some signals as to the progress we've been able to make, in I guess trying to deal with our mandate, which is health and environmental protection, in facilitating access to tools and cost-effective regulation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mrs. Sexsmith.

Currently you operate under the Pest Control Products Act, is that right?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: That's right.

The Chairman: Earlier in your presentation you were mentioning new legislation. When do you expect new legislation?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: That's really the minister's decision at this point in time. It has been in preparation for some time.

Before the agency was set up work was started on that. There has been quite a bit of consultation. Dr. Franklin and I are just in the processes of completing a round of face-to-face consultation with the provinces. We visited Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and so on just last week.

As an agency, I think we're reasonably prepared to move forward, but that clearly is the minister's decision.

The Chairman: So you're pretty well finished your consultations and you're ready to roll, are you?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Well, yes—

The Chairman: It's been years.

• 0925

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes. We've been around several times with the provinces, of course, and this was just one more round. This is really a minister's decision, as you know.

The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Hoeppner.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I missed the first few words of your presentation, but it's been interesting.

Is there still duplication? You were talking about a residue mess. Isn't that looked after by Environment Canada or Health Canada? To me it looks like more work is being repeated because of other departments.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I'll try to clarify that. When a company has to put together a data package for submission to the agency so we can assess the risks to health and the environment, one of the requirements is to develop residue data. By residue data I mean information on residues in crops, so when a crop is eaten we have some sense of what's there, and it goes beyond that. That is very much the type of thing the company has to do. It relates directly to that kind of thing. So it isn't something Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or anybody else would do. It's really the company's responsibility, by and large, for complex submissions.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: So you're telling me that cost would be added to the product and the users would pay for that.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I guess in the end it depends on how the company decides to market its product. But like all the data requirements, the companies develop them because they're the ones who are going to sell the product and make money on it.

What we've been able to do under NAFTA, to reduce duplication and reduce costs, is make it so if a Canadian submission uses data that were developed in the U.S. in the prairie region, which goes from Canada down into the U.S., we will accept it. Years ago they had to develop one for the U.S. and send it to the U.S. and develop the other piece in Canada for Canada. Now they only have to do it once in those similar regions. That's very much an improvement and reduces duplication of work.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: That's super.

You said you look up substances, formulas, and adjuvants. I know a bit about what adjuvants are, but I always thought they were non-toxic or non-harmful. Why would you be looking at that? I know farmers experimented themselves with different adjuvants to see if they could cut down on the amount of chemicals they put on crops.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: You're quite right. In any formulated product there's the active ingredient and then there are these other things. They're deliberately added. There is actually a lot of concern about these kinds of things, so there has to be some kind of risk assessment because not all adjuvants are necessarily things that are completely inert.

Lately, and in the last 10 years, there's been an increasing concern about these kinds of things. We look at these types of products and assess them and get other information from places to look at them. Canada and the U.S. right now are in the process of developing an improved way of looking at formulants to make sure the risks are acceptable.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Would the companies not have to provide you that information if they used adjuvants?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Absolutely. But we have to look at that information and make a decision based on that.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Very good. The other thing I found interesting is spray drift. You're worried about spray drift. My experience as a farmer has been that you can get too much quietness, let's say, and not enough wind, because it'll just evaporate. I know a number of times when I wanted to go fishing and the wind wasn't quite exactly what we thought it was, I got better results than if I waited for a quiet day where you had the evaporation problem.

Have any companies done any type of experimenting on spray drift? I know in the orchards they will use a drift or a pressure to force it around the plants or into the branches.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Actually, this model I talk about is really based on $ 18 million worth of studies that were carried out by the United States spray drift task force that was made up of all the companies, plus a lot of work that was done in Canada. The two countries combined that information and ended up with a kind of computer model that will predict where things go, based on real information that was developed by the companies, so they wouldn't have to do this information development over and over again for every submission.

• 0930

That was the really positive thing. Canada got that model practically for nothing. The registrants in the U.S. put in $ 18 million and Canada was able to work with them and ended up getting access to it. Real information went into the development of that model, so registrants, companies, won't have to develop those data every single time. It's really a step forward.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: A big issue in my area is the debate between the ground sprayers and the aircraft. The aircraft people will tell you they create a downdraft so they don't drift as much as the ground sprayers. That is something I run into continually every year. I get complaints from the guys who use the airplanes and from the ground sprayers, who say they're not getting a level playing field. I think it would be very helpful to get some precise data so we know what that does to our chemicals.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I think you're correct. There has probably been a lot more work done on the issue of aerial application and drift than on ground application and drift, certainly in recent years. I know Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has somebody in Saskatoon who is doing some of that work and trying to look at improvements.

I don't think there is any doubt that a well-regulated aerial application may not be much more—

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Dangerous.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: —unsafe than a poorly regulated ground application. If you're spraying a ground rig all day, versus an early morning and a late afternoon application aerially.... I don't disagree with you, but I know agriculture is....

The Chairman: Do you want the results of those tests?

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: It sure would be nice to have, because it's a continual problem in my constituency.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I'll see what I can do. Are you in Alberta?

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: No, I'm in Manitoba. There's a lot of potatoes.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes. There is a prairie aerial application working group, and the provinces also deal very closely with a lot of the ground application stuff.

I'll see what I can find for you. I will get to George about this. Okay?

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Do I have some time left?

The Chairman: No. You're out.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: I'm out. Okay, I'll wait until the next round. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Alarie.

Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Chairman, my first question concerns the registration system. When visiting farmers, one can observe general dissatisfaction, be it in field crops, field-grown crops or greenhouse growing. They're saying that compared to other farmers we are competing with—people talk to each other now—, especially American farmers, our products are lagging behind, they are less efficient and more costly.

There is a general feeling of uneasiness that sometimes unfortunately creates situations where wrongdoers cross the border to get products that they will be able to use to increase their efficiency. It's certainly not what you're aiming for.

I would like to know how we could correct the slowness of the registration process and its sensitivity in order to have products that are really efficient and competitive in today's very competitive world markets.

[English]

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I think the Pest Management Regulatory Agency is trying to correct or deal with that type of situation through the whole harmonization process.

We talk about something called the North American initiative. It's really based on the NAFTA work—the U.S.-Canada-Mexico work. The idea there is to really, within as short a period of time as possible—what we're saying now is five years to have everything done—deal with all of the issues we have between the U.S. and Canada. One of them is the issue of having the same types of regulatory data requirements, formats, and processes.

We're at the early stages, but I think we've made progress. I think one of the big areas of progress is the area of joint reviews, whereby companies can come to Canada and the U.S. at the same time—and they already are. We have one registration and many others in play within the agency.

• 0935

What we're hoping for is that we will then get away from these issues where the U.S. has something first and then we get it two or three years later. We're really trying to move it so that the U.S. and Canada get things at the same time, whatever the sector is, whether it's greenhouse or minor use or whatever.

That's how we see the solution, but an important issue here is that we can't do it by ourselves. It's very important that the pesticide companies also see the benefits and submit to the two or three countries at the same time.

Really, there are at least three and probably four or five players in the pesticide regulatory game. There are the regulators, the companies, the producers, the public, and the researchers. As a regulator, we can do a lot of things—we're not perfect, but we're trying to be better—and we can do our part, but the companies have to do their part.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: You might find me a bit critical, but five years is a long wait for farm producers. Manufacturers might be the easiest to convince when it is a question of supply and demand. When the demand is there, manufacturers move quickly. They understand that language.

This brings me to my second question which has to do with the agency's efficiency. You have a relatively modest budget—let's call a spade a spade. I went on the Internet site yesterday and I read a bit to prepare myself for this morning's meeting. I wanted to be ready and I did it with great pleasure. I find that there might be a bit too much red tape for a mere 30 million dollar budget. Your agency includes a lot of people and divisions. Can I ask you if you would have any suggestions to make in order to increase your efficiency to have more money for experimenting and for the client, that is the farmer?

[English]

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I'd like to clarify the five-year issue first. When I say “five years”, I guess what we're saying is that by then we should have all the pieces in place.

We also feel, though, that at this point we have many pieces in place. Already, companies can come to us at the same time and put their products in for a joint review. That already exists, so we're not waiting for five years before we start doing things.

The cyprodinyl case is a good one. And Wayne Ormrod was a critical player in that case. That was submitted, reviewed by the U.S. and Canada, a decision was made in 12 months, and it is now registered for use in apples in Canada and the U.S. That is not five years from now. That is right now.

With respect to the issues of efficiency and the small budget, and, I guess, the appearance that we are top-heavy in administration, from my perspective, I would categorically say that isn't true. I think the efficiencies we have been able to make in the last three years are quite amazing. We now are looking at a timeframe of a year to register a joint review product and an 18-month timeframe for a complex product. I think many of those efficiencies are in place now.

Because we're not only reviewing and registering products but working on making the process more efficient, I would say that as an agency there are really two sets of work that everybody is doing. So I would say quite the opposite: we are not administratively top-heavy.

You're right when you say the budget is small, and that's a concern of ours, but all of us within the agency are working extremely hard to put in place the changes that cabinet directed us to make, and I think we've made clear progress in the short period of three years that we've had.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mrs. Ur.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This agency started up in late 1995 and you feel you've made progress. I was a farmer in my previous life, and if I'd made this kind of progress in three years, I would have been out of business with those kinds of numbers. When you're progressing and falling short by $ 4 million, something's wrong somewhere.

• 0940

With respect to harmonization, my viewpoint has always been that there has to be a cut-down somewhere, and I haven't seen it.

Also, I was speaking to some people who have had warehousing throughout Canada. They had 2,800 warehousing facilities—and good initiative—and they're down to about 1,800. They're downsizing. They know what it is to cut costs.

So far I really haven't seen that within the agencies in regard to productivity. I've had several products pass my desk, and there just seems to be a prolonging of this. It appears that the agency may have all the people there to do the numbers thing or the testing, but I don't think the agency really has the concept of time as it relates to the primary producer who needs this product now, not after he goes through all these loopholes.

It's supposed to be so transparent and so “with” the United States. We are supposed to be on a level playing field through NAFTA and all of that. It doesn't appear so to me. Maybe I'm missing the boat. I'd like you to explain that.

Mr. Wendy Sexsmith: I guess I could take a bit of a crack at it and then pass it on to my colleagues if they want to jump in.

If I understand you correctly, your sense is that at this point, three years after the agency was formed, you're not seeing any difference compared to 1990 or 1992. Is that really the nub of your question?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I think that's pretty clear.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Some of the examples I've tried to give were things like the fact that we've seen a 100% increase in the number of minor-use registrations in the last year.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Is that with zero tolerance? Is that where your numbers are coming from?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: No. These are straight products for which a year has passed. There were x number of products registered in the minor-use area and then in 1997-98 it actually doubled. We think that's probably an improvement, and if that isn't, I'd like to understand from you what improvement is.

If we're cutting down now to an 18-month timeframe for complex submissions from something where we had 1,000 products kicking around the system before the agency was set up, and we're now down to 200, that means we've been able to do something with these 800 that were kicking around.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: With all due respect, you're saying you're going into the electronic mode and all of that. Is it really so productive? You're saying that electronic submissions and all of that were supposed to make this vast difference. I'm asking you. I don't know. I'm not there. Do you really feel switching modes has had a good result?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I have just one point about that. We haven't actually switched modes yet.

Liz, maybe you can talk about that.

Mr. Elizabeth Javor (Manager, Business Line Improvement, Pest Management Regulatory Agency): I can speak to the electronic submissions. We're really in the process of working with industry and trying to get it in place.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: How long has this process been going on? When did you first think about this and how long has it taken?

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: I would say that last year, 1997, was the first phase. It's what we call a “process analysis”. This is within what I would call a major “re-engineering” activity. We looked at our own processes and had an outsider look at them. We also had several sessions with industry in order to find out what the needs were. We put it together and came up with process improvements we can make that meet our own internal needs to improve efficiency and also meet some of the needs that industry has. We're doing that this year.

In terms of electronic review, there are two components. There are our own internal systems and how we do things. Computers, the electronic system—that's one aspect. We're testing that this year.

A second component is what we call “electronic submission”, whereby a company would submit their review electronically. A lot of the pieces required for that are in place. Wendy Sexsmith has talked about a lot of the NAFTA activities in terms of harmonized format. We are working with industry very actively on the electronic submission side through Canadian industry associations, NAFTA, and under the OECD. That's in process right now. It's a huge change.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I have more questions. I thank you for that much information.

• 0945

I also have the estimates for the plans of Health Canada—right now I'm supposed to be at a meeting about Health Canada too—and Health Canada says it wants to amend the Pest Control Products Act and develop regulations to make the decision-making process for risk management more open and transparent. I don't think that should be any great revelation. That should have been there eons ago, and if this is the decision that has come down after three, four or five years, it's not—

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: If I could comment on that, this was one of the recommendations that came out of the pesticide registration review in 1990, no question about it. The new piece of legislation has been worked on since 1992. I think it's important to understand that it is a minister's decision as to whether he's going to table the legislation or not.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I have one last question before I run out of time. Health Canada also wants to develop and implement an administrative monetary penalties process to enforce compliance with the act and create a publication on compliance and enforcement. Is there any benchmark in there for the PMRA? Rather than pass it on to the consumer, is there some kind of check and balance within your own agency to maintain your own budget instead of going over budget all the time? There have to be some kinds of efficiencies and some kind of accountability here.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I'll address the last piece first. We have never gone over budget. There has been a shortfall. The budget remains the same.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: So what's the difference?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: There is a budget that we work within and that's the budget that was given to us. Part of that—and Liz can talk to that in a minute—deals with the cost-recovery component. The cost-recovery component in that—

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Didn't generate as much as you thought.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Exactly.

Liz can talk about that.

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: I'll try to keep it brief.

As Wendy mentioned at the beginning, the cabinet-approved budget given to us in order to fulfil our mandate was $ 34 million. One of the first things we did when the agency came together was to look at whether we could fulfil our mandate with a lower budget. We estimated at the time that we could do it with a $ 27 million budget.

With respect to the funding or the actual revenue we get, at the time the agency was first created that was all internal government funding. It had always been, since the days of the PRR. The expectation or the understanding that a portion of the budget would be funded through cost recovery came down through the consultations. With a $ 34 million budget, we would have been looking at $ 22 million in cost recovery. It was brought down to $ 12 million in cost recovery.

We worked with industry and producers to do what's called a “business impact test”, which told us what we could expect in terms of revenues. At the time, we asked for some sales information from industries, which could have given us the ability to project more accurately what the revenue would be. That was not provided. So the projections, which did not incorporate any sales information, told us that we could generate $ 12 million.

In fact, it turned out that through cost recovery we are generating only $ 8 million. Very simply, the reason is that many more products than projected have very low sales and are paying either the minimum or the reduced annual maintenance fee.

The Chairman: Next is Mr. Proctor.

Just as a point of clarification, when you mentioned the legislation, was the minister you were talking about the Minister of Health ?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes, absolutely.

The Chairman: Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thanks very much.

Just to stay on the same point, then, how do you envisage picking up this shortfall, this difference between what you expected and what you received on cost recovery? Are you going to increase the tariffs, as it were? Or did you say no to that?

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: I can address it from two points of view. We did have a shortfall for the last fiscal year. We addressed it through a re-profiling of funding that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada committed to in the spring of 1997. When I say “re-profiling”, I mean they had committed a certain total amount and we shifted some of it into last year.

• 0950

In addition, we were forced to delay the implementation of some of the new activities that were under way. For example, we originally targeted having the backlog done by the spring of this year. It's been delayed to the fall of this year. As well, we've delayed several of the new activities involving older products. That's one means by which we've addressed it for the most recent past fiscal year.

For next year, as Wendy Sexsmith said, we're not looking at increased user fees as an option. We cannot do that. The timeframe doesn't allow it. We're waiting for the third-party review to be done. It's just not feasible for this year. So what we're faced with right now—and as Wendy mentioned, I think, it's not a decision for the PMRA to take—is either increased departmental funding or a reduction in the program.

Mr. Dick Proctor: You mentioned that this third-party review is being done by a consultant. Who is doing that work?

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: With respect to the process by which the consultant was hired, terms of reference were put together with the involvement of economic stakeholders. I believe the minister's office was the focal point for that. A senior ADM is the project authority on the project. The means by which the consultant was chosen was the normal open bidding system, and the name of the consultant selected through that route is Patrick Nephin.

Mr. Dick Proctor: And that review is going to be completed when?

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: The target date is the end of June.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Does it look like it's going to come in on time?

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: My understanding is that the review is on target.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to the committee. It's nice to have you here.

You mentioned in your dissertation that the registration standard the PMRA is trying to achieve right now is 18 months. Is that correct?

You also said that there's a joint registration standard. You've set those targets at 12 months.

First, are you maintaining those standards? Are you able to register within those time lines? The second part of my first question is, what is this same standard that's been set in the U.S.?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod (Chief Registrar, Pest Management Regulatory Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The answer to your question about whether we are meeting these standards is yes, generally. We have the submission types divided into what we call “categories”, and in the simplest terms, that means small, medium, and large submissions. We monitor against those performance standards. Certainly on the larger submissions that we describe as the “category As”, we are meeting those timeframes in the Canadian context.

Moving over to the joint reviews, to date we've had limited experience there, but again, we have met timeframes in each case. I'd also mention that there are various steps in the review process, each one of which has its own time standard. The objective is to track performance as we go rather than waiting until we get down to the five-yard line and finding a problem.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So what you're saying is that within the 18 months there's a flow chart and at certain times within that registration flow chart it should be at a certain level.

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Exactly.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So if there's a blockage there, then, you can identify what area the blockage is in.

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Exactly.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Have you by any chance found any of those blockages?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And have we corrected those problems?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Now for the second part of the question about U.S. registration standards and time lines. What are the time lines for the U.S. registration?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: There isn't an equivalent standard of the same nature that we have.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: All right. Can you then tell me how long would it take to have a registration done in the United States, starting from scratch?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: I can give you an estimate.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Please.

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: It would be between two and four years.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Between two and four years in the States for the same registration process that has an 18 month-standard in Canada? You're saying it would be two to four years in the States?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't think industry shares that particular view.

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: I think we'd better clarify how we measure standards.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I think we'd better.

• 0955

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Eighteen months is the standard that has been set for a submission that is complete and can move through the system without what you called a blockage. If we get a submission in here—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have many examples of that actually, Mr. Chairman, where in fact—and I won't call it an excuse—the rationale was that the application was not submitted in the proper format. It was not submitted with the proper data; therefore, you don't start the time ticking until you get to that level.

But in fact it has been 12 months, 14 months, or 18 months before the industry gets to the level that you've required for the application.

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Correct.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. So we have taken the 18 months further, unless it comes....

So we don't know what the Americans' standard is, but we think it is two to four years.

Let me turn to the minimum-use regulation, which is very important, by the way. You said there is a 100% increase in the minimum-use registration, and I congratulate you on that. How long does the minimum-use registration take for a product coming in as an application to your department?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I think you're referring to minor-use registration?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm sorry—minor. It's minor-use registration.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes. Wayne, do you want to take that?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Go ahead.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Okay. My understanding is that it's about a year, 12 months.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. So the same thing for a minor use to be used in a very minor context in some of the specialty crops, for example, with which I know Jake and I are familiar, would take, again, up to 12 months? So it would be the same as the joint registration time lines you have?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I just have one other question, if I may, Mr. Chairman, and that is going back to the $ 4.5 million that was the shortfall, not an overexpenditure, but a shortfall in the revenues. You gave three options.

You said that increasing the user fees is not an option. I take it that this is because you've reached that point of diminishing returns where in fact you're not able to use any higher fees. I think that was part of the problem initially with the budget, if I'm not mistaken.

The second was more dollars from the department. I appreciate that. That's a political decision that's going to have to be made.

Then you said reduction in the program. I would just like you to expand on that in about 60 seconds. What do you refer to as reduction in the program?

Are you suggesting that the standards of 18 months and 12 months would then be extended, and the backlog of 1,000 would then be put back into place? Alternatively, would you rather look at the efficiencies within the department to try to reduce some of your operating costs and still continue with those standards?

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: I wasn't quite clear on the problems with the budget, but I take it that we've addressed the $ 4 million shortfall well.

With respect to reductions in programs, I've mentioned some of the areas on which we were instructed to move, and we have not yet done that. They primarily fall within the area of the older product. We're putting in place efficiency improvements.

Regarding the timeframe for the use in terms of the major re-engineering activity we're undergoing in terms of the processes plus the harmonization, we're looking at about a five-year timeframe to do that.

So we will start to see the efficiencies yield benefits very slowly, probably next year. Then it will escalate, and we'll see some major efficiency improvements that will actually let us do the same amount of work for an improved efficiency.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, but effectively you said that if you don't get the money from government, if you can't raise more money from user fees, then the program would have to be reduced? That's basically what you said, correct?

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: Yes. And there are various options, one of which would be to increase the performance targets.

Much of this is not a decision that we would be taking alone within the agency. We'd be looking at what the options are and proceeding from there.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I take it we will get another round, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to pick up right where Rick left off.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Chicken farming.

Mr. Murray Calder: Well, it's a great profession.

An hon. member: Pork-barrelling.

Mr. Murray Calder: Actually, what Rick is talking about is that in my other life I am a farmer. One of the things I heard in this conversation so far that I'd like to clarify is that farmers don't have a grace period with the bank.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: That's right.

Mr. Murray Calder: Just very quickly, to bring this right back up, and for my understanding, I have a problem right off the bat with this being in the management of risk to health, because I find it's a little more difficult to find information on it.

The PMRA was short $ 4 million. Actually the short $ 4.5 million came out of the Department of Agriculture, to take and cover that shortfall. I have a problem with that, because that was $ 4.5 million that could have been spent in other programs in agriculture.

• 1000

Basically, the reason why you're short is because you're short on maintenance fees, generating funds, and of that, I believe about 47% of those fees come from zero sales products, which average a fee of about $ 75. That was originally intended to collect $ 12 million in fees, but it only collected $ 8 million; therefore, we're $ 4 million short. In fact, on page 53 of part III of the estimates, underneath “Health”, you're projecting an expected revenue of $ 10.4 million for 1998-99, 1999 to the year 2000, and 2000 to 2001, and yet you only collect $ 8 million in fees. That means you're still going to be short $ 2.4 million all the way through.

So this isn't something we've looked at solving. You're actually projecting losses over the next three years, and of course from the discussion I've heard so far, we have only three ways to solve this: user fees, government funding, or program cuts.

I have a problem with user fees because that makes us uncompetitive. I have a problem with government funding because that means we're going to be cutting other programs to pay for this. I also have problems with program cuts, so we're into the final or the fourth option, which is better efficiency in this. I'd like your comments on that.

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: You've raised various points. One was the funding provided by Agriculture. That was done at the time of the cost-recovery consultations. The reason for that funding injection from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada was to reduce the PMRA cost-recovery fees by 25%. So it's not an addition to the budget of the agency. It was a means by which to keep the fees down for farmers.

I think we all agree that the options we're looking at are not very good. In terms of the efficiencies, I think a lot of what we've been talking about today reflects the fact that we are already seeing efficiency improvements. Bringing down the backlog from 1,000 to 200 clearly is an efficiency improvement. Bringing our time lines down from what I've heard were in the order of four or five years—I don't know the exact number—down to 12 months or 18 months, is clearly an efficiency improvement.

We have very clearly tried to listen to our stakeholders and put the priorities where we've heard they should be, which is on submission review and getting products on the market at the same time in the U.S. and Canada. I think we've heard from our farmers that this is a real need they have, and it's where we've put the focus.

In conclusion, we have been and continue to put efficiency improvements in place. However, we expect that we're going to be seeing many more efficiency improvements in the coming years.

Mr. Murray Calder: I hope those efficiency improvements are going to make up that $ 2.4 million shortfall each year.

But let's talk about the efficiency improvements.

My figures on the backlog are a little bit different from yours, but not a whole lot. I had the backlog being from about 914 down to 300 over the past year, which is still good, and you're going to use electronic submissions to reduce the 300. But you've just told me too that there are no electronic submissions and the plan for that is going to be incorporated over the next six years.

The question would be, how are you going to have paper submissions and electronic submissions if you don't have anything in place over the next six years? Does this mean the backlog is going to be re-profiled into old submissions?

• 1005

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We'll just talk about the backlog for a minute. The backlog was around 1,000, and we're now down to 200. We've just knocked off another 100. We expect to be out of the backlog by September, as I said.

The issue of electronics submissions does not really relate at all to the backlog issue. It's sheer grunt work. It's paper stuff and people evaluating and making decisions. That's a complete and separate issue from the electronics submission thing. They're not related. We're going to be long out of backlog before the electronics submission process comes into place.

That would be my part of the response. Liz, if you have anything else to say....

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: No, that was perfect.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Do you find the amount of pesticides being reduced?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Do you mean pesticide applications or their use?

The Chairman: The overall use in Canada.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I'll make a couple of comments on that. We're one of the two developed countries in the world that don't collect pesticide sales data, so we have no real way of determining that. It's something that government directed us to do and we're in the process of working on building that piece of data.

Generally speaking, in the world today the use is not necessarily going down; it's going up.

The Chairman: Why is that?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I can speculate, and some speculation could be that agriculture is more intensive, it's growing, that kind of thing.

The Chairman: But when you have these advances in biotech where you don't have to spray your potatoes nearly as often now, or your canola or whatever, you would think the amount of sprays being used would go down.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I think as countries, and certainly under OEDC, we're looking at seeing whether or not that can be true in the future, and through integrated pest management we're looking at all uses of all technologies together, not just pesticides. I think there is a real hope that we will see that, but it isn't necessarily what the world statistics are showing at this point in time.

The Chairman: Mrs. Ur has some statistics here showing agriculture pesticide use down 30%. And that comes from Ag Canada.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes. It all depends on where you get your data, I guess.

The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's something I'd like to follow up on. We have a thing on the farm whereby if the farm wife wants to nurture her relationship of love with her husband, the best way is through his stomach, not through his heart. When spring rolls around, you would be surprised at how many good breakfasts at no cost are given to farmers by chemical companies and fertilizer companies.

How much of that do you experience in this pest management control? As you saw last night on the news, our good friends ADM were fined pretty heavily for price fixing. This is something I have a very strong feeling is happening in the chemical industry and probably in other industries that provide us with the inputs. Is your problem not getting the revenue from cost recovery, which we've heard is about $ 4 million short, due to there being persuasion that it's not properly dispersed between public good and private good? Are you being manipulated into giving benefits to certain players in the industry and probably losing revenue because of that?

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: I would say no. I would not attribute the problem to any of that. I would attribute it to incomplete information that we obtained through the cost-recovery consultation when we were attempting to project the revenues. When I say incomplete, I mean we were missing sales data from companies because that's the piece of information we needed to accurately project the maintenance fees. So this is the cause of the shortfall; it's that the projection didn't match with what we're seeing in reality. Many more products are paying the minimal fee of $ 75, which means there are either no sales of the products or they are in the order of a few hundred dollars. Many of the products are paying lower than the cap of the maintenance fee, which is $ 2,690.

• 1010

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Is it intentional that they don't supply you with those figures? Otherwise, it's negligence, and why would they be doing it?

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: Well, I don't know why. We did request that this information should be provided. The indications were that we would be able to do a projection without that information. I think it's information that companies feel reluctant to provide.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Have you ever thought of putting some penalties on these people if they're not quick enough to provide you with that information? The farmer pays for it in the long run, as you know.

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: Yes, I would say that we're too late. It's too late right now. We've got a fee structure in place that will never let us generate the revenue we need.

We do now get sales information for those companies who apply for a reduced fee. So for the ones who are paying the reduced fee, we do get the information, as they are required to provide it in order to qualify for the fee. But as far as being able to correct it, we're into the reality of cost recovery and it's too late right now.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: I'd like to direct your thoughts towards biotechnology. How much competition is there between that type of knowledge or implementation in destroying certain weeds or bugs? I'm thinking especially of nodding thistle, which is an American weed that's very noxious, and also kochia and leafy spurge.

I know from some test plots in Manitoba that they had certain bugs that would destroy the nodding thistle and also the leafy spurge, but those projects seem to have died. You don't hear about them any more. Is that due to chemical companies running interference? Were they not successful? They looked very encouraging.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I can comment a little bit on that. This is a natural type of bio-control or classical bio-control to which you are referring that lets bugs out to eat something. One of the issues there is that there's very little money for research in that area. The people who do the work there are very concerned about that fact. It's a very different type of area because there's no money to be made for classical bio-control.

Mostly it's done through research in Ag Canada or the academic institutions. It's a bit gratuitous because they bring in the bugs and they kind of let them loose, be it bugs or whatever. There's no real incentive for companies, because if it works as a classical biological control, you kind of let them loose once and that's it. So my understanding from the research community is that this is part of the issue.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Well, wouldn't it be an issue for the Department of the Environment to look at? It would be a tremendous asset to take some of the chemicals out of our environment if these projects worked. If they looked like they were going to work very successfully—

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: —then why should chemical companies fund that? Why shouldn't the Environment people fund that?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I guess I'm not saying chemical companies should fund it. All I'm saying is there is not a private business incentive to move in that direction.

One program that has been very successful—you may be aware of it—is the SIR program in B.C. That's the sterile insect release program. A number of agencies have funded that, including Environment Canada, the B.C. government, Agriculture Canada, and so on. The issue there is sterilizing the insect and letting it go. It's the codling moth that we're dealing with out there. All of the communities have been heavily involved, and it's a very successful program I think in B.C. But one of the big issues that they have had throughout that is funding.

The Chairman: Just to clarify, in the AGCare report, these are Ontario statistics.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes. If I can just make a comment, my information is really based on sales reports as opposed to real-use reports. So certainly the sales in the world are going up. This is just to clarify that.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Going back to the industry side of it, how would you describe your relationship with industry? I appreciate the fact that a regulatory agency and industry are going to be at loggerheads because obviously your mandates are different to a degree, a big degree.

• 1015

How would you describe your relationship right now in the new program of the PMRA in terms of the new efficiencies you've developed? How would you describe your relationship with industry?

Mr. Wendy Sexsmith: Wayne?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first word would be “professional”.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's a fair answer. Now let's go beyond the professionalism and find out exactly how the relationship is going.

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: I'd say it's businesslike. We have different perspectives, obviously, as regulators versus industry, but I believe there's an appreciation, understanding, and respect for each other's position.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Do you find that the working relationship is improving or has improved since the PMRA has been developed?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: I would say yes. The reason I give that answer is that in major submissions, I think there has been a significant process and progress in moving forward. The example of the joint review would probably be the first one that comes to mind. As for the mainstream submissions, the large submissions that we're doing, yes, there are some speed bumps in those, as you pointed out.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Let me just touch on that. Your criteria have been set down with respect to the formatting and development of that submission. As for the larger corporations, have they bought into those criteria, or are they saying that perhaps your criteria are maybe a little bit more than what's required, or perhaps they haven't caught up to the industry today? Has that comment ever been made?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: I would say that they have bought in.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Was it because they had to or because they liked the system?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: They like the system when it gives results.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Well, it gets results because if they put it in front of you properly then you can walk it through the system a lot easier, but that's not my question. Have they bought in because they like the formatting and criteria set down, or are they doing it simply because it's demanded of them from your agency?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: I think there is support for the criteria that have been set down. These are not just local criteria invented in Ottawa.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's where I was heading. Okay. This is good.

I have one other question, Mr. Chairman.

Consider the backlog of 1,000 or 983, or whatever the number is that Murray wants to quote. It went from 1,000 to 200. Of those 800 that were backlogged, were most of those dealt with efficiently, and were they approved, or were a lot of them sent back because they didn't maintain the criteria and formatting you asked for in the application? I guess the question is, how many of the 800 were approved, how many were unapproved, and how many were sent back?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: It would be a mixture, and I don't have the exact numbers.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Would you say that more than half were sent back because of the formatting?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I couldn't even speculate, actually.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is there any way we can get that? It's very easy for a department to say that they've taken a backlog from 1,000 to 200. I would like to know what the status of those 800 were.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We can get those figures, so it's not an issue. I just don't happen to have them.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's fair ball. I don't expect that you do have that, but it would be interesting to know if you bumped 500 back and said they should resubmit and reapply under a new format, as that's a whole different issue than saying you approved the 800.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes, we'll certainly get those figures back to you, but it's important to understand that for some of those, the company lost interest. Some of them didn't have all the pieces and didn't want to provide the pieces, so they would get sent back that way.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Fair ball, but it would be nice to know the numbers.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Yes, okay, we'll tell you. There's no problem.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here.

I do congratulate you on clearing up the huge backlog, but you mentioned a good number possibly being returned back. If they're being returned back for housekeeping for resubmitting, I wouldn't call that clearing up the backlog.

We talked about the shortfall in revenue. You said, looking at how that could be addressed, that there would be no increase in cost recovery or user fees. Now I wonder why that would be. I'll start with that.

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: I can answer that. In order to make a change in fees, the fees are in regulations, and it requires quite a lengthy consultation period. The annual fees are based on the products registered on April 1 of the year. Clearly, it would not be feasible to implement them until 1999 at the earliest. So we're facing this fiscal year with no increase in fees.

The second point is that we're waiting for the results of the third-party review. That's one of the areas they're going to be looking at. It's an area in which we're very much interested in seeing what the recommendations will be.

• 1020

I think there are some very legitimate concerns about the user fees, in particular from some of the smaller companies and on some of the smaller products. We know this is an area that's to be addressed. I would expect that the person conducting the review will have discussed this with industry and hopefully has some very good information to tell us—you know, if there should be a change in fees, if there has been a major impact identified, and that type of thing.

I think all of us are waiting for the results of that to give us some recommendations.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you. I'm sure there may be exceptions where there could be an increased user fee, but sitting around this table, we've all heard the horror stories of how small companies have had their existence threatened in Canada and North America by your agency, by its work, and possibly by its inefficiencies. This has been a very hot political ball game, and it needs to be more so. Our farmers and their lifestyle in rural Canada are being threatened by...by whatever.

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: I appreciate your concern. I think user fees are not pleasant from anyone's point of view. I as a consumer, if my library charges me user fees, am not very impressed.

Cost recovery is a government policy, and as bureaucrats we implement government policy. Treasury Board is currently looking into this, I think certainly from the point of view of the farmers. There is a cumulative impact assessment being done. I know from having input to that from the PMRA point of view that the portion of the fees that relate to agriculture, the PMRA fees, are very tiny, but I would expect that this would be a means to assess what the impact is.

As well, we've asked that if there is an example of a product that's lost, or there is something, please let us know. I personally have not yet heard from a user about a specific product that's been lost or a company that's been abolished due to the fees, but if there is an example, we'd like to hear that.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I honestly and sincerely appreciate your concern, but I'm just thinking about one seed company. We won't mention any specific companies. I'd hate to have to see it brought to your attention after the company went out of business. A major small company, known throughout Canada, especially in Ontario, was threatened with this.

User fees cannot necessarily be passed on in rural Canada. This sounds like, sitting around...as I've travelled across the country...as we look at the financial mergers. I mean, in many cases user fees can be passed on. The library is not a really good example—and certainly I buy more books than I read—because in agriculture, we're now struggling with Mother Nature in Saskatchewan and eastern Ontario and the Ottawa Valley, and it's a very fragile environment.

I hope we are all working together to preserve the lifestyle of the family farm, because we may need these smaller operations in the future.

The Chairman: We'll have to ask Paul Martin that, Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick: No, it isn't just Paul Martin.

The Chairman: It's his people.

Mr. Larry McCormick: It starts right here, with these people. It sounds—and I'm coming from the government side—like a thing called firearms registration. If our bureaucrats can't operate within a set budget, then there's something wrong.

I come from small business, and when I went over my budget, who had to recover it? I did. I was responsible. I just think we have to ask many bureaucrats to be more responsible.

• 1025

Do I have a few more moments left, Mr. Chair?

The Chairman: Yes, you do.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you.

When we import food into Canada, such as tomatoes from Mexico—and I have some very good Mexican friends—we wonder whether we're checking enough of the product shipments to make it safe for us to consume those products here in this country.

We have agreements set up with other countries—and I sure don't know how it all operates—where we check only a certain percentage of all commodity shipments coming into this country, especially the ones we would consume, because we respect the other countries and their operations. We've clarified all that. But if we have all that set up so that we can accept from around the world the end product for consumption—and they're loaded with chemicals, of course—why can we not more easily move to accept the studies and the research and the check-offs and everything that has been done by the United States and elsewhere and eliminate much of the duplication you're enduring?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: You made a number of comments and showed a degree of frustration in terms of the speed with which progress is being made, and I can appreciate that. I myself, in my role within the agency, sometimes feel that we're never moving as quickly as we would like or as quickly as many of our clients would like.

To try to come back and illustrate your point, sir, the idea of being able to accept other people's work and other people's information and to provide the level playing field to provide common tolerances is what the harmonization objective is all about. I accept the observation that the process isn't moving fast enough, and probably never will move as quickly as we all would like, but I really do believe that's where we have to continue to place our emphasis.

If you look back on the past practices, in my view, a key reason for the frustration we hear, not only here today but also in other locations, has been a fragmented approach. Companies tend to submit applications for approval to the largest markets. That very often is the U.S. in a North American perspective. It could be quite different if it were a cereal crop, or canola, for example.

So if you look at the thing on a North American basis, you'll see very often that the large market is targeted first. That makes good business sense, as you would quickly point out.

The idea of having all of the players come together to look at a North American approach and to gain the maturity we need to reach the level that you attribute to the food system, that's certainly the direction we're moving in. A tangible example of that has been mentioned several times this morning. I think we're going to see more of that.

We have additional submissions in that stream that are coming to us together and at the same time, and I really believe that's the track that is ultimately going to get us out of the aggravations we're in.

If we live in the past, in the two-track system where we're always catching up or attempting to catch up on submissions that have been looked at in the U.S. last month or last year, I don't think we'll ever get ahead.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Everybody has a question here, and we don't have that much time left.

Madam Alarie, Mr. Proctor, Ms. Ur, Mr. Calder, Mr. Bonwick, and Mr. Hoeppner.

Mr. Larry McCormick: What about Mr. McCormick?

The Chairman: And Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Oh, thank you.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: When a product is registered and is used either in the fields or in a greenhouse and the farmer has tremendous problems, in real life, he goes back to the company which sold it to him. The company tells him that it's a registered product and they all go to court.

Do you have a complaint management process? Do you get complaints? Can you be held responsible or are you exempt from liability?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: It is a difficult question to answer; there is no exact and completely right answer to it.

• 1030

[English]

The situation you describe is really a civil matter between a buyer and a seller, and in that situation we really don't have a direct role or involvement.

Do we have responsibility? I think that answer would be yes. We try to provide complete and balanced information to any party that finds themselves in that type of civil dispute. But in terms of resolving those disputes—perhaps by persuasion or through consultation—in terms of a legal mandate we don't have that role.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Therefore, registration is not an absolute guarantee for the client.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Yes, that's correct. There are always uncertainties. There are always doubts. No one can provide infallible assurances of infinite safety, whether it's to a crop or to the environment. There is always some potential risk in these types of situations where biologically active substances are being used.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: You know that in people's mind registration is an absolute guarantee. That might be the problem.

There is one thing that I did not understand well and I would like you to give me an explanation. Basically, the Pest Control Products Act and the PMRA are managed by the Department of Health. When there is a shortfall, why is it allocated to Agriculture Canada?

[English]

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: You're right. The act is under Health Canada and the deficit does come under Health Canada.

There was a completely separate issue of some funding. Agriculture offered to provide some funding just over a year ago because they wanted the cost-recovery fees to be reduced to lessen the impact on farmers. That was a very separate issue. It had no impact on our budget. It just allowed us to lower the fees so we ended up generating the same revenue; it's just that the source was from Agriculture Canada rather than from user fees.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: Is that clear?

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks. I have just two questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ormrod, I want to go back to the exchange you had with Mr. Borotsik in his first round of questions. If I understood you correctly, he was asking you the difference between the Canadian and the American timeframes, and Mrs. Sexsmith had said the goal is an 18-month performance standard on a complex product. You suggested the comparable American goal might be two to four years. Did I hear it right?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Yes, you did.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay. Maybe it's our built-in inferiority complex on this side of the border, but I think also when the CFA was here a couple of months ago, that is not the spin they would have put on it. I think they told the committee—and I'm looking at an exchange between our esteemed chair and Ron Cameron, who is the chair of the horticultural group—there's more flexibility in the American system. They do things differently.

Can you just elaborate on that?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: It's true and correct that they do things differently in the U.S. If you try to compare our system to theirs, there are some differences.

Our efforts under NAFTA over the last three years have been to try to identify what those differences are, understand them, and bring them to common ground so we can do the business in the same way, to use your terminology.

• 1035

I think that's extremely important for the joint review, the harmonization, and the North American level playing field question. If we can't conduct our business in the same fashion, we will not be able to get to the same goal line at the same time, which I think is everyone's objective.

In finding that common ground, there are three key areas. Number one is what tests are required. Do we require special testing in Canada that wouldn't be required in the U.S.? Each of these questions, in and of itself, is complicated because that type of question has to be posed in about five different scientific disciplines, beginning with product chemistry, moving to environmental effects, occupational exposure, residues, toxicology, etc. It's not really a simple thing to do; nevertheless that is the objective.

Wendy mentioned a couple of cases where we already are completely harmonized and others where we are well on our way.

Having achieved the objective of us all having the same test requirements, we then have to agree on how these tests can be conducted. If you conduct it your way and I conduct it mine, which way is right? We have to find that common ground.

Finally, with that in place, the third key component is the risk assessment. If we've had common studies done using the same methodology, how is that information interpreted by the relative experts?

Those are the inherent challenges.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Will this study by Nephin Consulting be made available to this committee?

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: My understanding is that the report will be publicly available.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I think I heard earlier it will probably be completed in June. Would we expect to get it shortly thereafter?

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: I'd like to point out that the project authority for the study is Robert Lafleur, who is one of our senior ADMs in the department. He would be the one to provide the report. I can certainly look into that and have an answer for you.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Because of the interest generated here this morning, it's obvious it might be a good idea to come back once we have that report and have had a chance to look at it.

The Chairman: We shall do that.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mrs. Ur. Mr. Calder.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question was asked and I don't know whether it was totally answered. Could you give me the loss percentage or, as you like to say, shortfall percentage regarding the health aspect or the agricultural aspect in that $ 4 million shortfall? Who absorbed what amount in Health Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada?

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: The entire shortfall is the responsibility of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. We had a one-time offer from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food to provide a total of $ 15 million to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, spread over a certain timeframe. We just shifted a little more of that into the first year. So the total amount of that one-time dollar commitment has never changed. Whatever happens now with the budget is fully under Health Canada.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: What is the percentage?

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. The percentage of what?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I mean the percentage from Health Canada versus Agriculture Canada. Where did you recoup the $ 4 million from, or where are you going to?

Ms. Elizabeth Javor: We have a budget of $ 27 million and a shortfall of $ 4 million. The current proposal is that we would recoup some or all of it or make up the difference between the shortfall and the budget. That's handled through our own department. It's my understanding that Agriculture Canada is not involved in that.

• 1040

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: One last question, and this is on a specific note. What is the status of UpBeet?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to make it short.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I hope so, and positive.

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: I'm afraid on the latter point we're going to come up short. We don't have a submission with us on UpBeet that will allow us to review that product and make it available for the current season. That has to be my estimate.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: That's because Du Pont does not have sufficient information?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: I don't want to point fingers.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I find this interesting. It's not the first time—I'm sure they've made submissions to bring a new product on line. You would think these companies would be very versed in what they have to fill out to make sure that product comes on line. I don't think these people should be that inefficient and be around so long that they would not know the loopholes they have to go through at this point.

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: I respect and appreciate those questions, and I really do believe that this is yet again an example of the fundamental difficulty we have that leads to some of the frustration we hear here today. It's a situation again where a product was registered previously in the U.S., a bit of a larger market. I'd have to say it's almost a token market here in Ontario at the moment—

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: But growing.

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: But growing, no question. But we're in the situation of trying to play catch-up ball. There is a need emerging locally, a need that has already been served in the U.S. A submission had been filed x years ago in the U.S. and completed, etc. All of a sudden it comes over here requiring virtually instant attention, and the incentive to do that is not nearly as strong as if the product were moving on a North American plane, where it could be treated at the same time in both countries.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: With all due respect, sir, it will never be at the same strength, because we don't have the same volume of farmers using the same volume of pesticides. That is not really an adequate answer. We'll never have the same volume request by Canadian farmers. We don't have those total numbers here.

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Your point is quite true and correct, but I do believe there are incentives there that will encourage and are encouraging manufacturers to take a North American approach. In situations where a North American approach is taken, we're demonstrating that the company can gain entry into the market in both countries in a lot less time than dealing with each country individually. I certainly agree with you that many of our horticulture, fruit, and, in this case sugar beet, crops are token markets relative to global markets and those in the U.S. So if we weren't offering an incentive on both sides of the border, I think your point would be completely correct.

I believe we're offering an incentive to all parties. In addition to the timing and market entry question, there is also the question of tolerances in MRLs. If we don't get together on treatment of submissions and registrations, a tolerance may be set in Canada for canola or in the U.S. on whatever, sugar beets, apples, carrots, whatever it may be, and we will have a trade irritant problem. I think all of these merits of coming together on a larger playing field are beginning to be recognized, but not quickly enough, and I accept that.

The Chairman: Murray.

Mr. Murray Calder: I'm going to follow along on the same process. It's my understanding that there's really a 737-day process for registration through PMRA, and within that 737-day process is where you have the 18-month turnaround. But if you don't make the 18-month turnaround, you still have the rest of that time period to go. Am I right?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Could you just explain “the rest of the time period to go”?

Mr. Murray Calder: Well, your 18-month turnaround on registration is set within the parameters of 737 days, which it should take you to take and register. Right? You're saying that while we're trying to be efficient enough that we make it in 18 months, if we don't make it, we still have the rest of that time to get it registered. Am I right in saying that?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: I'm not sure I understand the question clearly, but let me—

Mr. Murray Calder: I don't know how I can make that any clearer. I'm talking about performance standards here. Right now you're saying your performance standard on the 1,000 files that were backlogged, the 18-month turnaround, is what you're trying to live by. But the total pitch of this whole thing is you still have, you could use, 737 days to register. Am I right in saying that?

• 1045

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Let me try to respond and see if I can get to the nub here.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay.

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: First of all, the 18 months has nothing to do with the backlog. The 18-month figure relates to new submissions, major submissions, what we call category A.

Secondly, 18 months is in fact the actual window of time ascribed to the review process itself. They raise some up-front time, in terms of submission entry into the system, and screening to determine if we have a reasonable quality submission. There is some tail-end time, if I can put it in that context, of a PRED, a public document outlining the regulatory proposal, the rationale for receiving commentary back and actually reaching a final regulatory decision.

So your arithmetic in tallying up the total score is correct. That 18 months, if we have a quality submission, is the target we try to meet. What is often confused is the 18 months as the total picture; that isn't really a precise definition.

Mr. Murray Calder: I'll rephrase my question, then.

You have a new product that we want to have registered in Canada and you would tell us that you're going to try to do an 18-month turnaround to have it registered. What happens if you miss the 18 months? What happens if you don't get it registered in 18 months?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: If at any of these steps the submission is deficient on information, or there are queries or inquiries, whatever, the submission is returned to the company with the questions that are raised: what about this piece of data, you don't have that piece of data—whatever it may be.

The process subjects us to timeframes for responses and it also subjects the companies to timeframes for responses. You have so many days to give us an answer on this question or that question. If they're not able to re-submit information or clarification within the prescribed timeframes, then the submission has to restart the process. It doesn't sit idle beyond the prescribed timeframe for a company response. That's a highly structured and disciplined process that I believe is necessary in a cost-recovery environment.

Certainly, there have to be performance standards imposed on us as bureaucrats in the agency. I think it's equally fair, if we're to try to be efficient, to impose some timeframes for responses. If we don't, we have submissions that rest with us for indefinite periods of time. That was one of the strongest criticisms of the old system and one of the fundamental causes of the backlog, which has been discussed here today several times.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay.

Let's talk about the backlog, then. If you come up with some questions and decide that you have to go back to that company for some more answers, does that file come off when it goes back? Does it sit there in limbo, or do you pull that file from, say, the 200 or the 1,000 you had and send it back to the company for more answers? How does that work?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: For an older submission that we're trying to clean up from the historical record, when the file is reopened, an assessment is made as to what information is required, or can it be completed on the spot? Is the information there that would allow it to be completed?

Mr. Murray Calder: You're saying now the file has been reopened, so obviously at some point in time the file had been closed. When it's closed, does it come off the backlog list? When you say it is being reopened, obviously it's been closed; when it's closed, does it go back to the company and does it come off the backlog?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: In the older files we have, that constitute the backlog; they were never sent back to the company. That's why we have a backlog. As we go back to look at each one of these as individuals, we have to see what's in that file and what the history is. If it's a situation we can resolve on the spot, obviously we will. The more likely approach is that some question has been asked and additional information is required, and that is flagged for the company. They're given a period of time to respond to that. If they don't respond to that within that period of time, the submission goes back to them.

• 1050

They are the same types of principles I was discussing in the mainstream submissions.

Mr. Murray Calder: Can I have one quick question here?

The Chairman: Make it very quick.

Mr. Murray Calder: I'm sorry, Paul.

You obviously have new files coming in and old files right now that are in the backlog. I would like to know the percentage of people who are dealing with the new files coming in and the old files that you're currently trying to clean up.

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: I can't give you a sharp answer on that. I just don't have that type of analysis in my mind. I can give you some estimates on that later on, but I just don't have that figure. I'm sorry.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was going over your written submission leading into my question, there is one sentence in the second paragraph that I think.... It is what your agency has been given as a mandate or a goal. The first sentence clearly outlines it. That is that the goal of the PMRA is to protect human health and the environment while supporting the competitiveness of agriculture, and so on.

In the Georgian Bay area, my riding, the Georgian Fruit Growers' Association have suggested one of their concerns is—and I'd like your response if it's actually taking place—that there's product coming across our borders, either from the U.S. or Argentina or other countries, that is treated with pesticides, which allows them to be more competitive in a global market and in our own markets. Presently we're not able to use these in order to heighten our level of competitiveness. Is that a fact?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Yes, there are cases where that's certainly true.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: That answers the question.

Is there a mechanism in place to fast-track the approval process for those pesticides to shrink it down considerably? I come back to your mandate, and that is to ensure the competitiveness of agriculture. Is there any mechanism in place to fast-track those types of pesticides?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: The most common approach in these kinds of circumstances would be the minor-use programs. That is really a two-track situation where we have a product currently registered in Canada and there needs to be a use expansion for whatever reason—from apples to peaches or vice-versa. There is a special process for that type of product, that type of situation.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I guess my question is, whether it's apples or whatever.... Apples happen to be relevant to my particular situation. If you have apple producers in Thornbury who are trying to be competitive in a global market and they don't have access to the same pesticide as a producer in California, yet the producer in California can sell in Thornbury just the same as the producer in Thornbury can, is there any way to fast-track that pesticide they're presently using in California through our system?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: As I was indicating, there are a couple of routes that are open. One is the user-requested minor-use label expansion. A second one is the user-requested minor-use registration. A product that is not registered at all in Canada can be registered here based on U.S. information and with a shorter timeframe. So there are two programs there that are available for that need.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: How quickly can this fast-track mechanism happen?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: It can happen quite quickly if we're lucky, but the target is a year.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Quite quickly?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: If we have a data package on file that we know, if the residue information is with the application when it comes in, it can happen in two or three months. If there is none of this information, then it's going to take longer.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Lastly, do you ever access the information through the approval process that was perhaps done in California? I don't mean to pick on California, or any other state for that matter, but if we're using this example, if it has gone through the approval process in California, do you reinvent the wheel up here in Canada or do you use the testing that has already been done?

• 1055

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: No, we certainly don't reinvent the wheel. We look for the information that exists and we look for it in summary form, particularly from the U.S. EPA, because that allows it to be dealt with more quickly.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: In an ideal situation that can be done in two or three months?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Yes.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I quickly want to follow up on what Mr. McCormick was getting at: government departments running interference with each other.

I'll give you a little example. This happened before the Liberals became the government; it surely couldn't happen now.

An hon. member: No, never.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: In 1991-92 we had the issue in Manitoba of unlicensed Grandin wheat coming into the province, being grown for seed. The customs and revenue people were going to investigate or lay charges. All of a sudden, everything was dead. Later on when it became really public—and when I got elected I got some information through the information act—we found out that it was Ag Canada that allowed this to happen; they had customs and revenue back off because they wanted this wheat tested, as higher-yielding, lower-quality wheat.

There was no problem with that, but the fusarium hit Manitoba in 1993-94. This wheat was devastated; it wasn't resistant to it, so we lost 50% or 60% of the crop. It was covered by crop insurance, whereas the other licensed grains maybe had 10% damage.

How much of that is going on? There was solid evidence that this is what had happened. I'm wondering whether you're running into these programs when it comes to testing chemicals or other biotechnologies. Other departments have different agendas and different objectives.

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: If the question is leading to competing interests, there are plenty of those that play in pesticide regulation, there's no doubt about that.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: That's what I'm wondering.

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: There is the need situation such as you described in fusarium, such as we're looking at at the moment in dwarf bunt and so on. There is the equally important need for health and environmental protection. Somehow these situations have to be balanced and handled in a timely fashion. What is that appropriate balance? That's always the challenge. Our system—

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: But it's there, right?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Yes, I think I could only say that it is there, no question. Do we attempt to respond to those? Yes, we do. We have recognized that the dwarf bunt situation coming up is really a potential problem. We're making special efforts to try to accommodate a product for that need. Sometimes we're able to do it successfully; sometimes we're not able to do it successfully. We can't simply wave a magic wand and make those things happen without consideration of the other interests such as health and safety.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: So really this does deter from your efficiencies at times. You couldn't be blamed for allowing a certain registration, so you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: It seems we could be blamed for almost anything.

The Chairman: Yes, you are.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: But our challenge is to try to strike the right balance. It is not an easy task to try to satisfy interests. If we were to respond in a completely unbalanced fashion to a pressure point such as fusarium, such as dwarf bunt, whatever it may be, without any reasonable consideration of health and safety, environmental protection, worker protection, etc., then I think we would be quite open to any criticism that was put upon us. Our role has to be one of achieving a position where we've considered these respective points of view, entertained public input wherever we could, and then reached what we believe is the best balanced decision and defend that decision with facts. Very seldom do we find a position that is universally acceptable and championed by all parties.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Would you say, then, that maybe you're more a mediator between other departments?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: No, I wouldn't really say that. We do try to achieve a best balance decision in the overall interests of the country, but in terms of being played off between departments, I don't think that's a fair assessment.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. The rest of the morning belongs to Mr. McCormick.

• 1100

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you for being here. You've certainly been on the firing line.

When these tomatoes come in from Mexico, for example.... I remember one day I was in Nogales, Arizona. We had walked across the border into Mexico—and I know you're not a truck fan—but for hours and hours all these powder-blue Peterbilts, all chromed up, were coming. There was an endless number coming. They were still coming when I left. Then I realized how large agriculture is besides our prairies and that. So I finally asked what they were drawing and it was tomatoes. I guess there's a lot of hamburgers eaten in the United States.

As the tomatoes cross our borders, we wonder what's on them. Is it—I'm sorry, I should know—Health Canada or Agriculture Canada who checks? Who has the set-up that checks the product coming into Canada?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has that responsibility now.

Mr. Larry McCormick: And they're under—

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: It's an agency, but I think they were tied in with the ministry of agriculture.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I was just wondering on the way down the road...I thought they were. I was not leading up to anything.

Again, there's probably some overlap or else a lack.... A year ago our colleagues were very concerned in the Niagara area, in the soft fruit industry, that the season was starting in days and weeks and they'd been waiting for a year and a half for a certain product to get approved. Whether the product got approved by you people in time or not, for all the right reasons, I don't know, but nonetheless we in Ontario were going to eat the American product grown in New York State. That's another part of the frustration. Whether we'd have less of that if it were under the same umbrella, the same roof or not, I don't know.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: To comment on that, food commodities that come into the country must have an established acceptable residue level so that it is safe for Canadians to eat.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you. I appreciate that, and you're right to point that out; yet the residues are from the same pesticide we cannot use here, as my colleague, Mr. Bonwick, said. That's what seems so very unfair. How can we, the government, justify that to our producers?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: There would be a couple of pieces of that. One, Canada may not have had a submission.

Mr. Larry McCormick: It doesn't matter about submission or whatever. How can we justify to our producers that we can allow that to happen, that we're letting that same possibly very toxic substance be used at a safe level but we won't allow it here?

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: I know you've heard it a bit ad nauseam this morning, but that's the sort of thing we're trying to get passed through the harmonization process.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: On a point of information, how many new files do you have on an annual basis on average? You have backlogs and you have present logs. How many new files would you have on average?

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: Roughly 2,000, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Roughly 2,000 per year. And you're able to handle that reasonably well.

Mr. Wayne Ormrod: That would be our answer, for sure. There are other answers to that question, too.

The Chairman: You wouldn't mind a little bit of help there, I suppose.

The meeting is adjourned. We'll probably see you in the fall. Thanks very much for coming in.