AGRI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 5, 2002

¿

0945

The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.))

Ms. Anne Fowlie (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Horticultural Council)

The Chair

Mr. Charles D. Milne (Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Charles Milne

The Chair

Mr. Bob Friesen (President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture)

Ms. Anne Fowlie

The Chair

Mr. Hilstrom

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mr. Hilstrom

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mr. Hilstrom

Mr. Charles Milne

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ)

Mr. Bob Friesen

Ms. Anne Fowlie

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Mr. Bob Friesen

¿

0950

Mr. Charles Milne

Ms. Anne Fowlie

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Mr. Peter MacLeod (Executive Director, Crop Protection Chemistry, CropLife Canada)

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

¿

0955

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton--Kent--Middlesex, Lib.)

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Charles Milne

Mr. Peter MacLeod

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

À

1000

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mrs. Ur

Ms. Anne Fowlie

The Chair

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Proctor

Ms. Anne Fowlie

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mr. Dick Proctor

À

1005

Mr. Peter MacLeod

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Bob Friesen

À

1010

The Chair

Mr. Calder

Mr. Charles Milne

À

1015

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills--Grasslands, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Charles Milne

Ms. Anne Fowlie

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mr. David Anderson

Ms. Anne Fowlie

Mr. David Anderson

Ms. Anne Fowlie

À

1020

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney--Victoria, Lib.)

Ms. Anne Fowlie

Mr. Mark Eyking

Ms. Anne Fowlie

Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ)

À

1025

Mr. Charles Milne

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

À

1030

Ms. Anne Fowlie

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington, Lib.)

Ms. Anne Fowlie

Mr. Larry McCormick

Ms. Anne Fowlie

Mr. Larry McCormick

Mr. Charles Milne

À

1035

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mr. Larry McCormick

The Chair

Mr. Charles Milne

Mr. Peter MacLeod

À

1040

Mr. Bob Friesen

The Chair

Mr. Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Bob Friesen

À

1045

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Bob Friesen

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Peter MacLeod

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Peter MacLeod

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Peter MacLeod

Mrs. Ur

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Charles Milne

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Bob Friesen

À

1050

Mr. Proctor

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Charles Milne

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Bob Friesen

The Chair

Mr. Hilstrom

The Chair

À

1055

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

---

NUMBER 041

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 5, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0945)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're looking today at the study on the registration of pesticides and the competitiveness of Canadian farmers.

    I assume Mr. Friesen is coming, but in any case, we'd like to welcome Mr. Milne, from CropLife Canada. Mr. MacLeod is not here yet, but we do have another at the table, Madame--

    Ms. Anne Fowlie (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Horticultural Council): If I could just interject here, my name is Anne Fowlie, and I'm the executive vice-president to the Canadian Horticultural Council.

    Mr. Friesen called me late in the day yesterday and asked if I would attend this morning and be willing to offer some comments. So I expect he'll be coming; he didn't indicate otherwise.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Milne, are you ready with your presentation?

     Mr. Charles D. Milne (Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada): Yes. Originally we planned that Mr. MacLeod was going to share it with me, but I suspect his travel arrangements have kept him late. I'll proceed, and if I can draw him in when he arrives, that will be very helpful. Thank you.

    The Chair: The floor is yours.

    Mr. Charles Milne: Mr. Chair and committee members, CropLife very much appreciates this opportunity to testify to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

    CropLife Canada, formerly known as the Crop Protection Institute, is a non-profit trade association representing the manufacturers, developers and distributors of plant life science solutions for agriculture, forestry, and pest management in Canada.

    We were founded in 1952. CropLife Canada is the voice of the industry and a source of information on crop protection products and technology. Our association's mission is to support sustainable agriculture in Canada, in cooperation with others, by building trust and appreciation for plant life science technology.

    Our business thrives when agriculture thrives and falters when agriculture falters. It's critical to Canadian agriculture that technologies within our business are available internationally, but frequently not in Canada. Our agriculture producers work hard to be competitive, and we have a responsibility to ensure that our regulatory system is competitive, as well.

    CropLife Canada members are among the largest group of companies under Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and comprise the most frequent submitters of product submissions to the PMRA. Given this, CropLife Canada participates in a variety of PMRA-related processes, such as the Economic Management Advisory Committee, the Pest Management Advisory Council, the healthy lawn strategy, and the minor use initiative.

    I'd like to draw the committee's attention to how our industry's technologies assist Canadian agriculture's ability to contribute to the broad principles embraced by this government and stated in the throne speech. They are: confirming Canada as a major innovative technology-based economy; affording Canadians the opportunity to be globally competitive; and maintaining the renowned Canadian quality of life.

    Creating a globally competitive environment that fosters innovation and evolves with new technologies should be a way of conducting government business, not a financial obligation. If departments such as agriculture, health, environment and trade appreciated their respective interdependence and demanded more synchronization among each other, Canada could enjoy a regulatory system with the following attractive characteristics: an efficient predictable regulatory system; accountability to the public and to the industry it regulates, to draw upon Canada's competitive position in agriculture and harmonize both within and internationally with approaches to regulation; transparency to the public and the industry; encouragement of innovative development and continuous improvement; avoidance of the creation of trade barriers and support of trade liberalization; and support for objectives of environmental sustainability.

    CropLife Canada believes that the aforementioned eight characteristics are imperative in achieving the Prime Minister's vision for innovation, as well as being aligned with the June 29, 2001, communiqué by the federal and provincial ministers of agriculture, who reinforced the quest to establish an environment for innovation in all sectors, including agriculture.

    As a starting point, CropLife Canada has identified five situations requiring immediate attention to attain those larger goals for Canada's innovation and prosperity.

    First, we feel there's an incomplete mandate. We need to restore the benefit value portion of the PMRA's mandate in regulatory decisions. The benefit and value of our technology is missing from the PMRA's mandate. Risk management, human health, and environment safety should be the primary functions, but the societal value must play an important role as well.

    Second is funding and accountability. Adequate funding is essential for a properly functioning regulatory system. Accountability is needed to make sure the core regulatory activities are a priority and performed efficiently. Eliminate the elusive accountability within government, for the performance and productivity of regulatory bodies.

    Third is uneven and incomplete regulatory harmonization under NAFTA. NAFTA has enabled the plant science market to consolidate and rationalize product development, manufacturing, and distribution. However, unharmonized regulation has created a technology gap within Canada and between NAFTA countries that is ever-widening.

    The fourth point is on minor use and diversification--a predictable regulatory system that speaks to the need for tools to deal with the high value-added low-acreage crops, and the need for multiple tools in that tool kit. Canadian growers have diversified and pursued niche, value-added, and specialty markets, only to discover that they have fewer tools and technology to support them than their competitors enjoy. Competitive agriculture now and in the future demands a competitive regulatory system. The chronic minor-use problems must be resolved.

    Finally there is government communication. Government must take a more active and higher-profile role in assuring public confidence in Canada's regulatory system. Informing the public on how government regulates, the type of scientific data evaluated, and the risk assessments used is essential to enhancing public confidence and allaying unfounded fears.

    The government does a commendable job of evaluating data and assessing risks, but the communication aspect is often lacking. There are overarching implications of technology regulation upon trade, R and D, investment attraction, environmental sustainability, and the competitiveness of Canadian agriculture.

    CropLife Canada believes that a new overall government perspective is needed toward greater regulatory synchrony, so a vision for Canada as a technology leader and global trader, as expressed in the throne speech, can reach its potential.

    Regulatory synchrony must prevail across all government departments, to create the environment for such goals to be achieved. Optimizing Canada's regulatory environment requires discipline, communication, consultation and clear thinking, not just money.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Milne.

    Bob Friesen will be presenting for the CFA.

    Welcome. The floor is yours.

    Mr. Bob Friesen (President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and my apologies for being a little late. I also apologize to Mr. Borotsik because he had to actually announce that I was late.

    It's certainly a pleasure for me to be here today. It's also a pleasure to have with me Anne Fowlie, from the Canadian Horticultural Council. As all of you know, the Canadian horticulture industry is an extremely important part of agriculture in Canada, and they have many pesticide issues. I will ask her to make some comments after I've finished my presentation.

    Nicole Howe is also with me. She is in charge of the pesticide file at CFA.

    To begin, I would like to say that I agree with many of the things Charlie just presented. It's good to know that while there are certainly some differences in the objectives we try to achieve, for the most part CropLife and members of CFA are headed down the same road and have the ability to build some very important alliances.

    Canadian farmers are quite willing to be accountable and responsible for the environment and environmental sustainability. To that end, they are also interested in making sure they use only the level of pesticides they need to use for efficient production of our food products. They are willing to reduce and use more benign products.

    If you look at the OECD numbers, since 1987 pesticide use in Canada has dropped by 20% of active ingredient. That does not show the decrease in toxicity levels; that is only a volume of active ingredient, and I dare say the level of toxicity has probably dropped even more than 20%, as a result of farmers using more of the benign products that have been put on the shelf.

    Farmers are clearly interested in having a regulatory system where they can use pest management tools in a timely fashion; use pest management tools at a competitive price; and have as many tools in their tool box as possible, so they can continue to efficiently produce their products, while making sure, for themselves and the public good, they are being as environmentally sustainable as possible.

    It's clear, when you look at some of the production practices farmers have adapted to, they have really improved what they do. For example, in 1988 and 2001, Saskatchewan received less rainfall than they did in the two worst years of the Dirty Thirties, but we did not have a dust bowl this year. That's just an example of some of the changes they have made

    When it comes to re-evaluation registration, we have been emphasizing very much that while the suggested amendments to the Pest Control Products Act talk about re-evaluation and taking harmful chemicals off the shelf, they do not emphasis enough that at the same time we have to make very sure the products that are taken off the shelf are replaced with alternatives. Alternatives must be registered, perhaps even before products are pulled off the shelves, so farmers have all the choices possible before the re-evaluation is done.

    We've been adamant in EMAC that we don't sacrifice resources that should go to registering new products for the re-evaluation process. Both of those processes must be adequately funded because they go hand in hand, and one cannot be done effectively without the other.

    Charles also mentioned harmonization. Harmonization is an extremely key issue. I'm going to leave it for now and ask Anne to make some comments.

    Ms. Anne Fowlie: Thank you very much, Bob.

    Certainly for horticulture, as for all other sectors in Canada of agriculture, crop protection products are of major importance. But for the horticulture sector, again because of the minor use aspect, it is a major issue.

    Horticulture in Canada represents a value of over $4.2 billion, or a little more than 14% of agriculture. It is the fastest growing agricultural sector in Canada and is highly diversified. It includes over 120 species and sub-species of fruits, vegetables, and herbs. Horticulture also includes the floral and ornamental sector.

    There's no question the consumption of fruits and vegetables has a major benefit to health. Groups such as ourselves, the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, and the Canadian Cancer Society also promote that fact. So I think that's another key thing to remember.

    Members of CHC have a long history of leadership in adopting and promoting good farming practices, and we're committed to growing the safest, most wholesome and best quality crops anywhere, as are all producers in Canada. The issues of accountability Bob referred to are certainly not issues. Willingness to embrace change and new technology is not an issue either. Certainly agriculture is willing to do that.

    We feel we're doing a great job of producing high-quality safe produce for Canadian consumers, but we could do an even better job if we had access to leading-edge technologies available to farmers in other countries. The system we have in place needs to ensure that reduced-risk pesticides, already approved for use in other countries such as the United States, are available to Canadian producers.

    Access is not possible without a process and a system based on logic, science and a commitment to serve the best interests of the public. For example, if a product is registered for use in the United States and applied to crops that are exported to Canada, it would seem logical that a Canadian farmer would be able to use that same product here. Often that is not the case.

    Farmers across Canada are implementing the techniques of integrated pest management, also known as IPM, to control pests. Horticulture and indeed all of agriculture must have access to the newer products that have been specifically adapted to support IPM practices.

    The overall result will be to target and approve control of specific pests, and reduce the amount of pesticides used in Canada. Bob referred to some figures and that's encouraging, but I think we could do a better job. Consumers, farmers and the environment will all benefit.

    We feel that the future of Canadian agriculture is in jeopardy, as we cannot continue to remain competitive under the current system. Our counterparts in the United States have access to and use products on fruits and vegetables exported to Canada that are not registered for use here.

    It's important to remember, when talking about competitiveness, that $3 of every $4 you and I and other Canadian consumers spend on fruits and vegetables are for imported products, most of which are from the United States.

    The Canadian registration process for crop protection tools needs to be harmonized, so products submitted, evaluated and registered in the United States are also registered for use at the same time in Canada.

    I'm certain you've heard of the harmonization efforts underway, joint reviews and so on, and we're really glad to see them. However, we have found that a joint submission doesn't necessarily always mean you're going to have a joint registration at the end of the day. There are various reasons for that, and we feel there could definitely be some improvement there.

    This past November, the Canadian Horticultural Council held a press conference very close to here and released a document called Crop Protection - A Better Future for Canada. I believe many of you have received that. In it we highlighted recommendations we felt could address and provide solutions to many of the challenges. Many of those recommendations do not require legislative amendment or a new act. I think that's another important thing to recognize.

    The issue of crop protection technology is one of the key components of producing horticulture crops, and indeed all crops. The speed at which we are seeing new and exciting science emerge is astounding. I think we are all here today to ensure that these new environmentally friendly technologies are made available to Canadian growers.

    We've heard reference today to minor use, and I think it's important to recognize that minor use of a pesticide is defined as a necessary use of a pesticide for which the anticipated volume of sales is not sufficient to persuade a manufacturer to register products for sale in Canada. Often, because of the size of the sector or a commodity within a sector, the economics are not necessarily there to go through the process to register a product in Canada. We suggest things that could be done to accept, recognize, and acknowledge data from other jurisdictions, and so forth. For horticulture, again, most of our uses are minor, so it is a big subject matter for us.

    The limited availability of minor-use pesticides in Canada is a chronic and increasingly acute concern among growers. We feel that industry and government are at a crossroads, and when you're at a crossroads it's usually a good time to try to come together and do something.

    In 2000, the United States EPA registered new pesticides and approved new uses of existing pesticides. That provided their growers with access to 901 new uses for minor crops, while in Canada, from March 2000 onward, the number of registrations was only 24.

    Bob referred to the situation in B.C. We're certainly familiar with it, and that was indeed the case. The product had spinach and some other products added to it, and that led to another issue regarding the risks and so on. Again, we feel there are some things that need to be recognized there, perhaps with domestic use, because it's often filled up with imports.

    Canada's life sciences strategy to harvest and develop a broad range of food and non-food bio-products suggests we increase production of specialty and niche-market crops, the majority of which will require minor-use pesticides. Therefore it's imperative to develop and implement solutions to the challenges we face.

    As Bob indicated, there has been some progress. While we appreciate that and the working relationships we have with the PMRA, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and other stakeholders, we feel we need to build on the alliances to move this ahead.

    Another thing I would like to point out is that in the United States, the registration process is greatly facilitated by an independent office, or coordinating vehicle, called IR-4. It coordinates the necessary research work to move the new technologies through the different stages of the registration process. The office has strong communication ties with growers, the United States Department of Agriculture, as well as the U.S. EPA. There's a commitment to working together to resolve those issues. There's no question that a similar office or vehicle in Canada would greatly improve the situation.

    In fact, in December there was a major minor-use workshop held here in Ottawa that was championed by CARC through Agriculture Canada. We participated, CropLife participated, and CFA. All the stakeholders in Canada came together to that workshop. Interestingly enough, at the end of two days, the recommendations that came out of that workshop very closely mirrored the document we had released prior to that. We didn't work in isolation on that, so we were very pleased to see that.

    One of the major recommendations was to have some type of coordinating body in Canada. With the money Agriculture has been forwarding to PMRA for the last number of years, I think there are funds within that envelope that would definitely be a good start to that. Whether or not we'll be able to access any of it I don't know, but it would certainly be helpful.

    In the short term, we must find ways to harmonize data requirements between the two countries, so manufacturers are not dissuaded from coming into Canada because extra data is required. Harmonization of similar crop zones throughout North America, based on science, is essential in reducing registration costs.

    Perhaps I will stop there. There are certainly many issues, and I recognize that many of you are not strangers to them either. Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Howard, would you like to lead off?

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Yes, please.

    Good morning. It's great to have all of you here. Of course, we've met all of you before, and you're certainly welcome back.

    You've identified a lot of the issues, mostly negative, on the operation of the PMRA . You need to have a good working relationship, or the best you can, with government departments, so we recognize that. It's the official opposition's job and duty to hold the ministers accountable for the operation of their departments.

    I have been saying for some time that the leadership of the health department, with regard to the PMRA, has been a disaster. I've pointed that out in the House many times. In order to see if my belief in my statements is true, Bob, you were saying the CFA has a fairly good working relationship with the department. That's great, but Allan Rock was in charge of that department, probably from 1997 on--I could be corrected by the government members here.

    Can you give me a specific example of action they took, between 1997 and the appointment of Anne McLellan as minister, that solved major problems that were identified by your organization and others in the PMRA? Are those problems still kind of there, and do you have hope that they're being worked on? Is that clear?

    Mr. Bob Friesen: I'll answer that briefly, and then I'll ask Charles, who also sits on the EMAC, to comment.

    On the biggest improvement that has been made in our involvement with the EMAC, which is kind of a management watchdog over the PMRA, at the last meeting we had, they illustrated to us their percentage of successful registrations in a 12-month period. There has been a considerable improvement there. I believe they were running a success rate of between 80% and 85%, so that has improved.

    But let's not discount the importance of adequate funding for the PMRA. The $3 million the PMRA received from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is very important. At this time we have no indication that's coming back. The PMRA cannot afford to lose any funding; in fact, if anything, it should be increased.

    But the successful registrations and the timelines on registrations have improved. They're not yet where they should be, but they have improved.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We've had reports that it takes up to four years to get chemicals registered. Charles, could you comment on that? Are you satisfied that the PMRA is working fairly well and these problems will be resolved shortly?

    Mr. Bob Friesen: First of all, I didn't say we are satisfied with the way things are running. I said they have improved from where they were.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay. When it comes to budget, here again you could talk about the PMRA, but it's really the minister who's responsible for getting that money. I could give some examples here. The application by the Farmers of North America to import generic Roundup is an example of rigid bureaucracy in the PMRA. We have the issue of the Lindane product that is still being used here and not being used in other countries. Where's the review of the pesticides currently in use in Canada? That was supposed to be reviewed.

    My point is that Minister Rock has not done a particularly good job of moving the PMRA, because with every presenter who has come forward in the past, and even today, optimistic statements are not being made that these problems that have been identified are going to be resolved in the near term.

    I've asked in this committee to have Minister Anne McLellan come before us, because she's the new health minister. I need to use this committee meeting as a bit of a forum, because it's going to be publicly reported, in order to pressure this minister to take the action Minister Allan Rock never did. Here's what I'm going to say, so Anne McLellan, the minister, can read it and others can examine it.

    Minister Anne McLellan is not the farmer's friend. She brought in and has pushed the cruelty to animal legislation that is anti-farmer. Now we have Minister McLellan in charge of the PMRA, and she must come before this committee to explain that the PMRA has some problems; it is working well in other areas; and she has a plan for the future to fix these problems.

    Having said that, what specific action, Charles, do you think the department could take on the PMRA that would make things better? Can you say a couple of concise things that would make the PMRA a better operation, assuming that the minister is going to show good leadership?

    Is there a problem with the scientists in there who do this testing? Do they, for instance, bring their own personal agendas to the scientific examinations? Are some against pesticides generally, and as a result they don't want to register anything?

    Mr. Charles Milne: Mr. Hilstrom, maybe I could approach this in a number of ways. First I'd like to say that CropLife Canada has never found a problem with the quality of the science at the agency. That hasn't been an issue. Some people may have a different view of that, but we haven't found there to be a problem with the science at all.

    The administration of the organization is another story. On the kinds of things we'd like to see happen, that was the gist of what I opened with this morning. There are five points in particular we'd like this committee to pick up on.

    There is the incomplete mandate--restoring the benefit part of the equation of the PMRA's mandate. There is the funding and accountability. We want to see them adequately funded, but we want to see them accountable. We don't want to see those extra funds go to the nice-to-do projects. We'd like to see them go to the core activities. As Bob said, that means not just delisting products, but bringing in better products to replace them. Third is the incomplete harmonization under NAFTA. That whole process has become institutionalized. We're talking about working as a continental force, but when we ask, what does that mean, does that mean we will accept maximum residue levels from America, we're told we're not going that far. Well, how far are we going?

    This process has been meeting all across North America for six years now. They may as well be having awards banquets and team jackets because it's not leading to anything other than twice-a-year get-togethers.

    On minor use and diversification, this government has over many year--subsequent governments as well--encouraged farmers into higher-value-added, diversified enterprises. Farmers have gone there, big time, only to find out they aren't as well supported as they were in the commodity business, where they were getting whipsawed. So we're incomplete from that standpoint.

    Finally, on communications, it's fine for us to go out and say we think the science at the PMRA is okay. It's fine for Bob or Anne to say that as well, but we're seen as being those with vested interests. It has to come from the objective third party. The government itself has to say, hey, here's what we're doing, folks, in the interest of your health and safety.

    So those are the five things I would ask you to go after.

    On a new minister or previous ministers being in charge of the PMRA, I would point out that when Mr. Rock came in, I guess it's typical and human nature initially to hit things with a lot of enthusiasm. He took the industry forum, which had become dysfunctional to the point where people were almost throwing chairs and screaming at each other, and turned it into this economic management advisory committee that has some reasonable decorum. It doesn't go as far as we'd like it to go and it could it be better, but at least there's a respectability there.

    We're getting performance data, as Bob pointed out, but when you're measuring a glacier, sometimes you have to use a micrometer, and that's the frustrating part of it. Things aren't moving that quickly.

    We have a lot of difficulty reconciling some of the performance data we see from the PMRA with data we have accessed through our own files and various measures, even access to information. We can't reconcile the performance they're putting forward.

    So the performance has improved. Has it improved as much as they say it has? I'm having difficulty buying that one.

    Another thing that was done in the early days of Rock being in charge of the department was the Nephan study. It was a study done to see how the Canadian system compared with those in the U.K., the U.S., and Australia. It was a good study. We had a lot of enthusiasm for that study when it was initially done. Unfortunately, it's been rationalized away and the good parts of it have been ignored. Now it seems to be part of history that nobody seems to remember.

    There was good work done there; I don't know that another study needs to be done.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Howard, you always get the last word.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The presenters have such good information to give the committee that it's nice to see you give them a little extra time to explain their points.

    The Chair: Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of those who made presentations.

    I didn't hear anyone mention organic farming. In terms of pest management, have you focused only on traditional farming, and not on organic farming?

[English]

    Mr. Bob Friesen: One of the things we're encouraging is integrated pest management, which includes biological and physical processes for pest control. There's much more to it than using chemicals in the entire integrated pest management. That's why we would like to have far more support in trying to move producers into that stage, on research, production adaptation, etc. So it does include biological.

[Translation]

    Ms. Anne Fowlie: The apple growing industry is already moving in this direction.

[English]

B.C. has been a leader in using pheromones to interrupt mating patterns, and all that type of thing. Those types of things may be available, but we may not always have access at the same time. Other jurisdictions may have those techniques approved prior to our being able to access them. So that becomes an issue.

    But Bob is right that we definitely encourage embracing new technologies and new opportunities.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I would be nice if we could pinpoint the source of the problem here in Canada. As you already mentioned, some products are registered in the United States. Canada imports products that are not even registered here in our country. Why is Health Canada lagging behind when it comes to pesticide registration?

    What's happening at the department? Are there not enough employees? Is the research process taking far too much time?

    What's the real reason for the department's inefficiency?

[English]

    Mr. Bob Friesen: With regard to the U.S.--and I think all three of us have mentioned this--I don't think we can mention harmonization often enough. They talk a lot about harmonization, but they're not willing to harmonize at every level. The last time I pushed it was at a cross-border meeting. We had both the U.S. deputy and our own deputy there.

    We pushed harmonization, and they came back with the sovereignty issue. When it comes to trade negotiations and veterinarian equivalency for the livestock industry, we're willing to go there. When it comes to pest management and our regulatory system, suddenly we get the sovereignty issue.

    Until we get harmonization.... Of course, we may have different soils in certain areas of Canada and a different climate, but they have the zone maps available for the efficacy testing they do in the U.S. In Canada, it's part of the law that you have to do efficacy testing before you can register. In the U.S., it's voluntary. We don't think there's any need for efficacy testing, because if the product isn't any good, the company isn't going to register it. Again, when it comes to minor use, where registering minor use is almost as arduous as going through a full registration, the harmonization issue is extremely important. We need movement.

¿  (0950)  

    Mr. Charles Milne: I'd like to add that one of the things you'll no doubt have heard, or will hear from the PMRA, is that they can't register what hasn't been submitted. Frequently submissions aren't made on minor uses, because the provisions for accommodating minor uses are so draconian or so convoluted that it is not attractive to use. So I think the issue here is that the provisions for accommodating for minor use have to be looked at.

[Translation]

    Ms. Anne Fowlie: If you will permit me to add something to that...

[English]

    When I look through a lot of the recommendations, one of the themes that seems to come up repeatedly is increased flexibility, a willingness to change. I think that's a big part of what we're looking at.

    Bob referred to the sovereignty issue. I was at that meeting as well, and it does come up. But again, the willingness to change, to develop that mindset and that attitude.... There's no question that certainly we don't have the resources. Nobody does, whether it's PMRA, CropLife, or any of the others. There aren't the resources to go out there and constantly redo everything that has been done or recheck it.

    Under the URMUR program, one of the recommendations we had was increased flexibility from the PMRA in setting data requirements and accepting reviews conducted in the United States and other OECD countries under emergency registrations. In considering an emergency registration request, if no Canadian data can be submitted, data available from other countries, as well as regulatory decisions made in other countries, will be accepted in Canada. That theme comes up often, so I think that's part of it as well.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: In Quebec, a growing number of municipalities are adopting by-laws banning the use of commercial pesticides on lawns. Even the Supreme Court has recognized the right of municipalities to pass by-laws of this nature. What other lawn care options do people have if pesticides are banned?What products do you suggest people use? Whom should we be pressuring on this issue? Are there enough pesticides to treat all of the golf courses in Quebec? After all, pesticide use is banned on lawns and golf courses.

[English]

     Mr. Peter MacLeod (Executive Director, Crop Protection Chemistry, CropLife Canada): One of the issues with the, if you want to call it that, urban debate on pesticide use is that there has been a lot of information given and information gone through that really goes back to the health and safety of the products that are used in a home environment. We believe the health and safety assessment that the PMRA does on these products adequately assesses the risk. If the products are registered in Canada, the risks have been deemed acceptable in Canada and are safe for use that it's made for on the label.

    As far as societal values are concerned, on whether an individual wants to control a weed on their lawn, that is their own choice, but health and safety--

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I'll stop you there, because even products that have been approved for us by Health Canada have been found to be a health hazard, this according to a team headed up by Dr. Jean-François Émard of the Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal. Studies have found that when people apply pesticides on their own lawns, higher concentrations can be measured inside their homes. According to the American Cancer Institute, when exposed to these high levels of pesticides, children are six times more susceptible to contracting leukemia and four times more likely to suffer from soft tissue sarcoma.

    Even though their use has been approved, pesticides have been banned by municipalities for posing a cancer risk to children and all adults. Even animals are susceptible. We're told that pesticides are completely safe, but I'm sorry to say that isn't true.

    Municipalities are passing by-laws even though pesticide use has been approved. They feel the risk is too great.

    Something is wrong somewhere.

¿  (0955)  

[English]

    The Chair: We have to move on, but we will come back.

    Rose-Marie, I think the others will allow.... You are the one who asked for this meeting, and if Murray and Mark are comfortable, would you like to lead off with the questions?

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton--Kent--Middlesex, Lib.): I'd be honoured, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

    I first have a comment to the opening remark of my colleague from the Alliance as to the duty of the opposition keeping the government in tow on this. I can tell you, since it's being broadcast, I believe as an elected member of Parliament, being part of government, it is my duty as well to keep government on top of this issue. That is why I'm certainly pleased that you are able here to present and to hear your frustrations as well.

    Mr. Friesen, I appreciate everyone's presentation, and in your presentation you said Canadian growers are often frustrated by the number of new products that are considered for registration in the U.S. regulatory system but not in the Canadian system, and Mr. Milne had answered a bit on that particular question. When I've gone to the PMRA on this time and time again, it always comes down to, well, it's an inappropriate application, they didn't follow through on process.

    So my question is, has there ever been a time analysis done as to application in the U.S. and in Canada, and how long it took for that process to be accepted in the U.S. versus Canada? We have to find out where the “weak link” is here and see if we can improve on that weak spot so that we can satisfy the frustration within our farming community. I say this because they come back and say, “You didn't make the right application, you should have gone here”.

    Mr. Bob Friesen: That's what they say, yes.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: These people have been in the business for ages. Surely to God they know by now where they have to put the application in.

    Mr. Charles Milne: That has been part of our frustration. Yes, over the years we have tried to do some comparative situations.

    The challenge is that we're always playing catch-up in Canada. By the time we know how long it took to be registered in the United States, it's already registered. So the frustration is that there are some fast-track provisions in Canada supposedly for joint reviews, as perhaps you have heard from the PMRA, but to qualify for a joint review, the submission has to be made simultaneously in Canada and the United States. Then there's the sharing back and forth.

    Typically, what we're catching up with is what they've already registered in the United States, so it's just to try to catch up with them. In those instances, yes, we live that frustration of saying, yes, it was incomplete, or what have you, but then we go back and say we submitted essentially the same package as was submitted in the United States, which they found acceptable.

    Perhaps Peter MacLeod, who is more directly involved with regulations, can speak to that.

     Mr. Peter MacLeod: One of the true success stories of the harmonization process, I guess, has been the joint review between Canada and the U.S., where they both receive a package of data and review it simultaneously and actually share reviews. But the fact is, of the new products brought onto the market in Canada, half the new products fit into the joint review program, the other half do not. In the U.S., it's only 10% to 20%. So the gap is ever-widening, as we were discussing before, in that in the U.S. it's only 10% of the products. There's an extra 40% that do not fit into the joint review program in Canada, so the gap is widening further.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Bob, are you going to respond to that? Were you wanting to respond to this?

    Mr. Bob Friesen: Yes. The other issue that needs to be mentioned is emergency use. I don't think either one of you mentioned the emergency use. I cite as an example, a few years ago when we needed emergency approval for a chemical to mitigate the damage of fusarium, we were in the U.S. and I believe their timeline on emergency use is 80 days. It takes an awful lot longer.... By the time we'd realize that we might need something against fusarium and by the time it would be registered for emergency use, it'd be far too late.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Also on that, do you feel Canadian farmers are losing export markets because of the problems in PMRA, resulting from PMRA lack of registration, not being as hastily approved as in the United States? Here's one area where we could level the playing field for our Canadian producers.

À  (1000)  

    Mr. Bob Friesen: The example I used with respect to the problem in B.C. in the potato industry had the potential to destroy an $8-million seed potato export into the U.S.

    When we lobbied for that one, we talked to safety net people, we talked to our trade people. We told them if we continued to develop our policy in silos without determining how the policies affected each other, then this is what would happen. Suddenly we have something that happens in PMRA that is affecting what our trade people are trying to accomplish. If we hadn't been able to rectify that situation, we could have very well lost that seed potato export into the U.S.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Are you saying that we don't have a sufficient number of people in the department who recognize the time factor in the agriculture industry? When a problem happens on a farm, we don't have a year or two to debate it. The problem is there. The product has to be there to eradicate that certain problem, whether it's for corn, tobacco, sugar beets, or whatever.

    Mr. Bob Friesen: My sense would be that in the PMRA administration there is some insensitivity to that.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: How can we improve that, then?

    Mr. Bob Friesen: One of the things we have encouraged very much is making sure that when we have an EMAC meeting, we have someone there from Agriculture Canada. The deputy did start sending someone to the EMAC meetings so that Agriculture Canada knew exactly what kinds of responses we were getting at those meetings. We further encouraged that they also send someone from the health minister's office to those meetings so that they realize that our frustrations aren't ill-founded and that we are trying to improve the industry as much as anybody else but that we do have some urgent issues that have to be addressed.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Do you think there's a problem with it being under the Minister of Health versus Agriculture, although Agriculture is considered to be a significant ministry. Do you feel that is a problem with the agency?

    Mr. Bob Friesen: Our feeling is that unless very strong crosswalks are built between the different jurisdictions--in this case between the health ministry and the agriculture ministry--and unless there's a very strong line of communication that is consistent and involves frequent consultation, that can definitely be a major problem.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Am I done?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay. Thank you.

    Ms. Anne Fowlie: I'd like to add one thing to your question about the competitiveness.

    The Chair: Just a moment. We work with time here, and in fairness to members, we're going to have to move on. We can get back to that later.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: You can talk to me afterwards.

    Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): We've had a very informative discussion. Why don't we let the witness answer the question.

    The Chair: It's out of your time. Thank you.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes, it comes out of my time.

    Ms. Anne Fowlie: All I was going to add is that if you can't produce a crop, you can't compete. If you can't produce that crop, one of the reasons being that you don't have the tools, then definitely it has an impact.

    On the emergency registrations, the big thing is recognizing data from other jurisdictions. Usually, an emergency registration is because something has just happened, something you hadn't planned on. So if the data exist, have a look at them. Consider them in the decision.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Picking up on that, Bob Friesen, you mentioned 80 days for the pesticide for fusarium. Do you mean 80 days for testing? What do you mean by that?

    Mr. Bob Friesen: I'm going to get my colleagues to perhaps respond to that in more detail. What they were telling us at that NAFTA meeting, which was in a summer when we were having serious fusarium problems.... Interestingly enough, that was the same summer when record levels of barley were being imported into Alberta, and we knew for a fact that this chemical had been used on that barley. Yet it wasn't registered for use, and we were having a really tough time getting an emergency registration on it. In the U.S. they have to have an emergency registration done within the 80 days.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Do we restrict products in the same way the Americans do if it doesn't meet our testing standards?

À  (1005)  

     Mr. Peter MacLeod: I can answer that. The U.S. has a number of types of registrations. The emergency type, obviously by its name, is an emergency use, and there is no alternative product that will amend the crisis if a crop should be lost if this product is not applied. In Canada our process is such that often in the same emergency use the data are not available or acceptable in Canada or the evaluation process is halfway through its stream or in some cases not even submitted to Canada. With the process the PMRA has right now, they cannot make an emergency registration on that part. So they can't make a decision in Canada as fast as they can in the U.S.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: I had an example last year--just in the honesty of this room and the fulsomeness of discussion--where pulse growers came to me in June and said, hey, we have a problem and the fungicide that we need right now is not working. I think the product they wanted was Quadris. I talked to the Minister of Agriculture. Within a week he had talked to the Minister of Health at the time, and the farmers requesting it had emergency use of Quadris and were very satisfied with the process of that.

    I'm not suggesting for a minute that we don't have a whole lot bigger problems. I am saying that in one instance where I came up against it, I found pretty timely action.

    Bob, on harmonization, I think I heard you say two different things. You said in your formal presentation that except for a few levels, we can harmonize with the U.S., and then, in response to Madame Tremblay, you said harmonization is extremely important and we need movement. It seems to me those two don't add up. Can you expand on that, please?

    Mr. Bob Friesen: In response to what you said earlier as to intervention in the emergency process, we would like there to be a much more efficient process right in the PMRA so that we don't have to go to the political level every time we need that.

    As far as harmonization is concerned, what I meant was that it seems that there's a willingness to harmonize on certain levels with the U.S., but in certain areas they pull the sovereignty issue on us.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: What do you mean by the sovereignty issue?

    Mr. Bob Friesen: We suggested at one meeting that we needed full harmonization. In other words, if a chemical is going to be a health problem to people in the U.S., it will most likely be a health problem to people in Canada. If it's a health problem to people in Canada, it's mostly likely a health problem to people in the U.S. So we could get much closer harmonization even on the health issues.

    We're saying, unless you harmonize everywhere, the part that you don't harmonize can still hold up the process so badly that the rest of the harmonization hasn't really accrued any benefits. When we suggested that, they said, well, we want to remain a sovereign country; there are certain decisions we have to make on our own without using other countries' information.

    My analogy was simply that we don't have that problem when it comes to veterinarian equivalency. We accept what they do in livestock processing plants in Europe, to a certain level. The process may be different in that plant. We say that it affords the same safety level as our standards do, and so we have veterinarian equivalency. I see no reason why we couldn't do the same thing in pesticide management.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Generic glyphosate was mentioned earlier, but there was no response or it was just part of the preamble. What is the CFA's position on the importation or use of generic glyphosate as opposed to the Roundup Ready that farmers are required to purchase from Monsanto?

    Mr. Bob Friesen: I'm sorry, I can't answer that.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: The expectation or the argument is that they could save $100 million a year if they didn't have to buy the non-generic product, and they're seeking permission to import the non-Roundup Ready and so far have not been successful in getting that.

    Mr. Bob Friesen: To my recollection, we haven't had a discussion on that, but I can certainly check for you and find out.

À  (1010)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Dick.

    Murray.

    Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I'll tell you, since 1995, my frustration level on this has gone right up to here, because as a member of Parliament, I don't know how many times I've come back and dealt with PMRA. We seem to have it on the right track, and we move away and deal with something else, and then, within six months, a year, Charles, you're back talking to me, and Bob, you're back talking to me. We still have a problem with PMRA.

    So how do we fix that? I see this right now not only as an issue with the Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture, but it's also an issue with the Department of the Environment, because our farmers here are using pesticides and drugs that are outdated.

    So how do we fix that? My idea on this would be to have an ombudsperson out of the Auditor General's office. The Auditor General being the conscience of the government and the watchdog, this would make a lot of sense. I'd like to see it so that if you're having problems, you don't have to bring members of Parliament into the loop right off the bat, it can go to this individual.

    I would say too, if you're going to see this ombudsperson, I want you to have your ducks lined up, so that you're not just going there whining; you're going there with a good, hard, solid case as to why this isn't going through. It brings the PMRA underneath the microscope much more than it is right now. That's my first comment.

    The other one is the registration fee. There is a clay product the apple growers wanted for their apples. It's used in the United States. As I did research into this, I found there had been applications done for research, but there had been no applications put in for registration.

    Basically, I would imagine, it would be because of minor use, also the cost of the registration. I'd like you to comment on how we can get around those problems.

    Mr. Charles Milne: Okay. I agree on your first issue of some type of oversight. Accountability has long been the rallying cry of this whole issue. It seems in the early days, in 1995 when the agency was created, there was a hesitancy to be too interventionist because it was supposed to be arm's length.

    A lot of time and issues have passed since then. I think there is the whole matter of having it accountable somewhere, and in the context, as a number of us have said, that they can't work in isolation. Decisions made, which may be well-intended at the PMRA, can sometimes create a trade irritant or an environmental issue. There has to be that synchrony that we were talking about earlier. It can't work in isolation.

    Getting back to this whole idea of Canada as a technology innovator, we have to have that kind of environment. So we can't put it all on the shoulders of one agency. If the one agency, though, were a sort of bureaucrat's Nirvana, where it's “You can't touch me”, because nobody would want to and it would be such a convoluted route they couldn't....

    So I agree, there should be some type of oversight. I think a number of us, through various processes over the years, have suggested there needs to be some type of dispute resolution without having to bother ministers and elected officials. There should be some other stage of the process to accommodate that, one that doesn't hold you hostage to the agency, where you feel that if you make a fuss there may be some issue that will be held in front of you in the future.

    Secondly, with regard to fees, yes, I think fees are part of it. But I think it's the minor-use process, the provisions for accommodating that. On minor uses, the fees aren't particularly huge. It's just that the processes for activating some of those minor-use provisions are terribly convoluted and time-consuming. There's a cost of time. So I think it's expediting that's needed.

    In regard to the whole fee issue, whether or not the cost recovery turned out to be a good idea, I guess there has been a lot written about that. We fear that perhaps the bean counting detracted from the time of the agency to get on with its core business.

À  (1015)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Murray.

    David.

    Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills--Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): We've had other witnesses come in and talk about the PMRA, and I remember one of them saying we had one of the best systems 15 or 20 years ago in terms of registration but that it's fallen behind and is actually one of the worst systems in the developed world, I guess.

    I wonder if you can talk about what went wrong with that. We've talked a little bit this morning about how they've improved the process with things like harmonization and the joint review process, but what structurally needs to change to improve that organization, do you think?

    We've talked process. What's structurally wrong with it that's brought it to the point where it is recognized as being very inefficient and way behind the times?

    Mr. Charles Milne: I guess one of the things we have to look at is, do we need a system as complicated as this for a market the size we have, with the initiatives to harmonize that we have? With the world becoming a smaller place through various communication devices, is the evaluation done in Europe or Australia or the U.S. done any less robustly than it would be done in Canada? Are we fighting to be fourth?

    Perhaps the level of scrutiny we give in Canada would make sense if we were the country receiving the registration for the first time. Many of you have heard me espouse this before, that if we wanted to be the best in the world and make a registration in Canada, like a Canadian passport, where once you've got it here you're welcomed anywhere and you've got advanced standing in other markets, that could overcome the fact that we're a small market country. If they could say, ``Yes, they're tough in Canada, but boy, you get it fast'' and it's respected, that when you've got that registration in Canada the world's your oyster, then it would make sense. Unfortunately, we're trying to be tough, but we're also the fourth or fifth country to see the registration, so it seems to be a little bit redundant.

    I guess one of the things is that you can still accept the scientific analysis that's been done elsewhere, because science is science. You can maintain your sovereignty by making a decision. You don't have to redo the science if you're confident that it's been done by people who are capable. Let's face it, how many places in the world can you get a PhD in toxicology?

    Ms. Anne Fowlie: I guess in just a few words, flexibility, a negotiable approach, things like that.

    Mr. Bob Friesen: I think another issue in structural is what Ms. Ur referred to earlier, and that's the disconnect between the different departments.

    Mr. David Anderson: I find it interesting. I jotted some things down earlier when you were talking about the need for a willingness to change and the ability to change, quick movement on things, quick research ability, fast decision-making, and now we hear about flexibility and being quick again at simplifying things. Do you think we're going to find those things in a government agency, or is there another avenue that we could use to review and approve products in Canada?

    Ms. Anne Fowlie: Again, I think part of it comes back to accountability, direction, the point about the ombudsman. There is a similar position in the United States. It was created last year. I'm sure it was done for a good reason. I think even on a bilateral level it would be good to have that.

    The whole issue of a vehicle to coordinate, some type of vehicle similar to what is not only in the United States--we hear a lot of talk about the U.S. IR-4--but there are similar vehicles in the U.K. and in Australia. Both those models were presented to the minor-use workshop here in December, so I think those are key things we need to take a good hard look at.

    Mr. David Anderson: Do you see the inefficiencies of the PMRA increasing pertaining to its costs? I guess I'd like to know if there are certain industries that you think are most impacted by that. Have any of you done a study at all of the cost of that to producers--inefficiencies at the PMRA costing producers money? Have you done any work on that?

    Ms. Anne Fowlie: Not detailed, but certainly the time gaps in lack of access or seeing our competitors. In whichever jurisdiction, there is a price tag associated with that.

À  (1020)  

    Mr. Bob Friesen: My guess would be that the horticulture industry, because of minor use problems, is probably the industry that's affected the most.

    Mr. David Anderson: I have one question for you, Bob. Are you unfamiliar with the Farmers of North America and their attempts to bring in the generic Roundup?

    Mr. Bob Friesen: No, I--

    Mr. David Anderson: You didn't seem to be familiar with that when it was mentioned.

    Mr. Bob Friesen: With their import for use problem.

    Mr. David Anderson: Yes.

    Mr. Bob Friesen: That's something that our members have not said anything about.

    Mr. David Anderson: Well, it is an issue in western Canada, a fairly aggressive one.

    Mr. Bob Friesen: And I've communicated with Farmers of North America, but what I'm saying is that my members at CFA from western Canada have not given that a great deal of discussion at all.

    Mr. David Anderson: That's interesting, because as to the information coming into my office in the last couple of months, I've probably gotten as much on that as on any issue I've had since I've been here. So it might be something that's coming towards you.

    The Chair: Thanks, David.

    Mark, now.

    Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney--Victoria, Lib.): I'm kind of on the same wavelength as Murray. I'm quite well aware of the frustration in the horticulture industry; we've been travelling across Canada on the prime minister's task force. I'm a past director of Hort Nova Scotia, and I think we've pretty well heard it all.

    On a personal note, my family farm has 300 acres of field vegetables and five acres of greenhouse vegetables. One-third of our produce goes to the U.S., Europe, and Central America, and we're constantly being tested at the borders. Now, whether they think we're not doing a good job up here...or whatever.

    But I think as Canadian growers, ideally we want to be recognized as the most proactive in pest control, and that will give us the upper hand when we're selling to these places. They'll say, well, the Canadians have gotten their act together.

    If we move towards a system that's very much in step with the U.S., for instance, we're going to have to watch out for a few things. Our climate is different up here, our soil is different, and our varieties are sometimes different.

    But my question is more on the consumer or public side. Travelling in Europe...they're not very comfortable, most of Europe, with how government's handling a lot of the inspections and pesticides. Would our consumers or our public be more comfortable that it's a bit in the hands of Health Canada? Would they have the same feeling maybe if the agriculture industry was more in control of it, or would they be suspicious?

    Maybe that's for Anne. What's the feeling out there from the consumer point of view about where they want to see this going?

    Ms. Anne Fowlie: I guess we don't hear a lot about that, so I think there is a certain amount of comfort in having those decision-making capabilities housed within PMRA, Health Canada, as opposed to within Agriculture Canada. Certainly Agriculture has a major role and responsibility to play in making sure the process is not a drag on innovation or competitiveness. I think there's a key role to play there in watching that and ensuring that the process is correct.

    But certainly, as to the issues of consumer and food safety, again, we don't hear a lot about that. Certainly, with the Whitehorse communiqué that came out last June.... There are a lot of good things in it, things we certainly very much support; we're all involved in on-farm food safety programs. Certainly, we have a national one for fruit and vegetables in Canada, so we're very proactive on that side, and whole issues regarding pest management are part and parcel of an on-farm food safety program.

    Mr. Mark Eyking: But that can be achievable for our products in Canada. We could be above the rest if we got our act together, right?

    Ms. Anne Fowlie: Well, certainly with crop protection tools one of the challenges we're facing right now is the fact that an awful lot of the products we're using have very old registration dates vis-à-vis products that are being used in other countries. I guess that as a consumer I might look at that angle.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Many people are confused about the broader issue of pesticides. Consumers have become increasingly critical of pesticide use. The problem may be the lack of information on the subject. However, consumers may be on to something. I'd like to give you the opportunity to answer my colleague's question. She mentioned municipalities that defended the use of certain pesticides on lawns and golf courses.

    If certain municipalities have succeeded in passing by-laws banning the use of pesticides, it's because they have been able to show that pesticides pose a health hazard. I'm not sure where we stand on this issue. On the one hand, we criticize you for being overly cautious and for taking too long to register products. On the other hand, there is a growing public outcry over health concerns and pesticides are getting a bad rap. Many people are afraid of pesticides.

    You stated that pesticide use in Canada has fallen off by 20% since 1987. As a result of the decline in pesticide use, have you noted a drop in pesticide production? Is it really possible to use fewer pesticides, but at the same time to use them more efficiently? I'd like you to answer Ms. Tremblay's question about municipalities and then to answer my questions.

    My colleague stated that Canada has the know-how, but it must also be a safe place in which to live. I think we need to take the time to study a product carefully before we put in on the market, so that we don't have any regrets later.

    You can now go ahead and answer the questions.

À  (1025)  

[English]

    Mr. Charles Milne: Thank you.

    Let me deal with the reduction in pesticide use first. Certainly, over the years, we've gone from the amount of product used being pounds per acre to grams per hectare. So the nature of the technology has changed significantly. The specificity of the technology has changed remarkably as well, so that it is much more targeted, therefore less has to be used.

    You've heard all of us talk about the need for greater use of integrated pest management, the right product at the right time and in the right conditions. I think there's a huge educational program to be done, not just by those of us here, but to be understood at the municipal level. It's very interesting that when you go to these municipal meetings, there's concern perhaps about the use of pesticides in public places or on private property, but then when you ask people, does your dog have a flea collar, do you use an algaecide in your swimming pool, how do you feel about catching the West Nile virus, do you want ants in your kitchen, their feelings tend to be a bit different than about having someone's lawn sprayed. So it's not an easy equation to deal with.

    Secondly, this comes back to the need for government to be better at communicating. As we were saying earlier, yes, the PMRA is a large organization. The people there are quite well educated. I referenced PhD toxicologists. There are many of them there. I guess the challenge we have, now that the Supreme Court has made the decision that it has, is do municipalities have the scientific acumen to make the assessments that an agency like the PMRA would have? Do they have the capacity to have a bevy of toxicologists on staff? Perhaps in some of the larger municipalities, yes, but I think you have to recognize the depth of scientific ability that is resident within the PMRA.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Continuing on in the same vein, if you ask me whether my dog wears a flea collar, I may respond in the affirmative. However, if someone were to ask me whether I know for a fact that this flea collar poses no threat to the human beings living in my house, I wouldn't be so certain of the answer.

    When I'm presented with hard evidence that the incidence of certain types of cancer in children has increased by 3% or 4%, I have to ask myself some serious questions, the same questions the public at large is asking.

    Can we state with any certainty that a dog's flea collar poses no danger whatsoever to humans? That's more or less the question people are asking themselves.

    My neighbour posts a sign on his lawn that reads: “Stay off the lawn for the next 24 hours. A pesticide has been applied”.

    Personally, I'd like to know Anne Fowlie's views on the subject. I think there must be some basis to the reports on the declining use of pesticides and to the information circulated in the press.

À  (1030)  

    Ms. Anne Fowlie: In my view, it's very important that producers as well as consumers from coast to coast have the information they need.

[English]

    I've always heard people say, you know, that the dose makes the poison. Even if it's table salt, which we all have on our tables, if a three-year-old took two tablespoons of it, it would have a very, very negative impact on their health. Yet we can't live without salt. So I think it's all a question of balance and knowing.

    But certainly, in the farm community, there's no question that everyone wants to be accountable and responsible, and they're the primary users.

    In terms of household products, including what we would apply on our lawns and gardens, do we as consumers have the same knowledge and take the same care? I don't know that. I work in the industry, so obviously I'm more sensitive to that.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you, Marcel.

    Larry.

[English]

    Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and the witnesses for being here.

    I think there's a... [Technical difficulty--Editor] ...the Whitehorse accord and the new agricultural policy framework will help. It may encourage some of these changes that we need. And it's worth noting, I believe, that the Minister of Agriculture will be here tomorrow. But it's so very frustrating, of course, to hear these same stories over and over.

    Now, Mark's great farm, which many of us visited in the last year or so in Cape Breton, will soon be exporting tractor-trailer loads of cabbage to Boston for St. Patrick's Day. Be ready.

    My colleague mentioned the testing at the border. We questioned that here in Ontario, and in B.C., with the hot-house cucumbers and all the other products. And of course, we can't use the same product here as they can use in the States for a whole year. So we inquired about how safe that is, because it's coming in from the States. We're told, of course, it's because of the residue--that's what's tested. I should know this.

    But when our products go into the United States, at the border do they check for more than just the residue? I mean, are they doing a different job from what we do at the border?

    Ms. Anne Fowlie: Well, there are a couple of different programs on the go. Certainly residue sampling is something that's done by both countries. The U.S. does take samples at the border. The CFIA does sampling within Canada. So those two things are both done. There are also samples taken at the U.S. border for microbial contamination. There was an issue a couple of summers ago with a program they came out with, which was referred to by the industry as “hold and test”.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: And the U.S. testing for our crops, are you familiar with how they test our products going into the U.S.?

    Ms. Anne Fowlie: Yes, they do test. I think there are some differences in how they're done between the two countries, for example, whether samples are pulled at the border as well as in the market versus just in the market. But both countries do testing.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: Charles, we heard about the model--from the U.K. and other countries--that was presented recently at the minor-use conference here in Ottawa. I'm sure it would help. How close is that to something you were saying earlier, that we need to have a mechanism so that the PMRA does not work in isolation, and that we need oversight and dispute resolution? Is that moving in that direction?

    And also I'd like Bob to say whether he agrees with what you asked for earlier, that we set up this body and it may be where we have to go.

    Mr. Charles Milne: With respect to the minor-use provisions, let's not confuse those with an appeal mechanism. I think those are two separate issues. That said, perhaps many of the appeals will be related to minor use.

    As a result of that workshop, I understand that both the PMRA and Agriculture Canada have someone looking at the U.K., Australian, and IR-4 systems. We just found that out a couple of weeks ago, I suppose. So no doubt there has been some interest and there's some serious evaluation going on, and we're optimistic that may lead to something like what all of us have been talking about, a repository for dealing with minor use in Canada.

    With respect to an arbitrator or a dispute settlement body, we've toyed with a number of ideas, whether you need it specific for the PMRA or whether it's for a variety of regulatory agencies. I guess there are a number of ways you could go. It just seems remiss that there isn't some mechanism currently within the PMRA. After you reach an impasse there, your next step is to go political. I think industry and growers would like to have something there so that you're not always having to take the political route. I don't think the PMRA appreciates it when we go political, but there is no other route to go currently.

À  (1035)  

    Mr. Bob Friesen: Anything to facilitate the process, I certainly support. I think that suggestion has a great deal of potential.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, would this not be the time, then, for these witnesses to perhaps bring forth a proposal that we might work with, and listen to and add to? Probably also--while I have the floor--I'm sure there will be great support around the table for having the new Minister of Health here to be held accountable.

    There is a direction, as you say. Health Canada and Ag Canada are looking at these situations. But I think we have to move now. You people could bring forth a model of what you see, and around the table, we could look at it.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Larry.

    We'll go now to a second round of short questions.

    For the witnesses, of course, the PMRA officials will be here on Thursday.

    One of the points that hasn't been brought up this morning is that perhaps one of their rebuttals might be that the manufacturers of many of these pesticides, and so forth, are not very diligent in presenting their cases before the PMRA. In other words, they fill in an application, and it's incomplete. So they will go back to the manufacturer and say, we need this.

    Have you any evidence to indicate that there is a truth or an untruth to that type of situation, where they're not very effective in going to the PMRA and meeting the obligations that a manufacturer has to try to have a fast process through the agency?

    Mr. Charles Milne: In representing the trade association of many of the submitters, I'd say it's not something that is shared at our table. Our table is full of competitors, so obviously we don't get to see it.

    We've heard the same thing, Mr. Chairman, on the quality of submission. Again, I guess the PMRA could have a conversation with an individual applicant and say, this wasn't very good, or boy, it was very helpful that you presented it in such a way.

    I guess what I keep hearing from our members is that they would like to be compliant. As somebody pointed out, we make a lot of applications; we should be pretty good at it. It's not like we're making applications only once every five or ten years. I guess it's that predictable system. Are the rules changing constantly, therefore once you've made that submission they're saying, oh, well, retroactively we've made this decision, therefore the decision you made last month is now deficient?

    That's a huge frustration we've had as to, okay, what are the rules? We may not like them, but it is our industry's will to be compliant.

    Peter, you may have a perspective on that.

    Mr. Peter MacLeod: I guess one of the frustrations we share with the PMRA is that the submission screening process--which is where a lot of these inaccuracies or inconsistencies show up--in Canada is without doubt the most robust in the world in terms of screening. It's the time that it takes to go back and fix a missing word, or a box that was checked and shouldn't have been checked, or some minor error like that. The cycling system to go back to the main manufacturer can take 90 to 120 days each time one minor error is found. So that's certainly one cause of delay.

À  (1040)  

    Mr. Bob Friesen: And the one thing we can't get a handle on, Mr. Chair, is whether some of the rejects happen because they are trying to prevent their backlog from increasing even more. If it's a rejected application, then it's not their backlog.

    The Chair: Are there any particular instances on which you could provide information to committee members so that they might bring this up with the PMRA at our meeting on Thursday, any particular product you can think of or have followed through? I'll leave that with you. If you do have, I'm sure members would like to know this before our meeting on Thursday.

    With that, Howard, I'll go to you for some short questions around the table.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: First, I'd like to comment that Rose-Marie, Murray and Larry try to have the minister accountable to them by asking important questions. I recognize that on many of these ag issues the opposition parties and the government are not at loggerheads. We are all trying to do what's good for the farmers and the industry.

    On the question of the ombudsman, I'm a little concerned with that suggestion because I think it could be used by the government to deflect accountability away from the ministry and the minister.

    I think the situation in Canada is such that this accountability issue has to fall squarely on the minister's head, whoever it happens to be at any given time. And we have to examine whether the department heads are unable to make the system work because of internal rules or because of personnel problems inside the department. But both of those are internal rules. The flexibility of how they do their job and, of course, personnel problems are the direct responsibility of those department heads. If they can't solve them and we continue to have problems, then it's the minister's responsibility.

    I think the situation in regard to this issue is serious enough that we have to keep the accountability and responsibility of the minister herself, Minister McLellan, to be the one who is ultimately responsible to solve the issues we're talking about here. And if it's done, full credit to her and the government for doing it, but we recognize that.

    Minister Vanclief is coming--that's a great thing that we're having happen here tomorrow--with the idea that the Minister of Agriculture has, as one of his primary responsibilities, the good functioning of the agri-business in this country, that farmers are sustainable, that farmers are able to make a living at it.

    There are many key things, but one of the key things is having a good functioning PMRA system so farmers have the tools in order to make their incomes work, that would offset subsidies by having a good system.

    I'm going to ask the minister tomorrow--and this is kind of a pre-warning, I suppose--to explain to our committee what he has personally done in order to make the PMRA work better. He'll probably have an answer for us of some kind or another.

    In preparation for that, Bob, I have one question for you. The minister and the government have said clearly that they're making a plan to move beyond crisis management. They've done some briefings around, and it's my understanding they've talked to the major farm organizations. In that five-year plan, have you been advised of any component that has to do with fixing up the PMRA in any way, and how the minister would see that as helping us have a better vision for agriculture?

    The Chair: Howard, you promised to be short. You took nearly four minutes for that preamble--

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We've got 15 minutes left.

    The Chair: In using the short questions, we try to get less than five minutes so that others can participate.

    Bob, can you answer that in about 30 seconds?

    Mr. Bob Friesen: Yes. Very quickly, the minister has intervened on our behalf in some cases and certainly the B.C. issue was one. As far as the long-term APF is concerned, there's food safety in there, there's environmental sustainability in there. The details haven't been worked out yet, but that is something we could certainly push in those two areas.

À  (1045)  

    The Chair: Rose-Marie, you have a brief question?

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes, just a point or two.

    We've heard time and time again here this morning about the application for a product. Would it not be a good idea under the agency to have either an ombudsperson or someone assigned in that department? Then, when someone makes an application, that person can sit one-on-one with the applicant and review the application at that said time, instead of having it sit on someone's desk for 90 days and all of a sudden deciding we're missing one piece of information. That seems to be delaying the process.

    I think it would be most valuable if we had someone assigned when these applications come through. That person looks at the application and says, “This document is missing something, so let's get that in”. I think that would certainly enhance the process.

    Secondly, do you happen to know the percentage of funding within PMRA that goes to new products versus re-evaluation?

    Those are my questions.

    Mr. Bob Friesen: That's a figure I should have in my head, but I don't.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Maybe you can just give it to the committee.

    Mr. Bob Friesen: We certainly can, yes.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: What's your thought on one-on-one applications?

    Mr. Peter MacLeod: That's something that I think our industry would endorse wholeheartedly, as it would eliminate a lot of back and forth.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It's pretty simple. Too simple, maybe.

    Mr. Peter MacLeod: That process is at work in other jurisdictions around the world, where you actually have the submission in front of you and you can go through it and eliminate a lot of the questions at the outset.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Well, perhaps when they appear before us, they'll come with this great revelation that this would be one way they can enhance the process.

    Mr. Peter MacLeod: The PMRA does have a pre-submission consultation process to work out some of the data requirements on the upfront. But once the submission goes in, I think the process you suggested will work very well.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay, thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Rose-Marie.

    Are there other questions? I'll go to Dick, and then to David.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

    I have just a few questions. I think we're all familiar with Lindane. It was mentioned earlier, and now it seems to me that it's a product, a residue substance on canola, that's been banned in the United States because it's old. It's an older pesticide. Are there other specific products that anybody is aware of that are similarly banned in the United States because the pesticide or fungicide is too old?

    Mr. Charles Milne: You have to appreciate that as representatives of manufacturers, we don't delve into product-specific issues. As I said earlier, we're competitors. But in broad measure, other products have come forward. Some of them have had quite a bit of publicity.

    I guess the concern, as products are being re-evaluated, is exactly what we've said before. If we could see the same zeal for registering replacements as we see for the deregistering of products, it might be a little more tenable. But right now, there's even uncertainty and unpredictability about the delisting of products. Every time it happens, it's a new experience.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay.

    I have one final question. We haven't talked a lot or heard a lot this morning about farmers handling these products. We have heard, I think, that new registrations are less harmful. We're using less pesticide. Mr. Milne, you mentioned that point. We would all recognize, I'm sure, that there's still a health hazard out there for people who are handling it.

    Are farmers sufficiently informed of the dangers of handling these new products, in your opinion?

    Mr. Bob Friesen: I'll start that off. I was just thinking of that a few minutes ago.

    Clearly, farmers are doing a much better job of handling these products safely. When I think of when I was a grain farmer and I went spraying, I shudder at the things I did back then: cleaning spray nozzles by blowing into them and getting the chemical all over my face, etc. Farmers are much better at that.

    The other thing that is happening out there is that there is much better inventory control. Leftover chemicals: don't leave your chemical pail sitting someplace if it's metal and it's rusting through and leaching into the ground. There are also recycling stations, certainly in my community, and I know you've worked hard at recycling programs.

    Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on building appropriate buildings for storing chemicals at the input supplier level. In fact, I dare say that you can still find some chemicals being sold very close to grocery stores, if not right in grocery stores, and input suppliers have had to spend thousands of dollars in building buildings for inventory control. So all that is much better.

    Farmers are being much more responsible with wind drift and making sure they apply chemicals when it doesn't drift onto neighbouring fields or even residential areas. Charles already mentioned making sure the temperature is right, the humidity is right. I would say that has all improved considerably.

À  (1050)  

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks.

    The Chair: Bob and David.

    Mr. David Anderson: I would just like to echo what Bob says about farmers. I think they have paid a big price in terms of becoming more responsible. They've paid. Most of us cleaned up our act, and I think most farmers are farming very safely environmentally. It makes me annoyed because they keep getting blamed for the problems, and a lot of times you can look to the urban people. They're causing a lot more trouble than farmers are in the environment.

    I just have one question for Charles. Earlier you had talked about the fact that you did not have a problem with the PMRA science, and then as you went on you said that you often have trouble reconciling the performance data of the companies in your group with the performance data of the PMRA. I'm just wondering, can you just explain the difference as to what you were saying?

    Mr. Charles Milne: That's not a question of the nature of the science they're doing. We may question whether or not they need to duplicate science that's already been done. If they're registering a product that is registered elsewhere and the dossiers are available, if they're evaluating a product that has been registered in another country whose science is equally robust to our own, we're questioning whether or not the primary evaluation needs to be done. That's where we have trouble reconciling it.

    With respect to science, we don't question the processes they use, their ability to understand the science, or their capacity to evaluate the science.

    Mr. David Anderson: We had a problem last summer with gophers, and we had a problem getting registration approval for a decent gopher poison. I'm just wondering if the CFA is ready to deal with that issue again this spring, because it will be one. We have a drought situation there. Tons of these little critters are going to be around. I'm just wondering if you're aware of that and if you're ready to be involved with that when it comes up.

    Mr. Bob Friesen: Every issue that's worth pursuing is worth putting more energy into. If that problem is flagged and comes up, we certainly will work on it, as we have started to, and it's starting to ring a bell more and more with North American farmers.

    There's another thing, perhaps just as a humorous anecdote. I was talking to some farmers in P.E.I. last summer, and of course they've had tremendous challenges making sure that they're environmentally sustainable. They had a case where they got a lot of calls from the public saying that they were getting headaches, etc., when the farmer was out in his fields spraying. One day he decided to do a bit of a case study, and he filled his sprayer tank with water. They got just as many calls that day from people having headaches as they ever had before.

    The Chair: Thank you, members and witnesses.

    I guess, Bob, what you're talking about is that perception is more important than the real thing.

    We've had an interesting debate this morning, and we will continue on Thursday. Hopefully, in the long run we can resolve this in the best interests of all the players in the industry and Canadians in general.

    So thank you. We'll adjourn our meeting.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Just before we adjourn--

    The Chair: I just tapped now, Howard.

À  (1055)  

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: A very soft tap there. The presenters are finished and you've thanked them, so that's fine.

    This is to Larry and you. Can an invitation go out to Minister McLellan right now, because it's going to take some length of time for her to get it into her agenda? I think we could look at early spring--April, May--to have an invite to her. It's pretty important to us all, and I think she would like the opportunity, after what was said here this morning by some opposition members, to come in and say how her department is running.

    The Chair: Howard, we are closed, but I would like to remind you that under notices of motion, maybe Cam could do something and we could present it.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, Mr. Chair, we should talk about that, and we endorse your request. I do, and I think we do.

    The Chair: This meeting is adjourned.