AGRI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, December 10, 2002

º

1600

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

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

º

1605

º

1610

Dr. Imme Gerke (Minor Use Advisor, Pest Management Regulatory Agency)

º

1615

The Chair

Mrs. Mary Komarynsky (Director General, Adaptation and Financial Guarantee Programs, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food)

º

1620

The Chair

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

º

1625

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

º

1630

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

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

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

º

1635

Mrs. Mary Komarynsky

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mrs. Mary Komarynsky

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mrs. Mary Komarynsky

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mrs. Mary Komarynsky

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mrs. Mary Komarynsky

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mrs. Mary Komarynsky

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

º

1640

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. Murray Calder

º

1645

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. Murray Calder

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder

The Chair

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

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. Larry McCormick

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. Larry McCormick

Dr. Claire Franklin

º

1650

Mr. Larry McCormick

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. Larry McCormick

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. Larry McCormick

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. Larry McCormick

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. Larry McCormick

Mrs. Mary Komarynsky

º

1655

The Chair

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)

Mrs. Mary Komarynsky

Mr. Paul Steckle

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. Paul Steckle

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. Paul Steckle

Dr. Claire Franklin

»

1700

Mr. Paul Steckle

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Dr. Imme Gerke

The Chair

Dr. Imme Gerke

The Chair

Dr. Imme Gerke

The Chair

Dr. Imme Gerke

The Chair

Dr. Imme Gerke

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Imme Gerke

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Imme Gerke

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Imme Gerke

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

»

1705

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

»

1710

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

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

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. Bob Speller

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. Bob Speller

Dr. Claire Franklin

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Mrs. Mary Komarynsky

The Chair

Mrs. Mary Komarynsky

»

1715

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Imme Gerke

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Imme Gerke

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Imme Gerke

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Imme Gerke

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Imme Gerke

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Imme Gerke

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Imme Gerke

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Imme Gerke

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Imme Gerke

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Imme Gerke

The Chair

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

Dr. Imme Gerke

»

1720

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

---

NUMBER 010

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, December 10, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º  (1600)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): Good afternoon, everyone.

    Pursuant again to Standing Order 108(2), we're looking today at the consideration of the government response to the third report of the committee, “Registration of Pesticides and the Competitiveness of Canadian Farmers”, from the first session of the 37th Parliament.

    With that, we'd like to first of all apologize to our witnesses. We are still arriving at the committee because we just finished the vote in the House. We're sorry to be late, but we do have a quorum now and with that we'll start our meeting.

    Dr. Franklin, today we'd like to welcome you as the executive director. We had hoped to previously, but there was some lack of communication between us and your group. With that, of course, you know from the previous transcript what was said.

    In any case, we certainly welcome you here today. Many members of our committee, and some in particular, are very interested in what has been done, what is being done and what might be done.

    I'll turn the meeting over to you, as our presenter, and probably you can introduce Dr. Gerke and the others, the team.

    Dr. Claire Franklin (Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

    I'm pleased to be here today to update you on the department's progress on the pesticide initiative to reduce risks and enhance environmental sustainability.

    I would just comment on and apologize for what appears to have been a mis-communication. I was in Toronto and in fact had been told that it would be appropriate to send an alternate. I apologize for that and to anyone who was disappointed that I wasn't here in person.

    Over the past several months as the new Pest Control Products Act has moved through the House and the Senate, we've heard from a wide range of Canadians. Many are worried about the impacts of pesticides on their health, in particular, the health of their children and their environment. We've also heard that they believe the new act will significantly improve pesticide regulation and enhance sustainability in agriculture.

    If we are to retain public confidence, it will be important that the evaluation process carried out by the PMRA continues to focus on whether the health and environmental risks posed by pesticides when used as directed will be acceptable and whether the product offers a worthwhile contribution to pest management.

    In May of this year the Ministers of Health and Agriculture and Agri-Food announced $7.3 million in new funding aimed at reducing the risks of pesticides through re-evaluation of older pesticides and introduction of new, lower-risk pesticides. Health Canada's PMRA is allotting $4 million to these activities and, in addition, will collaborate with AAFC in developing and implementing commodity-based strategies for reducing risks to both health and environment and the encouragement of the reduction in the use of pesticides.

    One of the commitments made by the Minister of Health was that there would be a new Canadian program for reduced risk products, including minor use products. The intent of this program is to encourage registrants to file submissions for these products in Canada, particularly those already registered in the U.S.

    I'm pleased to inform you that this program is now in place. The EPA criteria and designation of reduced risk will be accepted and the review of submissions that meet the reduced risk definition will be expedited. This Canadian program is an extension of the PMRA-EPA joint review program for reduced risk products that has been in place since 1996. In 2001 almost 60% of the new active ingredients registered in Canada were classed as reduced risk.

    In June, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food made a further announcement of $54.5 million over the next six years, which will allow AAFC and PMRA to give Canadian producers better access to minor use and reduced risk pesticides and help increase their competitiveness. These resources will allow AAFC to create a program similar to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Inter-Regional Research Project Number 4, also known as IR-4. This will have significant and positive effects on the existing Canadian minor use program, because there will now be a well-funded program to develop the data required to support new minor uses and to make high quality submissions.

    PMRA will use its portion of these new funds to augment staff to meet the demand for timely registration resulting from the increased number of submissions from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and to expedite the review of reduced risk products. In addition, the commitment that the Minister of Health made in the spring to double the resources available for minor use review out of existing funds has been fulfilled as promised.

    Since the committee has expressed interest in harmonization, I will briefly update you on PMRA's activities with the U.S. EPA. We have put in place joint review programs with the U.S. EPA for reduced risk chemical pesticides, bio-pesticides, including pheromones and microbials, and conventional chemicals. Since the initiation of these programs in 1996, there have been 32 joint registrations resulting from this program and there are currently 24 more submissions in process.

    Each year the number increases as more registrants develop their products for joint entry into Canada and the U.S. and avail themselves of the program. The importance of this is highlighted by the fact that, this year, one joint review submission alone, for a new active ingredient, resulted in registration of more than 50 uses on minor crops.

º  (1605)  

    Recognizing that the expansion of already registered active ingredients into additional minor uses is important to many Canadian producers, the PMRA and EPA have recently established a joint review program specifically for minor uses. There has already been a registration using this program.

    Through these harmonized programs, products, including those used on minor crops, become available to Canadian growers at the same time as U.S. growers, unlike the past, when there were frequent delays before registrants made submissions to Canada.

    Let me now turn to the committee's recommendations that there be both an ombudsman and an adviser.

    As stated in the response to the report of the standing committee, the government agrees in principle that there is need for someone charged with resolving the farmers' problems, with resolving the problems farmers encounter in gaining access to needed pesticides, but believes that this responsibility should be vested in a single individual with appropriate staff rather than two individuals with different reporting structures. Since most of the concerns relate to minor use, this should be the focus of the individual.

    The government also felt it essential that there be direct and immediate access to senior management and PMRA since many of the issues will relate to details of the day-to-day operations of the pesticide regulatory system. Therefore, the minor use adviser-ombudsman reports to the executive director. This reporting relationship is consistent with that of the very successful minor crop adviser-ombudsman in the Office of Pesticide Programs in EPA.

    Since PMRA is part of Health Canada and under the responsibility of the Minister of Health, concerns that producers might have about the functioning of the office of the minor use adviser-ombudsman may be brought to the attention of the minister. Also, under the new Pest Control Products Act, members of the public--this includes growers and grower associations--will have the right to file a notice of objection if there's disagreement with a registration decision.

    Consistent with the committee's recommendations, the duties and responsibilities of the minor use adviser-ombudsman include a major focus on the issue of harmonization, such as equivalency of zone maps and the consideration of relevant data developed in other OECD countries.

    I would now like to introduce Dr. Imme Gerke. She will outline her role as a minor use adviser and her involvement with the minor use initiative, including cooperative activities with AAFC, the United States Department of Agriculture Inter-Regional Project Number 4, and EPA, since her arrival at PMRA five months ago.

    Dr. Gerke.

º  (1610)  

    Dr. Imme Gerke (Minor Use Advisor, Pest Management Regulatory Agency): Thank you.

    Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon and thank you for giving me the opportunity to inform you of my involvement with the minor use initiative at PMRA since July of this year.

    I would like to expand on what Claire Franklin has described as my role as minor use adviser-ombudsman--or ombudswoman. This position has been modeled after the minor crop adviser position in the U.S. EPA. I have a reporting relationship identical to that of my counterpart in EPA, that is, we both report directly to the head of our agency.

    One of my functions is to liaise with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on minor use, as announced by the Ministers of Health and AAFC in their May 23 press release. I meet regularly with Agriculture Canada as we move forward to implement the minor use initiative to ensure that Agriculture Canada is aware of PMRA's minor use policies and procedures, data requirements and processes for minor use registrations as well as to convey any specific grower and industry concerns.

    I am also actively communicating with both the U.S. EPA and the United States Department of Agriculture Inter-Regional Research Project Number 4, IR-4. I've visited with them five times since I started and I talk to them and benefit from their experience on a regular basis. IR-4 officials are very keen to assist and have offered to work both with us and with AAFC in establishing this program.

    An equally important function that I have is to serve as liaison between PMRA and the Canadian growers to bring grower messages and concerns to the attention of the management in PMRA and to return the response. I'm presently meeting with all grower groups and travelling across Canada to obtain information about their crops and their issues and to describe the minor use process.

    I've also met with a number of pesticide industry representatives to exchange information about the new initiative. I'm pleased to be able to inform them that the PMRA has already increased the number of staff available to review minor use submissions.

    I meet with the PMRA minor use team regularly to ensure that they are aware of the issues and questions that growers and industry raise and to improve the minor use process. The minor use adviser team brings forward new information in an effort to resolve specific registration issues.

    One of my first activities was to liaise with grower groups, provincial government representatives, and AAFC to assist in the development of a clear process for setting priorities for the testing of minor use products by AAFC. I must emphasize that it is not the role of PMRA to set these priorities, but I can bring valuable information to the table to assist others during this process. I'm pleased to report that agreement has been reached on the following process and responsibilities.

    First is the identification of needs. Throughout the year, growers communicate their needs to their provincial minor use coordinators, or PMUCs, who then inform AAFC. This need is added to the national needs list. That, for the time being, is posted on the website of the Ontario ministry for agriculture and food. This will be taken over by AAFC in the near future.

    Second is the setting of priorities. For growing season 2003, the priorities have been set in a collaborative effort of provincial minor use coordinators, the Canadian Horticultural Council, or CHC, and AAFC. This involved the coordinators consulting provincial farm groups and assessing pest problems and pest control needs. Then the minor use coordinators, together with the CHC and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, met to determine priorities. This occurred in July 2002. Meetings and teleconferences were held in August and September to determine priority projects that might be undertaken in 2003.

    Stakeholders recognize that a more structured process needs to be put in place and that priority setting must take place earlier in the year. AAFC wants to ensure that grower groups are closely involved and has noted that there is a need to involve the pesticide industry early on in the process. A prioritization process following the example of the IR-4 food use workshop is expected to be in place to determine priority projects for 2004 and beyond.

º  (1615)  

    Harmonization: to facilitate harmonization and acceptance for review of the data packages by both PMRA and EPA, the PMRA is presently preparing models for the study plans, field handbooks, and study reports, which are harmonized with the IR-4 documents and can be used by AAFC.

    Data submissions: about six months after the completion of the field trials by AAFC, they will put together the data packages for the new registrations and submit them to PMRA for Canadian registrations or to PMRA and EPA for registration in both countries. This represents a significant accomplishment for everyone involved in the minor use initiative and sets the stage for next year.

    My next steps will be to continue to liaise with AAFC as it moves forward on setting up its minor use centre as well as continuing to meet with grower groups across Canada. I further intend to encourage close collaboration between the Canadian and the U.S. growers to set similar priorities for data development between AAFC and IR-4, to share trials and produce mutually acceptable study reports between the Canadian and the U.S. side of the pesticide industry, to encourage them to enter their new products in joint review between Canada and the U.S., and, between PMRA and EPA, to share the review of joint data packages through their minor use joint review process.

    Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attention.

    The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Gerke. Are there others too?

    Mrs. Mary Komarynsky (Director General, Adaptation and Financial Guarantee Programs, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): Thank you.

    Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

    At the committee's invitation, my colleague, Dr. Yvon Martel, and I are here today to talk about the progress Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has made with the minor use and reduced risk pesticide initiative. This initiative will help improve the state of the environment by developing risk reduction strategies that will provide farmers with safer, newer chemicals, but also will provide research into alternatives on pest management practices. The initiative should contribute to and improve the competitiveness of farmers.

    The public has become increasingly concerned about the impact farming has on the environment. Consumers have also placed greater demands on the agriculture industry to produce high-quality and safe food. The agriculture policy framework has as its key priorities numerous initiatives that address the environment, food safety, and quality.

    The committee has heard from both Minister Vanclief and, this morning, AAFC representatives about the various initiatives. As part of the APF, the agricultural policy framework, securing new pesticides uses and safer products to control the impact of pests on crops is one of the initiatives which will contribute to farmers' profitability but also the environment and food safety.

    Dr. Franklin mentioned two separate announcements made to support the development of a pesticide risk reduction and minor use program. Of the $7.3 million announced in May, AAFC is using $3.3 million to work with the industry and the provinces to increase the availability of reduced risk and more environmentally friendly pesticides for Canadian farmers. The $54.5 million announced in June will be used to establish, as Dr. Gerke indicated, a centre similar to the IR-4, where the agriculture department will manage and coordinate various activities, carry out field trials, liaise with stakeholders, integrate data generation with IR-4 and prepare submissions to PMRA, and as well, track and report on results.

    Minister Vanclief also announced the doubling of the department's ongoing minor use pesticides research budget to $2 million for data generation on minor use pesticides, and $1 million from the Canadian Adaptation Rural Development Fund, known as CARD, to accelerate the development and delivery of the new initiatives.

    These announcements respond to the recommendations made by your committee in May for the provision of at least $1 million a year for research and analysis, similar to the IR-4 program in the United States.

    We are working closely with our provincial minor use coordinators, grower groups, and pesticide manufacturers to deliver on the commitments. Over the past six months, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada officials have held 35 meetings with various partners to get input and share information on the development of the program. This has helped us to develop many of the program design features, which will be equivalent to the U.S. IR-4 program.

    Since the announcement of the funding, our number one priority has been to focus on getting ready for field trials in 2003. We have identified and assessed research centres and field sites in preparation for field trials for the next growing season. Staffing and training of personnel at the various sites is under way and is expected to be complete by April 2003. Discussions with the provincial minor use coordinators and national farm groups have led to the development, as Dr. Gerke indicated, of a listing of priority projects that AAFC may undertake for the 2003 growing season.

    We have contracted several private sector contractors to discuss the potential for partnering on field trials for year one of the program. Meetings have been held with the IR-4 in the United States and we have established the beginning of a partnership. We are drawing on their 40 years of experience to assist us in creating our new minor use program. An agreement has been reached with the IR-4 on plans to conduct a number of joint projects in 2003.

    While our main focus over the last six months has been on establishing sites and making preparations for field trials in 2003, we are making progress on risk reduction activities. Discussions are under way with major national farm groups to determine how the CARD fund can be used to accelerate this effort. Plans are also under way to complete the organizational structure for headquarters operation and to continue the hiring of permanent staff. An advisory committee will be established in the new calendar year to provide advice on the program and also to ensure transparency and accountability.

º  (1620)  

    We are pleased to be here to answer any questions on the work we've done over the past six months and on our plans for further work.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Dr. Martel, you are not presenting, are you?

    David, it sounds like we're on a roll here with all this good input.

    Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Yes, it's been a good day, Mr. Chair.

    An hon. member: We're waiting for the other shoe to fall.

    Mr. David Anderson: It might.

    This spring we made some recommendations to your committee. It looks like you've taken care of recommendation 3 fairly well, in that you're fairly aggressively going after the program that's similar to the IR-4, but I want to talk a little about recommendations 1 and 4, which the committee felt were important.

    We travelled a fair amount across Canada and had people coming to us here in Ottawa. We heard clearly--and I think you should have heard clearly from us in the spring what we thought--that it was very important that a couple of people be appointed. The first one was the ombudsperson, with a clear mandate to “facilitate...farmers' various needs regarding pest control”. That's how we had written it up. That person was to be accountable not within your agency but to the Minister of Health. The second person we wanted to see appointed was an adviser pertaining to minor use products, who would be appointed “to intervene in policies and decisions” regarding minor use products, with a “special focus on harmonization issues with the United States”. Again, we expected and asked that this person would be accountable to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

    Clearly we wanted two separate people. We asked that they do two separate jobs, one as the farmers' advocate and the other as an adviser on certification and harmonization. It was important to us that they be accountable outside the agency. That was mainly because we had heard many times that people were frustrated with your agency. They felt there needed to be accountability outside that agency.

    I want to go over what you have given us instead, with no disrespect to the person who has the job. I'm just going to go over some of the roles and responsibilities that are listed in your response, that is, this one-person position you've put in place is: to deal with growers' concerns and messages; to expedite submissions; to educate producers; to liaise with the EPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the IR-4 to do with plans and reports and putting together the project you talked about; to follow developments within the United States; to identify cooperative opportunities with the United States; to educate and inform Canadian producers about the joint registration opportunities; to liaise with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to smooth out the workings between the PMRA and the agriculture and agrifood registration processes; and to do PR education of systems users of the joint work that's being done between PMRA and the AAFC. All of this is to be done with the person being accountable to you.

    I'm just going to ask you, did you ever seriously consider the committee's recommendations that we needed two separate positions for two different roles?

º  (1625)  

    Dr. Claire Franklin: The question that you ask, the proposal that was put forward from the standing committee, was to the government. It was not to me personally. The response that was presented back was the government's and I think clearly states that the government recognizes there's an issue. In the government response, it's the belief of the government that in fact these positions should be combined, and then, as I've indicated, the intent is that position be within PMRA.

    On the U.S. side, they also had a period of time where there was concern about the number of minor use registrations, which was a number of years ago, and they put in place an adviser in a position that is very similar to the one Dr. Gerke is in. I believe that the experience has in fact been very positive and has resulted, as many of you have pointed out, in a very large number of registrations for minor uses.

    Mr. David Anderson: Did you have input, then, into that decision to appoint just one person rather than two? Or was that something that came from above?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: The government response comes from the minister. I report to the minister through the deputy minister, so that's a government response.

    Mr. David Anderson: I would presume you have some influence over decisions that are made in your department. The fact is, we tabled this report at the beginning of May, and by May 23 there's a press release and a commitment already being made by the Minister of Health that they were going to appoint only one person.

    Wouldn't that decision have come through you and wouldn't you have had a fair amount of input into that?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: I would have information to provide as to what the process is in a country with which we're harmonizing, where we're trying very much to be able to emulate the way in which they have made a very successful minor use program. That information would be provided to the minister. There's no question that the information would be there, but the decision as to how this would be done would be a decision that would come from the minister.

    Mr. David Anderson: With the strong representations we had last spring that farmers and farmer organizations were very frustrated, I think we put in the strongest words we felt we could that there was a need for an independent ombudsman who wasn't going to be mixing those roles. Did you ever feel that this was necessary? Did you take that cause up with the minister and suggest that it should be done?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: That's not my position to do other than present information to the minister so that the minister can make the decision on that.

    Mr. David Anderson: So you never presented the information that the farmer groups had great concerns about the capacity for--

    Dr. Claire Franklin: The minister was definitely aware and was certainly aware from the information in the report you had presented, and from her staff, who also are very close to this, so there's no question: the minister would be aware of the situation.

    Mr. David Anderson: I'd like to move to a specific situation dealing with a certification. The minister was able to move very quickly, I guess, in terms of the issue we just spoke about, but we've moved very slowly on certifying generic livestock. Can you tell me what the situation of the farmers of North America is on the certification of generic livestock?

    Are you at all familiar with that?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: Yes, I have a degree of familiarity with that. That is a request that had come in not for certification but for utilization by individual farmers, so that's not part of the registration process.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. David Anderson: What has been done with that? One of their frustrations was that they felt your agency was continually changing the regulations, that as they tried to comply with them they would be changed. I'm just wondering: where does that situation stand now?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: My staff has spent a considerable period of time with the individuals involved with this particular issue. As I understand it, they are generating or getting the very limited amount of information which it is clearly stated in the regulation is required. That's the last that I'm aware of: that they were in quite a period of time ago and that this is what they're doing.

    Mr. David Anderson: Do I have any more time?

    The Chair: No.

    Rose-Marie.

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

    I have a couple of specific cases and then I'll get into some other questions.

    Since some of my constituents knew you were presenting today, they wanted me to pose a couple of questions. One was regarding lindane-based seed. Apparently there's only enough for a third of the crop and it's being taken off the market for our corn producers. It's vital because wireworm is certainly a difficult problem, especially in the sandy soils in many parts of my riding. I was always under the impression that something would not be removed until an alternative control method was in place. Can you tell me the status of this, if this indeed is being pulled off the market?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: The situation is not that a product remains on the market until there's an alternative. If there are health and environmental concerns, the minister has to take action to move on them. So I think that it's very clear that's not the way the situation is, nor is it the way in the U.S. as well. If there are environmental and health concerns, action has to be taken.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: But if indeed that is the case, if it is a health concern, why would we then continue with a third of the seed? If it's a health concern, we should remove it all.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: The question I was answering was the point you made that one had to wait in order to do it.

    In the situation of lindane, the registrants have agreed to voluntarily remove their request for registration for that product. What we've done, because for the particular use you mentioned there is not a ready alternative, is to have a slightly longer exit strategy for that one, given that the use collectively with the total amount of lindane that has been used is not that high. So we believe that there is not an unacceptable risk to allow the amount that's there to be used, with the expectation there will be alternatives by the time they don't have access.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: So on the one hand you tell me there could be a health risk, but then maybe there isn't a health risk so we can use it a little bit.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: No, your point was that we had to keep something on the market until there was an alternative. I was answering the general point you raised on that: that this is not the case, that if there is a health concern the minister has to take action. That's just a general statement.

    With respect to lindane, there are concerns. The registrants have determined that they will withdraw their registration. What they're trying to do is a rather smooth exit, and for this particular use for wireworms where there aren't alternatives, there is a slightly longer exit strategy on that.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you.

    There was a second question posed by one of my constituents. Apparently there have been test plots for a few years on a product for seed corn, again for wireworm and sandy soil. It's Clothianidin 600 FS. It's proven to increase yields per acre, with 10 bushels more per acre this year, and this year was not a exemplary year for increased--

    Dr. Claire Franklin: Right.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It's an experimental product from the United States. They're wondering when this product will be registered. There are test plots here in Canada, but when will they see the registration of this product?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: I can certainly get back to you on that. I believe it's in process. I don't have that detail at my fingertips.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I can appreciate that, but I would certainly appreciate you getting back on that.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: Certainly.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Someone said that with this $54 million being allocated by the minister for additional funding for PMRA a new centre is being created. I believe that it was Mary who said this. As for the new centre, out of $54 million, what is it costing to set up another bureaucracy within this department? On the people used to set up this new centre, are they going to be numbers from within the existing PMRA, the number of people amalgamated in the first place? Are you drawing people out of the 400 and some people presently involved in the PMRA?

º  (1635)  

    Mrs. Mary Komarynsky: First of all, of the $54 million announced, as Dr. Franklin indicated, part of that money will be going to PMRA--

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I hope so.

    Mrs. Mary Komarynsky: --and part of it will be staying in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Of the total amount of the $54 million, the agriculture department will keep $33.7 million over six years and PMRA will receive the remaining amount of $20.8 million.

    The money to be used over the six years, as Dr. Gerke mentioned, is essentially to begin working on setting the priorities, working with provincial growers and the industry to set priorities. It will be to do the pre-submission work, which means looking at what the priorities require, what kind of data requirements are needed, and working with PMRA and IR-4 to see what kinds of field trials are required.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Wouldn't all this be already there for PMRA to exist?

    Mrs. Mary Komarynsky: PMRA has some data requirements, but we actually have to match. We have to take a look at what the priorities are, match that up with the data requirements, and then develop a study plan for the field trials that are conducted in the spring. I won't get into details. I apologize.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I can never understand how the agency works.

    Mrs. Mary Komarynsky: No, it's what work will done at Agriculture and Agri-Food. There is a very clear role for the $33 million, whereby agriculture will set priorities in consultation with the provinces, growers, and PMRA. We will do the pre-work and the development of study plans.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes, you've indicated that, but I just have a certain length of time here--

    Mrs. Mary Komarynsky: In addition, Agriculture Canada will conduct field trials. Then, once the field trials and lab analyses are done, we will be preparing submissions to PMRA to register the products.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: That's fine.

    Mrs. Mary Komarynsky: In terms of your question about staff, we will be looking internally within the government and externally for the types of skills that are needed.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: So we're bringing more people into PMRA, then.

    Mrs. Mary Komarynsky: No, into Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay.

    Ms. Mary Komarynsky: The centre or the minor use program will be run out of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: On March 8 of this year at the Canadian Horticultural Council annual meeting, there was a PMRA official. At that meeting he mentioned that an ombudsperson would be appointed. What has happened between March and now such that this ombudsperson did not get appointed, since the PMRA official said there would be one appointed?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: This is the person.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: She's an adviser, not an ombudsperson.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: I think that part of the confusion may have arisen from when the United States set up this office and called this person a minor crop ombudsman. The horticulture council, if you look at their report tabled in 2001, very clearly liked what they saw with the ombudsman in the U.S. and requested and discussed with us; they said that it would be a very useful kind of position to have. Now in the meantime the U.S. is now calling that person an adviser, but in the duties for that person, it's a combination of minor use or minor crop adviser/ombudsman. I feel that's what maybe has kind of confused a lot of things, so--

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I don't think it confused the committee. The committee's recommendation was to have two people, one to do the job, as Dr. Gerke has been appointed to do, as adviser. The major portion of her mandate is focused on minor crops, but we also had rows upon rows of farmers coming here who were totally upset regarding making applications for product. They were continually sent back and were being told that the applications weren't complete. So that's where we thought this ombudsperson could work and perhaps get all the soldiers in place before it got into a long delay back and forth

    . There seemed to be a long delay in that happening so that's why we felt there was a real necessity for a minor use person, but there was also a real necessity so that frustrations would be alleviated and farmers or people who are making applications for the various products would know this when they filled out their applications. Because that was always the quick response from PMRA, that it was an “incomplete file”, and we're trying to alleviate that quick response.

º  (1640)  

    Dr. Claire Franklin: If I could just comment on that, though, I think what we have had in Canada is a situation where, there's no question, it was frustrating for all of us. Growers for minor use were the ones who were sponsoring, so they were then going out and trying to determine what studies they needed and trying to find money to be able to generate the data, get that submission together and then put it into PMRA.

    As you can well imagine, given that this is not their expertise or their primary interest, there was quite a range of submissions. Sometimes we would get one sheet of paper and I can't make a decision to determine whether there are health and environmental impacts on something like that, so we were equally frustrated. The challenge was that there weren't the resources to be able to do that. What IR-4 has done--and Agriculture Canada will now take on that role--was to have dedicated funds, which Agriculture Canada now has, and the knowledge and the capacity to put the data together. When they put the submissions into EPA they go through very smoothly, so we're really thrilled that the government has made the decision to put the money in and that Agriculture Canada is taking on that task. We're working very closely. I expect that in a very short period of time we also will see the kinds of numbers of minor use registrations that are seen in the U.S.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I look forward to that day too.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: I'll just tell you right now that today, as of December 10 of this year, with all the things we've done--and we heard what you said, and we're concerned about it, and we really wanted to do something about it--we've had 200 minor uses so far this year. The other thing we have to take into consideration is the way that number is put together in the U.S.: the infamous 901 and the 24 that we're being told is all we do. That's products. That's not uses.

    So we're counting them the same way and you will see significant increases. We're doing groupings now in a way we never did before. I've doubled the resources for people to review the submissions. I now have the agriculture team onside here to generate the centre they're setting up, and their research stations and the people they will have will generate the data that is necessary. I think we're finally on solid ground to move forward.

    The challenge is--and please bear with us--that it takes us a little time to get all of this going and get it in place. I know you're impatient. I'm impatient too.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: My farmers are impatient.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: And I understand that. I truly understand that, but I think you're seeing, and you will be able to report back that we are seeing, progress already. Just fasten your seat belts, because in the next year or so you're going to see some really significant progress.

    The Chair: Thanks, Rose-Marie.

    Murray.

    Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

    I'm going to just keep going where you're going with this, Dr. Franklin. I've talked to the apple growers. They have one product that's in front of you right now: streptomycin. It deals with apple blight, both in the apple industry and in the pear industry. By my discussions with them, I think you probably got this application in around December 2 or 3.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: Hey, is it done yet?

    Mr. Murray Calder: I was wondering what the status is and how long is it going to take us until this is registered.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: I have no idea. As you well know, and we've worked very closely with the horticulture council on this one, we've had concerns with streptomycin for all kinds of reasons, partly because the registrant wasn't interested and actually had just bailed. What we were able to do, in collaboration with the horticulture council, was to try to keep this one alive. We're certainly aware of the need for this, so we'll move as quickly as we can to get this done.

    I believe it has a temporary registration now, so I think that whether the registration is finalized or not won't impede access to it for the next year, but we'll be looking forward to seeing this one move forward ourselves.

    Mr. Murray Calder: In fact, I can give you a heads-up on another product they're probably going to be after you to get registered. That's 1-MCP, which is a product that can be put on the apples to allow them to be stored longer. The United States is currently using it, as are a lot of other countries, so I hope that with the streamlining process between PMRA and the EPA that we've been talking about here, this product can move through rather rapidly because it's already being used in the U.S.

º  (1645)  

    Dr. Claire Franklin: Yes. Well, it's Christmas coming up.

    Mr. Murray Calder: Yes, that's right.

    That's fine for me, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: The streptomycin worked on you, did it?

    Mr. Murray Calder: We've used that in the chicken industry, but we've moved past that too.

    The Chair: I think two-legged creatures used it for a while too.

    Larry.

    Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I want to thank each witness for being here.

    Dr. Franklin, for the producers that I talk to across the country about minor use, and for some of the consumers that talk to these people, they still cannot understand or accept the fact that their counterparts across the border, only a few metres away in some cases, are using a certain product freely, and then of course we import the product it's used on. I know we check it out very safely at the border with our random checks, yet how can it be good and come here so we can consume that product and yet we can't get it accepted here?

    How can I explain this to our people? We've been trying to do this for a few years and they still can't comprehend what's coming from PMRA with the excuses and that.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: In most cases for the situation that you've mentioned we haven't had an application in. If we determine--

    Mr. Larry McCormick: We hear all this, yet we have a huge budget for you. You come every year. You wanted more money and you got more money and now we have you working with Agriculture and Agri-Food, but we hear these things and I hope that we can work together to solve some of these things.

    We're here for the same reason, I hope, and as for the people around this table, there is no harder working committee on the Hill. They put all this work into these recommendations. That will be my next question: the ombudsperson. Why do we get the door slammed in the face of anybody around this committee? I would expect that they have a better knowledge of this than any minister or anyone else. I would just ask you to cooperate with these cases. When you see something out there, take the responsibility and be forward on it.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: I hear you. I'm sympathetic. Since the agency was formed we've tried to work very closely with the U.S. I know that Ms. Ur always likes to give me a little poke on this one, but--

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It's not personal. I'm doing my job.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: I understand, but what we're seeing and why I gave you those numbers is that it's not two, it's not three, and in fact, it's a very significant number. The idea with all of this is to make sure that registrants come in and put in submissions to Canada at the same time. That's absolutely critical, and we're seeing that happen. We're seeing much more of that happen. Now I recognize that there's still a certain chunk. Why we put in the reduced risk program, the Canadian-only program, was to encourage registrants who had already been into the U.S. and hadn't availed themselves of the joint review program to come on in.

    So I think we're trying to do what we can to encourage registrants. I wish you would speak to registrants as well and encourage them.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: I certainly need to do that, and I'm also speaking on behalf of several other members across the country who hear from their constituents. You're right. We all need to be part of the solution and I'm at fault also, but again, they see this being used in the U.S. on the crops--

    Dr. Claire Franklin: I know it's frustrating.

º  (1650)  

    Mr. Larry McCormick: --so we need to work to encourage these people.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: If I could just add this, one thing that we did commit to the horticulture council to do was to have a look at the default regulation, which says that products that are below 0.1 parts per million are able to come in. In the next couple of weeks, we're going to put that document out for very broad consultation. We're anxious to hear what people think and what input they can give to us on that, because I think it is absolutely correct: products can come in and we look at whether they can be used, or they don't even have to if the residue is going to be less than 0.1. I think that will be important.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, very much so.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: From my perspective, I think that will also encourage registrants to come into Canada at the same time, because growers in the U.S. won't be able to use a product with confidence that it will be able to come across the border.

    I think we're putting out many of these things from what we've heard over the past year or so and I think they really will work towards rectifying what has been a rather disparate system for Canadian growers.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you very much. I just want to confirm something for my own benefit about our new, most qualified minor use adviser. I'm sure there's no better person who could have been chosen, but I just want to confirm who this doctor reports to.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: She reports to me.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: Again, Dr. Franklin, just to confirm, you report to...?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: I report to the Deputy Minister of Health Canada, who reports to the Minister of Health Canada.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: So again, I just will present this to my colleagues. I respect these people around this table so much, on all sides. We asked that an adviser report to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

    I understand it. I've had it explained to me, but Canadians, the people in the trenches who are doing the work and producing some of the best food in the world for a low price, don't understand. The fact is, we hire the best people in the world and yet they report to a minister of health. We asked, after listening to many people--and again in the last three weeks we've listened to these people--that the minor use adviser report to both, and perhaps you, Dr. Franklin, could report that way also.

    So tell me, is it only because of politics that you have to report to Health Canada, that you don't have to report at all to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada? That's what we've asked for and yet we don't make any progress at all.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: The decision in 1995 that a single agency would be formed was a government decision. That decision then determined that the agency would report to the Minister of Health, that the Pest Control Products Act would be transferred and the Minister of Health would be responsible for it. That was a decision taken by government. I certainly am not in a position to address that. I wasn't even here at that particular time. Also, that is a government decision.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: The other day at a certain meeting held somewhere in this city, ministers were showing up and saying that they are starting to work together, across ministries, whereas everything in this town always seems to work in silos. That's always been the challenge. I certainly recognize the fact. I was at the meeting and encouraged the ministers to work across ministries as we move forward. In this case, I will.

    I would like to ask a question of Mary and Dr. Martel. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but from what you're looking at here...? Here we are doing all this work and all this work is being reported to Health Canada. What opportunity do you have, in your very important positions, to make a difference with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, your department, our department, for the sake of the producers in this country?

    Mrs. Mary Komarynsky: I think that first of all in terms of the money that was announced in May and June, we've tried to explain what role Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will play in the minor use pesticide program. Our functions report to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. In addition, we have agreed that we will have an MOU between PMRA and us that will clearly outline how the money, that $54 million, will be spent, what role PMRA will have, and how the money will be spent by ourselves as well as the agency, what the targets will be, and that there will be a clear annual review of the money to assure that it's been used for minor use.

    In addition, as I noted in my opening remarks, we have committed to having an advisory committee that will be made up of industry, that is, growers, pesticide companies, and environmental, and we're now looking at who would be part of that advisory committee. Very clearly, we want to be accountable and transparent on not only the work we do but on how the money has been spent.

    We meet with Dr. Gerke on a regular basis, as she indicated in her opening remarks. Actually, from an Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada perspective, this is a new program that we're developing, so we welcome going up the learning curve that we've had from PMRA as well as from Dr. Gerke. We've had meetings with the IR-4 and we're using their expertise to develop our program as well.

    So I think that between the advisory committee that we have indicated we will have and the MOU between ourselves and PMRA, there should be a clear and transparent accountability for how the money's been spent and what results we've achieved.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Paul, do you have a question?

    Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Continuing in that vein with that discussion, has that MOU been written? The money has been allocated. Has an MOU been written? And who is writing the MOU if it hasn't?

    Mrs. Mary Komarynsky: The MOU has been drafted. It's been drafted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada because the money was announced by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. At this point in time we still have to share with PMRA, have formal discussions and brief our minister on the contents of the MOU.

    Mr. Paul Steckle: Also to you, Dr. Franklin, I have to wonder, given that it is not the directive now for you to respond to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, would you not see merit in keeping that ministry apprised? I realize that the new person, Dr. Gerke, in some way is in communication with Agriculture and Agri-Food. Your responsibilities are to health and we understand that. Would there not be direct merit for you, PMRA, to be able to communicate? Because obviously you don't, not a whole lot.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: With Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada?

    Mr. Paul Steckle: I think you said that today, did you not?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: No, I don't believe I said that. We communicate very regularly. I think that this particular initiative has been quite exciting for all of us, because I think we're really able to build something now which really will be beneficial, so that there is constant communication.

    Mr. Paul Steckle: Because constantly, since 1995, since we brought in the PMRA, I suppose we've been apologizing for this department more than for any other department in this government, other than perhaps firearms--

    An hon. member: Oh, that's another one.

    Mr. Paul Steckle: But we won't go there today.

    An hon. member: I've been on the radio on that one.

    Mr. Paul Steckle: It's been a terrible thing for us. We've listened to people and we've had all kinds of excuses and reasons, but I'm wondering about this now given that we have this group of people out there that is constantly working at removing cosmetic greenery from our communities, removing all pesticides and fungicides and all kinds of things that would allow us to make our communities more beautiful, for those who like beautification. On the one hand you're trying to have products approved, but then you have another group of people that seems to influence, in a very positive way, members of Parliament and communities, elected community leaders, to remove what are now lawful products because someone has decided that this is not the way we should be going.

    How do you reconcile those two elements? Because they're there. You know they're there. How do you do that?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: You certainly identify our day-to-day challenges. On the one side we have requests and desires for products for good and valid reasons, and on the other we have other groups that simply don't want products to be used “just because”. That is a challenge for us. It's a challenge for us as a regulator, but we have consistently pointed out that we make our decisions based on science, that we take a very measured approach to making that kind of decision, that we are not in a position to say...and I think if you read the comments that have been made while the pest control products bill has been going forward, there have been many comments that have been made to say that we are not in a position, we don't have the constitutional authority to just say that because something is used somewhere it can't be used. That, obviously, hasn't...there's another group of people out there who are also unhappy.

    But I think we also have to remain consistent to what our role is as a regulator. It is to look at the science and make the decision on a product-by-product basis for products that are not going to cause unacceptable risk to health and environment.

    There will be some days that your constituency will be happy for that and there'll be other days that they'll be very unhappy. It is the same way on the other side. We have that. That is the constant challenge we have. We try to remain true to the fundamentals of this, so that the right decisions are made and that they can withstand the pressures from wherever.

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Paul Steckle: And in the end...?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: I believe the products that come forward which have the database that shows they can be used properly will be registered. If municipalities choose for the citizenry of their municipalities that they wish it not to be used, that's really a municipal function and they gain their authorities from the provincial legislation.

    I think there will be a large debate for a period of time. I'm hopeful that the new legislation will convince people that the decisions are made correctly, that if a product is registered it can be used according to label directions. That's why I'm optimistic that the new bill will help, because I think that clearly articulates how risk assessments are done and what the responsibilities are. I think it will provide a solid anchor. I think it will also be convincing for people who have raised concerns about the safety of the food supply.

    The Chair: Thank you, Paul.

    Dr. Gerke, you have a PhD in zoology from Switzerland. Was your undergraduate work at the same university?

    Dr. Imme Gerke: No. I did my bachelor's degree in Germany at a different university.

    The Chair: At which university in Germany?

    Dr. Imme Gerke: Regensburg.

    The Chair: Did you do your master's in the same place?

    Dr. Imme Gerke: In Zurich.

    The Chair: This is probably the first time you've encountered bureaucracy. You've always worked for NGOs. Have you ever worked for government agencies before?

    Dr. Imme Gerke: Yes. I have worked for the Swiss government and I have worked for the government in Madagascar.

    The Chair: So you have found no frustration so far in terms of dealing with--

    Dr. Imme Gerke: No, not at all.

    The Chair: It's probably a poor place to ask you, in front of your boss, but you know, it's a different world sometimes when dealing with NGOs and other organizations, private companies and so forth. I think that probably from most of us MPs around the table you're hearing the frustrations we have in trying to deal with a bureaucracy, Madam Ur in particular, and probably others. We like to see things done tomorrow, but it takes a long time.

    An hon. member: Yesterday.

    The Chair: David, we'll go back to you and then to Bob.

    Mr. David Anderson: I'd like to follow up a little bit with Dr. Gerke. You've worked a fair amount in developing countries, as I see from your resumé. Has your work been mainly with organic and natural biological products?

    Dr. Imme Gerke: Mainly yes, but naturally when you work with biologicals you are in contact with the chemicals, so I have touched them, but you are right. The concentration was on biologicals.

    Mr. David Anderson: What brings you from your interest in that to an interest in being the adviser on an IR-4 project?

    Dr. Imme Gerke: it's the idea of risk reduction. I think that to bring in the newer products, the reduced risk products, we need to have a system, and a very efficient system. I want to contribute to make sure that the system works.

    Mr. David Anderson: But you have no anti-chemical philosophy? Are you comfortable working with them and that kind of thing?

    Dr. Imme Gerke: I am for risk reduction, but I'm not per se anti-chemical, no.

    Mr. David Anderson: Okay, I just wanted to check on that.

    Dr. Franklin, I just wanted to ask you how many employees you have, and what's your budget in your agency?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: Just let me get the actual number, because I know it goes into the record. We have 430 and the budget is $36.5 million.

    Mr. David Anderson: So this is a significant project that we're talking about here with the extra $54 million, but you get the $20.8 million--

    Dr. Claire Franklin: That includes those resources.

»  (1705)  

    Mr. David Anderson: That is part of your $36 million.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: That's correct.

    Mr. David Anderson: What was your budget prior to this?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: It was $800,000 less, which is what we get this year from the resources that are coming from the $54.5 million. It's $800,000 this year.

    Mr. David Anderson: So you get $800,000 this year out of $54 million over six years?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: No, per year. You asked me what my annual budget was. My annual budget is $36.5 million of the $54 million, which is a six-year total. This year it's $800,000.

    Mr. David Anderson: So it will go up considerably, then?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: Yes, it will go up considerably.

    Mr. David Anderson: How much budget do you think you need to do the job? You've talked about your frustration today. You've talked about the registrants, about how you need the registrations coming in, and your need to do this. How much money do you need to do this job properly?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: The resources we have, with these additional ones, will allow us to cope. I anticipate that once my colleagues here get wound up and up to full speed we will see a very significant increase in the number of submissions. We also have made a commitment to shorten the review times for reduced risk products. It takes additional resources to do that. So very clearly with the resources that will be coming, I think they will allow us to deliver on the commitments we have and keep up with the increased workload coming in.

    Mr. David Anderson: Is the culture in your agency changing as you go? We clearly heard last spring about one of the main problems people had in terms of registry. Today you've said that some of the fault is that of the registrants and that kind of thing, but we heard time and again of the frustrations people had in dealing with your agency. Is that culture changing to make it more able to deal?

    You talk about reducing review time and getting those registrations in. What changes have you made within your own agency, other than appointing Dr. Gerke, that will make people feel they are coming to a friendly place to deal with you? We heard clearly that this was not the case previously.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: This was from growers who were trying to make submissions, I presume.

    Mr. David Anderson: Generally, and we heard it here and when we were travelling. There was a real frustration among growers, grower organizations, and companies trying to get chemicals reviewed.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: I think that a lot of the comments on frustration with regard to minor use, as I said little earlier, were made because we had groups of people trying to generate data and put submissions together when that wasn't really their first order of business. I believe that what we're doing in collaboration with Agriculture Canada will definitely move forward to reduce that level of frustration.

    Mr. David Anderson: And are you changing those processes to make that work?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: The challenge was that we would get a submission or a piece of paper that wasn't even something we could review, and if we have to go back, someone's not going to be very happy.

    We'll now see good quality and complete data coming in, so I think that will reduce the frustration. Growers will not have to take that on themselves and try to do that. They will have Agriculture Canada to work with to get that part of it working more smoothly.

    Mr. David Anderson: So are you clarifying that whole process for them within your organization?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: Absolutely.

    Mr. David Anderson: That's good. If you do that it will make a difference, but I'm surprised as to why it has taken seven years to catch on that there's a problem with this. If you're saying that people are sending you this and they didn't even have enough information for you to make a judgment on it, why would they be doing that if you've had clear processes and clear registration structures in place for them?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: We did have processes. Normally what we see coming in is a submission from a chemical company or a registrant that has international experience and is following international guidelines. They understand and know what data they need to provide.

    What you had in Canada for minor use was a situation where the resources weren't necessarily reliable. In some years there would be more money than in others. You had groups of people and, really, it wasn't their first order of business to do that. Then in contrast, you have IR-4, as Mary has pointed out, which for 40 years has been providing that service for growers in the U.S. So we now are in a situation where we will have an analogous counterpart delivering and developing that information on the agriculture side, as has been done in the U.S. for many years.

    We're really looking forward to this, because our role, like EPA's role, is to make a decision on the data that's presented for a particular product.

    Mr. David Anderson: Do you anticipate that the data for certification in the United States will result in certification in Canada and vice versa?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: The data submitted to the U.S. is in many instances submitted to us. In fact, we make a number of registrations, particularly in the minor use, on data that come forward from IR-4.

    As Mary has pointed out, they will be working very closely and doing some joint work with IR-4. IR-4 and Agriculture Canada will really be functioning as a registrant to get the information together. We're delighted. We've worked with IR-4; we get information. They will be taking over that responsibility, which really was never our responsibility, but we worked to try to assist growers. It's now well positioned where it should be and we really look forward to some significant, positive outcomes from this.

»  (1710)  

    Mr. David Anderson: So I will repeat my question: Do you anticipate that the data that results in registration in the states will result in registration in Canada and vice versa?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: The data that is in the U.S. will be submitted to us. Is your question whether we will automatically accept the U.S. registration in Canada?

    Mr. David Anderson: Yes.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: No. We will not do that.

    Mr. David Anderson: So it will never happen. Okay.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: Nor will the U.S. do that for Canada.

    The Chair: Bob.

    Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I was actually going to ask about the MRLs, but Dr. Franklin answered that.

    I just want to say, though, Dr. Franklin and colleagues, I guess I have followed this issue longer than anybody else around the table here, over a number of years, and I've seen PMRA move at a snail's pace. I am quite appreciative of what's happened over the last number of months and how quickly you have responded. I know you didn't respond totally to the wishes of this committee, but that really isn't your decision. That's the minister's decision and certainly we can take that up with her.

    I just want to ask you a question, with the understanding that we want to move in the same direction you do, I think, in terms of trying to speed up this process. What provisions are in place for you to come back and to keep this committee informed as to your progress? Will you be reporting back to the House? Or can you report back to this committee at a certain time to keep us up to date, so that if things aren't moving as quickly as they should be because of government decisions, maybe we can help you in terms of pushing the government to either give more resources or give a stronger commitment to moving in this direction? Because certainly our farmers need to see some movement fairly rapidly.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: The new Pest Control Products Act does have a provision in it that there be an annual report, so that's certainly something that will be provided. We would be pleased, I'm sure, to come and discuss that report with the committee. I think it should give you an indication at that point in time if there are issues. So if you are in a position to assist the process, I think you would have the information in that report to be able to judge.

    Mr. Bob Speller: So can we maybe give you a call in six months?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: Please do.

    Mr. Bob Speller: Would that be fair enough so that you could come back and at least give us somewhat of an update as to what's going on?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: If I might suggest that it be at the end of fiscal year to give us a little time, because we try to get the numbers and the statistics together, I think that would be more useful than something that is kind of midstream.

    Mr. Bob Speller: Before we break in June might be a good time, Mr. Chair, to have them back.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: Certainly. We'd be pleased to do that.

    Mr. Bob Speller: Great. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I'm intrigued with this business of “Director General, Adaptation and Financial Guarantee Programs”. What does that mean, a financial guarantee? Who does it guarantee? How did you ever get that title?

    Mrs. Mary Komarynsky: I wear numerous hats.

    The adaptation refers to the CARD program, the Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development fund. “Financial Guarantee” refers to advance payments. I'm responsible for the advance payments program and SCAP.

    I have some additional responsibilities, and one of them is to work with Dr. Martel to develop the minor use pesticide program.

    The Chair: So is there a guarantee to farmers that these advance payments are going to be on time? What does the guarantee mean? You know that everything has a limited warranty, so I'm just wondering.

    Mrs. Mary Komarynsky: Under the advance payments program, the government works with producer organizations to advance money in the fall to farmers to allow them to market their crops when it's more profitable for them, to get the better price. The program provides up to $50,000 interest-free, which the government pays for, and the government guarantees the advance payment.

»  (1715)  

    The Chair: Rose-Marie, you had another question. Then David has one.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I have just a quick question for Dr. Gerke. Exactly when were you appointed to your position? On what date?

    Dr. Imme Gerke: I started on July 10.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Is that when you were appointed?

    Dr. Imme Gerke: Yes.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Have you already started travelling, meeting with the agriculture sector and introducing yourself?

    Dr. Imme Gerke: I've been travelling since the beginning of November.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay. Because it has certainly been brought to my attention, although I don't know about my colleagues, that many organizations didn't know you existed. I just wondered what PMRA did to officially launch, not only within your own department, to let people know that we do have an adviser. Do you know? Is the word out that you're there now?

    Dr. Imme Gerke: Yes, the word should be out. I sent out the message myself.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay, because there are many of these organizations that weren't aware.

    Dr. Imme Gerke: I sent the message to all the organizations that are part of the horticultural council.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: To the horticulture council?

    Dr. Imme Gerke: Yes.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay. That's not what I'm hearing, so I just wondered how much communication there was about your appointment and how well we were able to disseminate that information.

    Dr. Imme Gerke: Until now the growers have been out in the field and they are just now coming back into their meeting rooms, so maybe the message is going to spread faster now. But I've definitely communicated to at least to one person per organization that I'm here and that I'll eventually come and meet with them.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    David.

    Mr. David Anderson: [Editor's Note: Technical Difficulty]...horticultural council as well? I'm thinking of special crops in western Canada that often end up coming in for minor use applications and those kinds of things: emergency use because they can't get minor use.

    Dr. Imme Gerke: Yes. I spent one week out in B.C. and I think I've pretty much seen any crop that is there. The growers took me to many different farms, really, everything from potatoes through ginseng to ornamentals.

    Mr. David Anderson: Have you been on the Prairies?

    Dr. Imme Gerke: Yes.

    Mr. David Anderson: I went over your job description a while ago and I count about a dozen different things that you're responsible for or are supposed to do. Out of the budget and the 430 employees, what is your budget and how many employees are you projected to have in your section, in your area?

    Dr. Imme Gerke: I think it will be, including me, a team of four people, not more than that. One of them is somebody who has been with PMRA for a long time already and I definitely do need his input. He is very well known by the growers and the grower associations and he knows a lot about many crops, pests and products. Also there is somebody new who is going to learn the job, to be able to deliver to all the requests that are coming in. We are getting a lot of requests on a daily basis.

    Mr. David Anderson: I'm sure you're getting lots of requests when I look at these things. You're responsible to growers, for getting submissions expedited, for educating producers, for liaising with EPA, for identifying these things in the United States, and for educating and informing Canadian producers. Are four people enough to do all this work?

    Dr. Imme Gerke: Yes, because you are basically always talking about the same thing.

    The Chair: Thank you, David.

    Mark.

    Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Besides being a member of Parliament I'm a vegetable grower, so I'm kind of half-excited that this is happening. I sense the frustration on our farm. We do a lot of business with the United States. We used to go to California and see products that they did.

    I've seen this thing evolving over the last so many months and my question would be this: when will we see the real results happening on the farm? When will we see some of these products being...is it going to take a year before we get through the channels here?

    Dr. Imme Gerke: I think that depends a lot on what type of problem we're talking about. There are some issues right now that are in and that need to be resolved, and they need to be resolved before the next growing season. So you will see results there.

    Then you do have the label expansion process. You should see results there, I would say, within two years. Then you do have, really, the reduced risk idea of bringing in completely new products to Canada, and that just takes longer because the registration process is just longer when you talk about a new actor.

»  (1720)  

    The Chair: Are there any other questions? I think we've covered quite a broad range.

    Sometimes committees don't always get what they want. I guess we have to set our goals fairly high and sometimes you have to settle for something a little bit lower.

    Certainly we appreciate the fact that the ministers have seen fit to address this situation. Maybe it's not quite the title we had looked for, Murray and others who had advocated an ombudswoman or -man, but it's certainly good to see an initiative being taken and also to see that additional moneys were put into the program.

    I know that, as Mark says, growers plant the seed and watch it germinate and grow. Lo and behold some morning you go out and see this problem that exists. You wonder, and you call your friends, your neighbours, and somebody in someplace, to find out how to cope with it because that is your year's work.

    So it is a very frustrating part, I think, Mark, that all you growers deal with.

    I know that when the growers call our offices, especially the people from Ontario here, where we do have a lot of horticulture people, we like to have answers. We like to hope that the system can proceed fairly quickly and that they can benefit from some of the scientific research that's out there and the products that are available somewhere on the continent. But by the same token, we have to realize that health is the primary aspect of what we're doing. The health of individuals who use that product and who use the resulting growth from that use are our primary concern.

    Dr. Franklin, at the other end of your program--and I don't know how big your work in this is--we have a lot of old products that probably shouldn't be there anymore. I hope that your agency is also addressing this, both in Health Canada with people and with our plants and animals. Some of these darned old things have been on the shelves for 40 or 50 years. We probably have to make an effort to address some of them, right, Rick?

    Murray talked about a product there too. Even for lindane, there are so many uses of that darn lindane stuff.

    Some people in the livestock industry use that a bit, too, David.

    You wonder what kind of products we have out there.

    Thank you for coming today. Merry Christmas and a good holiday. We hope to get out of here this week and we'll be back sometime in late January.

    With that, we'll adjourn our meeting.