HEAL Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

¹

1540

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

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC)

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

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

The Chair

¹

1545

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

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

º

1605

The Chair

Ms. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

º

1610

Mr. André Bachand

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

º

1615

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

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

The Chair

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

The Chair

º

1620

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

º

1625

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

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

º

1630

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Reg Alcock

º

1635

The Chair

Ms. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Claire Franklin

º

1640

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

º

1645

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Ms. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Ms. Geraldine Graham

º

1650

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. James Lunney

º

1655

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Claire Franklin

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Claire Franklin

»

1700

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Claire Franklin

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

»

1705

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

»

1710

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

Ms. Claire Franklin

»

1715

Mr. André Bachand

Ms. Claire Franklin

Mr. André Bachand

Ms. Claire Franklin

Mr. André Bachand

Ms. Claire Franklin

Mr. André Bachand

Ms. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

»

1720

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

---

NUMBER 083

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's my pleasure to call this meeting to order.

    You'll recall that we were talking about amendment PC-39 on page 125. Ms. Fry had some suggestions to make around it. We stood amendment PC-39 down until we heard from Ms. Fry.

    We'll deal with both together. I was thinking of starting with that, but because she's not here, I will ask you whether we shall allow clause 15 to stand until we get back to it.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    (On clause 16--Minister's discretion to initiate re-evaluation)

    The Chair: We'll begin with amendment PC-40, which has problems because it has a line conflict with amendments BQ-10 and NDP-31. So I think you need to look at all three together.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): On a point of order, Madam Chair. I would like to go back to clause 15. I know that Ms. Fry was not here, but she told me that she had an agreement with Mr. Bachand to combine the two amendments into one and that the amendment would be moved by Mr. Bachand.

[English]

    The Chair: Yes. Mr. Bachand, please begin.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    After our discussions, this morning and at noon, I would like to withdraw the proposed amendment to clause 15 and replace it with a different one. I am in the process of signing the amendment in both official languages. With your agreement, Madam Chair, I could read you the proposed amendment.

    I move that Bill C-53 be amended, in clause 15, by replacing line 30, page 15, with the following:

    

place his or her conclusions in the Register and shall make public those conclusions if, in the

    That means that the conclusions are public and that they are in the register, but the minister makes them public as was explained to us this morning. If there is a health risk, there is information that is made public, and average people will be able, if they wish, to obtain information about the conclusions that the minister will place in the register. I will distribute the amendment.

[English]

    The Chair: For clarification, Mr. Bachand, your first amendment, not the one we're dealing with now, eliminated paragraph 15(a) and paragraph 15(b). I'm wondering if this second amendment does that also.

    Mr. André Bachand: No.

    The Chair: Okay. It's just replacing line 30 but not lines 30 to 34. So the conditions for the minister are still left in and it says:

place his or her conclusions in the Register and shall make public those conclusions if, in the

    It sounds fairly easy. And you spoke with Dr. Fry about this?

    Mr. André Bachand: Yes. Dr. Fry and I agree, and I appreciate her involvement in that.

    So the goal would be achieved and the minister will—

    The Chair: Still have some options.

    Mr. André Bachand: Yes.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

    I think everybody heard that. Ms. Fry's objection was to eliminating paragraph 15(a) and paragraph 15(b). Mr. Bachand has agreed to leave them in and to change the wording, which in effect makes it public.

    I'm going to reverse your earlier decision that you set clause 15 aside. It seems we could clear it up immediately, if you're willing to allow me to do that.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    (On clause 15—Public availability)

    The Chair: So the new and revised amendment PC-39 as read aloud by Mr. Bachand is now before you and is moved by him.

    Mr. Speller has a question.

    Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): I just received a copy of it, and I'd like to read it first.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Bob Speller: That's fine.

    (Amendment agreed to--[See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: It was carried unanimously, Mr. Bachand.

    (Clause 15 as amended agreed to)

    (On clause 16--Minister's discretion to initiate re-evaluation)

    The Chair: We're now dealing with PC-40. Mr. Bachand.

¹  (1545)  

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: I apologize, Madam Chair, but I have not quite finished. I need two more minutes. I will explain to you what I am trying to do. We still have a huge number of amendments to study. In order to speed things up, if you agree, I could, on behalf of my party, tell you which amendments I would like to have passed if possible and those on which I would like a discussion. I am thinking of labelling, for example. We agree on the amendment we just passed, and I appreciate Ms. Fry's assistance, on the government side, and that of the opposition, of course. If you could give me a few minutes, Madam Chair, I am sure we could achieve agreement.

    For my part, I have checked with some of my colleagues from the Bloc, among others, but of course the Bloc can speak for itself. We could agree on a few amendments that we would like to see passed, and others we would like debated. We would withdraw the others. Otherwise, we will probably be here for a week. But because of question period, I need about two minutes. If you give me some time to organize my thoughts, and if the committee agrees, we could do that, and move on to something else afterwards. So I need a few minutes, please, Madam Chair.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Bachand, are you saying you need a few minutes to speak to us or a few minutes to think and work?

    Mr. André Bachand: The thinking has already been done. I need to put that on a piece of paper in order to be able to share it with you. That's why I need a couple of minutes, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: In the interest of speeding up the process, which Mr. Bachand seems to be willing to put forward, I wonder if the committee would agree to suspend for five minutes.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

¹  (1547)  

---

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: We'll reconvene the meeting now.

    I've had a little visit with Mr. Bachand to try to get an idea of what it is he wants to do. In order to begin to accomplish that, I have to put something before you, which is problematic to what Mr. Bachand wants to do in order that he speed up the process for us.

    I would ask you to look in your package of amendments, back to page 20.

    Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): I don't have that. I threw it away.

    The Chair: That's a slight problem. Maybe you can share with Judy.

    You will recall that we had a discussion, I think at our first meeting on Monday, about the definition of a formulant. At the first meeting I think we decided to set it aside and save it for later, until we got to the formulant recommendations in the back of the package.

    At the next meeting, which would have been Tuesday morning... Reg, it's important that you hear this story, because you weren't here. We looked at a couple of definitions of formulants at a meeting, I think it was Monday. We decided that it was premature to decide because we thought we should look at what substantive impact that would have later on. So we decided to defer it or to stand it aside.

    In the meantime, at the next meeting, the government came in with a definition, which is on page 21.1, which you've slid in there. Very early in that meeting we looked again at PC-8, NDP-6, and the government's L-0, and you adopted L-0. I think at that moment I failed you as the chair because I forgot to suggest to you that you'd already decided to set that decision aside until later.

    Now I would have to have unanimous agreement to go back to what I think was the original plan, which was to set aside the definition of a formulant until we have the debate on the substantive issues of formulants. That would undo your decision of Tuesday afternoon.

    Mr. Speller.

    Mr. Bob Speller: I don't understand. I was under the impression that we adopted a definition of formulant.

    The Chair: You did. That's what I said.

    Mr. Bob Speller: So why don't you want that definition?

    The Chair: Because we had first decided that we didn't know what the substantive recommendations were around formulants. We had said we'd set all this aside. I was not quick when the government came forward with a definition, and we put it right at the beginning of the meeting, knowing it compared to PC-8 and NDP-6, and we voted for it. We therefore made the decision before we examined some of these other recommendations, of which there are about ten, that have the word “formulant” in them.

    As you recall from this morning, it also has impacts on the labelling decision. Remember we set aside labelling this morning until we got to formulants? This morning I forgot that we had passed L-0. It would take unanimous consent.

    Dr. Franklin.

    Ms. Claire Franklin (Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health): I hope I'm able to provide some clarification.

    The definition of “formulant” that was passed does not preclude the decision on disclosure. I think the issue with the one here was paragraph (f), which was full disclosure of all the non-active ingredients.

º  (1605)  

    The Chair: What do you mean by (f)?

    Ms. Claire Franklin: This morning the discussion, when we were concerned about some of these, I think was really more on the issue of disclosure rather than on the fact that we're saying a formulant is there and it's not the active ingredient.

    The Chair: You're talking about page 101, paragraph (f) of PC-30? I see. That's the labelling motion, about what should be on a label.

    Mr. Bachand, Dr. Franklin is saying that even though we adopted L-0, which is a pretty simple definition for formulant, that definition wouldn't have any impact on the issue of disclosure on the label. Is that okay? That would save us, because we did pass L-0, and we'd have to have unanimous consent to go back and look at it again.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: On labelling, yes, but I would like to come back to the issue raised by amendment PC-67. As to the impact on labelling, you are right. Subparagraph (f) says: “a complete list...of every...ingredient”. Subclause (f), on page 101 stated—

[English]

    The Chair: It's page 101, paragraph (f).

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Let us go back to what we were saying. When we read the words “a complete list of every ingredient”, that means that regardless of the definitions of other ingredients, nothing is changed. In that case, I agree with Ms. Franklin, where there could be a problem is with respect to what must be considered confidential commercial information. That is where there might be a problem later. We must agree on what is an ingredient or a formulant. I will reread amendment PC-67.

    It is true that this would have an impact on PC-67. The definition of “formulant”, at the beginning, would have an impact on PC-67, but not on PC-30.

[English]

    The Chair: What page is PC-67 on?

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: On page 192.

[English]

    The Chair: Page 191 is my last page.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: On page 101, Madam Chair, that is PC-30, we see: “a complete list...of every...ingredient”. I have no problem with that at all: it is our amendment. If the label shows a complete list of the ingredients, everyone will agree with amendment PC-67, because this information will be put on the label.

[English]

    The Chair: My question is, how does L-0 preclude those others you want?

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam Chair, what's the difference between L-0 and PC-8? Is it essentially the same definition of formulant?

    The Chair: No, it's a very much simplified one, and it came forward after we saw PC-8.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: But essentially it says the same thing. This is just a definition of a formulant. It doesn't change Mr. Bachand's. Mr. Bachand is right in that the word “formulant” is not used in PC-30. He calls for “every non-active ingredient”, so whether there's a definition or not doesn't change the--

    The Chair: But that's what a formulant is.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Right, but his point is simply that the word “formulant” is not used in that clause.

    Mr. Bachand, I'm not certain, is there a difference between the two definitions that disturbs you?

º  (1610)  

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: We have some problems with respect to the definitions. That said, Mr. Alcock, I must say that even if we do not agree on the definition, the fact remains that we can argue about a definition for a very long time. I think that everyone agrees with the principle we are seeking: we want to give information on all the ingredients in pest control products. If we find this further on, for example, in PC-30, I have no problem with that.

[English]

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Just help me understand what we're talking about.

    I heard the chair asking for unanimous consent to revert to an earlier amendment when we had two ways to define formulants. We passed one that said a formulant means any component of a pest control product that is added intentionally to the product and that is not an active ingredient. If that's a satisfactory definition, we've already passed it, and we can get on to the debate of PC-30 or PC-whatever.

    I'm not sure, Madam Chair, why we have to revert.

    The Chair: I'm going to withdraw my request to go back to the three definitions. We did pass one of them. I personally can't, Mr. Alcock, and I don't think Mr Bachand can, see any reason why the one we passed wouldn't do because of the precision of the other amendments he's bringing forward.

    Mr. Speller.

    Mr. Bob Speller: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    I'd be interested now in knowing the results of Mr. Bachand's five or ten minutes of consultations as to where we're going to be speeding up.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Yes. Put your amendments where your mouth is.

    The Chair: Mr. Bachand.

    Mr. André Bachand: I would like to thank Mr. Speller for his questions about what I did during five or ten minutes of my life. I appreciate that.

[Translation]

    Madam Chair, first of all, the issue of formulants is important to us, whether we are talking about amendment PC-8 or amendment PC-67. So, this is very important to us. We can get into arguments about the definition. We think the definition must be more complete, and if we can agree on that, then of course, we would also like to discuss the issue of labelling. We did talk about it this morning, in fact. We discussed PC-40 this morning.

    The purpose of these three amendments is to ensure that the active and non-active ingredients in a pest control product are listed. That is what we are asking for. Why? Because even if there are some non-active ingredients, these ingredients can and do cause health problems.

[English]

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Bachand, given your suggestions, would it be okay with you if we went to PC-67, then back to PC-30, then on to labelling, after we get through formulants?

    Mr. Reg Alcock: PC-30 is labelling.

    The Chair: Is it? Sorry.

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Reg Alcock: I am sorry. Maybe I misunderstood something. We're now talking solely about the PC amendments when there are a bunch here that we haven't dealt with. Is it the intention to have the formulants debate now?

    I thought Mr. Bachand was going to withdraw a bunch of his other amendments.

    The Chair: He is, but I think in fairness to him, before he makes this very generous gesture, he will see how the debate goes on the three things he thinks are most important. In other words, he may withdraw his offer if in fact he can't get what he wants on these. I know I would if I were him. So that's why I'm making the concession to move in this order, because I think if things go as Mr. Bachand wishes, he will then withdraw the rest of his amendments and shorten the process considerably.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Thanks for bringing supper, and let's get at it.

    The Chair: So what number are we starting with? Is it PC-67?

    Is it indeed the case, as I have described it, Mr. Bachand, that it's 67 followed by 30? And is there another one that is involved here?

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair, I will be very clear. Depending on whether or not amendments PC-30, PC-67 and others are accepted or rejected, we still have another amendment, PC-76, that appears in other amendments. It is simply about reviewing the bill; there is no other information.

[English]

    Mr. Reg Alcock: You're negotiating with the NDP, for God's sake!

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: There is no review. As we know— [Editor's Note: Inaudible] —30 years ago. We therefore suggest five years. Some people want a review in 10 years, and others want it to be in 6 years and 9 months, but we would like this issue and the legislation to be reviewed. A provision of this type appears in most bills.

    In the case of Bill C-56, even before we study it, there is provision for a review after 3 years. I am sure we can agree on a reasonable length of time for reviewing the legislation. And that would be all: we would withdraw the rest. But the others would have to be accepted.

[English]

    The Chair: I understand.

    Mr. Bachand, you've given me three numbers--PC-67, PC-30, and PC-76. I'm agreeable to that, but what worries me is that after you said PC-30, you said the word “etc.” If I'm making a deal, I want to know exactly which numbers I'm dealing with. What fell under the category of etc.?

    Mr. André Bachand: Amendment PC-76.

    The Chair: Oh, fine.

    Mr. Speller.

    Mr. Bob Speller: Madam Chair, what Mr. Bachand is suggesting, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that if we accept those amendments—not to debate them, but to pass them—then you'll pull the other ones. Or are you saying if we debate them and—

    Mr. André Bachand: We've already debated most of those amendments, so, yes, I mean pass those amendments.

    The Chair: Mr. Bachand, to be realistic, one of my colleagues may wish to suggest a subamendment to one of them. We are going to have to debate each one, and when we finish amendments PC-67 and PC-30, we'll know where we are on the formulant and the labelling issues. We'll quickly go to the review issue, and then we'll see what happens after that.

    But there's a chance here of doing things differently.

    So can I ask you then to turn to...yes, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I don't want to complicate things, but I'm afraid I must. What I'd like to do is raise what I believe would be a matter of privilege with respect to amendment L-0, the definition of “formulant” as passed by this committee.

    I believe our questions around definitions of “intentional” and “unintentional” were not answered directly, that we were given false information. I would like an opportunity to revisit that to get the record cleared and to get some straight information. I'm not asking that it be addressed now, but I want your assurances that we will come back to the definition and get some answers to our questions.

    The Chair: It's interesting, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, I am not averse to that idea, but to go back, as I said earlier, would require unanimous consent. So could we hold that thought until we deal with Mr. Bachand's potential speeding up of the process?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sure. It doesn't have to be now.

    The Chair: I'll ask the clerk to make a note that Ms. Wasylycia-Leis wants to bring some information to the table, and at that point we'll consider whether we'll redo the definitions.

    Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Madam Chair, when my friend André spoke to us, we may have misunderstood. We thought they were going to revise their proposals and withdraw some of them, and that if we agreed to discuss some, they would withdraw others. Now he wants everything. He wants his cake and he wants to eat it too, and that is impossible. At this point, I think that we should quite simply go back to page 126, to PC-40, complete the process and make up for the half hour we have wasted. That is my opinion. This makes no sense.

[English]

    The Chair: I'm sorry you don't agree, but I think we are going to proceed as suggested by the clerk. She is suggesting that instead of starting with the first one, we go right to amendment PC-76, which is on page 227. She's saying do it backwards, from the simplest to the most complicated. It will be easier.

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is a fairly simple issue. This is a question of...no, this isn't it.

º  (1620)  

    There are several amendments that are tied into PC-76. They start on page 224, going on to page 225, 226, 227, 229--oh, darn, I forgot the French. Okay, page 224 suggests a ten-year review; 226 suggests a five-year review; 227 suggests a five-year review; LL-16 suggests a five-year review; BQ-16 suggests a five-year review.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Madam Chair, could you explain why we are starting with this clause or with this issue? Why, as my colleague suggested...

[English]

    The Chair: Supposing we just did PC-76, I would not have given fair treatment to all the people who put in--

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: But why are we starting with PC-76?

[English]

    The Chair: —excuse me—who put in amendments on the number of years for review. The government is saying ten years. There are several in here suggesting five, one of which is Mr. Bachand's. I just wanted you to be aware of that package of amendments on the same subject. And page 228 also? What does it say, Mr. Alcock?

    Mr. Reg Alcock: It says five years. I could review it every year; let's do it annually.

    The Chair: So you've seen the package; you've seen the number of amendments that are being proposed. I said I would put Mr. Bachand's, on page 227, but I wanted you to know there were other choices in front of you. I will now ask Mr. Bachand to introduce PC-76, on page 227.

    Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair, it is true that it was not you, but rather your colleagues on the government side who rejected my proposal. So since I was turned down, I think we should go back to where we were at noon. You did not make a decision, but your colleagues as a group rejected my offer. So we should go back to where we were, as you suggested initially.

[English]

    The Chair: I heard only one person state clearly he didn't want to do it this way and wanted to go back to where we were before lunch--maybe two; one for sure--but other people seem to be wiling to take a chance on this.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): I second that.

    An hon. member: Let's just move on.

    The Chair: Move on in which way, though?

    Mr. Andre Bachand: Back to square one.

    The Chair: Can I have a show of hands? I'll have to take a show of hands. How many people would like to proceed as I have suggested, with PC-76, PC-30, PC-67, to see what happens if we do that? Those people who would like to proceed according to that plan, please raise your hands. Okay, I don't think people understand this. You don't want to do it.

    Mr. Andre Bachand: We don't want to do it; they're saying no.

    The Chair: They're saying no, you're right, Mr. Bachand. I didn't read that in the committee, other than the parliamentary secretary. Well, that's too bad; I can't believe we did that. What page are we on, then?

º  (1625)  

    Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): We are on page 100.

    The Chair: I wish people who opposed that idea had said so at the beginning, before we had a five-minute break and we got all this sort of advice. However, I'm at your service.

    We're now on page 126, PC-40.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam Chair, may I make a comment?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: You're right, we are at PC-40 on page 126, with the exception that we have the issue of PC-30, which we put aside until we get to the sections on formulants to have a discussion about disclosure. So we have that one, and I believe we have one other one hanging over us.

    The Chair: That's PC-17, I think.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: And I think we may want to come back to a discussion of PC-8 at a later date.

    The Chair: The group seems to have said they want to go step by step, as we have, at the 16-hours-left point.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Yes, let's not lose--

    The Chair: No, we won't. That's why we have the legislative clerk here; she never loses anything--thank heavens.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: But let's not lose 100.

    The Chair: Okay, PC-40, Mr. Bachand

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Essentially, PC-40 is about combining the re-evaluation and special review provisions that appear under the heading “re-evaluation”. We have all the time we need to look at this now. After looking at the proposed amendment, people will understand that following clause 15, we give the minister an opportunity, in clause 16, to have a much more detailed process. In addition, we ensure that consideration will also be given to international developments in this regard.

    As we know, Canada often merely reacts to developments in the area of pest control products. That may be good, but we must ensure that there is a system whereby any new information can be passed on to the minister if there is a risk, so that the latter can take action.

    There is also the issue of endocrine disruptions, which we discussed this morning. You will appreciate that this amendment is quite substantial. However, since we are talking about pest control products, I am sure that my colleagues on the government side are very eager to discuss this and to vote for the amendment.

[English]

    The Chair: Is there anyone who wishes to comment on PC-40?

    (Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: I will go now to BQ-10, Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    So we are still discussing clause 16, the re-evaluation provision. In our view, the protection of public health is fundamental. That is why we think it is essential that all pest control products that were registered prior to 1995 be re-evaluated. According to clause 16, a re-evaluation of this type is conditional on a change in the information required. In my view, we should not create a vacuum. Consequently, I think there must be a full re-evaluation of all pesticides registered before 1995, and not just those for which there has been a change in the information.

[English]

    The Chair: Madam Scherrer.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I agree with the principle, but the wording bothers me a little. When we refer to products registered before 1995, are we not excluding all the other products that might require re-evaluation? If we refer to all the products registered before 1995—and perhaps the experts could answer this—are we not excluding from any re-evaluation the products that were registered after that date?

[English]

    Ms. Geraldine Graham (Head, Regulatory Affairs, Alternative Strategies and Regulatory Affairs Division, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health): On the next page of the bill, in subclause 16(2), we do talk about re-evaluating all the products registered before 1995. So I think that's already covered there. Plus we have the ones going forward in the future.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: I see the bill says “on or after”, not before.

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: But in (b) it's before.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: You're right.

    The Chair: Are there any other speakers to BQ-10?

    (Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: We'll now consider NDP-31, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Does anybody want to move NDP-31?

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Sure.

    The Chair: Mr. Alcock is moving it on behalf of Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. Do you want to speak to it?

    Mr. Reg Alcock: It strikes me that this is similar to the motions that Judy made before, and I wonder... I did have a question.

    Judy, this is your motion, but I'd like to continue because I did have a question this morning when this same device came up. It was the issue of the minister's substituting a less harmful product each time, but it struck me that it's like a race to the least effective. Does it not sort of put up a tripping device that ends us up with only one product and thus squeezes out any hope of competition in the field?

    If the minister is always compelled to take only the least harmful, does that not bring you down the chain to only one product in each category? Would the officials comment? It struck me as a nice intent, but I'm not sure how it works in practice.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Perhaps we can get some advice from the officials on this one. I'll explain why I moved the amendment. Thank you very much for moving it on my behalf.

    It really is an attempt to get least harmful products on the market, and as they become available we then can actually de-register those that are far more toxic. So I think it fits with that overall objective of risk reduction.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Ms. Franklin, can you tell me about the impact, please?

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: I think what you're saying is part of the reason why we have put in the authority to do comparative risk assessments but on a discretionary basis, because if there was a significant difference in the risk between two products and they were just as effective...and you would also have to look at how many different products were available and if we were getting down to one and if there could be resistance problems. So there's a lot of things to think about.

    We felt that in 7(9) and in 19(4) we have the discretionary authority to do that when it's appropriate, but not to make it mandatory each and every time that you can't keep it going unless there isn't another lower-risk one.

    The Chair: Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Just from my experience and what I've seen in the bill, I would agree. We have to realize that there are eight groups of herbicides, for example, and the resistance level becomes intense. If you force a product that perhaps in some applications may not be quite as safe off the market, you reduce the competition and the ability to use them in certain specific areas where they're absolutely necessary. So you have to look at this from a practical side, and I think that's what is reflected in the words of all of the witnesses. So that's the issue here.

    The Chair: Are there other speakers? Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. Sorry, Madam Scherrer hasn't had an opportunity.

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: No, go ahead.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'd appreciate a little more discussion on this because I think what we've aimed to do throughout this bill is to find a way to enact a re-evaluation process entrenched in the law, so that in fact all pesticides on the market could be re-evaluated with a view to de-registering those products if less harmful, less toxic, products become available.

    If we can't do that much, how do we advance the agenda in terms of risk reduction and less reliance on harmful products?

    Mr. Reg Alcock: That's what intrigued me about the motions you had this morning and about this one. It's one of those situations, though, Judy, for which it strikes me that the intent is good. I don't disagree with the intent of it to reduce and cause substitution, but what I'm seeing in the bill and what I'm hearing the officials say is that those provisions already exist, and without some of the problems--it's a theoretical problem--that may be created by this wording. That's all.

    I hear you saying that the minister has the ability, when there are significant risk differences, to withdraw a product in favour of another, so I'm not certain what this accomplishes.

º  (1635)  

    The Chair: I'm wondering how often this minister or any other minister has done that. How often have they looked at a comparative risk assessment and withdrawn from registration the more toxic product?

    Ms. Claire Franklin: We have not had the authority. If the product has been deemed to be acceptable and registered, the authority, as I understand it, does not exist in the legislation to be able to remove that product because there's one that's safer. In other words, if it's already safe, then because there's one that may be lower in safety, we can't substitute. This bill would give us the authority to do that.

    We do make those decisions when we're doing re-evaluations, and in many cases there are other products that can be used, so that on the re-evaluation side there are products that are taken off the market because there are other products available that are safer.

    The comments that were raised this morning when this issue was discussed suggested that having it mandatory that for every single decision we have to take we would have to do a comparative risk assessment... that would in fact be incredibly labour intensive and I think would preclude a number of the other activities we would be doing.

    The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, can we call this the last comment on this?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We can unless someone has some further points on this. I think it's a worthwhile discussion. We've heard the argument throughout these hearings on our amendment that it's really in the bill anyway, so why be clear, why say it? I guess the prevailing argument back is that if it's here and the intent is to do that, let's do it. Let's spell it out in the bill. Why not? What can it hurt?

    In terms of the re-evaluation process, I think it's really critical that we be very precise in our language, because we have huge problems on that front. The re-evaluation process is bogged down. There are no requirements to compel that process to take place under certain circumstances and to be done on a timely basis. Those are the issues we're trying to grapple with now.

    I would think that if we've already acknowledged that when assessing a new product we must assess it in terms of efficacy and safety, we've dealt with the concerns of health protection and we've dealt with the concerns of the agricultural sector and others who rely on these products. To me, it therefore seems fitting, part of our duties, part of the mandate of this bill, to then have a process to re-evaluate and hopefully to move off, phase out, an old product that is more toxic and for which there is a replacement that is efficacious.

    The Chair: Do you want to speak again? If you do, that gives her the right to speak again as the mover.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Given that I'm the mover, I get the last word.

    The Chair: That's true, you're the mover. I forgot about that. You have the last word. Talk about confusing...

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Alcock.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: I think it's worth being clear on this because I think it pertains to a lot of the amendments here in different forms. We keep trying to spell out, in greater or enhanced clarity, things that are already there. You see that in a whole bunch of the amendments.

    Dr. Franklin, I just want to repeat to you my understanding of what I thought you said. In the current legislation, you do not have the power to withdraw. That's the current legislation you work under today. This bill--not the amendment but the bill that's been put forward--now gives you the power to withdraw.

    Ms. Claire Franklin: To make comparisons and to take it into account.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: But the question was about withdrawal. The first question was, have you ever withdrawn a product? You said, “No, the legislation does not give us the power to do that; this act does.”

    Ms. Claire Franklin: I need to be clear. We can withdraw a product that has unacceptable risks. That's very clear in the bill. What we don't have, if we have a product that's okay and there's another one that's safer or has lower risk, is the power to do that comparison and substitution. That's in the current bill.

º  (1640)  

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: Yes. In subclause 19(4) of the bill, it says:

In determining whether the health and environmental risks and the value of a pest control product are acceptable, the Minister may...take into account...the risks and value of other pest control products that are registered for the same use.

    That's the authority there. It's not mandatory; it's discretionary so that we can take into account these other factors.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: So it's an enhancement of the ability of the agency then.

    Ms. Claire Franklin: Yes, absolutely.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Okay.

    The Chair: I'll call the question on NDP-31.

    (Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: I refer you to pages 130 and 131, because BQ-11 and PC-41 are about the same lines in the bill. I would ask you to look at those two together and make your decision.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Why don't we call the question on both of them together?

    The Chair: No. You have to decide on one or the other.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: I'm prepared to deal with them together.

    The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    So we agreed that my amendment would be debated. The objective of this amendment, which would amend clause 16 at lines 5 to 19 on page 16, has to do with the scheduling problem as regards re-evaluation. A number of witnesses appeared before us to say that the bill did contain some provisions regarding re-evaluation, but very little about the timeframe for the completion of the work. Thus, subparagraph (a) states that if a pesticide was registered before 1995, it must be re-evaluated by 2006, while subparagraph (b) states that if a pesticide has not been re-evaluated for 15 years, the re-evaluation must be completed within one year.

    I think that all the witnesses, regardless of their area of activity, told us that there was an important weakness in the bill with respect to time for completing the work. We therefore suggest a very clear indication, not only regarding the beginning of the re-evaluation process, because the bill does state: “the Minister shall initiate a re-evaluation of that product no later than one year after...”, but also regarding the date by which the re-evaluation must be completed.

[English]

    Mr. Reg Alcock: May I ask the officials to respond?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Dr. Franklin.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: I'd like to hear your opinion on amendment BQ-11, particularly paragraph (b).

    Ms. Claire Franklin: The possibility of doing a complete re-evaluation on a product in one year, in our experience, is not possible. There's no country in the world that does a re-evaluation that starts it and completes it in one year. The EU doesn't do that, the U.S. doesn't do it, Australia doesn't do it. The U.S., in particular, has had a re-evaluation program in place for many years. So that's not a realistic timeframe within which to do a re-evaluation. In fact, it's very difficult to predict an exact time because there are requirements for data.

    The benefit we have in this legislation now is that we do have the authority, if a registrant does not supply information, to then withdraw the registration on that basis. That's not an authority that we currently have. So that will certainly help. When we put a request out for information, the information will have to be provided. It really depends on what type of information it is as to how long it would take to generate the test data. So that's why there has been the necessity in all countries that have robust re-evaluation programs to not put fixed timelines on the review side.

    The Chair: Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Can Ms. Franklin confirm for us that the Commissioner of the Environment was very clear on this? She said that some pesticides had not been re-evaluated for many years, that they had been evaluated using old grids and parameters, that we did not know their impact on health, and that there was therefore a risk to people's health.The one-year time period applies in this case to pesticides that have not been re-evaluated for 15 years

    If we want to protect public health, we must act quickly and not leave on the market pesticides whose health impacts we do not know and which were evaluated using old grids and criteria.

    So the Commissioner was quite clear on this. I think we have to act quickly, particularly in the case of pesticides that were registered more than 15 years ago.

º  (1645)  

[English]

    The Chair: Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Since you say that one year is too short a time to do a proper evaluation, what length of time would be acceptable or respectable? What is done in other countries, for example? Is there any reference to a time period? I think that the time period is set so that things do not drag on. Once we set a time limit, we ensure that the re-evaluation will be done within a certain length of time and that things will not drag on. If the one-year time period is too short, do you think that a year and a half or a two-year time period would be reasonable for such a purpose?

[English]

    Ms. Claire Franklin: The United States, which had a very active re-evaluation program for many years, does not have a legislated timeline within which they have to do specific re-evaluations. They establish at a point in time that over the next number of years they will do a certain number of re-evaluations.

    Now, the timelines do slip on some of these for good and valid reasons. One may find, as you're doing the review on it, that there's additional information required and you will go back to the registrant to say, “We need these studies to clarify this piece of information”. That's why there has been a resistance to say...in any type of legislative timeline. But that's the reality. It's a very different issue.

    I think what we're trying to capture here is that products will not be able to go on longer than 15 years without that re-evaluation having been started. So I think we've tried to capture that in here without then trying to say that it has to be done within one year after that, for the reasons I just mentioned.

    The Chair: Madame Scherrer, carry on.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Let me tell you what I fear will happen. If the product raises no fear at the time of its re-evaluation, I am sure that you will quickly get all the relevant documents to put it back on the market.

    In the case of more doubtful products, or products that may present some difficulties, this could simply delay its introduction onto the market. The industry may be very powerful and delay things by not providing arguments.

    The reason I would like provision for some evaluation is as follows. If a product is not in compliance after a certain length of time, then we keep it off the market until it is recognized. So we would not let a product hang around on the market because we are having difficulty getting through the process for lack of relevant information. I think this would be a way of achieving the objective sought by my colleague, namely not to allow products to hang around on the market that have been there for 15 years, and have had harmful effects, simply because the process is too slow. In this way, the product will continue to do more harm to health for three, four or five years.

    The idea of setting a time period means that if the product is no longer effective after two years, it is quite simply taken off the market.

[English]

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: That's exactly why we have the provision that when we initiate the re-evaluation, the registrant will be told the data they have to provide and the time in which they have to provide it. If they don't, we can take the product off the market right then. So that prevents them from going on and on, like they have.

    Also, during the time we still have subclause 20(2), if anything very serious comes to light, you can take interim action as well.

    So that really will prevent the problem we've had in the past with re-evaluations going on and on because we weren't getting the data we needed.

º  (1650)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: There is one small comment you made in your remarks that bothers me somewhat, namely when you speak about the time at which the re-evaluation will be started. That bothers me a little, because I know that from the time you decide to re-evaluate until the time there is a conclusion, you'll be requiring certain things. How do I know that a product that is already on the market will be evaluated as quickly as possible? There is a whole list of products that have not been evaluated for a very long time. How do I know that the re-evaluation process will really be started as quickly as possible? Should there not be some timeline for starting the evaluation process, without necessarily any reference to the conclusion? Should we say that all evaluations must begin in the following year, for example, even if the conclusion is not necessarily available within one year? In this way, these products would at least be re-evaluated as quickly as possible. That is the risk of saying that there will be several processes over a certain period of time.

    You have to choose which products you should re-evaluate. You cannot re-evaluate all of them at the same time. How do I know that the most dangerous product will not be right at the bottom of the list and that once the evaluation process is started, it will not take a very long time?

[English]

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: You're asking, when we get all the data in, how long will we evaluate it after that?

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: No, not really. Can you tell me exactly when you're going to start the evaluation of one or the other product?

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: The latest is one year after the 15 years is up we have to have that notice out starting the re-evaluation. That is in the bill. That's the latest.

    It can be sooner, of course, if there are adverse effects or changes in data requirements, but that timeframe is in the bill, because subclause 16(2) gives a deadline for starting them.

    The Chair: It's 15 years, plus a year.

    We have Mr. Lunney, Mr. Merrifield, Mr. Bachand, Mr. Wasylycia-Leis, Mr. Alcock, and Ms. Sgro on this topic, and Dr. Fry.

    Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Madame Scherrer picked up exactly where I wanted to go, and the question that begs, of course, is if after 15 years you initiate an evaluation process and there are no time constraints or limits on how long that might take, if the evaluation is going to take another 15 years.... I think people want some kind of assurance that there will be some kind of reasonable timeframe. If one year isn't reasonable, then perhaps two years is, but surely there has to be some kind of timeframe that is a reasonable response once a re-evaluation is initiated.

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: There will be a timeframe for getting the data we need and that will be in the notice. It will vary, depending on how much data is needed, and that notice will be public. The amount of time it takes to evaluate that data after it comes in is, again, dependent on the resources we have and how much data there is. By the way, it is mentioned in the annual report that there has to be a status given on that each year, the annual report to Parliament that is in clause 80, later on.

    Another thing is that once we are done with the older re-evaluations, we are expecting that through adverse effects reports and special reviews, where we can look at specific issues with the product, these things will be taken care of. The 15 years will only come into play if nothing has happened in the meantime. But if you get a major new-use application, you update the database then. If you do a special review, you review any aspect of it that needs to be reviewed. So the 15 years is really sort of a final limit; many will get done sooner than that.

    Mr. James Lunney: Perhaps Ms. Graham could help me with this. Is evidence required from other sources, or are we asking the fox to evaluate his progress in monitoring the henhouse?

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: When we initiate either re-evaluation or a special review, it says in the bill that we send out notices to other federal departments and provinces asking them to provide any information they have that's relevant. We would also use information from other countries.

    Mr. James Lunney: You're not requiring only the manufacturer to provide information but also a host of other sources as part of the evaluation process. Is that right?

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: Yes.

    Mr. James Lunney: Thank you.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: I think next was Mr. Bachand. We're now into the tenth minute of discussion on BQ-11.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: This is very interesting and we are going to continue. Earlier, you were saying that a 15-year timeframe had been included to provide as much time as possible.

    What is wrong with having a deadline for the re-evaluation? You say that you agree with this 15-year limit and that you hope that certain products or types of products will be re-evaluated before 15 years. In that case, why not have a deadline for product re-evaluation, as proposed by my Bloc Québécois colleague? Why would having a deadline bother you?

    As my colleague from the Canadian Alliance was saying, if it is not one year, it could be two. Why has it been set at 15 years? It could have been 13 or 10. Where does this 15-year period come from? Why not say that a product could be re-evaluated within a one or two-year period? Why not?

[English]

    The Chair: Perhaps I can make a suggestion here. I think we've had pretty well everyone speak on this particular segment, which indicates to me in the chair that there is quite a bit of dissatisfaction about this clause in the bill. Would you nod if you agree with that, the 15-year thing? No? Then why does everyone want to talk if they're happy?

    Mr. André Bachand: We like to agree.

    The Chair: I was reading it as dissatisfaction and I was going to ask them to come up with their own amendment to respond to some of the questions we're getting.

    A voice: It's clarification.

    The Chair: Okay, it's only clarification. Everybody's happy, but we want to talk about it.

    Who was next after Mr. Bachand, do you recall? We'll try... No, these people want to talk.

    Mr. Alcock.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Let me see if I can understand some of this. It strikes me that at the heart of this, and I'm certainly not telling Dr. Franklin and Ms. Graham... I want to sort of get this in a context for myself.

    Apparently there's a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the way the agency has operated in the past around some of these issues of disclosure, re-evaluation, or whatever. I don't have any experience with the agency so I don't know, but we certainly heard a lot of testimony to that effect and a lot of questions. Some of them may have been raised in ignorance; some of them may have been raised with a great deal of justification. I don't know.

    However, the issue of the agency's active role in protecting people's health, I think, is an extremely important one. I think it's important that the agency have the trust and confidence of people to do its work properly; whether it is—as some suggest—a clone of big business, or big farmer, or whether it's an instrument of the Sierra Club, God knows. It depends on which side of the coin you're on, I suspect, as all these debates do.

    But at one point, some of these simple questions of transparency and activity, I think, need some answers in order to maintain your own credibility. I'm told there is one product that's been in re-evaluation for some 20 years, and that is phencyclidine. Is it true?

    Ms. Claire Franklin: That's correct.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Is there a substantive public health concern about it?

    Ms. Claire Franklin: I'd like to point out that when these were started, long before the agency was formed, it was already initiated. There were many actions taken. In fact, there were hundreds of products registered for PCP. Over the years it's been reduced, and there's actually only one use remaining.

    The fact that it started was really, in my view, just a logistical issue. It started. There was action taken. Instead of saying that we're done and then picking it up again when there was another issue, it was just left open. It was just a matter where we had to or the Department of Agriculture had to advise the registrants that they were in a re-evaluation so they could then start this request. It was simply a matter that it had been started and then left. We're now down to one product, for telephone poles, and in fact that's being looked at under CEPA.

    We have to be very careful when we're critical, saying that a re-evaluation started and went on for that number of years. That's really a definition issue that probably should have been more correctly addressed previously.

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Now, this whole business of re-evaluation is again part of this ability for the agency to be more active when there are feelings of risk, where there's some new evidence that shows additional risk, or whatever. Is the intent of these clauses simply to move you from being more reactive to input from other agencies to a more active role, being able to identify problems based on some new information and to re-evaluate?

    Ms. Claire Franklin: When the agency was formed, we actually made a very aggressive effort to have the re-evaluation program. There are obviously resource implications. Re-evaluation is a very time-consuming process. We were able to get resources to do this. We put a document out that very clearly delineated what would be done in a re-evaluation program. This had not been done previously.

    What we're pointing out here is that no product will stay on the market longer than 15 years without a re-evaluation being started. We have to keep in mind that there are very few if any products that come on in year one where there will be absolutely no action on that product for 15 years. In fact, there are many additional products. There's a review of data when they come in to see if there's anything that needs to be done. It's very rare...if in fact there were one product on which nothing happened for that period of time, it would be a product that's not used very much.

    We're really trying to point out here that in addition to that kind of activity, we will make sure that they're done at that point in time. That's a timeframe that's not different from those of other countries. There seems to be a sense that if a product is 15 years old, there's going to be something really awful. The reason we have special review is if there's an issue that comes up with a product during that period of time on a specific health or environment issue, we can take action on it.

    There are many things we can do. The adverse effects reporting...in answer to the question, why don't we have a minimum, in fact, that is almost a minimum that's coming in there because we will require registrants to file any adverse effect, be it environmental, be it health, or be it phytotoxicity in an agricultural area. If it's very serious, it'll have to be done very quickly, but they will have to file on an annual basis.

    We will probably not need the 15 years because if we have an aggressive, active adverse effects reporting program, anything that comes up that's untoward will trigger a re-evaluation. That's your answer to the minimum. We've just capped it at the end here to make certain we will not go any longer than that.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you. I'm satisfied.

    Ms. Hedy Fry: I wanted to ask a question of Mr. Bigras.

    Mr. Bigras, in your paragraph (b) on page 130 you have “shall be required within one year”. We've heard from the witnesses that it can be almost impossible to get all that data and all that information within the space of a year.

    Now, paragraph 16(2)(a) of the bill itself says “re-evaluation of that product no later than one year”. I think that would actually get what you want. In other words, they have a year in which they must get it done; you have to give them the time to collect the data. If it's not possible in a year, you can't just withdraw a product because you don't have the evidence ready.

    The other point is, if there are adverse effects that are reported earlier on, this triggers action well before the 15 years. I'm as concerned as you about this. Now that it's been better explained to me, I believe the parameters and the safety measures have been put up. I was a little concerned until you just explained it, Dr. Franklin. That has made me feel a lot differently about this.

    I think the way the bill is written—initiating it no later than one year after—is probably going to get what you would like because it's difficult to tie it all in to make it happen in a year. You may remove a product that at the end of day shows absolutely no new adverse effects, yet you've taken it off the market because you haven't had all that stuff done in a year, which might be impossible.

    The thing about a bill in legislation is that if you're going to have legislation, it has to be legislation that is doable. If you set in stone legislation for actions that are impossible to do, then the legislation will be failing all the time. While I agree with your intent, I think the way the bill is written actually supports your intent in a practical manner.

    The Chair: Ms. Sgro.

    Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): My questions have been answered.

    The Chair: Mr. Merrifield.

»  (1705)  

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: My question has been answered.

    The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

    I'm sorry, before you have the last word, Bernard, could I go to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis? Then you can finish.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'll pick up where Hedy left off. She's identified the problem that is causing such grave concerns, at least on this side of the committee. The process for re-evaluation, as you've just stated and as it has been clarified by the officials, is that it must be initiated no later than one year after that deadline. It doesn't mean it should be completed. That's the problem we're dealing with: there is a beginning, but there is no end. This process could drag on forever and ever and ever. That's the problem we're dealing with now and why we're so concerned about trying to improve this legislation.

    The fact of the matter is, we don't ever pull anything off the market. We've dealt with this committee and heard witnesses around Dursban and Lindane, but there are other reasons--because we get into usages, and we get into levels, and we get into a whole lot of stuff--that make it possible for those products to stay on the market, even though they may be contaminating the environment and harming human health. Our responsibility has to be to put some parameters on the process, to get some action. Almost every other door has been shut. Everything we've put on the table in terms of trying to force a re-evaluation is gone. We can't even require a re-evaluation if a new product that is less toxic and as efficacious forces a review. So we have to have some measures to force some action on this front.

    Ms. Hedy Fry: Judy, I don't think that's true. I think, though, the whole idea of re-evaluating is you have to have data to re-evaluate; you have to have information. If you don't have information, are you just going to pull the product, whether it's good or bad or has any negative effects? Re-evaluation is a process that has to have data. If it's impossible to collect all the data you need in a year, what will you do?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Then let's come up with an alternative.

    The Chair: Excuse me. I think... Are you finished, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, but we have to have another answer to this. If one year isn't sufficient, then what is the answer? We have to have an end point or we're not going to end up with anything substantive in dealing with this unending, never-ending process of re-evaluation that doesn't go anywhere.

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

    Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I was just going to say we have an amendment later, coming up about five or six down the way, that I think will address it. I think you're very right in being concerned that we be able to deal with re-evaluations in a timely way. Witness after witness came forward saying, no matter which side of the spectrum they were on, that timeliness was an important issue, especially for re-evaluation and trying to get safer products to the market and re-evaluate the ones that are there. That will perhaps address it in a way that's not so tight. The problem with this one is it's one year. Although the intent may be right, it may not be achievable and because of that can cause trouble.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

    The last word goes to Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: That's the principle, Madam Chair, and I would like to remind everyone of it. This is the principle whereby, in the case of a procedure like the one mentioned by Ms. Fry, a beginning and an end to the process is determined. The bill as it stands does not provide for this. It just sets out when a re-assessment must take place. I think there is a consensus around the table that there has to be a deadline. The issue is whether a year is realistic. To find out, you would have to turn to paragraph (a) which says:

(a) the Minister shall ensure that all pest control products registered prior to 1995 are re-evaluated no later than December 31, 2006;

    This gives the PMRA nearly four years to conduct the re-evaluation. After that date, there will be fewer pesticides to be re-evaluated. So, the one year extension is realistic.

    However, I am open to a friendly amendment which would provide for a two-year extension instead of one. However, the problem is that the PMRA cannot even tell us how long the pesticide re-evaluation process would take from start to finish.

    I think it is our duty as lawmakers to set parameters for the PMRA in the interest of protecting public health. If we give the PMRA the responsibility to set the timeframe for re-evaluation without a deadline, public health may suffer. In my view, it is our responsibility to provide a framework for the agency.

»  (1710)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Chair, I would like to call for a recorded division, please.

[English]

    The Chair: We'll have a recorded division.

    (Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 4—See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: Mr. Speller.

    Mr. Bob Speller: Did you say something off the bat about the fact that we had so many of these that we might only take about five minutes or so on each? I can't remember what it was you said.

    The Chair: I said that, if you'd like, I would try to restrict the debate on the less controversial items to one speaker on each side, because at the first meeting we took five minutes per amendment. I think we just took fifteen minutes on this last one, there were so many people who seemed to think they wanted to speak on it.

    You will realize, Mr. Speller, having been in the chair yourself, that to move these amendments along a little more quickly, people have to restrain themselves from responding to every word that annoys them or that they want to agree with. It's a matter of restraint.

    On the other hand, on the very substantive ones, as with the precautionary principle, for example, pretty well everybody had their say. It was what I call a fulsome debate. Some people seemed to think BQ-11 required a fulsome debate. I can't really do much about it when people keep putting their hands up.

    We did have, you'll recall, a mechanism to perhaps reduce the number of amendments we would have to deal with, but that was rejected by certain members of the committee as a method they did not want to follow. Therefore, now we have to do it by what I call “the milk route”.

    We're now on PC-41. Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Thank you, Madam Chair. This issue has been debated at length, but I would once more like to take advantage of my time to ask the following question in the interest of refreshing my memory: how long does it take on average to re-evaluate a product?

[English]

    Ms. Claire Franklin: Currently, with the ones we're doing, it's approximately two years. Some of them will be longer because there's data that's waiting. I would say that we're probably in the three- to five-year range if there is data. Some, where there may be no requirement for data, will be shorter.

    What you really do need to keep in mind is that the special review, which is why we were very concerned about the amalgamation of special review and re-evaluation, is our opportunity to take very quick action. Then if there is an issue that comes up and needs to be acted upon, it can be done in an even shorter time than a year.

    A re-evaluation is really an update of the database. It doesn't mean there's a problem with the product. We really want to make sure that the product is brought up to a level where we have all the information that's required. We need to keep in mind that a re-evaluation is not done only because there's a problem with something; we may just have to keep the product updated. That is why it's very difficult to say in a very general sense what the timeline is.

»  (1715)  

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: I have two brief questions, Madam Chair, with regard to this bill.

    Have you already started an exhaustive product re-evaluation or are you waiting to find out what the parameters will be under the law?

[English]

    Ms. Claire Franklin: Yes, we have.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: In that case, on what basis are you proceeding? Is it on the basis of the regulations, since the bill has not been passed yet?

[English]

    Ms. Claire Franklin: We have the authority in the current bill to do a re-evaluation, which we have been doing. What we've had as an agency is an opportunity to set up a defined program and actually get into this in a very specific way. We started an enhanced re-evaluation program in about 1999 since we had the resources and a capacity to do it. This bill gives us the opportunity, if a registrant does not provide information, to cancel registration on the basis of absence of data being provided. In the current bill we can only cancel on the basis of unacceptable risk for a product so that the absence of data does not allow you to make that determination.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: As it now stands, there is nothing new which would give you... You mentioned the problem with regard to the one-year extension and financial and human resources. In fact, if the deadline is too short, there is a financial and human resource problem, but, for now, if the bill is passed, will you be in a position to do everything, to begin anew within the timeframes contained in the legislation or will you need additional resources?

[English]

    Ms. Claire Franklin: In preparation for the introduction of the bill there were resources provided to take on board the additional requirements that would be there. And there was public consultation on how we would proceed with the re-evaluation program. That document went out and there was public consultation on that, so the program we've embarked upon is one that we've already had broad consultation on.

    The resources that we have obtained through the bill will allow us to commit to and meet...that all products will be re-evaluated at a 15-year timeline. So we believe we have the capacity to do that.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: They will be re-evaluated. I want this to be clearly understood. The re-evaluation process will, at the very latest, begin 15 years later. The re-evaluation will not be completed. When you say that they will be re-evaluated after...

[English]

    Ms. Claire Franklin: That's correct.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, before we go on with this, I need to clear something up, because I'm not sure how long this discussion is going to go on.

    In this afternoon's meeting we have gone through six amendments. This morning we did 28 in the same period. So I thought I'd put that before you.

    As a result, I am definitely going to have to ask you to meet again tomorrow after the 3:30 p.m. meeting. So I'm going to suggest to you that we meet from 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. and break for dinner here, and then continue from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. I apologize for this because I thought we might be further along than this, but we're just not moving quickly enough. So could you come or get a replacement for tomorrow? Are you agreeable to that plan to move this along?

    Mr. Reg Alcock: I will move it along.

    The Chair: Okay. I'm going to make the arbitrary statement that tomorrow the meeting will go from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. until 8 p.m., and dinner will be provided at 5:30 p.m.

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, I really want to vote on this fairly quickly, if you don't mind.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'll indicate my support for the suggestion and make some comments later on about re-evaluation, because I think this is a major concern. I'm not sure, again, that we're getting all the information we need to make appropriate decisions.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. Seeing no more hands up, I will call the question on amendment PC-41 on page 131.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: I would like a recorded vote, please.

[English]

    The Chair: We have a request for another recorded vote, Mr. Clerk.

    (Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 4—See Minutes of Proceedings)

»  (1720)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I will see you tomorrow at 3:30 p.m.

    This meeting is now adjourned.