ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

• 0913

[English]

The Chairman (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): We have a quorum. Good morning. We can start.

We welcome the officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada as well as the officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The purpose of this meeting is to explore pesticides and food, and it is partially, but not entirely, prompted by a clipping that appeared last month in the Globe and Mail under the title “Level of Pesticide Residue Up on Canadian Produce”. It was by Alanna Mitchell in Calgary. Evidently the public is interested in what is going on with pesticide residue and whether it is safe to eat what is bought. There is reference in this article to inedible skins, whether they should be peeled off or not and the traces that were found. The subtitle reads: “Studies Show Only 1% Exceed The Legal Limits”.

You can see, therefore, that this is an issue that occurs on more or less frequent occasions. It requires the attention of legislators, and therefore we welcome very much your presence here this morning, in the hope that you can cast some light on what is going on. And with particular reference to your respective mandates, we would like to understand it better.

• 0915

Mr. Boddis, I understand you are the one who wishes to speak first. I'd ask you to compress your comments to ten minutes so there will be time for questions. The same for Dr. Gravel, I suppose. The floor is therefore yours.

Mr. Bill Boddis (Acting Director, Cross Sectoral Policy Development Division, Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Good morning. I'm Bill Boddis. I'm the acting director of the cross-sectoral policy development division in our policy branch of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Today I'm joined at the table by Dr. André Gravel, vice-president of programs at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. As well, I have with me Dr. Frank Marks, director of the southern crop protection and food research centre, which is part of our research branch; and Michael Presley, director of our environment bureau. Also in attendance are several other officials behind me, who we may wish to call upon at your pleasure should we need additional expertise.

Dr. Gravel and I will be making a joint presentation to help the committee distinguish the different roles and activities of our two organizations. The purpose of my presentation to the committee today is to quickly describe in general terms, illustrated with some examples, the roles and activities the department plays relative to the use and management of pesticides in Canada, and how we contribute to the protection of the environment and human health. I'm sure Dr. Gravel will do the same for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

I believe my talking points have been distributed to the members, or they were given to the clerk, as well as some additional information. We'll be happy to provide, to the best of our abilities, further information as required by your committee.

As you've heard already in some of your previous deliberations, the federal authority for regulation of pesticide products, including those used in the agriculture and agrifood sector, belongs to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which reports to the Minister of Health. As well, provinces and municipalities also have some powers regarding the control of the use of pesticides. Since the creation of the PMRA in 1995, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has not had legal responsibility to control the use of pesticides or to collect information on the sales and their uses. While our department has no legal responsibility to control the use of pesticides by farmers, we are contributing, and we believe significantly, to the non-regulatory aspects of pesticide management in the areas of research, technology, awareness, and adaptation in support of products and practices that help ensure the safety of humans and the environment relative to the agricultural sector.

With regard to research and technology activities in support of environmental protection, departmental scientists provide scientific data regarding the persistence, movement, and in some cases impacts of potentially toxic substances that are found in agricultural production systems. Our research targets contaminants that may be problematic should they move from agricultural soils to elsewhere in the environment.

More specific examples of our pesticides research include finding ways to reduce the need for pesticides in agriculture through integrated pest management, which, for example, includes using biological agents for the control of insects, weeds, diseases, etc.; identifying pesticides that are more selective, less persistent and less toxic; and developing improved methods for applying pesticides. Traditionally the department has been a significant contributor of data and expertise to the PMRA in support of the decision-making process in registration of pesticides. The cooperative role between the research branch and PMRA is outlined in an MOU between the two parties. I believe a bilingual copy is attached to the handout you received.

Finally, Mr. Chair, the research branch has and continues to be in close working relationships with other federal agencies with natural resource protection interests. Here we're thinking of Environment Canada, where Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada works cooperatively on issues related to agricultural practices and water quality in the Great Lakes area.

• 0920

In addition to our research-related activities, our department is involved in awareness and adaptation activities. Agriculture and Agri-food Canada is helping the sector continue to make the transition to more environmentally sensitive practices.

Some examples would include working with provinces such as Ontario to produce a series of user-friendly publications on best management practices, including one on integrated pest management that helps farmers find ways to reduce their dependence on chemicals, and working with farmer organizations across the country on environmental farm planning, a proactive preventive approach to protect the environment and human health on the farm and its surroundings. And in this component we have a component on pesticide use and management.

In addition, the national soil and water conservation program is aimed at addressing environmental issues in the agriculture and agrifood sector. It's continuing the good work done under previous programming, such as environmental farm planning, and as well, new activities are being supported. Again, we could give you a number of examples, such as precision farming techniques in Alberta using satellite-based technologies to help better target pesticide applications and minimizing risk of soil and water pollution, developing education materials, and designing and conducting pesticide applicator safety certification and recertification courses for farmers and farm workers in Newfoundland.

Another important activity at the department that relates to pesticides is our groundbreaking work on agri-environmental indicators, which are designed to measure and monitor the state of the environment relative to agriculture. Based on the 1995 national farm input management survey conducted jointly by our department and Statistics Canada, indicators for pesticide management by farmers, such as application timing, sprayer calibration and use of non-chemical control methods, have been developed that help measure the adoption of integrated pest management.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I hope the examples of our work at Agriculture and Agri-food Canada related to pesticides demonstrate that we are acting on our environmental commitment by contributing to the improved understanding, development and promotion of pesticide products and management practices that are safe to the environment and human health.

We'll be happy to answer questions from the committee to the best of our ability, following the completion of our presentation by Dr. Gravel.

Mr. Chairman, Dr. Gravel.

Dr. André Gravel (Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's certainly a pleasure to be here today to discuss the role of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in the use and management of pesticides in Canada.

As the agency is a relatively new organization, let me take a few minutes to provide you with an overview of the agency and its mandate.

[Translation]

When Parliament created the CFIA in 1997, it gave the agency a mandate to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of all federal inspection and related services for food and animal and plant health. As part of our efforts to address this challenge, we have reduced overlap and duplication in program delivery, management and administration. We have forged working relationships with other government departments and provinces and territories.

[English]

In particular, we work closely with Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, and with the provinces on issues related to pesticides.

Recently, as you know, Bill C-80, the Canada Food Safety and Inspection Act, was tabled and, if passed, will provide the agency with a modernized and consolidated legislative framework. The bill represents the most extensive review of Canadian food law in our 130-year-plus history and is designed for today and for the future. The existing division of responsibility between the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food and the Minister of Health would not change, thereby protecting the current systems of checks and balances.

[Translation]

The agency has created a management and organization structure which serves the public interest and the needs of clients while reflecting geographic realities and respecting the need for employee growth and development.

• 0925

[English]

The agency has a three-part mission of safe food, consumer protection, and market access. Let me take a few minutes to review the three parts of our mission and share some of the initiatives and accomplishments in each area in relation to the use of pesticides.

Food safety is a top priority for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. We are vigilant in our inspection and enforcement activities and are working to further strengthen Canada's food safety system. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is working with the food industry and other federal and provincial governments to introduce modern approaches to food safety at every stage of production. This cooperative approach will ultimately lead to the development of an integrated inspection system, or IIS, which will cover the full range of food safety from input materials, through production, to retail and consumer use.

A key element of CFIA's work in the development of the IIS is our support for the implementation of hazard analysis critical control point, or HACCP, systems by federally registered establishments. HACCP is an internationally recognized approach to food safety, based on identifying and preventing food safety risks during processing. This preventative approach, pioneered by NASA, is an improvement over the traditional inspection approach, which largely relies on testing products after they are already processed.

In carrying out its food safety responsibility, the CFIA administers a number of programs that involve residue monitoring for biological, chemical and pesticide residues and other adulterants in food and animal feed; microcontaminants and environmental contaminants, including pesticides, in fresh and processed fish and seafood.

The food residue and chemical monitoring program, which carries out surveys of food products using a risk-based ranking approach for chemical and other adulterants, including pesticides, is a joint responsibility with Health Canada.

[Translation]

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, reviews and registers pesticides for use in Canada and sets maximum residue limits which are permissible in food. The limits define for the CFIA the Canadian standards for determining the amount of residues allowed to remain on food at the point of sale.

For example, the CFIA samples and tests domestic and imported fresh produce and processed fruit and vegetable products for compliance with residue limits established by Health Canada.

The CFIA's Chemical Residue Program is divided into three phases: monitoring, surveillance and compliance.

[English]

The monitoring phase is designed to provide profile information on the occurrence of chemical residues in produce. From April 1994 to March 1998, the CFIA took 41,000 samples of fresh produce, of which 6,879 were domestic and 34,591 were imported; and 2,900 samples of processed food and vegetable products. The analytical results for fresh produce showed a compliance rate of more than 98% with the food and drug regulations.

When residue violations are found or suspected, the CFIA has a program in place to investigate, control or prevent the produce from entering the marketplace. The investigation and control of the product is done through a surveillance and compliance phase of the chemical residue program.

The animal health and production division of the agency manages the agency's feed program, which is responsible for product registration, inspection and sampling at feed manufacturers. Agency laboratories provide analytical support and new test detection methods.

CFIA inspectors carry out inspection duties at commercial feed mills and farms every year. They sample feed for biological and chemical contaminants, which includes randomly selected monitoring of chemical contaminants, including pesticides in feeds.

[Translation]

The Feed Program also contributes to a national trace back program designed to track contaminated food products back to their source. If a positive residue is found in meat, milk, or eggs, CFIA inspectors can conduct a trace back to the farm or feed mill to ascertain if and where the contamination is entering the food chain, and take appropriate action.

• 0930

[English]

A third pesticide residue program is run by the fish, seafood and production division, which sets inspection requirements for federally registered fish and seafood processing facilities and imported fish products. CFIA staff monitor the 1,600 processing operations with approved quality management programs, representing 1,000 registered fish processing plants in Canada. These quality management program audits involved the inspection of 300,000 tonnes of fish and fish products, of which 99% were in compliance with all federal safety, quality and related standards and guidelines, including those set by Health Canada for bacteria, chemicals and toxins.

The second part of the CFIA mission statement deals with the protection of Canadian consumers. This is achieved through accurate labelling of food products, enforcement, and raising public awareness.

The CFIA has taken innovative steps to communicate the importance of food safety and the role consumers can play. While messages do not focus on specific adulterants such as pesticides, we have been successful in raising the general public's awareness of safe food handling procedures through our collaboration with the Canadian Partnership for Consumer Food Safety Education and the FightBAC! campaign.

The campaign, launched in five Canadian cities in November 1998, has achieved a number of communications objectives in its first year. For example, the FightBAC! website receives an average of 1,900 visitors per week; 12,000 supermarket, retail and community action kits have reached consumers; and over 20,000 bookmarks have been distributed to schools and community health units.

The CFIA will continue to seek partnership opportunities to raise awareness among the general public about the role governments, the industry and consumers can play to make Canada's food supply safe.

[Translation]

The third part of our mission has to do with market access, which is also a priority for the CFIA. The agency's role in market access with regard to both imports and exports should not be confused with trade promotion. By market access, we mean that the agency is in the business of protecting important Canadian resources, namely Canada's food supply system, its animals and its plants through measures that help prevent the spread of food-borne illness and maintain a healthy animal and plant population. We contribute to safe food through inspection, certification and monitoring of producers and importers, which protects Canadians and helps to build international confidence in Canadian produced foods, animal, and plant products.

The agency also works to influence international inspection standards and encourages the adoption of Canadian requirements based on sound science principals that reduce technical trade barriers.

In conclusion, the CFIA has taken steps to meet its mandate to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of federal inspection services with relation to safe food. We are working with other levels of government, and in particular, with our partners in Health Canada, to strengthen the Canadian food system through science-based approaches and mechanisms, and our continued monitoring of Canada's food supply.

[English]

Thank you for your time. I welcome your questions.

The Chairman: Merci, Monsieur Gravel.

Mr. Marks or Mr. Presley, do you have any comments?

Dr. Frank Marks (Director, Southern Crop Protection and Food Research Centre, Research Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): Mr. Chairman, we don't have any comments at this time.

The Chairman: All right. We have a list of speakers starting with Mr. Gilmour, followed by Mr. Lincoln and Madam Torsney.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When I was in the private sector in the forest industry, I was required to have a pesticide applicator certificate to apply herbicides. Can you tell me if farmers are required to have application certificates?

Mr. Bill Boddis: I do not believe there is a federal requirement for such, but that falls within provincial jurisdiction. To my knowledge, Ontario specifically has a pesticide applicator requirement.

• 0935

Mr. Bill Gilmour: What are your feelings on the rest of the country? The courses deal with application rates, storage and personal protective clothing. If a farmer doesn't have those tools to work with, particularly in the rate of application, it wouldn't necessarily be an accident, but there could be an over-application. Do you feel there is room to have national certification for farmers who are applying herbicides or insecticides?

Mr. Bill Boddis: That's an interesting comment. At Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada we do not have a mandate to engage in such requirements. We have a vast provincial extension service across the country that works closely with producers on many farm management issues, including pest management, handling, application, etc. I also believe our department puts out some publications to assist various farm groups and provincial governments, to better inform producers on how to apply various pesticides.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: What are the main pesticides used in agriculture?

Mr. Bill Boddis: The major pesticides used in Canada are herbicides—weed killers.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Could the committee get perhaps a list of the amounts and the main herbicides that are used in Canada, just for our information, to see whether we're looking at thousands of gallons or whatever, just so we can get an idea of the scale of pesticides that are used?

Mr. Bill Boddis: We do not collect that type of information directly, but I believe some of the pest control product associations may have that for you. I'm thinking specifically of the Crop Protection Institute. It has a website as well.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Have you had the opportunity to look at the environment commissioner's latest report?

Mr. Bill Boddis: I've looked at it very briefly.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Do you agree with his criticisms?

Mr. Bill Boddis: Was that singular or plural?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: They were plural in the report.

Mr. Bill Boddis: Perhaps I could ask Michael Presley to address your question.

Mr. Michael Presley (Director, Environment Bureau, Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): We've taken a fair amount of time to absorb the commissioner's report, and I think we've found that the commissioner's findings were fair.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Lincoln, please.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): You were saying that the most widely used pesticides or herbicides are for weed killing. In the report of the commissioner, he details one case of Acrolein, which I questioned Mrs. Franklin on the other day. His finding is that Acrolein is known to kill fish. There have been documented cases of fish dying in irrigation canals.

The pesticides management office decided they wouldn't agree with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that Acrolein should not be used in irrigation canals. Dr. Franklin told me it was a question of whether we treated it as an irrigation canal or a fish habitat in each case, which I found extremely surprising as an answer. I didn't have time to question her further, but it occurred to me that irrigation canals go into the food supply, of course, and also into the groundwater, rivers and lakes.

What is your position as Minister of Agriculture? Would you see Acrolein being banned as a weed killer in irrigation canals, or generally speaking, if it kills fish?

Mr. Bill Boddis: I don't think we would have an opinion on that. As you've described quite appropriately, this is the responsibility of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and Claire Franklin. They are in the position to make the decisions on registering products; we are not. We do not have that type of expertise available in our department since the creation of the PMRA.

• 0940

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: But obviously the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is making the case quite clear that it does not agree with the use of it in irrigation canals, and it seems to me that irrigation canals are used by farmers, who comes under the Ministry of Agriculture. Don't you think your department, which is the most important department of government with regard to food, should give advice to the PMRA so that a huge amount of weight will be added to that of the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans? Don't you think you should take a position? We're talking about a pesticide that's killing fish. If it kills fish, surely it can't be very good for humans.

Mr. Bill Boddis: I can only reiterate that we do not register products and we do not look at the science behind the registration of products. I think you've pointed out that the registration of a pest control product is a very elaborate process, with many factors being considered. We don't do that any more, since the creation of the PMRA.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: So we're stuck with the PMRA's decision, sadly.

I'd like to ask you another question about herbicides and pesticides. I was reading in the New Scientist of April 3, 1999, that two researchers in Switzerland, Stephan Müller and Thomas Bucheli from the Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, started to study pesticides in rainwater. The European Union and Switzerland have a maximum level of 100 nanograms of pesticides in drinking water. In studying rainwater samples, in some cases they found 400 nanograms of 2,4-D and in another case 900 nanograms of atrazine. Their finding was that rainwater is laced with pesticides that evaporate and contaminate drinking water.

Are you aware of any connection between pesticides and rainwater in Canada? Do you monitor these things at all?

Mr. Bill Boddis: Mr. Chairman, I personally am not aware of the article the member is referring to, but I'll confer. Perhaps Dr. Marks, through our research branch, may be aware of some research or something similar in Canada. We are not responsible for the quality of drinking water, I might add.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, I understand that, but it seems to me that you might be aware of it.

Dr. Frank Marks: Mr. Chairman, we are aware of it. We don't monitor rainwater. What we do look at is what happens in relation to an application to the fields and the groundwater and getting into streams, and that's particularly in relation to our research program.

Mr. Bill Boddis: If I might add, Mr. Chairman, I believe that may be an aspect PMRA considers in their environmental assessments and registration process. I don't know for certain.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: We could say our environment ministry is not the PMRA, Agriculture is not the PMRA, we don't do this, they do it, and then the PMRA makes a wrong decision. It's very sad that key government departments shouldn't influence the PMRA in the right direction. That's all we're saying. That's why I was asking you if you were aware of these studies.

For instance, something that relates to you much more directly is all the various comments about pesticide residue in fruit and vegetables that, according to some studies, are now reaching the level of residues in imported fruit and vegetables from places such as Mexico. In other words, according to what I've read recently, the levels have risen tenfold since 1989. Is that part of your monitoring or your research and something you're responsible for, or is it PMRA that looks after it?

• 0945

Mr. Bill Boddis: I don't think we're here to say whether PMRA makes good decisions or bad decisions. They make decisions, I'm sure, with the best knowledge and capability they have at their disposal.

If we get a little bit more specific, Mr. Chairman, the subject of food residues is, I think, something we can speak to.

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, if I may, with regard to the issue of the monitoring of residues of pesticides and other contaminants in food, basically two departments have responsibility for that. One of them is Health Canada through the PMRA, which sets maximum residue levels for different pesticides, and the other is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Our role is to sample products and determine that products offered to consumers in Canada are within the tolerance set by Health Canada, and the agency is doing that on a regular basis.

As I mentioned, we basically have three types of programs. One of them is a monitoring program, which looks at the environment in general and at what are the different levels of contaminants, such as pesticides, heavy metals, etc. On the basis of information generated by those types of surveys, we have a surveillance and control program, which is aimed at removing from the marketplace produce, meat products, or dairy products that have residue levels above the tolerance level.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: But if the studies showed, for instance, that in some of our domestic apples they found the residue of 16 pesticides and if they said that the level has risen ten times since 1989—and I know we were told that the level is still very, very low—and even if it were within the tolerance, wouldn't it be better to be at the 1989 level than at a much higher level in 1998 or 1999? Does that not show that we're going in the wrong direction?

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, I certainly would like to be go back to 1989, because I'd be ten years younger.

However, with regard to the level of contaminants in food, the agency is guided by the Department of Health in terms of what the MRLs are.

There are other factors that need to be taken into consideration as well. One of them is the development in science that allows chemists to detect very minute levels of residues in food. Twenty years ago parts per million was the limit of our detection. We're now into parts per trillion, which is a very small amount. The other thing as well is that the agency and, I think, Health Canada have improved the way we're doing residue monitoring. In 1989, as an example, we were monitoring for about 200 pesticides. We now monitor for 260 pesticides. So all in all the increased level of monitoring and the more sophisticated method of detection do generate information of this nature.

But going back to the main issue here, which is food safety, the fact that we find these residues in minute levels does not represent a significant health hazard, according to Health Canada

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I sure hope you're right, Mr. Gravel, because, frankly, when we eat 16 pesticides in an apple it's pretty scary stuff, I think.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Next is Madam Torsney, followed by Mr. Laliberte, Madam Kraft Sloan, Madam Girard-Bujold, and the chair. Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Thank you.

Dr. Gravel, you've outlined on pages 3 and 4 the inspection process for feed that goes into our food. Although this is a committee about pesticides, I'm a little more concerned about some other contaminants that might be in our food chain. In light of what has happened in Belgium, have you examined the early information to find out whether such an accident could happen in Canada? Is there a better system in place here that would prevent the same kind of impact for the domestic market as well as the export market? Are you confident that we don't have dioxins in our food?

Dr. André Gravel: Thank you for the question.

The agency is indeed aware of the situation that is currently happening in Belgium, and I have to admit that last week we were very busy trying to determine what we're going to do as a result of those very findings. In fact, the agency task force worked all weekend to determine what type of action had to be taken.

• 0950

If I could just take two seconds to summarize where we are with that file, because I think it's one that's very important, the agency has banned the importation of basically all animal products from Belgium, and that includes further processed foods such as chocolate, which I think contains milk; chocolate filling that may contain egg products, as eggs are definitely a possibility of contamination; and pastries, pasta, etc. So these products can no longer come to Canada. We've also issued an alert statement advising consumers not to consume these products. We've set up a 1-800 line to answer questions from consumers on that. So basically I think we've covered the waterfront there.

To go back to your question of whether something like that could happen in Canada, this is either purely an accident or a gesture of sabotage that has taken place in Belgium. If it's an accident, then accidents happen. The agency is confident that between ourselves and Health and the monitoring we do for environmental contaminants, if something like that were going to happen, we'd know about it.

Normally when an environmental contaminant reaches a high level, such as it did in Belgium, there are signs in the animal population that show it is happening. The way the Belgian authorities found there was a problem was that birds were dying. They had their vet services look at the reasons for the death, and they basically eliminated all disease incidents. Then they got into contamination from different things. That's how they found out that the feed was contaminated. Then the epidemiological investigation started.

We in Canada do the same thing. As I mentioned, we monitor for environmental contaminants. In a case like this, hopefully we would pick it up. My experience is on the basis of samples done by Health Canada of dioxin contamination at the food basket level. What we find is basically a very low background level that ranges between one and eight parts per trillion. What they found in Belgium was closer to 700 to 1,000 parts per trillion. So clearly, it's very easy to make a distinction between what you find in the environment as a result of contamination, and a significant incident.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, through you, is the feed checked on a more regular basis so that we wouldn't have to wait until the food basket...or until the birds are dying? Is there something else going on higher up the chain, or I guess it's lower down the chain?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes. Thank you for reminding me.

We do carry out inspections at between 400 and 500 commercial feed mills and farms every year. We sample approximately 6,000 feeds for biological and chemical contaminants. Our lab runs screens for 44 different pesticides. As an example, from 1996 to 1999 we tested 588 samples, and only 21 samples, or 3.6%, were found at levels greater than our limit of detection, which is one part per million. All those positives were from malathion, at less than 1.5 parts per million. So there is an ongoing program for pesticides and heavy metals, etc. in feed in Canada.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thanks.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On other findings, Environment Canada stated that the waste from hog farms was including some endocrine disrupters. In researching this, and in speaking about the food cycles and the food chain.... Where were the endocrine disrupters found? Has that been investigated? Are there residues in the products from the hog farms, the pork? Does it come from the feed—from the pesticides in the feed? This whole food cycle seems to be compromised. Is that the mandate of your agency, to protect the food cycle?

• 0955

Dr. André Gravel: Yes indeed, Mr. Chairman. The agency certainly has a mandate to look at protecting the food cycle. As I mentioned, the agency is involved in an integrated inspection system that looks at intervention points that range from inputs to animal production, to food processing, to distribution. So the answer to your question is definitely yes.

In terms of our monitoring for different substances, the agency is involved in monitoring for such things in pork production as the presence of antibiotic residues, sulpha drugs, pesticides, heavy metals, hormones, thyrostatic hormones, etc... Clearly, we have a very good picture of what's happening.

In terms of our intervention on the farm in relation to environmental concerns, this is not our file, Mr. Chairman. The province and Environment Canada are more up to date on that.

Mr. Bill Boddis: Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, I think Dr. Marks could shed a little bit of light on endocrine disrupters as well.

Dr. Frank Marks: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In relation to your question, one of the key sources of endocrine disrupters, say in hog operations, is the natural hormones that come from the animals themselves, from pregnant females, or some females. We've been working with Environment Canada over the last year to evaluate the levels that would be found in manure, and we're still working with Environment Canada.

Based on the analysis of data this time, we believe it is premature to conclude that there are significant amounts of hormones that are moving from the fields. If you apply hog manure according to good farming practices, there should not be any problems—at least this is what our information suggests at this time—with these EDCs getting into the water and as far as consumers are concerned. At the present time, we're still working with Environment Canada and with hog farmers on this aspect.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: If there were endocrine disrupters in your findings, what legislative framework exists to control this? Is it under your food inspection act, or is it under Environment, under CEPA? What would kick in if your findings were to prove a substantial decision was required?

Dr. Frank Marks: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chair, this is under Environment Canada, and maybe André might be able to answer that question better than I can. This is why we're working with Environment Canada, because water quality does come under them.

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, this is right. There is a part of it that is related to Environment Canada with regard to the impact on the environment. There is also a part that is related to food safety and whether these types of compounds have an impact on human health. If they do, then we would be guided by our colleagues in Health Canada in terms of the presence of these types of substances in the food.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Chair, I just want to go into a different line.

In your statement you said public awareness is crucial and that labelling is a major part of consumer product awareness. In all of the food agency's capabilities, is biotechnology and its effects on the food cycle a part of your testing or findings? Why is it not considered part of the labelling process? Biotechnology is now emerging into our food cycle and food systems, as evidenced in Belgium, where the Belgian chocolate is now a few generations away from the actual, I guess, contaminated or tainted product. It's a by-product. It's a cooked product.

That was the debate that biotechnology created. What do you label in biotechnology? Do you label a french fry that's cooked in canola oil made from genetically altered canola? That whole debate takes place, and that question is asked. Somebody uses that excuse for not labelling, that they don't know what to label. Can you shed some light on this? Does your agency have evidence or testing of genetically altered stuff in our food?

• 1000

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'd like to invite Madame Marg Kenny to the table on the issue of biotechnology, if I could.

Ms. Margaret Kenny (Acting Director, Office of Biotechnology, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): First, in response to the kind of testing that is done, prior to any food product coming into the market that has been developed using biotechnology, Health Canada is responsible for carrying out a food safety assessment. So they would look at things such as whether there is a nutritional difference in the food, or whether there is a human health concern associated with the food. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency would look at the environmental safety of the crop plant.

In terms of labelling, we take our lead from the safety assessment that Health Canada carries out. Any matter associated with food safety—for example, if there was nutritional difference in the food—would have to be labelled as such. In terms of the non-health and safety considerations, however, there is no mandatory requirement to require across-the-board labelling. But if there is a market demand for food that has not been developed using biotechnology, then companies can voluntarily identify that their food has not been developed from biotechnology, for example, or they can identify on a voluntary basis that it has been developed from biotechnology, as long as it's truthful and not misleading.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So in terms of the organic farmers in this country, the burden of proof that they're not biotech is put on them. The biotech products are free and clear as long as there's no nutritional difference or health risk.

Ms. Marg Kenny: There has been an organic standard developed in Canada, and the overarching body responsible would be the Standards Council of Canada. They have worked with the organic industry. The standard that they have developed, which includes a number of specific production processes that they don't use or do use, actually specifies that genetically modified plants are not used in their production system.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So in terms of genetically altered products, if there is some mistake or accident or sabotage—we don't know; it could be a genetically altered sabotage—that could disrupt the whole agricultural industry in this country if we do not have the standards and the protection from this industry.

Ms. Marg Kenny: Mr. Chairman, as I noted, we do have a pre-market assessment for environmental safety and for food safety, and then, as in the case of any other food in Canada, if something like this were to occur through accident and so on, we do have legislation that allows us to take corrective action.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

Madame Kraft-Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Chair, we spend about $700 million to $800 million in this country at the federal level, provincial level, and so on, promoting biotech food products and other biotech products. How much money is spent undertaking risk assessments and health assessments on biotechnology products for food?

Dr. André Gravel: As Dr. Kenny mentioned, the food safety assessment on any product, including products of biotechnology, is done by Health Canada, so our agency is not in a position to answer that question specifically.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, Mr. Chair, I suggest we get that information.

• 1005

I want to refer to your brief in regard to your groundbreaking work on agri-environmental indicators, which are designed to measure and monitor the state of the environment relative to agriculture. What I've been hearing from some of the early questioners in terms of water quality was, well, Environment Canada does that. So I wonder what environmental indicators you were actually looking at.

Mr. Bill Boddis: I'd like Michael Presley to shed some light on that question.

Mr. Michael Presley: This is an important piece of work that the department has undertaken. In terms of regulatory responsibility, certainly other agencies have responsibility for various aspects of the state of the environment and the agricultural landscape. But we consider it our responsibility in our department, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, to develop with our research community a good ability to measure trends, evaluate trends and changes in the state of the environment within the agricultural landscape.

We've already released a couple of very important pieces of work related to that work. One is a document called The Health of our Soils, which describes quite comprehensively the quality of soil in agriculture. As you may know, over the last 20 years there has been increasing attention paid to the impacts of soil erosion and the quality of soil as it relates to farm management practices. So we've documented in that document the trends and relative improvements in that resource.

We are currently working with Environment Canada in releasing a document called The Health of our Water, which we think will be a very important piece that will describe the water quality, groundwater and surface water quality, in the Canadian agricultural landscape as it relates to agricultural production practices.

Another piece that is important in this series of work is a document entitled The Health of our Air. This has focused particularly on greenhouse gases, climate change, and the agriculture and agrifood sector's contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. It also looks at other issues related to air quality that aren't specific to greenhouse gas emissions. It's an important piece of work that was released within the last year.

This fall, we will have a comprehensive report describing all the indicators developed for the agriculture sector. It will be the agri-environmental indicators report.

The project manager for that work is with us today. If you'd like, I could ask Terry McRae to speak to you about the main category of indicators that we are going to be reporting on in the fall.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, and I have another question as well.

When you're taking a look at groundwater issues, there are certainly multiple effects of pesticides, but there is also interaction with other things, for example, nitrate. A recent study has suggested that while certain levels of pesticides had no effect on human health, when mixed with nitrates there was a tremendous effect on human health because of the interaction. I wonder if you're also doing studies that take a look at these sorts of things.

Mr. Michael Presley: Again, I'll ask Terry to join us at the table.

One of the indicators focuses very precisely on chemical inputs and farm management practices of chemicals, to understand what the trends are in terms of adopting best management practices in relation to chemical inputs.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would also like to know what your budget is and how many scientists you have doing research in this particular area.

The Chairman: I would ask that you make this presentation within three minutes, please.

Mr. Terence McRae (Senior Environmental Analyst, Environment Bureau, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the nature of the work on agri-environmental indicators, this work was initiated about six years ago, in 1993, and as Michael pointed out, we're going to be publishing our results this fall.

Basically the mandate of the project is quite ambitious. We were asked to look at developing a system to monitor environmental trends in primary production agriculture. We decided that we would follow an indicators-based approach; that is, we would focus on key measures that would inform us about the direction in which agriculture is heading relative to the environment. As a result, we've developed about 13 indicators.

• 1010

There are two basic criteria we're using to guide the study, and one of them is looking at the extent to which agriculture is conserving the natural resource base upon which production depends. Here we're talking essentially about the soil resource. Another set of indicators focuses on how compatible agriculture is with other ecological systems with which agriculture interacts. And here we're looking at things like water, climate and biodiversity.

So those are the two criteria within which the indicators are nested, and the indicators basically deal with a number of issues within production agriculture. The whole area of farm management is obviously very key. We wanted to have a look at how farmers are managing their land, their resources and their inputs relative to the environment. A number of indicators have been developed that inform us of some of the trends there. We're looking at things in this area, for example, like soil cover, soil residue cover, and whether or not it's increasing over time. We're also looking at inputs, and here we're looking at things like how manure is managed, how it's stored, how it's applied, and when it's applied. We have some indicators that deal with pesticides or pest management, and we're also looking at fertilizers and how they're applied and so on and so forth.

So the farm management indicators are key on their own, and they also drive a lot of the other trends that we're looking at. And here we're looking at, again in the soil area, wind and water erosion rates relative to tolerable rates of erosion. We're looking at things like soil carbon, not only from a soil health point of view, but obviously soil carbon also relates to atmospheric change. We're looking at things like soil salinity on the prairies. Those are the main areas in the soils area.

We have an indicator related to water quality that at the moment is looking at the risk of water contamination from nitrogen and from phosphorus. From the biodiversity point of view, we've developed an indicator that considers how vertebrate species use agricultural lands to meet their habitat needs and how agricultural land use changes over time are affecting the value of agricultural land as habitat.

Michael mentioned climate change, and there is an indicator there to look at the net contribution of agriculture to greenhouse gas emissions. And we're also looking at production intensity.

So this, in closing, is really a first attempt to model, if you will, sustainable trends in agriculture. These indicators, I think, will inform the policy discourse. But I would not claim that they're a comprehensive set. This is a first attempt. There are gaps in there that can be addressed in future work. Nonetheless, the set is—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I have one quick question on this: Are you also modelling the effects of major changes within ecosystems and other functionings of the Earth's cycles as well? You can talk about the impact of agriculture on biodiversity and climate, but we are going through climactic changes and biodiversity changes as well, so those will also have a relationship then in effect.

Mr. Terence McRae: Sorry, I missed part of the question. I didn't have the earpiece on. Could you repeat the first part?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are you monitoring the changes in the earth's natural systems and changes in biodiversity and things like that? While you can look at how agriculture impacts on these issues, these things, we're going through climactic changes, we're going through biodiversity changes, and so therefore that has to be a part of the equation because it's not static, it's not a snapshot of today, there's an interactive aspect.

Mr. Terence McRae: The project I am managing is basically looking at agriculture's impact, positive or negative, on the environment. But you're absolutely right that it goes both ways. Climate change can have a major impact potentially on agricultural production, again either positive or negative. That side of the equation is not being looked at in this project, but it certainly is being looked at in the department, and perhaps Frank Marks would be better positioned to answer that question.

The Chairman: Perhaps in the second round.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Sure, thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold, followed by Mr. Charbonneau.

• 1015

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to discuss with our witnesses the issue of bioengineered engineered food products and agents.

Increasingly, newspapers throughout the world are reporting on the science of bioengineering, including publications in Quebec and in Canada. The objective, as everyone knows, is to increase production of new food products and animal output. Where does Canada's stand at the present time in terms of this new science? We've heard that these products are resistant to existing pesticides and that this resistance can be transferred to other products.

Mr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will ask Ms. Kenny to return to the table to give us an overview of food products developed through biotechnology.

[English]

Ms. Margaret Kenny: Yes, Mr. Chairman, since about 1988 the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has been carrying out environmental assessments of plants that have been developed from biotechnology. Since that time we have approved for growing in Canada approximately 34 different new traits to be added to those plants. There have also been extensive field trials, that is, small-scale experiments carried out in Canada during that time. We continue to receive applications for these new crops. The major crops that have been developed include soy beans and corn, canola, flax, etc.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, have we developed a code of conduct to govern practices in this area here in Canada? Have we enacted pertinent legislation?

[English]

Ms. Margaret Kenny: I would say that one of the ethics, if you will, in Canada is that the safety of these products has to be assessed, and that's what our legislation in the Food Inspection Agency provides us with the authority to undertake. Your question regarding the ethical implications is a very important one and one that the Government of Canada wants to address more fully, and to do so is creating right now something called the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. It is a committee that will report to seven ministers, including the Minister of Agriculture, the ministers of Health, Industry, Fisheries and Oceans, Natural Resources Canada and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The committee will be able to undertake a public dialogue on issues that they will identify, and certainly we would anticipate that some of the ethical implications of biotechnology will be questions they will want to be discussing more fully with Canadians.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Once the consultations you mentioned are concluded, will draft legislation be tabled in Parliament to ensure that these new practices are regulated? Will the mandate assigned to the seven departments extend this far?

[English]

Ms. Margaret Kenny: I'm sorry, I wouldn't be able to say definitively if something like that will be undertaken after consultations take place, but the advice of this group will be provided to those seven ministers so I'm confident it will be fully considered.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold. Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): We heard earlier how in recent years, the compliance rate with the Food and Drug Regulations was over 98 per cent, as indicated by analytical results for fresh produce. As for the remaining two per cent, what action do you take when you observe that some food products are not up to standard and are unsafe? Do you pull these products from the marketplace? Are we talking primarily about imported products or about Canadian-produced ones? Can you provide us with more details about this aspect of your work?

• 1020

Mr. André Gravel: That's a very important question because clearly, it relates to the primary mandate of the agency, namely ensuring food safety.

With respect to residues, whether pesticide residues or industrial contaminants, the agency has a policy in place the aim of which is to eliminate all contaminants from the food chain.

As I mentioned earlier, we administer general monitoring programs to assess average contaminant levels, for instance, in Canadian apples or in imported nectarines.

Once we've determined that there could be a potential problem with a product, we target our actions. If a Mexican producer is shipping to Canada products that have been contaminated by a specific pesticide and if we discover the contamination during our initial monitoring exercise, we flag this country and the producer so that samples are taken from the next shipment. We go into a monitoring mode.

Eventually, if a problem develops, we end up taking samples from each shipment sent by this particular producer and the products are held until the results of the analysis are known. If the level of contaminants exceeds the limit that is permissible, the product will be withdrawn from the market.

The same goes for meat products. For example, In the past decade, significant steps have been taken to eliminate the presence of sulfamide residues in pork products. Sulfamides pose a threat to human health; they also pose a threat in terms of the international market access of Canadian pork.

Through detection measures employed by our inspectors directly in the plants, or through rapid testing of samples, we have observed a decrease in the level of contaminants in Canadian pork products of anywhere from 18 to 20 per cent. The agency tries to ascertain whether different food products present a risk and then conducts very specific analyses to determine if these products should be taken off the market.

Earlier, we spoke of an increase in residue levels, for example in fresh produce. We also spoke of enhanced detection rates. I neglected to mention earlier that one of the reasons for this is that the agency has succeeded, like Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada once did, using the results of previous analyses, to flag countries and their products and test for the presence of specific pesticides.

Even though we look at the overall population, our efforts are focused somewhat more on these specific areas.

Therefore, we do assess the overall situation and then we take specific action to pull the contaminated products from the marketplace.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Is a your mandate limited to monitoring products that arrive from various source countries? Once you have observed a problem, do you then proceed to check these products more frequently?

As part of your mandate, are you also in touch with the source countries, with their own inspection and health services and with the producers themselves, to establish a sound working relationship with them, or do you simply seize the products here at the border?

• 1025

Mr. André Gravel: That's a very good question, Mr. Chairman. The member should work for the agency. I think his views are consistent with the agency's actions.

You were wondering how the agency responds to situations where contaminants have been detected. We have a fairly extensive file on the proactive approach taken by the agency in its dealings with foreign countries. That is equally important.

For example, we have signed memoranda of agreement with respect to fish and seafood with a number of foreign countries. As a result of these agreements, inspection measures are not as stringent in the case of these countries since we have assessed their infrastructure, as well as their residue and inspection programs. The situation in countries that export products to Canada is relevant and in many cases, we take it into account in determining our actions.

For instance, if we can take action in Argentina to eliminate diseases in animals or monitor the incidence of such diseases, it may not be necessary for us to resort to such stringent inspection procedures here in Canada. In some cases, we meet with officials in the source countries and sometimes even with producers.

Agency inspectors have gone to Guatemala to inspect raspberry farms and to ensure that the proper controls are in place to avoid possible contamination.

That is one of the approaches the agency has taken.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll stop right there before I'm offered a job with the agency.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau.

[English]

There is time for a second round, but allow me to ask a couple of questions.

In your memorandum of understanding with the PMRA, there is a principle listed on page 2 whereby your research branch is responsible for conducting research to promote the development and use of alternative pest management practices, in order to reduce dependency on chemical pesticides. Could you give us an indication of the budget for that particular activity and what percentage that budget is of your total research budget?

Mr. Bill Boddis: That's a good question, Mr. Chairman.

To the best of my knowledge, our research branch budget is in the neighbourhood of $250 million. That's the core budget. I believe approximately 20% would be utilized for pest management in total, giving it about $50 million.

I don't have it specifically for alternative pest management practices—unless you have something different, Dr. Marks.

Dr. Frank Marks: No. The 20% that was referred to by Mr. Boddis refers to all aspects of pest control. I don't have a figure on the exact amount that is spent on alternatives, but a relatively small percentage is devoted to pesticides per se. Most of our activity is toward alternative or integrated pest management—those kinds of approaches.

For example, at the research centre where I work, one of the key parts of our mandate is to find alternative methods of pest control. But I don't have a figure, to be honest, on the actual number.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Could you supply this committee, Mr. Boddis, with the precise figures of the total budget in research, as you have tentatively indicated now, and how much of that is allocated for the development and use of alternative pest management?

Mr. Bill Boddis: Yes, we'll go back and try to get that for you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: The next question has to do with the memorandum of understanding that was signed in October 1996. Is the memorandum of understanding the object of yearly reviews to update and modify it where desirable, and has it been modified since?

• 1030

Mr. Bill Boddis: It's my understanding that this has not been modified to any degree during the past three years. I think it sets out in a general sense the relationship between the organizations, perhaps negating the need for annual revisions or revisits.

Are you aware, Dr. Marks...?

Dr. Frank Marks: No.

The Chairman: Is there any aspect of that memorandum of understanding that you feel should be modified?

Mr. Bill Boddis: Not to my knowledge.

The Chairman: My next question has to do with PMRA decisions. Are there any decisions made by PMRA on any substance, of course, on which your department has disagreement, as we discovered in the case of fisheries?

Mr. Bill Boddis: None that come to mind. There have been some discussions between our agencies, as well as between other governments, for that matter. I think the closest we've come is probably seed treatments for canola. There has been some discussion on what the best products to be using are, and trying to phase out some products. The discussions are usually around timeframes.

The Chairman: Do you agree with the residue levels set by PMRA? Have you had any differences of opinion?

Mr. Bill Boddis: I think residue levels are set by scientific bodies. I don't think we are there to try to argue with them one way or the other. We rely on best science.

Do you have something to add to that, Dr. Gravel?

Dr. André Gravel: No, clearly it's not in the mandate of the agency to question the science, as given by Health Canada. The Minister of Health is responsible for the health of Canadians, so we're not really in a position to guess on that.

The Chairman: In the article from Calgary that appeared in the Globe and Mail, which I mentioned at the start of this meeting, there are two paragraphs I would like to read to you, in the hope that you can comment on their content. It reads as follows:

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's study of residues in Canadian apples...show that authorities found a total of 16 different pesticides among shipments of Canadian-grown apples, which are the most heavily sprayed. Some of the apples had as many as three pesticides present at the same time. Nine of those 16 apple pesticides are organophosphates, meaning their effects on the body can add up. But critics say that concept is not properly taken into account in Canadian pesticide laws.

There are many questions, of course, that arise from these two paragraphs, but from what you've heard, would you like to comment?

Mr. Bill Boddis: Certainly. I think we follow the practice that if the product is approved for use in Canada for sale to farmers, we fully support that. The PMRA has the job of looking at the safety of those products. Of course, from our primary producer perspective, they are very interested in the safety of such products on human health since they're the first-line applicators. As for numbers of products that are used, I can only say they would vary by crop commodities produced across the country.

I would not hazard a guess whether, if there were three, one or sixteen pest control products used on a given apple, it would be safe to eat or not at the end. I believe we have our Food Inspection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to pass judgment on the safety of these products. It reflects, perhaps, the use of these products to ensure we have a high-quality food product for the consumer to choose from in the store, since they have rather fine tastes when it comes to looking at a product before purchasing.

• 1035

The Chairman: Yes, that is probably the point. The layman who reads that particular report and is not familiar with the use of pesticides stumbles across names like Azinphos-methyl, 59 contaminated shipments; Captan, three contaminated shipments; and Carbaryl, six contaminated shipments. Then for each of these there is an explanation of uses and effects: toxic to birds, fish; toxic to fish; decreases fertility; sterility in cattle; carcinogen; and so on. How do you explain this to the public at large? How do you reassure the public that these products are all right?

Dr. André Gravel: The presence of residues in food is definitely a concern, not only to the agency but to consumers in general, I would say, so we certainly see the presence of these residues as something that needs to be addressed. Keep in mind, as I mentioned before, that the issue is whether these pesticides or other products that you find in food are above the limit that is set as having a health impact on consumers. There is clearly an issue of making sure that we continue with our monitoring program, making sure that we remove from the market those products that are exceeding the tolerance level.

As far as the consumer is concerned, there is an issue related to, if I may use that word, vulgariser the science so that consumers are not confronted with information that they don't understand. Generally speaking, consumers are more concerned about chemicals in food than they are with, let's say, bacteriological products. If you ask the scientists their opinion, they'll tell you that generally speaking, chemicals in food don't represent such a high health risk if they are within the tolerance level; however, bacterial contamination is a much greater risk. So there's an issue of consumer education in relation to that.

There's also an issue of farmer education. I think one of the members was asking a question about what we do about licensing the farmers for application of pesticides. Many of these findings that the agency finds in foods are related to, for example, shipping produce to the market and not respecting the timeframe that is necessary to eliminate the pesticide residues. Clearly, education of consumers and education of producers will have an impact on these residue levels.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Gravel.

I should start the second round, but Mr. Boddis, let me ask you whether you could put in writing for the committee members the answer to the following question: what have been the budget levels for the inspection of foreign food products over the last six years? Could you do that in due course?

Mr. Bill Boddis: I'll ask Dr. Gravel to handle that since that's—

The Chairman: You don't have to handle it now, as long as you put it in writing.

Mr. Bill Boddis: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We will start the second round with Mr. Gilmour, please.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the case of an apple or a tomato, is there anything the consumer can do, such as washing the apple? Are the residues just on the surface, or are they in fact throughout the whole apple or the whole tomato?

Dr. André Gravel: The washing of fruit and vegetables has always been a recommendation from the regulatory agencies. It's very wise for consumers to wash their produce, either for pesticide residues or for other types of contaminants. The majority of these pesticides are on the surface of a product, with minor exceptions. There are products that go into the actual flesh of the product.

So in some cases, washing with a mild detergent cases is clearly a good way of eliminating these residues. The very act of washing a product, as opposed to just passing it under the faucet, is also a recommendation. In some cases, peeling takes care of some of the contamination. In the case of some products, it goes without saying...you're not going to eat a banana without peeling it or an orange or a nectarine. In other cases, it's a little bit more difficult to determine, but washing definitely is a recommendation.

• 1040

Mr. Bill Gilmour: When you do your research on residues, do you look at the interaction of different residues, for example, a fungicide and a pesticide, or do you just look at the individual chemical itself?

Dr. André Gravel: That's a question our colleagues in Health Canada would be in a much better position to answer, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the aggregated impact of different pesticides and all that. We are guided in our intervention by the standards they set for us. If they indicate, as an example, that the presence of two types of residues in a food represent a higher health risk, then the agency will be guided by those types of recommendations, for sure.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Lincoln, followed by Madam Torsney if she is on the list.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Boddis, if I may say with all the respect I owe to your rank and status, I'm a little perturbed by the fact that you seem to say that if it's registered it's fine; it's not for us to look into problems with pesticides if it's approved in Canada. And yet the commissioner states that of 500 active ingredients in pesticides today, 300 were approved and not monitored since 1981—that's 18 years—and 150 others date back to 1960. So for 39 years they've been registered and accepted and not monitored. And I read statistics to show that agriculture accounts for 86% of all the pesticides used in Canada, and 77% are herbicides.

It seems to me that everybody's passing the ball to the other person, saying “That's the PMRA, it's not our job.” Surely the biggest user of pesticides is the Department of Agriculture and the farmers; surely you must have some input in what goes on.

I would like to ask Dr. Marks this question. There's been a study recently in Sweden, and I have the figures here, which are pretty startling. In this study, Swedish researchers from Örebro Medical Centre and the Lund University hospital link pesticides to non-Hodgkins lymphoma—I think more specifically they said 2,4-D. And they say that in the U.S., according to the statistics, non-Hodgkins lymphoma has risen by 73% since 1973. And the Swedish researchers found that the people who are affected were likely to have been exposed 2.7 times more to 2,4-D and other pesticides than the persons who were not affected.

Dr. Marks, what is your view, as a scientist, in regard to the use of 2,4-D, atrazine and EBDC fungicides? Do you agree that they present a potential danger to environment and human health? Should we be wary of them? Should we be telling the PMRA to stop their use or curtail their use?

Dr. Frank Marks: Thank you for the question.

I am not in a position to determine whether they should or should not be used. I think my answer would be, in terms of agriculture, that they are registered as safe to use at the levels we use them at, and so in that context I would be not be able to offer an opinion. I am not familiar with this study you're citing in relation to the relationship between 2,4-D and lymphoma and so on.

What I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that if we look at the rates of pesticide usage in Canada versus other countries, it's considerably less in Canada than it is in the U.S., Germany or France. So I think there is quite a big difference between the rates of pesticide usage in some of the European countries, particularly in this case France and Germany, and what it is in Canada.

• 1045

So I'm not sure, I don't think I've answered your question.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I don't think you have, and I find it very sad that there is this sort of passing the buck every time and saying “I can't answer you”. Yet your department uses pesticides. Almost the whole total of pesticides, 86%, are used in agriculture, and 77% or 80% are herbicides, and yet we just pass it on to the PMRA.

Mr. Boddis, you said that if it's registered then it's reputed to be safe, and yet Mrs. Franklin admitted herself in her testimony that the commissioner was right when he said in his report that Acrolein kills fish and that we use it in irrigation. Is that right?

Mr. Bill Boddis: I have not read Madam Franklin's comments.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Have you read the commissioner's report? There's a whole section on it.

Mr. Bill Boddis: Yes, I don't think we paid too much attention to aquaculture-type products. We are more concerned with agriculture, land based.

You're making some very interesting comments. I don't believe, Mr. Chair, that we're the health scientists you want in front of you to address the questions the member may be raising. That's not to say we're buck-passing, but I'd hate to think that when we need a health scientist sitting here to address the questions, we would want to make any comment that could be considered prejudicially at some later date.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I want to quote briefly from the commissioner's report, because it says that Acrolein is an active ingredient in aquatic herbicide applied to irrigation canals for weed control in Saskatchewan and Alberta. It is considered an effective method to control weeds without disrupting water delivery to farmers. It was registered in the Pest Control Products Act in 1971.

Is that purely aquaculture or is it agriculture?

Mr. Bill Boddis: I would have to say it's a mixed bag, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: So if it's a mixed bag, it's partly yours. It's part of your bag.

The Chairman: All right, thank you.

Mr. Boddis, may I respectfully suggest that you and your colleagues read page 317 of chapter 3 in the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and you will perhaps have a better appreciation of why we are following this line of questioning. It's page 317.

Mr. Bill Boddis: Yes. I don't have the report in front of me.

The Chairman: No, I'm not suggesting you have, but when you go back to your respective offices you may want to devote some time to that report, because it does touch on your departmental responsibility.

Mr. Bill Boddis: We certainly will, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Next we have Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

Dr. Gravel, from the flip side, what are the problems, what are the illnesses that these pesticides are being used to combat? Are there illnesses or organisms that are on food that need something to be developed? I know we had an incident a couple of years ago about raspberries from some Central American country that were dangerous because of the flip side, the problem that hadn't been eradicated by a pesticide or herbicide. Are there areas that we need to be concerned about because someone hasn't developed something and we are at risk?

Dr. André Gravel: Thank you for the question.

Mr. Chairman, obviously the discussion we're having this morning is interesting from the standpoint of looking at one side of the page, which is the impact of the use of pesticides in food production and the potential safety factor that is related to that. As the member has suggested, there is another side to that equation, and that other side is availability of food in quantity and quality that will meet the needs of the consumer.

So clearly when the pest management agency is making decisions about licensing of pesticides, one of the things they keep in mind is of course the cost-benefit analysis that has to be done by that and the risk assessment on the use of these products on the environment. Phasing out all pesticide products from the market would probably result in a very significant decrease in the amount of produce that's available on the market, thereby increasing the price of these commodities.

• 1050

To answer the question very specifically about the health impact of product that would be untreated, I don't think I have any information at hand on that.

The issue of Guatemala raspberries concerns a parasite that wouldn't be killed by pesticides. But take as an example alfalfa sprouts, and the practice of not treating it with chlorinated water; if there's salmonella in the seed that is a remnant of manure fertilizing, then potentially if you don't wash these seeds with chlorinated water then of course you'd face the danger of salmonellosis. So, yes, there are two sides to this, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have a follow-up. You would reject food, or recall food, or demand that it not be put out on the market because of toxics related to pesticides or herbicides. You identified some numbers about what percentage get through, and I think it was just in a note; I don't think it was in your formal comments. You said 21 samples were taken back because they had greater than a 588...greater than the regulation. I think this was on feed, but what numbers of products have been recalled because they in fact have a bacteria or something that needs to be eliminated?

Dr. André Gravel: The question relates to food. I would treat it as a food question, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Right, rather than feed.

Dr. André Gravel: Right. The agency is indeed involved in a very significant activity, which is called recall. This is a file that was given to the agency when it was created, a file that belonged to Health Canada.

Over the last year the agency has been involved in over 250 recall procedures. These recalls normally are voluntary recalls, where product is taken off the market because of the presence of either a contaminant or a health hazard. The majority of these recalls, Mr. Chairman, are related to the presence of allergens in food. As an example, the presence of undeclared peanuts in chocolate, or undeclared eggs in pastry or bread, etc. A smaller proportion of it is related to the presence of microbiological contamination, as an example, the presence of salmonella in fully cooked product. So clearly the agency does take action on cases like that.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Torsney.

Mr. Laliberte, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan, Madam Girard-Bujold, Mr. Charbonneau and the chair.

Mr. Laliberte, please, briefly.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question would be to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. As part of the Canadian food, we've had evidence and reports now stating that in terms of Arctic studies, there are pesticide, and bioaccumulative-persistent, and maybe inert properties being discovered in country food. Is that part of your inspection responsibilities of looking at...? Right now we have fishing as a major part of our national pastime, but this ends up being in frying pans—spring with beaver and muskrat meat, and ducks and rabbits, and moose and deer. These are the mainstay of many northern communities, not necessarily Arctic but northern provincial communities that rely on survival within these regions.

Then, are there region-specific food studies as well? Because of the temperature in the Arctic or northern climate, some of these properties may be more lingering as opposed to dissipating or evaporating in water or in the air.

• 1055

Are there also child-specific studies? Children are more vulnerable and are innocent consumers of our food. Do you do child-specific studies, as opposed to only an array of averaging adult exposure to child exposure? We've committed as Canadians to do child-specific studies as well. So are you a market food inspection agency, or an entire Canadian food inspection agency?

Dr. André Gravel: That's a very good question.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency was created to bring together inspection resources at the federal level to deal with the federal mandate. Clearly, Health Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Industry Canada, and Agriculture and Agri-food were put together to resolve that issue. There is also a very significant component of food inspection carried out by the provinces.

Your specific question relates to products that people hunt or fish for their own consumption. The agency is not involved in this. The agency would be involved if these products were entering the federal inspection system through interprovincial or international movement.

As an example, in northern Canada there's a caribou hunt that is then directed to a federally approved plant. In cases such as that, and also in the case of muskox in northern Canada, the agency would provide inspection services to eliminate animals that don't meet the requirements. But generally speaking, if the member goes fishing and comes back with fish, beaver or whatever, the agency wouldn't be involved.

I know that some of the provinces are very active in monitoring environmental contaminants in moose or deer, for example. They provide advice to hunters to not consume livers of certain animals because of the presence of cadmium residues, for example, which you'll find in northern regions. But this is not the mandate of the agency.

The second part of your question was on studies on children and other susceptible segments of the population. I would hope that Health Canada would take that into consideration when they arrive at either maximum residue levels or standards related to the presence or absence of certain bacteria or contaminants. The agency is not in that business.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

I realize that your agency is not in the business of setting standards, but when the standards are given to you to enforce in inspecting food products, do you not know what these standards are set for? Do you not know if residue standards are set for children's health issues? Don't you know what the standards are set at, and what populations or subpopulations they take into consideration?

Dr. André Gravel: The agency is not the standard-setter. The Government of Canada, in its wisdom, has decided there have to be checks and balances in the equation, and the Department of Health will be responsible for the setting of standards, providing the agency with a clear mandate to deliver on these standards. Clearly it's within the purview of the scientists at Health to make these determinations.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I realize Health Canada sets the standards, but I was wondering if, as the representative from the Food Inspection Agency, you knew what the standards were set for—if they were set for any particular subpopulations. Do you not have any idea why these standards were set, or who they were set for? Are there different standards, or what?

Dr. André Gravel: I can only repeat myself. I don't know how long this is going to go on.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No. My question is: do you have an awareness as to what these standards were set for? I'm not asking you about the process of setting the standards. I realize that's Health Canada's area. But were standards set to take children's health into consideration? If you take a look at a the metabolic rate of children and if you take a look at young children, particularly infants, you'll see that they eat a lot of pears, for example. So pesticide residue that might be acceptable for adults, who may have five or six pears a year on average, is totally different for an infant who consumes a whole whack of pears because of their particular dietary needs.

• 1100

I know you don't set the standards, but I'm asking you if you know whether or not standards are set with children's health in mind.

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, the question is a pertinent one. There's no question about that. The issue of how Health Canada devises a standard would be better answered by Health Canada. I don't want to get into a very specific way of describing what process they use to arrive at a standard. This is not my business.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm not asking that. The question, Mr. Chair—

The Chairman: Perhaps you could move on to another question, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm not going to ask any more on this. The question was not on the process; it was on whether or not they exist.

I would like to know if you have the regulatory authority to pull food products from the shelves if they are found to be contaminated with toxic substances or substances that affect the health of Canadians in a negative way.

Dr. André Gravel: The answer to the question, Mr. Chairman, is yes. In fact, the agency is very proud to be in one of the few countries in the world where under the guidance of the minister we can order food to be taken off the market if it's contaminated. Generally speaking, these recalls are done on a voluntary basis with the full cooperation of the industry or the parties involved. However, when the agency was created, Parliament provided the minister with the authority to order these recalls, and in our discussion with our colleagues from the USDA and the USFDA, as an example, when I was down there about a month ago, they look at Canada with envy when it comes to having that authority.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Then I'm wondering why the agency did not exercise its authority to pull the Belgian food products that were contaminated off the shelves and why they just undertook a voluntary request to retailers.

Dr. André Gravel: The issue here, Mr. Chairman, has to do with having a very strong legal case in order to be in a position to order somebody to take products off the market. The agency acted on the basis of the precautionary principle. There is no way at this point in time to determine whether any specific product is indeed contaminated or just suspected of being contaminated.

The advice we gave to consumers is preventive in nature. However, I sent one of my staff to Belgium today to obtain more specific information about what line of products are involved, and when that information comes back and we can specifically identify what products are involved, then we will proceed with the recall for sure. As I said, normally speaking, the industry is very cooperative in these issues where the health and safety of Canadians is at risk.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would like to ask—

The Chairman: This will be your final question.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: —the witnesses if they are aware of any national debate on biotechnology and if there has been any polling done to determine Canadians' attitudes toward biotechnology or to determine whether Canadians actually know about the amount of genetically altered food that's in our food system.

Mr. Bill Boddis: I think we are here today to speak to pesticides, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes, you are quite right, Mr. Boddis. Maybe we should keep these questions for witnesses who are called before us to discuss in particular the aspect of biotechnology.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, there are a number of foods that are genetically modified to include pesticides, so this is a pesticide issue.

The Chairman: It may well be, but I don't know whether we alerted the officials to that effect.

Mr. Boddis, would you like to comment?

Mr. Bill Boddis: I think I would only make a general comment that, yes, being in the agricultural community we are aware that there are developments in the biotechnology field, particularly in the private sector, with the development of new seeds, and, yes, we are aware that there are herbicide-resistant varieties of plants being produced in Canada. Yes, we are aware of that, and those tests, we understand, go through a rather stringent testing process.

• 1105

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's not—

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Kraft Sloan.

[Translation]

You're next, Ms. Girard-Bujold, followed by Mr. Charbonneau.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Getting back to the subject of bioengineered products, does Canada currently require that such products be labeled?

Also, the witness stated earlier that an advisory committee is to be set up. When is that slated to happen? What mandate will be assigned to this committee and how much time will it have to carry out its consultations?

Mr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, I can answer the first part of the member's question.

Must products be labeled as having been developed through biotechnology? If a food product poses a risk to the consumer owing to the presence of a constituent that can cause an allergic reaction or to the absence of an essential nutrient, then the label must clearly identify that the product was bioengineered. This would be true, for example, of bioengineered milk lacking certain nutrients.

However, if a bioengineered product poses no risk to human health, then it does not necessarily need to be labeled as such.

However, as Ms. Kenny stated, manufacturers may, if they wish, indicate whether or not their products were developed through biotechnology.

Regarding the advisory committee on biotechnology, it is currently being set up. I know that an operating budget has been approved. Once the committee meets, a work plan will be drawn up. I believe a chairman has been appointed. Eventually, committee members will meet and draw up an agenda. Their mandate is quite broad as far as looking into biotechnology issues. The Committee's role will be to advise the government on these matters.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Earlier, the witness talked about a consultation process. Has a time frame been determined for the public consultation process?

Mr. André Gravel: I'll ask Ms. Kenny to field that question, Mr. Chairman, since she is probably more knowledgeable about this matter.

[English]

The Chairman: Could you give us a brief answer, Dr. Kenny, please.

Ms. Margaret Kenny: To answer your question, the short answer is that the chairperson has been identified but the members are not yet in place. There is hope that this will be done very shortly. Departments are working very hard. The nomination process ended, I believe, in May. So that should be done shortly. They will then determine their agenda. There is the potential for a budget this year to start with these consultations, so we are hopeful that it will begin very quickly.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: In the Memorandum of Understanding between AAFC/Research Branch and the PMRA, the following is noted:

AAFC/Research Branch will contribute its knowledge on pest management to address PMRA requirements and to promote implementation of sustainable pest management systems.

Other paragraphs in the MOU define your responsibilities.

• 1110

I want to come back to a question put by my colleague Mr. Lincoln. He quoted several paragraphs of the Environment Commissioner's report in which the latter noted that hundreds of pesticides had been approved some thirty years ago, while several dozen more had been approved more recently.

You mentioned a while ago that technology had evolved dramatically over the past decade. You stated that 10 years ago, we talked in terms of parts per million, whereas today, it's parts per trillion.

In light of your responsibilities under the MOU, do you not feel that you have a duty to demand that the agency review those pesticides approved 20, 25 or 30 years ago, pesticides which were developed using now outdated technologies and which have now been replaced by more modern ones?

[English]

Mr. Bill Boddis: Yes, in fact there are two aspects to that comment and question.

Certainly from our departmental perspective, we would like the safest and most modern technology to be available to the agricultural community in their day-to-day production of food. There are two parts to the question. There is a registration process, and companies have to come to Canada to submit applications to have their products registered, assessed, etc., in Canada. This isn't always the case. In fact, our horticultural community would say they do not have access to the more modern products available because of the small markets.

On the other side, there are certainly old products out there, and I think you've noted a number of them. It's my understanding that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency does periodic reviews of older technologies and products that are perhaps more suspicious in nature than others. As part of the establishment of the agency, it's our understanding that they plan to undertake some re-evaluations of these older products and technologies. I presume some of that would be targeted to the chemistry that is maybe more of a hazard to the public than others.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Boddis has stated that to his knowledge, the agency is no doubt mindful of this and probably looking into the matter.

Don't you think you have a responsibility to enhance the agency's awareness of this issue, given your firsthand involvement and your special expertise in this field? Shouldn't this issue be raised from time to time and your expertise and research skills put to use? You signed the MOU with the agency. Both the PMRA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada agreed to promote “sustainable pest management”.

In a similar vein, I'd like to know what measures you take to encourage the review process. For instance, do you think it would be a good idea to re-examine the certifications awarded every five or seven years, in light of new technologies and new discoveries made through research on the combined effects of pesticides?

Might it not be a good idea to periodically review this and make the results available to farmers and pesticide producers? Then they would know beforehand that their certification was valid for five, seven or ten years, regardless. They could take this into account when doing their cost projections. They would know that perhaps sometime down the road, standards will change and they will need to adapt. Wouldn't you agree that this approach could help to promote “sustainable pest management”?

• 1115

[English]

Mr. Bill Boddis: That's a very good commentary, which we would support. Through this MOU you can see that we do undertake a number of initiatives. I think we referred to them earlier. And it came out during the line of questioning, Mr. Chairman, that we are very interested in supporting environmental activities and reducing reliance on chemical products. There is a major research centre in southern Ontario focusing on integrated pest management, minimizing chemical consumption, and optimizing use. There are many factors taken into consideration.

With specific reference to re-evaluating products, I believe the public at large, through various organizations, including our farm organizations, do have views on the safety of these products, and I'm sure they let the PMRA know directly. I don't think they need to hear from us the importance of having a very sound registration process, taking into account as many factors as possible in determining the toxicity impacts on environment, health aspects, efficiencies, etc.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Chair, I was going through the witnesses' brief. In relation to the enforcement report that we tabled last year, there is one thing this committee has discovered in circumstances related to follow-up, sometimes, by government agencies. I noticed that the Food Inspection Agency was proud that they had reviewed around 43,000 samples of fresh produce and processed fruit and vegetables last year, and they had about a 98% compliance rate.

My question, Mr. Chair, is what happens to the 880-some-odd that didn't comply, and can you tell me what the process would be? You go on in the next paragraph to explain that, but could you provide a little more detail? I think 880 is still a good number.

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, thank you for the question.

The explanation is very simple, Mr. Chairman. In some cases, if the agency is doing normal monitoring of a product on the market, that product is tested after the product has been released. So there's a certain proportion of that product that reaches the market. If the agency, in this type of activity, finds that there's a specific producer that is responsible for these violations, then the next shipment will be put under detention before the tests are released. In some cases the product reaches the market before we have the result of the test.

Canada is not alone in that position with regard to monitoring what's happening with imports. The USDA uses the same type of approach, as does the EU. It's a combination of looking at the contamination level out there, and if you find there's a problem, you then focus on the problem with the view to removing that stuff from the market after that.

Mr. John Herron: If you're able to identify the origin of the other shipment, would every one of them have, at a minimum, been sent a letter or had a visit—without exception?

Dr. André Gravel: Normally the procedure is that if we find these levels to be in excess of the residue limit, action is taken to trace that shipment, because at the time our inspector is picking up the sample, he or she is also noting the origin of the product. If it's an imported product, the information is related to country of origin and time of origin. If a violation level is found and that information is passed on to where it should be, if it's within Canada, the agency can and does avail itself of the possibility of further investigation at farm level to determine whether something can be done to correct the problem. The next step, of course, is direct action on the product the next time it's marketed, which is the surveillance and compliance monitoring phase of our residue monitoring programs.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 1120

The Chairman: Thank you.

Going back to that article for a moment, I would like to read you a couple of further paragraphs. By the way, this is a study by Eli Niedert and Glenn Havelock of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It's dated November 6, 1998, and it was obtained through the Access to Information Act. I read two paragraphs before. I would like to read another two to you:

...the climbing limits for acceptable amounts of pesticides and the Canadian trend toward more and more residues in foods are at odds with the situation in the U.S. There, concern over how pesticides affect children has reached urgent proportions.

Would you like to comment?

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, are you quoting from the article or from the report here?

The Chairman: I'm quoting from the article.

Dr. André Gravel: I think the questions on that, Mr. Chairman, are probably better directed to our colleagues from Health Canada.

The Chairman: Yet the study was conducted in your agency, wasn't it? Don't Mr. Eli Niedert and Mr. Glenn Havelock work in Health Canada?

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Eli Niedert is definitely an employee of the agency. Mr. Niedert is in fact sitting in the background over there. The agency clearly did do the report on residue monitoring.

The Chairman: Do you agree with this statement yourself?

Dr. André Gravel: What statement, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: The situation that while in Canada the trend is toward more and more residues in foods, we are at odds with the situation in the U.S.

Dr. André Gravel: The agency did not make that statement, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: What statement would you make, then, in this respect?

Dr. André Gravel: The agency can only comment on the findings it generates through its residue monitoring program and venture some explanation in terms of why we see, as an example, an increase in the number of detections of these residues. I mentioned a few of the reasons before—for example, the application of a pesticide without respecting the withdrawal period, or better technology to detect more products.

The issue of how these findings are used to change standards and all that clearly is the purview of Health Canada. That's why I'm sort of not willing to go there, Mr. Chairman, if I may use that word.

The Chairman: That's interesting. Would you like to comment on this rate that has apparently steadily increased from 9.5% and 10.3% in recent years? This is actually from a study on shipments of fresh Canadian fruits and vegetables, the rate of residues having been measured and found to be on the increase. Is that something you have identified in your agency as well, or is it something that does not correspond with your findings?

Dr. André Gravel: As I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that article is based on a study that the agency did itself. The agency does a residue monitoring report on a regular basis, and these documents are available. There's no trade secret in there, because the information is not related to specific producers but to residue analysis in general. So the trends that these reports point out clearly are factual trends. The agency uses that information to focus its monitoring program into areas that are deemed to be higher risk or that represent higher violation levels.

The Chairman: Would you like to distribute that report to the committee members?

Dr. André Gravel: I could if you want, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I think it would be helpful.

Finally, Mr. Boddis, in the commissioner's report he has a recommendation addressed to your department together with the departments of natural resources, fisheries, and environment, commenting that you all have agreed to issue a memorandum of understanding to coordinate environmental research. Then the commissioner goes on to say that there is no working group that addresses toxic substances overall at a strategic level.

• 1125

Perhaps not today but in writing at your convenience, could you indicate what you think of this particular observation? If you agree with that, could you indicate when a working group addressing toxic substances at a strategic level is likely to be established?

Mr. Bill Boddis: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we will write back to you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We now have a supplementary question, I understand, from Mr. Laliberte, then Mr. Gilmour on a point of order.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to raise a highlight in the commissioner's report. It said that of the 22 countries out of OECD being studied, Canada and Slovakia were the only ones that did not track or monitor data on sale of herbicides and the rise of herbicide-resistant crops. Are you saying that PMRA should be doing that? Or, as part of your monitoring and conducting the agricultural industry, do you monitor herbicide use in this country, not only on the farm but maybe in lawns or in our backyards? There are many spring activities out there dealing with people's homes. What responsibilities are being taken in your department on this?

Mr. Bill Boddis: I think, Mr. Chairman, it may have been stated by earlier groups you've had before you that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada does not monitor pesticide use. It is a responsibility that was transferred over to the PMRA, I believe.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: You wouldn't know an amount of use or sales of herbicides in this country. Does nobody know that data, then?

Mr. Bill Boddis: Yes, and I think we mentioned to the first member who asked this question that the Crop Protection Institute has a website that covers groups of products, and they have sales figures on their website.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

We'd better now conclude with Mr. Gilmour's point of order.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Five or six weeks ago this committee passed a unanimous motion to travel to Sydney with up to ten members for two days. Has that motion gone forward to the House for permission to travel?

The Chairman: That's a good question. What happened to that motion? Can you bring us up to speed? I confess I have not followed up that motion.

The Clerk of the Committee: The committee has yet to consider the details, Mr. Chairman, adopting a budget and that sort of thing. That would have been the next step, and to choose the dates.

The Chairman: The next step is to consider a budget and to choose dates. Would you like to do that at our next meeting?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I would suggest that we're not going to have time because of the proroguing of the House.

The Chairman: You know, it's an issue that will be with us for some time.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay, so I would like to move this forward so that at the next meeting, if you have the budget, we do decide who will go and when.

The Chairman: All right. We'll ask the clerk to provide a budget for discussion at the beginning of the next meeting. If everybody is on time, we will have a quorum and start with that. If not, we will first hear the witnesses and then deal with the proposed budget at the end of the meeting, so long as we have the necessary quorum.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: When did we adopt this motion unanimously?

The Clerk: On April 27, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: On April 27, the clerk informs me.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'd like to see a copy of that.

The Chairman: On your behalf, let me thank Mr. Boddis, Dr. Gravel, Dr. Marks, and Mr. Presley for their presence today, and Dr. Kenny, of course. We thank them all for their dedication and very interesting input to the study of this committee.

This meeting stands adjourned.