Health Committee on June 4th, 2007

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

Mine is a short answer. I'm not a prosecutor or a legal expert, but we have referred it to the RCMP for their assessment.

[Daniel Chaput]

With regard to maximum residue limits for pesticides, I can confirm that the work did not originate from the food and agriculture working group. For a number of years, there has been work under NAFTA with respect to pesticides, and this is under that forum. There are some discussions—again, discussions only—on comparing maximum residue limits in the three countries.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

I think I asked this question at the last committee meeting that discussed this issue. In terms of accountability and public disclosure, knowing this would be important to the health of Canadians and their information. If it does go forward to the next level, because obviously it is being discussed—and I think we've confirmed that now—at some level through NAFTA mechanisms, when would Canadians find out about it? Would it be after the fact or before it's actually approved? And what process would take place?

[Daniel Chaput]

Currently, the regulatory process for establishing maximum residue limits requires amendment to the regulations for each new MRL. There is a gazetting process. Having said that, should any of the discussion under NAFTA result in changes to the approach to setting MRLs, they would have to go through the Canadian regulatory process again, through the pre-consultation with stakeholders and the Canadian public, and then to the Canada Gazette part I and part II processes. As I said, right now it's really at the discussion stage.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

If I may take just another moment I'd like to ask whether you would be willing to bring those individuals before committee to discuss and elaborate further on any possible regulatory changes.

[Daniel Chaput]

I'm with the food directorate, but I could make arrangements to see whether that would be possible.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

I believe that would important, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. Chaput, for the committee, your answer to the last question would suggest that it would be gazetted and would go through the parliamentary process, where it would end up here at one stage, regardless. Is that right?

[Daniel Chaput]

That's correct.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Not regulations necessarily, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Can you please clear that up? This is a critical area.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

We only get reproductive regulations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. Chaput is suggesting that it will come here.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Can we ask our analyst or researcher, Mr.Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

The regulations would probably come to the agriculture committee or the industry committee. Is that right?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

They don't go to a parliamentary committee? Does anyone know?

Go ahead.

[Emmy Verdun]

The regulations would be approved by cabinet, but as Daniel Chaput said, before that happens there are public consultations. They would be published in the Canada Gazette part I for a comment period. Then, if there were any changes, they would be published again in the Canada Gazette part II. They would be publicly available for a comment period and they would be approved by cabinet. They would not come to a committee unless they're attached to new legislation.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

In closing, Mr. Chair, I think this is of major concern. I think we would want to have this discussion in more elaborate detail, in view of the recent discussion and possible changes, whether an increase or whatever change. Just to have it in the Gazette—I'm not sure how many people are following it—is not good enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

That's fair. All I was trying to do for the committee was find out exactly what the process was.

Are there any further questions?

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

I believe it would be interesting to have a hearing on that specifically and what it entails.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We'll now move to Ms. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks very much to the presenters.

I have a couple of questions going back to Bill C-42, perhaps for Mr. Butler-Jones or Mr. Haddow; I'm not sure who wants to answer them.

If the amendments are passed here today when we look at them, what effect will the new regulations have on industry? Will they make the situation more onerous for industry? How will they affect the cargo carriers? Would they affect just people carriers, or cargo carriers too?

Does somebody want to try that question?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

It's any commercial conveyance, whether it's cargo or people. The requirement is that if they have a cargo that might pose a threat to human health, they have to declare that.

In terms of the industry, I think the trade-off is that there is some requirement to try to contact in advance, but at the same time, having an assessment come to the border in advance may facilitate ease at the border, much as pre-clearance of transport trucks has facilitated movement. It may at the end of the day not only add a little to our protection, but also ease challenges at the border in the scramble to figure out what's going on.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you. That leads into my next question and partially answers my next question. I was wondering about what the implications might be for Canada-U.S. relations, if we have this legislation in place and the U.S. doesn't. Is there a possibility that they may, through the SPP, be looking at coordination of the same types of rules? I was also wondering about delays at the border. Dr. Butler-Jones has referred to that a bit, but perhaps, Mr. Haddow, you'd like to answer those.