House of Commons Hansard #105 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was taiwan.

Topics

Question No. 198
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Dave Chatters Athabasca, AB

Concerning the pesticide approval process at the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA: ( a ) why does it take Canada significantly longer to approve and review pesticides and herbicides than the United States; ( b ) is there any specific part of the approval process that is a roadblock; ( c ) what is the step-by-step description of the pesticide approval process; ( d ) what is the average length of time it takes at each step; ( e ) what is PMRA's target length of time for each step; and ( f ) has the approval process been any faster with the establishment of the new ombudsman?

Question No. 198
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Edmonton West
Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan Minister of Health

(a) It does not take significantly longer to review and approve a pesticide in Canada as compared to the United States. In fact, for new active ingredient submissions, the review and approval time is shorter in Canada. It may seem to take longer in Canada because historically most companies submit applications for registration in Canada long after submitting an application for registration in the United States. The result of this company practice has been that a number of new pesticide active ingredients and the related end use products are available on the U.S. market before they come to the Canadian market. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA, has addressed this problem through implementation of joint review programs with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA . One of the goals of the joint review process and other work sharing initiatives with the EPA has been to make the new products available to users in both countries at the same time. The North American Milestone Report may be found at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmraarla/english/pdf/-nafta/docs/naftawgrep-e.pdf.

(b) There is no specific part of the approval process that can be considered a ‘roadblock’.

(c) The step by step description of the approval process is contained in the PMRA publication 96-01 Management of Submissions Policy, MOSP, found on http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmra-arla/english/pdf/pro/pro9601-e.pdf. In general there are five steps: verification, screening, review, public consultation/final decision, and verification of final label. The quality of a submission has a major impact on the length of time it takes a submission to proceed through the submission examination process. For example, a high quality, ideal submission for a new active ingredient has a timeline of 737 days or less. For a submission of the poorest quality, there are seven possible points in the process where the applicant has the opportunity to provide missing data, missing fees and/or corrected labels. The PMRA requires time to screen and/or review the additional information submitted to correct the deficiency. For these poor quality submissions, up to 1,912 days may be added to the submission examination process depending on which of the 7 delays are needed by the applicant. Only 6% of the category A submissions registered over the period from 1997-2002 have been ideal submissions. Category A submissions include new active ingredients and companion end use products and/or manufacturing use products, or import maximum residue limits, MRLs, for a new active ingredient, or major new uses (addition of a new use-site category (see response to question d). 94% of the category A submissions registered in this period have had quality problems requiring the use of at least one of the seven delays resulting in additional time being added to the 737 day ideal submission target. PMRA has developed and held training courses and has worked with applicants to assist them in putting together better quality submissions. Through pre-submission consultations and a number of guidelines, the applicant is provided with details of what is required to make a complete submission.

(d) The average length of time to register a pesticide depends on the complexity of each of type of submission. In Canada, for major new active ingredient pesticides, the average time to completion, including the screening and review components, in 2001-02 was 23 months; whereas in the United States, based on the information available from the EPA, in 2001 it was 38 months on average. In 2000-01 the average time to completion in Canada for new active ingredient submissions was 21 months while in the United States in 2000 it was 27 months.

The length of time for each step varies depending on the submission category and subcategory. For category A submissions, which are the most complex and are for new active ingredients or major new uses, there can be eight different sets of performance standards depending on whether the submission is standard or priority or chemical or microbial or reduced risk or a pheromone. For submissions subject to the MOSP, (see response to question c) the typical standard category A submissions registered in 2000-01 had an average verification time of 6 days, first screening time of 49 days, review time of 432 days and first final label verification of 29 days. For 2001-02 the times were 7, 65, 515 and 27 respectively. As part of the MOSP, the final step and end of the review stage for category A submissions is the release of a proposed regulatory decision document, PRDD, for public consultation. For those registered category A submissions that had a public consultation, the public consultation time was always 45 days and the average time for final decision was 32 days. Please note that PRDDs are not currently required by regs but will be required by the new act.

(e) For category A standard submissions, the PMRA targets to complete the review portion of the submission, i.e. after all deficiencies have been addressed by the company, in 18 months (550 days) for traditional chemicals, and 15 months (465 days) for reduced risk chemicals. In 2001- 02 PMRA met its performance target for these submissions. The ideal target length of time for the typical standard category A submission is 7 days for verification, 45 days for screening, 550 days for review, 45 days for public consultation/45 days for final decision, and 45 days for final label verification. For standard category A submissions, subject to the MOSP and excluding deviations, registered/ rejected/withdrawn in 2001-02 that were screened and the review completed, the PMRA met the review performance standard of 550 days on 94% of the submissions.

(f) The new ombudsperson has facilitated increased communication between growers, the PMRA, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to ensure the data requirements for approvals are met and has helped streamline the processing of submissions. In 2002-03 PMRA approved more than 450 minor uses which was more than double that of any of the previous years.

Question No. 202
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Garry Breitkreuz Yorkton—Melville, SK

With respect to the following statement in paragraph 10.29 of the Auditor General’s 2002 report to Parliament, “The costs incurred by the provincial and territorial agencies in enforcing the legislation were not reported. In addition, costs that were incurred by firearms owners, firearms clubs, manufacturers, sellers, and importers and exporters of firearms, in their efforts to comply with the legislation were not reported.”, in addition to the government's response in respect of the preparation and function of the regulatory impact analysis statements, what specifically were the above-mentioned unreported costs for the period from 1995 to the present?

Question No. 202
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Malpeque
P.E.I.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Solicitor General of Canada

The Canadian Firearms Centre, CFC, does have records of costs for the opt-in provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island as has been reported publicly. The CFC does not monitor other potential or actual costs that may have been incurred by provincial or territorial agencies in enforcing the Canadian firearms legislation. The CFC does not monitor the costs that may have been incurred by firearms owners, firearms clubs, et cetera, as a result of the Canadian firearms legislation.

Question No. 209
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis Winnipeg North Centre, MB

What is the breakdown, by gender, of federal appointments made during the 35th and 36th Parliaments, and during the 37th Parliament up to and including March 31, 2003, at all levels, to: ( a ) judicial positions; ( b ) deputy ministerial positions within the federal public service; ( c ) agencies; ( d ) boards; ( e ) commissions; and ( f ) other bodies?

Question No. 209
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Bras D'Or—Cape Breton
Nova Scotia

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

The Privy Council Office submits the following chart with the information required to respond to the question.

Men/Women Distribution: Appointments and Re-appointments within a specific timeframe

NOTE: 262 (218 men and 44 women) of these appointments are not technically new appointments. They were for existing incumbents of the Ontario Court of Justice who had to be appointed anew when this court’s name changed to the Superior Court of Justice following amendments Ontario Courts of Justice Act and the Judges Act.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Halifax West
Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 184, 186, 191 and 199 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it agreed that Questions Nos. 184, 186, 191 and 199 be made orders for return?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 184
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Rajotte Edmonton Southwest, AB

Concerning the regional economic development bodies (i.e. Western Economic Diversification Canada, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario, and Canada Economic Development/Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) and the Community Futures Program since 1993: ( a ) what was the annual budget for each body; ( b ) what amount of the annual budget was for grants, loans and contributions broken down by province and territory; ( c ) what percentage of the grants, loans and contributions is repaid on an annual basis; ( d ) what percentage of the grants, loans and contribution is written off on an annual basis; ( e ) what are the top 50 annual write-offs for each body/program since 1993 (including the name of the company, province and the amount written off); and ( f ) who were the Ministers responsible since 1993 for each body or programme?

Return tabled.

Question No. 186
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gerry Ritz Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Concerning contracts: ( a ) what is the total value of contracts made annually by the government since 1993 broken down by province and territory; ( b ) what is the total value of contracts made annually by department, agency, and/or crown corporation since 1993; ( c ) what are the top ten contracts in value for each year since 1993 (please provide the name of the recipient, location, and the value of the contract); ( d ) for the last five years, what are the top five lawsuits on an annual basis against the government over contractual disputes and what was each dispute about; ( e ) for the last five years, what are the top ten contracts awarded to companies outside of Canada and what were those contracts for?

Return tabled.

Question No. 191
Routine Proceedings

May 26th, 2003 / 3:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant Hill Macleod, AB

What consultations are departments and agencies of the government currently conducting with environmental groups, environmental lobbyists, environmental stakeholders, non-governmental climate scientists, non-governmental energy experts, non-governmental industry experts and non-governmental agricultural experts regarding the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol; what environmental groups, lobbyists and stakeholders, non-governmental climate scientists, non-governmental energy experts, non-governmental industry experts and non-governmental agricultural experts are being consulted in this regard; what are the names and addresses of these consultants, and what are the particulars of any grants, payments and/or contracts awarded to them, including dates, amounts and types of funding?

Return tabled.

Question No. 199
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Charlie Penson Peace River, AB

Identifying each recipient with the amount and a description of the transaction, what contracts, grants and loans did the government and all of its agencies make to organizations or individuals in the riding of Perth–Middlesex from November 15, 2001, to March 1, 2003?

Return tabled.

Question No. 199
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Question No. 199
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?