Agriculture Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Monsieur Roy.

Mr. Bezan, you have seven minutes, please.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to both of you for coming in today. You mentioned that in 2006, so far, there have been over 3,300 permits given under the own use import program, representing 6.4 million litres. How does that compare to previous years?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

The number is over 3,000 import permits, and it was, I believe, slightly up from last year, which was the real first experience with use of the program.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

So there is quite a bit of demand out there, and it's slightly growing.

Now, you've talked about this GROU program. How do you expect that's going to impact on the OUI, the own use imports?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

The recommendation of the task force was to move to the grower requested own use--the GROU--program because of some of the issues raised related to the own use import program. Under the GROU program, 13 different chemicals--different pesticides--have been evaluated. Results were shared last week at the NAFTA meeting, and I believe that seven of 12 were deemed acceptable into the program, five of the 12 were not acceptable, and one is still pending further information. So the GROU program has the possibility of providing a greater variety of products to farmers than the own use import program.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

What's included right now under own use imports, and what products are they looking at?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

Right now there's just one, and it's ClearOut 41 Plus.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

It is just the glyphosate.

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

Yes.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Under the GROU program you're talking about products having to be materially identical. Why can they not be product equivalent?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

There were some issues related to product equivalence. The current product is a glyphosate product and one that's registered in the United States. When we have a product that is registered in the United States, we know it's coming from a regulatory system comparable to ours. We have that experience because of joint reviews and because of all the work we've done on harmonization. So we know that formulants are given the same level of review, and formulants that we have a concern about, the Americans have a concern about. We know that contaminants are addressed in the same way in the United States as in Canada.

If there were a product proposed that was not from North America, say from a developing country that we didn't have familiarity with, it would be much more difficult to figure out how you would deal with the issue of formulants of concern and how you would deal with the issue of contaminants of concern. That's the kind of issue that the current own use import and equivalency issue raises for us.

Under the GROU program, which relies on the registrants working with us, we actually get the chemical specification from the registrants. The task force recommended that they be from the United States. So again, a lot of the unknowns are dealt with in that scenario versus the own use import scenario in which there isn't any limitation on what product somebody can bring to us for consideration.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

With the GROU program, you're not looking at it having products brought in from other jurisdictions like Europe, where their regulatory systems are similar to what we have here in Canada. We import food products from around the world that are treated with these products. Why wouldn't we also accept their science, then, in bringing forward products to help our farmers be more competitive?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

When we look at allowing the use of a pesticide, our act is very clear. We have to look at human health, and we look at human health from a number of perspectives. So yes, we look at whether the residues in the foods consumed present a concern. That's dealt with in international trade through the establishment of maximum residue limits.

We also have to look at occupational health and safety issues and bystander health and safety issues. We also have to look at environmental issues. You can have, and have lived through, incidents where we've been concerned about the environmental risk of a product or the occupational health exposure of a product but were not concerned about the dietary exposure of a product, because the nature of the risk is different.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

One of the statements you made was that starting tomorrow you are evaluating this whole grower requested own use program. But you don't have any idea of how long that's going to take.

You're making a claim that there will be some form of a program available for 2007. That doesn't give a lot of confidence to the agriculture industry.

Our farmers need to know that it is going to be there for them to use. Can you give something more reassuring than that statement? Farmers who are going to be reading the blues or listening in on the broadcast are not comforted by that statement.

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

The evaluation starts tomorrow. I don't know how far they'll get. Hopefully, by the end of the day, we will have a very good sense of where people are interested in going.

The task force recommendation was that if the progress and the potential of the grow program looks acceptable to people, as an alternative to own use import, move to it in time for the growing season in 2007.

We know timelines are tight. All the timelines in looking at the own use import have been tight. There will be a number of grower groups at the table tomorrow, and they'll have their opportunity to provide comment.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

There have been a couple of problems associated with ClearOut 41 Plus through PMRA. I guess you guys are in the weather business now, trying to predict when there is going to be a killing frost and whether or not it can be brought in. I am wondering, why are you even bothering with that? Every region in Canada will differ as to when that kind of frost is. Shouldn't farmers be allowed to bring it in and use it according to the label?

The second thing is you're talking about the disposal of containers. Again, isn't that an environmental responsibility and predominantly under the jurisdiction of the provinces? So why would PMRA be overly concerned about that, when we already have regulations across the country on the disposal of containers?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

There are a couple of different points.

When the own use import experience started with the 2005 growing season, and a number of different concerns were raised, one of the points we made was that it involves the regulator in a different way from a registered Canadian program.

The regulations are very clear about the role the regulator plays. They're clear that it is for import in use in one growing season, and that is a limiter, as compared to access to Canadian registered product.

As a regulator, I have to play by the rules too. With all of the issues raised by own use import from the get-go, we said we are going to try to make sure that everybody plays by the rules, as currently established, recognizing that all sorts of parties have different issues with own use imports.

So the idea is, yes, we continue with it. We recognize that some folks really like it; some folks really don't like it. There are different issues. So we will continue with the rules, as in place now, with a task force established that made recommendations. As I said, part of it is an evaluation starting tomorrow.

So, yes, if a farmer bought Canadian-registered glyphosate in a co-op down the road, the farmer gets to use it under the farmer's own judgment. With own use import, we're clearly having to play a role in approving an import permit. That's part of our job, and part of our job as a regulator cannot then be to make a farmer non-compliant with the label.

This is a difficult issue. I'm not saying we like it. It's part of the current rules. Whether that continues under the grow program, some of those details have not yet been established.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Good. Thank you.

Following up on that as a point of clarification, ClearOut 41 Plus is registered for use in Canada. It is on the shelf of my local co-op, wheat pool, or whatever. Are the labels exactly the same?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

So how does the store keep selling it? They are allowed to sell it even with that on the label, and yet under the OUI, I can't bring it in. So we've got a bit of a disparity there, and you're saying that this is your purview, because they agreed to that label requirement.

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

If you bought the Canadian-registered product from the co-op down the road...there is nothing that says a farmer has to buy and use a Canadian-registered product in one year.

Under the own use import program, the regulations are very clear, black and white: import and use in one growing year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

It's a growing season, not a calendar year.

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

I would have to check for the precise wording.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

There is quite a difference, because a lot of fall and winter annuals need a killing frost to slow them down to the point that the ClearOut 41 Plus will work.

You made a statement a while ago, and I'll check the blues, but your quote was, “If we say to do this and it doesn't make sense to a farmer, they're not going to do it.” This whole idea of frost somehow prohibiting them from going out and doing their fall work and killing their winter annuals doesn't make any sense to me. Those are the phone calls I'm getting. Now I see you've consulted with provincial agricultural specialists. So it's not just me; it's Mark Wartman in Saskatchewan, it's Roseanne Wowchuk in Manitoba, and so on, who have to share some of this heat we're taking.

I find it quite hypocritical--that might be the best or kindest word I can use--in that I can buy it off the shelf and it says not to use it after a frost, and you're saying it's prohibited to use it after a frost. I don't think the label says that. It probably says it doesn't recommend you use it, but I've never read the label. I'm too busy mixing it and using it.

I find it at cross-purposes that we would regulate it differently—and it still comes in under your watch—to put it on the shelf of the co-op or in my truck as I come across the border. I find it at cross-purposes that those two things don't jive.

One other point I noticed in your presentation was the one thing you didn't mention.... Let's back up on ClearOut 41 Plus for a second. Was it one of the first 13 candidates, as you called them? It has been accepted under the GROU.

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

It hasn't been accepted. It's one that we haven't received information about from the U.S. registrant. It's the one that's pending.