Agriculture Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

First of all, no one is arguing that this isn't a toxic substance. That's why it's used for the purpose it's used for. So that can be dealt with. You can regulate the use of it. That's your job. But the reality is that there is no other alternative there, and the decision was apparently made without any specific scientific evidence to make it. They talk about dog poisonings. I have dog poisonings in my part of the world now, but unless you have some vast, documented evidence that this is happening on a grand scale, that's not a reason to ban this substance.

In terms of police forces, I don't know what their data was, but the ready-to-use products do not work. Even the diluted form of the brand is not working effectively. The only thing that works is long-rifle .22 shells, and people are getting sick of doing that.

[Richard Aucoin]

The information that we have always received from provincial specialists is that this newer version of the ready-to-use products is as effective as when the liquid product was mixed by the farmer with their own grain to make the product.

That's the information we have been basing.... That's the information we have had.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Well, I'd invite you to send some folks out to my riding. We'll try it this spring and we'll see about the effectiveness of it. We have a great pilot project there, with quarters and quarters of ground just polluted with these things. People cannot control them. We need a proper product.

[Richard Aucoin]

We recognize that it's a serious problem.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I would like to go back to the GROU program. Farmers--in Ontario just last week and I know in my part of the world as well--are really concerned that they have an effective own use import, or OUI, program in place. The farmers want it and they're calling for it. I think the new GROU program has some things in it that need to be addressed before it replaces OUI, and I'd like your comments on some of this.

On this proposal that things need to be materially identical, we're getting some concerns from producers and others that it does a number of things, including limit the scope of products registered to the same company on both sides of the border. I'd like you to comment on this, that the product needs to be registered on both sides of the border in order for it to be available.

There is a concern about the ease with which companies can alter the distribution within the U.S., to avoid sending the chemical here, by not making it available down there.

There is a concern about the fact that companies will be allowed to change the product in a minor way to avoid the program, so that it's not materially identical.

There is an issue about how easy it is for companies to change the labels so that the product does not meet requirements and then obviously can't be imported into Canada.

There is also a concern about companies manipulating to extend patent protection on products. That's something that happens fairly often now. They can use other processes or formulations of the product, extend the patent protection on it, and then it doesn't become a generic.

I guess the worry is that the pilot program is really just an attempt to eliminate the OUI program in the short term: we'll give you this dozen or twenty chemicals fairly quickly, but our real intent is to eliminate the OUI program.

Another comment is that if the generic is registered in Canada, Canadian producers can access it from the U.S., but if there is no generic register there, are we out of luck? For chemicals registered in both places, we can access it, but if it's not registered in the United States, what happens? Can we access it or not?

Another comment was that GROU succeeds where there is access, but it is not going to succeed in establishing access.

I'd like your comments.

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

The issues you list about GROU are all equally applicable to own use import. The U.S. registrant and the Canadian registrant can do all of those same things and take away access to an own use import product.

So between those issues you raise, all of them are applicable to own use import as well as to GROU.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

If you limit it to North America, which OUI hasn't been—

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

No, no--anywhere. The own use import needs, as a prerequisite, a Canadian-registered product. If you do not have a Canadian-registered product, there is no possibility of own use import. If the Canadian registrant alters something, then the product coming in is no longer equivalent to and would be taken away from own use import.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

What was the predecessor product for ClearOut?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

I don't recall, but there was obviously a predecessor product.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Glyphosate generally?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

No, a specific registered product. There are all sorts of different formulations and registered glyphosate products. There has to be specificity.

One of the issues from the get-go with own use import was how it was thought a non-registrant was going to show equivalency. Certainly farmers of North America had to undertake considerable work to demonstrate that ClearOut 41 Plus was equivalent to a Canadian-registered product.

So you still have the possibility of the Canadian registrant making some change, or the American registrant of the ClearOut 41 Plus making some change.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

And if that happens?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

Then it would no longer be equivalent, it would no longer have an equivalency certificate under own use import, and nobody would have access to it.

One of the advantages of GROU is that you do have the support and collaboration of the registrants. They are working in tandem. As I said, there have been 13 products nominated to GROU. All of the Canadian registrants provided us with specifications, and seven of the 12 have been found to meet the criteria to be considered materially identical under GROU. That's seven of 15.

For five of the products, there have been differences in formulations. Even if the product has exactly the same trade name north and south of the border, there have been found to be differences in either formulants or other issues that have said they're not the same.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

So that's enough to disqualify them?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

It has to make a difference. It can't just be that surfactant A and surfactant B are different. Materially, identically, we've said it has an impact. So it's not just an insignificant change. We've said it has to have some impact, but we have to know about it.

The issues you raised for GROU are just as true with own use imports.

I think, too, one of the things that was a very significant announcement last week at the NAFTA meeting is that we are very close to having a first NAFTA label.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I think we talked about this with some of the other MPs. Some of them have been working on it for 12 years, and we still don't see that. So I think when we see it, some of us will believe it.

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

Okay.

I think there was, and I think that's why in Canada there's been such interest in own use import. The United States has also been working on a U.S. own use import program. I think there was real frustration with any progress on NAFTA, cynicism about a NAFTA label ever coming into reality.

Indeed, we now have a registrant.

There was, under NAFTA, a task force put together. It included growers and registrants. It included EPA and PMRA. In essence, we have all said we want to make this work. There is, again, one small thing to address in terms of allergen labelling, and we have it. There are another five that are to come shortly.

With a NAFTA label, that is.... There is a product registered in Canada. There is a product registered in the States. It has the label on it with the U.S.-specific information and Canadian-specific information, and it can go north and south of the border. Neither Canada nor the U.S. will raise issues about it.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

When that comes into being, I'm sure our farmers will say hallelujah.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

Are there any questions from the opposition side? No questions?

Mr. Benoit.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Thank you.

First of all, in regard to the own use import and the GROU, I think the only acceptable way to proceed from now is to leave the own use imports program in place, introduce the GROU, and let farmers evaluate the effectiveness of the programs. The way I see it, I would guess that two-thirds to three-quarters of the value would be lost under the GROU--the value to farmers, the benefit to farmers--and that's simply not acceptable. That's the way I would certainly like to see it proceed.

In terms of the 2% strychnine, there have been again more statements made that simply aren't verified and backed up by the studies done. In terms of environmental concerns, there are concerns expressed, but there's nothing in any study that would indicate that they're valid concerns.

That's part of the reason that farmers are so upset by losing this product. There is no acceptable replacement. None of the pre-mixes work effectively. Just talk to farmers. They've been widely used. None of them work effectively. The only effective control for Richardson's ground squirrels, gophers, is the 2% solution of strychnine, or a higher percentage, mixed with grain so it can be used fresh. It has to be used within a very few hours of the time it's mixed, certainly less than a day. It becomes stale and the gophers just don't want to eat it beyond that time.

In terms of police forces, if there was some concern expressed by the police, it was not given to me in these documents that I received upon order of the House of Commons. That is of great concern to me. The only RCMP issue that was expressed was a study that was done when the PMRA or some former body asked some RCMP officers to check into the stores to see if the storage in the area was acceptable. So they went to the merchants who were selling this.

Some talked of poisoning dogs. Well, guess what? Dogs are being poisoned now with ethylene glycol, common antifreeze used in cars. Are you going to take that away? Why isn't that gone? That should be taken away, clearly, under the same logic. It's against the law to poison a neighbour's dog, so deal with that problem.

Don't deny farmers a product that can save them millions and millions of dollars every year. Deal with the problem. That's the same logic that led to the gun registry and denied duck hunters and farmers appropriate access to firearms. It's not acceptable logic.

Again, I'd like an answer to my question as to where you're going from here. Where is the PMRA going from here in terms of the availability of strychnine for farmers?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

I will go back and I will look at what we do have and check what information we provided, in terms of your papers. What was the date for that motion?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

The motion was September 28, 1998.

I've also received and gone through a copy of the studies. I've sat down with people from the PMRA. The same kinds of comments you made were made by them. I demonstrated that it is not the case. They're simply not valid comments.

You're accepting information that you received from somebody, and that person hasn't been appropriately careful in their evaluation.

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

But, again, as I said, we have done a re-evaluation of strychnine, which has continued to raise concerns. We'll certainly be open to receiving information from farmers about the issue.

We have had discussions, as I said, with the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and agreed to look at a very promising alternative, Phostoxin. It's a registered product in Canada. It's a fumigant. It's not a poison bait. It can be used all season long, both while the squirrels are active.... One application is usually sufficient. Because it's used in the burrows, there's very little chance of non-target poisoning.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Once you have that product available and if the cost is reasonable, and if it is effective, fine. Until that time, I don't want to hear about that. I want to know what farmers are going to do this spring to control Richardson's ground squirrels.