Agriculture Committee on Feb. 13th, 2007

[Karen Dodds]

They came to PMRA as the sponsors of ClearOut 41 Plus. Some colleagues have referred to them as the Costco of the agriculture sector. They did their homework and had the chemical analysis done that showed this U.S. product was equivalent to a Canadian-registered product.

In 2005, most of the product was shipped under what I'll call the auspices of Farmers of North America. They pre-bought and delivered for farmers. We started getting concerns raised, and we found out that they had indeed entered into an agreement with the U.S. distributor so that they would become the sole source of product for Canadian farmers. Canadian farmers could not actually go down themselves and buy product. They could only get it through Farmers of North America. We don't know if that continues now, but the fact that the U.S. registrant, the U.S. distributor, is registered in Canada but is not marketing in Canada suggests, as Craig did, that they're confident that they continue to work with Farmers of North America to have the product come into Canada.

As I said, one of the issues we've always had with equivalence under the own-use import program is that we have no means of holding the foreign-registered product to account. If the maker of the foreign product—in this case, it's a U.S.-registered product—changes their formulation, we don't have a means of finding that out first-hand. We have to continue to hold some sponsor accountable. However, under GROU, because you have what are in essence sister companies, they have access to that information in a much more easy fashion.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I understand that this could be a cooperative of farmers. It's farmers' money in this, and there are profits shared. It's not a Wal-Mart.

[Gordon Bacon]

Maybe I can help.

It's my understanding that it's a privately owned company with two or three owners. It's basically a private corporation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Did that answer your question?

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

That's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thanks, Paul.

Mr. Devolin, for five minutes, please.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you.

I'm sorry I was late. I saw the calendar this afternoon and realized that tomorrow is February 14, so I had to sneak out in order to send some business to one of your horticultural members.

[An hon. member]

Suck-up.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I almost forgot. Oh, that's on the record, isn't it?

My riding is in central Ontario. I'm not a farmer myself, but I talk to farmers in my area. One of the things I've heard many times is that there are chemicals that we are not allowed to use in Canada, yet other countries can use them and can send their stuff up here, and then we eat it. There seems to be no logic to that.

You're referring to NAFTA labelling, but we're talking about Canada and the United States and standardizing with Europe. NAFTA suggests Mexico as well. Does this currently include Mexico? Is it meant to include Mexico in the future? What about other countries in Central and Latin America that actually tend to send us a lot of food? We get a lot more from there than we would from Australia, for example.

[Karen Dodds]

No, it doesn't include Mexico. All of the work is done under the auspices of the NAFTA Technical Working Group on Pesticides, which includes Mexico, and the Mexicans participate in the meetings. They are clear that they are not participating in joint reviews at the moment, but they follow the developments.

It is a bit of a concern, in that there might be folks who think it includes NAFTA, but the NAFTA label is Canada–U.S. Mexico is interested in continuing to work with us. Mexico watches us and certainly doesn't prohibit Canada and the U.S. from achieving progress, which is a real positive bit, but their legislation and registration to date have not allowed them to fully participate in things like joint review and the NAFTA labels.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Are there any final questions?

Alex.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

I'll try to be quick.

We're talking about the mechanics of the own-use versus the GROU, and the advantages and disadvantages. From the point of view of health, the fact is that there are apparently 61 or so chemicals that we use in Canada that are banned in OECD countries. There are a couple used in Ontario that are not very good for the liver and kidneys. When we look at which ones we're going to approve, do we just see what's happening and what controls are in place in the United States, or do we look at other countries, like Germany, Sweden, or other European countries where they may have banned products that we may be using or potentially using? Is it Health Canada that looks after this? Could you elaborate on this, please?

[Karen Dodds]

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency is a branch of Health Canada. It's called an agency, but that's just its name. I report to the deputy minister, as do the other assistant deputy ministers, but my title is different. We are part of Health Canada, and it's the Minister of Health who is responsible for the Pest Control Products Act.

When we do joint reviews, we are clear that all of the participating countries have the authority to make their own decisions. We're clear that we're not accepting U.S. decisions, and for a long time I think farmers were actually wanting us to accept U.S. decisions. That's part of why I say the experience is that we come to the same decision, but we are clear when we participate that we can differ; we may not have the same agreements.

We find it's very helpful when our scientific evaluators can discuss issues with the U.S. and European scientific evaluators in that there is, in many ways, strength in numbers. They can discuss these issues and come more and more to a common decision. But we're not sacrificing health and environmental standards when we're working on joint reviews. We're clear; we have our health and environmental standards.

Again, that's one of the benefits for us of the GROU versus the own-use import. The GROU looks specifically at products from countries that are on par with us as a regulator, as compared to some countries whose standards we don't know and that we don't have confidence in as regulators.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Hunter.

[Craig Hunter]

Quite often we'll read that a European country like Sweden or Norway has banned a pesticide, and we don't know enough about the background. Almost always those are bans in agriculture, but those countries don't have much agriculture. They have a heck of a forestry industry, and they allow the uses in forestry. The ban doesn't include every use. Those countries are required under European Union rules to be able to import their food from Spain, Italy, France, and Portugal, and by God, they do use those pesticides. So it's very convenient for publicity to show they're banning something, but the reality is they get their food from somewhere else.

If we want to do that in Canada, we'll be buying our food from somewhere else and our farmers will be out of business. If they're approved by a competent agency, we want to be able to use them--full stop.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Anderson has a quick follow-up.

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

I think it's a two-part question.

ClearOut has full Canadian registration. Is that accurate?

Okay, so they're registered under own-use imports, and they also have full Canadian registration. If you come in with GROU, why would that impact their full registration? What's keeping them from bringing the product in under the full registration?

I'm assuming that not every other chemical in this country that's registered is going to be impacted by GROU.

[Karen Dodds]

ClearOut 41 Plus was registered in Canada after they started accessing what I'll call the Canadian agriculture sector through own-use import. They are not marketing the product in Canada. The sales of ClearOut 41 Plus are all happening in the States, and it is American-registered product that is being used. ClearOut 41 Plus is not on the shelves of Canadian distributors with a Canadian registration number.

You'd have to ask the registrant why they're doing that. We can surmise that they're reaching the market more cheaply this way. They're avoiding the responsibilities of a registrant. Farmers of North America is doing that for them.

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

The product has full registration in Canada?

[Karen Dodds]

Yes.

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

They can bring it in, market it themselves, and that product would be available that way?

[Karen Dodds]

Yes.

I've also had confirmation that there is at least one glyphosate on the group of eight products that's been considered acceptable under GROU. So there is at least one glyphosate product as a GROU product.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Gourde, a quick question.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

I have seen that we import fruits and vegetables produced with pesticides that are registered in the US and in other countries but are banned in Canada. In time, some of those products will meet the Canadian criteria for registration but some will not.

My concern is that this puts our Canadian producers at a disadvantage. We do not necessarily know if the pesticides used to produce the fruits and vegetables that we import for our food consumption will one day be accepted in Canada or not. I am also concerned for our consumers who eat some food produced with herbicides that may never meet the Canadian criteria.

What steps do you think should be taken in Canada to ensure that our producers have access to the best competitive products possible and that our consumers are protected against chemicals that are not accepted in Canada but are found in imported food such as fruits and vegetables? As you know, we do not have the list of those products and herbicides that may have been used to for the production of those fruits and vegetables.

We probably import fruits and vegetables that have been grown with herbicides that are not registered in Canada. Our farmers are not allowed to import those herbicides for their own production but we import those fruits and vegetables for our own consumption. I find that nonsensical. What could be done to solve this problem?

[Karen Dodds]

When we register a pesticide for use in Canada, we have to look at human health aspects, environmental aspects, and value, which has mostly been efficacy.

When we look at the human health aspects, people typically first think about eating the food that's been treated with the pesticides. We also have to look at occupational health issues and bystander issues. So there are times when we will say no to a pesticide or a use of the pesticide because of a concern about an occupational health issue, a bystander issue, or an environmental issue, but we do not have concerns about eating a product treated with the pesticide. That certainly has happened.

Under the World Trade Organization, our responsibility is to be as least trade restrictive as possible. So there are times when we allow a product treated with a pesticide to come into Canada when you can't use it in Canada, because we don't have concerns about dietary exposure, but we do have environmental or other health concerns. So we're okay on the health side; we have covered the dietary exposure.

There has also been a regulation that has said that irrespective of whether the pesticide is approved, if the residue limit level is below 0.1 parts per million, it's acceptable. The PMRA proposed changing that, because it was recognized that increasingly, pesticides were being used when we did have concerns, but the residue was below 0.1. And they were still being shipped to Canada and they were legally acceptable in Canada. That also put Canadian growers at a disadvantage, because farmers elsewhere could use products that Canadian growers couldn't use. So there was a proposal put forward, initially in 2003, to remove the 0.1, the default residue level.

We have had a second-round proposal go out recognizing that we want to do it in a way that does not disadvantage Canadian farmers. It addresses, then, one of the issues for fruit and vegetable growers about products being used offshore that are not allowed in Canada.

So it will be clear. The only times you should see that happening are when we don't have a concern about dietary exposure but we have said no to the product for other reasons.