Agriculture Committee on Jan. 29th, 2008

[Karen Dodds]

That's us.

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

Okay. So in addition to the apples that I consume here from Canada, it's possible that we'll get apples from China, from New Zealand, and from the United States. From what you said before, it's my understanding that any product coming into Canada has to meet the same level of standards of maximum residue limits. So an apple grown in China or New Zealand will not have any more of the maximum pesticides than will the apple in Canada. Is that correct? Okay, so then we're working on that, and if there's a problem, that's the question that James is addressing.

So then if they're using certain pesticides in New Zealand and the United States for these apples and yet they're the level that meets our standards, and our producers aren't being able to use them, then we don't have a level playing field. Why is it then that if they're safe, we're not able to use them? I guess the crux of the matter is we're not able to use them here. I thought that one reason we weren't using the same pesticides and products was that they didn't meet our standards of safety. Yet you're saying that we do have these standards, that any food that comes in.... And Wayne asked the question, if they're not meeting our standards, then we should stop bringing them in across the border, which I tend to agree with. But if they're meeting our standards, then why are we not being able to use the same pesticides? Do you see what I'm trying to get at? I just want to get a clear explanation. I always thought that we didn't use certain products in Canada because they were not safe and they weren't approved. Then the argument was that we're bringing in products and they're using the same.... Why are we doing that? Maybe we should stop the importation. But you're saying that's not the case. So I'd like you to clarify that.

[Karen Dodds]

In some circumstances we will set what's called an import MRL. Typically that's for a product where the food is not grown in Canada: bananas, oranges, grapefruit. We don't grow them in Canada. There is no need to establish a domestic MRL; it's only an import MRL. There could be examples of older products where we don't permit the use of the pesticide in Canada but they are still being used abroad, and those products are coming in and we're not seeing or detecting the maximum residue limit. So in the scenario you thought of, where we actually have taken action against the pesticides, you can have the issue that they come in and they're not detected. And that's where we always try to work with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to make sure that their inspection programs are changing and covering those bases.

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

So these would be the foods not grown in Canada that you're talking about, or all?

[Karen Dodds]

Any food.

This doesn't typically happen with developing countries, but in the United States, both currently and historically, there can also be pesticides where the registrant hasn't brought it to be registered in Canada. So we haven't seen the information yet. We don't know whether the product is safe or is not safe. Now, again, those should not be coming in, because we would not have set an MRL, but we may then just finish the review next year and set an MRL.

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

So the whole process that we're doing, the re-evaluation, is basically to deal with that, in a sense.

[Karen Dodds]

That's part of it. And that's why there's such support behind the global reviews, because it facilitates regulators in getting a better understanding of things. We're allowing the same products and the same MRLs. It benefits farmers because they're using newer products and they have confidence that they can ship their product to all of these countries and meet their regulatory standards instead of perhaps taking a chance on not meeting the standards and being detected.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Lauzon wanted to have a quick follow-up.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The OUI task force's new intellectual property policy was supposed to encourage registration of new generic products. Can you tell me if that's happened?

[Karen Dodds]

It has. I believe there are eleven submissions we've had since this past summer, which is a very significant increase for us in Canada.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I'm assuming that generic products would mean lower cost.

[Karen Dodds]

Yes, because the registrants of generic products don't have the cost of building the database associated with those products.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

As a quick follow-up on this global joint review that you're involved with, I'm assuming that this is relatively recent and it's increasing.

I'm hoping I get a positive answer here.

The agricultural industry needs more markets, more open markets, more foreign markets. Do you see this review that you're doing, along with other countries, opening up other markets for us considerably? Is there some room there to grow our export industries?

[Karen Dodds]

It certainly is a potential side benefit. The regulators haven't been pursuing that as a specific objective, but as I just said, it certainly gives growers the assurance that the pesticides they're using are permitted at the same level in other countries. It started really with the experience just between Canada and the United States. We've been able, with the United States, to take that to OECD and parlay that into these global joint reviews, which include the European Union. A number of them now, I think, have included Australia. Japan is interested.

Was China interested in sitting in at least on one?

[Dr. Richard Aucoin]

We're working this through with OECD countries currently, the regulators, but there is a strong interest from other countries, participating more in OECD, such as China, India, and Brazil. So we expect it will expand to those countries in one form or another over the next few years.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I think we should encourage that, because I think that's the future for our agriculture, to open up new markets.

I'm assuming, too, that if you're doing this jointly with other countries, either your costs are reduced or you can do more. Is that a safe assumption?

In other words, I think the more bridges we can build with foreign countries and the wider we can spread our contacts, it would seem to me that this would benefit the farmer, again.

[Karen Dodds]

Yes.

As I said, our experience over the last few years is that some of where the costs come from is shifting, and it's too new in the experience to really realize cost savings, because indeed there is, if anything, more examination because all the different scientists are very interested. But it builds a robustness into the system. Our findings are that when our scientists talk to the U.S. scientists, they come to a common conclusion when they're discussing it as they're reviewing data, versus what we know historically, that you isolate the two sets of scientists and invariably they come to different conclusions.

One of the great benefits has been the development of this MRL calculator. With the United States, we've come to agreement that this is how we will establish a maximum residue limit, so we now know that if you put the same data in, you'll get the same MRL north and south of the border. We did not have that before.

Richard took that to the OECD. Has that been accepted now by the OECD, largely?

[Dr. Richard Aucoin]

It is moving forward through the OECD and Codex.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I would imagine, too, that we get more respect from your counterparts in other countries. They realize that we're doing our testing, and we're developing integrity on the world scene. So that again will help us to break through to those new markets.

[Karen Dodds]

But one of the most important things, I think, for the grower in Canada is that we're a small market. By being part of these joint reviews, we avoid the old situation where they simply didn't bring the product to Canada. Now, being part of the joint reviews, they're getting the product in Canada as well, and that is really one of the things farmers want the most, that access to product.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Yes.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Does anybody else have any follow-up questions?

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

There was a group of manufacturers that had put forward products for the GROU program. I've talked to farmers, and they're really questioning why the manufacturers pulled out of the GROU program, why they pulled their products out. I'd like to know what you believe the interest of these manufacturers is in the GROU program or why they've done this to us.

[Karen Dodds]

As I said, we started with twelve products. It was our decision that they weren't eligible because they were not equivalent. The two others were withdrawn because of data protection issues. So it wasn't so much whether the manufacturers were collaborating with GROU; it was that these were new products, still with patent protection, and were inappropriate to use under this program.

[Dr. Richard Aucoin]

I'll just add to that. I am aware of at least two manufacturers of products who are actually taking steps to make their Canadian products equivalent to their U.S. products to facilitate their applicability to the GROU program or to make NAFTA labels possible. So there are some manufacturers who are doing the opposite of what is happening in some other cases.