Thank you very much.
I'll take that question.
You will also have received a written submission from five members of the Green Budget Coalition, including the David Suzuki Foundation, spelling out the amendments we're seeking.
It's a bit difficult to sum up, but the proposed provisions included in the budget bill would essentially allow Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency to decide not to conduct special reviews of pesticide risks that would otherwise be required under the law.
Right now, the special review provisions of the act require that the minister re-evaluate registered pesticides if there's information to suggest an unacceptable health or environmental risk, or in the case where another member country of the OECD prohibits all uses of that pesticide for health or environmental reasons. The special review requirements serve as an opportunity for a double-check to confirm risk assessments outside of the regular re-evaluation schedule. Otherwise, Canada wouldn't regularly review pesticide risks for another 20 years, perhaps.
The provisions in the act allow the minister, rather than initiating a new special review, to consider the aspect of concern within the scope of an existing special review or re-evaluation if there's already another process under way to look at that same pesticide. The minister could even decide not to initiate a special review in response to a ban in another OECD country if the same issue had been re-evaluated in the past.
Our concern is that under the existing legislation, there are clear requirements for consultation on these aspects of concern that trigger a special review. Our first proposed amendment would specify that a decision to essentially merge consideration of an aspect of concern with an existing re-evaluation process be taken before the consultation on that existing consultation process. This would ensure that the consideration that would have otherwise prompted a special review is still the subject of consultation and the evaluation is transparent.
The other amendment we're requesting is that if the—