Mr. Chair, Health Canada has been working for more than ten years with its counterparts in other countries, such as the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the United States, toward greater cooperation in pesticide regulation.
By cooperating internationally, Canada and its partners can achieve many benefits. Most importantly, this cooperation allows regulators to stay abreast of advances in science and develop regulatory approaches to achieve the highest standards for protection of human health and the environment. It allows regulators to gain efficiencies from sharing the work in reviewing new pesticides and reassessing older ones. For the agricultural sector, benefits include reduced barriers to trade in food, greater access to newer and safer pesticides, and enhanced competitiveness.
Mr. Chair, I would like to emphasize that the protection of human health is the highest priority we have. However, while international cooperation in pesticide regulation has led to a convergence in regulatory approaches, it's important to emphasize that Canada makes its own independent regulatory decisions in accordance with domestic legislation and in full consultation with the Canadian public.
Over the years, some have expressed concerns that these efforts led to the lowering of national standards. This has not proven to be the case. Our efforts toward international regulatory cooperation have allowed Canada to adopt higher standards for pesticide regulation.
For example, when the US Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 was enacted, it required the US Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate the cumulative effects of pesticides with a common mode of action and to consider sensitive populations, such as children, pregnant women and seniors in human health risk assessments.
At that time, Health Canada worked closely with our counterparts in the US Environmental Protection Agency to employ this higher standard for protecting human health in Canada through policy changes. With the coming into force of the Pest Control Products Act last June, these standards are now law in Canada.
Another example of raising standards is found in Health Canada's current proposal to revoke the default maximum residue limit of 0.1 parts per million in favour of establishing specific maximum residue limits for domestic and imported food, as is done in the United States. The general maximum residue limit allowed food to cross the border if it had a pesticide residue of less than 0.1 parts per million, yet no specific maximum residue limit existed. By revoking the general maximum residue limit, all maximum residue limits in Canada will be set according to the scientific risk assessment process described earlier by my colleague. This means that the maximum residue limits specific to each pesticide will be more protected of human health.
With respect to Canadian maximum residue limits for pesticides on food, none have been changed to date. At this time, Canada is discussing the possibility of harmonizing maximum residue limits with its international partners. If Canada deems that changing a maximum residue limit is in its interest, it will be changed only if it meets strict health protection standards and only after consulting with Canadians. Health Canada's priorities are the health and safety of Canadians and their food supply. This is a guiding principle when regulating pesticide use in Canada.
In summary, Mr. Chair, the protection of the health of Canadians is paramount. International regulatory cooperation does offer benefits but not at the risk of Canadians' health. Our high standards and priorities for human protection will not change as a result of discussions regarding the possibility of enhanced cooperation.
Thank you.