Health Committee on May 28th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We will call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are here for a briefing on possible regulatory changes. We want to talk about some of the potential regulatory changes to some of the pesticides and hazardous products perhaps entering the country. We want to investigate that. It was a request by some of the members of the committee.

We're pleased to have with us, from the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Mr. Richard Aucoin; from the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, Ms. Sharon Watts; and from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Ms. Debra Bryanton.

It's good to have you all here.

We'll actually start in a different order. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency will be first and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will follow. They're on the same issue. After that, we'll talk about hazardous materials information.

With that, we'll open up the meeting and yield the floor to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

Richard, you have 10 minutes.

[Dr. Richard Aucoin, Chief Registrar and Director General, Registration Directorate, Pest Management Regulatory Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the committee.

I'm Dr. Richard Aucoin, chief registrar of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada. I'm very pleased to be here today with my colleague Dr. Peter Chan, director general of health evaluation at the PMRA.

As Chief Registrar, I am responsible for the processes Health Canada has in place to review pesticides. My goal is to ensure that we are using the latest and best science available to make regulatory decisions, and that we do so in the most effective and efficient way.

I appreciate that the public and members of the committee are concerned about the safety of pesticide residues on their food, especially given the media coverage on this topic a few weeks past. As such, Dr. Chan and I are pleased to be here today to provide committee members and Canadians with more information about international regulatory cooperation and pesticide residue limits on Canadian food.

In our comments today, we will briefly describe our mandate for pesticide regulation, how Health Canada scientists establish human health standards for pesticides on food and the current international context for pesticide regulation and how it benefits Canadians.

Health Canada takes seriously its responsibility to protect human health and the safety of Canada's food supply. Our mandate in pesticide regulation is to register only the products that meet the strict standards of human health and safety and the environment under the authority of the Pest Control Products Act.

My colleague Dr. Chan will now briefly provide some information on maximum residue limits for pesticides in Canada, and specifically how they're established.

[Peter Chan, Director General, Health Evaluation Directorate, Pest Management Regulatory Agency]

Mr. Chairman, the scientific approach we use to protect human health has two main components; one identifies potential health effects and the other identifies exposure, of specific interest today, through the ingestion of pesticide residues on food. Together these two components are used to identify potential risks to human health and what is required to protect people from those risks.

Pesticides are stringently regulated in Canada according to modern internationally recognized scientific risk assessment methods before they are approved for use or sale in Canada. The scientific methodology used to set maximum residue limits on food is well established internationally.

Maximum residue limits are set in Canada's food and drug regulations as the maximum level of pesticide residue permitted on domestic and imported food. Health Canada establishes maximum residue limits as part of the extensive assessments conducted on each pesticide product before it is registered for use in Canada. In fact, maximum residue limits are set for each pesticide and food crop combination.

Maximum residue limits represent the maximum residues expected to be left on food at harvest at the approved application rate. They are established only after a dietary risk assessment has confirmed that any pesticide residues likely to remain on food when it is eaten will not pose health concerns for anyone.

Health Canada pays special attention to ensure that people who are more sensitive, such as children, pregnant women, and seniors, are not at risk. In other words, the exposure to pesticide residues through consumption of food over a lifetime must be lower than the exposure that is determined to be acceptable.

It is important to note that maximum residue limits do not represent limits above which residues may be harmful to humans. The actual human health standard is the acceptable daily intake, which has already been determined as the amount of pesticide that can be consumed each day without risk for an entire lifetime.

On the other hand, maximum residue limits do act as a trigger for further evaluation if they are exceeded. If a food has a residue level higher than that of the established maximum residue limit, our colleagues, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, would notify us if they felt there were any health concern.

Dr. Richard Aucoin will now discuss the international context for pesticide regulation.

Thank you.

[Dr. Richard Aucoin]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll move on to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Debra Bryanton, the floor is yours.

[Debra Bryanton, Executive Director, Food Safety, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before the committee. My comments will be very brief as we are here primarily to support our colleagues at the PMRA at this particular committee hearing.

I am the executive director of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's food safety directorate. As the committee is aware, the CFIA is mandated to safeguard Canada's food supply and the plants and animals upon which safe, high-quality food depends. CFIA does verify compliance with 13 federal acts in the respective regulations, including the Food and Drugs Act. The agency works in partnership with other stakeholders to carry out this mandate. One of our most important partners, of course, is Health Canada. We do have a strong working relationship with various parts of Health Canada, including PMRA.

We are committed to serving Canadians by providing protection from preventable health risks and by delivering a fair and effective regulatory regime, sustaining the plant and animal resource base, and promoting security of Canada's food supply. As there is a particular interest in pesticide residues, we would note that Health Canada establishes maximum residue limits and CFIA is responsible for monitoring and enforcing these limits. For pesticide residues, these limits are set by PMRA, as our colleagues have noted. Our monitoring program demonstrates that pesticide residues on fresh fruits and vegetables grown and imported into Canada are very low. Recent results show that 96.7% of imported produce and 99.1% of Canadian produce tested below the Canadian maximum residue limits. Of that, 86% of imported product and 88% of Canadian fresh fruits and vegetables had non-detectable pesticide residues.

The CFIA uses maximum residue limits as triggers. If a food has a residue level that is higher than the established limit, where we do feel there could be a health concern, we notify Health Canada, which then undertakes a dietary risk assessment to determine whether these residues do actually pose a health concern. In recent years there have not been residue levels that posed a health concern, but should such an event occur, CFIA would undertake immediate action, which may include food recall.

In conclusion, let me underline that food safety is CFIA's top priority and central to everything we do.

I'd be pleased to respond to any questions you may have later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll move on to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission.

Sharon Watts, the floor is now yours.

[Sharon Watts, Vice-President, Corporate Services and Adjudication Branch, Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission]

Thank you.

I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to regulatory changes being contemplated by the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission. In fact, the commission has recently finalized draft amendments, two regulations that are consequential to what is now known as chapter 7 of the Statutes of Canada, 2007, formally known and presented to this committee in January as Bill S-2.

As vice-president of corporate services and adjudication of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, I have the responsibility for the development of both regulatory and legislative policy.

I would like to provide you with a brief overview of the Commission and the proposed regulatory amendments, after which we will be happy to take your questions.

I will give a brief overview of the role of the commission--you may recall I spoke of this earlier. It is to manage the trade secret component of the workplace hazardous materials information system, commonly known as WHMIS, or SIMDUT. WHMIS is a federal, provincial, and territorial hazard communication system established in the late 1980s through a consensus of industry, organized labour, and the federal, provincial, and territorial governments.

Among other things, WHMIS requires that product labels and safety documentation fully disclose the identity of hazardous ingredients within a product, the specific hazards posed by the product, the precautions to be taken in handling the product, and first aid measures to be applied in the event of exposure. The goal of WHMIS is to ensure that workers using hazardous materials have the information they need to minimize the risk of illness and injury.

HMIRC operates as a quasi-judicial independent agency with a mandate to grant exemptions from the full disclosure requirements of WHMIS while ensuring that the documentation on the safe use of the products is provided to Canadian workers and is accurate and complete.

The Commission's role is a dual one as it ensures a balance between workers' right to know what is in the products they work with and their hazards, and the industry's right to protect its trade secrets. The activities of the Commission can be broken down into three key components of our mandate.

First, we conduct an economic analysis to determine whether the claimant's information is truly a trade secret and whether disclosure will have economic consequences. Second, we conduct a scientific analysis to ensure that the health and safety information being supplied to employers and workers about the product is accurate and complete. The third part of our mandate is the administration of an appeals process. When a claimant or any affected party, such as a worker representative, challenges a decision of our commission, an independent appeal board is appointed to hear that challenge.

The governance of our commission is unique in the sense that the oversight of this three-part mandate is provided by a council of governors. On this 18-member council there are two representatives of workers, one representative of employers, another representative of the suppliers who supply the materials into the workplaces, and every province and territory has a member on this council, including a representative of the federal minister responsible for occupational health and safety.

Under our act the council has the statutory mandate to make recommendations to the minister on procedures for reviewing claims, appeal procedures, changes in fees and other related matters, and regulatory changes. The regulatory amendments we are currently proposing were developed under the aegis of this council as the means to deliver on commitments made to stakeholders as provided for in chapter 7. As did Bill S-2, the regulatory proposals have the unanimous support of our stakeholders as represented on our council of governors.

I would now like to turn to the issue that brings us here today, the proposed regulatory amendments consequential to Chapter 7 of the Statutes of Canada 2007.

The last time I had the pleasure of addressing this committee was regarding the legislative amendments to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act set out in Bill S-2. The Bill received the unanimous support of this Committee and was reported back to the House of Commons for Third Reading where it received the unanimous support of all parties and received Royal Assent on March 29, 2007. At this point, the Bill became law as Chapter 7 of the Statutes of Canada 2007.

I would like to briefly review the legislative amendments, because there is a strong link between the legislative amendments and the regulatory amendments: one, allow a claimant to make a declaration that the information for which protection from disclosure is sought is a trade secret and that substantiating information is available upon request; two, allow a claimant to enter into an undertaking with the commission to voluntarily correct the health and safety information without a formal order; and three, allow the commission to provide factual information to appeal boards upon request.

These amendments, you may recall, were designed to reduce the administrative burden both on the claimants that come to the commission and on the commission staff itself, to speed up the correction of information that is required to get to workers concerning the health and safety information, and to expedite the appeals process.

However, in order for these changes to be fully implemented certain regulatory amendments are also required. The proposed regulatory amendments touch each of the Commission's three area of activity.

In terms of the first regulatory amendment regarding the information required to substantiate a claim—we're talking about the economic analysis side of our commission—under the declaration approach introduced by chapter 7, claimants declare that the information for which they are seeking exemption, the trade secret, is in fact a trade secret, and they provide a summary of the supporting documentation. However, the commission will require full documentation in support of a claim in the following instances: one, when an affected party challenges or makes a submission to the commission; two, when the claimant's declaration has been selected as part of a verification scheme; or three, when the screening officer within the commission has reason to believe the information may not be accurate.

The regulatory amendment outlines the basic information that will be required in a claim for exemption using this declaration approach, in addition to the detailed information that some claimants will be required to provide when their claim is selected for verification.

So the regulations spell out, one, that there's a basic new claim for exemption using a declaration approach, and two, that there's a second claim for exemption approach that requires full documentation.

Under this verification process, Screening Officers will be able to verify that the information provided by claimants with their declaration is accurate, and ensure there are no frivolous or false claims.

I will not outline the amendments related to the Commission's review of health and safety information provided by claimants.

You will recall that the second amendment to the Act allowed for the voluntary correction of safety documentation by claimants. Allowing corrections to be made voluntarily will expedite the process of getting complete and accurate information into the hands of workers, because the corrected information will be available immediately upon correction, rather than having to wait until after the publication of orders and subsequent appeal period expires at which point the correction orders become binding.

To ensure the transparency and openness of this process, we're proposing two regulatory amendments. The first, in the interests of transparency, proposes to publish the content of these compliance undertakings in the Gazette with a link from our website. This way the workers will know exactly what information has already been corrected, and in this way it provides them access to the corrected information and allows them to verify that this corrected information is actually available in the workplace.

The second amendment allows for the appeal of these compliance undertakings by affected parties to allow for recourse if the affected parties challenge the undertaking.

It's important to note here, and it was mentioned again when we talked about Bill S-2, that a formal correction order will always be issued if the claimant chooses not to make the corrections or if the undertaking has not been made to the satisfaction of the screening officer; in other words, full compliance will be realized in any case.

Turning to the appeals process, again, chapter 7 allows for the commission to provide factual clarification of the record of the screening officer to appeal boards when it's needed to facilitate the process.

Appeals are heard by independent boards with three members drawn from industry, labour and the chair of the appeal board, representing government. Most, if not all, appeals heard to date by the Commission's appeal boards would have benefited from additional explanatory information from the Commission, but this was not permitted under previous legislation.

The proposed regulatory amendments regarding the appeals process outline the process by which a party to an appeal may make a request for such clarification from the commission. This request requires unanimous support from the appeal board, and, if supported, the commission will be required to provide the appeal board with a written response.

In addition, the proposed amendments also allow for an appearance by the commission. In this case, it would be where the commission's written response already provided requires further clarification or, due to the urgency of the matter, if an appearance by a commission official would better aid the resolution of these issues.

None of this will interfere with the statutory independence of these independent appeal boards, as this is absolutely essential for the acceptance of appeal board decisions.

There are other housekeeping amendments.

There are additional proposed amendments to the regulations that are not related to Chapter 7. Among these amendments are wording updates, including those required to comply with the Bill to Modernize the Statutes of Canada, provisions to permit the electronic filing of claims, and minor amendments to streamline the appeal process.

In conclusion, I'd like to re-emphasize that the commission's regulatory changes have been developed in the same manner as Bill S-2, through extensive consultation with our stakeholders, consultations that commenced several years ago at the time the legislative amendments were being developed. Unanimous support for these regulatory amendments was most recently received from the commission's council of governors, literally last Friday at our annual council of governors meeting. Again, council of governors represent all of our stakeholders--labour, industry, employers, and each province and territory, as well as the federal government. At that meeting, our stakeholders' message was quite clear: these regulatory amendments are an extension of Bill S-2, which received unanimous support from our stakeholders and unanimous support from this committee and from all parties.

These amendments do not compromise worker health and safety. They will reduce the time to review economic information in support of claims; they will allow efficiency gains to be reinvested into the health and safety side of our business; and, when implemented, they will speed up the correction of health and safety information that needs to get into the hands of workers.

We feel these changes are a positive step forward for workplace health and safety in Canada. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to the question and answer portion.

We'll start with Ms. Susan Kadis. The floor is yours.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presentations today.

I think, Mr. Aucoin, you mentioned that you are considering changes, as per the media story--I'm assuming increasing limits as opposed to lowering them. You could confirm that for us today.

I guess my question would be, why would we do this? This is food that Canadians are going to be consuming. What is the relationship between this and the security and prosperity partnership? Is this related to a way to address a trade barrier with the United States? My overall concern, if this is in fact accurate, is whether there is any potential for raising these limits to in any way have trade efficiency or convenience trump the health of Canadians.

[Richard Aucoin]

Thank you for the question.

On the subject of the residue limits themselves, whether we're raising or lowering the limits, I do need to emphasize that there have been no decisions made with respect to raising or lowering limits. This is part of an international discussion that's happening in terms of where those limits are set, how they're set, and the potential issues they may have for international trade.

That really speaks to the second part of your question as to why we would even consider raising or lowering or changing these limits. It is in part due to the concerns of exporters and agricultural producers, manufacturers, and other countries around the world that the maximum residue limits can create trade issues.

On the third part of your question, just to be clear, it is trade driving some of these discussions, but I do want to be clear that health is the priority, and it's health that will determine the decisions that are made at the end of the day.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Not long ago, I believe it was MMT--you're probably familiar with that; it was something that was related to NAFTA , if I'm not mistaken. That was something that was imported in our gasoline, I believe, and I think it still exists today.

I guess that's the concern I'm having. That's my line of questioning today, to find out, to ensure, I guess, to confirm that these trade issues, although obviously something we negotiate and work on, will not in any way compromise the safety of Canadians going forward.

[Richard Aucoin]

I can't speak specifically to MMT, but I am familiar with that gasoline additive issue.

I can only emphasize that Canada will make its own decisions, and we will not do anything that compromises or changes our current high human health standards.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Okay.

If I have a little more time, Mr. Chair, there is this issue of the security and prosperity partnership. What groups, levels, or departments have direct input into and work with this partnership? And can you tell us a little more about it and how it relates to the potential consideration of any changes?

[Richard Aucoin]

I'm not really a spokesperson for the security and prosperity partnership. I don't know if my colleagues are able to shed any light on it.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Well, if someone has information about this security partnership, I think it was one of the focal points of our questions today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Just as a clarification, you want to know whether the decisions being made here have anything to do with the security and prosperity partnership?

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Exactly—and a little bit more about how it's comprised and which agencies have input into it. I want to know a little more about that body and if there's a relationship with any potential changes to our limits.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I'm interpreting the last answer, which was that health would rule the day, not trade. I think that is what you were suggesting, too. I'm not trying to put words into anybody's mouth, but I think that's what I heard.

[Richard Aucoin]

Certainly, in the context of pesticide regulation, health does rule the day—not trade.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

So if we can't ascertain that today, Mr. Chair, could we have more information about the partnership later? I think it's very relevant. It's certainly something we discussed prior to today's meeting.

I think it's important that the information be relayed to us, if we can't obtain it today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay, and exactly what are you looking for on that?

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Well, we have a question, for example, regarding this partnership. I think it's our first question. There have been allegations that the group—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Who would you like to bring forward?

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Well, let's have whoever are the appropriate individuals or departments talk about the potential harmonization of Canadian regulations, if that is occurring, and in what way, and if it has any relationship—