Health Committee on Feb. 5th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Okay. That was 30 seconds, so we'll make sure that doesn't count.

[Lara Tessaro]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The other piece of information commonly missing from the registry is that there's an obligation under paragraph 42(2)(e) that requires the agency to include on the registry the information that it itself considered when making a registration decision from the information provided by the registrant. It's very difficult to get a clear picture of exactly what record, if you will, the agency had before it in making any particular registration decision.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Ms. MacDonald, you were talking about neonics. You mentioned conditional registration, and I believe I'm right in saying that you've been waiting since 2003 for a chronic toxicity study for neonics. This continues to be outstanding, yet not only is the product available, but as we heard earlier, its uses have been expanded. If that's so, what would you recommend we do with the statute to address that serious problem?

[Maggie MacDonald]

There was a notice of objection filed by Ecojustice and CELA regarding this, which provides more details as well, for the curious. There were some amendments recommended by Ecojustice to section 42 that would be helpful. The public could at least know what data was on hand and what was missing. I would support those amendments that have been suggested.

I think it comes down to stricter enforcement when conditional registrations are being requested. It seems that this issue has come up for a few of the people speaking today. It is a concern, because just waiting for more data when there is more exposure occurring every day doesn't make sense.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Ms. Adams.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you again for appearing before us. You've certainly provided very considered remarks, especially when you say that in broad strokes the legislation seems to be working quite well but you have a number of very considered suggestions to go forward.

Could you point me to perhaps another authority, another jurisdiction, another country, that does this really well and that we ought to be emulating? Who would you say is generally the leader on this internationally?

[Lara Tessaro]

I know that, unlike Mr. Gage, we have the advantage of being here, so I don't want to preempt his answers, but for me, the answer is the European Union, hands down. When it's making a decision about whether or not to register, for example, a herbicide for use in agriculture, the European Union effectively asks, under their plant protection legislation, “Do you have the information that demonstrates this product's safety?” If the registrant says they don't have that study, or they don't have the information proving safety, the European Union's response is that the product will then not be registered there.

That's the definition of the precautionary approach: if you can't demonstrate that something is safe, you can't rely on scientific ambiguity. The EU does that very well.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Is that the issue here? From what I've heard today, it's not about the original registration; it's when subsequently concerns are raised, and we look then.

How does a jurisdiction like the EU deal with something that they've already registered? How are they periodically reviewing and revisiting and testing that in fact their original conclusions are still sound, are still in the best interests of their population?

[Lara Tessaro]

That's a fantastic question, and I'm not going to pretend to know the entire answer to that. I don't know what the equivalent is in the EU for conditional registration.

You do have to keep in mind that if the EU rejects a product for registration, it becomes a very proponent- or registrant-driven approach, right? The regulators wouldn't necessarily go back and look at it again unless a registrant brought forward another application.

As for what the analogue is in the EU for conditional registration, I don't actually know that.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I suppose that's the issue that stands before us today, especially with something like neonics, where let us agree to disagree and simply say that they met every standard that was required when they were first registered. How do we then document and cause, or trigger, a test so that they need to be reviewed again so that—

[Lara Tessaro]

They didn't meet every standard when they were first registered.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I appreciate that, but I want to come up with the most perfect system here. There will be others that come before us over time. Let us suspend disbelief for a moment and say that something comes before us, it meets the standard of the day, but of course with time, 20 years thereafter, it no longer meets the standard.

I say this as someone who sat on a corporate board and 40 years prior, long before I was ever born, someone had decided that they were going to use arsenic as a weed control mechanism. I was then faced, on a corporate board, with deciding how to go about remediating the lands, how to go about notifying the surrounding neighbours, how to actually invest and repair.

This is about creating wonderful public policy going forward. Let us say that decisions were made imperfectly at the time. What jurisdiction ought we look to for the clearest feedback mechanism so that we can improve over time?

[Lara Tessaro]

In terms of pesticide regulation generally, I wouldn't deviate from my answer that the EU is doing it in the most precautionary way.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Okay.

Is there anything further you'd like to share with us at this point? I find the issues you're raising rather considered. Is there anything else we should be aware of; any other best standards out there?

[Lara Tessaro]

The only thing I would say is that hopefully there will be a bit more meat on the bones when you get our written brief. I'll leave it at that.

[Maggie MacDonald]

I would add that in terms of the need to expand this session it would be good to have more witnesses come forward. I want to support that point that was made earlier by one of the members.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

What type of stakeholder do you think we ought to hear more from?

[Maggie MacDonald]

It would be fantastic to have some physicians present, and more members of the medical and scientific community present, in my opinion.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Physicians who've actually.... Okay.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

We have two minutes left if anybody else would like to ask some questions.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I'm happy to take my time or share it with my colleagues.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Are we going to get another round over here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Well, it just depends. We're getting tight on time.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Go ahead, Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thanks.

I appreciate your being here. It really would have helped to have had your written presentations, because you've presented a lot of technical information, and hopefully.... It's very helpful. We look forward to receiving those; it's a bit problematic today.

First of all, though, on some of the issues with neonicotinoids that you're raising, are you aware that in fact the PMRA is working on this with the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States? They have a study going on right now. “The Agencies are also working collaboratively on the re-evaluation of three neonicotinoid pesticides focussed on the risk to pollinators.” They're working on that right now.

That's the first question, and in sequence to that, the Senate has taken on the issue of bee health in their agriculture committee, and I understand they've been hearing from witnesses. They are travelling the country and are taking this seriously. Have you presented to the Senate? Are you aware of these initiatives that are under way to try to resolve some of these concerns that have been raised today?