Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for allowing me to present here today.
My name is Pierre Petelle. I'm the vice-president of chemistry at CropLife Canada. We're the trade association that represents the manufacturers, developers, and distributors of plant science innovations. These are the pest control products and products of modern plant breeding, which are used by a wide variety of sectors in Canada. Our members provide the tools that keep utility corridors clear, that protect home and gardens from a wide range of pests, and that allow Canadian farmers to produce the safe, abundant, high-quality crops enjoyed the world over.
The pesticide sector in Canada and around the world is a highly regulated one. Latest estimates show that it takes approximately 11 years and over $286 million U.S. to bring a new active ingredient to market for growers, from the inception to the actual product on the shelf. Much of that cost is associated with meeting the regulatory requirements in various countries. Our members' top priority is the safety of their products for people, animals, and the environment. In fact, pesticides are among the most stringently regulated products in Canada. We're fortunate to have a relatively modern piece of legislation in the Pest Control Products Act in Canada. It has many transparency provisions and additional protections for human health and the environment.
We're supportive of the intent of Bill C-13, as stated by my colleague. We support the free movement of products in transit without unnecessarily being subjected to all the regulatory requirements of a product that would be intended for use in Canada. In fact, our industry, agriculture, is highly dependent on trade, so we're very supportive of that element of this proposal.
However, we do have some concern about the scope of the proposed label definition for pest control products, in particular as it relates to the electronic environment. The specific term “belongs to” or “belonging to” is particularly broad, and could inadvertently and then unnecessarily cover things like websites and unintended areas.
That said, we do support the language that would enable e-labels, electronic labels, in the future. Our industry is highly supportive of this initiative. We feel that moving in that direction will help the end-user better understand and better follow directions. Some of these labels can be quite long and complex. We're seeing our industry move in that direction, so we appreciate the attempt to try to get that language in there to allow for electronic labels in the future.
We support the amendment that's been put forward. We think it gets us to the place we want to be in terms of electronic label enabling. However, it defines the scope a little better. That said, we are open to alternative language, alternative proposals, if the committee or the department wishes to put some forward.
Those are my brief remarks.