THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 12, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Parts 4, 5 and 6 of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization; and, in camera, to discuss drafting instructions.
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin, I’d like to remind senators to please keep your microphones muted at all times unless recognized by name by the chair, and should you have any technical challenges, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or clerk, and we’ll work to resolve the issue. If you experience other technical challenges, please contact the ISD service desk with the technical assistance number provided to you.
The use of online platforms does not guarantee speech privacy or that eavesdropping won’t take place. As such, while conducting committee meetings, all participants should be aware of such limitations and restrict the possible disclosure of sensitive, private and privileged Senate information.
Senators should participate in a private area and be mindful of their surroundings so they do not inadvertently share any personal information or information that could be used to identify their location.
With that, good morning, everyone. I’d like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses as well as those watching this meeting on the web. My name is Robert Black, senator from Ontario, and I’m chair of the committee.
I’d like to introduce the members of the Agriculture and Forestry committee joining us today, starting with the deputy chair, Senator Simons from Alberta, Senator Bellemare from Quebec, Senator Bovey from Manitoba, Senator Cotter from Saskatchewan, Senator Deacon from Nova Scotia, Senator Oh from Ontario, Senator Petitclerc from Quebec, Senator Wetston from Ontario and Senator Yussuff from Ontario.
Today, the committee continues its examination of the subject matter of those elements contained in Parts 4, 5 and 6 of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.
Our panel today will focus on Part 6 of the bill on the Pest Control Products Act, where we will hear from our final set of witnesses on this pre-study referred to our committee.
I would like to introduce our witnesses. Today, we welcome from Health Canada, Manon Bombardier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Transformation, and Jason Flint, Director General, Policy and Operations Directorate, Pest Management Regulatory Agency; from CropLife Canada, Pierre Petelle, President and Chief Executive Officer; from the Grain Growers of Canada, Branden Leslie, Manager, Policy and Government Relations; from the Canadian National Millers Association, Gordon Harrison, President; from the David Suzuki Foundation, Lisa Gue, Manager, National Policy; and joining us again today from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, James van Raalte, Executive Director, Regulatory Policy and Cooperation Directorate.
We heard from Mr. van Raalte from the Treasury Board Secretariat at last week’s meeting. He will not be delivering opening remarks this week but will be available to take questions on the global aspects of the bill.
To our witnesses, thank you for joining us. In the interests of saving more time for questions, Mr. Harrison, from the Canadian National Millers Association, has also informed us that he won’t be delivering opening remarks. We did receive information from him ahead of time.
We’ll hear opening remarks from witnesses in the following order: Mr. Flint and Ms. Bombardier on behalf of Health Canada; Mr. Petelle on behalf of CropLife Canada; Mr. Leslie on behalf of the Grain Growers of Canada; and Ms. Gue on behalf of the David Suzuki Foundation.
The floor is yours, Mr. Flint.
Jason Flint, Director General, Policy and Operations Directorate, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada: My name is Jason Flint, and I am Director General of Policy and Operations at Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency, commonly referred to as PMRA. I’ll be sharing these opening remarks with Ms. Bombardier, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister leading PMRA’s transformation initiative.
Part 6 of Bill S-6 amends the Pest Control Products Act to allow for the creation of a regulatory framework to facilitate access to products that pose lower or well-characterized risks. This bill responds to a commitment in the aquaculture and agri-food regulatory roadmap, while continuing to meet the minister’s primary objective of preventing unacceptable risks to individuals and the environment from the use of pest control products.
To date, efforts to encourage registration of low-risk products such as cinnamon or baking soda have been unsuccessful as there is not a financial incentive to register products as pesticides that are already commercially available for other purposes.
The amendments proposed in Bill S-6 would allow the Minister of Health to authorize products consistent with new Governor-in-Council regulations. These regulations would prescribe the eligibility criteria for authorization and other procedural details for low-risk products. The bill would also provide new recall powers that would apply to registered and authorized products.
Currently, authorization of low-risk products needs to be sought on a product-by-product basis under the Governor-in-Council regulations.
The regulatory approach proposed in Bill S-6 would be more agile and efficient and result in easier access to products of low or well-characterized risk. It would provide for a level of oversight consistent with the risk posed by these products, address a stakeholder need and support the minister’s legislative mandate to facilitate access to products that pose lower risk.
Health Canada continues to support the approach outlined in these amendments. However, given the ongoing consultations around the transformation process at the PMRA, we’re supporting amendments to Bill S-6 to withdraw this proposal from the bill so that it can be considered within the transformation process.
I’ll now pass the floor to Manon Bombardier to comment further on the Transformation Agenda.
Manon Bombardier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Transformation, Health Canada: Good morning, and thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee today. My name is Manon Bombardier, and I am the Assistant Deputy Minister for transformation at Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to PMRA’s Transformation Agenda, more specifically, the ongoing targeted review of the Pest Control Products Act and why the government is supporting amendments to the second annual regulatory modernization bill to withdraw the proposal to enable more efficient authorization of pest control products of low or well-characterized risks.
In 2021, the government promised modernization and strengthening of the Pest Control Products Act. Key objectives include modernizing the PMRA’s review processes governing pesticides, improving transparency and increasing the use of data and independent advice to better inform regulatory decisions.
To deliver on these objectives, Health Canada launched extensive public consultations in March 2022, including with stakeholder groups and Indigenous communities and partners, to inform its targeted review of the Pest Control Products Act. This consultation is already under way, and stakeholders are very engaged.
The proposed amendments to the PCPA in Bill S-6 are aligned with Health Canada’s broader transformation objectives of modernizing processes for the oversight of pesticides and increasing transparency for overall improved health and environmental protection.
Removing the proposed amendments from Bill S-6 and integrating their consideration into the PCPA review will provide a more cohesive approach to identifying potential legislative amendments in support of PMRA’s Transformation Agenda.
This approach will provide Health Canada with an opportunity to ensure the proposed authorization scheme is considered as part of its efforts to achieve transformation goals.
To accommodate this approach and provide more time for stakeholders to submit their input, Health Canada extended the consultation period to June 30, 2022.
In conclusion, Health Canada continues to support the goal of enabling the regulatory framework to facilitate access to products that pose lower or well-characterized risks. These goals align with and support the transformation objectives to strengthen human health and environmental protection and improve transparency in our regulatory process.
An integrated approach safeguards these goals and represents an efficient way forward. We will continue to engage interested stakeholders in a broad, inclusive and transparent manner in the pursuit of strengthening the PCPA to better protect human health, wildlife and the environment.
We are happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll hear from CropLife Canada next. Mr. Petelle, please go ahead.
Pierre Petelle, President and Chief Executive Officer, CropLife Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. I’m very pleased to be here with you this morning.
CropLife Canada is the association representing the manufacturers, developers and distributors of plant science innovations, including pest-control products and plant biotechnology. These are used in agriculture, urban and public health settings. We’re committed to protecting human health and the environment, and we believe in driving innovation through continuous research. Our mission is to enable the plant-science industry to bring the benefits of its technologies to farmers and the public.
We’re also committed to sustainability for the agriculture sector through our innovations and programs. One such program is Cleanfarms. Our industry founded this award-winning stewardship program over 30 years ago, and our members are still part of the stand-alone organization today. Cleanfarms now boasts almost 80% recovery rate for pesticide and fertilizer containers and is expanding its scope into other recycling ventures. We were green long before green was in vogue.
Our members bring innovations to Canadian farmers, and those innovations help agriculture be more productive and more sustainable. The greenhouse gas intensity of Canadian agriculture has been reduced by 50% since 1997. Further, the average Canadian farm is now producing twice as much food as it did 50 years ago, while using the same number of inputs and land base. Our technologies allow farmers to grow more food on less land using fewer inputs.
This is the kind of sustainability-generating innovation that our regulatory system needs to foster. This is especially true in an era of price pressure on Canadian consumers and a looming global food-security crisis to which Canada must respond as one of the world’s leading agriculture exporters.
CropLife Canada and its members were strong supporters of the regulatory review process first announced in Budget 2018. Its goal to identify novel regulatory approaches in order to support growth and innovation is more critical than ever given the challenges faced by Canada in the post-COVID era.
As for Bill S-6 itself, as mentioned, our support of the regulatory review process and efforts to make the regulatory system nimbler and more predictable continues. To date, unfortunately, the regulatory review process and, specifically, the Treasury Board agriculture regulatory roadmap, have delivered very few benefits to our sector and that remains unchanged with Bill S-6.
For the Seeds Act, while the changes in support of digitization and foreign-system recognition hold future potential, the proposals are mostly housekeeping exercises to address longstanding jurisdictional considerations and do not modernize the legislation. Similarly, the changes to the Pest Control Products Act are for products that are not registered. Our members are in the business of delivering innovations to farmers, and these innovative products are and continue to be registered under the PCPA.
To the extent that these changes free up resources for the PMRA and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, that’s positive, but that’s about as far as it goes. To be clear, we support the bill, as we believe the modernization tool is useful and must be available to regulators. The specific changes proposed in Bill S-6, however, are modest at best, and that is disappointing because the Treasury Board regulatory roadmap initiative has the potential to deliver benefits to Canadian agriculture and consumers.
Let’s take plant-breeding innovation, for example — putting in place a process and policies that allow plant breeding to thrive in Canada, including gene editing of seeds. This groundbreaking technology, already moving forward in other agriculture-exporting nations and a growing list of countries, holds open the possibility of crops with better nitrogen utilization, less water use and more drought tolerance. Canada should be an innovation hub for plant breeding, but we will continue to fall behind without policies that were promised in the regulatory roadmaps over three years ago.
With crop-protection products, a process under Health Canada’s PMRA, was developed to make substantial improvements to the re-evaluation process. Program renewal, as it’s called, was designed to increase predictability and efficiency and deliver more transparency to stakeholders and the public as it relates to pesticides. Unfortunately, it has yet to be put in place.
The Treasury Board Secretariat talks about the need for regulatory modernization, taking into account impacts on regulations and economic growth. In practice, though, we see Health Canada moving ahead with a major Transformation Agenda for an already world-class PMRA. This activity draws resources away from program renewal and is set to potentially jeopardize the science-based nature of the regulatory system.
Put simply, there’s a significant gap between the government’s words on regulatory modernization and the actions of the departments.
Wrapping up, a predictable and science-based regulatory approach is foundational to maintaining public trust and to giving our members confidence to bring new technologies that would make Canada more productive, sustainable and competitive. We encourage you to pass Bill S-6 and then, more importantly, ask the government when they will come forward with a robust regulatory modernization agenda that delivers meaningful results for Canadians and Canadian agriculture.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Petelle. Moving on to Mr. Leslie, here on behalf of the Grain Growers of Canada.
Branden Leslie, Manager, Policy and Government Relations, Grain Growers of Canada: Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
The Grain Growers of Canada is a strong national voice for farmers from coast to coast, representing over 65,000 farmers through our 14 national, regional and provincial grower groups. GGC members are trade-oriented, sustainable and innovative.
As a farmer-driven association for the grains industry, GGC advocates for the federal government to make decisions that support the competitiveness and profitability of grain growers across Canada. In real time, this looks like advocating for a regulatory environment that, one, encourages agricultural research and investments in innovation; two, improves the access and availability of top-of-the-line genetics and crop-protection products for farmers; and three, unleashes our sector’s economic potential.
We are supportive of the government’s stated agenda of modernizing regulations to keep pace with innovation and technology. We agree that in order to realize a nimbler regulatory environment, there must be regular common-sense updates to existing regulations. In that vein, we’re generally supportive of the measures found in Bill S-6 and appreciate the government working in this space.
That said, however, as identified by previous witnesses, this legislation is largely a housekeeping effort and lacks major modernization in priority areas for our sector. There are numerous areas of regulatory modernization that grain growers would like to see the government act on that could have a more significant impact on our ability to increase production at a time when the world badly needs it and, just as importantly, to reduce our carbon footprint at a time we seek to step up our fight against climate change.
What are those actionable items? At the top of the list would be for Health Canada to implement regulations for the proposed guidance on novel food regulations for plant breeding. Gene-editing technology holds the potential for tremendous economic and environmental benefits on farms, such as better handling of drought and excess moisture, improved nutrition, better input utilization and, of course, yield increases. The Canada Grain Act is outdated and doesn’t reflect the realities of today’s grain system. It needs modernization, but despite attempts, consultations and hope, we have not seen progress.
The list goes on.
But in terms of Bill S-6, Part 6 seemed like an opportunity to address some of the needs of our sector that would ensure stability for our exports, such as deferring to codex Maximum Residue Limits, or MRLs, in cases where Canadian MRLs are missing, just as several of our trading partners have. It could also have more broadly enabled the acceptance of reviews for assessments done by allied countries with mature, trustworthy regulatory systems to reduce duplication and free up resources for higher-priority work.
While Bill S-6 moves forward, the PMRA is undertaking another review of the act as part of a transformation project that could have conflicting results, which I understand has led the minister to suggest removing that portion from the bill. I will leave that up to you as a committee to deliberate.
That said, we worry that this transformation plan began through interference in a rightfully science-based decision to align certain MRLs to better enable trade and inherently questions the entire science-based system itself. While the stated goals of the transformation project are laudable, we worry it could add additional uncertainty and unpredictability to the process that farmers rely on to access the products they need to be competitive.
From elected officials in North America to those directly facing food insecurity around the globe, Canadian farmers are being asked to increase production to help feed a growing and hungry population, particularly as we see the devastating impacts of the war in Ukraine unfold. Farmers are up for that challenge, senators, but can only do so if they have the necessary tools available to them, such as the newest and best genetics and crop-protection products.
Bill S-6 might offer improvements to PMRA processes, but it simply doesn’t aim high enough to achieve modernization in areas that would be more impactful for farmers, the rural communities they support and, more broadly, our nation. I know there are always competing priors, there’s never enough time and there are seemingly plenty of government constraints that can hinder progress, but, honourable senators, as you know, you only hit what you aim at. Perhaps it’s time we aim higher.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Leslie. We will move on to Ms. Gue from the David Suzuki Foundation.
Lisa Gue, Manager, National Policy, David Suzuki Foundation: I am joining you from Ottawa. I’m the national policy manager for the David Suzuki Foundation. The David Suzuki Foundation is a leading Canadian environmental non-profit organization founded in 1990. Our mission is to protect nature’s diversity and the well-being of all life, now and for the future. We envision a day where we all act on the understanding that we’re one with nature.
The widespread use of pesticides is a contributing factor to the biodiversity crisis, which has seen a precipitous decline in many species around the world. This is why, for example, the European Union’s biodiversity strategy includes a commitment to cut pesticide use and risk in half by 2030. Canada has a long way to go to integrate the pesticide policy with the government’s commitment to halt and reverse nature loss and to preserve biodiversity.
Last summer, the government announced a targeted review of the Pest Control Products Act, or PCPA. Following the election, Health Canada initiated a comprehensive consultation process, which is ongoing, as you’ve already heard. A discussion paper was recently published on March 21 for a 60-day comment period, which has now been extended through June.
The David Suzuki Foundation is actively participating in this consultation process and preparing comments on the discussion paper, including comments addressing several of the issues that are now included as amendments to the Pest Control Products Act in Bill S-6. We will encourage the government to focus its review of the act on strengthening environmental and health protections.
With respect to the changes to the PCPA included in Bill S-6, I will be brief in light of Minister Duclos’s indication that the government will support an amendment to remove this section from the regulatory modernization bill. I would simply encourage the committee to support this amendment in your report and to recommend that the government move forward with a stand-alone bill to strengthen the Pest Control Products Act. I believe it’s appropriate to defer these matters to the targeted review process and that Parliament will benefit from the consultations now under way.
Briefly, though, with respect to the amendments to the act intended to facilitate access to lower-risk products, these will need to be tightly and carefully constrained to only those products that in fact pose a lower risk. The provisions currently in Part 6 of Bill S-6 don’t meet this test. There’s no explicit constraint in the bill to limit the application of these amendments to lower-risk products.
I hope to have the opportunity to meet with you again in the near future to discuss a broader PCPA bill.
The Chair: Thank you to all our witnesses for speaking this morning. We’ll now proceed to questions from senators. As has been our previous practice, I would like to remind you that you’ll have five minutes for your questions and answers, so I would ask that your questions and answers be as succinct as possible.
For those here and those online, you can raise your hand, either using the “raise hand” function online or your own here, and we’ll make sure you’re added to our list. We’ll go through one round and then a second round for questions. I believe we’ve got the time for that. I will raise my hand when there’s one minute left of the five minutes there.
We’ll move forward.
Senator Simons: My question is, I think, for Jason Flint and perhaps Mr. van Raalte as well. Bill S-6 was introduced in the Senate by our colleague Yuen Pau Woo, the sponsor, on April 5, 2022. On that day, presumably, you believed these changes to the PCPA should be part of the bill. Now, it’s scarcely more than a month later, and you’re asking us to take them out.
I want to understand the timeline here. At what point did you decide this was inappropriate and these amendments should not be in the bill? Not to put too fine a point on it, but what happened in the last six weeks, and why were we given a bill that was not ready to come to us?
Mr. Flint: Perhaps I’ll defer to Manon Bombardier as the assistant deputy minister regarding the transformation initiative at the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA.
Ms. Bombardier: Thank you, senator, and thank you, chair. As I mentioned, the context changed on August 4, 2021, when the Government of Canada announced significant funding for PMRA to strengthen the Pest Control Products Act and the regulatory system for pesticides.
At that point, we launched a Transformation Agenda, with a number of initiatives to modernize our business processes, improve transparency, and increase use of independent data and advice to better support and inform our regulatory decision-making process. With this new context, we launched consultations to review certain provisions of the Pest Control Products Act to achieve the objectives of the Transformation Agenda.
The objectives of Bill S-6, and of Part 6 specifically, fully align with and support the objectives of the Transformation Agenda. We believe that integrating these amendments and considering these amendments in the context of the Transformation Agenda will bring more cohesion to and efficiency in identifying all possible legislative amendments that would be required to support the objective of the Transformation Agenda. The Government of Canada has been clear that we continue to support the goals of enabling a pathway for low-risk or well-characterized-risk products, and that would be continuing under the Transformation Agenda. Thank you.
Senator Simons: I’m sorry, but that was absolutely not an answer to my question. This bill was presented to us in the Senate at second reading on April 5. You’re now asking for a major change to it.
I want to understand what happened in the last six weeks that changed things, and why this bill was presented to us in a form that is now, we’re being told only a few weeks later, deficient.
Ms. Bombardier: The proposal that is part of Bill S-6, the Government of Canada supports it, but we feel that it would provide a more cohesive approach to bring it under a Transformation Agenda and look at other objectives of transformation such as improving transparency to further strengthen the proposal —
Senator Simons: Excuse me, I understand that. That is not the answer to the question I’m asking. Perhaps Mr. van Raalte has to answer this question.
We were presented this bill on April 5 and, in good faith, started analyzing it and doing our research. Now, we’re being told there is a substantial change. I want to know what happened between April 5 and today that made you so abruptly change your minds on a bill that was just presented to us.
James van Raalte, Executive Director, Regulatory Policy and Cooperation Directorate, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Regretfully, honourable senators, we were only informed of the needed change in the last couple weeks. It is to create an internal coherent path forward for my colleagues at Health Canada. As Madame Bombardier indicated, there is support for the change. However, from a coherence perspective, it does make sense, in terms of moving forward, to consider the measures that are included in Bill S-6 in the broader transformation initiative under the PMRA.
Senator Simons: Second round, please.
Senator Oh: Thank you witnesses. I’m pursuing my colleague Senator Simon’s question. Can you tell the committee: Was your department not consulted for the drafting of this bill? Something has gone wrong somewhere, and I see none of you could give a proper answer. Could you explain: Were your departments not consulted for the drafting of this important bill?
The Chair: Are you directing that to Mr. van Raalte?
Senator Oh: Yes, it’s for anyone who knows what’s going on.
Ms. Bombardier: I’ll go first. Health Canada was consulted on the proposal. We provided the proposal, working with our partners to enable this low-risk pathway to be put in place, but as mentioned, the context changed in August 2021. We now feel it would be a more cohesive approach to bring this under the broader Transformation Agenda. Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: I think, Mr. van Raalte, you know that this committee, and I think other committees, really appreciate the urgent and grand importance of a regulatory modernization effort across the Government of Canada. As Mr. Leslie said, in this particular situation we’re not aiming high enough. I think the fact that we’ve seen this significant misstep in the process is disconcerting. I think you’re seeing that for all of us. But I want to drill into a very specific question around precision agriculture and the need for new innovators, new entrants, to be included in these areas, which I think can go a long way to achieve Ms. Gue’s important point on the input reduction requirement for farmers and for those of us who care about the environment as well, which I think almost all farmers very much do.
I had a great tour of Dalhousie’s Faculty of Agriculture a few weeks ago, and they were speaking a lot about precision agriculture. However, many of our current regulations are preventing the use of techniques that could really reduce the use of pesticides and the amount that’s required to control the target pests.
I’m wondering about what you are doing in this and other processes, Ms. Bombardier and Mr. van Raalte, to make sure that we are including inventors, innovators and new entrants. I am amazed how many departments and governments are involved in regulating agriculture and food, so there needs to be an integrated approach. What are you doing to make sure that we in Canada can actually pull Canadian-made innovations into solving this problem and having those voices at the regulatory table?
Ms. Bombardier: Mr. Chair, maybe I can start and turn to James after.
As part of the Transformation Agenda, one pillar of activity is about modernizing business processes, and Mr. Petelle referred to it as program renewal. We propose to implement what we call proportional oversight to the review of pest control products. These measures would allow Health Canada to allocate more resources to reviews for higher risk, therefore improving protection of the — environment, but these measures would also provide more predictability for industry, support innovation and make our regulatory system more agile and more responsive to emerging risks.
This is a key activity that we propose to do under the Transformation Agenda, and we look forward to engaging stakeholders in the coming weeks to see how we could implement that together.
Senator C. Deacon: Could you speak a little further to give me some confidence about how you’re engaging with different groups given this most recent bump that we’re talking about today, which suggests there has been a problem with how we engage? We need to make sure that we’re bringing those to the table through regulatory sandboxes or standards-informed or standards-based regulation, changing the process from the past because the past isn’t working. Can you really dive into how you’re changing things?
Ms. Bombardier: Thank you, senator, for your question. We have started a very comprehensive stakeholder engagement process. We’ve established a steering committee composed of about 34 different organizations. We have provinces and territories. We have our federal partners at the table. We’ve had two meetings since the launch of the consultations in March. We have two more being planned for the next couple of weeks. Stakeholders are heavily engaged. They’re telling us that they’re overwhelmed by our engagement approach. For me, that is a sign that they are being engaged. They are at the table. We provide them all the opportunities to feed into our proposal, provide feedback, vote on what we’re proposing to do and how we propose to implement it and then provide us with feedback about legislative barriers that we need to address as we review the act to implement those objectives.
So it has been a shift in how we engage, and so far we’ve received very positive feedback from all stakeholder groups on this.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you. Anything from you, Mr. van Raalte?
Mr. van Raalte: Just a couple of points if I may, Mr. Chair. In terms of what individual departments are doing to reach out to their innovator stakeholders, I’d have to defer that to individual departments. I’m sure they’d be happy to speak to that. But I think, senator, there’s a top-down and a bottom-up approach in terms of what can be done.
From a top-down approach, as you say, from a regulatory sandbox perspective, we need to be able to unlock the authorities to undertake those sandboxes. A vast majority of regulators and departments do not have the legislative authority to actually undertake regulatory sandbox experiments. That is something that we at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat are taking a look at. We are looking at whether there is a means to unlock that going forward for all departments in a single instrument to be brought forward for parliamentary consideration. Absent that, each department would have to come forward to Parliament seeking that authority on a piecemeal basis.
From a bottom-up perspective from the Treasury Board of Canada and the work that we’re doing, I have responsibility for the Centre for Regulatory Innovation, which is intended to support working with regulatory departments and agencies in defining experimentation, in working through the methodology, in bringing those innovators to the table and addressing those problems.
The early challenge, senator, that we see is defining the experimentation that is required and then supporting the regulators in working through that. It’s a small step. We have a small little funding envelope that we actually use to leverage and help the departments undertake that, but as I say, I think it’s going to take efforts from the bottom up and the top down to break through that for you, sir.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Mr. van Raalte and Ms. Bombardier.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you to our witnesses for being here this morning.
My question is for Ms. Gue from the David Suzuki Foundation. My understanding of the part that concerns us today is that there is an attempt—and I think you mentioned this—to facilitate access to products that are lower-risk.
I have two questions, actually. My first question is quite simple. Is facilitating access enough in this day and age, or should we be more proactive and try to encourage and perhaps even subsidize access? Should we go that far? My second question is somewhat along the same lines. When it comes to assessing the risks of some of these products, is Canada a leader? Could we do more? I understand that this is not necessarily in this bill, but I would just like you to give us a global and international perspective on Canada’s place in this regard.
Ms. Gue: Thank you for the question. I will answer in English.
[English]
First of all, I agree in principle with the intention to facilitate better access to minimum-risk products, alternative products, the types that Mr. Flint referenced in his testimony, food on food, substances that can be used effectively for pest control but that are commonly available for other purposes, even food purposes, whose risks are very well understood.
I understand that the current registration regime poses barriers for some of those types of products. I want to underscore, though, that while we understand that to be the intention behind the amendments included in Bill S-6, there is nothing in the legislation in front of you that, on its face, would constrain the use of the new authorization provisions to those types of products.
It’s concerning to us that these amendments would open up an alternative route to authorize pesticides outside the usual risk assessment process, which includes robust public participation requirements, leaving it completely to the discretion of the minister for which types of products these could be used.
We will be bringing forward recommendations in the context of the ongoing consultations and the targeted review process on this matter. What you will see in our comments in that regard is our recommendation that this process be tightly constrained and used specifically for minimum-risk alternative products.
Related to your second question, as we think about reducing pesticide risks and use, we have to think beyond simply exchanging one product for another. Certainly, that’s part of it, but we also need to think about new approaches to agriculture and reducing the need for pest-control products, limiting their use to where there is actually a risk rather than the prophylactic broad-based use of pesticides everywhere. That goes well beyond the parts of the act that we’re discussing today and we certainly support the need for a registration system for pesticides that are on the market. I very much appreciate your question, and I would encourage the committee to consider those issues beyond the Pest Control Products Act and much more broadly.
On the global scene, unfortunately, we see pesticides that have been banned in other countries and that are still widely used in Canada. Neonics is an example that probably many of you are familiar with.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, witnesses, for being here. I want to go back to the issue of the request of the minister to withdraw a particular section of the bill. I don’t necessarily agree. If the minister and his department have made a mistake, so be it, but I think it’s fair for our committee to understand how we got here in the first place. But I’ll put that aside.
The precautionary principle is important with regard to protecting human health. Of course, Health Canada has a primary responsibility to protect human health with regard to authorization of products in the marketplace. Agricultural products are fundamental to the food we consume and sell abroad.
The bigger question is — and I think my colleagues have already addressed it — will the consultation engage stakeholders who have and share concerns as to how the minister’s authority would represent public interest with regard to amending this section of the legislation to grant him the authority he’s seeking?
Ms. Bombardier: Thank you, senator. As part of the Transformation Agenda and the ongoing consultation process, we integrate the proposed amendments as part of the consultation. There’s a lot of support for an authorization scheme for low-risk and well-characterized-risk products, as Ms. Gue and other witnesses have mentioned. We would continue to pursue that and focus our efforts on identifying the criteria that would be used to determine which pest-control products would fit in that category. Jason Flint has provided some examples: sodium bicarbonate and cinnamon. There are other products as well, food on food, and there are other types of products that we would want to explore and discuss with the stakeholders.
We’re building on the consultations that took place in 2018 and 2020 for the proposal that is in Part 6 now. We’re building on that to define the criteria and look at the transparency measures we could add to the proposal to further strengthen the approach.
Senator Yussuff: Can the committee be assured that once the department has finished its consultations, the minister will submit a new bill to include those provisions in the act?
Ms. Bombardier: Once the consultations have been completed, senator, public servants, including my team, will make a proposal to the minister based on all the feedback that will have been considered. The minister will consider that feedback in terms of providing a proposal to cabinet. That is part of the plan.
Senator Wetston: Just a quick question about the Transformation Agenda, if I might. I have another question or two, which hopefully will be brief.
Is my understanding correct that, should the budget bill be passed as is, without amendment, and the part we’re looking at, Part 6, would be passed as is without amendment, that this part of the Budget Implementation Act would not be proclaimed until sometime in the future, a date unknown at this time, based upon the conclusion of the work and the transformation and consultations that you’ve been describing? Obviously, I’m directing that question to the government officials.
Part two of that question is this: When was this Transformation Agenda developed? When was the program developed? I know you’ve already had a couple of meetings. Ms. Bombardier, you’ve indicated that. Could you provide more information on that, please?
Ms. Bombardier: Thank you for the question, senator. Right now we’re working on a very aggressive schedule. We have a dedicated transformation team doing this work under my leadership. Our priority is to deliver on these consultations and deliver a legislative proposal for the minister to consider that would improve and strengthen the protection of human health and the environment while achieving other objectives of transparency.
The Transformation Agenda was established shortly after the August 4 announcement. I came into my position in November. Work had already been done on modernizing business processes from previous consultations, so we’re building on that. We’re not going back to past consultations. We’re building on the work, feedback and support we have received for many of those initiatives.
We now have the momentum and the funding. The announcement on August 4 provided $42 million to the PMRA over three years to deliver that. We are definitely leveraging this momentum and funding to deliver, as soon as possible, proposed amendments that would strengthen the act.
Senator Wetston: What about the first part of my question? The part we’re dealing with at this time, if passed, when would that be proclaimed? Will you wait until the entire transformation program has been considered, developed and provided to the minister and cabinet? What would your intention be?
Ms. Bombardier: Thank you, senator. Sorry for not being clear with regard to your first question. That will be part of the options analysis that my team will be doing based on the feedback. Several options could be considered, such as moving ahead progressively or with a more holistic approach. It will all be informed by the feedback we receive during the consultations.
Senator Wetston: Thank you for that.
I’d like to ask a general question of both Mr. Petelle from CropLife Canada and Mr. Leslie from Grain Growers of Canada, if I may.
Why are you supporting this bill at all? It seems to me that you both feel disappointed about the progress or about much of what has occurred to date. I’ve heard some comments about it, but I still don’t understand why you’re supporting this. If you are supporting it in the way that you’ve mentioned previously — modestly — can you tell us why?
Mr. Petelle: Thank you for the question, senator. If the department is saying this may free up resources to focus on higher-priority areas that would benefit our members, then we support it. To be perfectly frank, we’re talking about products that will have a niche usage in Canada. I’ve heard a lot about cinnamon and baking soda. These are not going to be the game-changer products that will change agriculture in Canada. Let me be clear.
For us, if these products are taking time and resources from PMRA, or if there are barriers for those small companies to access the market, then we don’t object to that, to freeing up those resources and making the pathway for those companies more predictable. But that is the limitations of our support for this bill.
Mr. Leslie: I would just continue on with that, anything that frees up — This process of product approvals that Mr. Petelle’s member companies have to go through, ultimately the members that I am representing, it takes years and years. It is a disincentive for companies to try to register their products here first.
We see a competitive advantage of other nations gaining access to products faster due to a nimbler and faster regulatory system. We are supportive of anything that can free up the ability to review these products faster and get them into the hands of farmers faster.
As mentioned, it doesn’t go very far. So we’re looking at the next steps of how do we even improve the system further? Our support is here because we want the government looking at these issues in this space. Regulatory approvals are something that’s going to help our industry vastly overall. So we want to continue to go down this path.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Leslie.
At the chair’s prerogative, I’m going to ask the next question.
To our witnesses from CropLife Canada and Grain Growers of Canada, thank you very much for joining us this morning.
Can you advise if your organizations were consulted in advance of drafting Bill S-6? Can you comment on what your organization’s view is of part 6 — I know you’ve started to do that — and whether you support the government’s efforts to withdraw it, why or why not?
We were told by Ms. Bombardier that stakeholders have already been heavily engaged. To CropLife Canada and Grain Growers of Canada, I’d like to know: Have you been heavily engaged?
Mr. Petelle: I can start again, keep the same order.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.
This question about low-risk or alternative-type products has been the subject of consultation and discussion for quite some time. It was brought before the Pest Management Advisory Council, which has many of these same groups on it, quite some time ago to discuss. There was full support for an approach like this.
So, yes, the stakeholders have been consulted in the past about the concept, maybe not the details of the amendments per se but, for sure, the concept. Again, we have never objected to it. What I’m hearing from one of the witnesses today is suspicion. I’m curious too as to what happened between April 5 and today. Which groups opposed it and why? That’s a question that we have as well.
This is not for us. This bill certainly is not for the members of CropLife Canada. So we’re curious as to which groups pushed for this change and why.
For us, in terms of regulatory nimbleness, Canada is not a big market. Agriculturally, we’re not a huge market for our members’ products. We compete with much bigger nations to bring those innovations to Canada. Our system has to be at least as good.
I haven’t heard a single conversation today about productivity and growing food. Yes, we care about the environment; we care about human health, absolutely; but we have an obligation and a need in Canada to feed not only our population, but some of our crops get exported to 160 different countries. We have to make sure that what we do to the system and talking about products and approvals, that we don’t damage the system so that we hinder our growers from being able to actually do what needs to be done globally.
I would encourage members, when we talk about agriculture, let’s position agriculture and Canadian agriculture in a way that keeps us competitive and makes sure that our growers can produce the food that’s needed in the world today.
Mr. Leslie: I would entirely agree with Mr. Petelle on this. So when this bill was tabled, it was the first time we had seen it. As mentioned, we’re generally supportive of the notion of reducing the barriers to lower-risk products and, again, freeing up resources. We are generally supportive of the principle, but I would build on that productivity aspect. It was discussed that there was a very aggressive schedule in terms of the PMRA transformation, which is fine if we could see the same, aggressive schedule in terms of regulatory modernization in areas that we feel will increase productivity. I think it’s a little bit at odds at a time where we’re seeing global food insecurity that we’ve never seen in generations around the world that’s only likely to get worse.
Now is the time to truly try to embrace some of the aspects of the Barton Report from 2018. There was a discussion in there about the need for aggressive action on regulatory movement. I don’t think this is quite what they meant. I think that there’s a real opportunity here and, frankly, a real need. I think it’s a matter of trying to prioritize how we increase our productivity, while, of course, maintaining the safety of our entire system.
PMRA is viewed as a world-class system. We are rightfully proud of it. I think farmers in their day-to-day lives, they embrace science and they really want to see this agency follow the science and make sure that it is enabling trade and allowing us to increase our productivity. At the end of the day, PMRA is also an economic regulator. We are of the view that we should try to induce more productivity increases.
The Grain Growers of Canada recently announced our Road to 2050, the development of our plan to try to reach zero emissions by 2050. So we can simultaneously work on protecting our environment and the health of Canadians while moving forward using innovation to increase our productivity.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Bovey: I want to thank the witnesses. This is a very interesting and important discussion. I’m following up on what Mr. Leslie just said and Senator Simons’ question as well.
We have heard today and we all know that Canada is at the centre of an international food crisis between Ukraine and climate change, and I have thought that Canada could be the answer through our innovations and scientific research, but now we have the floods in Manitoba which are going to affect this year’s growing season, and I don’t think affect it positively. We’ve seen much news this year, as we have for many years, about the decline in bee populations which will affect food production. Manitoba artist Aganetha Dyck worked with international scientists on this problem for decades. We’ve known all this.
I have to ask: Why the sudden shift from Health Canada? I fail to understand it. Ms. Bombardier, have you been hearing about these pesticide issues for years? Have your consultations been including the innovators of past scientific research?
Ms. Gue, do you feel heard?
At the same time, I’d like to know, Mr. Leslie, if you’ve felt heard.
Thank you.
Ms. Gue: I’m not sure if I’ve completely understood the question well, but in terms of whether I or the David Suzuki Foundation feels heard in these processes, let me reflect.
First of all, I would like to compliment Ms. Bombardier, Mr. Flint and their colleagues for the consultation process now under way. As a participant in that process, I recognize it as very comprehensive and innovative. I do believe that there is a good-faith interest and an effort being made to bring a broad base of interested parties to the table.
The conversations about facilitating access to lower-risk, minimum-risk products, primarily — or at least my experience with them — occurred before the government had announced a targeted review of the act. As one of the previous witnesses said, there has been discussion at the level of principles around this. It is a situation where the devil is in the detail, though. So while supportive of that goal, I am concerned that that specificity is lacking in the amendments before you today.
Furthermore, given the government’s new intention, new direction to look more comprehensively at a targeted review of the act, I do think that it is a better approach to consider this issue cohesively — to use a word that Ms. Bombardier used earlier — with the other amendments that are being considered to the act. It needs to be a comprehensive package to achieve the desired outcomes.
Ms. Bombardier: If I heard correctly, the question for Health Canada was about engaging innovators on Bill S-6 and the Transformation Agenda. I assure you the answer is “yes.” We have been engaging very broadly. As I said, there are 34 different organizations representing national associations and memberships that are part of the steering committee. We also have a number of technical working groups: one on transparency and one on how we want to modernize our business processes to support innovation and predictability and to better equip Health Canada to address emerging risks posed by pesticides in a timely manner. The engagement has been quite broad, and it’s continuing until the end of June for the transformation. If you’ll allow me, I can turn to Jason Flint to speak to the Bill S-6 consultation process.
Senator Bovey: Does it include what we have known through our researchers for the last 20 years?
Ms. Bombardier: Academia is definitely at the table.
As part of the Transformation Agenda, we are also establishing a science advisory committee. That was part of the announcement on August 4. The process is well under way. We’ve received 44 nominations from academics across the country and other interested parties who want to be part of that science advisory committee to provide independent advice to the PMRA on certain decisions prior to them making those decisions. So we are also increasing that and resorting to independent advice to support our decision from a science perspective.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Flint, you are next, and then we want to hear from Mr. Leslie and Mr. Harrison. I’ve extended the time, but please be quick.
Mr. Flint: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We started discussions well back probably after 2008 with the organics sector that were looking for access to some of these lower-risk products. We had some consultations in 2018 that talked particularly about food on food and access to that. It was part of the discussions around the aquaculture and agri-food regulatory review. We looked at that and had a proposal. A proposal was put forward to look at it from a regulatory approach and a legislative change.
In 2019, we started having some discussions about the possibility of a legislative approach. It went to the Pest Management Advisory Council, which is a multi-stakeholder advisory group that advises the Minister of Health. Then we had a broader webinar. That was all prior to all of this going into this bill, so we thought we had good support from the stakeholders to proceed with this.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Leslie: There is the question of whether we have been heard. Maybe I’ll lead you down the path here like this: When we see two departments not communicating on major transformational legislation, you might imagine how an external stakeholder might feel. So I think we’re often heard. There are opportunities for engagement. We do give our submissions. That is all a bit different than being listened to.
There are a number of other avenues right now. In terms of the regulatory environment, we have something that has been established called the Agile Regulations Table, which is a five-year process to look at cross-cutting sectoral irritants. It’s a good idea, and maybe I’m just cynical, but I struggle to see how we’re going to have substantial positive outcomes from that.
A better job of listening could be done in terms of what the real priorities of the sector are and trying to move forward with them in a more cohesive way with stakeholders.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Leslie.
Mr. Harrison, go ahead, please.
Gordon Harrison, President, Canadian National Millers Association: Thank you very much.
There’s a simpler answer, and it’s a question of timing, which Jason got at a few minutes ago. I asked a similar question at the beginning of this week: Why are these amendments in Part 6 at this time?
The answer is quite simple, and it’s a question of timing. All the consultative work that was done on those elements happened over a period of years, and this bill was largely drafted, as we understand it, a year ago. It was ready for introduction about a year ago. That didn’t happen, and there are things that happened in the intervening months.
These amendments, typically, do not actually change regulations. They enable the regulatory agencies to make regulatory amendments. When you make a regulatory amendment, it’s a Canada Gazette Part 1 and Part 2 process. It’s fully transparent and is in the public domain. Accompanying any individual change is exhaustive analysis and justification.
This bill was not accompanied in advance by a detailed explanation that we would typically see that would accompany an individual regulatory change. The bill was put together under cabinet secrecy. We were not able to be consulted on what was and what was not in the bill; hence our comments to the committee are about things that are missing and that could be added to the bill that are of even greater importance.
So we need to do this regulatory modernization process a little differently. It needs to be a transparent process, and it will not result in future bills coming to the Senate and the House without adequate explanation of the questions that you’ve been asking. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harrison, and thank you, senators, for your indulgence to make that longer.
We still have two senators in the first round. Then we will move to three in the second round.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I will be brief, as many of the questions I had were answered in the last round. A non-transparent, non-inclusive consultation process that does not seek consensus, since it is not transparent, can lead to somewhat chaotic situations like the one we see.
My question is for government officials. When processes are not transparent, inclusive and consensual, how are decisions made to choose one option or another? My understanding is that there are ways in the agricultural sector to be inclusive and transparent. However, it seems that this has not been the case in the proposed amendments. Can you comment briefly with regard to government experts?
Ms. Bombardier: Thank you very much, senator. In the transformation that began in August 2021, the engagement process is very transparent. We are following the rules of the art in terms of transparency. We publish on our website all the information and meetings we hold with stakeholders. Shared material is available on request. So we are extremely transparent in our consultation process.
In terms of the proposals that we want to consult on, as Ms. Gue mentioned, we have prepared a discussion paper. This document is available on our website. We are sending out the material as soon as possible before the meetings. We ask for feedback so that we can make better-informed decisions. At the end of our consultations, we will prepare a record of everything we heard, and this will help us make our decisions.
So far we have had a lot of positive feedback on our approach to transparency. I hope this answers your question.
Senator Bellemare: If there are proposals that contradict what you have heard, how are decisions made? Are they made by officials, by science or by politics?
Ms. Bombardier: Our decisions at PMRA have always been based on science, and that will not change. In terms of our regulatory decisions, as has been mentioned, the PMRA is recognized worldwide for its expertise and its very strong science-based approach. The scientific advisory committee will begin to support us by providing advice and expert opinion on certain scientific issues as they relate to our decisions. In consultations, as in any other area, there are always different perspectives. It is expected that the same will be true of the consultations we are currently undertaking. We want to hear a range of perspectives, as this is what will inform the options we bring to the minister for consideration.
Our approach is really to seek the most diverse perspectives. That’s why we engage in consultations in a very broad and transparent way.
[English]
Senator Cotter: My sense is that this discussion is — let me use the most charitable word I can think of — premature with respect to Part 6. I have a small question I think for Mr. van Raalte and then a different question for Mr. Leslie, if I may. When Senator Wetston was asking whether this bill was liable to be approved but Part 6 not proclaimed or some other approach, Mr. van Raalte, I think you were going to answer. I hope your answer is that the bill will be amended to remove Part 6 rather than it just sitting there awaiting proclamation. Could you just confirm that?
Mr. van Raalte: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. What the Senate decides to do with the minister’s request will be up to the Senate. In terms of proclamation, that would be up to the responsible minister, the Minister of Health.
Senator Cotter: Thank you. A highly bureaucratic response, I would say.
Let me ask Mr. Leslie a completely different question. We’re not really focusing on the details of Part 6 today, about which many of us I think might have more content-based questions. You had observed various possibilities to modernize this whole area. I wonder if you might elaborate a bit more on that, not directly related to Part 6, but the Grain Growers of Canada’s priorities for the future. Could you say a bit more about that?
Mr. Leslie: Thank you for the opportunity, senator. As mentioned, certainly the biggest priority would be guidance and implementation of regulations on plants with novel traits or gene-edited technologies. Currently, we’re seeing that countries around the world — the United States, Australia, Japan, Brazil, Argentina, our major competitors — have approved this technology.
There was proposed guidance that came from Health Canada last year that we were supportive of, which was going to set the direction that Canada would enable these technologies, and so we’re supportive of that. It was expected to be announced toward the end of last year. It just kind of hasn’t moved forward. There’s a dual track required because the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, who regulates a different use of that technology, also needs to approve it. So it seems like CFIA is waiting for Health Canada to make their initial approval of gene-edited technology. Meanwhile, we’re seeing investments flow into other nations in terms of the research and innovation technologies to be developed there.
Then from a farm perspective, more importantly, we’re seeing other nations’ farmers, whom we compete with directly, some of which have multiple crops per year, be able to increase their yield and be more productive. That would be one of the areas we would like to see. As mentioned, there are a number of areas within PMRA that we’d like to see moved forward on and that we feel would be economically positive and environmentally sustainably improvable.
The Chair: I think we have another answer or a continuation from Mr. Flint.
Mr. Flint: Just to add to your question there, with respect to the bill as it is written now, if it were to pass, pretty much the only aspect that goes into force right away would be the recall powers. Everything else requires that regulations be put in place in ways that put constraints around what the minister can do and how authorization would take place, so there is still an entire regulatory process that requires consultation before the new powers could actually be brought into force.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Flint.
Senator Simons: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think my questions have been answered. I just want to express my concern at the way this has all unfolded. It raises a lot of questions for me about whether the right hand and left hand know what one another are doing.
Senator C. Deacon: To build on Senator Simons’ point of the right hand and the left hand, Mr. van Raalte, we’ve spoken about this in other meetings, and I know it’s something that you are exploring, but I wonder the extent to which standards-informed regulatory strategies could become quite helpful in preventing situations like this. I say that because of all the stakeholders involved: different departments, different governments — provincial, territorial and federal — and the breadth of organizations.
If you have standards that are developed outside of government that form a foundation around specific issues, does it give us an opportunity to get at the productivity opportunities that Mr. Leslie has spoken of, and we all feel very strongly about in the Senate? Are we able to make sure that the voices are actually heard, that we’re not just looking for input, but that we’re hearing the voices?
They’re working with one another to develop technical standards that are auditable, that can form a foundation that’s more agile in how we reform regulations and the legislation that empowers those regulations. I look at opportunities here in reducing inputs, increasing yields and quality of product and improving the environment and health. The opportunities here are so massive. We’ve got to get a better process in the future. I just wondered about the extent to which standards-informed regulations might be helpful in that regard. Could you speak to that, please?
Mr. van Raalte: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. Maybe to make fun of myself in my last response about bureaucratic language, so what Senator Deacon is referring to in terms of from a legal authority’s perspective is what we call “incorporation by reference.” Incorporation by reference within regulations allows the minister and the department responsible to use established standards — credible, trustworthy, consensus-based standards development — to offer an evidence-based methodology for greater agility. If the standard changes, you don’t have to change your regulations. It’s incorporated by reference. Ergo, if the standard says this, then the law of Canada also says this.
Incorporation by reference of international standards is a well-established practice within Canada in terms of that international consensus-building process. We have lots of what we call guardrails or lots of constraints on how that is done, because as you move down the delegation of authority from the legislative branch to the executive branch — ministers — and we delegate that authority under regulation to a standard-setting body, you have to have some confidence in those processes, and those are set out in regulations.
The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations has provided a lot of guidance on how well we are doing with that and where we could be doing better.
Where there needs to be some work, senators, going forward, is incorporation by reference of domestic standards and of internal documents — guidelines, rules — published by departments. And that then gets into that confidence and oversight issue.
At the other end of it, Senator Deacon, it would offer that agility and that nimbleness that you’re referencing.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Mr. van Raalte. That was a comprehensive and clear answer and I think is appreciated by not just me. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Harrison.
Mr. Harrison: Thank you. The unfortunate thing about withdrawing Part 6 from the bill would be the loss of an opportunity to talk about incorporation-by-reference powers being expanded for PMRA, for Health Canada under the Pest Control Products Act. The kind of incorporation by reference powers that are already in the Food and Drugs Act and the Safe Food for Canadians Act are not as broad in the Pest Control Products Act.
So in order to do the kinds of things that we’re talking about right now — whether they’re domestic standards or whether they’re international decisions that are science-based — we’re going to need to see an amendment to the Pest Control Products Act to give the minister regulation-making authority to do more incorporation by reference.
Key recommendation: If we were going to do one thing about the Pest Control Products Act via Bill S-6, it would be to add and broaden incorporation by reference powers. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harrison.
Senator Wetston: Actually, I just wanted to have the floor for a moment to thank the witnesses but also to apologize to the witnesses and to the committee, because I need some significant assistance on keeping better notes. We probably all have that problem. Many committees are dealing with the Budget Implementation Act as well as Bill S-6. I think my questions were appropriate to Part 6, but I think I referred to the Budget Implementation Act. I apologize for that. What I meant, of course, was Bill S-6, the modernization bill. I hope you accept that apology. I want to assure you that I’m fully aware of what is going on here this morning but, as I say, my note-taking was not so rigorous. I apologize for that.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Wetston. We noted that here. Your questions were succinct and appropriate to the committee and the bill we were studying, so we didn’t correct you on that.
Senator Cotter: Ever so briefly, Mr. van Raalte. First, I should apologize for that flippant remark about bureaucracy. It was kind of you to build on that a bit. You didn’t bring a dental analogy this week like last week, but that was still a good one.
I wanted to clarify my own remarks. In the letter that Senator Black received from Minister Duclos and shared with the committee, the minister asked that there be an amendment to the bill to essentially withdraw Part 6 from the bill. I wanted to be clear that that’s a workable approach from the point of view of the kind of work you need to oversee here and that likely, at some point, we would see some other version of this part making its way back through the legislative process. I say that, as much as anything, in light of the most recent comments about the value of at least some portions of Part 6.
Mr. van Raalte: To the best of my ability, Mr. Chair, my understanding of the Senate process — so I may be corrected — is that this committee is studying subject matter; it will report to the Senate; and then the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce will do the legislative review, as the home for the bill, and it will undertake clause-by-clause. How the committee then disposes of Minister Duclos’s request will be up to that committee. In terms of the procedure for following through on that request, I’m not sure exactly how that happens. Then the committee will report to the full Senate. So it becomes a procedural matter for the Senate that I cannot answer in my best bureaucratic vocabulary.
Senator Cotter: I know that Minister Duclos doesn’t report to you — if anything, it might be the other way around — but if that were the process that the Senate followed, as opposed to passing and kind of holding it subject to proclamation and the like, it doesn’t complicate your end of things?
Mr. van Raalte: It does not.
Senator C. Deacon: I want to close the loop on what Mr. Harrison just said. If there is a middle ground here that we should be considering, which is not pulling this portion out of Bill S-6 completely but keeping in an element that enables the minister to incorporate standards by reference, is that a middle ground that — perhaps, Ms. Bombardier and Mr. van Raalte, could you speak to that a bit? Is there value in our doing that? Because once this bill leaves here, it’s an unusual thing to start a government bill in the Senate and have it go to the House after. But is that useful? It’s an interesting suggestion that he made.
Ms. Bombardier: I’ll turn to Jason Flint to respond with regard to the incorporation by reference in the current bill, Bill S-6, and talk about the path forward.
Mr. Flint: Currently, there is nothing in Bill S-6 that amends the incorporation-by-reference powers that already exist in the Pest Control Products Act, so it would require an amendment to include something that’s not currently there.
Ms. Bombardier: Because it’s not there now, it’s definitely something we can consider under the Transformation Agenda. We are looking at improving processes, and that would be part of the conversation.
Mr. van Raalte: The Pest Control Products Act belongs to the Minister of Health.
The Chair: Thank you. I see no further questions and we have reached the end of our time for our witnesses. I’d like to thank Ms. Bombardier, Mr. Flint, Mr. Petelle, Mr. Leslie, Mr. Harrison, Ms. Gue, and Mr. van Raalte. Thank you very much for your participation today. Your assistance as we undertake this study is very much appreciated.
I want to thank the committee members for your active participation and thoughtful questions. Again, as I always do, I’d like to thank our Senate Administration, the interpretation and logistics team, that keep us flowing and operating in this room.
With that, senators, is it agreed that we suspend for a minute or two to end the public portion and proceed in camera?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)