It appears MPs are going to use consideration of the government’s
proposed new pesticide regulation legislation to demand reform at the
Pest Management Regulatory Agency.
Debate on the legislation began with an assertion by health minister
Anne McLellan that the first revision of the pesticides law in 33 years
will protect Canadians from ill-effects of pesticide poisoning and make
consumers more confident of the safety of farm products.
“Canadians and the international community must have confidence in the
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
manner in which pesticides are regulated in Canada,” she told the
Commons during opening debate on C-53, the Pest Control Products Act.
“By enhancing the transparency of our pesticide regulatory system, the
new PCPA would enhance public confidence here and abroad that Canadian
agri-food, forestry and other products are safe.”
She is proposing to toughen health and environmental tests before new
pesticide products are registered, make more information about products
available to the public and require the agency to re-evaluate the
acceptability of all pesticide products within 15 years of their going
on the market.
Opposition critics praised McLellan, even as they promised some
improvements will be proposed.
Canadian Alliance health critic Rob Merrifield called it “a remarkable
piece of legislation.”
Progressive Conservative critic John Herron said: “Our hats are off to
the minister for tabling this piece of legislation.”
But the words turned sour when discussion turned to implementation and
the role of the PMRA.
“It would not matter how good a bill the House passed with the way the
PMRA is being run at the present time,” said Alliance agriculture
critic Howard Hilstrom.
“There is little hope of seeing any positive legislation implemented in
a way that will satisfy the industry, the farmers and the
environmentalists because of the inefficiencies and the philosophical
attitude of the agency which is not in keeping with the attitude of the
majority of Canadians.”
Hilstrom accused the agency of hurting farmers by denying them better
access to more effective chemicals available to Americans.
He called the agency a nest of “bureaucratic intransigence.”
Veteran Liberal environmentalist Charles Caccia suggested the PMRA has
a conflict of interest because it regulates products and tries to help
companies get products into the market.
New Democrat Joe Comartin agreed.
“It is impossible to on one hand say we would review products and
decide whether they should be allowed onto the market and on the other
hand say we have a role in promoting the use of pesticides in Canada,”
he said.
Alliance MPs said that as the debate goes on, the CA will propose
amendments that restrict the agency from pulling an old product from
the market unless an effective alternative exists.
Merrifield said they will demand more resources for the agency and
better use of existing resources.
“The bill’s laudable objectives may be difficult to achieve if
management problems and the misallocation of resources at the PMRA are
not corrected.”
