Parliamentary debate
Serious concerns raised over the PMRA and 2,4-D
38th Parliament,
1st Session Edited Hansard
Number 134. Friday, October 7, 2005 Source
[key points in bold
font]
[Government Orders]
Food and Drugs Act
The House resumed consideration
of the motion that Bill C-28, An Act to amend the
Food and Drugs Act, be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Pat Martin
(Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf
of the NDP caucus to share our views on Bill C-28,
entitled an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. I
note that the purpose of Bill C-28 is to provide the
Minister of Health with authority to issue interim
marketing authorizations for foods that contain
certain substances at specified levels and to exempt
the foods from the applicable requirements of that
act and its regulations relating to the sale of those
foods.
That sums up our reservations
about the bill. The very definition of the bill gives
rise to the concerns that I have, and which my caucus
tried to outline in its representations made on this
bill before, in that it really does put more
authority into the judgments by the Minister of
Health.
I note, for example, that a
judgment by the Minister of Health pertaining to
trans fatty acids came into question recently. It is
a serious public health concern that was debated and
dealt with in the House of Commons. Bill C-28
contemplates putting more authority into the hands of
the minister to make these judgments without the
regulatory process for products that are already in
the Food and Drugs Act. The example of trans fatty
acids would in fact fit into that category.
Without the regulatory
oversight that exists currently for what should and
should not be in our food products, the bill
contemplates giving more authority, as I understand
it, to the Minister of Health.
Another aspect of the bill
deals with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and
the Pest Control Products Act, which deals with
pesticides in an agricultural setting or in other
settings. The NDP notes with some concern that recently
the Pest Management Regulatory Agency sent out a
press release saying that the pesticide 2,4-D could
be used safely, even though the Pest Control Products
Act limits the language of advertising by pesticide
companies, whereas they have been fined in the past
for claiming that their product is safe. It is
worrisome to us within the regime of pesticide
control and pest management control when a product
like 2,4-D, which even a lay person like me knows is
a genuine health hazard and that it should be treated
in the most severe category in terms of usage, has
been found that there are safe applications of the
pesticide.
I would rather see the
Government of Canada going the other way. I would
rather see the Government of Canada making bold
statements about banning the cosmetic use of
pesticides altogether, not finding safe applications
for chemicals that we know to be hazardous.
I am concerned that Bill C-28
takes us down a road that we do not want to be going.
In fact, it takes us down a road that may be 180
degrees opposite. We opposed the bill at committee
because we did not believe that the Pesticide
Management Regulatory Agency was doing its job
properly in its evaluation of pesticides.
Canada is littered,
polluted and contaminated with pesticides. I just
heard a moving presentation in the last year from a
21-year-old man from Quebec who grew up surrounded by
five golf courses. I cannot remember the name of the
small community in which he was raised but there were
five golf courses within the specific region. The
incidence of brain cancer among he and his friends
has motivated him to the point where he has dedicated
his life to trying to eradicate the irresponsible
rampant use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes and
for unnecessary purposes like keeping a golf course's
grass perfect for golfing. There is no agricultural
justification for this.
(12:25) The young man
who gave us this moving and powerful speech, told us
that both he and his best friend had been diagnosed
with brain cancer at the same time when they were 14
years old. Their community represented a cluster of
brain cancer caused by chemical exposure that is
almost unprecedented. He and his best friend made a
pact that if one or both survived they would continue
to inform Canadians about the dangers of the
irresponsible use of these chemicals. Unfortunately,
one young man succumbed to his disease.
I want to debate bills in the
House that talk about getting these toxins out of our
food chain and out of our agricultural system. I do
not want to talk about enabling the minister to have
more arbitrary direction and control over the
application of these known hazards.
I will not dwell on trans fats.
We won a motion in the House of Commons to study
trans fats more seriously. A task force was set up,
chaired jointly by the Heart and Stroke Foundation
and Health Canada, to bring back recommendations but
we are concerned about the interim report of that
trans fat task force.
The Minister of Health is
already making statements that perhaps labeling is
the way to go or perhaps the government should help
industry voluntarily reduce trans fats in their
products but that is not the language we want to
hear. It gives me no optimism whatsoever that the
Minister of Health is taking concrete steps toward
eliminating known health concerns within our food
chain or that he will apply the type of scrutiny,
direction and control that we expect in the food and
drug administration in evaluating new products.
The chair of the
Standing Committee on Health took on the Pest
Management Regulatory Agency and asked when it would
issue a press release retracting the statement that
there might be a safe way to apply 2,4-D. We did not
want to send the wrong impression out to the general
public.
Thousands of garages at
the back of homes all over the country have a
container of old 2,4-D sitting on their shelves. All
people need to hear is some regulatory authority
changing its mind and telling people that 2,4-D is
not so bad after all and that they should continue to
go after the dandelions with this incredibly
hazardous material. People who already possess tonnes
of that product and who should be advised to take it
to a hazardous waste site and have it treated
properly as a health hazard, may get the false idea
that there is a safe way of doing this.
I do not think I need
to remind people in the House of Commons about agent
orange and agent purple at CFB Gagetown which showed
chemicals can remain in the environment for years.
Some people may not be aware of the fact that 2,4-D
is a component of both agent orange and agent purple.
At the same time as
members of Parliament are seized with the issue of
contamination at Gagetown by the experimental use of
agent orange and agent purple in the post-war year
which put our armed forces personnel at risk, it is
ironic that 2,4-D, one of the main ingredients in
those cancer causing agents, is being contemplated
for safe application again. That is as crazy as
saying there is a safe application for asbestos.
Canada is full of these contradictions.
How can we in all good
conscience say that there is a safe application for
asbestos when asbestos contamination is all around us
to where we have polluted the entire country with
asbestos? It can be found in every school, hospital
and government building. Even our own House of
Commons is contaminated with it. We seem to be
adopting this same cavalier, user beware approach to
harmful chemicals like 2,4-D.
The Sierra Club of
Canada has spearheaded a public campaign questioning
why the Pest Management Regulatory Agency claimed
that 2,4-D could be used safely but its questions are
not being answered.
(12:30) If we are dismantling
or, in any way, altering or affecting the regulatory
process now, which would rely on outside expertise
and authorities other than our own researchers with
Health Canada, et cetera, then we are really
concerned and critical of it.
We should point out
that Health Canada does not actually do its own
original research. It only gathers up the empirical
evidence. It gathers up studies that have been done
by others, often by the manufacturer of the very
product that it is studying, and it assesses the risk
based on the research available. This was
made clear at the whistleblowing hearings where three
Health Canada officials were fired for blowing the
whistle on health hazards associated with bovine
growth hormone.
Dr. Shiv Chopra made it clear
when he said, "Everybody thinks we did this
research and that we are advising Canadians about the
hazards of bovine growth hormone". He went on to
say that he wished Health Canada could do its own
research but that it did not have the laboratory or
the budget to do the original research and that it
had to rely on what has been done by others, which,
hopefully, was done independently and peer tested. Sometimes
it is the type of study that is done by the industry
because it is the only one willing to fund the
research on a product and in that way that research
could be tainted or biased. That is certainly the
case in many known food additives and chemicals that
have been later found to be hazardous.
Asbestos is not the only one.
Let us face it, most of the work on asbestos in the
country today was done by an institute that was
funded by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. It
was concerned that it could not underwrite asbestos
workers any more because of the extraordinary
incidence of occupational disease related to people
handling that product, so it funded its own research
laboratory, published the reports that were pro
asbestos and never published the reports that were
anti-asbestos.
I want to get back to Bill
C-28. Some of the issues involved include the
study of chlorinated dioxins. I think everyone knows
dioxins are enormous cancer causing agents and no one
is saying that dioxins are necessarily present in
2,4-D, but the dioxins are in fact a byproduct in the
manufacture of 2,4-D. If we are adopting a more
casual approach to 2,4-D and saying that there are
safe applications of it, we will be stimulating the
production of it and, in acknowledging the production
of it, we will, inadvertently or in a secondary way,
also have to acknowledge that there will be the
greater production of dioxins stemming from the
production of 2,4-D.
The most toxic form of
2,4-D containing DEA was excluded from the
evaluation. Even though the Pest Management
Regulatory Agency ruled that there may be safe
applications of 2,4-D, it did not even look at the
most extremely hazardous toxic form of 2,4-D which
contains this dioxin DEA, although it did say that it
would examine it later, which is small comfort.
We are concerned that Bill C-28
would augment the authority of the Minister of Health
to regulate food products, supplements or additives
to the food and drug regime. It is in keeping with a
motif that we have noticed in so many pieces of
legislation introduced by the Liberal government. It
is a trend. It seems to be a recognizable motif to
augment the arbitrary authority of the minister and
to dismantle or erode the regulatory authority of
independent voices and bodies. We cannot tolerate
that lightly and we have to speak out about it.
(12:35) When this bill was
introduced into the House of Commons on November 29,
2004, it was introduced with no advanced indication
as to what it was designed to accomplish. That is
rare for a bill. It was featured at a technical bill,
a bill that was really just a housekeeping matter. It
was only upon our own investigation and examination
that some of these concerns rose to the surface and
came to our attention within the NDP caucus.
The debate at second reading is
where some of this information started to come up.
Cautionary notes were raised about preventive
measures, preventive health concerns and dietary
issues. Some speakers at second reading articulated
their concern that we emphasized too much of our
health care resources toward treating the sick and
not enough of our resources toward preventing
illness.
Some people say that the title
of Minister of Health should really be changed to the
minister of managing illness, because our Minister of
Health really has very little to do with making
Canadians healthier or putting forward initiatives or
legislation that might actually lead to a healthier
population.
We are all aware of the
preventable illnesses and that we could take steps to
lessen the burden on our much taxed health care
system. This is certainly one area where we expect
our Minister of Health to be more proactive.
We are concerned when a bill
like this comes along and does not really speak to
the general public health concerns that we all share,
but speaks more to streamlining a regulatory process
to make it easier for the Minister of Health to give
the yea or the nay about a food additive or a food
product that is currently within the food chain or
the drug system.
I acknowledge and take the
parliamentary secretary's point that the bill does
not apply to new chemicals being introduced or new
additives. Those will still be subject to the full
process of which we are all aware, but we are talking
about existing products, chemicals and additives that
may be in the existing food product list or in the
existing drug regime that Canadians consume with the
confidence that there are safety measures put in
place to ensure that their health is key and
paramount.
I cannot help but think that
the industry would be quite interested in this new
development which takes the regulatory authority away
from the regime we are used to and hands it back to
the minister.
If I can use trans fats as an
example again, it is a product that is fully
entrenched in the food chain currently. It is
generally acknowledged across the country that this
stuff is bad for us.
Scientists use the word
"toxic" when they make reference to trans
fats because it meets the scientific definition of
toxins. Our bodies cannot process it; our bodies
reject it.
In fact, our bodies do not
acknowledge trans fat as food. They see it as some
foreign substance, which it is, to be stored
elsewhere, and they store it in the form of fat
within our circulo-vascular system and builds our
cholesterol. This is the problem with trans fatty
acids. We want them out of our food supply system.
However, as more and more of
this regulatory authority goes directly to the
minister, I am not sure that I trust this minister,
or any subsequent minister of health, to put the best
interests of Canadians first with such a bold step
because there is some push back from industry. It
will be awkward. It will be inconvenient to
reformulate the products to get trans fat out of
cookies.
If it ever comes down to the
shelf life of doughnuts and the shelf life of
Canadians, I would hope that the Minister of Health
would err on the side of promoting the shelf life of
humans. All that trans fats are good for is for
making oil solid at room temperature and adding to
the shelf life of some of these products. Using that
as an example and using 2,4-D as an example, we have
some legitimate concerns about Bill C-28.
This is one of those bills that
comes to us, as I say, without a lot of fanfare. It
sort of flew under the radar when it was first
introduced in the House of Commons.
(12:40) Throughout the debate,
I actually learned a great deal. I have read some of
the debate at second reading in Hansard, where my own
colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, and also my
colleague from the Conservative Party, the hon.
Member for Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia, raised
serious reservations about how the Standing Joint
Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations would in
fact have its work undermined somewhat, or would be
surrendering and forfeiting some of the authority
that it currently enjoys, in transferring that power
and authority to the minister.
We should all be cautious when
we enhance the arbitrary powers of a minister at the
cost of the democratic authority of the House of
Commons. This is giving power to the executive that
we currently enjoy within Parliament and we should be
very careful.
Market authorizations have been
made regularly by the current regulatory process. It
is not as onerous as some would have us believe, and
fast-tracking it by putting that authority into the
minister's hands scares me, frankly, when it comes to
the public health of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Clavet
(Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the speech by my NDP colleague from
Winnipeg Centre. He is an experienced member and not
one to talk through his hat. He has a great deal of
experience in terms of his research.
When he spoke on Bill C-28 to
amend the Food and Drugs Act, he raised
various concerns that I too understand. They relate
to the use of a particular pesticide. In English, he
was talking about 2,4-D. If I understood correctly,
this pesticide was an ingredient in the famous agent
orange used at Gagetown. So we can understand his
concern.
However, my concerns
are also understandable. I want to know how, when it
comes to herbicide use, we can reconcile the need for
health and safety with the way people sometimes
artificially beautify their lawns, which I find quite
frivolous.
Was this the meaning of his
remarks, when he said that we may be starting down a
slippery slope by allowing the use of this type of
product and that the legislation fails to provide
adequate protection in order to prevent such risks? I
would like him to expand on this.
(12:45) [English]
Mr. Pat Martin:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the very
relevant question. It gives me the opportunity to
share further some of my specific concerns
about pesticides, such as 2,4-D and other pesticides
that are often used in a cosmetic way, not in any
necessary agricultural way but simply for our own
vanity, either for our potted plants, the shrubbery
outside our homes, or so that we can have a greener
lawn than our neighbour's.
That kind of vanity we
are going to have to address as a nation very soon
because the sheer volume of the chemicals that we are
dumping into the environment in an unnecessary way is
irresponsible and it is starting to catch up to us.
I mentioned that one
pivotal point in my education on this subject was
listening to a young man from Quebec who grew up in a
region with five golf courses surrounding him. He
suffers from brain cancer. His best friend died of
brain cancer. In his community there are an alarming
number of incidents of this particular type of cancer
that has been traced to radical exposure to this type
of chemical.
My colleague is
absolutely right. Municipal governments are taking
initiatives in Quebec and other places across Canada.
One by one communities are unilaterally passing
bylaws regarding the cosmetic use of pesticides, but
as a federal government we hear nothing. The silence
has been deafening.
The silence is a
national shame, frankly, because we have this
opportunity today to debate this issue of pesticides
in our environment and we are not hearing
progressive, courageous legislation that will put our
foot down and say, "This is a bad thing. We want
it eradicated from our communities. Let us put public
health first before the right of industry to produce
these chemicals and the right of irresponsible people
to pollute the communities with them".
Hon. Robert Thibault
(Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I feel obligated to stand and
correct the member. I was listening to the question
posed earlier by a member of the Bloc and the answer
from the NDP.
While I cannot disagree with
any of the facts that they are raising, they are
completely outside the scope of Bill C-28. This bill
does not discuss the adoption of new products. The
bill does not circumvent or shorten the regulatory
system. This is a question of how to deal with
intelligent regulations, the health of Canadians, the
security of our food supply, and at the same time
ensure the competitiveness of our agricultural sector
by our food services industry.
We say in this bill that if
there are products that are added to foods that have
already been approved, that it is a new use or new
combination, perhaps a cereal with a vitamin, and
both have already been approved, that the minister,
after it has gone through the proper scientific
evaluation process and while it is going through its
regulatory process, may give an interim use
authorization.
This procedure is already
happening and is nothing new. There was a concern by
the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of
Regulations that the proper authorization under the
act was not there for the delegation of authority by
the minister to a deputy minister, or an associate
deputy minister or an assistant deputy minister. It
merely corrects that aspect.
The other side of this is the
question of pest control products in use that have
gone through the proper regulatory scientific
evaluation process. For example, we currently work
with the United States to have a harmonized process.
Often we will have a product that will replace
another pest control product on the market that is
deemed by users to be often safer and a lot better
for our food system.
We look at the maximum residue
levels that may remain in the food. After that proper
joint evaluation, while it is going through the
regulatory process, and after the advice has been
received that it is safe and safer than other
products that we use and that the residue limit is
better than what we are presently using, then the
minister can give an interim marketing authorization.
The product can then be used while it is going
through the regulatory system, the gazetting and all
those other procedures.
We are not circumventing and
not shortening the process. It is an intelligent way
of doing regulations. As a result safer products can
come on the market more quickly and Canadian
consumers can benefit from new advances while never
risking the health and security of our food system.
(12:50) Mr. Pat Martin:
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I failed to make myself clear. I
do not think the parliamentary secretary is grasping
the nature of my concerns.
I will try and state my problem
as clearly as I can. Clause 5 of this bill provides
that if an agricultural chemical is a pest control
product, then the maximum residue limit or what we
call the threshold limit value, which is established
under the food and drugs regulations, is deemed to be
the maximum residue limit as set out in the Pest
Control Products Act.
Let us be clear, the Pest
Control Products Act has threshold limits set by the
pest management review board, an outside tribunal of
independent authorities of experts. We are critical
sometimes of their findings, but at least they are at
arm's length and have some independence from
Parliament.
As we incrementally shift the
authority to the minister to establish threshold
limit values, we are taking away authority from the
independent review boards that may exist elsewhere in
the regulatory process. It is that shift of
jurisdiction that concerns us.
I am not convinced, and correct
me if I am wrong, that this bill does not enhance the
arbitrary authority of the minister and the
executive, and detract from the independent nature of
the regulatory process and the ability for Parliament
to be the oversight of those regulatory processes.
When I use 2,4-D as an example,
I think that fits neatly into the categories
articulated by the parliamentary secretary. It is
something that is already in existence. There is no
new chemical associated with this that would fall
under the normal regulatory thing. It is a new
application of this chemical being contemplated, in
that what was once banned, we now argue that it is
safe to use.
That is confusing.
I do not want that kind of
choice to be made by a health minister who is not a
scientist. I want that to be determined by the
independent scientific community.
Community Web.
