Opening Statement to the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food

Managing the Safety and Accessibility of Pesticides
(Chapter 1 - 2003 Report of the Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development)

Introduction

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before this Committee. I am here today to present our findings on Managing the Safety and Accessibility of Pesticides. This is one chapter in my third annual report, which was tabled on October 7. With me today are my key management staff responsible for this audit: Neil Maxwell, Principal, and Peter Morrison, Director.

For those of you who do not know me, I lead a group in the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. We seek to support parliamentarians in overseeing the federal government's efforts to protect the environment and foster sustainable development. Our goal is to provide you and other Canadians with objective, independent analysis of the federal government's progress. Where necessary, we make recommendations for further action.

Our audit

In May 2002, this Committee tabled its report on the pesticide registration process. You recommended that

…the Auditor General of Canada conduct a value-for-money, or performance audit, to examine the management practices, controls and reporting systems of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

I am very glad to be able to report today on our findings relating to the concerns expressed by the committee.

Much of our audit focussed on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), a branch of Health Canada. But we ranged further, examining other branches of Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Natural Resources Canada.

Our overall findings

We found that the PMRA has made some significant improvements since its creation. However in all of the areas we examined, we found weaknesses too numerous to describe in these opening remarks. As a reference tool and a quick overview of our chief concerns, we have provided you with an expanded version of the chapter's table of contents. If you turn to the table of contents, you will see some of our key concerns.

Overall, I concluded that these numerous weaknesses raise serious questions about the management of the risks to health and the environment associated with pesticides.

The most serious concern in my report is the slowness of progress in re-evaluating older pesticides. Some of these pesticides were first registered decades ago, when standards were less stringent and less was known about the effects of pesticides. There are 405 pesticides contained in thousands of commercial products that the PMRA pledged to re-evaluate by 2006. The government has been working on some of these re-evaluations for more than 10 years. All of those pesticides that have been fully re-evaluated have either been removed from the market or had restrictions placed on their use.

As an example of how standards have changed, insecticides using phorate, an organophosphate, were first registered in 1969. The re-evaluation concluded that this substance poses extremely high environmental risks, risks that may not have been evaluated when it was first registered. The result is a proposal to phase out this product by December 2004.

Our findings related to the Committee's concerns

The PMRA not only must manage the risks associated with old pesticides, it has also committed to provide timely access to new, possibly safer pesticides—ones that could replace pesticides that are being removed from the market. We found that the PMRA has significantly improved the rigour and timeliness with which it processes pesticide submissions, compared with practices before the Agency's creation. We also found, however, that it is not consistently meeting its own targets for timeliness in processing submissions: in 2002-03, it did not meet its targets in any of the major categories of submissions.

Access to minor-use pesticides has been a particular concern of some farmers. Again, the Agency has not met its own targets for how quickly it evaluates minor-use pesticides; in March 2003, about a quarter of the evaluations were behind schedule. The federal government has pledged new resources to improve the accessibility of minor-use pesticides, but we found gaps and delays in setting up the arrangements to spend these funds effectively.

We also noted that the PMRA has difficult management challenges with respect to human resources. The most important, in our view, is the need to manage the almost 70 percent increase in staff for responsibilities associated with the new Act (from 367 at the end of 2001-02 to about 620) and the accompanying new resources.

The Agency has provided only limited information on its performance. Its management does not track the costs of handling individual submissions or groups of submissions. We encourage the Agency to include a fair and full summary of its activities in the annual report required under the new Act, including quantitative information about its performance on new submissions and re-evaluations.

A need for action

In my view, decisive action is needed to address the range of weaknesses we identified. The responses to my recommendations by the PMRA and others gave little indication that they intend to act decisively. For example, we recommended that the Agency develop and implement a program to manage its large influx of new employees and to ensure that quality is maintained in the evaluation process. In its response, the Agency accepted the recommendation but said no additional actions are planned. Action is also needed in areas besides those our recommendations singled out. Are the Agency and others prepared to clearly commit to addressing each weakness we identified, with particular attention to the key issues such as re-evaluations? Will they put in place detailed action plans to resolve the weaknesses and to respond to our recommendations—action plans with concrete measures and demanding deadlines?

Conclusion

This is a time of transition in the way pesticides are managed in Canada. There is new legislation, new funding, and new expectations. I hope that the federal government can now correct some of the weaknesses of the past. But I believe it is important to track its progress closely.

This Committee has already played an important role in identifying problems and seeking solutions. I hope that our findings and our recommendations will further contribute to that process. We would be happy to discuss ways for us to support the Committee's work.

Thank you for your attention. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.