* Please see attachment will…

* Please see attachment will full submission and additional comments.

December 12, 2019

RE: CropLife Canada comments on the proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation (63/09 General) (ERO 019-0601)

CropLife Canada would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation 63/09 made under the Pesticides Act.

CropLife Canada is the trade association representing the manufacturers, developers and distributors of plant science innovations — pest control products and plant biotechnology — for use in agriculture, urban and public health settings.

On November 27, 2019, CropLife Canada submitted comments to the Government of Ontario supporting the proposed changes to the Pesticide Act that would see the elimination of the Ontario Pesticides Advisory Committee (OPAC) and the commitment to instead promptly classify new products as they are approved by Health Canada’s Pest Management Risk Agency (PMRA). We appreciate the opportunity to provide further comments related to proposed changes to Ontario Regulation 63/09 and the associated guidance that would support these regulatory changes.

Alignment with the federal regulator

CropLife Canada strongly agrees with the statement in the proposal summary that Health Canada’s PMRA is resourced and equipped to review and register pesticides for all of Canada, something all other provinces have recognized. As such, we strongly support of the proposal to harmonize Ontario’s pesticide classification scheme with the categories recognized under the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA).

In the spirit of harmonization, we are of the opinion that the Government of Ontario should have consolidated the product classes even further by eliminating the class for neonicotinoid treated seeds and instead referring to the designation assigned to products at the federal level. That said, CropLife Canada is supportive of the proposed amendments to the restrictions on the sale and use of neonicotinoid treated seeds and recognizes that Ontario would consider further amendments to align with the federal government once Health Canada concludes its ongoing neonicotinoid-related reviews.

We remain disappointed that the proposed regulations retain the provisions that prohibit the sale and use of certain pesticides for application in, on or over land (the “cosmetic” ban). The continuation of this non-science-based restriction runs counter to the very principle that the amendments to Ontario’s pesticide regulation endorses – that is, eliminating red tape and duplication through regulatory alignment and science-based regulation. All pest control products registered in Canada, regardless of whether the pesticide is identified as a biopesticide, non-conventional or conventional and whether they are intended for agriculture, lawn and garden, forestry, or other uses, have been assessed by the PMRA and must meet the same standards of safety to human health and the environment.

The “allowable list”

Since 2009, the Government of Ontario has been maintaining a list of active ingredients that can be used in, on, or over land under Ontario’s “cosmetic” pesticides ban. This list, previously referred to as Class 11, is now referred to as the “List of Active Ingredients Authorized for Cosmetic Uses”.

CropLife Canada is concerned with the provisions that provide authority to the Director to identify active ingredients to add to this list, whereby the Director conducts a review of the active ingredient followed by a 30-day consultation period through the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO). The approach described in subsection 17(1) paragraph 2 (ii) of the proposed amendments is duplicative of the work already performed at the federal level, as the only active ingredients eligible for consideration must have first been approved by PMRA as a biopesticide or approved under the non-conventional pesticide directive (DIR2012-01) . Presumably, the Director will then use the same criteria used by the PMRA in DIR2012-01 (as noted in the Guide to Pesticide Classes ) to determine if active ingredients are eligible for the list. It is unclear what additional information the Director might use to inform decisions that was not already considered by the PMRA and the qualifications they would have to confidently make such an assessment. In addition, the proposed consultation requirement is duplicative of the existing federal process, as all stakeholders have the opportunity to comment on PMRA’s registration decisions.

CropLife Canada objects to the perpetuation of non-science-based restrictions of pesticides for use on, in or above land (the “cosmetic” ban). However, if this dichotomy of approaches cannot be addressed, we recommend that all products registered by the PMRA as a biopesticide or non-conventional pesticide under DIR2012-01 be automatically added to the “List of Active Ingredients Authorized for Cosmetic Uses”, rather than subjecting them to a second evaluation of the same information at the provincial level. This approach would be consistent with the classification process taken by other provinces. For example, although we remain similarly opposed to the province of Quebec’s ongoing restrictions on domestic use pesticides, under the Règlement sur les permis et les certificats pour la vente et l’utilisation de pesticides , all active ingredients considered to be biopesticides approved by the PMRA are automatically accepted into the class for domestic products (class 5). It should be noted that in Québec, non-conventional, semiochemicals and microbial pesticides are all considered within the biopesticides distinction.

Furthermore, CropLife Canada is seeking confirmation that new active ingredients that would not be deemed eligible for consideration on the list will be available immediately and automatically upon federal registration. Specifically, we are seeking confirmation that active ingredients considered exceptions to the “cosmetic” pesticide ban for uses related to agriculture, golf courses, forestry, and etc. will not require further review by the Director or consultation on the ERO.

Domestic class requirements

The stated objective of removing duplication and aligning with the federal pesticide classes is both sound and commendable with respect to reducing duplication and red-tape. However, simply reducing the number of classes is insufficient if the individual requirements for the old classes continue to exist.

Under the proposed amendments, four classes (Class 5, 6, 7 and 8) will be consolidated into a single class for domestic products (Class D), but rules and restrictions related to the storage and display for certain products within this class will continue to exist. The unintended result is three subclasses within Class D. If implemented as written, the amendments will unnecessarily complicate communication between registrants and vendors, increasing the regulatory burden on all parties – including government – by creating uncertainty about what is expected of both those being regulated and those regulating. To make the proposal workable, it is imperative that the proposed amendments are revised to remove licensing, storage and display requirements for Class D products, where appropriate, to reflect true harmonization with the federal classification system. The amendments should simplify, not complicate, the current process in order to avoid mass confusion and an even-more onerous regulatory environment than what currently exists.

The proposed changes to the domestic classes also add additional complexity for establishments who do not have a pesticide vendor license. While vendors currently require a licence for the sale of Class 5 pesticides, they do not require a license for the sale of Class 6 pesticides (including products like insect repellent, ant traps, mosquito coils, etc.) that may be sold at grocery and convenience stores, and pharmacies. The amendments propose that all vendors would now require a licence for the sale of Class D pesticides. In this regard, the consolidation into a single class is not helpful and does not align with the approaches in other provinces. For example, in Saskatchewan, only vendors that sell commercial and/or restricted class pesticides are required to have a pesticide vendor licence. CropLife Canada is concerned that the proposed amendment will increase the burden on businesses who currently sell Class 6 pesticides exclusively, and on consumer access to pesticides if a retailer chooses to stop selling these products due to this new requirement. We recommend that a pesticide vendor license not be a requirement for the sale of Class D pesticides.

We have attached a summary of our comments with additional questions and recommendations to improve the proposed amendments.

In conclusion, we would like to reiterate our appreciation for the opportunity to provide input into this important consultation. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Kind regards,

Dennis Prouse
Vice President, Government Affairs

Darell Pack
Director, Provincial Regulatory Affairs and Stakeholder Relations