Use of toxic chemicals to control sea lice at salmon aquaculture sites in New Brunswick

Petition: 318

Issue(s): Compliance and enforcement, fisheries, pesticides, toxic substances, and water

Petitioner(s): Grand Manan Fishermen’s Association Inc.

Date Received: 15 June 2011

Status: Completed

Summary: The petitioner is concerned about the use of various chemicals to control sea lice at salmon aquaculture farms in southwestern New Brunswick since 2009. The petitioner asks whether the chemicals used to treat sea lice infestations at the aquaculture sites are considered deleterious substances under the Fisheries Act and whether their release into the water could be considered a destruction of fish habitat. The petitioner also asks about the process for registering pesticides for emergency use and the proposed regulations regarding fish pathogens and pest treatments.

Federal Departments Responsible for Reply: Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada

Petition

June 10, 2011

Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Attention: Petitions
240 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G6

Dear Sir/Madam:

Enclosed please find a petition regarding the use of toxic chemicals to treat for sea lice on salmon aquaculture farms in south western New Brunswick.

If you require additional information, I can be reached at the above address and phone number, or by email: bhmorse@gmfa.nb.ca.

Yours truly,

[Original signed by Bonnie Morse]

Bonnie H. Morse
Program Co-ordinator

Enclosure

Environmental Petition

June 10, 2011

Contact information:
Bonnie H. Morse
Grand Manan Fishermen's Assoc., Inc.
PO Box 907
Grand Manan, NB
E5G 4M1

Phone: 506-662-8481
Fax: 506-662-8336
Email: bhmorse@gmfa.nb.ca

Title of petition:

Use of toxic chemicals to treat for sea lice on salmon aquaculture sites in southwestern New Brunswick

Background information:

The Grand Manan Fishermen's Association is a non-profit fishermen's organization located on the island of Grand Manan in the Bay of Fundy in southwestern New Brunswick. Our membership, approximately 200 fishermen, are active participants in the lobster, scallop, herring weir, and groundfish fisheries.

The salmon aquaculture industry began in southern New Brunswick in the late 1970's as a "cottage" industry to supplement the income of traditional fishermen. This concept was quickly abandoned as corporate interests assumed control. Rapid expansion of this industry occurred through the late 1980s and early 1990s, until it reached its current level of 99 sites just after the turn of the century. Throughout this expansion, large corporations acquired the small independent companies until now there are only approximately a half a dozen distinct entities operating these sites.

The placement of these sites has more and more frequently encroached on traditional fishing grounds. There has been, and continues to be, government interference in the form of financial assistance to support this industry. Without the direct funding from the government, the conflict between the traditional fishery and the aquaculture industry would not have reached the heightened level that currently exists today.

Although there have been many issues with disease over the past three decades, this petition is directly concerning the sea lice infestation and treatments that have occurred since 2009. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), in consultation with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Environment, has authorized the use of various toxic chemical to kill sea lice on salmon aquaculture sites. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has also financially supported these treatments through its "Aquaculture Innovation and Market Access Program (AIMAP)".

Additional background information is found as a prelude to each specific questions.

Specific questions

TOPIC 1: FISHERIES ACT SECTION 32:
Section 32 of the Fisheries Act states:

"No person shall destroy fish by any means other than fishing except as authorized by the Responsible Minister or under regulations made by the Governor in Council under this Act."

We understand that under the Fisheries Act, sea lice would be considered a fish. Other non-target organisms, such as krill and juvenile lobster that also exist in the water column will be killed as well during chemical treatments.

  1. Was there an authorization by the Responsible Minister?
    1. If yes, we would like to see this.
    2. If no, why did this not occur?
    3. If no, at what point did the Department become aware of that this authorization was not in place?
    4. If no, did treatments occur after there was a recognition that there was no authorization?
TOPIC 2: FISHERIES ACT SECTION 35:
Sections 34-42 of the Fisheries Act pertains to "Fish Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention". This encompasses the destruction or degradation of fish habitat as well as the deposit of deleterious substances.

Toxic chemicals used to kill sea lice on farmed salmon degrade the water quality and will cause the death of other copepods and sea lice in the water column.

Section 35 (1) of the Fisheries Act states:

"No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat."

  1. Would the aquaculture industry's use of toxic chemicals (such as Alpha Max and Salmosan) that compromise the quality of water resulting in the death of fish species other than sea lice be considered a destruction of fish habitat?
    1. If yes, why is this continuing to be permitted.
    2. If no, please explain the definition of fish habitat.

TOPIC 3: FISHERIES ACT SECTION 36:
Sections 34-42 of the Fisheries Act pertains to "Fish Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention". This encompasses the destruction or degradation of fish habitat as well as the deposit of deleterious substances.

Section 36 (3) and (4) state:

"(3) Subject to subsection (4), no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance of any type in water frequented by fish or in any place under any conditions where the deleterious substance or any other deleterious substance that results from the deposit of the deleterious substance may enter any such water.

(4) No person contravenes subsection (3) by depositing or permitting the deposit in any water or place of

    (a) waste or pollutant of a type, in a quantity and under conditions authorized by regulations applicable to that water or place made by the Governor in Council under any Act other than this Act; or
    (b) a deleterious substance of a class, in a quantity or concentration and under conditions authorized by or pursuant to regulations applicable to that water or place or to any work or undertaking or class thereof, made by the Governor in Council under subsection (5)"

  1. Are toxic chemicals such as Salmosan and Alpha Max considered deleterious substances under the Fisheries Act?
    1. If no, please provide an explanation of how a deleterious substance is defined.
    2. If yes, was there an authorization to permit the deposit of a deleterious substance; ie, toxic chemicals to kill sea lice (Salmosan and Alpha Max)?
      1. If yes, could we have a copy of the document?
      2. If no, please explain why this did not occur.

TOPIC 4: PROPOSED FISH PATHOGEN AND PEST TREATMENT REGULATIONS:
DFO currently is currently proposing regulations entitled "Fish Pathogen and Pest Treatment Regulations". According to the introduction of the discussion document (now removed from the DFO website) these regulations are specifically to deal with (chemical) treatments under sections 32 and 36 of the Fisheries Act (see above). The traditional fishing industry in southern New Brunswick has been requesting a meeting with DFO for past nine months dedicated to discussing these proposed regulations and has been refused.

  1. Why has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans not consulted with the traditional fishing industry on these proposed regulations?
  2. Will the Department of Fisheries and Oceans accept input from the traditional fishing industry on these proposed regulations before proceeding further?
  3. Does Section 32 and 36 of the Fisheries Act currently allow for authorizations of the use of toxic chemicals to treat for sea lice?
    1. If no, why are they currently taking place?
    2. If yes, why are the additional regulations required?
  4. Will these regulations conflict with the existing Fisheries Act?
  5. How does a dilution of Sections 32 and 36 ensure protection of the marine ecosystem?

TOPIC 5: DELTAMETHRIN:
On October 6, 2009, and November 12, 2010, Inspector's Directions were issued to representatives of the Province of New Brunswick to cease the use of Alpha Max (deltamethrin) to treat for sea lice on salmon aquaculture sites. Environment Canada's tests on October 27, 2010, with lobsters in the plume of deltamethrin from a salmon cage resulted in the death of all animals exposed to the chemical.

  1. Does the federal government intend to ban the use of deltamethrin in the marine environment?
    1. If no, why not?

TOPIC 6: EMERGENCY REGISTRATIONS:
Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency allows for the "emergency" registration of chemicals for a one year period. The sea lice problem in southern New Brunswick has existed at its current level since 2009. There have been numerous approvals of various pesticides since that time for this industry. The latest "emergency" registration does not expire until June 2012. These "emergency" applications are not open for public input and consultation.

  1. How does Health Canada determine if a situation is an "emergency" or an on-going situation?
  2. Is there consideration given that the "emergency" registration process is being used to circumvent the opportunity for public input?
    1. If yes, how would this be dealt with?
    2. If no, will it be considered for in this situation?
  3. Is there a mechanism in place to ensure that the conditions of the emergency registration are adhered to?
    1. If yes, does this include random water sampling?
      1. If yes, were there any discrepancies?
      2. If no, why not?
    2. If no, why not?

Federal departments and agencies that need to respond
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Department of Environment
Department of Health
Any other responsible department

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Environment Canada

25 October 2011

Ms. Bonnie H. Morse
Program Co-ordinator
Grand Manan Fishermen’s Association Inc.
P.O. Box 907
Grand Manan NB  E5G 4M1

Dear Ms. Morse:

I am writing in response to your Environmental Petition No. 318, pursuant to section 22 of the Auditor General Act, regarding the use of toxic chemicals to treat sea lice on salmon aquaculture farms in southwestern New Brunswick. Your petition was received in Environment Canada on June 29, 2011. 

Enclosed you will find Environment Canada’s response to your petition. I understand that the Minister of Health, the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Honourable Keith Ashfield, will be responding separately to those questions that fall under their respective mandates.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your petition, and trust that you will find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by Peter Kent, Minister of the Environment]

The Honourable Peter Kent, P.C., M.P.

Enclosure

c.c.:  The Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, P.C., M.P.
The Honourable Keith Ashfield, P.C., M.P.
Mr. Scott Vaughan, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Environment Canada’s Response to
Environmental Petition No. 318, regarding the use of toxic chemicals
to treat sea lice on salmon aquaculture farms
in southwestern New Brunswick

Question 3: Are toxic chemicals such as Salmosan and Alpha Max considered deleterious substances under the Fisheries Act?

  1. If no, please provide an explanation of how a deleterious substance is defined.
  2. If yes, was there an authorization to permit the deposit of a deleterious substance; ie, toxic chemicals to kill sea lice (Salmosan and Alpha Max)?
    1. If yes, could we have a copy of the document?
    2. If no, please explain why this did not occur.

Response: As per section 34 of the Fisheries Act, a deleterious substance is defined as follows:

(a) any substance that, if added to any water, would degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of that water so that it is rendered or is likely to be rendered deleterious to fish or fish habitat or to the use by man of fish that frequent that water, or

(b) any water that contains a substance in such quantity or concentration, or that has been so treated, processed or changed, by heat or other means, from a natural state that it would, if added to any other water, degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of that water so that it is rendered or is likely to be rendered deleterious to fish or fish habitat or to the use by man of fish that frequent that water, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing includes

(c) any substance or class of substances prescribed pursuant to paragraph (2)(a),

(d) any water that contains any substance or class of substances in a quantity or concentration that is equal to or in excess of a quantity or concentration prescribed in respect of that substance or class of substances pursuant to paragraph (2)(b), and

(e) any water that has been subjected to a treatment, process or change prescribed pursuant to paragraph (2)(c);

Substances such as Salmosan and Alpha Max are considered deleterious, as defined by the Fisheries Act, if they meet the above definition or if the Governor in Council deems them as such by way of regulation.

3) a) Not applicable

3) b) There is no authorization to permit the deposit of an unregulated deleterious substance under the Fisheries Act.

  1. Not applicable
  2. Salmosan and Alpha Max were granted emergency registration under the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA), with restricted conditions of use at specified sites. The user of a registered product under the PCPA must comply with the conditions imposed by the registration and all other applicable laws and regulations, including the Fisheries Act.

Section 36 of the Fisheries Act prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances in water frequented by fish unless authorized by regulations under the Fisheries Act or another act of Parliament. In this case, the general prohibition applies.

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

21 October 2011

Ms. Bonnie H. Morse
Grand Manan Fishermen’s Association Inc.
P.O. Box 907
Grand Manan, New Brunswick
E5G 4M1

Dear Ms. Morse:

I am pleased to provide you with Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s response to your Environmental Petition No. 318 received June 29, 2011, concerning toxic chemicals to treat for sea lice on salmon aquaculture sites in southwestern New Brunswick.

Enclosed you will find Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s responses to your questions that fall within the Department’s mandate. I understand that my colleagues will be responding separately to questions that fall under their mandates and legislation

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your petition and trust that you will find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by Keith Ashfield, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Keith Ashfield

Attachment

cc:  The Honourable Peter Kent, P.C., M.P.
The Honourable Leona Aglukkak, P.C., M.P.
Scott Vaughan, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA’S RESPONSE TO PETITION 318
THE USE OF TOXIC CHEMICALS TO TREAT SEA LICE ON SALMON AQUACULTURE SITES IN SOUTHWESTERN NEW BRUNSWICK 

TOPIC 1: FISHERIES ACT SECTION 32:
Section 32 of the Fisheries Act states:

"No person shall destroy fish by any means other than fishing except as authorized by the Responsible Minister or under regulations made by the Governor in Council under this Act."

We understand that under the Fisheries Act, sea lice would be considered a fish. Other non-target organisms, such as krill and juvenile lobster that also exist in the water column will be killed as well during chemical treatments.

  1. Was there an authorization by the Responsible Minister?
    1. If yes, we would like to see this.

      An authorization under the Fisheries Act for the treatment of sea lice has not been issued by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
  2. If no, why did this not occur?

    While sea lice are considered “fish” under the federal Fisheries Act, sea lice are also considered “pests” under the federal Pest Control Products Act. As in farming of other livestock and agriculture, sustainable aquaculture requires tools to control or prevent diseases or sickness. The control of sea lice is also important for ecological protection. Internationally, sea lice have been recognized as a major threat to salmon farming, and similarly, governments have authorized the use of products to treat these pests.

    Health Canada administers the Pest Control Products Act and registers pest control products that have been approved for use to control pests such as sea lice. The Act requires that environmental risks of treatment be taken into account in the product approval process. The risk assessment process is compliant with Environment Canada’s Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. With respect to sea lice pest treatments, Health Canada imposes product label requirements on all registered products that list mandatory measures that must be taken when the product is used in order to minimize environmental effects, such as impacts on non-target organisms, and to monitor such effects. 

    With these measures in place, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is of the view that there would be minor risk of adverse effects on fisheries and non-target populations and has, therefore, not issued authorizations under the Fisheries Act. However, Fisheries and Oceans Canada continues to invest in research to increase the understanding of the exposure of non-target organisms to sea lice treatments and the resulting impacts. As part of this process, Fisheries and Oceans Canada collected non-target organisms for field and laboratory work, issuing in the process licences to fish for scientific purposes under section 52 of the Fishery (General) Regulations.

    In December 2009, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada and Health Canada signed an Interdepartmental Agreement on the Regulation and Use of Pest Control Products to facillitate working together to assure pest control products for aquaculture are used safely.

    Fisheries and Oceans Canada is currently conducting policy analysis to support the development of proposed Fish Pathogen and Pest Treatment regulations under the Fisheries Act in the furtherance of the safe and responsible use of fish pathogen and pest treatment products.
     
  3. If no, at what point did the Department become aware of that this authorization was not in place?

    Please refer to part b of question 1.
     
  4. If no, did treatments occur after there was recognition that there was no authorization?

    Please refer to part b of question 1.

TOPIC 2: FISHERIES ACT SECTION 35:
Sections 34-42 of the Fisheries Act pertains to "Fish Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention". This encompasses the destruction or degradation of fish habitat as well as the deposit of deleterious substances.

Toxic chemicals used to kill sea lice on farmed salmon degrade the water quality and will cause the death of other copepods and sea lice in the water column.

Section 35 (1) of the Fisheries Act states:

“No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.”
  1. Would the aquaculture industry’s use of toxic chemicals (such as Alpha Max and Salmosan) that compromise the quality of water resulting in the death of fish species other than sea lice be considered a destruction of fish habitat?
    1. If yes, why is this continuing to be permitted?
    2. If no, please explain the definition of fish habitat.

This question cannot be answered in the abstract as it would depend on the particular substance being used and the particular manner and circumstances in which it is used. It is Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s position that, generally, the aquaculture industry’s use of registered pest control products, when used in accordance with their respective label instructions, are unlikely to lead to the destruction of fish habitat.

Section 34 of the Fisheries Act defines “fish habitat” as “spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes.”

TOPIC 4: PROPOSED FISH PATHOGEN AND PEST TREATMENT REGULATIONS:
DFO currently is currently proposing regulations entitled "Fish Pathogen and Pest Treatment Regulations" According to the introduction of the discussion document (now removed from the DFO website) these regulations are specifically to deal with (chemical) Treatments under sections 32 and 36 of the Fisheries Act (see above). The traditional fishing industry in southern New Brunswick has been requesting a meeting with DFO for past nine months dedicated to discussing these proposed regulations and has been refused.

  1. Why has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans not consulted with the traditional fishing industry on these proposed regulations?

    The proposed Fish Pathogen and Pest Treatment Regulations under development were the subject of a discussion document posted on the Fisheries and Oceans Canada website for online public comment for a period of 15 days in August 2010. Stakeholders of primary interest, including the Grand Manan Fishermen’s Association and others, were informed of this website consultation via email. This preliminary consultation process generated public feedback which has been taken into consideration as part of ongoing policy analysis and development. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has not yet advanced the proposed regulations to a stage that would permit additional consultations.
     
  2. Will the Department of Fisheries and Oceans accept input from the traditional fishing industry on these proposed regulations before proceeding further?

    Fisheries and Oceans Canada welcomes further input from all affected stakeholders and interested members of the public in order to engage them in the regulatory development process. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is working with other federal departments on the prospective publication of a Notice of Intent to Regulate in Canada Gazette Part I, which would be in addition to, and not a replacement for, the Canada Gazette regulatory publications. Posting of this notice would also provide the public with an opportunity for comment. Additionally, once approved in draft form, the proposed regulations will be published in Canada Gazette Part I, for a review period of 30 days, to solicit public comments. These comments are taken into account for revision and publication in Canada Gazette Part II before the regulations can enter into force.
     
  3. Does section 32 and 36 of the Fisheries Act currently allow for authorizations of the use of toxic chemicals to treat for sea lice?
    1. If no, why are they currently taking place?
    2. If yes, why are the additional regulations required?

Sections 32 and 36 do not provide for the use of toxic chemicals to treat for sea lice.

Section 32 of the Fisheries Act prohibits the destruction of fish by any means other than fishing, except as authorized by the Minister or under regulations made by the Governor in Council under the Fisheries Act.

Subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act prohibits the deposit of a deleterious substance in water frequented by fish except as authorized by way of regulations made under the Fisheries Act or other Act of Parliament.

As explained in question 1b), the use of pest control products registered for the treatment of sea lice is currently managed in accordance with the Pest Control Products Act, whereas the deposit of treatment products, if they amount to being a deleterious substance under the Fisheries Act, would be subject to section 36 of the Fisheries Act. The deposit of substances deemed to be deleterious in waters frequented by fish can only be authorized by way of regulations made under the Fisheries Act or other Act of Parliament. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is conducting research and policy analysis for the development of Fish Pathogen and Pest Treatment regulations in the furtherance of the continued safe and responsible use of fish pathogen and pest treatment products. These regulations would build on the existing Health Canada pesticide registration process.

  1. Will these regulations conflict with the existing Fisheries Act?

    No. The proposed regulations are being developed pursuant to subsection 36(5) of the Fisheries Act, which provides the Governor in Council with the authority to make regulations prescribing deleterious substances authorized to be deposited. The regulations will therefore be within the framework of the authority provided under the Fisheries Act.
     
  2. How does a dilution of Sections 32 and 36 ensure protection of the marine ecosystem?

    Regulations developed under the Fisheries Act offer the ability to manage deposits in a manner that minimizes harm to fish, fish habitat and that allows for the safe use of fish by man. 

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Health Canada

26 October 2011

Ms. Bonnie H. Morse
Grand Manan Fishermen’s Association Inc.
P.O. Box 907
Grand Manan, New Brunswick  E5G 4M1

Dear Ms. Morse:

This is in response to your environmental petition no. 318 of June 10, 2011, addressed to Mr. Scott Vaughan, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD).

In your petition you raised concerns regarding the use of toxic chemicals for the treatment of sea lice on salmon aquaculture farms in south western New Brunswick.

I am pleased to provide you with the enclosed Health Canada response to your petition.  I understand that the ministers of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada will be responding separately to questions that come under the purview of their respective departments.

I appreciate your interest in this important matter, and I hope you will find this information useful.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Health]

Leona Aglukkaq

Enclosure

c.c. The Honourable Keith Ashfield, P.C., M.P.
The Honourable Peter Kent, P.C., M.P.
Mr. Scott Vaughan, CESD

Response of the Federal Departments and Agencies to
Environmental Petition 318 Filed by the Grand Manan Fishermen’s Assoc., Inc. under the Auditor General Act
Received June 15, 2011

Concerns regarding the use of toxic chemicals to treat for sea lice on salmon aquaculture farms in south western New Brunswick

October 27, 2011

Minister of Health

Response to Petitioner’s Questions

Health Canada Response to TOPIC 5

Q9. Does the federal government intend to ban the use of deltamethrin in the marine environment? If no, why not?

Pesticides, such as those used in aquaculture, are among the most stringently regulated substances in the world. Health Canada has the mandate under the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA) to prevent unacceptable risks to people and environment from the use of these substances. The PCPA provides for a prohibition on the importation, manufacture, sale, or use of a pesticide until it has undergone thorough environmental and health risk assessments and appropriate risk mitigation measures have been put in place through an authorization by the Minister of Health (a pesticide registration).

At this time, there are no products containing deltamethrin registered for sea lice control or other marine use in Canada, although there are in other countries. It is a contravention of the PCPA to use an unregistered pest control product or to use a registered product for an unauthorized use. The use of a product must comply with the conditions of registration and with any other applicable federal, provincial and municipal regulatory requirements.

Should a company wish to produce, market, and/or sell a product containing deltamethrin for use as a pesticide in the marine environment, they must submit an application to Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA). As with any other proposed pest control product, if after a careful science based assessment the risks to human health and the environment are deemed to be acceptable, the product is granted registration. It is against the law to use pest control products that are not registered for specific uses, and that do not have a Pest Control Product (PCP) number.

In the case of the emergency registration of Alpha Max, the PMRA reviewed a dossier of scientific studies, which were supplemented by research from EC and DFO (e.g. toxicity data and information on dispersal following treatment of cages). Together, with undertakings provided by the Province of New Brunswick (e.g. monitoring for post-treatment effects and collection of information on concentrations during treatment and following release), Health Canada determined that the risks associated with the use of Alpha Max to address the sea lice infestation could be suitably mitigated. Consequently, the product was given emergency registrations with restricted conditions of use at specified sites, subject to permits issued by the Province. These registrations spanned the period from May 2009 to 2010, and again during the fall of 2010 with an expiry date of December 31st of that year.

Should new application(s) be submitted for either emergency registration(s) or full registration of products containing deltamethrin for control of sea lice in the Bay of Fundy, they will be considered according to the appropriate procedures under the PCPA. In addition, the PMRA would continue to collaborate closely with federal partners (Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans) and with the Province of New Brunswick to ensure that these concerns are adequately addressed.

Health Canada Response to TOPIC 6

Q10. How does Health Canada determine if a situation is an “emergency” or an on-going situation?

An emergency is generally deemed to exist when the following criteria are met:

  • A pest outbreak or pest situation occurs that can cause significant economic, environmental or health problems;
  • There is no effective product or application method registered in Canada for the control of the pest; and
  • There is no effective, alternative control method available.

Emergency registrations are not intended as long-term solutions to ongoing pest management problems. Occasionally, an emergency situation may exist in a subsequent year. In general, only when there is long-term interest by a registrant, and evidence that users and the sponsoring agencies are actively working towards satisfying the data and information requirements for a long-term solution (i.e. full registration of the use), will subsequent emergency registrations be considered.

Q11. Is there consideration given that the “emergency” registration process is being used to circumvent the opportunity for public input?

There is no evidence that suggests that the emergency registration process is being used to circumvent the opportunity for public input that exists for full registration decisions. As noted in the response to Q10, emergency registrations are not intended as long term solutions to ongoing pest problems. They are intended as a temporary rapid response mechanism.

Emergency registrations must be sponsored by the provincial or federal agency involved in the direct management of the pest problem (e.g. a provincial Ministry of Agriculture). The sponsor is responsible for providing the necessary information to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) to support the proposed registration and for obtaining any additional support letters required.

For provinces with more than one department or agency responsible for pesticide use or regulation (e.g. environment and agriculture), a letter of support or letter of no objection from both departments is required. One purpose of the letter is to indicate that, based on the information available to the sponsoring department or agency (e.g., agriculture), an emergency situation exists; and that based on information available to the provinces at the time of the emergency request and the proposal of the sponsoring agency, any specific local or regional concern with the proposed use has been duly considered.

Q12. Is there a mechanism in place to ensure that the conditions of the emergency registration are adhered to?

As with all pest control products, emergency registrations can be subject to special terms and conditions, such as additional precautionary label statements, additional studies or requirements for post-use monitoring.

In the case of Alpha Max, for example, the registration specified that the product should only be used under the following conditions:

  • Use of fully enclosed treatment units (e.g. fully enclosed well boats) which would reduce the amount of product needed to be used for each treatment.
  • Limit concentration to 2 ppb for 30 minutes.
  • Be used only by provincially certified and trained applicators under supervision of a veterinarian (provincial use permits)
  • An environmental surveillance and monitoring plan was also required as a condition of registration.

All conditions were established in consultation with Environment Canada, the Province of New Brunswick and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Conditions specified on a product label are enforceable under the PCPA.