Lindane Education And Research Network
Home Alert News Archive Resources Contact Donate Search

"The future will depend on our wisdom not to replace one poison with another."
National Pediculosis Association®, Inc.


Lindane and Inuit Circumpolar Conference

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, May 6, 2002

 Mr. Terry Fenge (Inuit Circumpolar Conference)

 In 1997 the Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Report concluded  that about 15% to 20% of Inuit women living in southern Baffin Island exceeded the tolerable daily intake of Lindane, a pesticide with unknown but worrying health implications. Lindane was first registered in this country for use in 1938. At the time it was being used in Canada, it was similarly being addressed in the international negotiations I've briefly mentioned.

 Both Stephanie and I attended those negotiations, at the back of the room observing the work done by the Canadian delegation at the front of the room. Both the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development were members--sister agencies, if you will--of the Government of Canada's negotiating team in Geneva when these negotiations were taking place. DIAND asked PMRA for the public health assessment of Lindane--key information Canada needed to justify its initial position in the international negotiations that Lindane not be included in the international convention. The request was refused.

 Now, please, appreciate this. You have two federal agencies, if I may use the term broadly, on the same Government of Canada negotiating team unable to exchange information when the substances that were being addressed were actually being negotiated on the floor. It was I think an absurd situation.

 The ICC approached Mr. Rock, the Minister of Health at the time, and he subsequently refused access for us to this information. That of course was the correspondence I was seeking to provide you. At this time, 1998, the Minister of Health was in an invidious position. He refused to give Inuit basic information about risks to their health, commenting that this information was proprietary, owned by industry. This is still where the matter stands today. We continue to be unable to get the public health assessment of this substance. In essence, that's why we're appearing before you today.

 We Inuit have no interest whatsoever in obtaining trade secrets or commercially important information. We wouldn't know what to do with it if we got it. But we see absolutely no reason why information about health risks to Inuit and to all Canadians should be withheld.

 We would like to pose a few questions, or perhaps seek to have you answer some of these questions. Will Bill C-53 prevent a repetition of the Lindane incident? Does clause 4 in conjunction with subclauses 42(1) and 42(2) ensure that ICC Canada's experience on Lindane is a thing of the past?

 We of course have been through the bill--it's a lengthy and complex statute--and we're unsure of the answer to the question we pose to you. The answer to this seems to revolve in part around the definition of "confidential business information" that's included in the bill, and the ability of applicants to determine what information is confidential for business purposes and whether and how the public gains access to information on the proposed register.

 Sales data and applications rates, for example, may very well be deemed confidential by an applicant and supported by PMRA, but that's important information for us, because it would give an indication of long-range deposition rates in the Arctic.

 How can we get around this in light of the commendable principles in the preamble to the bill that talk about public health and environmental security? We suggest in essence adding another preamble or clause that would enshrine a basic principle: that the minister shall ensure that the public enjoys easy and timely access to pesticide-related public health information provided to the government by an applicant.

 I don't think we want to rely solely and only on in essence the bureaucratic procedures and processes that are defined and outlined in the bill. We'd like those procedures and processes to be backed up by a basic principle, the principle I just enunciated.

 

http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/HEAL/Meetings/Evidence/HEALEV75-E.HTM

 

 

 

Lindane Education And Research Network is a project of the National Pediculosis Association® (NPA)
The NPA, a non-profit tax exempt, 501(c)3, organization, receives no government or industry funding
and provides this website with proceeds from our educational resources and the LiceMeister® Comb.
Please read our disclaimer and privacy policy. Report any problems with this site to the webmaster.