Health Committee on Feb. 5th, 2015

[John Bennett]

How recent is it?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Yes. When you say it shouldn't be getting in there, is that as of last year? Is that as of two years ago? Is it current?

[John Bennett]

It's current. More studies are being done daily.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

So currently you're aware of a study in which they have sampled the groundwater? Or what is it they are sampling that brings you to this conclusion?

[John Bennett]

In the last two years they have done sampling in Quebec rivers. In the last two years they have done sampling in watercourses in Ontario. Ontario is about to release its report on that study and map it out, for Ontarians to see where pesticides are persisting beyond the planting zone.

Remember, these aren't sprayed pesticides. They are actually coated on the seed, and once they get into the seed, they grow into the plant; they get into the nectar and the pollen. Controlling the planting will reduce the immediate impact, but still, when insects come along, any insect encountering the pollen or the nectar from the crop can be contaminated.

We lose insects, and we have studies indicating songbird losses, especially of the barn swallow in Ontario. They are disappearing because of the lack of food, because we're killing off all the insects, not just the bad guys.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I suppose I'm a little bit concerned because I have received reports saying that in fact, as a result of undertaking mitigation, things have dramatically changed, certainly in southern Ontario—the number that has been stated to me is “decreased by 70%”—and that things are well on their way. So it's very disconcerting to have you come before this committee and share something that indicates that this may not be the case.

I will follow up. If you have further information, I'm happy to receive it.

[John Bennett]

I suggest strongly that you do, because I spoke yesterday to the Ontario Beekeepers Association about this. They are the ones who are reporting the bee losses.

Remember, the bees are the livestock of the insect world, so we can count them, but all the other insects we don't count as effectively. Without really expensive and complicated studies, we can't make exact determinations of what is happening. Those studies are being done in places.

But we know that there are significant losses in Ontario for beekeepers and that those losses continued last year. There wasn't the same dramatic kind of immediate death, but there were deaths in the last three years in mid-July, long after the planting session. The PMRA on its website says it doesn't have an explanation for the mid-July losses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Thanks very much. Our seven minutes are up.

Now we have Ms. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you for coming. It was very interesting.

I was interested to hear from the farmers of Canada about the issue of accessibility, or the lack of it, to generic products that may or may not be just as good as the other ones on the market and less expensive, etc., and that give you a competitive edge. That's interesting.

I want to go to Mr. Bennett. The whole concept of the precautionary principle is something that we do in medicine: first do no harm. That's the best description of the precautionary principle. If you find that something is actually showing, even though at the beginning it wasn't showing any side effects and suddenly you see adverse effects occurring, then you have to go back and say that you need to check this out because you can't afford.... I was really disturbed to hear that you have people who have been extended conditionally for over 15 years.

The damage, as I said yesterday to someone, is a generational damage. A whole generation of people can be damaged by this kind of thing. I am concerned about that, and I'm concerned about the ideology that says a precautionary principle is a bad thing, because the primary reason for this act is to look at the environment and at the health and safety of humans. This should be the primary concern, and I think Mr. Friesen said that should be the primary concern.

My question for you is this. We have this problem with the human drugs in terms of the whole drug agency: we don't know anything that goes on in clinical trials. In Europe, many aspects of clinical trials are open to the public. Even in the United States the FDA does have the ability for people to see what clinical trials did show, without of course giving away the whole intellectual property of the particular drug itself. Yet this isn't happening in Canada, and the Auditor General said so. It's not happening with drugs. I wanted to ask you this: is it happening with the PMRA? Are they actually giving people information with regard to what clinical trials showed and are they posting adverse effects?

[John Bennett]

What they publish is a summary of their decision. They say, “These are the things we've seen and this is how much weight we give each part, so we're concluding that the risks are acceptable.” They don't give us easy access to the actual studies. They don't tell us what studies or how they have looked at each of those studies.

I'm not the best-qualified person to discuss this, but I spent the afternoon on the phone with a Ph.D. who wanted me to point out that their approach is not a modern approach. It's not a systemic approach that looks down the whole chain. Without being able to look closely at those studies to see when someone did a study if half the mice died or if three-quarters of them lost weight, and which is the most important aspect.... If only half of them died, that's a lethal dose, and we don't need to count.

Where they've really fallen down is on what are the sublethal impacts and what are the impacts of the derivatives. Once these neonicotinoids are in the soil, they break down into other things that are very persistent, and they can combine with other things in the soil and create new problems.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I understand that. I think that therefore I am hearing that there isn't the transparency. Would you like to see that strengthened?

[John Bennett]

Yes, absolutely, strengthen the transparency. Also, just to understand the problem of neonics is massive. Every corn seed in North America is coated with these toxins, as is every canola seed and almost every soya seed, and it's put on whether or not there's a pest there.

The first step, if you want to use the precautionary principle without actually taking them off the market, would be to say, “Show us that you need them before you spray it on every single seed.” That's what the Ontario government has done. It has said, “Show us that there is a need, that there is a pest there.” The EPA has done a study on soybean and neonicotinoids and concluded that they couldn't find any benefit. There's no general benefit from pre-treatment.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

On Tuesday we heard some interesting testimony that people now have newer technology that does not allow for airborne pesticides because they're injecting directly into the soil, etc. Have any studies been done that you know of that look at water runoff? Are there pesticides in water runoff? Are they actually affecting the rivers and the streams, because we know that a lot of a farms.... I don't know about Ontario, as I don't spend a lot of time on Ontario farms, but in British Columbia we have little rivulets that go in between the irrigation ditches. Do they flow into a river? Do they actually increase pesticide risk?

[John Bennett]

A study done in Saskatchewan by a professor at the University of Saskatchewan found neonicotinoids in standing water and ponds around farmers' fields in Saskatchewan in the spring before planting. They were still there before the next season's sprayed seeds being put there. She related that directly to the drop in the number of songbirds in the area. She's an expert in songbirds.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Is there anything that you think would strengthen and rebalance this concept between the fact that we absolutely need, as a massive agriculture-producing country, to have good crops, to be competitive, and to be able to trade, and at the same time protect human health?

I know that Mr. Friesen said that's what he wishes to see.

[John Bennett]

Yes, he said that. He supports that there should be sustainability. I don't think sustainability means making pesticides cheaper. I think sustainability means helping farmers find ways to farm without relying on pesticides. That's a lot cheaper than generic pesticides.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Is there something you'd like to see in the regulations that would balance this appropriately?

[John Bennett]

I tried to capture that in proving the need for pesticides, but that's what's lacking. Once the pesticide is approved, then it's used. When it comes to neonicotinoids, it's used on everything, everywhere. You go to the nursery and buy a flower for your garden because you want to be a good gardener and attract bees, but you have a plant that's treated with neonicotinoids and you have no way of knowing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Wilks, you have two quick minutes. Then we'll suspend and have our new guests come in.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Friesen, I have a wife who was born on a farm. Her dad still farms. He got out of the grain business some time ago because it was so costly for him. It became a challenge for him to do that, so he's gone into beef, obviously, and today he's doing quite well.

I want to come back to the comment that Mr. Bennett made with regard to “show us that the pest is in your area and that you need that pesticide”. I get that part of it, but this is a pretty big country. Even just in looking at Saskatchewan, you can see the variations between southern Saskatchewan, central Saskatchewan, and northern Saskatchewan. They can vary in different ways, but farmers will all plant canola, they'll all plant lentils, and, if they can, they'll all plant peas.

What is the challenge in getting different forms of seeds planted in different parts of the province, based on the fact that a farmer would have to try to figure out whether he actually needs that type of seed with that type of pesticide or insecticide? For the farmer himself, that's bringing it right back down to the farmer who's going to plant that in the ground.

[Bob Friesen]

Well, you know something, you're asking the wrong person if you're talking about seed. As far as pesticide application is concerned, the PMRA also makes sure that a crop-protection product is registered for use. It's on the label: registered for use, depending on what on what soil zone the farmer and where that product could be used, etc. They manage very well, when you talk about southern Saskatchewan and northern Saskatchewan. They manage where the crop protection product can be used and where it can't be used.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Are farmers aware of the fact that if a farmer uses the wrong product within a zone—

[Bob Friesen]

Absolutely.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

—he reaps the benefit of that problem as well? If something happens with that crop, he's responsible, because he should have recognized the fact that he was planting in the wrong zone.

[Bob Friesen]

That's correct.

Mr. Chair, if I may, since my name was invoked on another subject here, I need to make sure that it's on the record. Mr. Bennett said that by sustainability I meant a crop protection-free industry. Quite frankly, that's not at all what I said.