Agriculture Committee on May 9th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You have four seconds.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I have quick questions.

I know it's hard to predict the weather, but will you be watching this going into next spring, and perhaps imposing a moratorium if you expect the same conditions of 2012 will exist in 2014?

[Scott Kirby]

We'll certainly be monitoring the weather. We've been monitoring it all this spring.

I think it would be too early to tell what my response to that would be, especially based on where we're at with these new...especially the long-term issues.... As I say, they're already testing a new lubricant. If those are in place, whether or not we're predicting an early spring, we would have our provincial counterparts as well as our regional people out in the field, talking with farmers and beekeepers, trying to make sure that everybody is talking to each other, and trying to minimize risk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

I have two questions for you, very similar to the line of questioning that Mr. Miller was going down. I don't think he quite got to the type of answer I was looking to get prior to his time expiring, so we'll go there.

In the time that we've spent studying this, we've heard from a number of different witnesses. It seems to me that it's been nearly unanimous. The vast majority of our witnesses have been very clear that the losses of honeybees are related to a number of factors.

In your testimony, you said:

So far, scientists who have been investigating the loss of honeybees have suggested there may be a number of factors involved, such as the presence of honeybee pests, limited genetic diversity, diseases, harsh winter conditions, poor nutritional status, exposure to pesticides, and stress.

That was what you indicated to us, and certainly that is what we've been hearing from the vast majority of our witnesses. There are a large number of factors, and it isn't one specific thing that would be causing honeybee losses.

We did have one witness this morning who indicated that he felt otherwise. He felt that it was just one factor. He also indicated that he felt that the research and the studies that have been done were all biased, because they had all been paid for by chemical companies, and there was nothing out there that indicated those kinds of findings, which we've been hearing from just about everyone we've heard from.

You've indicated here that scientists who've been investigating the losses have found that a number of factors may be involved.

Would those scientists you are referring to be independent, credible scientists? Or are these all scientists being paid for by chemical companies?

[Scott Kirby]

This is a combination of information generated by chemical companies as well as a large volume of literature outside of that, which is being generated by government scientists from the USDA, the U.S. EPA, and also by academics in Europe and in North America. We're mandated to look at all available information. We look at what is required from the registrants—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I don't want to lose these concerns but we only have a limited amount of time.

I appreciate that you said you looked at a variety of information. Obviously, it only makes sense for the chemical companies to do research and study. That's doing their due diligence. It's probably what's required of them by regulators such as yourself.

But, obviously, you want to look at all the research that's out there. In the comments you made to us, you've indicated you have done that, and that's based on a variety of sources. Chemical companies may have paid for some of those studies, but certainly, there are a lot of other independent sources that you rely on for those comments. I appreciate that.

We've heard from others, like the grain growers in Ontario and the Canadian Honey Council, about some of the work they've done. I would assume, obviously, that they're utilizing independent sources as well. I'm sure you're familiar with the work that has been done by those groups. That work would have been done with advice from independent sources as well, I would assume. Is that correct?

[Scott Kirby]

I would assume so, yes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay, I just wondered if you knew.

Specifically on this issue of the dust that we're hearing about, from the seeding of corn, there was an indication that there were a number of factors. You believe, and certainly others we've heard believe there were a number of factors involved in the losses we saw in Ontario. Weather has been one of those things mentioned—the winter conditions, etc.—in addition to a number of other factors. I'm assuming that, to make a conclusion that it is one particular factor causing this—something like this dust from the seeding—would be a pretty difficult conclusion to make based on one year.

Over what length of time, what number of seasons, would research be required, in order to come to a correct conclusion about what the factors would be in something like that? I'm sure it couldn't be just one season, correct?

[Scott Kirby]

No. If I could just clarify one thing, there are two issues with pollinators that we're dealing with. One is the acute events that were associated with last spring, specific to a dust-off, which our assessment indicates that the pesticides were definitely a contributing factor.

The second is the global decline of honeybee populations, colony collapse disorder, and whatnot So the multiple factors are quite relevant to the issue of the broader bee health, whereas in the spring events of last year—while there may have been other contributing factors—the pesticides were definitely implicated and that's why regulatory action was taken.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I don't mean to cut you off again there, but can I very quickly—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to cut you off, we're well past the five minutes. I'm sorry.

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you very much.

Let me just follow the direction that Mr. Richards was going, and I'll actually take us back to your opening comments, Mr. Kirby. You said, yes, it's a complex matter, and I think all of us understand that. I think you're articulating the sense of the complex matter of beehive and beekeeping. What's happening worldwide is a longer-term issue than what we had—and I believe the words you used were an acute episode—last year in Ontario and Quebec, that talked about....

Whether it be a perfect storm or not, as my friend Mr. Valeriote just talked about, I believe the number you used in your opening statement was, “The analysis showed residues of nitroguanidine neonicotinoid insecticides used to treat corn seed present in approximately 70% of the dead bee samples.”

Now that wasn't in Canada, that was specific to Ontario and Quebec. Is that correct, sir?

[Scott Kirby]

That is correct.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

So in other parts of the country that's not true.

[Scott Kirby]

In other parts of the country, we haven't analyzed for those products, because there haven't been any incidents to date.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

My understanding from talking to other beekeepers in the west is that they didn't seem to have the same acute episode last year that we had in the eastern part of the country, if you will. So it's interesting and perhaps somebody should be doing a study of what else is happening when it comes to some of this stuff.

But you were asked a question about independent research and I took the liberty of looking at your references in your document, which is called “Pollinator Protection: Reducing Risk from Treated Seed”, dated April 8 of this year. I did a quick check through your references. There's nothing wrong with the references you're using. These are peer-reviewed documents given at different symposiums.

If you could point to one, sir, because as I read them, I didn't see a Canadian one here. They all look like European...in fact I believe they're all European. There isn't a Canadian reference document here at all. It's the ESA, which is the European Seed Association. It's the EU. It's things in the Netherlands, things done in Germany, but nothing done in this country.

I'm not saying that we can't use things from other places to talk about what happened, but would it not be appropriate if we had some independent study that's actually Canadian-based research that helps us understand if it was a perfect storm of that acute episode we had last year, or was it something all together different?

Would it not be helpful if we were doing that here? I don't necessarily mean PMRA, sir, I just mean in general terms.

[Scott Kirby]

I definitely think that Canadian-specific information may be useful in this type of a situation. Just to clarify, the references in the document that you're speaking to, a lot of those are related to things to do, again, with seed coatings and equipment, and whatnot, as opposed to scientific studies, as we would be evaluating in a re-evaluation. That's just to be clear.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I recognize, and I could have explained that. I appreciate you explained it. They are speaking about coatings and dust, and those are important things to talk about. They're talking about neonics, but the studies weren't done here. They were done elsewhere. So it's not to say that they're not valid, I'm simply saying, would it not be helpful to our industry if someone was actually doing the studies here? It doesn't invalidate these studies at all. They're quite valuable obviously, and they pointed to some things. But my guess is—and I haven't read these studies and we'd have to go and look at them—the EU decided to place a moratorium, did they use these references to actually develop the moratorium?

I don't know. I don't know whether you know, but if we were doing our own.... We're looking at short-term and long-term solutions. Some of the short term are best management practices—and you've answered that question. Some of the longer-term issues are seed coatings and some other things that perhaps we can do, polymers and those sort of things.

So I guess the question I would ask is this, and maybe I should have asked CropLife but we ran out of time. Is there a timeline that you see that needs to be associated with this sense of where we go forward? Notwithstanding that I believe the industry is actually trying to do it quickly, but in your view should this be something that needs to be done quickly?

[Scott Kirby]

I'll answer the questions in two parts. With respect to the acute incidents and the mitigation measures, yes, the sooner we can get those technologies in place, the better.

However, we are re-evaluating all the neonicotinoids. That is requiring the chemical companies to generate a significant amount of additional data, much of which is going to be Canadian specific or at least relevant to Canada so we can evaluate the broader issue with the neonicotinoids. There's a short-term framework in terms of dealing with the acute issues, then the longer-term issue in terms of neonicotinoids as a whole. As I said, we're monitoring the information as it's being developed. If anything comes to light that would require regulatory action, we wouldn't hesitate to take it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you for appearing at committee today.

I'll refer to what my colleagues have said, Mr. Richards specifically, about unintended consequences if we place a ban on pesticides. We're concerned about beehive populations in Canada; the numbers are dropping.

I'll quote from an article in the U.S., and this is the one you referred to, the EPA and the Ag study. It says:

But officials in the United States Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and others involved in the bee study said that there was not enough evidence to support a ban on one group of pesticides, and that the costs of such action might exceed the benefits.

The EPA is quoted as saying:

“At E.P.A. we let science drive the outcome of decision making,” said Jim Jones, the agency’s acting assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention.

There are non-trivial costs to society if we get this wrong. There are meaningful benefits from these pesticides to farmers and to consumers as well as for affordable food.

With that in mind, can you comment on the unintended consequences if we place a ban without having the solid stats. I'm absolutely behind this. If we have science that proves this is a problem without a shadow of a doubt, then we should act. By banning without a scientific basis, those unintended consequences will hit us. It's not going to be a small hit. It'll be a big one.

Can you comment on the unintended consequences of a possible ban?

[Scott Kirby]

Sure, I can comment on that.

Three come to mind right off the bat. First is the level of confidence the public as well as their stakeholders will have in the regulatory system in Canada, which is a significant unintended consequence. If we move too quickly to take regulatory action without the scientific weight of evidence to support those decisions, our credibility is diminished significantly. Right now, we are considered a world leader in terms of pesticide regulation.

Second, and I think it's already been spoken to before, the registrants require some level of predictability in the regulatory process. Again, to take action without the weight of evidence leaves the registrants questioning whether $100 million invested in developing a pesticide and bringing it to market is a good investment when it's not an outcome, if the way decisions are going to be made at the regulatory level isn't predictable.

Third, and again this has already been spoken to, in terms of crop production and the agricultural sector, the neonicotinoids are a very heavily relied upon group of chemicals. They have replaced some of the more, I would say, nasty chemicals that were registered before them, which were much more broadly toxic to a much wider variety of organisms as well as people. There is the possibility that getting rid of them and using more of these other chemicals, which have not been banned, may make—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

For the benefit of the committee, the people in the room here, and the people who'll be reading this later, what's the next step? We're talking about further study. What's the timeline? Is there an action plan for where we go from here?

[Scott Kirby]

That whole class of insecticides is being re-evaluated. We're doing that jointly with the United States Environmental Protection Agency. A data call-in has been issued on some of them. We have looked at the information that we have at hand. We've identified gaps in the information, and we are requiring the registrants to produce the information to fill those gaps. That step takes time. The registrants have to be able to generate that data. Depending on the type of study, it could take up to two years to generate data and submit it. Then our scientists would look at that.

You're talking years to come to a finite conclusion.