Hello, Mr. Chair.
Hello, honourable members of the committee.
Thank you for inviting us to speak to you today. I am Richard Aucoin, the executive director of the pest management regulatory agency (PMRA) of Health Canada. I am here with Scott Kirby who is the director general of our environmental assessment directorate.
As you are aware, PMRA is responsible for regulating pesticides in Canada. Our role is to ensure that pesticides authorized for use in Canada do not pose unacceptable risks to human health or the environment.
We do this through an extensive and robust scientific review process, both before a pesticide can be sold and used in Canada, and with periodic re-evaluations to ensure these pesticides continue to meet modern standards.
Our post-market re-evaluations and activities allow PMRA to monitor and respond to any new risks and to consider modern science. This includes using new science to re-evaluate pesticides on a 15-year cycle, performing special reviews in response to new health or environmental concerns, and collecting and analyzing information about pesticide incidents in Canada and around the world.
All of these post-market activities have played a role in PMRA's ongoing scientific review of the neonic pesticides. This is a very complex activity that involves a high level of engagement with other federal and provincial partners, academic scientists, international experts, regulatory bodies around the world, manufacturers, and the agricultural sector.
As I'm sure you know, the level of public and international interest in the relationship between neonics and pollinator health issues has been very high for some time. Our ongoing scientific assessment of the evidence has been conducted under very substantial public pressure to discontinue the registration of these pesticides.
Following bee deaths linked to planting of neonicotinoid-treated seeds in 2012 and 2013, instead of moving to restrict or discontinue registrations, PMRA worked very closely with many stakeholders. For example, we worked with grain farmers, the seed industry, the provinces, and the beekeeping industry to understand and develop approaches to planting that would reduce exposure to bees. With all these mitigation measures in place, the number of incidents fell by about 80%, and that trend has continued over the last few years. This speaks to PMRA's focus on the scientific evidence as paramount in our decision-making, as well as acknowledging the important role the agriculture sector can play in risk management.
Our current assessment is that the risk to managed bees from the use of one of the neonics, imidacloprid, is manageable, although there remains substantial work to be done in this area, including ensuring there are no unacceptable risks to wild bees and other pollinators. It is important to note that the initial part of our assessment really focused on managed honeybees, for example pollination services and commercial beekeeping operations. We still have some work to do to understand whether there are any unacceptable risks to wild bees and other pollinators.
As part of our broader, cyclical re-evaluation of the three major neonics, we are conducting an examination of all the available science—both published and proprietary information—regarding risks to the aquatic environment. These risks are evaluated in the context of how neonics are used in Canada and all the available information. This includes actual levels found in water by federal and provincial governments and academic sources in Canada. We have completed our review of the risks to the aquatic environment of the neonic imidacloprid, one of the three neonics, and the reviews of two other neonics are in progress.
One of the key outcomes of PMRA's re-evaluation of the neonic imidacloprid was the conclusion that the use of imidacloprid in Canada is causing harm to aquatic environments. High levels of imidacloprid found cannot be traced to a specific use on a specific crop, and we really have no alternative regulatory instruments available to us to effectively address such a broad risk issue, other than cancelling the authorization. PMRA is consulting with Canadians until March 23 on its proposal to phase out, over the next three to five years, all the agricultural uses of imidacloprid that we believe are contributing to this risk. Before making this proposal, we considered any alternative risk mitigation options that could achieve the same objective in the same time frame. We've also consulted extensively with colleagues from Environment Canada, with the U.S. EPA, and with some of our colleagues in Europe on our findings.
PMRA recognizes the importance of imidacloprid and the other neonics to Canadian agriculture. This is why, in addition to an extended public consultation period, PMRA is engaging with stakeholders through technical briefings, webinars, and a monthly multi-stakeholder forum chaired by our colleagues at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. PMRA will take into account all the information gathered through this process in making its final decision. In addition, if there is compelling new science that comes to light in the short term, we will take that into consideration. We will not, however, unreasonably delay our decision-making.
It is important to note that if a final decision is made to discontinue the registration of imidacloprid or any other neonic or pesticide, any new information or data that comes to light that shows it can, in fact, be used safely could be included in a new submission for registration by a manufacturer. We intend to continue to work with our stakeholders to minimize any potential impacts of the final re-evaluation outcome.
With that Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, I welcome any comments and questions you or the members may have.
Thank you very much.
