Agriculture Committee on March 7th, 2017

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

But just a minute. You left them out of this discussion until after you had already made the decision. Why was there a lack of transparency and accountability in the whole process here, if you say it's the registrant's responsibility to provide you with the data?

We don't hear anything to say that there was general consultation here. Basically, this was driven by the agency. There were arbitrary timelines put on it. There wasn't a general discussion. You said that you used widespread data, but it doesn't appear that's the case here.

There's a decision that has been made that looks like it's political, not scientific. I'm just wondering why it was done in the way it was, basically leaving the industry outside and environmental groups outside, everybody outside of that decision before—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Anderson, the time is up. I'm sorry. We have to move on to the next one.

Mr. Breton, you have six minutes.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Hello, everyone.

Mr. Kirby, I do not see a problem with your answering the question Mr. Anderson just asked.

[Scott Kirby]

I'd just like to make it clear that the decision was not political. The decision was driven by science. That's how we make our decisions.

As Mr. Aucoin pointed out with the pollinator assessments, there was a lot of pressure to deregister the chemical based on the impacts on pollinators. We let the science speak. We have yet to make a negative decision on that. In fact, our preliminary assessment says that we don't think there are major issues.

I absolutely feel and believe that there is evidence out there that there are risks of concern. From my perspective, the benchmark has not been met in terms of giving us the information that we need to determine that the risks are acceptable. We are working with the multi-stakeholder forum. We have right from the beginning. We are participating in all three working groups. We're helping stakeholders to develop a plan for developing monitoring information that might help the decision. If that information can be generated in a reasonable amount of time ahead of the final decision, we'll consider it.

The information has to be compelling in that it shows a different picture than what we're seeing now.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

As Ms. Johnston said earlier, these products are important to our farmers.

On other international markets, there are pesticides that could be registered in Canada to ensure that our farmers are at least competitive.

What can you tell us about the registration of those potential products and how quickly they could reach the market here?

[Andrea Johnston]

As you mentioned, it is a proposed decision. The alternatives working group is looking at alternatives to imidacloprid, and at whether those alternatives have what we call MRLs, maximum residue limits, so whether there would be any market access challenges.

If there is a decision moving forward to do the phase-out, what we would like to ensure is that growers have access to alternatives that are widely accepted by trading partners because that is required as part of Canada's trading requirements.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

I am not that knowledgeable about this, but I understand there are conditional registrations and more permanent registrations. I don't know if I'm using the right terms.

Mr. Aucoin, what is the difference between a conditional registration and a permanent registration? Are there actually conditional registrations? How do you go about accepting a product depending on whether it is a conditional registration or a permanent registration?

[Dr. Richard Aucoin]

With regard to conditional registrations, there are, in fact, some registrations that remain conditional. Some of the neonics are in that category of conditional registrations. These are registrations where, when they were first made, the actual risks of those new pesticides were deemed to be acceptable. We allowed them to be authorized for use in Canada, but there remained some outstanding data, usually some confirmatory data. We needed to be sure that the continued use of these chemicals over the long term would remain safe.

In that time, we allowed conditional registrations. Since that time, the department has indicated its intent, and we've moved ahead with a new regulation that repeals those conditional registration provisions. We have recently gone through the Canada Gazette, part I, process to repeal that authorization to create conditional registrations. We anticipate that will be in force by the end of the year, and we will no longer be issuing any kind of conditional registration.

I do want to stress that whether a new pesticide was registered first as a conditional registration or as a full registration, in both cases we deemed that the risks were acceptable. It's just that in one case we realized that we wanted some additional confirmatory data and information. That was a requirement of the ongoing registration, to ask the manufacturers to produce this kind of data information.

In the case of the neonics, we had some long-term interest in ensuring there would be no pollinator impacts on bees, for example. We were working with the manufacturers to make sure we had that kind of assurance, that the data and information available would continue to support the use of neonics.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

So there are products that are still temporarily or conditionally registered. Can you tell me in 30 seconds what will happen after this announcement?

[Dr. Richard Aucoin]

Yes, a number of the neonics, not all. Two of the neonics, thiamethoxam and clothianidin—long names—are chemicals that do in fact have conditional registrations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Breton.

Ms. Brosseau, you have six minutes.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for their testimony before the committee today. This is a really important issue. I've been on this committee since 2012 and we've had this come to the surface on many occasions. We've even had farmers come in and talk about the losses they've sustained in their colonies in Ontario.

This is a very complicated issue. It's not black and white. I have a few questions.

When you say that you're “consulting with Canadians”—I know that it has been prolonged until March 23—what exactly does that mean? How many people participate? Is that online? Are these round tables? What kinds of results are there? Also, will the results of these consultations be public? I would like some more information about that, please.

[Dr. Richard Aucoin]

As with all PMRA's major decisions, it's an obligation under the Pest Control Products Act to do a full public consultation before we make any major decision. We do publish an extensive scientific review of everything we've looked at, referencing all the information and studies we've looked at that support that decision. During this consultation period, we take in all kinds of comments from the public. In this case of imidacloprid, you can be assured that we're up to perhaps 100,000 comments.

In addition to that, in this case, we're working very closely with stakeholders in a forum chaired by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. We'll be taking into account all the information that comes from those working groups. We will also be taking in information that comes from the public and all the information that comes from the manufacturers during that period. The consultation period ends on March 23.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

For the pollinators, there's another risk assessment being done. When will the results be done for the pollinators, the bees?

[Dr. Richard Aucoin]

We're continuing to work really closely with the United States Environmental Protection Agency and California on the pollinator risk assessment. The pollinator aspect is kind of in parallel with the aquatic risk assessments that we've been doing on the neonics.

On the pollinator story, we have a preliminary assessment of one of the neonics that says that we think this situation is manageable but we do have more work to do to make sure there's no impact on wild bees or pollinators. On the pollinator side, there are two additional neonic pesticides that we're continuing to do work on, and again, with the U.S. and with California.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

What does “going ahead with a phase-out” mean? If I'm a farmer using these pesticides, what exactly does that mean? What other options would I have if I want to continue to use something similar? What would that look like? I know that Canadians are asking questions. They're really concerned about the health of our planet and they're concerned about the protection of waterways.

I think this touches everybody. When we have people in Montreal and Vancouver banning neonics, everybody is touched by this, but if I'm a farmer, what does it mean for me when the government goes ahead and phases out neonics?

[Dr. Richard Aucoin]

It's a very good question. In terms of what we proposed in this case for imidacloprid, for example, the actual proposal is to phase it out over a three- to five-year period, so the proposal, at least, indicates that a significant transition period is available.

I would point out that for many and perhaps most—but not all—of the existing approved uses of imidacloprid, there are alternatives. There are approved pesticides that could be used for those uses. On paper, at least, there are alternatives. I do acknowledge that some of those alternatives may not be as economically viable or economically advantageous for agriculture, but for the most part, there are registered alternatives available.

As well, over the next few years, depending on the phase-out period, we would anticipate manufacturers approaching us for approval for new pesticides to be used in place of imidacloprid, should we have to go there. I should point out that we're still in a consultation phase on a proposal.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Does Environment Canada do monitoring of water?

[Dr. Richard Aucoin]

Environment Canada does monitor a very wide range of substances, including some pesticides in surface water.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Does it monitor neonics or imidacloprid?

[Dr. Richard Aucoin]

Actually, Environment Canada was the source of much of the surface water monitoring data that we used in our assessment in Ontario. It came from an Environment Canada scientist.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Is there any information coming from out west?

[Dr. Richard Aucoin]

Some of the information that we received from out west was, for example, from Dr. Morrissey at the university.

[Scott Kirby]

I would just add that there was information submitted from most of the regions, including the west. Some of it was Environment Canada data, some of it was provincial data, and some of it was academic data from Dr. Morrissey. As I said, a lot of that data is missing some of that ancillary information that would make it useful. The monitoring working group is working hard to try to obtain that ancillary information to make the information more useful.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Would you say that neonics and some pesticides are being overused?