Agriculture Committee on March 9th, 2017

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Okay.

This question is for anyone who wishes to answer.

Do you think our neighbours to the south will have a competitive advantage over Canada in the near future?

[Craig Hunter]

That's absolutely correct, because when the PMRA bans the use of a product for reasons other than residues in food, they don't do anything about the MRLs. Every other country in the world that continues to use this—like the giant who lives south of us—will continue to use it, continue to have a cost of production advantage over us, and will be able to flood our market with cheaper product.

Our growers, if they lose the use of this product on a number of crops, will face crop loss in yield and in quality and may not be able to continue to grow the crop profitably. They might grow it, but not profitably. That's the position they will be put into.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Hunter.

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Mr. Drouin, you have six minutes.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I said this last time, but it bears repeating: the committee operates independently. We do not report to either the minister or the government. We report to Parliament. The committee controls its own business. We can do as we wish. We can undertake the studies we want to.

Ms. Bérubé, did you feel that the committee did not invite certain stakeholders? You are before the committee today, after all.

I did not turn down any proposed witnesses. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.

[Annie Bérubé]

Indeed, I do think that a number of stakeholders could make a significant contribution to your study. I mentioned some of them, including organic farmers who successfully grow field crops without pesticides. Other farming sectors in Canada have also implemented integrated pest management tools, without having to use neonicotinoids. To my mind, those are the experts who should really be at the table with the committee. I also encourage you to invite academic researchers. I mentioned a few of the ones who have published studies and field trials that raise doubts about the efficacy of neonicotinoids.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Very well.

As I see it, my job as a parliamentarian is to find a balance between the impact of the product being banned and the cost to consumers. The reality is that organic products cost consumers more. In supermarkets today, organic products are more expensive than non-organic ones.

Yes, it's laudable to ban something harmful, but it's important to have a reasonable transition period, for consumers and farmers alike. That is our job.

Mr. Hunter, tomorrow you wake up in a non-neonics world. What happens to your industry? What pesticides do you have recourse to, or what practices would you engage in tomorrow in a non-neonics world?

[Craig Hunter]

Our farmers would be faced with having to use pesticides that are prone to develop resistance, and so they couldn't rely on them for very long unless they had a broad-spectrum material to alternate with them, because neonics control several different species. The new products tend to be very narrow: they control this one really well, and this one not very well, and those ones not at all. If you have that spectrum of insects, you'd actually end up having to use one, two, three, even four different modes of action. You'd use different chemistries every time you went to treat your crop, so you'd increase—

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

You'd end up applying more pesticides.

[Craig Hunter]

Absolutely it would be more, and it might not be as effective anyway, but the big concern would be that we would be facing slowly diminishing effectiveness as we select resistant populations. For a farmer, the threat of resistance is a huge problem.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Can you explain to me some of the containment practices that happen in greenhouses? Maybe Ms. Taylor wants to jump in. How do you contain...?

Part of the issue is we found—I'm not going to try to pronounce it—neonics in the watershed. In a greenhouse setting, I'm dumbfounded at how that could happen, unless there's no containment issue. Can you explain to me what the industry does in terms of containment?

[Justine Taylor]

Yes. I think it's important to realize that there's been a transition in technology as greenhouses have become more sophisticated. As I mentioned in my opening comments, about 90% of our growers recirculate. The process of recirculation means that nutrients in water are delivered to the crop through drip irrigation, which is then captured in a trough, and then that trough is directed to a central location. The water is then treated and recirculated back to the crop, and that happens indefinitely. That's the current state of the industry.

If there becomes a point in time when that material can no longer be recirculated to the crops—if the salts build up, for instance, which tends to be the main reason—then we have developed with our provincial government a tool kit that gives you several options on how to dispose of that material.

Do you want me to go more in depth?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

No, that's okay.

This would be applied to everybody. In terms of the PMRA process—and I'm asking the question to all of you—have you had enough time to submit your documentation to PMRA? We can start, maybe, from right to left. On my right would be Mr. Hunter.

[Craig Hunter]

Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong, and occasionally I'm left. Thank you.

PMRA sent out a proposal last year for a new approach to doing these reviews. Most of the stakeholders agreed with that new approach, and they did too. They listened to our comments, and they've now put online a new way to do these kinds of things.

The new way means that they talk to stakeholders at the beginning of their process. They get information from growers and other users to understand how we're using it, where we're using it, what the rates are, what the problems are, and so on, at the beginning.

Then during the two years, usually, or more that they take to do their review, if issues have been flagged at the beginning, we then have a two-year process with all the stakeholders to conduct research, to do further evaluations, to gather more data, to help them along the way. That's denied to us in this instance. This is done the old way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Hunter. I'm going to have to cut it there. The others might have time to elaborate in the other questions.

Just before I go to Madame Brosseau, I see that she still has her apple. We were all out there this morning, crunching the apple. I ate mine. I couldn't hold off. I ate mine.

Anyway, I just invite everyone to crunch an apple today.

Ms. Brosseau, you may go ahead for six minutes.

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

Thank you.

Did you want to finish quickly? I'll give you a few seconds if you want to finish your answer.

[Craig Hunter]

Thank you very much.

Quite simply, the old process wasn't working and isn't fair. The new process, if it had been used, would be abundantly fair because it would give us time for input at the beginning and time for discussion at the end, and then the 60-day or 90-day comment period. All we got were 60 days to comment, and now it's 90, but comment is not enough if you need more information, and that was denied.

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

More information, more transparency is important.

First, I'd like to thank our witnesses for contributing to our study today.

We have already spent two hours on this issue. We've heard from officials from Health Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, as well as from multinationals in the pharmaceutical industry. We are now beginning the second half of our study.

This is not a black and white issue; it's extremely complex. I thoroughly appreciated your presentation, Ms. Bérubé. I think we need more time to make sure we consult all the experts. I, myself, am not an expert. I'm not a researcher, but we have to respect PMRA's decision because it is based on science. I am eager to read all the reports you mentioned, and it may be beneficial for the committee to invite other experts like Ms. Labrie.

I read an interesting article in Le Devoir yesterday about the study and the UN special rapporteur. In June, Quebec's commissioner of sustainable development determined that the province's ministry of sustainable development, the environment and the fight against climate change was not adequately monitoring the use of pesticides in the province. I believe the government of Quebec had pledged to reduce the use of pesticides by 25% by 2020-21. Clearly, we have some work to do.

Could you discuss the importance of conducting an in-depth study and ensuring that the committee, the agriculture working group, calls for more transparency? Furthermore, we should also hear from other organic farming groups on the reduction of pesticide use.

[Annie Bérubé]

Certainly. If you are interested in broadening the scope of your study, I encourage you to consult Quebec's environment ministry, but above all, it's agriculture ministry, and to take a good look at the province's agricultural crop health strategy. As I mentioned, it sets out tools and support for Quebec farmers looking to reduce their use of neonicotinoids, which are very expensive, by the way. Farmers who go that route have an equivalent, if not higher, agricultural yield.

I would also encourage the committee to ask farmers who want to transition away from synthetic pesticide use what they would need to do that in terms of technical and financial support. The transition to organic farming or integrated pest management is expensive, and we believe Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has a duty to provide technical and financial support to farmers who want to make that transition. That would be an important issue to look at. Many researchers from a number of Canadian universities could provide the committee with expert opinions on the subject.

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

I have farmers in my riding who have made the transition, and it took them years, so some sort of financial support would really be helpful.

Could you comment on how accessible untreated seeds are? Is it possible to get them at all?

Then, I would like Mr. Hunter and Ms. Taylor to answer.

[Annie Bérubé]

Yes, it is possible. In Quebec, in fact, the data shows that approximately 50% of corn and soybean crops are grown using treated seeds. That means 50% of seeds are not treated. As I said, further to its agricultural pesticide strategy for 2015-18, the Quebec government intends to provide incentives so that farmers can access untreated seeds. They are available on the market.

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

Could I just get a comment from Craig or Justine? Then I want to ask another question on human health, because when we talk about pesticides, there are possible negative effects on human health and bees.

I'll just pass it over. I don't know how much time I have left, but I'm going to try to get another question in.

[Craig Hunter]

Sorry?

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

If you want to talk about non-treated seeds, are they available?

[Craig Hunter]

For vegetable production, the only vegetable seed that's produced in Canada is asparagus seed. All the other vegetable seeds that we produce come from other countries, mainly the U.S., but Holland and Japan too. They are treated there and imported here.

Take broccoli, for example. Canada would import a total of 20 kilograms of broccoli seed a year for all the acres of broccoli that we grow. The 20 kilograms of broccoli seed from a seed house in California comes the way it's treated. For them to have a special lot somewhere else for that tiny amount is pretty tough.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Hunter.

Thank you, Ms. Brosseau.

Your time is up.

Mr. Longfield, you have six minutes.