Agriculture Committee on March 9th, 2017

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Last Tuesday, we talked about the models used for reviewing these products. As a researcher, do you have suggestions regarding the model we could use?

[Pierre Giovenazzo]

I can't answer this question. It's too difficult for me and it's not my field. As I told you, I'm not a toxicologist. Toxicologist are specialists who know how to handle these types of questions, and I trust them. They produce results using the tools in their possession.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

You said that bees were sentinels of the environment. Can you elaborate on this?

[Pierre Giovenazzo]

I didn't invent the term. It was created at Apimondia 2009, in Montpellier. The Apimondia's theme was “The Bee, Sentinel of the Environment”. A single colony of bees can have about ten foragers. In other words, as soon as the weather becomes warm, 10,000 bees leave and touch everything. They then return to the colony and bring back everything around it, including all the residue in the environment. Work was done to collect the pollen in the hives and measure the variety of pesticides or products found in nature. It's incredible! The bees live in these environments and accumulate these substances. They're good indicators.

A company near our research centre had two hives. Each week, the company took samples to verify whether the fumes from its chimney affected the environment. It's not new.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Okay.

Mr. Brock, It's good to see you again. I'd like to ask you the same question I asked Mr. Giovenazzo. Did you find the process helpful or useful? Did you participate? As well, what changes could be made to improve the whole process?

[Mark Brock]

I really appreciate your question.

We were part of the process and are involved in the process. Really, when I step back and look at the situation as a whole, I think that when we bump into these issues around concern about the products that farmers use within the environment, we do put a lot of value on the environment. We want to mitigate as much risk as possible. This forum that was created with AFC had the dialogue and the input and broke it out into looking at risk mitigation, environmental monitoring, and alternatives. I think it was an excellent process to have these discussions around risk mitigation.

I get concerned when there's a request to have a product removed from the marketplace. I think we would lean toward the bee example we had within Ontario. In that case we were able to make some adjustments to our management practices and reduce the impact to bees. I think that's a model example that we could use going forward: before a product is taken away from the marketplace, we have this ability to look at the risk and get to a point where the risk to society around the products we use is acceptable. We're using those products with society's trust in that respect.

As they open up this consultation period, I think it would be nice to have this opportunity before decisions are made. That way we can have a really clear path forward and get to where we can feel okay as a society that we accept this risk—with input from primary producers like us—and we can go forward with consumer trust on the issue.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Brock, you mentioned alternatives, and I believe the experience with the Ontario government. What have you and your organization learned from that? Are there alternatives that can be used, based on the experience there?

[Mark Brock]

There are some alternatives, as I highlighted in my presentation to the committee, around some new seed treatments that are registered for corn. They're more expensive and provide less control, or a narrower spectrum of control, so that they're not quite as effective in the marketplace. We're not sure how well they will help us mitigate the risk or what the economic impact will be to the farms.

In the Ontario situation we tried to go into a dialogue of looking at risk mitigation strategies there as well. We ended up with a regulation around restricting the use. I think a more constructive dialogue and an agreed approach on what we're trying to accomplish would have been a far more effective approach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Brock, and thank you, Mr. Peschisolido.

Ms. Brosseau, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for their presentations.

Mr. Brock, can you talk to us a little bit about the availability or the prices of treated and non-treated seeds?

[Mark Brock]

Sure. The way it usually works for corn, depending on the company a farmer would purchase seed from, is that we have the ability to buy seed that's treated with an insecticide or without an insecticide. On the neonic-treated side, it's usually around $4 to $5 a bag for the seed treatment. When you get into this newer seed treatment that I talked about, it could be upwards of $25 to $35 a bag more per unit.

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

Where do they come from?

[Mark Brock]

The seeds are available through life science companies through their genetic base. They're life science companies, so they provide seed chemical and those kinds of inputs.

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

It comes from other countries?

[Mark Brock]

Yes. There's some production of soybean seed within Ontario and within Canada. There is a very limited amount of seed corn produced in Canada. A lot of it does come through the U.S., just because of their ability to produce it and manage it better. A little bit is produced within Canada, but the vast majority is imported, especially corn.

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

The PMRA has proposed a phase-out of three to five years. I really like the comment you made, Mr. Scarlett, about co-operative solutions and co-operative wins. I think that's really important. I think there needs to be collaboration. There needs to be discussion. Work needs to be done if we're going to go ahead and have this phase-out. It's been done in other countries. It's possible.

What kind of recommendations could you give to the committee to make sure that there is a transition, or how would you see that transition happen?

That's for Mr. Brock, Mr. Scarlett, or whomever. It's kind of a big question.

[Mark Brock]

From my standpoint, I'd prefer maybe not to look toward a phase-out but toward an agreed approach on developing what the acceptable risk is for the product and then taking steps to mitigate that risk.

Maybe in the three-year period we can re-evaluate how the measurements of these risk mitigation strategies worked. At that point, if there is still a problem or if there is new science, we can have another conversation around whether the value proposition of the risk is great enough.

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

I think there was consensus from some of the comments earlier that if this product goes away, if we aren't allowed to use it, there is a fear of what it is going to be replaced with. When we had people at committee on Tuesday.... Something else is going to come on the market. They're going to replace it with something else. Could you comment on that?

Obviously we want to make sure that we mitigate the risks, because the environment is your livelihood. We want to make sure that we work hard, and farmers do an amazing job defending and protecting the environment, but could we just get some comments?

[Mark Brock]

Sure. My opinion on that situation is that if you were to remove this product from the marketplace tomorrow, yes, there would be work being done in the pipeline of life science companies to find products to replace it, but my concern would be the gap period between when I lost the use of that product and when a new one would hit the marketplace. What would the impact of that be on my farm with regard to how I'm achieving environmental sustainability? By default, I would have to fall back to some of those products that are more toxic to the environment, that are less strategic in their approach, and that are harmful to some of the insects that I rely on, insects that aren't harmed by neonics.

My concern would be that gap period when we would have to use older technology that would have a greater impact and be less sustainable until new products could find the marketplace.

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

Mr. Scarlett, have you any comments on that?

[Rod Scarlett]

I can't really comment on the assessment right now because it doesn't have to do with honeybees.

PMRA, in our opinion, has done a really good job of doing pollinator assessments separately from what's going on now. Again, we come back to the alternative products and to ensuring that they have adequate time to do effective pollinator assessments. Because of the gaps that currently exist in those assessments—as I mentioned on cumulative effects, for example—that can't happen in a day or a year. It may take a few years to get the proper results. In that regard, whatever happens next, those pollinator assessments need time to be done properly and adequately.

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

I think we really need to invest more into research on bee health.

Mr. Giovenazzo, you referred to self-sufficiency. I know that queens are imported. Could Canada one day become self-sufficient in the beekeeping field?

[Pierre Giovenazzo]

I would like that, and the beekeepers would like that as well.

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

Okay.

[Pierre Giovenazzo]

Could self-sufficiency be achieved? It would be very difficult, as a result of winter.