Agriculture Committee on March 9th, 2017

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming and for the wide range of discussion we are having.

In terms of what we're trying to get, we're reviewing the process. We're not trying to replace the great work that's done by the PMRA. It's just to question the process.

I want to maybe continue with Mr. Drouin's question about the review process as it existed. We heard from only one witness, so I'd like to know how you participated in the process. Perhaps we'll start with Ms. Bérubé, asking if you have been involved with the review process. What was your involvement, and what did you take away from the process?

[Annie Bérubé]

As an environmental, not-for-profit organization, our only option to participate in the process is to submit comments in the public comment period. We are not considered one of the stakeholders that Mr. Hunter has referred to, who are consulted early on in the process.

I can also tell you that many of the independent university researchers who have published or have studies on neonicotinoids are also not consulted up front in the process, nor are many other stakeholders from the agricultural sector. From our perspective, we just send our comments.

We do request, from time to time, meetings with the PMRA to understand their decision-making process. It's very difficult. I'm just going to leave it at that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

That's great. Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Gue.

[Lisa Gue]

I guess I have just one thing to add. I will confirm that the David Suzuki Foundation and Équiterre have prepared joint comments on this particular decision and will submit them by the March 23 deadline. We would have been happy to submit them by the February 23 deadline as well.

As Annie indicated, we do have some thoughts on strengthening the process at the PMRA, but I do want to tackle the suggestion here, or offer another perspective on the suggestion that this decision has come out of the blue and took registrants and growers by surprise. The PMRA does publish a work plan for its re-evaluations of pesticides. The cyclical re-evaluation of pesticides is required by law, so the information was available on the timing of this re-evaluation and shouldn't have been a surprise, and I wouldn't have thought there was anything preventing—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

In terms of your involvement, though, you're going to do a submission—

[Lisa Gue]

We will, yes, and I would think that anyone interested could have proactively approached the PMRA with additional information, knowing that this re-evaluation was in the works.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I think there are a range of submissions coming in, from what we're hearing.

Ms. Taylor, do you have a...?

[Justine Taylor]

Yes, we'll be submitting through the submission process as well, but no, we weren't consulted ahead of time either.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Okay, thanks.

I have spoken to the researchers at the University of Guelph and I've spoken to some of the industry reps, and they were concerned that they weren't involved in the process. It sounds as if there is a new process that's being introduced, and maybe that's something that might find its way into our discussion as we review our testimony to see what we can recommend going forward.

We're acting as members of Parliament, trying to represent ideas as best we can, trying to get as much balance as possible into our conversations, but sometimes we see these wildly divergent pieces of information. For example, the HFFA research that was released from the EU in January indicated that after two years of banning neonics in the EU, 912,000 tonnes of oilseed would have to be produced somewhere else in the market because of diminishing yields.

Ms. Bérubé, you mentioned that in your research, there wasn't a change in yields. What we've heard is that there is up to a 30% change in yields between using treated versus non-treated seeds. How do we—

[Annie Bérubé]

Again, it's very specific to the crop and the environment and the conditions under which those treated seeds are used. The research I have referred to is specifically to soya and corn grown in Quebec, and there is also some very good research coming out of the U.S. EPA showing the same results as well.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Speaking for Ontario, we have wildly divergent views here, so for members of Parliament it is difficult for us to say anything other than that we have some reports that we hope the PMRA is taking into consideration in making decisions.

Another one is the amount of water being used. The gap in the EU is 2.8 billion cubic metres of water. More water is needed because non-treated seeds versus treated seeds are being used, and 533,000 hectares of land has to be incorporated to make up for the gap in productivity. It puts enormous pressure on the agricultural community to try to produce more with less land when the land isn't available, yet the EU is trying to find 533,000 hectares to replace it.

Clearly there are some economic consequences. I know that's not part of the scope of PMRA, but it's definitely something that we're concerned with as we're trying to support the agricultural community in Canada.

Mr. Hunter, on the review process, could you comment on economic versus scientific? You mentioned the stewardship of your organization. It's very shocking that we don't produce more seeds in Canada. Why wouldn't we do that, and what's the economic result if we go a different route from the rest of the world?

[Craig Hunter]

There simply is not the capacity in the seed industry to produce all of our vegetable seeds and to make a profit. Our market is too small. The downside is that we accept varieties that may not be perfectly suited to our climate, environment, diseases, and insects in terms of resistance. Again, the economics aren't there.

However, if you're in the corn, soybean, wheat, or barley business, absolutely, there's a big seed industry, and they are producing seeds with the kinds of genetic backgrounds that are profitable for our growers.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

We'll be hearing from them later today.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield.

Thank you, Mr. Hunter.

Mr. Breton, you have six minutes.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here today to help us unravel an issue that is quite complex, as some of my colleagues have pointed out.

Of course, we have to make sure that those of you in the industry remain efficient and competitive in the current marketplace. We also want to foster the conditions for environmentally sound and sustainable production. There seems to be no doubt that this product, imidacloprid, is widely used in the industry.

Are there no other available products that could be used, ones that would be less detrimental to the environment, as the studies seem to show?

[Craig Hunter]

First of all, imidacloprid is a replacement product. It replaced the old organophosphate, organochlorine, and carbamate products that were very toxic to humans. The neonics are considered to have much lower toxicity to the farmers and farm workers. That's important for you to know.

In terms of the effect on the environment, all registered pesticides in Canada have gone through a battery of tests and have been approved for use under Canadian conditions, all of them. In terms of what's softer, I have a concern that if you can use one and you have to replace it with three or four, what is the net environmental insult of three or four versus one? No one has answered that question.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Ms. Gue, you may go ahead.

[Lisa Gue]

I'll add a perspective here that we do have to be cautious. Often the use of neonics is pointed to as an overall reduction in pesticide use because quantities of that active ingredient are smaller in terms of volume, but what makes them problematic from an environmental perspective is that combined with their persistence and water solubility, they are active and they are toxic at very, very low levels in the environment, and they persist in the environment.

Therefore, we have to think a bit more broadly about how we make advances around pesticides and shift towards alternative agriculture. It can't be measured only in terms of volume used. It must also be measured in terms of toxicity, and again I want to reinforce what my colleague suggested earlier and encourage the committee to entertain a study on this broader issue of how Canada can support a shift so that we're not just jumping from the frying pan into the fire, trading one toxic chemical for another, and relearning the same mistakes over and over again. We could make a shift away from chemical-dependent agriculture.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

We are hearing different and compelling points of view. Thank you.

Ms. Gue and Ms. Bérubé, you both said that you were in favour of PMRA's decision but had some reservations regarding the three- to five-year phase-out period. Both of you told us that.

Do you not think the timeline is a good thing because it gives scientists and researchers time to find other products that could potentially help the industry, which, at the end of the day, serves each one of us as consumers?

I'd like you to expand on your point of view.

[Annie Bérubé]

Under the Pest Control Products Act, the Minister of Health is responsible for determining whether the health and environmental risks associated with the use of a pesticide are acceptable. The decision-making process does not take into account whether another option is available. That is not a factor that influences the final decision. The focus is on determining whether the product poses an acceptable risk to human health and the environment.

As mentioned, the re-evaluation has been under way for a number of years. It was known that the decision was coming. It is also a fact that other countries have already put the restrictions in place and developed substitute products to replace the pesticide.

We don't think the three- to five-year phase-out period is necessary. What's more, it is unwarranted considering the risks the product poses to ecosystems.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Madam Gue, do you want to add something on it?

[Lisa Gue]

I'll just repeat that in fact the PMRA offers no justification for the timeline it proposes in the re-evaluation decision. In other words, I agree with what Annie has just said.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

That is all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Unfortunately, that is nearly all the time we have for today.

That's it for this first hour.

I want to thank the panel for being here and for their very interesting, very different opinions. That's what we're trying to get at, to make sure that we have the right information.

Thank you, Ms. Bérubé and Ms. Gue.

Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Hunter, for being with us today.

We will take a break. There is a hot buffet outside. I urge everyone to go and get a plate. Be back as soon as possible so that we can continue the second hour.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We will take our seats as soon as we can and get going.

Welcome to our panel for our second hour on the PMRA decision concerning neonic insecticides. With us here for the second hour, from the Canadian Honey Council, is Rod Scarlett, executive director. Welcome, Mr. Scarlett.

From the Grain Farmers of Ontario, we have Mr. Mark Brock, chairman. Welcome, Mr. Brock.

Pierre Giovenazzo teaches apiculture science at the Centre de recherche en sciences animales de Deschambault, at Université Laval.

Welcome, Mr. Giovenazzo.

You will each have 10 minutes.

That said, I must first put a motion to the committee.

We need to pass this motion regarding the title of our study for the U.S. visit. It's basically just the same title that we will use right through, so it could read like this:

That the committee undertake a study related to Canada-United States Cooperation in Agriculture.

Are we okay with that title?

We have a consensus, then. Thank you everyone.

We will now proceed with the presentations.

Would you care to start, Mr. Giovenazzo.