Evidence of meeting #4 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pesticides.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Mike Wong  Executive Director, Ecological Integrity Branch, Parks Canada Agency
Robert McLean  Executive Director, Habitat and Ecosystem Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment
Ken Farr  Manager, Canadian Forest Service, Science Policy Relations, Science Policy Division, Department of Natural Resources
Christopher Majka  Research Associate, Nova Scotia Museum, As an Individual
Peter MacLeod  Vice-President, Crop Protection Chemistry, CropLife Canada
Dennis Prouse  Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Thank you.

Next, Ms. Ambler for seven minutes.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Chair, my questions are for the witnesses from CropLife.

First of all, could you please outline all of the safety precautions that must be taken before a pesticide can be used in Canada, both in terms of the health of humans and the pesticide's effects on the environment?

12:40 p.m.

Vice-President, Crop Protection Chemistry, CropLife Canada

Peter MacLeod

The regulatory process in Canada is very similar to most developed parts of the world, first world countries. There are in fact probably about 250 to 260 different types of scientific studies that the government requires to evaluate a product before it is given approval or rejected. From a health perspective, some of the key areas that are assessed include the risk for cancer and the risk for birth defects. The risk for any human health problems is looked at in over 85 to 90 different studies. For the environment, again, it's about 160 studies, looking at everything from any potential impact on water, soil, or air, including the pesticide itself or any breakdown product, as well as the impact on different species in the environment, which range from bees to earthworms to ducks. A multitude of species are looked at to see if there's going to be any impact from an environmental standpoint.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON

Thank you.

I myself am surprised to hear that there would be 250 studies per product, and I'm on this committee. So I'm wondering how we can better inform Canadians about the precautions that are taken before a product hits the market, because I would bet that the average Canadian would not guess that that kind of study is done before a product is released for sale.

Perhaps you could offer an opinion on how the federal government could better communicate about pesticide regulations, or maybe that's a question for you, Mr. Prouse.

October 6th, 2011 / 12:40 p.m.

Dennis Prouse Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada

I'd be happy to speak to that. We are encouraging the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to more publicly talk about the process and defend its science.

Just to give some other context to that, Transport Canada goes out and speaks about how it regulates boating safety, how it regulates automobile safety, how it regulates air travel safety. In fact, we saw a very instructive video a while ago from Transport Canada about a family travelling, making an overseas trip, and about all the work that went on in the background that allowed that trip to take place safely. I thought it was a very good instructional video.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency does an excellent job outlining why it is that Canada's food safety is amongst the best in the world and outlining the measures that are taken. Yet we hear very little, as you point out, about how pesticides are regulated. Into that vacuum has come a great deal of fear and misinformation, and as a result there's an erosion of public confidence in the process and in the very products that are going to be needed in the battle against invasive species.

So the short answer to your question is yes, we would very much like to have Health Canada and its Pest Management Regulatory Agency take a more public role in outlining the process and showing why Canadians should have confidence in that science-based regulation.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON

Thank you.

Once the pesticides are sold, how is it ensured that they're used in a responsible manner?

12:40 p.m.

Vice-President, Crop Protection Chemistry, CropLife Canada

Peter MacLeod

It's a multi-pronged approach. Federally, there are requirements. A lot of it falls on the provincial governments to ensure the safe use. One of the things our industry does in partnership with provincial governments is promote a very strong safe use campaign, because the products are designed to be used in a certain manner, and certainly the safe application of those products is critical for the safety of the product itself.

CropLife, for example, in partnership with OMAFRA in Ontario, has sponsored a number of sprayer clinics for farmers. We teach the farmers how to properly calibrate their sprayers and how to avoid misapplication or spraying onto sensitive areas. Another thing we've done is to sponsor, along with the Ontario government, a YouTube-type video, which is new for us, on mitigating drift. The video shows farmers how to make sure the product is applied right on target and doesn't drift onto a sensitive area.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON

Thank you.

Perhaps you could tell me how provincial pesticide bans, like the one we have in Ontario, affect the battle against invasive species.

12:45 p.m.

Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada

Dennis Prouse

It goes back to what I spoke about a little bit earlier, and that's eroding public confidence. The regulatory process is the same. What we're talking about here is the ban against urban pesticides. You will see there are various forms of them. In some provinces, you'll see this happen at municipal councils, and a great deal of very colourful language is used to talk about how dangerous these pesticides allegedly are. Now, there's never any peer review science to back that up, but that language is out there.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON

My husband and the neighbours talk about it all the time.

12:45 p.m.

Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada

Dennis Prouse

Yet those same products are being used agriculturally. In fact, it's worth noting that I believe--and Peter, correct me if I get this figure wrong--96% to 97% of our member companies' products are sold agriculturally, yet it's that 3% to 4% that's used in urban areas that is the subject of such great debate.

You will see, especially in urban interface areas--and I bet, Mr. Chairman, in Langley you've seen some of this where urban areas are now creeping into farm areas. People move there, they see farmers spraying, and they get quite upset. They get quite upset because they've been told by their provincial government or by their local government that these pesticides are dangerous and these pesticides are potentially very harmful. It's the same product, regulated by the same respected national agency, made in the same place. What it's doing is eroding public confidence in the products and it's eroding public confidence in the regulatory process.

That's where we find the disconnect and that's what we think is a real problem.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON

Sure. It is ironic that the same products that you can use on fruits and vegetables that we eat, you can't use on your front lawn to make it look better.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Ms. Ambler, you have 10 seconds.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON

Oh, shoot. I wanted to talk to you about stewardship programs to preserve the environment, but maybe we'll have time later.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Unfortunately, time is up. Thank you.

Mr. Casey, you have seven minutes.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Gentlemen from CropLife, we hear an awful lot about cosmetic pesticides, and you touched on it in your last answer. I guess I'm at 30,000 feet on this one, but when you hear about cosmetic pesticides, what does it mean to you?

12:45 p.m.

Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada

Dennis Prouse

We actually avoid the use of the word “cosmetic”. We talk about urban use, because we think that preserving urban green spaces is very important. The word “cosmetic” is meant to imply that it's not necessary. We think in many cases it's necessary. It starts to become a little difficult, for example, when a municipality now has problems with noxious and invasive species on roadsides and now they have to spray. Is that cosmetic or isn't it cosmetic?

We don't like the word “cosmetic”, and we don't tend to use the word “cosmetic” because we think it implies that the products aren't necessary and we think...in some cases, if you're using an integrated pest management strategy, as Peter spoke of, there is a time and place for their use.

12:45 p.m.

Vice-President, Crop Protection Chemistry, CropLife Canada

Peter MacLeod

If I may add one thing, we have no problem with people who are ready to choose. If they want to choose to not use a product for their lawn, if they don't see value in that, it's perfectly fine. Usually, where we get involved is when there's misinformation about why that is. If there are allegations made about products or their safety, or whether it's health or environment, that's where we become concerned. But for people who are ready to choose whether they want to have dandelions or weeds on their lawn, it's perfectly up to them.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

What I hear you saying is that your industry has very much been given a bad rap.

We get heavy rain in Prince Edward Island, as you know, Mr. MacLeod. We get a heavy rain and we have fish kills. There's something flowing off the farmers' land and into the rivers and the fish are going belly up.

I offer you a chance to respond to that.

12:50 p.m.

Vice-President, Crop Protection Chemistry, CropLife Canada

Peter MacLeod

I'm from Prince Edward Island, as I mentioned. I have been involved with this fish kill issue for quite some time.

Prince Edward Island is a unique environment. There are literally streams, rivers, and brooks in just about every square inch of the province, as well as rolling hills, which leads to a lot of movement of soil from farmland into waterways.

As one of the witnesses talked about a bit earlier today, the change has really impacted the fish kill issue because of the severe weather extremes and events. In most of the fish kills I have been working with, there is a matter of three inches of rain coming down in 45 minutes, and all of a sudden, that farmer's field is not on his field anymore; it is down in the local brook.

I know that the provincial government in Prince Edward Island has been working very diligently to have setback zones and strips of grassed areas to try to prevent the soil from getting into the waterways.

Our conclusion is that it is not the pesticide itself that's the problem; it is the fact that the pesticide is on the soil, and the soil is moving into the aquatic area. We certainly support those types of stewardship programs and encourage farmers to spray precisely, to have setback zones from sensitive areas, and to have capture strips of grass between their potato fields and any streams or sensitive areas.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Majka, there was something that struck me in the course of your presentation. You went through the priority areas. On the second one, you talked about financial resources being in steep decline for some of the cataloguing initiatives. You pointed specifically to one. Are there others you can draw our attention to?

12:50 p.m.

Research Associate, Nova Scotia Museum, As an Individual

Christopher Majka

There are. When one looks across the whole press of society, there have been declines at all levels—at provincial levels and federal levels—in terms of funding for some of these taxonomic initiatives. In part, I understand that as a museum worker, because, for example, museums don't seem particularly sexy, nor do reference collections. People visit them and think there are a lot of dead things and wonder what the point of these things is.

I can point out, for example, in relation to the brown spruce longhorn beetle, that key to identifying that species were specimens collected in 1990 that were in the reference collection of the Nova Scotia Museum. It took a decade, until the year 2000, before those were correctly identified. That is the point at which the brown spruce longhorn beetle came onto the Canadian radar. It really points out the importance of reference collections and museums in providing sort of baseline information.

For example, there is very little taxonomy training these days in universities. The National Research Council Canada monograph series has been key for decades. They produced very important monographs that are of value not only in Canada but throughout North America for allowing taxonomists to identify things. The demise of that series is a real significant blow to our ability to recognize things.

Funding for museums and monograph programs, even though they are not that sexy, is really important.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Thank you, sir.

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

You have 50 seconds left.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

No, that's good, thank you.