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.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
Thank you so much.
Welcome, everyone.
We will begin with a presentation from CropLife and then from Mr. Majka.
Go ahead, Mr. MacLeod. You have up to ten minutes.
October 6th, 2011 / 12:05 p.m.
Peter MacLeod Vice-President, Crop Protection Chemistry, CropLife Canada
Good afternoon, and thank you for the invitation to speak here today.
As the honourable chair mentioned, my name is Peter MacLeod. I am the vice-president of the chemistry division at CropLife Canada.
CropLife Canada is a trade association that represents the developers, manufacturers, and distributors of plant science technologies, including pest control products.
With me today is Dennis Prouse, CropLife's vice-president of government affairs.
CropLife Canada's primary focus is upon the agriculture sector, but our member companies also develop controls for non-agricultural uses and are keenly aware of the importance of having tools in place to control invasive species.
The potential for invasive species to devastate the Canadian economy is significant. The agriculture and forestry sectors alone were recently estimated to be worth $100 billion a year and are particularly vulnerable to the threat from invasive species. Weeds, insects, and disease are constant threats to Canadian farmers. Weeds compete with nutrients for water and space, while insects and disease damage crops and can reduce yields and quality significantly, if they are not controlled.
But invasive species, as this committee will know, are an even more difficult than average threat to control. As an industry, we encourage farmers to use integrated pest management practices, practices that can make a big difference in the control of invasive species.
Integrated pest management, for those who may not be familiar with the term, is a holistic approach to managing pests. The pesticides our member companies develop and distribute are highly sophisticated tools that play a role in IPM. In fact, today's pesticides can be applied at extremely low rates--for example, as low as a few grams per acre. Also, they are designed to target very specific pests and to break down very quickly into benign substances.
Industry routinely invests up to 11% of sales in research and development to ensure that farmers have access to a broad range of safe and effective tools. But we do more than that. As an industry, for over 20 years we have invested in a full life-cycle stewardship practice that make us leaders in environmental and responsible practices.
Each individual pesticide takes decades of research and testing and costs approximately $250 million in R and D before the first sale occurs. The resulting benefits of those investments are significant. In Canada alone, the use of pesticides and plant biotechnology increases on-farm profit by increasing both the quality and quantity of field, fruit, and vegetable crops, to the tune of $8 billion annually. This in turn strengthens many other sectors of the Canadian economy, including manufacturing, wholesale, and retail trade, and creates an additional 97,000 full-time Canadian jobs.
Ultimately, the benefits of our technologies also increase the amount of tax generated for federal, provincial, and municipal coffers. An additional $385 million in tax revenue that our industry generates in turn helps pay for such important things as health care, education, and infrastructure.
The other place where our technology makes an undeniable contribution to the lives of Canadians is at the checkout counter of local grocery stores, where, thanks to the safe and effective control of harmful pests, our technology saves Canadian families 58% on their weekly grocery bill.
That's the economic side of the equation, which in itself explains why the control of invasive species is so important. Simply put, too much is at stake not to take the threat of invasive species very seriously.
Secondly, our industry shares the public concern about the loss of natural habitat. As an industry, one of our greatest contributions to society is that we make it possible for farmers to grow more food on less land. In Canada, this has not only enabled the natural habitat to remain intact but has also meant that marginal or at-risk lands that were once upon a time farmed can be turned back into wetlands and natural wilderness.
As an industry, our hope in appearing before you today is that we can be part of the dialogue on how to manage invasive species in Canada. Our technologies are important tools in this fight, but we recognize that there are those who have questions and concerns about our technology.
Pesticides are regulated by Health Canada through the Pest Management Regulatory Agency; yet despite the federal government's stringent regulatory control, our industry's products have been subject to a variety of unjustifiable restrictions and bans from various provincial and municipal governments.
We believe the misconceptions about the safety of our products and the adequacy of PMRA's regulatory controls pose a challenge for the development of an effective strategy for managing invasive pests. This is an especially frustrating possibility when one knows that Canada's pesticide registration process is one of the most scientifically rigorous in the world.
Pesticides are not the only solution in the fight against invasive species, but they're certainly one tool in the toolbox.
In conclusion, the request of this committee is that the national threat of invasive species be addressed in a cooperative manner that draws on the expertise of our industry, of other industries, academia, and various invasive species organizations such as those that have appeared before you. Cooperation includes all three levels of government. The role that pesticides can play in helping to control invasive species must be recognized and further explored. Collaborative research and development must not only be encouraged but enabled.
In the face of clear economic and environmental threats, the regulatory system must be nimble and responsive so that new tools can come to market as quickly as can responsibly be done. Building on this, the cost of the regulatory process bears consideration, at least from our perspective. Given the already high cost of research and development—more than a quarter of a million dollars per new product—and the very low potential sales volume for a product developed specifically for an invasive species, the potential to recoup the investment must not be further diminished by additional regulatory burdens.
Finally, if we are to effectively manage the danger posed by invasive species, the Government of Canada must defend its own regulatory system. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency does excellent work. It's a science-based regulatory system, it has a sound track record of keeping Canadians safe, and its work is well respected internationally, with many other countries routinely observing and benefiting from the sound work done by the PMRA.
Canadians, however, know very little about the regulation of pesticides. They certainly know about the regulatory role of Transport Canada and its oversight of automobile safety. They know about the food safety regulators who make our food supply one of the safest in the world. But perhaps because pesticides are controversial, we do not hear the Government of Canada publicly outlining the strengths and benefits of the regulatory system. This is unfortunate. In order to give Canadians confidence in the regulation of the products that will inevitably be needed in battling invasive species, this work needs to begin in earnest.
Thank you for your time today. CropLife and its member companies look forward to being part of the solution for the invasive species problem.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Research Associate, Nova Scotia Museum, As an Individual
Thank you very much.
Good morning. It's a great pleasure for me to appear before this committee. I'm Chris Majka, and I'm here as a researcher, investigating the ecology, biodiversity, and taxonomy of invertebrates, particularly beetles, in Atlantic Canada and Maine.
I'm an ecologist, a research associate at the Nova Scotia Museum, and the administrator of the Thousand Eyes project, a public participation climate change monitoring project. I should emphasize that I'm not officially representing any organization, but I'm speaking based on my research expertise in this area.
To start off, I'll make a quick distinction. Alien species are those that are introduced from elsewhere, in other words, non-native species. Invasive species are those that appear to be dramatically increasing their populations and range. They are beyond normal biological control, frequently at the expense of native species.
It's important to bear in mind that not all alien species are invasive. Indeed, only a very small fraction are. And not all invasive species are alien—for example, the mountain pine beetle and spruce budworm are native invasive species.
The vast majority of introduced species either die out very quickly because conditions for their survival are unsuitable, or they blend into the biological woodwork. For example, in a recent book on introduced beetles in eastern Canada, we identified 510 species. Even employing a broad distinction of invasive, only 5% of these beetles could be considered invasive and only 1% or 2% significant pests.
Here are a couple of quick illustrations of bona fide invasives—I hope the members of the committee have the figures I sent beforehand. The Asian multi-spotted lady beetle was introduced in Louisiana in 1978 for bio-control of aphids. By 1992, it was found in New Brunswick; 1994, in Nova Scotia; and 1998, in Prince Edward Island. Figure 1 in your package illustrates a characteristic feature of invasive species, which is very rapid dispersal throughout a large geographical area. By 2010, it was the most abundant lady beetle in many areas of the Maritimes and was found in virtually every portion of North America, save for Labrador, Saskatchewan, and Wyoming.
Several native lady beetles have experienced significant declines as a result. The parenthesis lady beetle has almost completely disappeared in the maritime provinces and three others. The two-spotted lady beetle, the transverse lady beetle and the nine-spotted lady beetle have become extinct in Maine, and the former two are in serious decline in the Maritimes. They are all important predators of aphids and similar insects. What will the effect of their disappearance be in the many habitats they occupy?
Now, looking at figure 2, the lily leaf beetle was discovered in North America—in Montreal, in 1943. It feeds exclusively on tiger lilies and fritillaria, a related plant. For almost 40 years, the beetle remained confined to the Island of Montreal. Then suddenly it began to rapidly expand its range, appearing in Ottawa, in 1981; Halifax, in 1992; Toronto, in 1993; and Portage la Prairie, in 1999. In the United States, it was first found in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1992, and it has since spread throughout Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and northern Vermont.
Figure 2 illustrates the dispersal of this species in the maritime provinces and adjacent areas of Maine. Again, we see a very rapid dispersal throughout a large geographical area, which is characteristic of invasive species. The lily leaf beetle has had a dramatic impact on the horticultural sector, decimating lilies and leading many gardeners and growers to simply give up growing the plants. Moreover, in New Brunswick, we have now found it on the native Canada lily, a plant already considered rare and endangered in several provinces and states.
In light of these examples, how does climate change factor into the epidemiology of invasive species? The large majority of alien species, both invasive and not, are ecological opportunists, thriving in disturbed habitats. This is in contrast to many native species that are found in indigenous, undisturbed habitats. The effects of climate change are to increasingly disturb ecological equilibria in such a way as to favour ecological opportunists. Contemporary civilization has created large areas of disturbed habitat, such as lawns, agricultural fields, pastures, golf courses, forest plantations, highway rights-of-way, and vacant lots.
This proportion of our landscape has been growing rapidly. For example, in Nova Scotia, after the Second World War, 40% of forested land was considered in old growth. Now it is less than 1%, so there are more and more areas suitable for faunas of disturbed environments. Climate change may further this.
Climatologists predict that the broad pattern of climate change will be to accentuate current patterns. Dry areas will experience more drought, wet areas more precipitation, heat waves will be more severe, cold snaps will be colder, forest fires more frequent, and extreme weather events will occur more often. Such circumstances have a disproportionate impact on native species, adapted, as many of them are, to the present environmental conditions.
Thus, we can expect that there will be more opportunities for invasive species to establish themselves, more habitat for currently established invasive species to exploit, and existing alien species that are not invasive could become so as a result of changing environmental conditions, allowing them to break free of ecological restraints.
So what could the results be? Let's look at one example from research done by my fellow entomologists, Owen Olfert and Ross Weiss, with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Saskatoon. Figure 3 in your bundle is adapted from their study of three important alien invasive beetles: the cereal leaf beetle, a pest of wheat, oats, and barley; the cabbage seedpod weevil, a pest of plants in the mustard family, including canola, mustard, cabbage, and broccoli; and the bronzed or rape blossom beetle, another serious pest of mustard plants, particularly canola.
Using CLIMEX modelling software, which integrates information on the ecological tolerances of pests, such as their responses to heat, light, moisture, etc., as well as climate data, CLIMEX generates an index that shows how favourable or unfavourable areas of the country could become if there are changes in temperature and moisture, as is expected under climate change.
Figure 3 shows the results of a temperature increase of 3ºC, considered an intermediate value between low and high greenhouse gas emission scenarios for Canada by the end of the century. The results are striking. Climate change would make suitable, favourable, or very favourable a much larger proportion of Canada's land area for all three of these invasive species. It is evident that the economic impact of this would be substantial. And this may already be happening.
I will go back to the lily leaf beetle for a second. Although we don't know for certain why this species remained confined to Montreal for almost 40 years, this pattern of sudden release from ecological constraints and rapid dispersal and colonization is consistent with the effects of climate change on populations.
So what needs to be done? There are several priority areas.
One, we need to devote significantly greater resources to conducting biodiversity research. We need to determine which species are present, which are not, and which could be threatened by invasives. Lacking a good bio-inventory, we're groping in the dark. Even if we detect alien species, we can't determine if they are new or if they have been present, undetected for decades or centuries.
Two, to conduct bio-inventory work we need significantly greater funding for developing and maintaining taxonomic resources: museums, reference collections, taxonomic experts, and publications. Financial resources for all of these have been in steep decline. The National Research Council of Canada's monograph publishing program was phased out in 2010 for lack of funding.
Three, we need to monitor for new alien species and for changes in the distribution of established alien species that might be influenced by climate change. And this can't be confined to already identified invasives. We have to look widely, since, to quote the former American Secretary of Defense, there are “unknown unknowns” out there.
Four, in order to employ sophisticated modelling programs such as CLIMEX, we need to have detailed eco-physiological information about potential invasives. Otherwise, accurate data to plug into the models is lacking. We should devote more, not fewer, resources to Environment Canada to conduct such research.
And five, as far as I'm aware, climate change has not been formally integrated into federal risk assessment and management processes. A one-day topic on this subject was organized by the Policy Research Initiative in November 2008. Participants identified a number of challenges that needed to be addressed in order to integrate climate change into risk assessment and management. These include developing accurate models of climate change, developing an institutional awareness of climate change, developing expertise--biological, climatic, and technical--targeting funds for undertaking these processes, integrating climate change awareness into policy development in other social and economic sectors, and fostering long-term decision-making. These are all important governmental and institutional objectives, and most remain addressed.
Finally, as I hope these few examples illustrate, climate change represents a ticking time bomb in relation to invasive species--and much else. The Canada we live in has taken 20,000 years, since the end of the last glaciation, to reach an ecological equilibrium. We’ve already significantly disturbed that equilibrium. Once climate, the bedrock of the ecological world, begins to change, all bets are off as to where this may lead. It's important to develop measures such as those I have outlined to backstop that risk, but it's even more critical that we take all possible measures to minimize climate change at all. The costs of not taking action will certainly greatly exceed those of doing so.
Thanks very much.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
Mr. Majka, your timing was just about bang on. Thank you so much.
Under point five you ended by saying “most remain addressed” and then in your briefing material notes it says “most remain unaddressed”. I just want to clarify that.
12:25 p.m.
Research Associate, Nova Scotia Museum, As an Individual
It should say “unaddressed”, yes.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
Thank you for that clarification.
Mr. Woodworth, you have the first round at seven minutes.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
Mr. Majka, thank you for your efforts to appear before us today. I'm sorry I don't have much time to get to know you or to have a conversation with you, but you understand I have seven minutes and have to be fairly to the point. I'll proceed in that spirit. I hope we'll meet again and have another chance to chat.
12:25 p.m.
Research Associate, Nova Scotia Museum, As an Individual
I look forward to it.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you.
I want to ask you first about your view. Do you agree with me that independent scientific evidence is highly important in the development of sound policy?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
And the advantage of independent opinion over an opinion from anyone with a partisan interest is that you have to be careful about relying on an opinion from an expert who has an active partisan interest. Do you agree with that?
12:25 p.m.
Research Associate, Nova Scotia Museum, As an Individual
Yes, it's important that policy be developed from science and that science not be an arm of policy.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
That's right. You would understand someone in my position who is trying to develop policy if I have to be very cautious about evidence when it comes from a partisan source. Do you understand that?
12:25 p.m.
Research Associate, Nova Scotia Museum, As an Individual
Yes, absolutely.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Do you consider yourself to be an independent and non-partisan expert?
12:25 p.m.
Research Associate, Nova Scotia Museum, As an Individual
Yes. I'm not paid by any forestry, agricultural, or other interest. As I mentioned, my background is as an ecologist and as a research associate of a museum. So my interests are really ecological--
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I don't mean to say you're on anyone's pay, but you consider you have a non-partisan approach to issues?
12:25 p.m.
Research Associate, Nova Scotia Museum, As an Individual
Yes. Absolutely.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I will read to you this statement:
The present Canadian government's leadercentric, hyperpartisan, wedge politics, zero sum, ignorance-trumps-knowledge approach to government becomes ever more calamitous.
Would you say that has the ring of scientific non-partisanship?
12:25 p.m.
Research Associate, Nova Scotia Museum, As an Individual
I'm not speaking about science in that context.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Right, but let's just establish, first of all, that you do remember and recognize the statement I just read as being your statement. Correct?
12:25 p.m.
Research Associate, Nova Scotia Museum, As an Individual
Yes. I've been very critical from my standpoint as an ecologist of federal government policy, in particular in relation to climate change and also biodiversity.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
If I were to read to you the statement, “Stephen Harper's attempts to foil this legislation”--referring to the climate change bill of the NDP--“appear to be directed by his desire to have Canadian environmental policy as bereft of substantive content as possible in going into the Copenhagen negotiations”, would you say that statement has a ring of scientific non-partisanship?
12:25 p.m.
Research Associate, Nova Scotia Museum, As an Individual
I'm speaking there in the context of political policy, and from my impartial standpoint as an ecologist, I believe that to be the case.