Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 41 - Evidence - Meeting of February 1, 2018
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 1, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:02 a.m. to study the acquisition of farmland in Canada and its potential impact on the farming sector; and to consider the Government response to the Ninth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, entitled The Importance of Bee Health to Sustainable Food Production in Canada, tabled and adopted in the Senate on May 28, 2015.
Senator Diane F. Griffin (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
I am Senator Diane Griffin from Prince Edward Island, chair of the committee. I will ask the senators to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Doyle: Norman Doyle, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Ontario.
Senator Mercer: Terry Mercer, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you, folks.
Today, for our first panel, the witnesses we have are from the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Welcome, gentlemen. Good to have you here. We have Mr. Richard Aucoin, Executive Director, and Mr. Scott Kirby, Director General of the Environmental Assessment Directorate. Thank you very much for accepting our invitation to appear here today.
I will invite the witnesses to make their presentation. I’m reminding them of the instructions from the clerk: Seven to 10 minutes in length is what we’re looking at, and following the presentation by the witnesses, we’ll have a question and answer session.
Richard Aucoin, Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada: Good morning, Madam Chair, and thank you very much for the opportunity to give you an overview of some of the work we have been doing on the pesticides called neonics and pollinator protection. The neonics and pollinator protection are one key aspect of what might be affecting the health of pollinators in Canada.
[Translation]
As you are aware, PMRA, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, is the federal body responsible for regulating pesticides in Canada. Our mandate remains one of health and environmental protection, and our focus continues to be on ensuring that registered pesticides do not pose unacceptable health and environmental risks.
[English]
We do our work through an intensive and regimented scientific review process that continues for as long as a pesticide is approved for use in Canada. Pesticides on the market are also re-evaluated on a cyclical basis, and new scientific assessments can also be triggered at any time if there is new health or environmental risk information available.
As you’re aware, our organization is conducting scientific reviews on three important neonic pesticides that are currently approved for agricultural use in Canada: clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam are the three key pesticides that we’re reassessing. Much of this work has focused on the potential impacts of neonics on pollinators such as bees, but PMRA has also undertaken a broader assessment of these products and any potential impacts they may be having on other aspects of the environment.
The first neonic pesticides were approved for use in Canada in the 1990s, and we initiated re-evaluations of these around 2009. Around that time, PMRA and international partners were discussing a need to update and modernize the way pesticide risks to pollinators were evaluated. It was unknown whether the increasing use of pesticides like the neonics, which can move through plants and can appear in trace amounts in pollen and nectar, could be linked to pollinator declines. PMRA partnered with the U.S. EPA in the development of an updated methodology for assessing risks to pollinators at the same time that the re-evaluations of neonics were under way.
Also around this time, a high number of bee deaths were linked to the planting of neonic-treated seeds in Ontario and Quebec, in particular. PMRA worked with stakeholders to develop a new approach to planting that would reduce the exposure to bees, and that was implemented as of the 2014 growing season in Canada. With these mitigation measures in place, the number of incidents reported has fallen by 70 to 90 per cent in the seasons since that time.
In close collaboration with the U.S. EPA, PMRA is continuing to examine the potential for the effects of neonics on bees. Most recently, we published for consultation a proposal that would restrict certain uses of neonics on certain crops that pose unacceptable risks to pollinators.
We are also closely examining the potential for these neonics to affect aquatic life, since in Canada, the U.S. and Europe, the level of neonics being found in water are a growing concern. So we’re looking closely at that aspect as well, and we will be consulting with Canadians on the outcomes of those assessments this coming year.
PMRA has maintained a high level of engagement with Canadians over in course of this complex series of reviews, through consultations, outreach activities and working groups such as the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada-led Bee Health Roundtable. They have a multi-stakeholder forum as well. Through these activities, federal and provincial government agencies, grower groups, independent researchers, non-government organizations and manufacturers have undertaken a number of initiatives, including examination of alternative risk management strategies, the generation of supplemental water monitoring data in Canada, and identification of potential alternative pest control products to replace neonics like imidacloprid, should it become necessary.
[Translation]
Just last week, PMRA held public webinars on the pollinator assessments of two of the neonics, with approximately 150 registered attendees representing the Canadian public, growers, health and environmental groups, industry, federal and provincial partners, and academic scientists. This material was subsequently presented at the AAFC Bee Health Roundtable. PMRA will continue to engage Canadians through various outreach activities as the review of neonicotinoids progresses.
[English]
We’ve taken a number of steps so far to complete reviews of a number of the neonics. We’ve published proposals to restrict certain uses of neonics, but we still have a lot of work to do this year. We will be consulting publicly with Canadians on the outcomes of all those reviews before we make any final decisions.
Scott Kirby, who is in charge of our Environmental Assessment Directorate, and I are here to respond to any questions you may have on the neonics and our efforts to protect the environment. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We’ll move into the question and answer phase. I will ask the senators to keep their questions short, as well as the responses. If you have a lot of questions, we’ll save some for the second round.
I’m going to start with the deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Welcome, gentlemen. Mr. Aucoin, I listened attentively to your presentation. You know, two years ago, we produced a report on bees, which required a great deal of effort from the scientific community in the agricultural sector. We met with experts from the United States, Australia and Europe, as well as experts from every province in Canada, of course. There is one common denominator: The destruction of bees is a real problem caused by pesticides. It seems that there is no need to seek out other reasons. There is the destruction of bees and small marine flora along small streams in the fields, be it canola, corn or any other crop.
The public has the following question: Is Canada able, in the short and medium term, to stop the sale of destructive pesticides in Canada or to authorize their registration?
[English]
Mr. Aucoin: Thank you for the question, senator. Canada is going through a scientific review of all these neonics and our final outcomes and decisions will be driven by the science.
Under our legislative mandate, we are required to protect the environment and make sure there is no unacceptable risk to the environment. We are also required to make sure that it is a scientific-based process, which we follow rigorously. We are looking at an extensive amount of information, both in Canada and internationally. We are consulting international counterparts, for example, the U.S. EPA. We are very much connected with networks of scientists in Europe as well as in North America, Australia, et cetera, to make sure we understand everything we need to know about the neonics and whether there are potential risks to the environment — not just bees but to the broader environment.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, we’re going through a process now of looking at each of these aspects on three different neonic pesticides that are all slightly different. They have some commonalities, but there are three different chemicals we are looking at. This spring and this summer, we expect to complete some of the major parts of our scientific reviews and we’ll be consulting the public, as we’re required to under our legislation, to do a full public consultation on the outcomes of those assessments. We hope by the end of the year we will have done all these consultations and will be able to arrive at a decision point.
Our legislation makes it very clear that if there are unacceptable risks to the environment, we’re required to take action. So we will do that based on the science and evidence that is available at the time.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Like the European Union, Canada has important obligations in this area. I would like to know whether the Canadian government is taking into account the research it has conducted with Canadian universities, whether it is Vancouver, Calgary, Guelph in Ontario, Laval, Quebec City, Dalhousie or Moncton. We were all told that this was the main reason. If we want to do business with the Europeans, decisions need to be made quickly. They, too, must deal with this problem. Monsanto has already been put on the side track, and we will have to act rapidly. Is the government able to act rapidly?
[English]
Mr. Aucoin: We are moving as rapidly as we can to complete our scientific reviews. I absolutely assure you that we take into account all the scientific literature, both public literature from Canadian universities from our counterparts around the world. We also have data and information that is generated by the manufacturers, but we take all that information into account in our decision making. As I indicated, we are really hoping to complete a lot of this assessment work by this summer. So we’re going as quickly as we can to determine how, if and where we need to take regulatory action.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses.
The PMRA supported the recommendation on the availability of products that control mites, and this is affecting honeybees. The PMRA intends to accelerate the review of new products and to address mites, and this is affecting honeybees. The committee has learned that a new chemical has been approved in order to help keep up the fight against mites. What measure has been adopted by PMRA to efficiently accelerate the registration process of chemicals used in the beekeeping industry?
Mr. Aucoin: Specifically with respect to the kinds of pest control products that are used control mites, as I think the committee might be aware of, in the report and the information that you received, mites are another possible threat to the health of bees and bee colonies.
We have one or two products that are already approved for use in Canada. We did approve another product recently, I believe. I don’t have the name of that product at hand, but I could provide it.
Unfortunately, there are not a lot of new products in the pipeline for the control of mites. There is just not a lot. And PMRA acts on applications. When we get an application from a manufacturer, when we receive a submission, we’re absolutely happy to expedite that if it will help the bee health issue. But there has not been very much interest or applications to PMRA for new products to control mites.
Senator Oh: But is there a timeline or anything you foresee? One or two years?
Mr. Aucoin: We would certainly accelerate any type of mite control product, our assessment of it, within a year. We are also aware that, should the need become necessary for some of the neonic pesticides to be replaced by alternative pest control products, we have to look and consider whether we can expedite some of those replacements or not. It depends on what is put forward and whether we can expedite it or not.
Senator Mercer: I plead guilty to being the one who initiated this study a few years ago at the committee with the thought that it would be a short six-week study and we would get on to other things. It has turned into a major study.
I appreciate the support we received from PMRA throughout the study. Thank you for that.
What restrictions are now in place that weren’t in place when we started this study? And how have the results of the European ban on the use of neonics played out?
We’re now well into this. There should be some scientific results to tell us whether the ban in Europe has been effective. Has it made a difference? Is it a route worth pursuing?
Mr. Aucoin: I’ll ask my colleague, Scott Kirby, to answer questions on specific restrictions that we’re currently proposing and what we know about the impact of the European ban.
Scott Kirby, Director General, Environmental Assessment Directorate, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada: Thank you for the question, senator. With respect to measures that have been put in place since the study was initiated, I would say that there have been some significant proposals over the last few years.
First, with respect to one neonic, imidacloprid, which is being reviewed to look at the risk to pollinators but also a broader review for environmental risks to other areas, that product has been proposed to be discontinued for most outdoor uses due to risks to aquatic insects.
So that proposal went out, I think, in 2016, and it garnered a large amount of response from the public. We got over 46,000 comments on that decision.
It also initiated the creation of a multi-stakeholder forum on neonics, which we are participating in. That forum has been working with stakeholders to generate additional data to bring forward for the risk assessment.
On the imidacloprid side, we have proposed major restrictions to protect aquatic insects. With respect to pollinator reviews specifically, we just proposed two decisions in December of 2017. This is for the products clothianidin and thiamethoxam, and we are proposing major restrictions for these chemicals, as well, with respect to pollinator protection. That includes removal of many uses such as orchards, on flowering ornamentals and even in greenhouses where you’re going to transplant the plants in greenhouses outdoors.
In other areas, we’ve proposed restrictions on when you can apply the product. Of course, the major area where bees are exposed is through the pollen and nectar when they are foraging on flowers. For many uses we are now restricting the use of the product so it can only be used after the plant has flowered so there is no exposure at that point.
The only area where there are not major restrictions is on seed treatments. So these are seeds that have been treated with the neonics to protect them from insect pests. We reviewed a large amount of science looking at actual levels inside of pollen and nectar after the seeds have been treated and the plants have grown and started to flower. The levels we were seeing in the plants were not at levels which we would expect to see impacts on honey bees and wild pollinators. So for seed treatments we’re not proposing any major restrictions, although we are making it mandatory for certain dusty seed types — similar to what we saw with corn and soy in 2012 — that measures be put in place to reduce the amount of dust generated when they’re planting these seeds.
So far we’ve proposed a significant number of measures.
We’re planning on publishing a proposed decision for neonic and imidacloprid in March of this year. We will be putting that out as a proposed decision and we will be welcoming comments from the public on that before making final decisions at the end of 2018 on all three of them.
Senator Mercer: And the European?
Mr. Kirby: With respect to the European information, we have reviewed all the available information that the Europeans have at their disposal. The EFSA, the organization that is conducting the risk assessment, has not completed that. I think they have twice delayed the publication of this risk assessment. I’m not 100 per cent sure what the new target is for that. However, certain jurisdictions within the EU have started to move ahead of the publishing of that science and have made decisions with respect to the continued use of certain products in their jurisdictions.
From our perspective, we’re letting the science get completed and if the European Food Safety Authority publishes their assessment prior to us making our final decision, we will consider all that they have.
Senator Mercer: This delay seems rather unusual in the sense that the data has been collected for a number of years now. Is there any indication as to the reason for the delay? Is the data not conclusive?
Mr. Kirby: I couldn’t say for certain why there have been delays, I’m sorry.
Senator Doyle: I wasn’t a member of the committee when the study was going on, so I run the risk of asking questions that were probably already asked.
Over the last five years in particular, there has been quite a lot of news about the bee population and what have you. Do you have any numbers or information you could share on the bee population and whether it’s decreased over the last five years in particular, since we’ve heard quite a lot about it during that time period?
Mr. Kirby: Thank you for your question. We at the PMRA don’t have a research mandate. However, our colleagues in other federal departments and at the provincial level, as well as academia, are conducting research on domestic bee populations.
I can’t really speak to specifics. All I can say is that for certain bee populations, especially certain bumblebee populations, there have been reports of declines. For other bee populations, there have been no reports of declines. That’s the extent to which I can comment on that.
Senator Doyle: With the different bee populations, whether it’s bumblebees, honeybees or what have you, do you have the added problem of having to, say, sort out different pesticides to deal with the different kinds of bees, or does one pesticide present the same problem to all bees?
Mr. Kirby: Thank you for your question. Whenever the PMRA conducts a scientific review of a pesticide, we look at the risk to the environment as a whole. So we look at bees as well as other organisms.
Specifically with respect to bees, as Dr. Aucoin mentioned, we worked in collaboration with the U.S. EPA, starting back in 2012, to develop a new pollinator risk assessment framework. Before that, the amount of data that was generated and the risk assessment methods were not to modern standards. Given the fact that there were global concerns for bees, we worked hard with our partners to come up with a much more rigorous assessment process.
That assessment process is applied to any pesticide being proposed for registration, so these would be new chemicals. But also as we conduct reevaluations of older chemicals, this new science applies to that and that science is meant to protect all pollinators.
Senator Doyle: We hear a lot about climate change and how it is affecting different bees and animals. Is climate change a factor, to your knowledge? Has climate change and how it might affect these populations of bees been a part of your study?
Mr. Kirby: Not specifically. Our focus is on the impact of pesticides on pollinators. Climate change has been linked to issues with respect to bee health, both from the perspective of changing habitats — as climate change occurs different flowers grow in different regions — and there was a study several years ago that indicated certain species of bumble bees were being impacted by climate change. And in fact, their preferred species of flower had moved north and they were not able to follow it.
Certainly, climate change may be a factor, but that’s not a focus of our work.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Senator Doyle has already asked my question. I would like to come back to Senator Mercer’s question about the ban on distributing or using seeds that would be processed in products containing neonicotinoid pesticides. The European Union has indicated that it wants to ban the distribution and use of these seeds. Would it affect the distribution of agri-food products between Canada and the European Union? Will the European Union ban this kind of distribution? What effects could this have on the trade in goods?
[English]
Mr. Aucoin: On trade? First, normally, the most significant impact of pesticide use on food and trade is when there’s a potential human health risk that we’ve assessed or that another country has assessed.
One of the other countries is worried about residues of that pesticide remaining on food that is then traded internationally.
In the case of the neonics, our assessments to date have not shown any significant human health risk. Risks of those pesticides to the environment is the key issue.
We’re not too concerned about the neonics from a trade perspective. However, we’ve been made aware of another possible angle. For example, if Canadian agriculture is not able to use neonics to treat their seeds or their crops, they may be required to use a different pesticide on those crops. There’s always a concern from some commodity groups that alternative pesticide might be one that has some kind of an issue of interest to trade between countries.
So it is not impossible that a commodity trade could be affected by decisions Canada makes on the neonics. It would be a consequential and non-intentional impact.
Senator Oh: Is the neonic Senator Gagné was talking about still widely used in other parts of the world or just in Canada? Who exports all these neonic chemicals?
Mr. Aucoin: Globally, the neonics are quite widely used, with the exception of Europe, where there has been a suspension of most but not all uses for the last number of years. As Scott indicated, the European regulatory framework is going through some final reviews to determine what the future status of those neonics are in a European context. Individual member states, such as France, have taken independent actions to restrict the use of neonics.
Senator Oh: What about Asia? I know Asia is difficult to control, because there are so many countries — the use of chemicals and all this.
Mr. Aucoin: I’m not aware of the status of use. My understanding is that there’s still quite a global market for and use of neonics.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I would like to thank our witnesses for being here. It is disturbing to see how slow things are changing, despite all the data we have here and in other countries, all of which are sensitive to this issue. When you say you want to work faster, what does that mean in terms of timing? How much longer do you need to study this issue and come up with a satisfactory solution to the current situation?
[English]
Mr. Aucoin: As I’ve indicated, we have put out a number of proposals, as we’re required to do under the legislation. We have to consult Canadians on all our studies. As a result of those consultations, we will routinely receive more information and comments, and sometimes even more data, on the subject of the neonics.
I think you can appreciate that the global sensitivity around neonics and the global interest in whether there are environmental impacts of neonics have generated even more scientific studies.
For us, it’s almost a question of trying to contain the amount of data and information we have. We believe that most of the pertinent information has been generated and that we will be able to make final proposals by this spring and summer on the neonics. We’re hopeful that by the end of this calendar year we will be able to make some final decisions on the neonics.
We always have to account for the possibility that brand new studies are created and generated that will move us one way or the other. We have to take a best-weight-of-evidence approach to all the data and information we receive, but sometimes an overwhelming amount of data and information is available on the subject.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Part of my question has been answered, but I would like to confirm some facts. Listening to you, I have the impression that we are adopting a less daring or dynamic approach than the Europeans. Basically, you seem to be saying that our strategy is to wait for the data and the research findings. Next month, Europe is considering a vote on an even wider ban on neonicotinoids. Why this position on the Canadian side? Why aren’t we choosing to take more dynamic measures given this bee crisis?
[English]
Mr. Aucoin: We primarily work based on our federal legislative framework, which essentially says we have to follow the science and the evidence, and we have to make our decisions based on such. Until we have assessed all that science and evidence, and until we have consulted the public on it, we can’t really make any decision.
It is true there is a perception that in Europe, for example, some of the member state countries have taken individual actions. They will take those actions based on their own domestic policies and approaches. Often that’s described as a hazard-based approach as opposed to a risk-based approach, but they will take what precautionary approaches they can within the realm of legislative frameworks.
Under our federal framework, we’re focused on making science-based decisions, and we have to prove that we’ve looked at all the science, taken a weighted evidence approach with all that so that when we make a final decision, it will stand up to scrutiny, public expectations and litigation; it will be solid.
Senator Pratte: To follow up on Senator Gagné’s questions, as you move forward and decisions are taken, which should obviously lead to some restrictions — in some cases, extensive restrictions — on the use of those products, what alternatives will there be for producers? I’m pretty sure you have an idea of what other products they will come to use. What are the potential risks of those products, or will there be other or new products available to replace those neonics?
Mr. Aucoin: Thank you for the question, senator. As part of the consultation and engagement on the neonics, we’ve been working closely with an Agriculture and Agri-Food led stakeholder forum with a lot of stakeholders, including agricultural representatives in the provinces and researchers. Part of what they have been looking at is alternative pesticides to the neonics, should it become necessary to replace or deal with any other restrictions.
There’s a reason why Canadian agriculture is using neonics today. They are obviously very effective. They just are the right kind of product that Canadian agriculture sees benefits from, but there are other alternatives for most neonic uses.
There will be questions about whether those alternative pesticides are as effective as the neonics, whether they cost as much or more than the neonics, whether there are impacts on yield or, as I indicated earlier, there is even a potential for an impact on trade, should a country to which we export have some concerns about that alternative pesticide.
Those are all factors I know are being looked at carefully in our multi-stakeholder working groups.
At the end of the day at PMRA, our legislation is heavily focused on health and the environment. The availability of alternatives is something we are aware of, and it can help influence how we risk manage any restrictions we might need to put on the neonics, but the restrictions are going to be paramount.
We are working with the stakeholder groups to make sure we understand what the impacts are and if there’s a transition period, what that would look like.
The manufacturers of pesticides themselves sometimes have alternative pesticides in the wings, in the pipeline. So they’re well aware of the potential loss of neonics.
Europe has already suspended most uses of neonics and there is concern about the long-term impact, but there are alternatives. Agriculture is very innovative, too. We’re hopeful that if these restrictions ultimately are required, agriculture will adapt.
Senator Pratte: So it’s not a case where, if we restricted or prohibited the use of neonics, there could be other products that would be even more dangerous, or dangerous in a different way, perhaps not for bees but for water, et cetera?
Mr. Aucoin: We’ve conducted risk assessments on all those pesticides and we’re required under our legislation to do a cyclical reassessment of those pesticides. So at least in their current use, those alternative pesticides do not pose unacceptable risks. We are aware that if we lose one pesticide or one pesticide is restricted, it may require another pesticide to be used at a higher volume or more frequently. But we are cyclically reassessing those and will have to take that into consideration as we move forward.
As part of this process, the vast majority of pesticides in Canada are going through that process of making sure they’re up to modern standards. With the newer pesticides being introduced to Canada, most have more positive human or environment risk attributes than their predecessors. It’s a constant upgrading.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I would like to come back to the free trade agreement. Since the beginning of your testimony, you have spoken a lot about what is happening in France. France is one of the 29 components of the agreement. Do you have a relationship with Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and the former Eastern countries, such as Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania? Do you adopt the standards of the European Union or do you expect each country in this community to adopt legislation similar to that of Canada? Through the European Parliament, the European Union must put in place equal standards in all countries. Food security and traceability remain important issues. In terms of food security, there is of course production. France is one component, but I do not think there are lessons to be learned from it at this time. What is your relationship with the other 28 countries of the European Union?
[English]
Mr. Aucoin: Canada and PMRA works quite extensively internationally. We have long-established relationships through our NAFTA work with Canada, U.S. and Mexico, looking at aligning our pesticide regulatory frameworks and how we do our science. That’s a long-standing relationship going back 20 years or more.
As far as European countries, Canada is very active at the OECD. We also participate in and chair an OECD working group on pesticides, which has all member state countries represented at the table, so we can talk through and work together on trying to align and understand each other’s different scientific policies and processes, and how we do our assessment of chemicals. That also is a very long-standing, solid relationship.
In fact, Canada, along with many other OECD member countries, routinely conducts joint scientific reviews with many partners for brand new agricultural chemicals coming into multiple countries at the same time. Through our OECD efforts, we’ve developed a program where this can be done jointly with many other countries at the same time. We’re very much connected with Europe and understand their regulatory framework, their standards and processes.
In Canada, we absolutely follow our own legislative framework. We develop our own domestic policies and processes that support that. But all that is to say we’ve done an extraordinary amount of work over the last few decades to understand and align those science processes where it’s appropriate to do so.
Europe, as you know, is a collection of member states who have both their own authorities to take actions within their own jurisdictions, such as France or Germany, but they also participate as part of the European federation and have to follow a certain level of standards set by the European Commission,European Parliament. They set the high level of standards as to what’s technically available in Europe, but individual member states often have authorities to put further restrictions on the use of pesticides within their jurisdictions.
That’s not dissimilar to Canada. As a federal regulator, we set the standard. We set what is permitted to be used in Canada, but individual provinces can and do implement further restrictions on the use of individual pesticides.
As an example, not too long ago the province of Ontario set in place a set of provincial regulations that sought to further restrict the use of neonics on treated seeds, looking for a gradual reduction in the use of treated seeds in the province of Ontario over a period of time. That’s purely within the provincial jurisdiction to do so.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Of course, Canada is not the last, because Canada is one of the most progressive countries, despite our small problems. I am not talking about agreements with the United States or Mexico. I’m sticking to Europe. Last Sunday, I spoke with a former French Minister of Agriculture. I was scandalized by his comments that France uses chemicals in its fertilizers, corn crops and even on its vines, which are one of its main products.
There is still a lot of work to be done with the European Community on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA. I have noticed that the most forward-thinking countries are Germany, Austria and Italy. When you say that the European Parliament adopts legislation, do you know how long it takes before it reaches the parliaments of the countries concerned? In my opinion, the European Parliament is a big chamber of commerce. It has no punitive power. It only has good will powers. I am especially concerned about issues related to traceability. As proof, France had problems buying beef from Hungary, which was in fact horse meat. It is a flaw in the system. If there has been a food security gap, there must also be a flaw with respect to pesticides.
This is worrisome to the people of Canada because we will be receiving products from the European Union. Of course, there is no problem with the products we export, but we must be sure that products from the European Union pose no threat to the Canadian public. Regardless of the food product of European origin, we must be able, as a government and a country, to assure our population that we are in control of the situation. I will let you finish on that, Mr. Aucoin.
[English]
Mr. Aucoin: Thank you for the comment, or question, senator.
I take your point of the importance of Canada being very closely cooperative with our international counterparts to make sure we continue to have the right knowledge of the nature of any kind of risks or dangers that might be taking place in other countries.
We have long-established networks through the OECD and with bilateral relationships with different European countries, to really understand the nature of the pesticide regulatory environments in those regions. We will very much continue that.
In terms of the movement of food commodities between regions like Canada and Europe — all of these OECD countries that are at a fairly high level of modern regulation of pesticides and food commodities — there’s a high level of oversight and monitoring of food commodities and, in particular, any pesticide residues in food commodities.
In Canada, as I’m sure you’re aware, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has the mandate for monitoring food for residues. Every year, they put out annual reports and indicate there’s an extremely high level of compliance with the standards for pesticide residues in food that have been set.
PMRA sets the standard for what is an acceptable amount of pesticide residue in any food commodity, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, as part of their mandate, does routine inspections of any kind of foodstuffs coming into Canada from around the world. There’s a high level of compliance with those standards, so I think Canadians should be fairly confident that their food supply is very safe from a pesticide residue perspective.
The Chair: I would like to thank our panellists. This was a very good session and a great follow-up on the report previously done by this committee and adopted by the Senate.
(The committee continued in camera.)