Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee and appear before you in your statutory review process.

Environmental Defence has been conducting research and public education on the issue of toxic pollution in Canada for over 20 years. In addition to writing reports on substances of concern and their impacts on human health, we are active participants in the stakeholder advisory council of Canada’s chemicals management plan. We monitor emerging issues regarding potential threats to human health and environmental health. Our mission is to challenge and inspire change in government, business, and people to ensure a greener, healthier, and more prosperous life for all.

In order to assist members of the Standing Committee on Health with their review, we have prepared a short brief on the Pest Control Products Act. We were late as well in submitting our documents for translation. They will be provided to you once the translation has occurred. Please excuse us for that.

The primary purpose of the Pest Control Products Act is to “protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests”. Environmental Defence views the act as an important piece of legislation, and it is also our view that significant amendments to the act are not currently needed in order to achieve the stated purpose of the act. However, to that end, we have identified an area in which the implementation of the act may be improved by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

Environmental Defence has some concerns with the implementation of the act with regard to the process of conditional registration, a theme you're hearing a lot about today. In this process, regulators allow for the pesticide registration to proceed, conditional on missing data being submitted at a later date. It is important for the PMRA to have the ability to apply conditions to registration. The concern is not with conditional registration in general, but rather with the renewal of registration when the conditions originally applied are not met within the allotted time.

In the preamble to the act it states that “pest control products of acceptable risk be registered for use only if it is shown that their use would be efficacious and if conditions of registration can be established to prevent adverse health impact or pollution of the environment”. A lack of evidence of risk is not the same thing as evidence of no risk. Where data is lacking regarding the safety of a pest control product, there is the potential for pollution of the environment to be occurring. To prevent this from arising, research must be conducted to demonstrate the safety of a given product.

Conducting sound research does take time, and it is possible that in some cases requests for extensions may be made in light of challenges in gathering that data. But reasonable limits must be set in order to prevent pest control products from inflicting damage on the environment, and potentially the greater food web, and harming insect species on which we rely, all while we wait for more data to be provided.

This remains a central problem within the neonicotinoid pesticides—neonics for short—that are implicated in large-scale bee deaths. Controversy about bees has sometimes been described as a matter of opposing views, or as a communications issue, but public concern is merited when pesticide registrations are being approved based on incomplete science. The PMRA itself has referred to the lack of chronic toxicity studies in bees as a critical data gap, and yet, to the present, they have given conditional registrations repeatedly for neonics.

Regulators in other jurisdictions have made different judgments about the safety of neonics and have created prohibitions on these chemicals. Based on a review of currently available evidence, the Government of Ontario found sufficient cause for concern that restrictions on neonics are now being planned in this jurisdiction. A Government of Ontario document entitled “Pollinator Health: A Proposal for Enhancing Pollinator Health and Reducing the Use of Neonicotinoid Pesticides in Ontario” provides an overview of the issue, including references to studies that underline the risks posed by these pesticides and an overview of the provincial government's proposed plan.

The risks associated with neonics are well documented. In the Standing Committee on Health session dated January 27, 2015, Mr. Aucoin, executive director of the PMRA, stated, “In the context of neonics, first of all, globally there is a concern for pollinators and the troubles that pollinators like bees are having in terms of population declines....” Mr. Aucoin cites several factors as the basis for this concern, such as climate change, pests, and diseases. He also stated that, “Within Canada itself we have had some bee mortality incidents with neonics”, while specifying that they have been restricted to soybean-growing regions of Ontario and Quebec.

Health Canada’s PMRA investigation found that 70% of dead bees “had neonicotinoid residues present, while the majority of live bees did not have residues present. The weight of evidence indicated that exposure to neonicotinoids during the corn and soybean planting period contributed to bee mortalities in 2012 and 2013”. The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, in the 2013-14 annual report, found that “there is now clear evidence that acute exposure to neonicotinoid-contaminated dust is linked to mass bee deaths” and the PMRA’s investigation into the 2012 and 2013 bee kills in Canada concluded that neonics were a contributing factor in many cases. Accordingly, in 2013, the PMRA declared that “current agricultural practices related to the use of neonicotinoid treated corn and soybean seed are not sustainable”.

While some stakeholders may assert that further investigation should be undertaken before decisions regarding the use of neonics in Canada are made, evidence of harm is mounting. In accordance with the precautionary principle, steps should be taken to prevent further harm.

The fact remains that over 10 years ago there were critical data gaps. They are still not addressed. These products are still in use despite registration having been granted on condition that these gaps would be addressed. The deadlines have come and gone, and yet these products remain.

We recommend that the requirements for renewal of conditional registration be re-examined in order to prevent products for which inadequate safety data—for example, chronic toxicity data—is available from polluting the environment and causing undue harm to pollinators and other species.

In the January 27 session of the Standing Committee on Health, Mr. Aucoin described the PMRA’s process as being based on “rigorous scientific risk assessment, both for human health and for the environment”. He said, “We take a completely science-based approach to our decision-making. It's based on a foundation of data and information requirements that spans literally 200 studies or more.”

Environmental Defence supports this rigorous, science-based approach. But where data is lacking, there ought to be a deadline imposed that is enforceable, in the spirit of the preceding statement by Mr. Aucoin, if it is to be upheld.

The Pest Control Products Act is a key piece of legislation for the protection of human health and the environment, and improvements to the management of pest control products and prevention of pollution have, no doubt, occurred as a result of the act. Environmental Defence submits this brief regarding the implementation of conditional registration in the spirit of seeing the purpose of this important act fulfilled thoroughly and effectively for the benefit of all Canadians.

Thank you for the opportunity to present. l welcome your questions.

Transcript

Discussions (0)