Bill C-31 proposes eliminating the mandatory reassessment of pesticides every 15 years, requiring a full review only if risks increase significantly. Producers warn of damage to exports to the EU, while CropLife Canada defends the measure.
Canada is seeking to ease pesticide review rules through Bill C-31, an initiative that has sparked a confrontation between producer organizations — which warn of damage to exports to the European Union and a drop in standards — and industry representatives, who defend the measure as a way to speed up farmers' access to new inputs.
Currently, Canadian pest control regulation requires every registered pesticide to be reviewed at least once every 15 years. A section of C-31 could change that scheme: instead of mandatory periodic reassessment, a full reassessment would only be required if associated risks increase significantly.
With the United States no longer a reliable customer, expanding into new markets such as the European Union may prove key for Canada's agri-food sector. At the same time, producers have criticized for years what they consider a slow regulatory system.
A coalition led by the National Farmers Union argues that the provision could harm Canada's export market in the European Union. “Canada has a reputation for quality and reliability, and that doesn't come out of thin air,” said Phil Mount, an Ontario sheep producer and vice-president of policy at the NFU. “If we're seen to be letting our standards slip, the trust we've built over generations as farm producers and agricultural exporters can evaporate very quickly.”
Mount noted that the EU tends to have much stricter regulations than Canada when it comes to pesticides and traceability. “Eliminating mandatory pesticide reassessment is one of those very low bars that many of the new markets we're theoretically seeking require,” he said. “It will do nothing but harm.” The leader also criticized the government for “hiding” the new regulations inside a broader omnibus bill and maintained that the changes were designed behind closed doors, without input from producers or Health Canada's special scientific advisory committee. “They've already assembled them,” Mount said of the committee. “Let's listen to them and get their input on how the processes can be improved.”
Several members of the coalition held an information session for parliamentarians on Parliament Hill on the morning of October 20. Mount said attendance was positive, though only one representative of the governing Liberal Party attended, with no link to cabinet or the agriculture committee.
Pierre Petelle, president and CEO of CropLife Canada, maintained that concerns about C-31 may be misleading. The Pesticides Regulatory Directorate (formerly the PMRA) will still be required to determine whether the risks associated with products have changed. “No one is scrapping anything,” Petelle said.
The executive argued that pesticide oversight will still include evaluating and incorporating new research and decisions from other countries. He compared the current 15-year provision to renewing a driver's license: “if every 15 years your license expired and you not only had to renew it, but had to retake a course, do a full driving test and a full written exam, even though your health hadn't changed, your vision hadn't changed, and you had a safe driving record.”
Petelle added that the directives proposed in C-31 could help Canadian producers by streamlining access to key inputs. “New tools aren't reaching farmers' hands as fast as they should, or as fast as other competitors get them,” he said. “These are all steps to improve that and make the system more nimble and able to ensure that, when new active ingredients emerge, our producers get them first, or at the same time as their competitors.” Data suggesting a problem with a product would still trigger a review, which could happen at any time, he added.
Thibault Rehn, of the nonprofit organization Vigilance OGM, warned that the gap between pesticides banned in Canada and in the EU could widen if provisions and review processes are weakened. “Banned pesticides will probably be stopped at the border in Europe,” Rehn said. “We will have more and more trouble exporting crops.” He added: “We won't be able to export canola or lentils to Europe.”
In January, France began restricting imports of food containing five substances banned in Europe, four of which are used in Canada. Canadian lentils came under scrutiny. Rehn recalled that this has happened before, when Italy raised concerns about Canadian wheat over glyphosate levels.
Petelle questioned concerns about C-31's trade impact and noted that those raising fears of market rejection should consider the timing of those disputes, which have lasted for years and are not linked to domestic protection. “This is nothing new for Europe,” he said. “They regularly block imports of competing products to protect their domestic suppliers.” He also maintained that European regulators have misunderstood the purpose of maximum residue limits. “It's basically Brussels deciding what Saskatchewan farmers can apply to their crops, which makes no sense,” Petelle said. “We believe our producers are as sustainable as, or more sustainable than, European ones, and we don't need European regulators dictating which tools our farmers should use.”
The coalition also opposed the C-31 changes on human health grounds. An October 20 statement raised several concerns about the new mechanism proposed in the bill, among them that the bill does not define what constitutes a “significant” increase in risk.
“To me, it's total nonsense to eliminate the periodic reassessment of pesticides,” said Gérald Chouinard, of Victimes des pesticides du Québec, another member of the coalition. Chouinard maintained that it is essential that products continue to be reviewed periodically to avoid the worst health outcomes for the producers who use them. “Producers don't want to get sick,” he said. “They use pesticides because they have no other choice, but they don't want to use things that hurt or sicken them.”
A petition calling for the removal of the pesticide-related provisions of Bill C-31 has now surpassed 13,000 signatures.
