Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 17 - Evidence - Meeting of October 9, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 9, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:01 a.m. to study the importance of bees and bee health in the production of honey, food and seed in Canada.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
[Translation]
I am Senator Percy Mockler from New Brunswick, chair of the committee. I would like to start by asking the senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Robichaud: Good morning, I am Fernand Robichaud from Saint-Louis-de-Kent, New Brunswick.
Senator Tardif: I am Claudette Tardif from Alberta.
Senator Maltais: Good morning. I am Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Beyak: Good morning. Lynn Beyak, Ontario.
Senator Unger: Good morning. Betty Unger, Alberta.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Ogilvie: Kelvin Ogilvie, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you very much for accepting our invitation. We will introduce you shortly, individually.
The committee is continuing its study on the importance of bees and bee health in the production of honey, food and seed in Canada. The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has been authorized by the Senate of Canada to examine and report on the importance of bees and bee health in the production of honey, food and seed in Canada.
[Translation]
According to the Canadian Honey Council, the value of honeybees to the pollination of crops is estimated at over $2 billion annually.
[English]
Bees are crucial for the pollination of commercial plants, fruits and vegetables.
Honourable senators, from Health Canada we have Mr. Scott Kirby.
[Translation]
He is the Director of the Environmental Assessment Directorate of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.
[English]
We also have Margherita Conti, Director General, Value Assessment and Re-evaluation Management Directorate, Pest Management Regulatory Agency.
From Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Frédéric Seppey, Chief Agriculture Negotiator and Director General, Trade Agreements and Negotiations Directorate, Market and Industry Services Branch.
From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Dr. Ian Alexander.
[Translation]
He is the executive director of the Animal Health Science Directorate.
[English]
Thank you for accepting our invitation to share your views and answer the questions from the senators.
I would now invite, as per the instructions from the clerk, the following witnesses to make their first presentation. It will be Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada first, to be followed by Health Canada, and the presentation will be shared between Mr. Kirby and Ms. Conti. We will complete with Dr. Alexander, the Executive Director of Animal Health and Science Directorate.
[Translation]
That said, the floor is yours. I would ask Frédéric Seppey to go ahead with his presentation.
Frédéric Seppey, Chief Agriculture Negotiator and Director General, Trade Agreements and Negotiations Directorate, Market and Industry Services Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable senators of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. My name is Frédéric Seppey. I am the Chief Negotiator and Director General of the Trade Agreements and Negotiations Directorate, in the Market and Industry Services Branch of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and I am here today to represent the department.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada appreciates the opportunity to provide you with more information on the importance of honeybees to Canadian agriculture and on the important work under way that is intended to improve the health of honeybees in Canada.
Domestic honeybees play a crucial role as primary agents of controlled pollination, meaning controlled by a beekeeper who installs a hive directly in the fields when the targeted crop is in bloom. Controlled pollination considerably increases the value of Canadian agriculture. For example, the blueberry harvest can be increased eightfold by placing a sufficient number of domestic honeybee hives near blueberry fields when they are flowering.
The entire Canadian production of canola seeds for sowing can be attributed to controlled pollination, mainly through domestic honeybees. It is estimated that this activity increases performance by about 10 per cent. Orchard fruits and many field vegetables worth about $1.6 billion at farm-gate benefit from controlled pollination.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chair, taken together, honeybee pollination adds an estimated $2 billion to our agricultural output in the horticulture, grains and oilseed sectors. As well, controlled pollinators contribute to the quantity and quality of forage crops, such as clover and alfalfa, which support livestock.
Beekeeping is also a significant agricultural industry on its own, producing over $200 million in honey and other bee products. So, it is clear that safeguarding the health of honeybees is an important factor in safeguarding the health of Canadian agriculture.
[English]
Pesticides are also important in agriculture. They play a crucial role in controlling pests and helping to protect the yield and quality of crops. They help Canadian producers maintain their competitive position and profitable operations. Canadian producers are conscious about the judicious use of pesticide products. Pesticide inputs are a valuable tool if applied according to strict regulatory guidelines and if integrated as part of a best management practice regime.
According to a Conference Board of Canada report, for example, field studies have shown that the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, which have been in use since the early 1990s, increases corn and soy yields considerably. Industry estimates indicate that a restriction on neonicotinoid seed treatments could reduce acreage, yield and quality, which could translate into a relative loss of $630 million annually in the Ontario corn and soy industries alone.
According to other industry estimates, the effect of losing neonicotinoids could create a potential from 5 to 20 per cent yield loss in both corn and soy generally. In Western Canada, these insecticides are used on virtually all canola planted, which amounts to over 20 million acres.
As many of your witnesses have explained over the past months, there are many factors that could adversely affect the survival and health of honeybees: parasites such as the varroa mite; honeybee viruses, which are transmitted and amplified by varroa mites; fungal and bacterial infections; malnutrition; low queen quality; extreme weather; inappropriate use of pesticides, either by crop producers or those used by apiarists to protect their bees from pests or inadequate beekeeping practices.
Addressing the multiple and diverse challenges to bee health requires the attention of a wide range of stakeholders: various federal departments and agencies, provincial governments, as well as a number of different agricultural sectors and related industries. AAFC is working with industry and other government departments through a national forum to effectively address complex bee health issues.
AAFC has brought together federal and provincial government authorities, beekeepers and honey producers, grain and oilseed producers, fruit and vegetable producers, seed producers, equipment manufacturers, chemical companies, bee researchers and other relevant stakeholders to explore the dimensions of the bee health issues and create an action plan to address these challenges.
The first national bee health forum was held on March 25, 2014, and participants identified actions which supported the establishment of a sustainable future for beekeeping and crop agriculture in Canada.
At the latest meeting, held on Friday, October 3, the bee health forum participants agreed on and launched a coordinated industry-government national action plan with the following themes to address the diversity of bee health issues: bee care and nutrition, for example, pests and pathogens, pesticides in-hive and outside of the hive environment and surroundings and agricultural needs.
The group committed to work on a number of projects, including a national controlled pollinator strategy, a national bee health monitoring strategy, an action plan for control of pesticide exposure inside and outside beehives affecting bees, pest predictor tools to better inform growers of the need for seed treatment based on pest pressures, improved best management practices for agricultural producers across Canada, including beekeepers, development of a bee health research strategy, as well as the creation of a communication strategy for the forum. Reducing the risk posed by agricultural pesticide use while addressing agricultural needs for crop protection is also one of the bee health forum pillars.
The demonstration of commitment and leadership from the breadth of different organizations involved in the forum is very encouraging. Individual representatives from different groups have taken leadership roles in these projects. The group has collectively committed to sharing information and disseminating key messages to accelerate better understanding by all stakeholders of the issues at hand and the solutions being developed. It is also encouraging to see such broad participation from provincial governments that recognize the value of such a forum and are using it to broaden and leverage their own work.
By bringing together a wide range of groups with interests in bee health, the bee health forum has developed a wide-ranging comprehensive agenda, and forum members have developed an ambitious, thorough agenda, and there will be a great deal of work under way over the coming months and years as we support them in their work to implement this action plan to improve the health of honeybee colonies across Canada.
AAFC has also made other significant contributions to mitigating risks to honeybee health. Dr. Stephen Pernal, from AAFC Science and Technology Branch, outlined much of the work that our scientists have under way, including work to examine the interaction of factors affecting the health of honeybees and hives across the country. This work will help to identify key risk factors affecting the survival of colonies, and there are practical recommendations for beekeepers. AAFC scientists and others participate in a variety of provincial, national and international networking activities, including meetings of the Canadian Honey Council and Apimondia, the international meetings of the beekeeping community, to keep up on national and international developments related to bee health challenges, health surveillance and solutions.
In addition, AAFC recently announced $1 million dollars in program funding for a four-year national surveillance project to document the health profile of honeybee colonies in Canada, which aligns with the Bee Health Forum, national bee health and monitoring strategy project. As project applicants, the Beekeepers Commission of Alberta has contracted the National Bee Diagnostic Centre in Beaverlodge, Alberta, so part of the AAFC Science and Technology Network, to undertake this surveillance project to better record the nature, extent, and prevalence of diseases, pest organisms and chemical residues in Canadian honeybee colonies.
Recognizing that Canadian growers operate in a highly complex environment, trade, regulatory and biological situations are not static. New science results in new policies and regulatory changes and increased global movement, and shifts in climate can result in different pest problems in the agro-ecosystem.
AAFC has put an emphasis on developing crop protection approaches and best practices to position Canadian growers to have access to a diversity of tools to deploy in their operation. For example, Integrated Pest Management tools are being developed by AAFC scientists, including targeted pest management systems which are being developed and implemented through the work of AAFC pest management centres, pesticide risk reduction program, a joint initiative by our Pest Management Centre and Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency. This program works with growers and stakeholders to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from pesticides through the development and implementation of risk reduction strategies.
For example, it has developed a reduced risk strategy for foliar insect pests of field crops with the goal of minimizing unnecessary insecticide application, integrating a number of approaches in managing pests and reducing the use of and reliance on pesticides while helping farmers maintain pest management and profitability.
[Translation]
With the implementation of a multi-faceted tool box for insect pest management, it is anticipated that non-target impacts — such as those to honeybees — could be minimized, pesticide resistance can be mitigated, and the production system will be more economically and environmentally sustainable.
The government's minor use pesticide program works with the regulator, Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency, growers, the provinces and pesticide manufacturers to improve access to minor use pesticides for producers and to develop and implement alternative effective pest management tools and technologies. These include alternatives to traditional chemical crop protection methods and the use of biopesticides and mechanical devices to limit pests while minimizing the environmental impact.
To conclude, Mr. Chair, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today about this important issue and the work we have undertaken within the industry with our government colleagues. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
The Chair: We will now hear from Mr. Kirby and Ms. Conti.
Scott Kirby, Director, Environmental Assessment Directorate, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am Scott Kirby. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present a brief on what Health Canada is doing to protect pollinating insects from the possible risks of pesticide use. This fall, we plan to publish a written report on this subject that will reflect our presentation today.
As you have already heard, honeybee populations in Canada and around the world continue to be threatened. I would like to assure you that Health Canada recognizes the importance of the health of pollinating insects, both for the environment and for agricultural production.
Since our last presentation before the committee, we have continued to assess the potential risks of neonicotinoids to honeybees. When neonicotinoid pesticides were initially approved for use in Canada and other countries, nothing in the scientific information consulted indicated that they would cause unacceptable risks to honeybees or other pollinators.
As you know, recent scientific research has shown that pollinating insects could be affected by sublethal exposure to these pesticides.
However, these results were observed in laboratory conditions or in doses that would likely not be observed in the environment. It is important to note that many scientific uncertainties remain about whether these honeybees can survive in real conditions or at exposure doses observed in the environment.
In addition, neonicotinoid pesticides are used on many crops that require pollination. So far, aside from cases involving corn and soybeans, very few, if any, incidents have been reported for their crop. For example, in Western Canada, even though the majority of canola fields are treated with neonicotinoids, beekeepers have not reported any harmful effects on the honeybees that pollinate them. Regardless, the data indicate that in Ontario and Quebec, honeybees are exposed to dust released when treated corn and soya seeds were planted, at levels that have a harmful effect.
That does not mean that neonicotinoids cannot have a harmful impact on insect pollinators; it just means that the available information does not justify the need to limit the current use of these chemicals.
[English]
To address the impact that treated corn and soy seed is having on pollinators, we announced in the fall of 2013 the implementation of several measures to reduce exposures to bees during the 2014 planting season. These measures included the use of dust-reducing seed flow lubricants, the use of best management practices for safer seed planting and adding enhanced warnings and directions on how to protect bees, to the seed package labels.
Before the 2014 planting season began, Health Canada collaborated with partners and industry stakeholders to help ensure that the risk mitigation measures were communicated to growers across the country and that dust-reducing lubricant was readily available. This outreach campaign was very successful and the available data suggests that the new lubricant was used extensively. We have not completed a full analysis of this year's incidents, but early indications are that the number and severity of the incidents reported associated with neonicotinoid pesticide use during the planting season of 2014 are 70 per cent lower than last year.
We cannot make a direct correlation to the risk mitigation measures that we put in place for this growing season because this spring was cold and wet, and that meant corn was planted later and less intensively than in previous years, possibly influencing the reduced number of incidents.
In addition, we are increasingly receiving reports of incidents later in the season. These incidents generally do not involve acute mortality of bees but, rather, reports of poorly performing hives, unproductive queens and low honey production. Unlike the incidents occurring at the time of planting, we have not yet determined whether there is a clear relationship between the incidents and exposure to neonicotinoids in these late-season incidents.
As in 2012 and 2013, reported incidents in 2014 were investigated through a collaborative effort between Health Canada and the provinces. Each investigation includes an evaluation of hive health, collection of samples for pesticide residue analysis and gathering as much information as possible about the bee yard management and practices and the surrounding agriculture. The assessment of these incidents is ongoing and the samples collected are being analyzed for pesticide residues and bee viruses. We will continue to closely monitor the effectiveness of the risk mitigation measures that have been implemented, and we are actively working with stakeholders to put in place additional measures to further reduce the generation of dust during corn planting.
Growers are also being encouraged to follow integrated pest management, as you've already heard. Health Canada supports the ongoing work that's occurring within Agriculture Canada, as well as in the provinces, to develop tools and information to better understand when treated seed is necessary for crop protection, and to reduce its use when it's not necessary.
Health Canada is also involved in several new initiatives aimed at better protecting bees and pollinators. The PMRA, in collaboration with several provinces, is monitoring beehives throughout the 2014 corn and soybean growing season. The purpose is to help understand whether there are any differences between bee yards that have incidents and those that do not that are located close to corn and soya fields.
Bee yards are being monitored in Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and the Atlantic region. Our overall scientific re-evaluation of all uses of these pesticides is progressing well. The results of our preliminary re-evaluation are expected in 2015. As part of the re-evaluation, pesticide companies are being required to produce a substantial amount of additional studies following new and robust scientific protocols, and the results of these studies will likely be pivotal in any final decision with respect to these pesticides.
Health Canada is participating in the Bee Health Forum mentioned earlier by my colleague from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and we believe that it is important for all stakeholders to work together to find comprehensive solutions that will improve pollinator health in Canada.
As I mentioned, the science related to sublethal exposure to these chemicals is not conclusive. Our partners in the international community believe that there remains much work to be done. We are actively involved in and leading a number of international efforts to identify and reduce risks to pollinators. This includes co-chairing the OECD Working Group on Pesticides: Pesticide Effects on Insect Pollinators, as well as participating in the International Commission for Plant-Pollinator Relationships Bee Protection Group. We are also supporting the generation of research and monitoring information by other federal departments, the provinces, academia and industry.
Mr. Chair and committee members, I hope you have found my update informative, and with your permission I would like to pass the baton to my colleague, Ms. Margherita Conti.
Margherita Conti, Director General, Value Assessment and Re-evaluation Management Directorate, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada: Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. Currently I am acting in the role of Director General of the Registration Directorate in Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency. I understand issues regarding conditional registrations have been raised at this committee and I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify conditional registrations with you today.
Let me start by reassuring you that all registration decisions, whether conditional or full, are based on rigorous scientific evaluation of health and environmental risks posed by a pesticide. At no time is a conditional registration granted without an assessment that the risks are acceptable, that is, that the product meets current health and environmental safety standards. Granting conditional registration is only considered when confirmatory data is required in order to confirm some of our conclusions in the risk assessment. Conditional registrations are also used in other jurisdictions, such as the U.S. and in Europe.
Following PMRA's appearance before this committee on the topic of innovation in agriculture, there was a recommendation regarding the reduction in the number of conditional registrations of pest control products. I am pleased to report that there are currently 88 pesticide products that are conditionally registered, which represents only 1 per cent of all pesticides registered. This is a significant change from 2006-07, when 13 per cent were conditionally registered, as reported in the Auditor General of Canada's report of 2008.
In addition to a significant decrease in the number of new conditional registrations over the past five years, steps are also being taken to ensure that the number of lengthy extensions is reduced. This change is due to a number of factors put in place by the PMRA, such as a more robust screening framework, better guidance to manufacturers so that data packages are more complete and, of course, better tracking.
Currently, there are three neonicotinoid active ingredients — clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam — that have conditional uses in the agricultural setting. This represents 36 products. We are waiting for confirmatory data consisting of a hive study and a residue trial for each of the active ingredients. It is also worth noting that neonicotinoid active ingredients are also conditionally registered in the U.S.
Over the course of these conditional registrations, the science has evolved and newer protocols for existing data requirements have been identified. In order to comply with the conditional data requirements, manufacturers have already submitted several studies following modern protocols. Studies provided to date have not indicated any unacceptable risk. However, the results have been inconclusive and newer studies need to be generated.
It is important to note that a new hive study following modern protocols was submitted to the PMRA in 2013 and is currently under review. Interim updates on the residue trials which are now aligned with the new Pollinator Risk Assessment Framework are being provided regularly to the PMRA by the manufacturers.
[Translation]
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify conditional approval. We will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Conti.
[English]
I'll now ask Dr. Alexander to please make his presentation. We'll be lenient. We'll give you the time.
[Translation]
Dr. Ian Alexander, Executive Director, Animal Health Science Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Good morning, honourable senators. We are most pleased that the CFIA is invited to appear again as you conclude your study on the importance of bees and bee health in the production of honey, food and seed in Canada, in particular, as it relates to the factors affecting honeybee health.
[English]
At the agency's last appearance in December, we explained that the CFIA's approach to maintaining bee health is based on sound science. We make comprehensive risk assessments of diseases and other factors influencing bee health. Then we collaborate with partners to develop and implement options for risk management.
While the responsibility for managing bee health in Canada is shared by federal and provincial jurisdictions, the CFIA primarily works at the national level by designating certain bee diseases as regulated and reportable diseases, which means that specific disease-control measures must be applied and by providing guidance to the bee industry through the National Farm-level Biosecurity Standards.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, in collaboration with producers, industry associations, academia and provincial governments, has developed the National Bee Farm-level Biosecurity Standard. The objective of the national standard is to provide a consistent, country-wide approach to the implementation of biosecurity practices for both small- and large-scale operations. The biosecurity standard forms the basis of a comprehensive voluntary program designed to provide more practical guidance to prevent the introduction and spread of pests in the three main Canadian bee sectors: honeybees, alfalfa leafcutter bees and bumblebees. The provinces work closely with the industry to implement bee health management programs provincially. The CFIA also works to minimize the risk of introducing bee diseases into Canada.
There are about 8,400 beekeepers in Canada. Fewer than half of these manage commercial beekeeping operations. The nature of commercial beekeeping operations differs across the country. Some beekeepers specialize in honey production, others specialize in delivering pollination services, and many beekeepers combine both activities.
The CFIA remains committed to a strong and healthy honey and beekeeping sector as part of a healthy and competitive agricultural system. We will continue to support this goal through collaboration with industry and other government partners.
One key way the agency provides support is by preventing animals or related products from coming into the country if they pose a risk to the health of Canada's domestic animal population.
The CFIA is responsible for monitoring the animal health status of trading partners in an effort to protect Canada's bees, bee diseases and pests that can spread between countries through international trade of bees, especially bee packages. Packaged bees are used by beekeepers to establish new colonies and replace winter losses. You are already aware that Canada has closed the border to U.S. packaged honeybees since 1987. There is good reason for this, because of an outbreak of parasitic mites, honeybee tracheal mite Acarapis woodi, varroa mite and varroa destructor in the U.S.
The CFIA reassessed the situation in 1994, in 2003 and most recently in 2013. The agency only allows the importation of queens and their attendants — that being worker bees that take care of the queen — from the U.S. This has been in place since the 2003 risk assessment.
You may ask why the import of honeybee queens is being treated differently than for packaged bees. Current measures allow honeybee queens to be individually inspected for signs of disease before importation into Canada, but such verification is not possible with honeybee packages. A package of bees weighs 1 or 5 kilograms, 2 or 3 pounds. The 2-pound package contains about 8,000 bees, while the 3-pound package contains around 12,000 bees. The bees are shipped in a box with four wooden sides and screened material on the front and back.
The most recent risk assessment in 2013 was initiated by the CFIA and shared with Canadian beekeepers and professional apiculturists. The agency also conducted a one-month consultation process on the honeybee issue. A total of 174 responses were received from Canadian individuals, national and regional bee associations and provincial representatives, and two responses were received as well from U.S. beekeepers, 28 per cent for and 72 per cent against opening the U.S. border to packaged bees respectively.
The CFIA's risk assessment decision on importing bees from the U.S. was based on stakeholder evidence, a review of the most recent scientific risk assessment and discussions centred on analyzing risk mitigation measures. The CFIA communicated the decision to keep the border closed to U.S. honeybee packages to the Canadian Council of Chief Veterinary Officers, the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists and other stakeholders in March of this year.
I want to make it clear that the recent risk assessments identified specific hazards posing significant risk to Canadian bee colonies, resistant varroa mites, resistant American foulbrood, Africanized honeybees and small hive beetles. Diseases and threats are continuously evolving, and in the current context of globalization, Canada must remain vigilant to maintaining our bee health status.
While the CFIA's position supports keeping the U.S. border closed to bee packages, we will continue to be open to discussions with stakeholders. The agency will continue to work with the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists to find other sources of honeybees.
Currently, Canada permits importation of honeybee queens and packaged bees from Australia, New Zealand and Chile.
[Translation]
Thank you again for the opportunity to further provide the CFIA's perspective on the matter of bee health in Canada.
[English]
The Chair: To the witnesses, thank you very much. I notice that you made reference to our Recommendation No. 4 on the innovation in agriculture, the key to feeding growing populations. There is no doubt that the questions will be very succinct.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for being here this morning. I want to get back to the question of the temporary registration of the neonicotinoids. I thank you for providing additional information and for confirming some of the information that we received from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.
I understand from your presentation and as well from what the commissioner had indicated that there are 88 pesticides that are listed under ''conditional registrations,'' 35 — and you mentioned 36 — of which have a neonicotinoid as the active chemical.
The commissioner has noted — and this came out in reports as well as in 2003 and in 2008 — that the length of time of these conditional registrations is an issue. For example, I understand that there have been 28 of those 88 pesticides that have been under conditional or temporary registrations for more than five years and eight of them for more than 10 years. One of them, for example, an active chemical, imidacloprid, has been conditionally approved since 1995. Why the length of time? What are you waiting for? What processes have to be followed for these either to be removed or to be granted permanent registration?
Ms. Conti: Thank you for your question. Certainly of the 88 pesticides, as you mentioned, 36 do relate to the neonicotinoid active ingredients. Many of those have been conditionally registered for a rather lengthy period of time.
However, having said that, for the case of imidacloprid, for example, it is true that it was conditionally registered first in 1995. It was registered at that time for seed treatment use as well as some industrial societal uses, but since 1995, data was received in 1996, 2001 and 2002. That data was reviewed, and imidacloprid was, in fact, given full registration status in 2009. I wanted to clarify that. You are absolutely correct; that was a lengthy time, about nine years.
Subsequently, in 2001, conditional registration was granted to a new use of imidacloprid, which is a tree injection use, again also considered an agricultural use. This was contingent on environmental data being provided to us. That data was supplied in 2013 and 2014 and is currently under review.
The point I would like to make is that, yes, many of those lengthy conditional registrations pertained to the neonics that we are discussing today. The 36 products are primarily related to three active ingredients. What we are waiting for, as I stated in my opening remarks, are a hive study and a field residue study for each of those active ingredients. We have now received quite an extensive amount of information from the manufacturers, and that is currently under review in Health Canada.
If you look at the past five years, the more recent conditional registrations that have been granted, the length of time, moving from a conditional registration to full registration, is, on average, ranging between two and five years at the present time.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for your response.
I understand that the three neonicotinoids that you have mentioned that are very active and make up these 36 products are under re-evaluation, but does it take into account chronic exposure? When you do a re-evaluation, are you looking at chronic exposure? I notice there is another study that has just come out — I think it was reported in Quebec — where they found neonicotinoids in 20 of the rivers, for example, studied in Quebec. This is the active neonicotinoid imidacloprid.
Are you looking at the long-term effect of these products when you are doing your re-evaluation?
Ms. Conti: Yes. I will ask that my colleague reply to that.
Mr. Kirby: The answer is absolutely. We are looking at long-term chronic effects with respect to the neonicotinoids. The outstanding studies that are being requested are specifically to address those issues with pollinators.
With respect to imidacloprid, per se, which is what you have been talking about, imidacloprid is under full re-evaluation, so not only are we looking at pollinator effects, we are looking at effects with birds, fish, all organisms, as well as human health. We are looking at levels in water and comparing them to levels that cause effects, both chronic and acute in those organisms. The short answer to your question is yes, we are looking at chronic effects, absolutely.
Senator Robichaud: When you say ''we are looking,'' who is ''we''?
Mr. Kirby: ''We'' is, from my perspective, the Environmental Assessment Directorate. We consist of a directorate of scientists who look specifically at environmental fate and effects, but with respect to imidacloprid, it is a full re-evaluation, so also our scientists in the health evaluation directorate will be looking at the human health information.
Senator Robichaud: You are not depending on the manufacturers of that stuff?
Mr. Kirby: For re-evaluation we look at all available information. The manufacturers have the burden of producing information that meets our strict standards from the scientific point of view. We review that. We also review the available scientific literature in the open literature from academia, universities, et cetera. We also look at what other agencies across the world — Australia, Europe, the United States — conclude with respect to what they see in those data as well. It is a very broad re-evaluation looking at all available information, including information from the registrants.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you very much for your testimony, ladies and gentlemen. We were looking forward to having you here. I think you answered many of our questions in your presentations. I appreciate that, and I am sure that all my colleagues appreciate it as well. We have been working on this issue for a few months now and we still have a lot of questions.
The health of bees is a bit like squaring the circle. Farmers need pollinators. Farmers need pesticides to combat disease. At the end of the chain, the environment suffers the consequences.
If nothing were used, what would the impact be on the soybean, corn and other crops in Western Canada? What would the impact be if nothing were used, basically leaving nature to its own devices?
Mr. Seppey: That is a very important question. If we talk about canola in Western Canada, basically the entire production needs that type of pesticide. When we think that canola cultivation covers approximately 20 million acres, that is huge. It would be absolutely impossible to maintain production without using those pesticides.
The same thing is happening in Eastern Canada with the corn and soybean crops. The estimates of the industry and various organizations show that, without the use of pesticides, there would certainly be a loss of productivity, an economic loss. The loss could be as high as 20 per cent of the production. So it is not negligible.
That being said, the government counts the provinces and the industry among its partners. This bee health forum brings together a number of stakeholders. It is a collective effort, and everyone recognizes it. Developers, the industry, agricultural producers, beekeepers and honey producers, the Honey Council, everyone is trying to find a way to address bee health, specifically by conducting more studies on the impact of pesticides on bee health. Could other types of pesticides and practices be used to reduce the risks associated with pesticides and to protect the health of bees? This is a very complex issue. I must say that we are very satisfied with how serious the entire industry and the stakeholders have been in their approach to examining these aspects.
Economically speaking, it can be difficult to do without pesticides.
Senator Maltais: Your answer is very clear, which we appreciate. We are looking for clarity as well.
My next question is for Dr. Alexander. We import honeybees from the United States, the United States imports them from Australia, Australia from Africa. We can go around the world with the honeybees. We import queens and larva here. In doing so, have we not developed a honeybee that is adapted to the Canadian climate?
Dr. Alexander: I am not an expert in honeybee genetics. Perhaps Mr. Seppey could answer your question about genetics.
Senator Maltais: I understand. Before you answer, I would like to know if there is a comparison between domestic honeybees, the workers, and the lifespan, the loss or survival of honeybees.
Mr. Seppey: Unfortunately, our scientist colleagues in the department would be in a better position to answer this question. I think you heard the testimony last December of my colleague, Dr. Pernal, who is the Canadian expert on honeybee health and honeybees in general. He is at our research centre in Alberta. We will be pleased to answer this question and follow up on it.
Senator Maltais: That would be appreciated, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: We can follow up through the clerk.
Senator Robichaud: Your comments are comforting. Hearing what you have to say suggests that everything is under control. All we have to do is wait for the results of some of the studies you have done. The fact remains that the problem persists and a sustainable solution has not really been found.
I congratulate you on all your work and your presentation, but the question that bothers me a little is the extent of pesticide use.
Mr. Seppey, you mentioned that farmers have been encouraged to use less of it. With all the application of these pesticides in recent years, some insects have been brought under control.
Do pesticides need to be applied this year? Could it not be done every two years to see if production would be quite reduced in relation to what it costs us to apply these pesticides and, especially, what the cost is to the environment?
Farmers who have appeared before the committee have told us that they would occasionally like to have seeds that have not been treated, but they are very difficult to obtain.
What are you doing to help people to move away a little — not completely, but at least a little — from these pesticide treatments?
Mr. Kirby: The use of pesticides is definitely a topic that concerns PMRA and the provinces. The provinces are in a much better position to help the growers determine whether the farmers need to use treated seeds.
You might have heard that the Province of Ontario is working to obtain this kind of result. It will work with the farmers to put in place tools that will help determine whether there is a problem.
Frédéric said at the Bee Health Forum that several projects were targeting this issue to develop tools that will help farmers determine whether there truly is a problem in their fields. As you said, studies have shown that the pressure from pests is not as high in farmers' fields.
The problem is that the insects, in this case, are in the soil. It is somewhat difficult to determine if there is a problem in the soil, while it is much easier if the problem is with the plant itself. So there is work to do on this.
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Seppey?
Mr. Seppey: I would like to add a brief comment. One of the pillars of our approach in dealing with government regulatory issues is to ensure, among other things, that farmers have a real choice. If they decide to use untreated seed, for instance, they should be able to do so. The issue you raised, the availability of products, was also raised at the forum. The Canadian Seed Trade Association, one of the active partners in the forum, said that if there was a concern in some parts of the country about the availability of untreated seed, the association could work with developers to make them more available.
I do not want to give you the impression that everything is under control. Far from it. There is an enormous amount of work to be done, and it is complex. The different players, who may all identify a different part of the problem, and may also have part of the solution, can work together. This issue, like other ones — for instance, how to develop the best pesticide-use practices, because one of the problems may be linked to the poor use of pesticides, not in compliance with the PMRA regulatory guidelines — all of those elements, communication, information, the sharing of best practices, are a part of the equation that will lead to a solution.
Senator Robichaud: I would like to follow up on what you are saying. One seed producer said that if there was a demand for untreated seed, it would probably be available. However, if I were a treated seed salesman and a farmer came to see me, I would tell him that he was taking chances and that it would be better for him to continue to use the treated seed. The farmer who must work 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, does not always have the time to stop and quantify the risk. He will choose the treated seed. And that is where I find we are not encouraging them sufficiently.
You spoke about all the research programs that exist. Do we have sufficient human resources to do that research successfully, quickly enough? It has to be said: at a certain point, something has to produce results.
Mr. Seppey: That is always a challenge. There are so many issues that would require a scientific solution, and the resources are limited. However, in that spirit, by grouping the efforts of various partners and governments who feel that the problem is so important that it requires urgent study, these efforts will lead to some economies of scale.
The funding Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has made available and allocated to the Alberta honey council allows research to be done, and people may call on the scientific expertise that exists in our department, work with industry specialists, beekeepers and honey producers, precisely in order to pool resources and try to find solutions.
I must also add that Canada is not the only one with this problem. You heard it in the testimony, this is a global issue. For this reason foreign partners are very important. In this regard, the Minister of Agriculture, in a recent conversation with his American counterpart, emphasized the importance of establishing collaboration and sharing information between Canada and the United States.
The United States have a working group that is similar to the Canadian forum, and we have one of the American group members in our forum. And so, all of these elements allow us to pool resources and benefit from the result of research that is taking place in other countries, to see if those results may resolve the problems we have here. However, it is an important and broad task, and all efforts are being deployed to find a solution.
Senator Robichaud: I did not really get an answer to my question. We need more research, do we not? You can say so even if there are department representatives present.
The Chair: Senator Robichaud, I think Mr. Kirby would like to add something.
Mr. Kirby: You are absolutely right. There is still a lot of research to be done, but as concerns pesticide regulation and our reassessment, in 2015 we will have an intermediary report that will guide our action, and data will be submitted by pesticide companies that will also help us to make a decision with regard to neonicotinoids.
Concerning bee health in general, there is still a lot of research to be done.
The Chair: Is that sufficient, Senator Robichaud?
Senator Robichaud: Yes, thank you.
[English]
Senator Ogilvie: There are many questions I would like to ask you. You've given a great deal of information, but I will try to ask some questions that give me an insight based on what we know today from some recent developments.
To start, this is the first year in which the major ban of the use of neonicotinoids in Europe will potentially have had an impact on the crops. What do your consultations with our colleagues in Europe say about the yields experienced this year? My understanding is that in certain areas there has been a very substantial decline.
Mr. Kirby: I can't say specifically with respect to yields in terms of communicating directly with the European Union on agriculture, but the information we have received is that in certain parts of the EU, particularly Great Britain and the U.K., the flea beetle has made a resurgence in rape crops and yields are significantly reduced in some areas.
Senator Ogilvie: That's one of the major reports I was aware of as well, but my larger point is that this is a major experiment. If we are indeed collaborating with our colleagues in other countries worldwide on this, it has got to be the largest single experiment tried with regard to the use of neonicotinoids — in this case, the removal — and the results of that should tell us a great deal in terms of the impact on agriculture.
I want to come to your reference, Mr. Kirby, to the changes you put in place at the beginning of this planting year in Canada, which I am very interested in. I want to start by getting the information on the table relative to the coating of seeds with neonics. My understanding is the polymer that goes on the seeds initially leaves a very sticky surface, and that surface is then subsequently coated with talc to make it dry, so to speak, so it will handle well in the machinery that plants but that the talc sprays off of the seeds during planting. I think you referred to dust during planting. My guess would be that the dust is largely the talc or other similar coating used to make the seeds dry. Furthermore, my understanding is that analyses have shown that the talc contains very high levels of neonics under certain conditions, and that that was one of the big issues in Europe with regard to the ban.
My understanding further is that the difference between foliar application, which Mr. Seppey referred to in some of his comments, and the treated seed system is such that certainly European countries did not ban the use of neonics in foliar applications; I'll mention Italy specifically.
With that background, could you tell us a bit more about the regulations or tests you put in place this year in Canada — the first year of your new effort to deal with neonics — with regard to any differences between foliar application and the coated seeds? And when you referred to incidents — that's a nice neutral term — with regard to bee hives, could you explain a little further what an ''incident'' means?
Mr. Kirby: I would be happy to. With respect to the measures that were put in place for the 2014 growing season, the major innovation that came online was replacing the talc that you speak of, which is very dusty and does contain neonicotinoid residues and we felt was a strong contributing factor to the incidents we saw in 2013, with a much lower dust seed lubricant that is wax-based. There had been initial tests on this lubricant that showed significant reductions in the amount of dust, and this was one avenue we were using to try to reduce exposure in bees.
Also there was a lot of improved labelling in terms of warning producers of the risks and encouraging them to follow best management practices. There's a slew of them, but it would include things like applying the product when the wind is not blowing towards bee hives, exhausting into the field instead of out of the field, et cetera, talking to beekeepers.
Those measures were implemented and as I said in my opening remarks, this year we saw a significant decrease in the number of incidents. However, there is a compounding factor, which was that we had a very cold and wet spring. Normally, corn is planted over quite a short period of time and quite intensively. This year it was planted over a much longer period of time and sporadically. So that could also account for the decrease. We are not comfortable saying that our measures are causing that 70 per cent decline, but we're hopeful that they at least contributed to it.
With respect to the foliar aspect of it, all of the neonics that have foliar uses are evaluated and we put restrictions on when you can use them. For instance, you can't use a neonicotinoid full-year application during flowering in bee-attractive crops. We look at whether or not the crops are attractive to bees and whether they can be applied foliarly is based on that. There are label restrictions on those products, which are aimed at protecting pollinators, whether it is from foliation exposure or exposure from treated dust.
Senator Ogilvie: I appreciate that one summer doesn't give you the ultimate answer so I want to know what the early results were and some of them were positive, whatever the basis of that is. I asked you about an incident. I assume that's an impact on bee colony mortality?
Mr. Kirby: It covers a broad range of effects. Incidents include acute mortality. We saw a lot of those in 2012 during that very warm spring, thousands of dead bees in front of hives. That would be considered an incident, but we've also been seeing other effects on the colony, as I said, with poorly producing hives, queens not laying properly, low honey production. That is also considered an incident and is also investigated. We think we have a clear link established between the acute incidents. We are still trying to ascertain whether or not the colony level effects are linked to the pesticide exposure because that's not as clear.
The Chair: Mr. Seppey, you wanted to comment?
Mr. Seppey: Very briefly. I think the answer by Mr. Kirby right now shows that it's very difficult to establish clear causality to effect relationship. For example, you mentioned the case at the beginning of your first question with respect to the situation in the European Union and the ban. We know that in different countries they may have different factors in bee mortality and it can vary a lot in the same ecosystem. It can vary a lot from year to year. I'm not a scientist, but as an economist I think the principle applies as well that it's sometimes difficult to establish that one change in the policy is responsible for that impact. But this is definitely an element of information that is part of the equation of the examination in Canada.
Senator Ogilvie: Finally, we see a major worldwide interest from certain directions to have a worldwide ban of neonics in agriculture. The idea is that that will save all the bees and things will be better. However, pesticides are used for a reason, and that is to impact crop yields.
Prior to neonics there were already some very serious pesticides in use, some would say. I wonder if you might comment on what would happen to agriculture in Canada should there be an immediate ban of neonics, what is likely to replace them and what is the experience with those replacements?
Mr. Kirby: I can speak in terms of what might be used as a replacement, but not so much on the potential loss of yields. The neonicotinoids replaced several different chemistries, most of which had quite a negative profile, things like organochlorines and organophosphates, for example. Those pesticides were very toxic to mammals as well as birds and other organisms. They were not as targeted. They were also used mostly in spray applications so you had a lot of potential for exposure.
The neonicotinoids were seen as a new chemistry that could be much more targeted and could be used as a seed treatment, so you were putting a much smaller quantity in the environment. At the time, it was thought that it would be staying in the plant and therefore targeting the pest. From that perspective, it was something that was far less toxic to humans, to farmers, and people had less exposure possibility. It was far more targeted. If they were removed now, there would be a move back to these older chemistries, if they're still around, because we have removed a lot of them because of environmental fail. There are not actually a lot of options open to farmers if we take them away but, what options they have, some of those will be these older chemistries that are still around.
The Chair: For the economic side, Mr. Seppey?
Mr. Seppey: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You can look at it from different perspectives across Canada in terms of agricultural regions. I mentioned earlier on the Prairies in terms of canola, 20 million acres, canola being one of our flagship crop products of export, so the impact is significant there. Again, we don't have national data available, but we do have industry estimates. Just in Ontario, with respect to corn and soy, given the estimate, if there are restrictions on the use of these chemicals, it could reduce the yield by 5 to 20 per cent in some cases. The yield varies. It may have an impact on the quality. In terms of economic impact, it can translate to losses of up to $630 million. Those are estimates from the industry.
This is part of the discussion. Part of the health forum is looking at how we can avoid having situations where you may be giving to Paul but taking away from Peter and trying to do it appropriately. It's so important given the contribution of pollination to agriculture. How can we address the health issues of the bees without significantly restricting the possibilities for crop production?
Senator Tardif: I have a supplementary further to a response that you gave to Senator Ogilvie. You mentioned that you were looking at better management practices for the use of neonicotinoids. You mentioned you have strict regulatory guidelines. You have improved labelling on products so that the farmers will know when to use these products to perhaps better lessen the chance of negative effects on bee health. What oversight mechanisms do you have to make sure that these regulatory guidelines are being followed and, in fact, that people are following the instructions on the packages or the product that they're getting, these 36 products that have neonics?
Mr. Kirby: We have regional compliance officers. Across the country, our regional compliance officers are in the field and working with farmers to ensure that label instructions are followed. This is not only for neonicotinoids; it's for all pesticides. They respond to incidents. If a product is being used inappropriately, the farmer is notified, and they can actually put forward monetary penalties if they deem it necessary.
Quite honestly, the problem surrounding this is so well known and producers are so engaged, because, as we've said before, pollinators are important for agriculture, that everybody is working extremely hard towards finding solutions. I would say from my personal point of view that the level of compliance is going to be high because they know that if things go wrong, then there could be repercussions in terms of losing products, there could be repercussions in terms of losing pollinators, and I don't think anybody wants to go there.
Senator Beyak: Thank you very much for your presentations. We've heard in the past about all the other stressors besides the neonics that are stressing the bees, such as the habitat, the strength of the queens and the varroa mites. We heard something new from a gentleman in the United States and then someone in the Maritimes about splitting the colonies and putting new queens in. Did you discuss that at the forum? In the future, is that something that might be beneficial to the beekeepers?
Dr. Alexander: Again, I'm not an expert in this area, but we certainly understand in terms of the interests in importation of bees from other countries to add some diversity into colonies and perhaps gain some strength in terms of developing and maintaining those colonies. I can speak from the level of where there is interest in importation and looking at bringing some genetic diversity into colonies, and we certainly understand that that is a factor in maintaining healthy colonies in Canada.
Senator Unger: My question was almost completely answered by you already, Dr. Alexander. I know that Alberta beekeepers are in favour of having the ban lifted on bees imported from the United States. They argue that the U.S. is very regional, and they do have a national body that oversees honeybees. You mentioned also that packaged bees are really hard to examine. I can't imagine someone trying to examine the numbers that you presented. With regard to Australia, New Zealand and Chile, what are the distinguishing parameters that would allow those bees to be imported here, and how do you examine them?
Dr. Alexander: The challenge, as you say, is to examine individual bees when you're talking about thousands of bees to import. My messaging would be that that's not something that's very feasible. When we are negotiating for the importation of bees from other countries, we're looking at the health status of that country in terms of the bee status in that country.
In the case of New Zealand, Australia and Chile, we are aware and have evaluated their infrastructure within the country, have conducted an assessment of the risk associated with the health status of bees in those countries and made determinations that we can rely on their certification that they are free of diseases that are of concern when they are sending bees to Canada.
The situation in the U.S. is a little bit different because we know that certain diseases that are of concern to us, such as the varroa mites, the foulbrood and Africanized bees, are real and they exist in the United States. Our challenge is to have enough information, if there is a regional focus, to be able to say that we have confidence that we would not be importing diseases into Canada, in particular where there is resistance to known treatments of those diseases.
There are definitely research gaps. We know we don't understand, and I'm glad to hear that AAFC is going to step up and do additional surveillance in Canada. The same situation exists in the U.S., to my understanding. There needs to be more information on where those diseases are found in order to do anything like regionalization. The situation with importing queens is obviously better because they can be examined and we can get certification that they're free of disease when we are importing them.
Senator Unger: I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I find it interesting that you consider the information provided by the U.S., our neighbour, not to be of the standard as that of these other countries, Chile especially.
Dr. Alexander: It's not so much the standard or the information that they provided. It's the fact that we know these diseases exist in the United States and the same concerns do not exist in the countries from whom we import. We're looking at their health status and with the U.S., even though they do have a national program, the same level of controls do not exist and the fact that the diseases actually exist in the United States that are of concern would present a risk if we were to import bees from the United States. I hope that clarifies that.
Senator Unger: Yes, it does. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Dr. Alexander. Earlier someone mentioned that a lot of research was being done; but the results may be a long time coming. Did the department analyse the economic problems linked to bee health, as concerns the varroa mite and the Africanized bee?
Those are two problems that are having devastating effects in the United States at this time. In your opinion, what would be the cost to Canada if these two parasites infested bees here?
Dr. Alexander: I think that the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food would be in a better position to answer the question regarding the economic consequences.
Mr. Seppey: I am going to add to what Dr. Alexander just said. In light of Canada's dependence on exports — we are a very large and very careful exporter of agricultural products — our capacity, our competitiveness and our prosperity depend on good animal and plant health.
In light of the analysis done by the agency, and the fact that it has determined that there is quite a considerable risk of importing parasitic and animal diseases due to the endemic presence of certain diseases in the United States, we did not do any economic study as such in connexion with that, that is to say whether or not we should lift that ban. And that is simply because the department feels that the prohibition is fully justified on the basis of the agency's analysis. However, based on examples from other sectors, we can readily imagine that it could be very economically painful if there were a proliferation of these diseases in Canada. When we think about the economic repercussions, for instance, of mad cow disease or other animal diseases, we know that they can have very deleterious effects. In that spirit, we can simply speculate that the impact could be quite considerable if these diseases were introduced into Canada through imports.
[English]
Senator Seth: I'm sorry about being late. I'm new here; I'm replacing Senator Enverga.
My question was that recently it has been reported by some scientists and also some of the insecticide companies that these bees are probably infested by ticks, a parasite that sucks the blood. Is that the cause of death of the bees? That is what is happening in Canada, from what I understand. Has there anything been done on that?
Mr. Kirby: Are you referring to the cause of death for the incidents that we've seen in Ontario and Quebec or in terms of —
Senator Seth: In general, is that the cause of death of the bees?
Mr. Kirby: I can speak to the incidents, so with respect to the incidents, we've made a determination based on a 2012 and 2013 investigation that we feel the pesticides are implicated in the incidents that we saw. Now, when they go in to look at the incidents, they are looking at the bee health, the varroa mite load, they're looking at whether or not there are viruses. That analysis may show some of the bees may have been infested with varroa mites, or not. But what we saw in 2012, and again in 2013, was the bees that were more seriously impacted in those acute events were bees that were healthy, so they did not usually have a huge load.
I can't speak to the broader issue of mortality across the country and what role varroa mites and bee diseases play in that. I would defer to Dr. Alexander or Frédéric on that one.
Senator Seth: My question was whether there was any research or study done that the bees are infested by the ticks or mites and all that.
Dr. Alexander: Bee health in Canada is quite complex. There are a number of factors. We have heard about the neonicotinoids, we've heard about the possibility that overwintering is a problem, and there are various diseases. We talked about the varroa mites. There is American foulbrood and a small hive beetle that exist. There are several of these that exist, some of them are more common in Canada than others, and the industry is vigilant in terms of looking for these.
We heard from Mr. Seppey this morning, and perhaps he wants to speak more to that in terms of surveillance that's going to be initiated to look for these diseases. In looking at bee health, there are a number of different factors and you're quite right; there are diseases, like mites, that do infect the bees, but it is multifactorial in Canada. It's not just one cause.
What we have done with the industry in Canada, as I mentioned during my opening remarks, is establish biosecurity guidelines that aid the industry in looking at the ways in which they can better prevent introduction of the diseases into their colonies, deal with diseases and respond, and make efforts to eliminate disease from the colonies. The industry is in the process of implementing these farm level biosecurity guidelines so that they can better manage diseases.
Senator Unger: Dr. Alexander, would you comment about the varroa mites developing resistance to treatment, and apparently that's something that occurs within five to seven years. Is Canada doing any research on something that might replace the current treatments we have for that mite?
Dr. Alexander: That's not within the CFIA's mandate, but we understand and that's why we have concerns about what we're importing into Canada. A resistance is sporadic in Canada; it's more common in other countries like the U.S. So for us to import bees with mites that have resistance, this would certainly be a concern. We are remaining vigilant when we're looking at importations to make sure we're not introducing bees that are infected with diseases that are resistant to various treatments that are available.
Unfortunately, Dr. Pernal is not here. I don't know if my colleague from Agriculture can say anything more about that, or my colleagues from PMRA.
Mr. Seppey: I think this also goes to the question of Senator Seth. There's a diversity of cause.
One element we are doing as part of the action plan of the bee health forum is to develop a national honeybee monitoring program or strategy that would allow us to work closely with beekeepers in the various provinces, the provincial governments, the apiculturists to be able to monitor, do surveillance of the health of bees and get more data, more evidence that would help to identify the specific issues that arise. Then we can inform the research efforts, get a better understanding of whether there are any specific factors that play enhanced roles. Again this is a very complex issue. I think the issue of mortality can be a combination of various factors. It can be the mite, extreme weather, et cetera. One element of the health forum is focusing on getting better monitoring and surveillance and accumulating data.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Last week, we received representatives from Newfoundland and Labrador who told us that the bees were in very good health in their part of the world. That is why, in fact, they came here, to ask for our help in setting up an inspection post in Nova Scotia, so as to preserve the health of their bees. They compared that situation to the potato disease in Newfoundland, and would like to prevent a recurrence. Who could, in your opinion, be responsible for setting up such an inspection site?
Dr. Alexander: Thank you for that question. Generally, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is in charge of inspecting food.
[English]
In the case of bees, it is something that the provinces are managing with the industry. They have taken responsibility for it within their provinces to prevent movement of bees into their individual provinces, if there is movement within Canada. In the case of importations from other countries, it is the CFIA that takes responsibility for that. We have not put resources toward movement within the provinces. We have an understanding with the provinces that they take the leadership for interprovincial movement of bees and bees within their provinces.
Senator Robichaud: So it would be Newfoundland and Labrador's responsibility to establish an inspection unit at the ferry terminal in Nova Scotia?
Dr. Alexander: If it was for within-Canada movements, yes, it is my understanding that they would take that leadership. They have taken that leadership role.
Senator Robichaud: I thought they were asking for some help in doing that.
Dr. Alexander: I am not aware of that. That is something that we would have to follow up with those individual provinces.
The Chair: Perhaps we could ask our researchers to look at the comments made, Senator Robichaud, and share that with Dr. Alexander so he could respond, or any of the witnesses.
Dr. Alexander: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Could monoculture also be responsible for the high bee mortality rate? In certain regions of Quebec where there is little or no monoculture — aside from a few blueberry fields where bees only spend a few days — they have observed that the mortality rate was far lower. They noted that when bees can forage wildflowers along streams and the river, as well as in other fields where the crops are less dense, the mortality rate is much lower. Could monoculture be responsible for the death of the bees?
Mr. Kirby: I can answer about the pesticides, because there are other factors than the availability of wildflowers for bees. Regarding corn and soy, if you look at Ontario and Quebec, southeastern Ontario is the area where there are the most pesticide-related incidents. That is where corn and soy crops are the most dense.
That is only an observation. I cannot say if that is the cause.
Senator Maltais: It is a coincidence.
Mr. Kirby: That is what is happening at this time.
Senator Maltais: A week or two ago, in the context of the free trade agreement between Canada and Europe, we spoke to Swiss beekeepers via videoconference; it is a very small country that has less agricultural production than we do. Nevertheless, Switzerland is experiencing quite a high bee mortality rate. To our vast surprise we were told that they did not have enough flowers for the bees and that they had been obliged to give the bees sugar, which contaminates the honey. Do you know if there are other European countries that have to resort to what is called fence post syrup here? Will we also have fence post honey? During the free trade agreement talks, were there any discussions about the possibility of dumping?
Mr. Seppey: Not specifically. Switzerland is not a part of the European Union, but you are asking about the European Union countries. I do not know if that problem exists in other European countries. That said, in the course of free trade negotiations, quality issues as such are not discussed. The agreement aims to protect trade, to facilitate the recognition and equivalency of standards between countries. However, the fact remains that despite the free trade agreement, legislation on food safety or animal health will apply fully and be under the purview of the agency. In Europe, there is a very strong geographical indication system. The concern in Europe is to be able to export, and to be able to respect quality requirements and specifications. There are only a few designations of origin or special labels for honey in Europe. The specifications book is quite strict on what can be used. I think this is a relatively minor problem with regard to the European Union.
Senator Maltais: And what is the situation with other countries?
Mr. Seppey: In other countries with which we do not have free trade agreements, there are concerns regarding what you called ''fence post syrup'' to use that commonly used expression. That is an issue in some countries who use expressions like ''maple syrup'' very freely, and this is not dealt with in free trade agreements. In international bodies where food standards are developed, such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which is under the WHO and the FAO, these questions can be raised and explored.
The Chair: Thank you. However, you do follow that process, in your area?
Mr. Seppey: Yes, our team is specialized in horticulture and its products, and we are aware of the concerns that have been expressed by the producers in Quebec particularly, and by those in other provinces as well.
[English]
Senator Tardif: The Commissioner of the Environment testified that there were currently 7,011 pesticides registered in Canada. I think the committee members here were surprised when we heard the large number of pesticides registered in Canada. Over 7,000 is a huge number.
The Pest Controls Products Act has a very important and enshrined principle. It's the precautionary principle. For our listeners, I will read out what the precautionary principle states:
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent adverse health impact or environmental degradation.
Can you tell me to what extent and in practice how the precautionary principle is being applied when you do your evaluations of pesticides and, more particularly in this case, the neonics?
Mr. Kirby: The precautionary principle is applied at the PMRA. A perfect example, in my mind, is what is happening in corn and soya in Ontario and Quebec right now. A threat has been identified, and there is evidence to back up that threat. There are uncertainties around it in terms of whether this is a threat to the environment as a whole and a threat to other parts of the country. We don't know. We don't know whether it is impacting native pollinators, but we have taken action and we are continuing to take action to minimize that threat. To my mind, that is a good example of the precautionary principle. We don't have absolute certainty in terms of what is going on, but we are taking action. That is how we do our core business.
The Chair: To follow up for clarification, is that the number of chemicals, or is it the number of different formulations? Could you answer that, please?
Ms. Conti: The 7,000 represents the number of pesticide products. That represents approximately 600 active ingredients.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Naturally, I listened to what our witnesses had to say very carefully, and I thank them for their presentations. Here is my question: given the pace at which information is being dispensed, even with a national site, should there be a serious epidemic, do you not fear that we will fall victim to it and not have a chance to see it coming?
As I understand it, it always takes some time for the conclusions to be released.
The Chair: Perhaps you would like to conclude with that, Mr. Seppey?
Mr. Seppey: Yes, briefly. The agency plays an important role in biosecurity, as it is the cornerstone; it anticipates problems through the person and actions of the Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, who has very close links with other animal health agencies in other countries.
There is a network that allows us, in fact, to anticipate things. I would like to go back to your previous question concerning the importance of having mechanisms to monitor imports. Since Canada is very open when it comes to trade, and wants to export to other countries, it must, by the same token, be ready to import, but not at the cost of jeopardizing animal or plant health.
That is why it is important that there be a biosecurity strategy, and the actions of regulators from the Pest Management Regulatory Agency or the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are important, not only to anticipate the threats before they materialize, but also to deal with them once they do, if that unfortunately becomes the case, and to be able to quash the crises by taking the necessary measures.
[English]
The Chair: To the officials of Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Canadian Food Inspection Agency, you have been very professional. It was very educational and informative. In the event that you want to share additional information before we table our report, please do so. You can rest assured that we are not here to play a blame game. We know that Canada wants to continue to produce the best food in the world. That is our objective. I also recognize the fact that, with the information that you provided to us this morning, there is the process of education, communication and also the recognition of sharing best management practices.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I would like to make one last comment. When the committee completes its report some time before June, would it not be advisable, before the final report is printed, to hold another meeting with these witnesses so as to ensure that the report is aligned with the policies they want to develop, and in order to ensure things are better in the future?
The Chair: Senator Maltais, we will bring that to the attention of the subcommittee.
Senator Maltais: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[English]
Thank you very much, witnesses.
We will continue in camera after a brief pause.
(The committee continued in camera.)