Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 16 - Evidence - Meeting of October 4, 2016
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 4, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 5 p.m. to study the Government response to the Ninth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, entitled: The Importance of Bee Health to Sustainable Food Production in Canada, tabled and adopted in the Senate on May 27, 2015.
Senator Terry M. Mercer (Deputy Chair) in the chair
The Deputy Chair: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am Senator Terry Mercer. I am the Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I would like to welcome you to our meeting.
I'd like to start by asking my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting with Senator Beyak.
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak from Ontario. Welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec. Welcome to the committee.
[English]
Senator Ogilvie: Kelvin Ogilvie, Nova Scotia.
The Deputy Chair: Today the committee is hearing from stakeholders concerning the government response to our study on bee health tabled in the Senate on May 28, 2015.
Our first witness we welcome this evening is from the Canadian Honey Council, Mr. Kevin Nixon, President. I invite him to make his presentation, and ask that he keep his presentation to five or seven minutes, please. Following the presentation, a question and answer session will take place. Each senator will be given approximately five minutes to ask questions before the chair recognizes another senator. There will be as many rounds of questions as time will allow, so senators should not feel the need to ask all of their questions at once. During the question and answer session, I would ask senators to be succinct and to the point, and the same for Mr. Nixon in his responses.
Kevin Nixon, President, Canadian Honey Council: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable committee members, for the opportunity to appear before you once again. On behalf of the Canadian Honey Council, we thank you for the time this committee spent to undertake the study relating to bee health in Canada. Just as we continue learning about our industry and how to manage our bees better, I'm sure many of you learned a lot more about bees and our industry, more than you probably ever wanted to know.
The CHC appreciates the recommendations this committee has put forward as a stepping stone to improving bee health in Canada. I'll take a few minutes to provide some feedback on each individual recommendation.
Recommendation 1 was split into two points, the first being the allowance of U.S. package bees. The CHC has no specific position on this at this time. As I'm sure you learned over the course of your study, there is much diversity in the regions of Canada. Some of our member organizations strongly support this and some do not.
The CHC does recognize, however, the current situation of where the beekeeping industry currently sources our stock is not ideal, as we have many eggs in one or two baskets. With the increasing demands from the pollination sector, whether our current sources will be able to allow the industry to meet these needs in an economically viable way is a very real question.
On the second part of the first recommendation, the bee health surveillance project, the Canadian Honey Council recognizes the value of this study. Currently, the project is ending year three, and one year remains in the current project. At this time, I believe samples are being collected from almost straight across the country, and only one province remains to come on board.
Such a study will be an important tool for the monitoring of emerging pests and diseases, as well as current pests and diseases. It may also play an important role when it comes to international trade, evaluating the stock we receive from our supply countries, as well as opening doors for us to send our stock to other countries. Without the data being collected and analyzed under an established protocol by an independent lab, there is not much hope of making progress in these areas.
The National Bee Diagnostic Centre has played a vital role in this project and will continue to do so in the future.
Recommendation 2, the National Bee Farm-Level Biosecurity Standard. The CHC has put together the biosecurity standard along with the industry's on-farm food safety program, called CBISQT, into one complete user-friendly manual for producers. This was rolled out to producers over this past year because there was some overlap from food safety and biosecurity, and the perception of having to go page by page through these manuals seemed very overwhelming for some producers, so it to made sense to do this.
The uptake has not been great so far. I think there are a few reasons for this. At this time, beekeepers feel they are not going to get paid any more for their product whether they adopt some of these practices or not. We are currently facing an extremely depressed market where we are competing with imported honey from countries that have no standards at all, so beekeepers question why.
Another reason is that in some areas there was no access to Growing Forward 2 funding, or it had run out of funds with certain programs to help producers adopt some of these changes and offset some costs.
The Canadian Honey Council will continue to promote the use of the biosecurity standards as a tool to beekeepers to improve bee health.
The third recommendation is that the PMRA accelerate the conditional registration process. The CHC understands conditional registrations have a time and place where they are needed to be used. In some cases, it seems a conditional registration was in place longer than it maybe should have been. We believe the PMRA has been working very hard on re-evaluations of certain neonics in order to be considered for full registration.
Recommendation 4 was directed to the PMRA, so the Canadian Honey Council did not have much to comment on that recommendation.
Recommendation 5 is that the PMRA accelerate registration for bee health products. As a member of the national Bee Health Roundtable, the Canadian Honey Council has seen a commitment from PMRA to accomplish this. There is currently one new product which has been identified to be expedited in order to get it to beekeepers to be used as soon as possible.
The real problem right now is that there are not many potential candidates for future registrations in the near term as a mite control for beekeepers other than the one I mentioned.
Recommendation 6, that the PMRA continue monitoring mortality through spring 2015. The Canadian Honey Council appreciates the commitment the PMRA made over the past few years to dedicate so much time and resources to collecting and analyzing data in order to evaluate honeybee mortality. According to the CAPA overwintering report, the areas which were identified as high-loss areas due to claims of pesticides seem to have their losses greatly reduced. Whether or not the protective measures which were brought in had much to do with the changes in mortality is a big question. I have attached the overwintering report in the package I submitted.
The Chair: Colleagues, the package is here, but it is only in one language. It's available to you if you would like it, but we don't normally circulate it if it is in only one language. We can have the page circulated if you so wish.
Mr. Nixon: Recommendation 6, the second part, is that the PMRA conclude re-evaluation of neonics.
Once again, as a member of the national Bee Health Roundtable, the Canadian Honey Council has seen a commitment from PMRA to wrap up these evaluations. We have been provided interim updates that the work is continuing, and we look forward to hearing of these when they become available. We expect to see the first of the three reports this December and the following two next December.
Recommendation 7, research funding. The Canadian Honey Council appreciates the support of both the committee and the government on this topic.
The establishment of the national Bee Health Roundtable has played a vital role in bringing together the stakeholders and has allowed a forum for us to work collaboratively to identify areas of priority and identify gaps where we really need to focus efforts.
A lot of great work is taking place in Canada on bee health, but I believe we have much more to learn, and we need the continued support of the government to achieve long-term sustainability.
Recommendation 8, adopting best management practices. Once again, the national Bee Health Roundtable was a very useful forum on this topic. By bringing together the stakeholders, we are able to better understand each other's needs. Through better understanding, we are able to work collaboratively to reduce pesticide exposure for bees, as well as develop a best management practices manual for beekeepers across the country.
I have seen a proof of this manual recently, and I believe it will be a very useful tool, especially for new and hobby beekeepers. Even for long-time commercial beekeepers, it could be used as a training tool for employees.
Recommendation 9, pollinator habitat. Over the past couple of years, with bee health getting more attention from the public, we do see increased interest and awareness of developing pollinator habitat. Through the national Bee Health Roundtable, some work has been taking place to carry through this recommendation, and I believe some results will be coming very soon from that.
Again, the Canadian Honey Council appreciates the time the committee took to carry out this study. We appreciate the recommendations which were developed, and we appreciate the support from the government on the recommendations.
All industries have challenges, and the Canadian honeybee industry is no different. The Canadian Honey Council is committed to working together with other industry stakeholders, along with government, in order to be sustainable and see the industry grow.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Nixon, thank you very much. We appreciate your presentation.
I did want to talk about one thing that you brought up, the issue of a new product. I don't know that I know the name of the new product, but perhaps you could tell us a bit about it. Is it, at this early stage, considered a little safer than the neonics that are currently on the market?
Mr. Nixon: The new product that I was referring to, which is being expedited by the PMRA to be used, is for mite control for beekeepers. It's not replacing neonics in agricultural-use pesticides.
One of our biggest challenges and, from surveys across the country, one of our biggest threats to honeybees is a mite. It develops resistance to the treatments we have, it seems, every five to seven years. Then we're in a terrible cycle of getting a new product emergency-use registration so that we have something, and we don't have a backup plan.
This is a new product to be used on honeybees to control the mite, and it sounds like it should be near to coming to market, hopefully for this next season.
The Deputy Chair: Where has it been tested?
Mr. Nixon: There have been field studies in Canada already.
The Deputy Chair: What country was it developed in?
Mr. Nixon: The product is coming out of the U.S.
The Deputy Chair: Was it field tested there?
Mr. Nixon: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: And the results were?
Mr. Nixon: It has been good. It's been in use in the U.S. for some time. Of course, some adjustments need to be made for our different climates. It's amazing how bees can react to things differently in different weather conditions and how a product evaporates and dries in different weather situations.
The product has been used here, and some adjustments have been made to make it work better for Canadian climate, and we're hopeful it will come out soon.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Nixon. One of the causes of bee mortality is the use of neonicotinoids. According to a recently published report, the bee mortality rate fell in 2015. Can that be attributed to the reduced use of these pesticides?
As a bee farmer, have you noted a similar trend in certain provinces or is it right across Canada? You also talked about the use of another pesticide. Have you noted a drop in the bee mortality rate? Are there perhaps other factors contributing to the fluctuation in mortality rates from year to year?
[English]
Mr. Nixon: We've definitely seen an improvement in the honeybees across the country over the past couple of years.
I believe it is maybe too early to tell whether these changes in the use of neonics actually had an impact on that. We have many challenges in beekeeping. It has been very focused as to the use of pesticides and a certain group of pesticides, but we've seen some significantly high losses incurred, and we've seen that number change to relatively significantly low losses in a very short period of time. The losses in Ontario in 2014 were pushing up to that 60 per cent range, and then 2015 was in the 40 per cent range, and this past year we're seeing levels down to around 18 per cent.
Ontario brought in some regulations to reduce the use of neonics, which came into effect this spring. To say those regulations had an impact on bee health, they weren't in place early enough to recognize that loss in bee health.
It goes to show there are so many factors that can affect bee health, and pesticides can be a factor. We need to be aware of it. We need to be conscientious of it. We have developed best management practices. Other industry stakeholders have developed best management practices for producers for spraying their crops, and I think a lot of producers have been open to that and have adopted some of those practices.
The mite population, which I alluded to, with treatments is a big factor. Weather is a huge factor, and there are all these pressures, and how they interact; we have lots to learn. To say that the changes in the use of neonics have affected the improvement of bee health is probably a little premature.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: As to the regulation of pesticides, you said that the Government of Ontario has restricted the use of neonicotinoids, leading to a drop in bee mortality rates. Should the restrictions in effect in Ontario be extended to other provinces and to the whole country, through similar regulations?
[English]
Mr. Nixon: From what we see, the exact same product is used on canola, and there are 21 million acres of canola in Western Canada. The majority of the commercial beekeeping operations are in Western Canada in these canola fields. We do not see any impact from having bees in canola that has been treated with the neonics.
Do I think that this type of regulations should be adopted across the country? Definitely not.
The Deputy Chair: The ban on neonics or their limitation in Ontario, do you plan on doing a special study following this winter, having gone through a full cycle by the time next spring comes around, to see if there has been an improvement on the survival of bees?
Mr. Nixon: The Canadian Honey Council will definitely be keeping an eye out. We do rely on information gathered by the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists. They do a study across the country from each province recording the winter losses, and they developed the stats that I provided in the package, and they also ask the potential reasons that beekeepers cited for their losses, so that gives us a good indication. It's an answer from beekeepers themselves, what they feel their losses were impacted by, so I think the Province of Ontario will probably be following their provincial industry closely, and we'll be looking at what they find.
Senator Pratte: I wasn't a member of the Senate when this study was done, so pardon my ignorance.
You mentioned that the uptake by beekeepers was not great for measures for food safety and biosecurity; would you elaborate on that? I'm not sure I understand their hesitancy to take those measures.
Mr. Nixon: For the most part, commercial beekeepers are registered with CFIA as a registered establishment. There is a honey manual that beekeepers follow, and they're inspected according to that manual to produce safe food in a safe, healthy manner. The CFIA certificate also allows producers to export, so it's a good piece of paper to have.
Regarding the adoption of biosecurity and further food safety measures, I think we have to educate the producers a little more on it because I think most commercial producers are already doing a lot of what's in these manuals. I think they're just scared by the manual right now. I have looked at the manual myself, and at first it's intimidating, and we think we're going to have do a whole lot more and at the end of the day not get paid more for our product. We have to better educate the producers about what this means for them, and I think they'll come to realize that they're probably already doing almost everything that's in those manuals.
We have state-of-the-art honeybee farms in this country. I've been to many places around the world and have visited beekeepers, and Canada has an outstanding standard for what we produce. We're proud of our farms. We're proud to make investments in our farms. We want to produce a high-quality, safe food, and we're recognized for that in the marketplace, and producers want to keep that. We need to continue educating the producers a little better.
Senator Pratte: You also mentioned in the same paragraph the state of the market, which is extremely depressed and competing with imported honey from countries that have no standards at all.
Our committee is also studying the access to markets for agricultural products and international trade.
So is there a problem here, the fact that our honey is competing with honey from other countries where apparently there are no standards? Is there something where our government should act?
Mr. Nixon: Definitely. I appreciate you asking that.
It has been discouraging. Over the past 18 months we've seen honey prices drop 50 per cent, and that's a huge drop.
When we look at the numbers provided by Statistics Canada for imports of honey coming into Canada, we see honey coming from Turkey, Thailand, Taiwan, Ukraine and Vietnam. And if we look back over the years, these countries were not significant suppliers of honey. All of sudden, in the last four years, it seems like they tested the market with small volumes, and that volume escalates and then drops down a little.
The U.S. is our number one customer, and they're facing this exact same issue in a larger way. We're competing for the space in the U.S., but it's also coming into Canada, and I think we need to be aware of that.
We have recently been in touch with staff from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to make them aware of the situation. It's going to require people from CFIA and the Canada Border Services Agency because when we walk in our grocery stores we don't see product of Turkey, Thailand and Taiwan in the bottle on the grocery store shelf. So where is it being used? I suspect it's used industrially. So it's coming in a container into a port somewhere and going to a warehouse.
The only people that can access that product are CFIA and Border Services, and there are no capabilities in North America to test the honey for adulteration. Most of the honey in the U.S. from these countries is found to be blended with other sweeteners. Rice syrup is a common one. It is honey blended with rice syrup; it's adulterated, declared as honey, and it's illegal.
When we are competing with that in the marketplace, it makes it very difficult. You simply can't compete with that. When we look at food safety and standards, we have labour and housing standards, production standards, and yet we're competing with honey coming from these countries. It does not work.
When you're selling your product low cost to production, it's only going to go so long, and then it doesn't make sense any more.
Senator Pratte: When you talk to government people, what do they tell you? Are they listening?
Mr. Nixon: The department staff we met with was very open and receptive. But time is of the essence because this market came down hard and it's sitting there. The people that we talked to in our industry think it will take a couple of years. A couple of years is an awful long time for family farms to go backwards. And these imports are very sneaky. These people are smart that are doing it. The paperwork may add up, but we as an industry suggest that the paperwork can be just as fraudulent as the product is.
It's going to require physical samples being taken, opening the doors of a container, opening the lid of a barrel of honey. There is no testing facility in North America, so the samples have to go to a lab in Europe and get tested for adulteration. So that is another thing. As an industry, it would be good if we were able to test what is coming into the country in-house. It would give us faster results.
The Deputy Chair: At the inspection site, you say there are no tests that can be conducted. Is anyone working on a test that can be done?
This is the second product in the last little while that we've talked about where testing at the border would be very helpful. You're talking about adulterated honey. We were talking about spent fowl that our neighbours to the south export more of than they actually produce, which is an interesting trick if you can do it. There is a test for that, but we do not test it at the border.
Is someone developing a better test?
Mr. Nixon: I believe the testing is always being developed for what's next and the next loophole.
As far as I'm aware, nothing is being developed in North America. In Europe, there are a couple of labs. I'm familiar with one in Germany. I am aware that there is another one in France. It used to be that you would test for the presence of C3 or C4 sugars, but apparently the people shipping this honey from these countries have been able to find a way to hide the presence of C3, C4 sugars. So now the new technology is NMR testing, nuclear magnetic resistance, and that is the new technology being used in Europe for this particular test. As far as I'm aware, no lab in North America can do NMR testing.
The Deputy Chair: What a great world we live in, where we have people doping the athletes and now people doping our honey.
Senator Ogilvie: In actual fact, Canada has all kinds of NMR facilities, nuclear magnetic resonance facilities. The academic world is full of them. We have outstanding centres.
I think what you meant to say is that there are none in the hands of people for testing at the border. It's not that that technology is not in the country. We have an abundance of that technology. It would be a relatively simple thing to take a sample from the border and hand it to an academic lab and they would look for a specific hydrogen or carbon signal from a sugar that would represent an adulterated compound.
Mr. Nixon: That's good to know. I was relying on the information from CAPA.
Senator Ogilvie: They're saying there is no test in their pocket to go to the border and test it. But the NMR technology in Canada is extremely advanced, and the Americans are world leaders.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Ogilvie, that's a great suggestion. It's unfortunate we didn't have this discussion before we wrote the report.
With the number of NMRs that we have, perhaps the department working with a couple of universities could set up a couple — you don't have to test everything. You have to test a few and then everyone knows that there is testing, and they all head for the hills with the adulterated product and get a little nervous.
Senator Beyak: Thank you very much.
We hear often from small businesses that over-regulation is one of the biggest things they face, so I can appreciate what you said about the big manuals. They just want to raise bees and produce honey; they do not want to read manuals.
You mentioned that the agri-food people were very cooperative and receptive to your thoughts. Did they offer any solutions or models that exist in other countries that might work?
Mr. Nixon: No, there has been no discussion of solutions yet. We've initiated a conversation with CFIA and Border Services as well, through contacts with the department staff, and I think the next steps will hopefully come in the near future.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. At the beginning you spoke about the diversity of the bee stock in Canada. I knew we were diverse, but I did not know that our bee population was diverse. What is the diversity that you're referring to? Is it different brands or different species of honeybees?
Mr. Nixon: For the most part, we all use a similar honeybee, the European honeybee, but there are a couple of different hygienic behaviours and breeds within those.
What I was alluding to in that first recommendation of the diversity across the country is accessing bees from the U.S. Currently we access bees from Australia, New Zealand and Chile. We're able to access queen stock from Hawaii and mainland U.S., as long as those are other package bee supplier countries.
There is a part of our membership that would like to see access to the worker bee stock from the U.S., which there used to be in the 1980s. It was closed at that time for phytosanitary reasons, and there are groups of our membership that believe it is time to look at that as a source of stock for our industry.
There have been certain times when areas of the country suffer high losses, and when we're importing stock from Australia and New Zealand at high prices, they question whether that really makes sense when we have a potential neighbouring supplier so close. At the same time, we have members that are very opposed to accessing stock and feel that there are continuing reasons to keep this closure.
Senator Ogilvie: Mr. Nixon, in response to Senator Pratte's questions, you identified an issue that is a growing concern in the country: the adulteration of honey. It is a human health risk concern as well. You are in Alberta, right? Which city are you closest to in your own location?
Mr. Nixon: Calgary.
Senator Ogilvie: The University of Calgary has outstanding facilities. In fact, all your universities — the University of Alberta and the University of Calgary — have world-leading facilities, and Lethbridge has facilities as well. With regard to the nuclear magnetic resonance test, I would urge you to speak to someone in those areas and then bring the results of what you find to government. There is no excuse for taking two years to be able to sample barrels of potentially adulterated honey coming into this country. We use NMR technology to scan human beings to look for disease. This is a super advanced technology about which our expertise is simply outstanding, and you have two of the leading universities in the country in your province.
So I would urge you to get on to that quickly. I had no idea that they were waiting for some simple test to look into this issue that has been in the news for some time now. This is critical, not only to your industry, because your prices have plummeted terribly, as you've indicated — and I have been following that out of my own interest — but it's also a human health concern in terms of adulterated products. They're coming in from countries in which the adulteration may not be as simple as using rice syrup for these issues. I would strongly urge you to get on that very quickly. I can assure you it is a simple thing to look at in an NMR tube. You have to have experts doing it, but it is a relatively simple thing to look into.
Mr. Nixon: I appreciate your making me aware of that, and we will definitely take that back. We will still need help from departments in order to get our hands on some of those source countries, because we can't access it.
Senator Ogilvie: Right. But if you have a university backing you up such that they can do a test, then you can go to the government officials, and there is no excuse for dragging their feet on something this important.
Mr. Nixon: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: If you do that, please get back to us and tell us how it goes. Perhaps you can find a post-doctoral student who would like to take this on as a project.
You also talked about bee imports and where we're importing bees. It's my understanding that in Canada the only place where we have bees that are relatively isolated is in Newfoundland. Is there any thought of moving bees from Newfoundland around the country, since there is an isolation factor in the development of the bee population there?
Mr. Nixon: I am aware that the stock that is in Newfoundland has been fairly well protected over the years.
The Deputy Chair: Just like Newfoundland.
Mr. Nixon: They have been able to preserve the health of those honeybees. The unfortunate part is that the quantity of bees in Newfoundland is very small, and there is nowhere near a commercial-scale population available.
The Deputy Chair: But if the market were there, perhaps, build it and they will come, if you start importing. Newfoundlanders are industrious people.
Mr. Nixon: I think there is a reason that the population in Newfoundland is so small, and I don't think it's a place where you could physically bring bees to if you wanted to and raise bees for the purpose of reproduction to supply stock to Canada. It's a very difficult climate to keep bees in. I think that's the reason we don't see commercial beekeeping in Newfoundland.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Nixon, thank you very much for your presentation. I did want to point out that one thing that has happened — I don't know that it's happened across the country, because I only live in Nova Scotia, but I noticed — and Senator Ogilvie may have noticed as well — that there was an announcement a week or so ago in Nova Scotia of federal government funds to help increase the number of bees in the province. I think this committee is taking credit for it, whether it was our work or not.
We would like to thank you and wish you well in the work of the Canadian Honey Council.
Colleagues, I want to remind you that at the end of the second session we'll need to go in camera for a few moments. I suspect we'll be only a very short period of time. We just need to approve a couple of small items so that I can make a presentation in the chamber tomorrow that we didn't do the last time we talked about our next study. So we just need to clear something up, and once we do that we can adjourn.
Honourable senators, we will now hear our next witnesses: from the Canadian Seed Trade Association, Mr. Todd Hyra, Second Vice-President, and Mr. Dave Carey, Manager, Government Affairs and Policy; from CropLife Canada, Mr. Dennis Prouse, Vice President, Government Affairs, and Mr. Pierre Petelle, Vice President (Chemistry), who will assist in answering questions; and from the Grain Farmers of Ontario, Mr. Marcus Haerle, Vice Chair.
Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear. I would invite the witnesses to make their presentations. I would also remind them that their presentations should not exceed five to seven minutes, please.
Following the presentations made by the witnesses, there will be questions from each senator. We'll give them each five minutes to ask questions before the chair recognizes another senator. There will be as many rounds of questions as time will allow, so senators should not feel the need to ask all of their questions at once. During the question and answer session, I would ask that everybody be succinct.
Before we start, I would like to introduce my colleagues, starting on my left with Senator Petitclerc.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Hello, I am Senator Chantal Petitclerc.
[English]
I am a former Paralympic athlete and a new senator. I am very happy to be here.
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak from Ontario. Welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Unger: Senator Betty Unger from Edmonton, Alberta.
Senator Plett: Don Plett. I'm from Manitoba.
Senator Ogilvie: Kelvin Ogilvie, Nova Scotia.
The Deputy Chair: I'm Senator Terry Mercer, also from Nova Scotia, and I'm the deputy chair of the committee.
Who is going to be first? Mr. Hyra?
Todd Hyra, Second Vice-President, Canadian Seed Trade Association: Mr. Chair, committee members, good evening. On behalf of the Canadian Seed Trade Association, or the CSTA, I would like to thank the committee for your invitation to discuss our perspective on the importance of bee health to sustainable food production in Canada.
My name is Todd Hyra. I serve as the second vice-president of the board of directors of the Canadian Seed Trade Association. I also work for SeCan, a CSTA member company, as the business manager for Western Canada. I will be sharing my time today with Dave Carey, CSTA's manager of government affairs and policy.
CSTA is the national voice of the Canadian seed industry. We're a non-partisan, not-for-profit association that brings together 128 member companies engaged in all aspects of seed, including research, development, plant breeding, production and marketing, and sales both domestically and internationally.
Our members work with over 50 different crop kinds and serve the needs of their customers by developing and providing seed produced through various production methods, including organic, conventional and biotechnology. Our members range from single family farm retailers to large multinational firms. The economic impact of the seed industry is $5.61 billion annually, employing more than 57,000 Canadians and generating more than $450 million in exports.
CSTA members are proud to be vital contributors to the national economy and to the health and well-being of Canadian and international consumers. Our members are united in their supports for CSTA's mission statement: to foster seed industry innovation and trade. Seed is a critical first step in food production and the start of the agricultural value chain. Nine in 10 bites of food around the world start with planting a seed.
The seed industry and CSTA fully appreciate and understand the importance of pollinators and appreciate the thorough review and report undertaken by this committee to assess all impacts of pollinator health. Farmers around the world face the challenge to feed, clothe and fuel an ever-growing world population. With our favourable climate, diverse land base and innovative farmers, Canada is well positioned to lead the world in the effort to meet those challenges.
Canada's seed industry is ready to deliver plant varieties that are more productive, make better use of water and nutrients, deliver health and wellness, and not only thrive in adverse environmental conditions but also help to protect and enhance the environment.
CSTA is committed to continue to work with farmers, industry, beekeepers and policy-makers and regulators to develop and implement actions that will continue to give farmers the tools they need while protecting our pollinators.
Thank you, I will turn over my remaining time to Dave Carey.
Dave Carey, Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Canadian Seed Trade Association: Thank you, Todd, and thank you again to the committee, not only for your invitation to be here today but for the extensive work done on this important file.
CSTA's board of directors and our member companies place a great deal of importance on bee health and the well-being of pollinators. The seed industry recognizes that pollinators and crop protection products are complementary and integral components of an overall sustainable agriculture system and that we have a stewardship role to play as seed companies.
As such, CSTA is involved in several activities and initiatives to support and promote pollinator health, including, as mentioned earlier by the Canadian Honey Council, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Bee Health Roundtable. In September 2013, CSTA wrote a letter to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in support of the proposal to create a national value chain round table to discuss bee health holistically. Since the round table was formed, CSTA has participated as a steering committee member as well as a member of the Communications working group and the Control of Pesticide Exposure working group.
CSTA firmly believes that bee health must be addressed nationally. Bees Matter is an industry-led initiative dedicated to educating Canadians on the importance of honeybees and the many factors affecting honeybee health. Part of the project is an initiative called Buzzing Gardens, which offers Canadians the opportunity to receive free seeds to plant their own pollinator gardens. CSTA is a proud partner in this program as our seed company members provide the seeds.
In keeping with the seed sector commitment to health, safety and the environment, CSTA and the Canadian Seed Growers' Association partnered to create the guide for treated seed stewardship, which entails best practices for the handling, storage, transportation, use and disposal of treated seed. The guide will help those that work with treated seed to create and implement their own stewardship plans, comply with provincial and territorial regulations, and maintain environmentally sound operations.
The last initiative I'll mention today is CleanFARMS. CleanFARMS is a not-for-profit industry stewardship organization committed to environmental responsibility through the proper management of agricultural waste. CSTA, working with CleanFARMS and industry, helped create the seed and pesticide bag collection program, which provides farmers a safe and responsible way to dispose of seed bags or bags that control crop protection projects. There is still work to be done, but we're moving the right direction. We are seeing positive results.
In January 2016, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada released an interim report that concluded there are no potential risks to bees for seed treatment use. In February 2016 Statistics Canada published data that determined that the number of honeybee colonies in Canada had risen by 73,000 between 2010 and 2014. Lastly, in July 2016 the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturalists, or CAPA, issued their statement on honeybee overwinter loss for 2015, which finds that the national average percentage of colony winter loss was 16.4 per cent, which is one of the lowest losses since 2006-07 and represents a decrease of 34.4 per cent from the 2013-14 numbers.
We welcome any questions you have today, but we are supportive of your report and the work that you have done. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Next will be Mr. Prouse.
Dennis Prouse, Vice President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As indicated earlier, I'm here with my colleague, Pierre Petelle, our vice-president, chemistry. We're pleased to talk about the government response to the committee's report, about the committee's report itself and more broadly about the state of pollinator health in Canada today.
CropLife Canada is the trade association representing the manufacturers, developers and distributors of plant science technologies, including pest control products and plant biotechnology for use in agriculture, urban and public health settings. It may come as a surprise to some that our members develop products for use in beehives to protect them against pests such as varroa mites and various insect predators.
We strive to ensure that the benefits of plant science innovations can be enjoyed by both farmers and consumers. CropLife Canada promotes sustainable agriculture practices, and we are committed to protecting human health and the environment.
We also work very closely with a number of stakeholder groups, some of which are seated with me here today. We're proud of the fact that all of Canada's major farmer-based grower groups are part of our GrowCanada partnership.
Overall, we were pleased with the thoughtfulness and depth of the report this committee produced last year on bee health. The committee report clearly acknowledged that pollinator health is a complex issue and that the challenges faced by pollinators are multifactorial. The recommendations made to government were measured and reflected the broad array of stakeholders involved in the file.
Similarly, we have been pleased with the Government of Canada's approach on pollinator health. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has taken practical steps, such as establishing the national round table on honeybee health and Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and has continued to take a collaborative and science-based approach to the regulation of pesticides, both for the treatment of varroa mites and honeybee hives and the neonicotinoid-based pesticides that are vital to modern agriculture. We have seen PMRA continue to work collaboratively with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and earlier this year announce a preliminary re-evaluation decision on one of the three most common neonicotinoid-based agricultural pesticides. PMRA found this product was safe when used as directed and did not pose an undue risk to honeybee populations.
We think it's useful to look at some of the key developments on pollinator health in Canada since the committee last examined the issue. We know that in 2016 incident reports to PMRA on bee deaths continue to trend downward, continuing the 2014 and 2015 trend of lower numbers of incidents around the time of planting, in fact an 85 per cent reduction from 2013 levels. We expect that PMRA will publish a summary report later this year.
We also know that for 2015-16, overwintering losses for honeybees were very low: 16.8 per cent overall for Canada, 17.9 per cent for Ontario. It's also worth noting that pesticides were not mentioned by beekeepers as a major contributory factor for overwintering losses anywhere in Canada.
The number of managed honeybee colonies in Canada has hit over 700,000 for the first time since the 1980s. Not coincidentally, that was the time just before the varroa mite came to Canada and the border was closed to the importation of queens from the United States. The number of managed honeybee colonies in Ontario and Quebec continues to rise at over 100,000 in Ontario and over 50,000 in Quebec. Those numbers have been rising steadily since the early 2000s, which is when the first neonicotinoid-based treated seeds began being used in those provinces.
Across the industry there has been unprecedented value chain cooperation on honeybee health initiatives. There has been the development of best management practices for farmers, outreach and education efforts, new seed bag label language, new seed box lubricant and seeding equipment, and ongoing polymer research. The amount of progress made in such a short time by agriculture to address concerns about the impact of seeding on pollinators has been remarkable. The results show in the overall numbers.
We are also exceptionally proud of two other initiatives: our BeeConnected App, and our Bees Matter initiative. The BeeConnected App was developed in conjunction with the Canadian Honey Council and is designed for better communication between beekeepers and those applying pesticides, both farmers and professional applicators. Beekeepers can find where and when pesticides are to be used, and those using the products can locate hives and communicate with each other. It's modelled after a similar successful app in Australia and adapted for Canada. Both beekeepers and pesticide users alike have found it to be very useful, and we hope it will continue to grow in popularity.
Our Bees Matter initiative is a public education campaign launched by CropLife Canada and supported by a number of our member companies and grower groups, such as our friends at Grain Farmers of Ontario. In addition to better informing Canadians about key facts on pollinators, Bees Matter has distributed over 65,000 packets of pollinator-friendly wildflower seeds to individual Canadians providing valuable habitat. To help distribute these seeds, we have sponsored and partnered with the Communities in Bloom campaign nationally.
Finally, we are very proud of our partnership with Nature Conservancy of Canada. Our sponsorship allowed Nature Conservancy to develop a small parcel of land in Norfolk County, Ontario, back to its natural state with an emphasis on pollinator-friendly habitat. It has allowed Nature Conservancy of Canada to study which habitat was most successful for maintaining and growing important wild pollinator-friendly vegetation.
The bee health issue is complex and will continue to play a role with both farmers and beekeepers. The current situation in Canada is good, and we're proud to be doing our part.
All this is despite unnecessary punitive restrictions being imposed on Ontario growers around the use of treated seeds. We are encouraged that at the federal level at least science is trumping politics on this issue.
To conclude, we're pleased to see that both this committee's report and the government response took a wide-ranging, science-based view of the issue. We continue to work with both Health Canada's PMRA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on a wide range of issues related to pollinator health. We believe that pollinators and modern agriculture both need each other and can thrive together, and we believe that our actions and achievements to date with stakeholder partners demonstrate that commitment.
Thank you for having us, and we look forward to answering your questions.
Markus Haerle, Vice Chair, Grain Farmers of Ontario: On behalf of the 28,000 farmer members of the Grain Farmers of Ontario, I thank you for this opportunity to provide our perspective on the grain and oilseed sector in Ontario.
We are pleased to see the report from the government on the committee's report on the importance of bee health to sustainable food production. The issues facing bee health have been a priority for our organization and our farmer members.
We have been active participants on the government's Bee Health Roundtable, and our farmer members have changed their farming practices to protect bee health.
Many of the activities highlighted in the government's report have stemmed from the work of the Bee Health Roundtable, and we are pleased to see the progress contained within the report.
The Grain Farmers of Ontario recognizes the importance of bees in our natural environment and their importance as pollinators for multiple agricultural crops. While we understand that time is required to fully distill the data on bee health, we understand that bee health is improving; in particular, fewer mortalities associated with pesticide exposure are being reported.
In addition to the work we have contributed to on the Bee Health Roundtable, our organization made significant efforts to raise the profile of the importance of bee health with our farmer membership and work with government regulators. Our members took measures to reduce exposure to neonicotinoid pesticides, contribute to bee habitat on their farms, and have adopted best management practices to alter their planting practices with bee health in mind.
Ontario farmers recognize the need for seed treatment insecticides to protect corn, seed and seedlings. In the first year of introduction, our farmer members had an adoption rate of over 90 per cent of a new lubricant that reduced the dust exposure to bees from neonicotinoid pesticides during the planting of corn and soybeans, which was reflected in lower bee mortalities immediately after the introduction of the dust-reducing seed lubricant.
In addition to reducing potential pollinator exposure, seed treatments have also helped farmers by providing stronger, more resilient crops and higher yields. The restrictions that have been imposed on these products are forcing farmers in Ontario to rely on other forms of pest control products, including foliar sprays, which could increase the risk of exposure of non-target organisms such as bees, or less effective products that are four times the cost to farmers.
Pesticides are an essential tool to enable our growers to feed the growing world population in an environmentally responsible fashion. Without pesticides, the world would lose at least 40 per cent of its food supply; for certain crops, losses could be up to 80 per cent. The impact on the world's food supply would be simply catastrophic.
It is unfortunate that the Ontario government did not wait to see that the measures put in place by farmers and the government at the national level improved bee health before imposing a near ban on neonicotinoids in Ontario. Our farmer members cannot compete with our domestic competition with a patchwork of regulations on inputs. We need a national, uniform approach to the regulation of neonicotinoid seed treatments. It is our hope that the ban on neonicotinoids will be rectified in the near future and that all governments and stakeholders will learn from this experience.
We are happy to continue our commitment to bee health. Agriculture is stronger when it works together. The Ontario grain sector produces more than $9 million, and we expect to grow further. We would like to see our industry at the forefront of government agendas and top of mind for decision makers. There are many challenges ahead, and we will achieve more together.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I think that you have contributed again to the learning process of all of us, the committee and the viewers who are maybe watching us on television. The process that we've gone through here, a study of the use of pesticides on agricultural products as they affect bee health, has been a fascinating one for committee members. As a member of this committee for the past 12 years, I can say it has generated a good deal of interest and a good deal of attention. We hope that may have helped.
We will go to questions.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Ontario and Quebec have adopted measures to reduce the use of seeds treated with neonicotinoids. I think you would agree that these pesticides have proven harmful to bees and bee reproduction. The decline in the bee mortality rate in Ontario has incidentally been quite significant.
As to untreated seeds, are there enough to make that transition in production nationally in order to prevent the early death of bees? As I understood it, Mr. Haerle, you more or less agree because, grain still has to be produced even if seeds without neonicotinoids are used.
I would like to hear your opinion on that. Ontario and Quebec were the first to use seeds with less neonicotinoids. Would you be in favour of adopting the same approach in the other provinces?
Mr. Haerle: For my part as a farmer, I experience this when I am seeding. There is a reduction in two areas. Right now, we have products that are not based on neonicotinoids, which means that we have choices. Moreover, under the regulations in Ontario, we have to justify the need for a product. That means that a farmer must study their land. If the tests show that there are insects, it justifies the need for a product.
At the same time, we have to protect our investment, which is very important. We cannot allow our yields to suffer because we cannot access a product that we need. That is a problem in Ontario specifically and I think Quebec is moving in the same direction. We will no longer be competitive with our partners in our own country.
We are at a disadvantage because it is the farmer who suffers since the industry will not absorb all the losses. Our organization has worked very hard with the producers we represent to reduce the need for those products. We will keep working on this, just as my colleagues and partners here today are working with companies to offer products that are less harmful to bees, in order to improve the situation. We recognize that there can be an effect, but that is not the only cause of bee mortality.
[English]
Pierre Petelle, Vice President (Chemistry), CropLife Canada: Just to clarify, the Ontario regulations are being phased in over a period of time. These reductions that we saw in overwintering losses, which were quite significant, happened before any of the restrictions took effect in Ontario. It's not as though Ontario's restrictions resulted in better overwintering numbers for Ontario beekeepers. The two were completely separate. That was one point I wanted to make an observation about.
The other thing is that when we talk about neonic seed treatments, or any other pesticide product, especially insecticides, clearly, if the insecticide comes into contact with an insect like a bee, it will cause either mortality or some negative effect. We don't dispute that.
What we do control, though, is the level of toxicity. We try to find products that are least toxic to non-target pests. We also look, in conjunction with the regulator, at how to reduce exposure. When the neonic seed treatments came along, we took a very small amount of product, put it on the seed and put that seed directly in the ground, instead of having a sprayer cross the whole field and spray the whole crop.
The innovation in the delivery of that product is quite advanced and is actually targeted at reducing exposure to non-target insects. There is a bit of a misconception sometimes when we talk about that technology.
The last point I want to make is to Mr. Haerle's point about competitiveness. We look at the Canadian corn market, which is basically Ontario and to some extent Quebec. That's a 3-million to 4-million-acre annual production, compared with the U.S. Midwest, which is usually 100 million acres. They have access to tools, including these ones. When you look at the competitiveness of Canadian farmers, it puts them at a significant disadvantage.
Senator Unger: Senator Dagenais took my question. I will ask a question, but I'm honestly not sure about this. It has to do with the recommendation to reduce the number of conditional registrations granted to neonic-based substances. Health Canada published a notice that it would stop granting conditional registrations.
What's your reaction to this decision?
Mr. Petelle: I think a number of witnesses testified to try to provide some clarity around what conditional registrations were, and I know PMRA did a good job of explaining what they actually were and what the intent of them was. Despite all that information, including from ourselves, it's a type of registration that continues to be misunderstood. The perception is that the decision is being made without all the available information, and that's not really the case.
They have to be satisfied that there are no unacceptable risks before they can grant even a conditional registration. Typically what a conditional registration does is ask for confirmatory data that you can only get once the product is actually being used at a field level. There are certain studies we produce to register the product, but they're done in terms of research.
There are some questions that PMRA may have during their evaluation, saying, "We'd like to confirm some of that questioning on a larger scale, so once you register the product, we would like some data generated on a bigger scale.'' In a nutshell, that's where they came from.
In terms of the decision to stop granting them, I think that while we still feel they served a purpose, we accept it. Hopefully, if it helps Canadians better understand the regulatory system, that's a positive thing.
In terms of the actual practical implications for farmers, we're hopeful that registrations won't be delayed because of this move and that farmers will continue to be able to access our technologies at the same time as competitors such as the U.S. We're still waiting to see how that plays out.
Senator Unger: Will these measures help preserve honeybee health?
Mr. Petelle: Again, the issue around the conditional registration of that class of compounds, the neonics, is that there was a bit of misunderstanding of what the conditional registrations were in the first place, so this decision in itself won't. A comprehensive re-evaluation is being undertaken right now on all the neonic products. My colleague mentioned that one of them has had a preliminary decision that was quite favourable in terms of the link to bee health not really being an issue.
There remain two more significant active ingredients that are under evaluation. This is being done in partnership with the U.S. EPA and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. These are three of the biggest regulators in the world that are looking at all the science related to these compounds. This will be as comprehensive a review as you can expect.
Mr. Prouse: Further to that, there are the products that treat varroa mites. People talk about conditional registrations and the registration of pesticides, and immediately the thought goes to broader agricultural products like neonics. We're also talking about the approval of products to treat pests for hives. So a great deal of care must be taken here. The old expression: Be careful what you wish for.
Mr. Carey: We heard from the Canadian Honey Council that they benefited from the ability to have something pushed through quickly because they saw a benefit for the new varroacide. We need to be careful that we don't lump everything together where insecticides don't get improved in a quick and efficient manner, but we want varroacides, which essentially are the same thing but used in different applications. If the Honey Council didn't have that, they wouldn't have a tool for one of their biggest issues. They are optimistic about the use of that, so they want to make sure they are treated the same, despite the fact that in the public attention insecticides have been demonized, where that hasn't.
Senator Unger: And all the while, our Canadian honeybee farmers have to compete against U.S. honeybee farmers who have all of these tools. To me, it doesn't seem to be a level playing field.
Mr. Prouse: I think, senator, that speaks to the need for cooperation between PMRA and the U.S. EPA, which, fortunately, is ongoing. They need to share data and information and have a level of harmonization. Without that, both beekeepers and farmers more broadly aren't going to have access to the kind of tools they need. It's the kind of cooperation that we've always talked about. Hopefully it's being worked on with the ongoing Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council.
Fortunately, we are seeing some of that level of cooperation. It's vital. You can be in situations where farmers on this side of the border don't have access to tools that farmers on the other side of the border may have. It's an important issue.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have a question that I hope is not too technical. Forgive me because this is my first time on this committee.
I would like to know what the specific challenges of organic production are. What are the specific issues? Perhaps the market is too small, but I am just curious to know the specific challenges of this type of production.
Mr. Haerle: I can answer your question.
[English]
Organic production does have its place within the markets of food production, but it's limited because of issues that we face, first of all, of approving products that they can use and investments for infrastructure, like handling of the final product of, let's say, corn or soybeans.
If they fall back on the production side, it's a challenge because they're facing pests that they have no control over.
The seedlings sometimes have issues coming out of the ground because we live in a cooler climate where we need to protect the seedling that we put in the ground. Having products like neonicotinoids or seed treatments in general helps to protect that aspect of your investment.
Organic food production is happening, but they are in more niche markets. Again, it depends on where your markets end up. Is it staying within Canada or is it exported? Again, there are limits to what can be done, and volumes speak usually to what is accepted by larger production, because there are challenges that we face.
Mr. Petelle: It's great to have an actual farmer here to talk about their experience, but our members also produce pesticides that are approved for organic production. I just want to set the record straight on that.
The other thing I want to set the record straight on is that organic production does have the same pest challenges as conventional, and they do have to use tools and pesticides. They're just a different host of products. Many of those products would also be toxic to bees if they were exposed to them.
They are similar challenges. You still have to make sure you're not inadvertently exposing non-target pests, and you have also got the limitation of the lack of tools that just don't exist.
For now it is a niche market. We feel that conventional, if you want to call it that — we prefer "modern'' — agriculture is very sustainable, and some of the tools that are being advanced, whether in genetics or even from our sector on crop protection, are continuing to advance and improve.
Senator Pratte: As I mentioned, I wasn't part of the initial study, so there are probably things that I should know but don't know.
You made a point of saying that the reduction in losses of honeybees in recent years wasn't due to changes in pesticide use, certainly not in Ontario with the new regulations that have not come into force yet. What are the hypotheses as to what happened in the last couple of years that brought this good news?
Mr. Petelle: We're talking about the overwintering numbers. If you take that scale back as far as it goes — and I think 2004 is really the earliest time that you can get good data on overwintering numbers — it fluctuates quite a bit every year, and it fluctuates quite often with the severity of the winter.
In Ontario in 2012 we he had a mild winter, and they only had 12 per cent losses. Then we had a couple of years of pretty severe winters, and we had 35 and 50 per cent losses. Last winter was relatively mild, and the numbers were positive again.
I'm oversimplifying. There are a lot of factors that go into overwintering health, and I'm sure someone like Kevin Nixon could elaborate, but just very simply, when you compare it to severity of winter, there is a close correlation, at least in Eastern Canada, to that trend.
In terms of the incidents being reported, some of that is what some of the industry has done with new dust-reducing agents and best management practices that farmers took on. There is a combination of factors that alleviated some of the more acute incidents that we were seeing.
Mr. Carey: Just to build on that, I think Pierre hit it right on the head, and Kevin spoke to it this morning too, that it does fluctuate. With 2012 being the mild season that Pierre mentioned, bees were out earlier than normal. Planting was happening, and bees aren't normally out that early. As Markus can attest to more than I can, that created issues around bees being out while corn and soybeans were being planted and at times when they weren't normally out.
Industry did step up, working with PMRA as mentioned. CropLife introduced new labelling requirements and a fluency agent that reduced dust-off so that when corn or soybean seeds were being planted, the abrasion coming off was less active ingredient.
It's an increased awareness, too, from the industry side, the seed sector side, seed companies, to the farmer's side about the importance of communication with beekeepers. I think the BeeConnected App that CropLife spoke about was the next step of that as opposed to just talking to your neighbour. Now there's actually an app behind that, so your smartphone can help you determine that.
Like I said, it does go up and down, but 2012 was sort of the peak of losses, and industry reacted right away, working with the Canadian Honey Council and through the national Bee Health Roundtable and with our other colleagues.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentations. I'd like to thank all of you for being here this evening. It has been informative. We'd like to ask you to keep us in mind if any new developments come up and to keep us informed by sending a note to the clerk.
We look forward, particularly in Ontario, to seeing the results in the spring of how winter has been on the bee population. Of course, that will depend on how tough the winter is. As Canadians, we all winter differently. Thank you.
(The committee continued in camera.)