The meeting is called to order.
[English]
Today we're studying bee health monitoring in Canada.
I want to welcome back Madam Brosseau and Mr. Warkentin. I hope you had a good trip to China with our minister. Also, we have with us Peter Fragiskatos, who is replacing Francis Drouin today.
Our witnesses are here, and with us we have Ms. Andrea Johnston, director general, sector development and analysis directorate, market and industry services branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Welcome, Andrea.
We also have with us, by video conference, Stephen F. Pernal, research scientist, apiculture, and officer-in-charge, Beaverlodge research farm, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Welcome, Mr. Pernal.
We also welcome, from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Jaspinder Komal, executive director and deputy chief veterinary officer, animal health directorate, and from the Department of Health, Scott Kirby, director general, environmental assessment directorate, pest management regulatory agency.
We welcome all of you. We will start by giving you an opening statement for up to 10 minutes.
We'll start with Andrea Johnston.
On behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, we appreciate this opportunity to discuss the department's ongoing work to help improve the health of honeybees and to provide you information on our diagnostic capacity for testing and measuring bee health in Canada.
[Translation]
Domestic bees are the main source of agricultural pollination around the world. Without them, it would be difficult and even impossible to produce a large number of crops. As a result, bee health is important to beekeepers, to farmers, and to Canada as a whole.
[English]
There are many factors that influence bee health.
Parasites and pests, such as varroa mites, impact bee health.
Healthy queens are important to maintaining vigorous productive hives. Queen health can be compromised by factors such as inadequate selection in mating and exposure to pathogens and pesticides.
Long harsh winters or cool extended springs can result in higher levels of overwinter beehive losses.
Management techniques vary among beekeeping operations and can influence honeybee health.
Bees can also be infected by unintentional exposure to agricultural pesticides used to protect crops and by pesticides used in hives to protect bees from parasitic mites and other pests.
Another factor that can indicate challenges to bee health is the magnitude of annual overwinter colony losses. Overwinter losses vary widely from year to year, place to place, and beekeeper to beekeeper.
In 2015 the national average percentage of colony winter loss was 16.4%. Overall, the reported national colony loss this year is one of the lowest since 2006-07.
A further indicator of bee health is honeybee population levels and productivity. The most recent numbers available show that Canada's 8,533 beekeepers produced about 95 million pounds of honey in 2015, and that's up by around 11% from 2014. Over the same period, the number of colonies increased by 3.6%.
Improvements to bee health require action from a wide range of stakeholders. AAFC established the bee health round table on March 25, 2014, to bring together a diverse group of stakeholders, including beekeepers, grains and horticulture crop producers, researchers, input suppliers, and provincial and federal officials. The bee health round table provides a means to allow for a national cross-sectoral dialogue to identify specific actions related to bee health.
[Translation]
Maintaining and improving bee health is a multidimensional, long-term issue. It requires a great deal of time and resources, and efforts must be coordinated.
[English]
The bee health round table members identified four pillars: a pollinator strategy with a vision for the future of beekeeping in Canada as a valued part of agriculture; a research strategy that identifies and addresses gaps and priorities for the beekeeping industry; products and solutions for beekeepers and other agricultural producers that are both effective and sustainable; and knowledge transfer between all stakeholders, including producers, beekeepers, regulators, researchers, and the broader public, to ensure timely awareness.
Within AAFC, scientists are supporting a variety of issues related to bee health across the country. In July 2015, AAFC and the U.S. Department of Agriculture began formal research collaboration to assess stressors causing bee population declines in North America and develop the necessary tools to detect widespread pests, pathogens, and parasites.
In addition, in July 2014, AAFC announced funding for a million-dollar four-year nationwide surveillance project to document the health profile of honeybee colonies in Canada. AAFC looks forward to continuing to work with stakeholders to ensure a sustainable future for beekeeping in agriculture.
Dr. Pernal will now provide further details on the work undertaken by AAFC as he explains the research under way and our diagnostic capacity to assess bee health.
Good afternoon. I am Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's lead scientist specializing in honeybee research. I'm here today to represent the science and technology branch.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada appreciates the opportunity to provide you with information on the important ongoing work we are doing to help improve the health of honeybees in Canada and to provide an update on our current diagnostic capacity for testing and measuring bee health.
AAFC has its national honeybee research program located in Beaverlodge, Alberta, which is led by me and employs two permanent technicians. A recent addition to our staff has been a new term scientist, Dr. Marta Guarna, who will be employed until March 31, 2017. Currently, three graduate students and one post-doctoral fellow are working on projects associated with our lab. During the summer of 2016, we're employing four co-operative education post-secondary students as well as two casual beekeeping technicians. AAFC also has a scientist working on native bees located in Ottawa, and native bee biologists in Kentville, Nova Scotia, and Calgary, Alberta.
AAFC is working on several ongoing bee-related projects. For example, we're developing recommendations for detecting and treating colonies infected with Nosema ceranae, a newly introduced parasite associated with higher rates of colony losses. In addition, we're developing techniques to disinfect beekeeping equipment exposed to this pest, and methods to detect therapeutic compounds that may be deposited in hive products.
We are also continuing to analyze samples for agricultural pesticide residues in honey, pollen, and beeswax throughout Alberta. Moreover, we're examining concentrations of products currently registered for control of diseases or mites of honeybees that may also accumulate in these matrices.
Analytical chemistry support for these activities has been provided through a long-standing partnership with the agrifood laboratories branch in Edmonton, part of the Province of Alberta's Department of Agriculture and Forestry.
In the last two years, AAFC has funded several new projects involving bee health. For example, we are currently in the last year of a project that examines the interactive role that certain risk factors, namely, Nosema ceranae parasitism, nutrition, and pesticides, have on honeybee colony survival within honey-producing and pollination beekeeping operations across different regions of the country. A second component of this project also examines diversity of wild pollinators in agricultural ecosystems and factors that may affect their abundance and overall health.
With partners funded through the agri-innovation program, we've also assisted in the evaluation of probiotic bacteria as a novel control against honeybee diseases.
The department also recently approved a new internal project that, beginning this summer, will document the prevalence of newly introduced parasitic threats in Canadian honeybee populations, namely, Lotmaria passim and Crithidia mellificae, as well as their potential impact on bee health.
AAFC has also funded a national four-year honeybee surveillance project through the agri-marketing program's assurance system stream. This project was awarded to the Alberta and Manitoba beekeepers commissions, and is now in its third year. As active surveillance for honeybee threats is not performed by agencies such as the CFIA, this project is designed to provide a baseline of endemic and exotic disease and pest threats to Canadian bee populations.
AAFC's honeybee program has also been successful in garnering significant extramural funding from scientific and industry-led funding consortiums to address other concerns to the beekeeping industry. These include studying factors related to the viability of sperm in newly mated honeybee queens imported into Canada, as well as looking at the role that honeybees and native bees can play to maximize the pollination of canola crops.
In 2015-16 we embarked on a large-scale genomic project with several other research groups across the country to develop genetic markers to breed bees that are more resistant to mites and diseases. This is the largest collaborative project involving honeybees in Canada, and brings together experts from universities and government with many unique and complementary skills.
In terms of diagnostic capacity, AAFC operates a laboratory at the Beaverlodge research farm capable of performing basic diagnostics as well as more advanced microbiological and molecular biology techniques. Recently, our ability to provide diagnostics has substantially increased through a formalized partnership with our local post-secondary institution, Grande Prairie Regional College.
The college, receiving support from Western Economic Diversification Canada and the rural Alberta development fund, built the national bee diagnostic centre, or NBDC, at Beaverlodge farm in 2012. This custom-built diagnostic laboratory has been fully operating since the spring of 2013 and actively partners with our AAFC research program, thereby extending our diagnostic capacity. As an example, the diagnostic testing for the national surveillance project is performed at the NBDC. Existing and future AAFC projects will benefit from the use of diagnostic platforms made available at the NBDC.
AAFC has been working diligently to seek answers concerning bee health in Canada and in creating working partnerships to provide the diagnostic capacity it requires to engage in leading-edge research.
In closing, I would like to thank the committee for providing me this opportunity to speak to you today.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon.
[Translation]
My name is Jaspinder Komal and I am the executive director of the animal health directorate at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the deputy chief veterinary officer of Canada.
[English]
The CFIA is a science-based regulatory agency dedicated to safeguarding plants, animals, and food. Our work promotes the health and well-being of Canada's people, environment, and economy.
The CFIA recognizes that bee populations are essential to the health and vitality of the Canadian agriculture sector. However, since my colleagues at AAFC are responsible for measuring bee health, my remarks will focus on the CFIA's science-based approach to maintaining bee health.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
At the CFIA, we do comprehensive risk assessments of diseases and other factors influencing bee health, and we collaborate with partners to develop and implement options for risk management. While federal and provincial jurisdictions share responsibility for managing bee health in Canada, the CFIA works primarily at the national level. We do this by designating certain bee diseases as regulated and reportable, which means that specific disease control measures must be applied. We also provide guidance to the bee industry through the national bee farm-level biosecurity standard.
[Translation]
The national bee farm-level biosecurity standard was developed by the CFIA in collaboration with producers, industry associations, academia, provincial governments, and AAFC. The standard was published in 2013.
[English]
Development of the national standard was supported by Growing Forward funding. The objective of the standard is to facilitate a consistent Canada-wide approach to the implementation of biosecurity practices for both small and large-scale operations. The standard provides comprehensive practical guidance to prevent the introduction and the spread of pests in the three main Canadian bee sectors, namely, honeybees, alfalfa leafcutting bees, and bumblebees.
AAFC has also provided funding to the Canadian Honey Council to bring together best practices into one reference document for industry. The council produced the “Canadian Beekeepers' Practical Handbook to Bee Biosecurity and Food Safety” in 2015. This material has been translated into French and will be supported by outreach to producers.
The provinces work closely with industry to implement bee health management programs provincially. The provinces are also responsible for the interprovincial movement of bees to minimize the spread of bee diseases and pests.
In addition to its involvement in domestic efforts to maintain bee health, the CFIA also works to minimize the risk of introducing bee diseases into Canada.
[Translation]
The CFIA achieves this by monitoring the animal health status of trading partners, and by preventing animals or related products from coming into the country if they pose a risk to the health of Canada's animal resource base.
Bee diseases and pests can spread between countries through the international trade in bees, especially packaged bees.
[English]
A package of bees usually weighs one or 1.5 kilograms, or two to three pounds. The two-pound package contains about 8,000 bees, while a three-pound package contains about 12,000. The bees are shipped in a box with four wooden sides and screened material in the front and back.
Packaged bees are used by beekeepers to establish new colonies and replace winter losses. Canada closed the border to U.S.-packaged honeybees in 1987 because of an outbreak of parasitic mites called the varroa mites in that country. CFIA reassessed the situation in 1994, in 2003, and most recently in 2014. Currently, CFIA only allows the importation of U.S. honeybee queens and their attendants, which are worker bees that take care of the queen. This policy has been in place since the 2003 risk assessment.
Mr. Chairman, you may wonder why the importation of honeybee queens is being treated differently from the importation of packaged bees. This difference is that honeybee queens can be inspected for signs of disease before importation into Canada, whereas such verification is not possible with honeybee packages.
To receive stakeholder input, in 2013 CFIA conducted a one-month consultation process on the honeybee importation issue. A total of 174 responses were received from Canadian individuals, national and regional bee associations, provincial representatives, and even U.S. beekeepers. Seventy-two per cent of respondents were against opening the U.S. border to packaged bees. In March 2014, CFIA communicated the decision on U.S. honeybee packages to various stakeholders, including the Canadian Council of Chief Veterinary Officers and the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists, CAPA.
Diseases and threats are continuously evolving, and in the current context of globalization, Canada must remain vigilant in maintaining our bee health status. While the U.S. border remains closed to honeybee packages, CFIA is open to discussions with stakeholders, and will continue to work with the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists to find other sources of honeybees.
Currently, Canadian producers are allowed to import honeybees, queens, and packaged bees from Australia, New Zealand, and Chile.
[Translation]
The CFIA remains committed to a strong and healthy honey and beekeeping sector as part of a sustainable and competitive agricultural system. We will continue to support this goal through collaboration with industry and other government partners.
[English]
Thank you again for this opportunity to provide the CFIA's perspective on bee health in Canada.
My name is Scott Kirby, director general of the environmental assessment directorate at Health Canada's pest management regulatory agency (PMRA). We are the federal regulator of pesticides and so we are very interested in all potential impacts of agricultural pesticides on health and the environment, including bee health.
As you may be aware, in 2012, a large number of honey bee mortality incidents were reported in Ontario, and following a detailed investigation, we concluded that they were related to the dust generated during the planting of corn and soybean seed treated with neonicotinoid insecticides.
In response to the incidents, PMRA has worked with growers and pesticide manufacturers to implement mandatory mitigation measures since 2014. 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 on the seed package labels.
[English]
With these mitigation measures in place, the number of incidents reported during the planting periods of 2014 and 2015 decreased by approximately 70% and 80% respectively from the numbers reported in 2013, which is a significant improvement. Corn and soybean planting in 2016 are essentially complete, and although we are still collecting information, we are cautiously optimistic that the positive trend we've observed in the past two years will continue.
As you are aware, bee health is a complex issue, and more work is required to understand non-pesticide related issues. We are continuing to collaborate with all stakeholders, including the provinces, and we continue to monitor bee incidents.
In addition to our work on bee incidents, we are also conducting a scientific re-evaluation of all uses of the neonicotinoid insecticides. This evaluation uses a new pollinator risk assessment framework, which was developed together with the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. This framework represents an advancement in how we assess the risks posed by pesticides to bees and allows improved pollinator protection in our regulatory decisions and risk mitigation measures.
Finally, the PMRA continues to participate in several national and international fora on bee health, including the bee health round table led by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, to address this important issue for Canadian agriculture.
Mr. Chair and committee members, I hope you have found my update informative. I look forward to your questions.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank all of the witnesses for being a part of the discussion today.
I'm from southwestern Ontario. As you know, it has been one of the hot spots in terms of activities that have initiated some of the discussions and court actions regarding the use of neonics, etc.
Mr. Kirby, these numbers that have come out in 2014-15 are not new. The season, as you indicated, has just finished. It will be interesting to see, because actually we went into a very cool, wet spring and one thing that has been consistent is the wind, even when it has been dry over the last while.
The decrease of 70% to 80%—that's not 10% or 15%, but 70% to 80%—happened prior to the ban that Ontario put in place on the availability and use of neonics for planting. Is it all because of the working together in terms of the lubricant that has been used, the machinery manufacturers, and also the awareness of farmers? I have a number of farmers who continue to use neonics with bee producers right beside them, as they always have, and there's not the issue.
I'm wondering if you could make a comment about why there's that 70% to 80%. If it's another good year this year, there might even be an improvement on that. Why are we moving towards banning a product when it takes that working together to find out what the issues are?
To the witnesses, thank you very much. Your testimony has been extremely helpful to me in getting an understanding of the issue. In my view, and I would agree with Mr. Kirby, it is a complex issue. There seems to be a variety of variables.
We're here to figure out if there is an issue with bee health, and if there is, the degree of the problem. Is there an issue? For some folks, particularly from industry, there is. Some regions more than others tend to believe that bee health is a concern. From what I've read, from anecdotal conversations, and from folks coming in front of the committee, it seems that folks in Ontario are more concerned about bee health than the folks in Alberta, let's say, or Manitoba and Saskatchewan are.
I'll leave it to anyone to answer generally, and then I'll continue with our conversation.
Perhaps, Mr. Kirby, you'd like to begin.
I would like to thank all the witnesses who are with us today.
We all agree that it is very important to protect bee health. I remember witnesses who spoke to the committee about this a few years ago. They spoke a lot about the losses they had suffered.
[English]
It was pretty devastating to have those apiculturists come to committee and talk about their losses. It was really devastating.
I think this is a complicated issue. There's no silver bullet solution for it. There are a lot of factors, I think, that contribute to the loss of honeybees. A few years ago when we lost a lot of bees in Ontario, there were tests done. I think they were done by Health Canada. They concluded that in Ontario 70% of those bees, I think it was, that died and were tested had neonics in them. In Quebec, it was about 80%. I know that the honeybee council said that our honeybee population has dropped by an estimated 35% over the last few years.
As for working together with industry, farmers, and federal and provincial governments, it's really important. It's important that we all work together to better understand bee health and solutions. It's important that we work collaboratively.
Ms. Johnston, you were talking about testing and monitoring. How long has the government been testing, monitoring, and evaluating bee health?
:
I'm assuming I'm supposed to speak to this, and somebody else can join in if they wish.
Certainly, there are many factors affecting survival, and a huge one is weather as well.
In a year that we have particularly high losses, my observation has been that it can be related to the severity and length of winter, which can be very regionally dependent within Canada, of course. It is also, to some extent, the ability for some of our effective disease and mite controls to bring down this disease and mite levels to acceptable levels before winter. Inevitably, a colony which isn't well treated and isn't well fed going into winter will experience a high loss. There are certain environmental factors that can affect that, which again can be the inherent weather, and also some of the forage availability to bees in the fall if they're not well supplementally fed.
We will experience swings. What I would point to is that we now have nine years of very good data looking at winter loss, and there are swings. Overall, if we look at the level of loss, it's still on average fairly high compared to our long-term losses, which would be around 15% over winter. We're still a good 10% above that, but perhaps the trends indicate we're moving in the right direction, and we have to continue to do so.
:
I'm the one who would be answering that question.
The answer to that question is that at this stage we don't know. Right now, we're doing a targeted re-evaluation of all three Canadian neonicotinoids. We released our preliminary assessment on imidacloprid just this past January. As you've pointed out, both Canada and the U.S. showed different impacts, depending on the crops.
That's not because it's a different chemical being used, because in all cases from the imidacloprid it has to do with how the product is being used and on what it's being used, so the differences are not necessarily about different neonics. It could be about what you're treating with. In some cases, those were seed treatments, so again, there's less material out in the open and being sprayed about so the bees get exposed. In other cases, such as tomatoes, with foliar sprays, there is more potential for exposure for the bees while they're foraging. We found during our preliminary assessment that the mitigation measures that are on the label now to protect pollinators from spray drift from foliar uses, such as on tomatoes, are adequately protecting bees as it is.
Next year we'll be publishing preliminary risk assessments for the other two neonicotinoids that are registered in Canada, which are thiamethoxam and clothianidin, and then we'll be able to see whether there's a big difference in risk between those products.
Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: Thank you very much.
:
I'm the director of research and innovation at Grande Prairie Regional College. Formerly, I was the dean at Fairview College for agriculture technologies and with responsibility for the commercial beekeeping program. I'm currently responsible for the National Bee Diagnostic Centre, of which Carlos Castillo is the applied scientist manager.
Bees and other natural pollinators are essential in order to maintain healthy and diverse ecosystems. The commercially raised honeybee is the most important pollinator in our food production systems, contributing well over $2 billion to the Canadian agriculture sector by means of improved yield and quality.
In the last 10 years there has been a well-documented deterioration of the health conditions of both commercial and wild bees. Beekeepers are reporting higher than expected colony losses during the winter and there is significant reduction in the presence and numbers of native bees.
The high honeybee losses are affecting the beekeeping industry and their services to the agrifood sector. A complete understanding of what is producing this decline has yet to emerge. However, the scientific community agrees that losses cannot be assigned to one single cause. There is a complex of conditions and factors, including but not limited to, and in no particular order, hive management practices, monoculture crop production systems, habitat loss, exposure to pesticides, weather conditions, endemic and exotic diseases, pests and parasites, as well as poor-quality queens.
The National Bee Diagnostic Centre was created by Grande Prairie Regional College in response to requests from the regional beekeeping industry for more robust diagnostic capacity and services. GPRC built the National Bee Diagnostic Centre at the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Beaverlodge research farm specifically to facilitate collaboration with the national honeybee management program led by Dr. Steve Pernal. The Beaverlodge research farm and the NBDC are located in the county of Grande Prairie adjacent to the town of Beaverlodge, 40 kilometres west of Grande Prairie, Alberta, in the Peace Country, one of Canada's leading honey-producing areas.
The National Bee Diagnostic Centre is the only comprehensive laboratory in Canada focused exclusively on the diagnostics of pests, pathogens, and parasites affecting honeybees. It uses microscopy, microbiology, and molecular biology techniques in order to achieve its findings. Its primary objective is to provide independent, confidential diagnostic services and analyses from which evidence-based decisions can be made in order to contribute to both a healthy, competitive, profitable, and dynamic beekeeping industry and to food security concerns.
The NBDC was the first initiative to result from an April 2010 memorandum of understanding between GPRC and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's science partnerships directorate. The Beaverlodge research farm-based initiative was supported with investments from the Rural Alberta Development Fund, Western Economic Diversification, and GPRC. Construction started in November 2011 with completion in December 2012. While the laboratory was being commissioned, the college was able to secure a technology access centre grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council college and community initiative fund. Thus the NBDC began operations in April 2013 with an expanded mandate as a technology access centre.
Since then it has been providing comprehensive, reliable, accurate, and timely diagnostic services as the NBDC as well as applied research and innovation services, training, and outreach as a TAC. This dual mandate enables the NBDC, which I will refer to for this presentation, to serve beekeepers and the beekeeping industry, industry professionals, government, and university researchers from across the country. In 2014 and again in 2015 the NBDC increased its diagnostic capabilities through specialized equipment grants from NSERC. The NBDC is guided by a national-level industry, government, and university advisory committee sponsored by NSERC. It is one of 30 technology access centres within the emergent NSERC-sponsored Tech Access Canada network.
Within its applied research mandate, NBDC has established relationships and collaborations with researchers at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, and the University of British Columbia, and it has an emergent partnership with the University of Saskatchewan.
As in the case of the national research project on sustaining and securing Canada's honeybees using “omic” tools, led by UBC and York University, NBDC provides the diagnostic services critical to the research agendas of these scientists. However, the primary applied research relationship is with the beekeeping industry, which receives diagnostic services and support for its research needs.
The most significant industry project, the Canadian national honeybee health survey, is currently being conducted on behalf of commercial beekeepers. The Alberta Beekeepers Association is leading on behalf of the industry and its government funding partners. The Canadian national honeybee health survey is a four-year initiative that started in 2014. It's aim is the design and verification of country-wide sampling procedures in order to establish a country-wide baseline of endemic pests, parasites, and diseases affecting honeybees. In addition, apiaries will be sampled for exotic pests considered to be high risks to the beekeeping industry. Pesticide residue analyses are scheduled for year four.
The NBDC is currently operating beyond its initial capacity targets, growing from 1,800 diagnostics in year one, to 8,000 in year two, to over 20,000 in this year, year three. Staff complement has doubled to five full-time employees, and depending on the time of year, the NBDC is host to students, interns, visiting scholars, and bee professionals.
Additionally, it has established relationships with leading international honeybee diagnostic scientists and laboratories in Europe and the U.S. Recently, Grande Prairie Regional College has initiated steps to expand the facility and its capacity to meet this growing demand for service. It envisions a national centre of excellence for bees in collaboration with existing and additional industry, government, and university partners in order to serve the critical needs of Canadian beekeepers and Canadians.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
I'm André Flys. I am vice-president of the Ontario Beekeepers' Association, as well as a commercial beekeeper here in Ontario. The Ontario Beekeepers' Association thanks the chair and honourable members for inviting us to present to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The Ontario Beekeepers' Association, or OBA for short, is an agricultural association incorporated under the Government of Ontario's Agricultural and Horticultural Organizations Act. Our mission is to ensure a thriving and sustainable beekeeping industry in Ontario. To that end, we support honeybee health research, promote the value of Ontario's honey, and deliver practical training and information to Ontario beekeepers.
While Ontario's honey production, at $33.9 million, represents only about 15% of the value of Canadian honey, Ontario's beekeeping industry plays a significantly larger role in the pollination of Canada's fruits and vegetables. Fully 37% of Canada's produce is grown in Ontario. More than any other province, Ontario's honeybee industry is not only responsible for much of the fresh food that Canadians eat, but contributes nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars to the Canadian economy through the pollination services we provide to Ontario fruit and vegetable growers, and to the blueberry and cranberry growing regions of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island.
The OBA accepted the opportunity to present to the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry in 2014, and appreciates the progress that has been made following the committee's report and recommendations last year. We particularly appreciate the fact that the PMRA has discontinued granting conditional registrations to new pesticides. However, there is still much work to be done.
In the spirit of collaboration and the importance of managed and wild pollinators, the OBA submits the following comments and recommendations for your consideration.
Number one, now is the time for the Government of Canada to take a leadership position on systemic pesticides. The much publicized threat from the overuse of neonicotinoid and other systemic pesticides has not abated. This year, reports of bee kills in Ontario have continued at the same rate as last year. Canada must step up its efforts to significantly reduce or eliminate improper use of pesticides as a preventative measure. Our food security depends on a reliable and viable source of insect pollinators.
PMRA has stated that they will evaluate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's position when making decisions on pesticides. However, the EPA action or non-action should not be the primary determinant of decisions relevant to Canada, particularly when the EPA is under such intense pressure from the agricultural industry and is under threat of disbanding from partisan forces.
Number two, we are asking for an independent panel of bee health experts to provide oversight for the review of all systemic pesticides. Pesticide manufacturers have pushed new systemic pesticides into the pipeline in reaction to restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids in Europe and some North American jurisdictions. In some cases, they have been granted restrictions after the cursory public consultation. The criteria for new registrations refer to LD50, based on short-term exposure to pesticides. Substantial evidence now points to chronic exposure from systemics as a major cause of bee mortality.
Even low concentrations can put bees at risk. Neonicotinoids are thousands of times more lethal to bees than older insecticides like DDT. Research shows that bees experiencing sublethal effects encounter complications such as changes in foraging behaviour or delayed development. As well, it is important to stress that neonicotinoids are not separate from other problems facing honeybees, such as varroa, viruses, and nutrition. Exposure to these pesticides make other problems worse by compromising the bees' immune systems, reducing navigational skills, and destroying habitat.
Ontario has been particularly hard hit by the overuse of systemic pesticides. Since 2007, coinciding with the extended use of neonicotinoids on soy and corn, Ontario beekeepers have lost an average of 30% of their colonies each winter, compared to an average of 15% prior to 2007. However, this does not reflect the full impact.
Colonies weak from exposure to toxic pesticides cannot recover from winter damage. Ongoing exposure to even sublethal doses causes colonies to decline throughout the spring, summer, and fall. Bee losses now have to be assessed year-round. Despite these losses, Ontario beekeepers have managed to maintain their inventory by purchasing queens and bees, and dividing surviving colonies. However, these hives are less populous and less productive for the season. As well, the additional cost associated with this practice erodes the ability of beekeepers to make a living.
We need to trust that our regulators have the scientific capacity to conduct independent assessments. We urgently call on the ministry to support Health Canada and Environment Canada to revamp PMRA and the process for assessing and approving pesticides. We need a systematic approach to assessing pesticides that is open, transparent, and independent of industry.
Number three, Canada must maintain the policy of a Canadian border closed to imports of U.S. bees into Canada. OBA supports the conclusions of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's most recent assessment that stated, “There is still a high probability of introducing diseases and pests into Canada due to importation of honeybees from the continental United States.”
Specifically, we are most concerned about three areas.
One is Africanized honeybees. The CFIA considers Africanized honeybees a threat to public and animal health, as well as to the Canadian beekeeping industry because of the significant impact on productivity and potential trade issues with live honeybee material. The introduction of Africanized bees could serve to dilute, if not destroy, the generations of non-defensive, productive honeybees bred by Canada's beekeepers.
Two, American foulbrood is a worldwide bacterial disease of the larval and pupal stages of bee development. Treatment with antibiotics will destroy the vegetative bacteria, but it will not kill the spores. According to the CFIA, American foulbrood occurs in the continental United States and Canada; however, strains resistant to oxytetracycline or antibiotic treatments have been widely reported in the United States, leading the CFIA to consider the import of U.S. bees a potential hazard.
Three is treatment-resistant varroa mites. Although varroa mites are widespread in both the continental U.S. and Canada, mites resistant to fluvalinate and amitraz are present in the United States where there is an intense migratory beekeeping industry with no interstate controls on honeybees. Given the prevalence of varroa mites in colonies, it is reasonable to expect that imported bees will carry varroa, including those resistant to miticides.
We believe that opening the border to the U.S. bees will compromise the stability and future sustainability of the beekeeping industry in Ontario and other provinces. We agree with the risk assessment undertaken by the CFIA in 2013, and see no reason to reopen this issue.
Number four, we call on the government to reassess the mandate and mission of the bee health round table assembled by the former minister of agriculture.
Although Ontario has the largest number of beekeepers in Canada and the highest rates of bee mortality due to neonicotinoid pesticides, the OBA was excluded from the round table while seats were given to representatives of the agricultural chemical industry and to the Grain Farmers of Ontario. In addition, environmental NGOs have also been left off the round table, despite their knowledge and expertise in the area of non-managed bees.
We believe a reconstituted round table that reflects the full range of societal interests and expertise would be more likely to chart a positive and long-lasting course for bee health in Canada.
We believe our recommendations support the ministry's mandate “to help Canada's agriculture sector be innovative, safer, and stronger”. When it comes to “safer”, we include pollinators, the environment, Canada's water supply, and our food system.
On behalf of the Ontario Beekeepers' Association, I thank you for this opportunity to present to the committee, and I welcome any questions.
:
To say that pesticides are safe for bees, they are pesticides. They kill insects.
I believe personally that this is a bit of a diversion. All we've really been asking for, and the Province of Ontario has been asking for, in this legislation....
The best agronomists or soil specialists in Ontario, which neither chemical companies nor beekeepers disagree with, say that 15% to 30% of our soils and crops may require, or have enough pest pressure to require, the use of treated seed, yet 99% of our corn is treated year after year, 65% of our soybeans, and half of our wheat. We're asking that growers take a hard look at how much they're growing and what percentage, and reduce those numbers.
If you would like to look at science, you could ask Reed Johnson from Ohio State, or Christian Krupke from Purdue. We have plenty of evidence showing that when these seeds go into the ground, the dust can travel for many kilometres and get on many plants, and expose our bees to it.
:
I just have a quick question or so and I'll cede to my colleague.
André, I have a couple of quick questions.
I think all of us are concerned about the health issue. We all recognize the strength that is needed in our bee population in the colonies that we have.
The farmers out my way and the beekeepers seem to be working hand in hand. The farm operators are working with their equipment...earlier we were told that there was a 70% or 80% decrease in losses, which is actually significant and really good news for everyone.
You mentioned earlier that you were wishing there were a bigger differential in the cost of the seed between the treated and the non-treated. I understand that. The last thing I would want to see though, quite honestly, is an artificial cost added to those farmers, regardless of whether it's 15% or 30%, who actually would get dinged a high subsidized cost that would be subsidized by a few farmers on an artificial cost. I don't think that's what you meant, but anything in terms of seed production should be based on the cost of what the product is, and we'll go from there.
A number of beekeepers in Ontario didn't join the class action suit that is out there. They haven't, and I understand the Canadian Honey Council haven't joined either, and I'm wondering why that would be if it's so significant. I'm not saying that it isn't. I'm just trying to get an explanation for why we have some beekeepers, some that are around us, who actually haven't belonged to it. I'm just wondering what the reason would be.
:
There are 3,000 beekeepers in Ontario. Like anything, you would have to ask for their personal reasons. Some people take their time to inform themselves about particular situations and others do not.
Often, we find beekeepers are in places in Ontario where they are not very agriculturally intensive and they may not have problems with their bees. They may not have high overwintering losses or in-season losses, so they may not have reason to become part of that lawsuit as they have not suffered losses.
It's going to depend from person to person as to why they would take part or would not take part in a lawsuit like that.
Again, I always revert to trying to keep the conversation around the need to adjust those incredibly big differentials between where there's a need and where there isn't. We understand farmers need to use pesticides. We would like them to use them where they need them and not use them where they don't. We as beekeepers try to do that as well, controlling varroa mites in our colonies.
Back to your issue regarding seed, I certainly wouldn't ask that they increase the cost of a treated seed, but obviously, it must cost money to treat a seed, and it should cost less money to buy untreated seed, one would assume.