Agriculture Committee on May 7th, 2013

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Okay.

Let me ask this question then. In terms of the talc that you talked about, how long has that been used?

[Pierre Petelle]

I think as long as pneumatic planters have been around it's been used as a lubricant to make sure that seed gets delivered right in the proper—

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

If we talk about that...my question is this. In terms of the increase in canola and the bee colony increases, did you see any increase in deaths in the bee colonies in the prairies through that timeframe?

[Pierre Petelle]

No. Again, I think you have some western beekeepers speaking to you later, but the colony numbers increased as the acreage did.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that in our industry many of our member companies are into canola seed production as well, and canola seed production relies on pollination services to pollinate the plant. So some of our member companies are the biggest customers for commercial beekeeping services.

Going back to my vested interest comment earlier, even in the very practical matter of producing the seed we sell to the growers, we also rely directly on pollination services in the case of canola.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I have another question, and maybe Mr. Cowan will be answering this; I'm not sure. In terms of the neonics use in Ontario or Quebec, how long has that been occurring, and is there any kind of correlation that you've seen in terms of the bee deaths? I'm sure it wasn't conclusive from PMRA.

[John Cowan]

Neonics have been used for between 10 and 13 years in the province of Ontario, or since Diazinon Lindane officially came off the market in 2004. As I said, most of it was probably off the market by 2001. We've been using neonics since that time, in both Ontario and Quebec.

There is seed available from seed companies. Actually, I checked with the company in my hometown on the weekend as to whether they make totally untreated seed available, and they do. They told me that the ordering or the uptake from farmers who would want untreated seed was less than 1% of their seed orders.

It is very common practice, and what we would consider a necessary part of our business decisions in terms of planning our crop.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

In terms of the pesticides and the polymer you're using to replace the talc, I understand there's a fair amount of acreage, but if there weren't that pesticide on the seed, I think you mentioned some percentage of crops that would be a whole lot less than what's currently being handled. I didn't actually get a no to that, so I'm wondering if you could just review that for me.

[John Cowan]

We've worked with OMAF on corn very specifically. I'm not talking about canola. For corn, they've estimated losses of anywhere from 3 to 20 bushels to the acre without the insecticide, depending on the populations of wireworm, seed maggot, and white grub in the soils.

If we took an average—and when talking to our members, they talk about a 10% stand loss—a 10% stand loss would equate to about $100 an acre. If you multiply that by 2.3 million acres, it would be $230 million, and that would be the Ontario number.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Cowan, you also talked about some research you're supporting. I'm wondering if you could give us a little more information on that research. Has it started? Who is involved? What's the timeframe? Do you have a cost estimate for that study?

[John Cowan]

Yes. GFO is supporting it. I mentioned our partners in that, but basically the research is being run by Tracey Baute, an entomologist with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and Dr. Art Schaafsma, who is with the University of Guelph. They are overseeing this research. Certainly it has started, because I've consulted with them and helped them find corn farmers and beekeepers and have put them in touch in terms of doing it. This is practical field research; it's not exclusively lab research.

Basically, we're determining the presence of bees and flowering plants in and around cornfields, and we're doing a measurement there, as well as determining the time of corn planting and how pollinator exposure to pesticide-contaminated dust can be reduced, so we're looking at the equipment. Also, we're determining the role of the seed lubricants—talc was mentioned, and certainly graphite as well—in the production of pesticide contamination and dust during corn planting. We're trying to measure a number of factors and do it in the field, in a practical farming application area.

With OMAF, the Agricultural Adaptation Council, and a partner out of the United States that is working with us, the Pollinator Partnership, we've put together $340,000 that is dedicated over the next two years to that study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I thank the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

Mr. Petelle, let me say this up front. We recognize that for a number of years—and to Mr. Cowan as well, because Mr. Cowan and I have talked about this before—there didn't seem to be an issue.

Mr. Valeriote suggested a perfect storm. Madam Trainer, you suggested maybe that's an accurate description. But to my friends across the way, we understand that this particular piece.... Mr. Petelle, you said you understood that neonic was a contributing factor last year—to whatever happened to colonies in Ontario specifically, whether it be because of the weather or the dust and all the rest of the things.

The thing I really want to talk about is this sense of.... In municipal governance, we used to call it the 100-year storm, so in everything we did we planned for that one storm. We stopped planning for 100-year storms about six or seven years ago. We now plan for the one storm in 250 years. Last year's perfect storm may be an indicator that there are more of those to come, because that's not one in 100 years.

Notwithstanding all of that, that it occurred, can you help me understand, Mr. Cowan and Mr. Petelle, how we get all of these groups who have started the discussion, by the way, which is very positive and will include equipment manufacturers as well.... I mean, farmers have invested in equipment. Mr. Cowan has articulated that about seed planters. You don't run out and buy a seed planter tomorrow when you bought one only a few years ago. How do we bring all of these groups together over the longer term so that when the next one comes—because it will—we're more prepared than we were last time to address it from every angle?

The beekeepers themselves, who have a role to play, by the way—I'm not leaving them out of the equation, that they can simply go about doing what they've done in the same way forever—need to do things differently as well. How do you see all of these tentacles coming together to build something that helps protect us from the collapse we saw last year? We're only going to talk about this one piece, but I recognize and admit that there are multifaceted problems in the aviary; we accept that as a fact. But this is the piece where you intersect. How do we continue to work on all of those facets to try to at least eliminate that potential?

[Pierre Petelle]

Even before the spring of 2012, back in early 2011, our industry recognized that one of the partners, one of the stakeholders, that we didn't have enough dialogue or interaction with was the beekeeping community. We have very good relationships with all the major grower groups. We understand each other. We work on projects together. It wasn't early enough, maybe, but we said in 2011 that we needed to be more proactive and reach out to that beekeeping community. The spring of 2012 happened, but it didn't deter us. The goal for this round table we talked about is really what you're talking about: to get all the partners around the table.

In March, we really did have all the partners around the table. We had the equipment manufacturers there, we had all the grower groups, who either rely on pollination services or have an interest in this issue, we had the government there, and we had our industry there. It made for a very fruitful and positive dialogue. It was an opportunity for the beekeepers, for the growers, to hear from the equipment manufacturers precisely what they're working on and what they're doing. It was an opportunity for them to hear directly from our member companies, not only as an industry association but as the actual member companies, to talk about some of the specific work they're doing in terms of bee health and hive health products.

I think that's the kind of dialogue we want to see continue. I think that's where we're going to get constructive dialogue and move forward on this issue.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I'll add to that, Mr. Cowan, and I guess I'm going to run out of time.

The other thing is that this is more of a voluntary piece, if you will, the groups coming together. Some of it I think came out of this committee, in the sense of suggestions, that finally we're talking in a more concrete way, if you will.

Obviously, we're not looking to mandate this. Is there a way to solidify this, to continue, because bees are so important to farmers? Mr. Cowan is the first to admit.... He came here and said bees are important to us. We want bees. We need bees. So it's not about farmers versus beekeepers. This is not true at all. This is a symbiotic relationship. The issue is that we don't need to have that symbiosis turn into an antagonistic one that destroys the thing that we very much need.

I'm wondering if there's a way to somehow make this a firmer piece, so that this continues, so that we can start to look in a proactive way at potential things that could happen down the road.

Mr. Cowan talked about what happened with Lindane. It took years to figure that out. We've now realized with this neonic that if we plant in dry, windy conditions there could be an outcome. Now we've learned another lesson. It's like life-learning lessons. But Mr. Cowan has pointed out that it's not as easy for farmers to say, “I'm not planting today.”

How do we keep the discussion going and keep each other at the table, so we can help each other really come together, so that all parties aren't adversely affected, or at least it's minimized? How do we continue to do that?

I don't know if Mr. Cowan wants to take a crack at that or not.

[John Cowan]

First of all, I think Canada has done a great job. The PMRA has done a great job in making the science-based regulatory system we have here. The way we do that is through continuous research and continuous investment in understanding the technology and the products we're working with.

Again, I'll go back to my opening comments. I'd like to point out that the second-largest corn-producing province in Canada is Quebec. The Grain Farmers of Ontario are working very closely with the FPCCQ, which is the Quebec grower group that represents corn and grain production. So we're investing in research.

I ask that the federal government also consider beyond.... We're trying to focus research on the parts that we are involved in. I think there is other bee health research that needs to take place. Again, the silver bullet is not the answer. It's a very complex bee/environment/farmer issue, and we need to look at other areas where an investment in research would benefit all of us.

This is a general society thing, to tell you the truth, because bees are important to all of us. We need investment in research on bee health in the colonies—again, varroa mites, genetic predisposition or the importance of how widely spread the genetics are in the bee colonies, feeding. There's just a multitude of things, and I think we need to invest in those.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

With that, I'll thank our guests for being here. We appreciate your time, and we look forward to more conversations in this regard.

We are going to take a two-minute break for our next guest to join us at the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Joining us for the second hour, from the Alberta Beekeepers, is Kevin Nixon. He is the director of the Canadian Honey Council.

From the Alberta Beekeepers Commission, we have Grant Hicks, president.

You've been here and you've seen the previous presenters. You have up to 10 minutes to present, and then we'll move to questions from the floor.

Mr. Hicks, would you like to start us off?

[Grant Hicks, President, Alberta Beekeepers Commission]

Thank you, committee, for inviting us to your meeting today and giving us an opportunity to share the story of beekeeping in western Canada. That's how I'll approach it.

In our particular operation, we are based in the Peace River district, which is not a great place for a honeybee to spend the winter. We move to the Okanagan Valley for the winter. I've been down there more or less continuously for the last three months. We're just making the move back to Peace River this week. I left my boys to do the work and I came to Ottawa. Having said that, I don't have a whole lot of resources with me, so I'll just be telling the story.

Part of the issue as it pertains to pesticides in western Canada is that we have not seen huge losses that can be attributed to pesticides. Losses aren't even cyclical. They seem to more or less follow the period of time that a miticide is effective. We have varroa mites in our colonies, and as long as the miticide of the day is working, our winter losses are acceptable. Typically, the way we find out that the miticides are no longer working is with massive winter losses.

In terms of the pesticide being a killer of bees in western Canada, that probably would be inappropriate to say. The sublethal effects and that sort of thing have yet to be determined, but as we move forward now, we're pretty happy with the use of neonics as a seed treatment on canola.

The other issue that seems to rack our industry is lack of training. It seems that where we have new producers or young producers, they have trouble getting their bees through the winner.

The other major factor that I would bring to you is nutrition. The natural range of honeybees is southern California, southern Utah, New Mexico, Texas, and probably in that line across to south Carolina. We're considerably out of the natural range of these insects. The wintering is a continuous battle, and getting proper nutrition I find is critical. We don't have a lot of data out there that deals with amino acid, the vitamin regimes, and these minor nutrient levels that may or may not be useful in the survival of bees. I personally have played around with it, but I'm not a scientist. I find that a vitamin package and an amino acid package tend to be useful in offsetting winter losses. There's just a world of work that needs to be done around bee nutrition.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Nixon.

[Kevin Nixon, Director, Canadian Honey Council, Alberta Beekeepers]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee, for having me. I am the Alberta delegate to the Canadian Honey Council, and I have been chairing a bee incident committee for the Honey Council this past year, which was formed at the request of the Ontario Beekeepers' Association after the incidents were reported last year.

I sent out a document last week—I hope it was received and distributed—about the work the committee has done this past year. I'll go through it and broaden it a little bit and highlight some points.

The purpose of the committee was not only to look at the incidents that happened in Ontario; it was to look at the use of pesticides in general across the country, as there had been incidents reported outside of Ontario with other foliar applications of other products. So the purpose was to look at the broad-range use of chemicals in general and to use the Ontario incidents as a starting point.

The committee established subcommittees to deal with six focus areas. The first area of focus was the process for beekeepers to report suspected bee poisonings, and the second was the process for how the PMRA would deal with the report. We wanted to try to have a standardized way for beekeepers to report and collect samples and have them processed, so that it would be done properly under proper protocol, to allow the information to be distributed to the people who need to know about the reported incidents. Those were sent to PMRA, and I believe you'll be hearing from them in the coming days as well. As far as we understand, they were well received, and action was taken with the recommendations you have in the handout.

The third focus area was analyzing toxicity levels of chemicals and insecticides, and the fourth area was point of contact and where the risks are. In terms of three and four, we felt that if we as the beekeeping industry wanted to comment on the use of and need for chemicals and pesticides, we needed to be informed ourselves as to what they do, what they are, and why they're needed, so that we could have accurate, objective discussions about them. We did have a lot of recommendations come out on the issues. There are areas for both beekeepers and the crop industry to collaborate and learn from each other.

The fifth area of focus was recommendations and best management practices for all stakeholders: beekeepers, the chemical companies, seed companies, the growers, the chemical applicators, and equipment manufacturers. As we heard earlier, there have been round tables with these stakeholders. Discussion has been good, and in some regions this relationship has happened already and in some regions of the country it hasn't. So there's a lot of room for future relationships and partnerships to be built.

The final subcommittee's focus was on compensation for the loss of bees and production if an incident did occur. This committee is still working on finalizing some recommendations to bring to the board. It's a difficult one to deal with in a way. Provincial administration of agricultural programs varies from province to province, so there's a bit of work to do on that yet. We hope to have that wrapped up very soon.

To come up with these recommendations, the committee did collaborate. We had input from the Grain Growers of Canada, the Grain Farmers of Ontario, CropLife Canada, PMRA, provincial apiarists, and a couple of Ontario beekeepers, among others.

We also had a round table in Quebec City in November, where we were able to talk with a lot of these groups and start some good discussion.

I won't go through the recommendations. There are a lot of them.

As I say, numbers one and two were well received by PMRA. There's a lot of work to do here. It's reasonable. We'll need to prioritize some of them and start getting to work on them.

As we heard from Maria and Pierre and John, there has been some significant work started in dealing with the corn dust situation. The initial work has been fairly positive, I would say, from the other stakeholders. It may not be an immediate fix. I believe there are some trials being run this year. I think they recognize the importance of this, and we appreciate their efforts put into it as well.

I am also a commercial beekeeper from Alberta. About 70% or 80% of my operation does go to pollinate canola for seed production in southern Alberta. I keep some at home for honey production as well. I can entertain questions on that side as well.

A lot of what we're hearing lately in some reports is about sublethal effects. There were the initial kills, the sublethal effects; I think there's some science that needs to be done. I appreciate hearing the comment before that we have a science-based decision-making process. I think that's important. There's definitely room for some science to be done.

That's what I have to share with you.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Madame Brosseau.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to once again thank our witnesses today. I think we've heard from everybody today that there needs to be continuing talks, continuing work, continuing research. We have to learn from what happened in June and move on, and I think that's kind of what we're doing.

I'm wondering what you guys expect or what you see as the federal government's role in this moving forward, to facilitate...and I don't know if it's just conversations or.... We've heard a lot about the need for investment in research.

I'm just wondering if you can comment on what you see is the government role moving forward.

[Grant Hicks]

There are a million unanswered questions. These bugs are so convoluted and interesting that every day when you get to the bee yard it's, “Can this be happening?” Then there are the subtle things that you don't see that are going on, and that's the area where we're going to need some substantive work.

Fortunately, the federal government and our provincial government in Alberta have come together, and we have a new national bee diagnostic lab with the Ag Canada farm at Beaverlodge. We see that as a real player as we move forward in terms of ability to get modern and new instrumentation in there that will be able to find these micro levels of things that might be in our hives.

Bees really are a canary in the mine shaft of the environment. It may be urban pollution, it may be auto pollution; we are putting significant chemicals in our hives as we try to kill a mite off a bee. There are many issues that need to be addressed.

My pet peeve is nutrition. There's a world of work to do there as well.