Agriculture Committee on May 9th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 80 of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. In our orders of day pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing with our study of losses in honeybee colonies.

Joining us today for the first hour, we have: from the Canadian Honey Council, Rod Scarlett, executive director; from Day of the Honey Bee, Clinton Ekdahl, founder; and from Munro Honey and Munro's Meadery, Davis Bryans, president.

Rod, I'll ask you to start. Then we'll just move down the row, and then go to questions from our members.

Please begin. Welcome.

[Rod Scarlett, Executive Director, Canadian Honey Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, committee members, for the invitation to address you today. As you are well aware, a couple of days ago you heard from the Canadian Honey Council's bee incident committee chair, Kevin Nixon, who outlined all the recommendations that the Canadian Honey Council has put forward in regard to pesticide incidents.

I'm going to try to put that presentation aside a little bit and give you a little bit of a different picture. I want to begin with the latest Statistics Canada report indicating that there were about 706,400 colonies in Canada in 2012. That's up by 10.7% from approximately 637,000 in 2011. The recent numbers from the Canadian Association of Professional Apiarists pegged the number closer to about 645,000 at the end of spring 2012. But despite these variations in numbers, and contrary to many other countries, this number has been on the rise for the past seven years.

I'll use the CAPA numbers. Of the 645,000 colonies in Canada, 486,000 of them, or over 75%, are located west of the Ontario-Manitoba border. According to the CAPA report, which they put out last year, for overwintering losses from 2011 and 2012, the average level for honeybee colonies across Canada was 15.3%.

This was the lowest wintering loss for Canada in the past six years. Every province in Canada had lower winter losses last year. It's important to note for this committee that although cursory information can be given for this year, the national survey committee of CAPA does not anticipate having verifiable overwintering numbers available until the end of July.

As the committee members have heard, honeybee losses are becoming an extremely important issue, regionally, provincially, nationally, and internationally, particularly as the value of pollination becomes better understood by the public. Weather, varroa control, nosema, environmental factors, and pesticides all play a role in these losses. It's important to note that not all beekeepers agree on the impacts that each of these components plays in losses.

The events that occurred in Ontario in 2012 have spurred the Ontario Beekeepers' Association to a course of action that is calling on crop producers to actively engage in integrated pest management strategies to protect pollinators.

More recently, the OBA has called for the suspension of all neonicotinoid pesticides, starting in the 2014 planting season. In addition, they're asking that beekeepers be compensated by the government for losses to crops, bees, and equipment due to deaths, chronic disease, or toxic residues in equipment caused by the neonicotinoid pesticide products from 2012 forward. This can be seen right on their website.

But they are not alone in their request. Earlier this week, the Fédération des apiculteurs du Québec adopted a resolution also asking for a ban on neonicotinoids.

To date, however, the CHC, the Canadian Honey Council, has been supportive of the joint efforts of the PMRA and EPA in the re-evaluation of the neonics and strongly believes that the decisions need to be based on science, not on public opinion or perception. Of course, one of the difficulties we're experiencing is that there are different interpretations of science, and that certainly muddies the waters for the Canadian Honey Council.

I can't say exactly what impact the resolutions from the two provincial associations will have on beekeeping overall in Canada, particularly because in western Canada the crop production is quite a bit different, and that's where the majority of the honeybees are situated. I would imagine that each provincial association will now be asked to comment on those two resolutions.

As it stands today, the Canadian Honey Council is working cooperatively with PMRA, CropLife Canada, and crop producer associations like the Grain Growers of Canada, and the Grain Farmers of Ontario, to mitigate risks and develop solutions that benefit beekeepers specifically, as well as those involved in agriculture generally.

I do want to add that the CHC has had at least two workshops with CropLife Canada and with the involvement of PMRA, equipment manufacturers, and producers associations. We are now looking at trying to find solutions as a result of those workshops. We have more planned in the future.

While I know the committee is focused on Ontario and Quebec, and particularly with the pesticide incident in 2012, honeybee losses still occur as a result of other factors. Many of these factors require significant research, and as the public sector has withdrawn somewhat from this type of research, the private sector has jumped in and filled the gap.

In smaller agricultural sectors like beekeeping, producers aren't able to fund primary research themselves. So companies that are involved in beekeeping shoulder that financial burden. They do a really good job, an admirable job. However, the line between perception and reality often gets blurred, and there comes an underlying belief that all research is skewed. Rightly or wrongly, however that's portrayed, it becomes increasingly important that our regulatory system has the neutrality to be effective in evaluating research.

While this increasing demand comes with increasing responsibility, and no doubt increasing fiscal implications, I hope this will be addressed.

Bee health, genetics, environmental diversity, parasites, disease, pesticides, and nutrition are among all the things that contribute to bee losses. These are areas of research that need considerable attention, as the future of pollinators may be in peril if they're not adequately addressed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Ekdahl, please.

Welcome.

[Clinton Ekdahl, Founder, Day of the Honey Bee]

Good afternoon, committee members. I am honoured that you allowed me to be here, considering that what I do not know about honeybees would likely fill two large warehouses. I've never claimed to be an apiary expert. However, what I do know about them concerns me greatly, and I do not need to be an apiarist to understand where our honeybee crisis will take us.

Consistently, for over a decade, Canada has lost vast numbers of hives. In some areas, losses are as high as 90%, though the average seems to be around 30%. It's a constant wonder to me why more people are not taking to the streets in a panic. If a third of all cattle were to mysteriously disappear from pastures, I have no doubt that the public outcry would generate much heated government debate, public discussion, and affirmative action.

Furthermore, no other livestock is a keystone species like the honeybee. Most of our agricultural products are reliant on the honeybee for existence, and I emphatically suggest that the honeybee is the most important domesticated animal on the planet. Yet, committee members, we are losing honeybees without fully understanding why, at rates that are both unsustainable and unacceptable. My fear is that honeybees will be weakened to a point where they may never recover.

For this reason, I created the national day of the honeybee campaign in 2009. From its inception, I knew that creating a day in recognition of honeybees would be a necessary step to instill awareness of this crisis in the public.

Indeed, over a quarter of this nation agrees with me. Within the last four years, proclamations dedicating May 29 as the Day of the Honey Bee have been received from abundant jurisdictions. The stack of original proclamations would indicate that public concern for the honeybee is growing. They also indicate that Canadians want to know what their government is doing to safeguard the honeybee, beekeepers, agriculture, food security, the economy, and the environment.

There can be no question that all of these concerns are connected. While taking steps to safeguard the honeybee is important, even more important is finding out exactly why they need protection in the first place. As I have mentioned, I'm not an expert and I do not have the answers. However, as the founder of the Day of the Honey Bee and representing each of the nearly 250 governmental proclamations that support the establishment of a national day of the honeybee, I have many questions that I think the public deserves an answer to.

For example, what effect do neonicotinoid-based pesticides and other agricultural pesticides have on honeybees? What effect does monoculture and field size have on them, including loss of habitat and forage variety and quantity? What effect does pollination services of beekeepers have on honeybees, particularly regarding translocation of pathogens and diseases through these pollination services? What effect does the lack of genetic diversity have on them in reference to the common practice of queen reproduction? Finally, how does the honeybee suffer from negative public attitude?

It cannot be said that on a rudimentary level the answer to each of these questions is that, yes, these factors are harming them. It is just a fact. Yet, these factors are not the only stressors on the honeybee. They are bombarded by constant risks. If there are pesticides killing honeybees, it would seem logical that these poisons be banned until it can be proven that they are not harmful. It seems reasonable that if monoculture is determined to be a major risk factor contributing to poor diet, perhaps fields can be smaller or interlaced with natural fields, providing a healthier and more varied diet for the honeybee.

It seems practical that, if pollination services are contributing to the stress and contamination of healthy hives, some type of option should be discovered that would make it safer. If the genetic strength and vitality of the honeybee is being compromised because of artificial and mechanized reproductive practices, more honeybees should be allowed to mate and reproduce as nature intended, in order to allow natural selection and strengthen the genetic variation that is needed. If the public is ignorant about the importance of honeybees, and their attitudes toward this pollinator is coloured with fear of getting stung and other ill-informed views, the public should be educated and their flawed views corrected.

A national day of the honeybee can be a focal point around which all the risk factors that are harming them can be investigated and addressed, the first being public education and awareness.

As I mentioned in my brief, I was recently asked by my five-year old niece why I'm pushing for all levels of government in Canada to proclaim May 29 as the day of the honeybee. It is because honeybees are dying. They are disappearing from hives all over the world. My niece asked, and then it struck me that she had no idea why honeybees are important. Most people don't know.

The day of the honeybee is not merely about honeybees nor is it merely about beekeepers, honey production, or agriculture, or the environment, or the economy. The day of the honeybee is about my niece and our future that she represents.

Yes, national day of the honeybee is about honeybees, but it also about all pollinators: insects, birds, and mammals. Honeybees are like the canary in the coal mine that warns of environmental danger. Therefore this day is also about the environment and the stability and vitality that pollinators ensure. Certainly this day is also about agriculture because so much of what we eat is made possible through their efforts, yet they also bring a warning of the risks associated with the mechanization of agriculture and the negative impact that monoculture, and particularly pesticides, have.

Furthermore, while I will not suggest that honeybees are the only pillar to a thriving economy in Canada, I would suggest that their collapse would trigger a larger economic fall. Food is a fundamental and basic need for all people regardless of language, gender, age, ancestry, skin colour, sexuality, economic status, affiliation, or ability. If the honeybee continues to die and food security is jeopardized, the future of all people will be jeopardized as well.

When I explained to my niece that honeybees are disappearing, she began to cry and said she'd have to tell her friends at day care because she didn't want them to go hungry. A five-year-old has enough sense to understand that if there's a problem, the first thing to do is to tell others about it. That is why a national day of the honeybee is so critical.

The numerous applications for this one day are irrefutable. This day is about creating a focal point around which great progress can be made. Beekeepers can use this day to promote their honey and related products and services. Farmers' markets can use this day to stimulate demand for locally grown organic produce. The government can use this day to highlight the steps it is taking to safeguard honeybees. Environmentalists can use this day to advance alternative agricultural practices to protect pollinators in the environment. Jurisdictions can use this day to create public events such as the Smoky River Regional Economic Development's BUZZ on the Street in Alberta, and the Day of the Honey Bee film festival that took place at the Roxy Theatre in Saskatoon.

The day of the honeybee can be used by agencies such as the Canadian Honey Council to create needed funding for colony collapse disorder research. If given official federal endorsement, this day has limitless potential. Just imagine what could come of this day. Imagine the opportunity for food banks to generate food for the needy.

No, committee members, I am not an expert on honeybees, but what I do know has me fearing a future without them. That is why I ask this committee to call upon the federal government to follow suit with a quarter of the Canadian population and join that unprecedented chorus of voices that are in support of creating a new national day of the honeybee in Canada this May 29.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Bryans, welcome.

[Davis Bryans, President, Munro Honey and Munro's Meadery]

Thank you for inviting me here.

I'm between Sarnia and London, and we run about 3,000 hives. Last year 1,000 of our hives were hit with pesticide sprays. We got them tested and of the samples tested only one showed that they had non-detectable clothianidin. When this product comes out, it's supposed to be “parts per billion”, and in my case the report came out in “parts per million”, so it's quite high.

The reason we're asking Ontario to get this product banned is because it is so water soluble. It is leaching everywhere and the bees are sucking up this water off the top of the soil. It accumulates in the soil. It accumulates in the hives. It accumulates in water. It doesn't break down. This product, this neonics, they say it lasts 365 days, but then we're hearing it will last up to seven years. So what's the truth? We don't even know.

It expresses itself in all parts of the plant, which includes the flower, the nectar, the branches, and the fruit or the vegetable. My wife doesn't even want to eat a lot of things anymore because she knows it's inside the plant. It's not on the outside where you can wash it off. It accumulates inside the fruit.

I'm sorry if I'm jumping around on this because I just point-formed this in the last couple of days.

For the bees, it makes every piece of food available to them—and water—toxic. This product is used on virtually every crop in North America. It's been banned in Europe. If you put it on corn this year and you plant clover the next year, for 365 days it's going to express itself in the clover the next year. It's going to be hard on these bees. With trees that grow close to fields and the root systems go in there, this is sucked up into the leaves of the trees. Linden trees, maple trees, they're all toxic. It's going into those too. They get pollinated very year.

This product was conditionally registered. It's not even fully registered. It alters the immune system in the bees, and it affects their brains. We wonder why they put it on everything? Why don't they use an IPM, or integrated pest management, if they have to use it? I think we're past that. I think we need to get this off the product.

In the United States this year, their losses are up 78% from last year, so this product is really causing problems. We're getting calls every day for more bees, more bees. We do pollination. We pollinate blueberries, and there just aren't enough bees to pollinate. Almond groves in California, they're not getting pollinated. This is a North American problem.

Our PMRA should be shutting this stuff down. A few years ago we had problems with Furadan, but it was a spot here and spot there and you didn't notice it. They told us, we have Bt corn and it's going to eliminate all your problems. You don't have to worry about spraying anymore. Where's Bt corn? It's gone. They're treating every piece of seed out there. I talked to a professional at Purdue University and he tells me that he doesn't see any significance in using these insecticides on this corn. The fungicides, yes, but as for the pesticide, he's doing testing on areas that are highly infested and sees a negligible difference in the yield from the treated seed to the untreated seed with the insecticide.

Krupke was one of the first ones to talk about this poison. We've had these problems for the last five or six years. It's not just the last year that we had the problem. We had the problem before, and it was more hit and miss. You say, well, it's only one yard.

Last year there were 30 different locations, and this year it's already started to happen. They have these new BMPs that somebody never consulted with Ontario beekeepers about, and they're not working. We're already getting results. I was getting phone calls on the way here that the bees are lost. One is involved in a study, and before they could put the traps on, it wiped out the flying bees. They're doing an investigation on it today.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Chair, can I just have a clarification on what a BMP is?

[Davis Bryans]

It means best management practices.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you.

[Davis Bryans]

So all in all, to really get a quick answer on this and without doing a whole lot of scientific stuff, if you just tested our water, our soil, our potatoes, and our high-fructose corn syrup it would tell you what's going on out there.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Ms. Brosseau.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank our witnesses.

This is of great concern to all Canadians. I remember our meeting last year, and moving forward to our meeting Monday, it's clear that action needs to be taken and that what we do moving forward is very important.

I can completely agree. We've heard testimony that the bee losses last year were due to a perfect storm. We've been using these pesticides in Canada since the nineties and what happened in Ontario was a combination of heat and a few reasons, and this is why we have these significant bee losses.

Do you think the best management practices that we have here by Health Canada are something that would help moving forward, or is this not enough?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bryans.

[Davis Bryans]

I don't think it's enough.

First of all, up until last year, a lot of farmers didn't even realize it was a pesticide that was on it. I drove by a field this year, and a guy's planting corn. It's not an air seeder, it's a typical planter, and he has his two kids standing on the gravity box looking in it. I think it's a health issue. We're putting our farmers at risk, and they're just sloughing it off. I'm here not just for bees. I'm here for alternate pollinators. I'm here for my kids and my grandkids.

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

Mr. Scarlett.

[Rod Scarlett]

To begin with, it's only fair to say that a lot of the recommendations that Health Canada brought forward on the BMPs this spring were as a result of recommendations that our committee brought forward to them. They have to be congratulated, I think, for listening to the industry as a whole and adopting a lot of those changes.

Are they perfect? We don't really know yet. We've adopted what we could to address things that occurred in 2012. We'll find out if the BMPs have had an impact for 2013. Yes, there are some purported incidents already, but again, I think we have to put it in perspective. We have to wait and see. As I say, I think PMRA needs to be congratulated for accepting the recommendations from a committee that consulted with beekeepers across Canada and with farmers across Canada to put forward those practices.

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

I have a question about science, because we hear all the time about sound science. It seems that science is just kind of like a unicorn, this mythical creature. What do you believe? Is it debatable?

As you know, the European commission has banned—I can't ever pronounce it properly—this pesticide. Their decision is based on science—that's what they say, science. Quebec moved a resolution, I think it was May 1, and we brought it up on Monday, to ban until there's more investigation and science. This is a huge food security health issue. I was just wondering if you can comment on banning. Do you think that was the right decision?

[Rod Scarlett]

It may have been the right decision for Europe. I'll give you an example. It's not quite the same, but based on science, Europe banned Canadian honey export because of GMOs. Well, we lost our third-biggest export nation, Germany, because of a European decision based on science. I'm not saying their science is wrong or right. It's a little bit different.

One of the things that the CHC has been asking is for our regulatory agency, which we entrust with coming forward with scientific-based decisions, is the one that should determine. It's nice for me to read articles and say I agree with this and I agree with that, but I don't like this and I don't like that. I'm not a scientist. I don't think many beekeepers are scientists, but there are some, so we have to, in our opinion, rely on those who have the knowledge to determine what is the best science-based evidence.

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

Mr. Bryans, I know you mentioned a gentleman from Guelph, I think, who was doing the study on—

[Davis Bryans]

Mr. Krupke, from Purdue.

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

Purdue, Krupke...?

How far along is he in this report?

[Davis Bryans]

I don't know when that would be.

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

Okay, we'll have to follow up. I find that very interesting and I think it would be important to our study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to stop you there, I'm sorry.

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today and for participating in this study.

The committee realizes the importance of honeybees, which is why we are continuing our study on this. We had some witnesses last year, but we want to follow up on this, which is why we're having more meetings right now. Of course the reason we're studying the honeybee is because the humble bee plays such an important role within agriculture, not just producing honey but as we've been discussing, through pollination.

What I would like to do is first address my remarks to Clinton. You spoke very passionately about the honeybee and the national day of the honeybee. What I would like you to know is that every member at this committee table supports that initiative. We have in the past as well, and we have publicly done so.

What may not be so well known, though, and what I would like to explain is that when it comes to recognizing a national day of the honeybee, or of any other type of worthwhile endeavour, this has to be advanced by a member of Parliament in the House as a private member's bill. This is simply a well-accepted protocol. It's understood by all parties. All MPs understand that this is the protocol that is done to recognize a national day.

Just to give you an example, there was a national day to recognize philanthropists. I think that was advanced by a Liberal MP. There is a national day to recognize the works of John Paul II that's being advanced by another MP. These types of initiatives, although they're very worthwhile, need to be advanced by an MP using their private member's bill as an opportunity to do so.

So I just wanted to clarify that because that's not always well known.