Agriculture Committee on May 30th, 2016

[Prof. Chris Cutler]

I don't want to speak too much about the Ontario government's decisions. Again, I do work in pesticides and pesticide risk assessments, but I also do work in biological and ecological controls and whatnot, so I'm not a pesticide guy per se. I completely understand the value of reducing pesticide inputs. I think that's an admirable goal regardless of the bee story, so to speak. It's important for people to realize that in Ontario and elsewhere, we actually have a tremendous reduction in pesticide loading into the environment. I think that was mentioned previously by a representative from the Canadian Horticultural Council.

In terms of the neonics, which are used as seed treatments, I believe in 2009—I'm just going by memory here—there was one-fifth the amount of neonicotinoid insecticide input in the entire United States as there was organophosphorus pesticide input for the single state of California. We're talking about a 50% reduction—a fiftyfold reduction—so there's a lot less pesticide going into the environment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Dr. Cutler.

We will now move to Madame Sansoucy.

Ms. Sansoucy, you have six minutes.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses who shared their comments by teleconference. They provided a good overview of bee health issues and the multiple factors causing those issues.

I represent Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, in Quebec, home of a number of major beekeepers, but also many farmers.

My first question is for Mr. Kevan.

Last week, the Federal Court ruled that Canada must review over 350 pesticides used in the country. A number of groups said that the Canadian government therefore needed to conduct a special review. You spoke about the importance of international treaties and noted that, according to the Federal Court, some pesticides used in Canada are banned in Europe, including atrazine, which has been banned in Europe since 2004.

Can we take the opportunity to conduct a review? You said we are dealing with a great deal of misinformation and misconceptions on the subject of neonicotinoids. What is said is often prompted by special interests. Some producers in my constituency say there are few independent studies or more neutral positions to use as a reference. You said that balance was lacking.

Whether through a pesticide review that must be conducted by the government or through other means, how could we encourage better research?

What do you think about the review?

[Dr. Peter Kevan]

My French is not up to replying to you in French. I'm sorry.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

It's okay.

[Dr. Peter Kevan]

Your questions are extremely interesting. Certainly they have been of grave concern to me, as a Canadian, for a long time. I think we need to somehow take the parties with agendas, particularly the profit-motive agendas, away from being in charge of research that is of societal importance, and certainly the insecticide question is of great societal importance.

We have gone through a long period when people like me, who have wanted to do research perhaps involving pesticides and pollination, have not been able to get the funding because the industry doesn't want the answers to the questions, frankly. The policy within NSERC, and also at the provincial level, has more and more gone that in order to do the research, you should have industry buy-in. I don't oppose the industry buy-in. I've benefited from that myself. Four private companies have been spawned from my lab, so I certainly appreciate the private sector. At the same time, it has gone to the extent that it is almost impossible to ask objective questions, in an objective way, with the current research policies in Canada. I think there needs to be a disconnection made there in order to get back to some objectivity.

I think that is the big problem. Asking the difficult questions is difficult. They're difficult questions, and so is getting the answers. But if the industry takes it.... I have worked with industry scientists. I take a question to them and they say, “Yes, Peter, we would like to get an answer to that.” They take it to their policy and legal people and hear, “Oh, no, we don't want an answer to that question” because it might have repercussions on their image and profitability, if the answer comes out in a direction they would not like. That is certainly a problem.

In Canada we have additional problems, because most of the companies involved with these sorts of things are multinationals. Canada is really at the mercy of the U.S. and of the international headquarters. We tend to be on the bottom of the totem pole.

I think a number of things like that need to be addressed at the policy level. I'm not a politician, and I'm not really a very good diplomat either, but I think that's certainly one of the ways in which we need to get at some of the pesticide issues and perhaps some of the other issues that might have more implications where the private sector is having undue influence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Ms. Sansoucy, go ahead.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hope that a number of researchers like you will have access to funding in the next few years and will thus be able to help us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Sansoucy.

Ms. Lockhart, you have six minutes.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you.

I have a question for Chris Cutler to start, and possibly a little further on too. The riding I represent is Fundy Royal in New Brunswick, just to give you some background. A few of you have mentioned the Atlantic Canada tech transfer team, and I'm wondering if you could elaborate on that. What was the origin, what are they doing, and are there best practices that could be shared?

[Prof. Chris Cutler]

This is a pretty new initiative. I think there are a number of factors. As was alluded to previously, one of our major commodities in this region is lowbush blueberry, and it is a growing industry. As was also mentioned, there's a strong relationship between pollinators—honeybees—and that industry, so there's an understanding that we need more information.

There's also growing interest in beekeeping in the area. On our campus we have a modern beekeeper extension course that's offered throughout the summer for four different modules over four different weekends from March to September, I believe, and it's been sold out over the past three years with a cap of 25 students.

There's a lot of interest in beekeeping, but few avenues to get training and education. I'm the only entomologist on my campus. I'm the only person who does any work with bees. There's an understanding that we need other people to do that type of research and outreach, so the provinces collectively got together with producers—growers and beekeepers—academics, and our current extension people to create these two positions to work on pollination issues with beekeepers and growers.

The problem is that it's only for the next 20 months or so, so we're going to have to acquire more funding for that going forward.

Again, it's just the recognition that there's a lot of interest growing. There's a lot of need, and not a lot of sources to get that information from. I think Canada in general really lags behind in the extension area in many different sectors, not just beekeeping. There's a real need to create that research and the extension education as well.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you.

Dr. Kevan, did you have any insight into that tech transfer team and the potential there?

[Dr. Peter Kevan]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do have some insights. I think I can say proudly that one of the most successful tech transfer teams was initiated in Ontario and came about as a result of the activities of the Ontario Beekeepers' Association. That started at least 15 years ago and is still ongoing. It is an extremely valuable adjunct to the beekeeping industry in Ontario.

It was extremely powerful in its early days, and extremely useful more recently with the neonic discussions. There have been some ups and downs and people with alternative opinions, etc., coming on, so there's been a bit of debate within the organization as to how it should position itself with respect to the beekeepers in Ontario. As in all grower groups, politics can enter into it, particularly with these emotional issues.

I think Ontario can be proud, and certainly in the United States, people were looking very closely at the tech transfer team in Ontario, getting speakers from Ontario to go and say how it was done. We've seen that also followed up a little bit in Europe, with similar kudos to what we've done. As Chris says, yes, let's hope that the Atlantic provinces can put this together for more than the next 20 months. It is a great initiative that needs to be fully supported.

Alberta has an excellent tech transfer operation through its provincial apiarist. Certainly Saskatchewan is really on top of it as well, and I can say that with equal pride, because both of those provincial apiarists came through my lab. Manitoba has a very good record through the University of Manitoba and through its provincial apiarist going back a very long time, as was alluded to by Mr. Maguire

It's a really important thing, and the more we have the tech transfer teams set in place across Canada, the more we can harmonize the monitoring that is going to be so important to understanding the future of the business, not just in beekeeping but also in pollination.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Dr. Kevan.

Thank you, Alaina.

Now we'll move to the second round, for six-minute questions.

Mr. Drouin, you have six minutes.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Kevan, I'll ask you this first, and I would also encourage those on the phone to answer. I can't see you, but I'm all ears.

You said there needs to be greater harmonization to monitor bee disease. How do you see that? How do you see in Canada a greater collaborative approach to ensuring that we have the best practices, and that best practices are shared across this sector?

I'll ask Dr. Kevan first and then those on the phone.

[Dr. Peter Kevan]

I think we have the infrastructure there. We just need to give the green light to the provincial apiarists and the bee inspectors working across this great country, along with the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists, and we need to give them the mandate to go ahead and actually do that, and give them some facilities to be able to do that. I think we have it there. It's just that we have national problems that are now being recognized as national problems rather than just as provincial problems.

Of course, beekeeping like agriculture is a provincial jurisdiction in many respects. It isn't a federal jurisdiction, so the harmonization between the federal activities and the provincial activities could be brought about through this infrastructure. We have in Alberta, as was already mentioned, the bee disease diagnostic clinic, in Beaverlodge, which I think is a fantastic stride forward through the Alberta initiative. Also in Brooks, Alberta, is the diagnostic lab for monitoring diseases in leafcutter bees, which are extremely important economically, particularly in the prairie provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and increasingly so in Alberta.

I wouldn't be the person to say how to do it, but I think there are lots of people there who would get together with great enthusiasm to try to get it into place.

[Kevin Nixon]

Perhaps I could just jump in and make a quick comment.

At the bee health round table, we do have a couple of representatives from CAPA, and the provincial apiarists as well, and there has been some harmonization of national surveys by the provinces so that the data is collected in a uniform way. A project has also been done through the bee health round table, with Les Eccles from the Ontario tech transfer team, to pull together a best management practices manual for both growers and beekeepers for national use.

[Prof. Chris Cutler]

I don't have much to add. I think the wheels are turning for that. If you look at the most recent overwinter report from CAPA, there is a more comprehensive set of survey questions that are going out to beekeepers. I think that data is being generated right now. In the Atlantic provinces, again it kind of comes down to boots on the ground. There are a lot of hives and a lot of beekeepers, and getting people to coordinate and collect those samples and that data, and to make sure that data is accurate has been the challenge. Hopefully, with the implementation of our new tech transfer team, we'll have better data going forward.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Great, thank you.

Dr. Kevan, you touched on a buzzword that rang a bell with me. I think what you mentioned was innovation on the beehive. From your experience, do you know best practices of other countries and how they invest in their sectors? You also touched on the point that beekeepers don't necessarily have the same revenues that other sectors in the agricultural domain have. What would you recommend we look at in terms of providing the sector more research dollars, and in a sense providing more innovation dollars, so we can help them?

[Dr. Peter Kevan]

Let me address that by giving you some examples that I understand. I'm sure there are other examples that I don't know about.

The Hungarian beekeepers get from their government enough money to buy the pollen substitute that they need to bring their colonies healthfully into production each spring. That material that the Hungarian beekeepers get is milled in Toronto. There is an export opportunity there for that material, which is exported by the thousands of tonnes around the world, but I don't think is being used as well as it might in Canada. I say that because that particular pollen substitute was developed in my lab. That's why I know about it.

There are other pollen substitutes out there that could be used. That's an innovation. We did receive money from NRC in order to do that. That was through an IRAP grant that was through the Ontario Beekeepers' Association. That was a synergy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Dr. Kevan.

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Arnold, you have six minutes.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all of the witnesses for being here today.

I was a small-time beekeeper at my home. I had about 10 or 12 hives, so I became fairly familiar with some of the disease and mortality issues. Most of that was before the issue of neonicotinoids came up. Bees are very complex. They're individual organisms that really make up one entire organism. It's amazing how intelligent and interactive they can be.

Is there any indication of differences in percentages of colony mortalities in relation to hive density per hectare? Do we see a higher percentage of mortalities where there is a higher hive density than there is in areas of lower hive densities?

Does anyone have information on that? I'm not directing it to anyone in particular.

[Prof. Chris Cutler]

That's an excellent question and one I hadn't really thought of before, except for the fact that there is a lot of work in the very initial stages looking at carrying capacity. For instance, in Nova Scotia, we're asking the question of how many hives we can accommodate in terms of food that's available for bees. That gets down to your question: if you have a high density of hives in a certain location, is there enough food for them all to feed on?

I'm not aware of any research that has looked at that question, but it's a good one. Again, it's one that is just starting to be looked at right here now in Nova Scotia.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

The reason I bring it up is that I'm a follower of wildlife, wildlife health issues, and conservation. We definitely see higher incidences of transmittable diseases, infectious diseases, when wildlife populations are sometimes artificially or naturally overabundant, possibly beyond the carrying capacity of the quality of the food resources. That was why I was asking that question about overloading certain areas for certain specifics because bee health is reliant on so many different, minute portions that it's pretty hard to monitor.

I know there have been some measures to prevent transportation of diseases such as limiting colony transportation, inspections, and so on. Measures initially started particularly around the varroa mites and now with the small hive beetle. Have there been any studies done on that part of it? Is there any good information that has been effective in some of these mass colony die-offs?

That's to anyone who may have knowledge of it.

[Kevin Nixon]

I guess some measures were brought into place for small hive beetle control over the last couple of years. It was mainly found in Ontario, but I guess there were some finds in British Columbia last year as well.

Bee health overall does not seem to be directly related, like mass die-offs, to areas where there's higher bee movement. I believe Ontario moves in the neighbourhood of 30,000 hives to the Maritimes for blueberry pollination. In Alberta, about 80,000 hives are moved to southern Alberta for canola pollination for seed production, yet beekeepers who are sending these bees into these high-density pollination situations are not necessarily the ones experiencing the higher losses.

I guess that's my answer to that right now.