Agriculture Committee on March 9th, 2017

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

Okay.

[Pierre Giovenazzo]

Beekeepers need bees in the spring. We're not ready to produce at that time.

Some Canadian industries are currently establishing themselves in California to produce queens with Canadian genetics in warmer countries. This strategy could be adopted.

However, the self-sufficiency goal is achieved through genetics adapted to our beekeeping.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Giovenazzo.

Thank you, Ms. Brosseau.

Now, Ms. Lockhart, you have six minutes.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses as well.

I really appreciate your testimony today, because I'm the type of person who tries to approach any challenge by finding common ground. What we have heard today from all of our witnesses is that the environment certainly is a priority for everyone. We all understand what the impact can be when we toy around with the environment.

Having said that, what I'm hearing from you, specifically from the beekeepers.... We did some work on bee health last June. We heard then that there were many factors that were affecting the health of bees, and we talked about neonics at that time. Am I hearing you say today that the bee industry is not necessarily pointing to neonics as the sole negative impact on the bee industry?

[Rod Scarlett]

If I can answer, you said “sole negative impact”, and that's correct; it is not the sole negative impact.

As I mentioned in my statement, there are a number of different impacts on bee health. Neonics is one class of pesticides that has an impact. We use pesticides within colonies to kill mites within the colony itself. There are a number of impacts.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

I think it was during that time that we also talked about mitigation and what had gone on in Ontario as that was happening.

I'm wondering, Mr. Brock, if you could elaborate a little about some of the mitigation processes. What happened with the seed treatment and that sort of thing in that time frame?

[Mark Brock]

I think there is even a broader perspective within the seed treatments. What happened was that the regulation that was put in place required us to prove a need for the use of neonic-treated seed through soil-testing protocols. We had to find so many bugs in a site in order to prove that we needed the use of it. That has come fully into effect for this planting season, with a kind of third party auditing system that's going to start next year.

Beyond that, I think farmers in Ontario identified the risk and decided they wanted to take steps towards that. We wanted to do it in a non-regulated manner. The government decided that regulation was one path they wanted to take, so they did it.

With regard to expanding adoption of cover crops, I plant sunflowers and buckwheat after winter wheat, and it's just loaded with wild pollinators and whatever other pollinators are out there.

Those are some of the strategies that producers are using on their own initiative. We're not singularly focused just on seed treatments; we're looking at the broader environmental impacts on our farms and looking at the risk. It's naive to think we aren't having some impact on the environment. Our job is to minimize it or get it to a point where it's at an acceptable level that society is okay with.

Sometimes I think we argue with society about what that level is, and I think we have to have a broader debate about that. However, those are some of the strategies that are in place.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Very good. Thank you.

In our previous panel we talked about the old process for PMRA and the new process. The comment there was about having two years versus one year for review. How do you feel about that?

[Mark Brock]

Personally, when I look at the situation—and I'm not a scientist; I'm a farmer who loves to be out in the fields—I look to PMRA as being our science-based regulatory body that does work to ensure that the products that come to the marketplace have acceptable risk.

I think if PMRA has identified concerns around the products we use, I'd sooner go into a consultative dialogue with them about risk mitigation strategies and let them and the registrants do the science. When you get into some of these more difficult conversations around acceptable risk, I think that's when the consultative nature needs to come in to try to minimize impact on the environment. We would love to be part of that, as primary producers who use the products.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

That leads to something we've talked a lot about in this committee, which is the public perception of agriculture and working together so that people have confidence in their food source, especially as it's a priority to continue to grow our agriculture sector. Thank you very much for that.

I will share my last minute with anyone here.

Go ahead, Lloyd.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

It's great to have two beekeepers in the room, or people who are attached to that industry, because we were very interested in it.

A term that was being used in our previous study was “Internet science”. There are a lot of opinions about bees out there, and there are some things in the States that are different from Canada. One of the areas where we found a great difference was in overwintering nutrition.

I represent Guelph, and at the University of Guelph a lot of scientists have been looking into nutrition as a way of increasing the success rate over winter. The number we had in our last report was a 14% loss over winter, not 25%, so there will be some differences across Canada.

Could you comment on overwintering as a bigger problem or a lesser problem from what you're seeing in relation to the seed treatments?

[Rod Scarlett]

Certainly overwintering is an issue, and it has become, really, a public barometer of bee health, but it's very regional in nature.

You're right that in certain areas it's 14.8% or 14%, but in Ontario, if we go back three years or four years, it was upwards of 50%. It's regional and it's seasonal, but it's also very important, because it does give a snapshot. It doesn't give an overall trend, let's say, from year to year, but from year to year, we do see an overwintering loss number that at times is economically unsustainable for beekeepers. It's trying to get to below that level that's important.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We'll just go along. You had your one minute, plus it's your turn for six, so we'll continue.

[A voice]

You're the man, Lloyd.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

This is tremendous. Thank you.

We're hoping to end up with some comments from this committee. It's not a full study we're doing, but we wanted to have the chance to do some consultations. At the time we had a motion on the floor to do this consultation, we didn't have an extension in the amount of time that PMRA was allowing for consultation. Now there is an extension, and we'll be close enough to the end of that by the time we've done our discussions here.

In terms of the consultations, do you have enough time? Do you feel as though enough time is being taken? One of the previous witnesses talked about a new system of review that would include these study groups that have been established during the extension that we got, which weren't there when the first consultations were happening, and would maybe involve the beekeepers and the other related industries. Could you comment on the period of time for review? Also, what would you want us to say to PMRA in terms of our next steps?

[Mark Brock]

From my standpoint as a farmer, it's hard for me to really understand the review process, to a certain degree, at PMRA. From my standpoint and from our organization's standpoint, we are looking at the registrants to understand what that process is and we want to make sure there's time available for them.

As I said before, I think there needs to be that collective approach in the review process, especially if PMRA identifies some areas they're concerned about, so that we can have some dialogue around that and not be caught off guard or find the industry scrambling to come up with some of the information that's required.

When we look at some of this work that needs to be done, it's going to have to happen over this growing season. We're going to need some time to figure out where the hot spots are, where it's coming from, and how we can take steps to mitigate that. It's a long-term and thoughtful process. At the end of the day, as a producer, I don't want to see us drift towards that European, hazard-based regulatory system. I very much appreciate the system we have in Canada, which is science-based and risk-based. I think right now we're bumping into that issue of what is acceptable risk, but some good solid consultation could help that process.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

I was speaking with the research chair at the University of Guelph on this issue. She gave me access to a public report that HFFA Research did out of the EU, and I referred to it earlier. It showed that the Europeans made a decision, and two years later they're finding out about the impacts of that decision.

The PMRA has such a great global reputation of making good, sound decisions based on science, and we want to protect that, but at the same time we also have an industry that has to survive. Maybe I'm stretching a little bit here, but in terms of balance, how do we bring economics into this discussion?

[Mark Brock]

I think there absolutely has to be a value proposition for the chemicals that we use. As I said, no matter what, I could walk out of the hotel I was at and get hit by a bus, but I still decided to come here today. There's a balance of risks that we have to assume. For my farm, those are the decisions I make all the time. I look at something and say, “Economically, is this a valuable decision? Is there economic value for me to do this?” That's where integrated pest management practices come in. Our issue with seed treatments and below-soil strategies is that they aren't quite as intuitive as above-soil strategies, and that's where we have some of these issues and concerns when things like that happen. That's my opinion on that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

I'm done. I could keep going all day. I really appreciate all of the witnesses, including the ones who are still here from the previous session. It's a difficult process for us as members of Parliament who aren't active every day in the fields the way some of the witnesses have been, or reading the reports that we need to read as we try to make our decisions in our role.

I really appreciate your coming in and sharing all you have shared with us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I think Mr. Longfield has summed it up quite well. I want to thank the panel for being here. I know we're always in a rush, but you did a great job, and we'll certainly take in your information.

Thank you, Mr. Giovenazzo, Mr. Brock, and Mr. Scarlett, and also the others who stayed for the panel.

The meeting is adjourned.