Agriculture Committee on May 31st, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 65 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food.

I'll start with just a few reminders.

Of course, we're meeting in hybrid format. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The webcast shows only those who are speaking. Taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted.

There are a couple of changes here today at committee. We have Arnold Viersen subbing in for Warren Steinley, and we have Mr. Shields here for Ms. Rood. Welcome to both of you.

Mr. MacDonald from Prince Edward Island is subbing in for Mr. Ryan Turnbull. It's great to see you as well. You're no stranger to the agriculture committee.

I have just a couple of reminders, colleagues, off the hop. We're looking for recommendations by next Monday in relation to the conversation we've had on bee policy so that we can incorporate those into the report. The analysts have told me that some of you have already shared those, so if you've already shared those, don't feel the need to reshare, but if you haven't said something on this or you want to make sure something is there, please do so by Monday.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motions adopted by the committee on Monday, January 31, 2022, Wednesday, October 5, 2022, and Monday, April 17, 2023, the committee is resuming its study on the environmental contribution of agriculture. Of course, as I mentioned, today we're talking about the topic of bee mortality.

I'd like to thank our witnesses. The last time, a few weeks ago, we tried to have you in, we had some real technical difficulties in the virtual environment. It's great to see you here in person. Thank you, and I'm sorry we had to cut that meeting short.

From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, today we have Dr. Nancy Rheault, who is the senior director and deputy chief veterinary officer, and we also have Dr. Parthi Muthukumarasamy, executive director, international programs directorate.

From the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, we have Dr. Stephen Pernal, who will be joining us virtually.

From the Department of Health, we have Dr. Connie Hart, who is the senior science adviser, environmental assessment directorate, pest management regulatory agency. Ms. Hart and certainly PMRA do work that is always really important for our agriculture sector. Thank you for being here. Also joining you is Frédéric Bissonnette, acting executive director of PMRA. Welcome to the committee.

From the American Beekeeping Federation, we have Daniel Winter, who is the president. Thank you, Daniel, for joining us online.

Finally, from the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, we have Ted McKinney, who is the chief executive officer. Mr. McKinney, thank you so much for joining us and for being able to give us a perspective outside of Canada.

We're going to allow five minutes for each organization or individual to provide opening statements and then we're going to get right to questions.

I'm going to start with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for up to five minutes. Over to you.

[Dr. Parthi Muthukumarasamy, Executive Director, International Programs Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon.

The CFIA is pleased to be invited here today to share its knowledge and regulatory perspectives.

The CFIA is a science-based regulatory agency, and its mandate is the safeguarding of plants, animals and food, which enhances the health and well-being of Canada's people, environment and economy. The CFIA fully recognizes that bee populations are important for the health and vitality of the Canadian agricultural sector.

Federal and provincial jurisdictions share responsibility for managing bee health in Canada. The CFIA works at the national level, first, by designating certain bee diseases as regulated and reportable diseases—this means that specific disease-control measures have to be applied for their control—second, by minimizing the risks of introducing bee diseases into Canada through the control of importations, and third, by providing guidance to the bee industry through the national bee farm-level biosecurity standard.

The provincial governments help to maintain bee health within their jurisdictions by administering bee health management programs and regulating the interprovincial movement of bees to minimize the spread of bee diseases and pests. Canada has always relied on strict, science-based import measures to safeguard our borders from the introduction of diseases and pests.

Comprehensive import risk assessments, guided by the methodology of the World Organisation for Animal Health, are conducted by CFIA science experts before imports of bees are permitted from any country. These risk assessments are peer-reviewed by members of the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists, an independent organization consisting of academia, researchers, and federal and provincial apiculturists. We then consider identifying, developing and implementing possible options for risk assessment.

Bee diseases and pests can spread between countries through the international trade of bees, especially with respect to packaged bees. A package of bees poses higher risks than queen bees, usually weighs two or three pounds, and contains about 8,000 to 12,000 bees. On the other hand, honeybee queens can be individually inspected for health and the presence of pests before importation into Canada and, therefore, pose lower risks than honeybee packages.

Based on science-based risk assessments, Canada currently allows for the import of honeybee queens from the United States, Chile, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Italy, Ukraine and Malta. Due to higher risks, honeybee packages are only permitted for import from Chile, Australia, New Zealand and, more recently, Italy and Ukraine.

I will now share some information on the current situation with the importation of honeybees from the United States.

Canada closed its border to U.S. honeybees in 1987 due to reports of varroa mites and tracheal mites in the United States. The CFIA reassessed the situation in 1994, 2003 and 2013. Although the last risk assessment was conducted in 2013, the CFIA, on an ongoing basis, reviews new scientific information on Canadian and U.S. honeybee health, and if any significant new information warrants a risk assessment, the CFIA would initiate another risk assessment.

Due to diverse views among experts and stakeholders on whether sufficient new scientific information is available or not, the CFIA undertook an initiative between July and October 2022 to formally request a call for submission of any new scientific information regarding honeybee health in Canada and the United States. The CFIA is currently evaluating all submissions received and remains open to receiving additional submissions. If sufficient new evidence is available that would warrant a new risk assessment, the CFIA will proceed with a new risk assessment. At that time, the CFIA will also review any science-based risk-mitigation protocols that could mitigate any risk.

The CFIA continues to engage with the Canadian Honey Council, the United States Department of Agriculture, provincial governments and apiculturists, and it is open to receiving information from other stakeholders and members of industry on the import of honeybees. However, the CFIA's first and primary responsibility is the safeguarding of plant and animal health and food safety.

Thank you again for this opportunity to provide the CFIA's perspective on bee health in Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much.

We'll now turn to the PMRA for up to five minutes, please.

[Frédéric Bissonnette, Acting Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. My name is Frédéric Bissonnette. I'm the acting executive director at Health Canada's pest management regulatory agency, PMRA.

I'd like to start by acknowledging that we're meeting today in Ottawa, Ontario, which is the traditional, unceded territory of the Anishinabe and Algonquin people.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee about PMRA's role in protecting bee health. I'm joined today by Dr. Connie Hart, a senior science adviser in the environmental assessment directorate who has over 20 years of experience in environmental risk assessment, including expertise in assessing the risks of pesticide to bees.

PMRA is a federal authority responsible for the regulation of pesticides in Canada. Our mandate under the Pest Control Products Act is to prevent unacceptable risk to individuals and the environment from the use of pest control products. Pesticide manufacturers apply to Health Canada to register new pesticides or add new uses. Our role is to conduct thorough, science-based risk and value assessments of these pesticides before they can be registered for use in Canada.

PMRA also monitors and reassesses pesticides after they've been registered. We conduct periodic re-evaluations of pesticides using the most current science and risk assessment protocols, and we conduct special reviews of pesticides when there are reasonable grounds to believe the value or risk of their use is unacceptable.

We recognize the importance of bee health for agriculture in our society. The health of pollinators is complex and can be affected by many factors, including parasites and pathogens, habitat loss, food supply issues, queen bee quality, exposure to pesticides, general hive management and weather.

PMRA works with key stakeholders and our provincial counterparts on issues related to bee health. We collaborate with other pesticide regulators domestically and internationally to improve our risk assessments and management.

PMRA's incident reporting program allows anyone to report suspected pesticide‑related effects on people or the environment, including effects on bees. Pesticide registrants are required to report incidents involving their products to PMRA. This allows us to monitor for unforeseen risks once pesticides are in use.

In 2012, PMRA began receiving large numbers of incident reports about bee deaths, colony losses and abnormal behaviour. An investigation into the causes of these incidents revealed that dust from the planting of neonicotinoid-treated seed was likely adversely impacting nearby bee colonies. Health Canada, in collaboration with many stakeholders, implemented risk reduction measures to minimize pesticide exposure to bees. With these risk mitigations in place, Health Canada saw a significant decrease in the number of incidents reported.

In 2014, PMRA published a pesticide risk assessment framework for bees, developed in cooperation with the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This framework is now used in all assessments conducted in Canada and United States where bees may be exposed to pesticides. It was applied in the re‑evaluations of three neonicotinoid pesticides, completed in 2019. These assessments were based on a review of hundreds of open literature and pesticide company-submitted studies, that assessed risks to bee colonies, including overwinter mortality.

The re‑evaluations of neonicotinoids resulted in decisions by PMRA to further mitigate potential risks to bees. As a result of these assessments, PMRA put in place major changes to product registrations. This included cancellation of a number of pesticide uses.

During the spring of 2022, high honeybee overwintering losses were reported in Alberta, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and other provinces. The Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists reported that the most-cited cause of colony loss was ineffective control of varroa mites on bees, which could lead to the loss of colonies.

In addition to mitigating the risk to bees from pesticide use, PMRA is also responsible for decisions regarding registration of pest control products to protect honeybees, including products used to control varroa mites. PMRA continues to carefully monitor and consider the impact of pesticides on bee health. Our intent is to be proactive in our protection of bees and to take timely action where warranted.

Again, I thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting PMRA to participate in this important discussion today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much.

I'll now turn to the American Beekeeping Federation and Mr. Winter.

[Daniel Winter, President, American Beekeeping Federation]

Good afternoon.

My name is Dan Winter. I'm a second-generation commercial beekeeper from New York state. I do both commercial crop pollination and honey production. Currently, I'm president of the American Beekeeping Federation. I'm also on the New York State Apiary Industry Advisory Committee. Most recently, I was nominated to the National Honey Board.

I'd like to take a minute to talk about honeybee mortality in the United States in general. Most of the information is available from the Bee Informed Partnership. They have a 16-year mortality average that they have been working on with the USDA. That's available at the beeinformed.org website.

In the Bee Informed Partnership's managed honeybee loss estimates from April 2020 to April 2021 in the United States, beekeepers lost about 45.5%. These are very unsustainable levels of mortality, as I'm sure you already know in Canada. These rates continue to rise even despite a 50-state pollinator protection plan that went into effect under President Barack Obama, where all 50 states in the United States were required to develop a pollinator protection plan in order to help alleviate honeybee losses.

Now, the ABF attributes that managed pollinator mortality to be directly related to three main factors: pests and parasites; nutrition and problems associated with agri-chemicals; and synergistic problems when honeybees mix these contaminated pollens within the beehive.

A lot of chemicals are studied on an individual basis. Dr. Diana Cox-Foster from the ARS lab in Utah has done a lot of studies on the synergistic problems with adjuvants and things like that, which are added to chemicals when they are mixed together. As you know, honeybees bring pollen into the beehive, and they mix pollens together into a thing called “bee bread”, which they feed to their larvae.

The bee bread can contain several different chemicals, and rarely are these chemicals studied together within the beehive. I think that's where a lot of the testing and chemical residue studies have actually fallen short. I don't think they're taking into account that the bees themselves are mixing the chemicals within the hives.

I think that working toward more sustainable agriculture in the future is one of the only ways that we're going to alleviate pollinator losses. We have to remember, too, that what's good for managed pollinators is also good for native pollinators, so this would be a win-win across the board if we can start to develop this and look at how these chemicals affect each other within the beehive and stop looking at individual chemicals as a huge problem within the beehive.

Now, another pest we have is the Tropilaelaps mite. That is currently in Asia and has not been a problem in North America, but if that mite were to be imported into Canada or the U.S. via packages or things like that, the Tropilaelaps mite breeds three times faster than the current varroa mite and, therefore, honey production would sink to near nothing, because beekeepers would have to treat their colonies constantly to be able to keep up with commercial pollination demands. Therefore, we need to be proactive and not reactive when it comes to the Tropilaelaps mite. We really don't want to see that get into North America.

It has been brought to the American Beekeeping Federation's attention that Canada is importing some packages from some questionable areas. Now, again, we just worry about the commercial and the pollination and how that will affect our industry and our food resources. We would strongly like the Canadian Parliament to possibly consider importing packages from the United States, because they are a much lower risk, and we would entertain that fact and help to work on possible ways that we could make that happen so that our risks to commercial pollination in the United States and in Canada are drastically reduced.

The way we move bees around North America, a mite like that would spread so fast it would be catastrophic to our industry. We really need to follow the science on this, look at Dr. Samuel Ramsey's studies in Asia about this mite and be proactive in trying to keep it out of North America.

Thank you very much for your time. We really appreciate you inviting the American Beekeeping Federation to these hearings.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We certainly appreciate you making the time for us, Mr. Winter. Thank you for your opening statement.

We'll now turn to Mr. McKinney, and then following that, colleagues, we'll turn it over to questions.

It's over to you, Mr. McKinney.

[Ted McKinney, Chief Executive Officer, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture]

Good afternoon.

Thank you, Chair Blois and Vice-Chairs Barlow and Perron, for the invitation to speak today.

I'm Ted McKinney. I'm very fortunate to serve as the CEO of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, or NASDA.

Who are we? We represent the commissioners, secretaries and directors. These would be direct equivalents to your ministers of ag from your provinces. They represent all 50 states and four international territories.

Many of you are aware that we're responsible for a wide range of programs, including food safety, conservation and environmental protection, while also serving as a coregulator with the U.S. EPA and, in some cases, the USDA on certain programs. Bee health is oftentimes—not always, but oftentimes—a part of our programs.

We have a strong relationship with your provincial ministers. In fact, coming up in a month or two will be the 32nd consecutive year in Saskatchewan for the Tri-National Agricultural Accord, where we address cross-border issues such as regulatory harmonization, animal and plant health, and, I suspect, bee health as well.

Let me speak to bee health.

First, it's critical to plant reproduction. You know that. Three-fourths of the world’s flowering plants and about 35% of the world’s food crops depend on pollinators to reproduce. The health of these species is critical to our agriculture, as it is to yours, in many cases. It's not just for agriculture, but food security and the overall economy.

The varroa mite you've heard referenced before. It is a significant threat. It's a clear and present danger right now facing health, honey production and pollination services.

Interestingly, the varroa mites' full name is varroa destructor, and it is, perhaps, an aptly named parasite because it's a plague for honey bees. The USDA cites the varroa mite as “inflicting more damage and higher economic costs than all other apicultural diseases.” That's quite a claim, I might add.

Before the widespread introduction of varroa mites, beekeepers managed more than three million colonies for crop pollenation, and their winter losses were about 10% to 15%, typically. Today, those losses are averaging more than 40%, reflecting what was just shared by Mr. Winter.

What beekeepers truly need is more tools in the tool box—you'll hear that theme from us—to provide long-term solutions to the varroa mites and other parasitic mites that may arrive.

For commercial beekeepers, there are only three treatments available to combat varroa mites. These treatments are generally effective; however, this short list has not changed in more than a decade. In short, we're not adding new tools to the tool box. There are some folk remedies out there, and they have varying levels of success, but they are certainly far less consistent than these primary three treatments. All of them involve more labour and cost to apply.

The long-term solution to combatting these parasitic mites begins with funding additional research that would protect honeybee hives from the parasitic mites, and funding more research. This is something we're advocating for in our Farm Bill, and hope that you all will, as well, in your Parliament and your departments.

NASDA recognizes that a risk-based regulatory process is a fundamental pillar of future success. It's what we've long applied for and support. Specifically, we support the science-based regulations of pesticides by EPA under our FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

In addition, you have my full appendix that explains the EPA process of assessing these risks.

Here is a bit of international perspective, given my current and former roles. Ag throughout North America faces a lot of challenges, and they are significant. We enjoy tremendous opportunities, though, as well. It's critical that we, as a North American trading bloc, elevate the promotion of science-based decision-making regarding international regulation of sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

The fundamental objectives of this are under attack, most notably by our friends in the European Union under their green deal, and, more specifically, their farm to fork policies.

We at NASDA see this as a clear and present danger. These policies seek to demonize the technological advancements we've made in agriculture through improved chemistry and biotechnologies. If enacted, these policies can and will threaten our ability to produce sufficient food and fibre to support the world's population, which just recently, as you know, surpassed eight billion.

As leaders of Canadian agriculture, we hope this committee will reject calls for scientifically dubious policies promoted by the EU, and in some cases a few other countries, and embrace the technologies that have made our agricultural production so successful, not only in terms of food and feed quality and quantity but also safety, and likewise in terms of our significant environmental achievements.

In conclusion, pollinator health, especially bee health, is critical because of the role they play in plant reproduction across the globe. In producing food, fuel and fibre, we stand ready to work with you. I might say that some of these comments come from my own experience working on a farm with pesticides over my lifetime.

Thank you for the opportunity to join you on this occasion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Mr. McKinney.

We'll now turn it over to questions.

Mr. Barlow, you have up to six minutes, please.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here.

I want to start with the PMRA. This first question may not sound like it deals with bees, but I'll get there.

Certainly, the assessment of lambda-cy by the PMRA has caused a lot of concern within the agriculture sector. We have the ag ministers in Saskatchewan and Alberta asking for that decision to be re-evaluated. It certainly doesn't seem to make sense that it's approved for crops that are going to be used for human consumption but not for crops that are going to go to livestock feed. To me, there's clearly an error in that decision.

Has there been a decision by PMRA to do a reassessment of its de-labelling of lambda-cy?

[Frédéric Bissonnette]

To maybe give a bit of history on lambda-cyhalothrin, a re-evaluation happened. In the first consultation we were basically proposing to cancel all uses. We sought more information, as we typically do during a consultation. We also asked the company to prioritize the use. The risk was dietary in nature, for children in particular, in terms of the amount consumed every day or over a lifetime. The company prioritized the list of crops that would make it to the label. If the first one passes, we add it, and so on and so forth. The company did not identify feed as a priority. Hence, the decision allowed more uses on the label, but the feed did not make it, because the company did not identify it as a priority for them.

That being said, the company has now provided us with an application to revisit the decision with new information. We're in the middle of reviewing that information.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Now, the reason I'm going to get to the bee issue here is that when it comes to Matador and Silencer, key labels of lambda-cy, there are no other comparable products out there that are going to deal with grasshoppers, beetles and also honeybees. According to the Canadian beekeepers association, any other products are actually more harmful to bees. If Matador is used properly, it does not harm bees.

Was the impact on bees taken into consideration by PMRA when this decision was made?

[Frédéric Bissonnette]

First, all decisions on pesticides are based on the product, first and foremost. It has to have acceptable value. It has to have acceptable risks. If it doesn't, then that's it.

Every product that is registered goes through a risk assessment. It's only going to be registered if it's found acceptable. The bees would have been considered when the alternatives were registered.

That being said, I've talked to some of the growers myself. Chlorantraniliprole, a product that is currently available, is one that they find works, and to my understanding they've secured stock for the coming growing season.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Bissonnette, in terms of a timeline, you mentioned that you're reviewing the application to re-evaluate lambda-cy. Is there any timeline on when that will be done? We've obviously lost this season. I can't overstate enough that with the lack of rainfall we've had in western Canada this year, there's a real concern of grasshoppers and beetles being a major problem.

Is there any timeline you can give me on when this will be done? I think it's pretty clear that this decision will be that this product can come back, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. When will this happen?

[Frédéric Bissonnette]

We've actually prioritized the review. We're hoping that we'll be able to get the decision out in time for the next growing season.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

To CFIA now, you've allowed queen bees to be imported from areas in the United States for many decades. What is the decision between allowing queen bees to be imported from those areas but not allowing live packaged bees?

[Dr. Parthi Muthukumarasamy]

The risks posed by queen bees and packaged bees are totally different. Queen bees are single bees with a few helpers that are exported. They are able to be inspected and to be certified as being free from pests, diseases and parasites, because it's a very small number. However, packaged bees, as I mentioned in my opening statement, are about a kilogram in size and weight, and include 8,000 to 12,000 bees. The risk parameters are different.

When we did the risk assessment in 2003, at that time we were able to allow queen bees to be imported from the United States but not packaged bees, because the risk is higher.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

You mentioned in your opening statement that we're also allowing the importation of bees from Ukraine. The United States has not allowed bees to be imported from Ukraine. Obviously, there are some issues going on with Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine.

How is that assessment done? Why are we not following a similar decision to that of one of our most important trading partners, which obviously has concerns about importing these bees from Ukraine where Canada does not?

[Dr. Parthi Muthukumarasamy]

Our decision to allow imports of packaged bees from Ukraine was made after the extensive risk assessment that was conducted on Ukraine and its control programs, its surveillance programs, the disease prevalence, and a number of other scientific parameters.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I have one really quick question for Mr. Winter of the American Beekeeping Federation.

Would you agree with the assessment that it makes, which is that there shouldn't be a concern between importing queen bees and packaged live bees from the United States into Canada?

[Daniel Winter]

I think some of the older risk assessments are outdated. Therefore, I don't think a current risk assessment would show the same problems as the same risk assessment from 10 years ago. I really think that it would be fairly safe for Canada to import packages from the United States.

We've had meetings within the USDA, and places like that, to possibly explore regulations that would indeed let packages come into Canada if Canada would like to go into talks and would like to entertain how we could possibly make that happen. I think it's important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

That's great.

Thank you, Mr. Winter.

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

Now we have Mr. Drouin for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank my colleagues and, of course, the witnesses who are with us.

You've identified significant new scientific information. I'm just trying to understand how CFIA labels significant new information when we talk about, for instance, if we're allowed to send packaged bees from south to north. I think that's part of the reason we're here. I don't know the answer, so I'm asking honestly. How do you say this is significant new information versus this is not significant new information?

[Dr. Parthi Muthukumarasamy]

The risk assessment looks at four hazards from a bee health perspective. The four of them are small hive beetle, amitraz-resistant varroa mites, oxytetracycline-resistant American foulbrood and Africanized bees.

There is a scientific process where it assigns risks to each of those subsets. If the risk level changes as a result of new scientific information that is available on surveillance, on control measures and on mitigation measures, that will allow us to re-evaluate and to re-quantify the risks that are there. It is based on a World Organisation for Animal Health process—the risk assessment itself. It is a scientific process where you can say that there is significant new information that changes our assessment from the 2013 or not.

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

I look at my colleague, Mr. MacGregor, who's in B.C., and I've certainly been to his province. We know that there are two roads: one's in the U.S., and one's in Canada. There's farmland right there. The bees aren't going to stop at CBSA and say “I need to get in, in order to pollinate, or to get some food”. How do we measure that risk versus other risks that you've certainly identified?

How do we move away from saying “no” and move to managing risk properly in terms of saying there's a lack in the Canadian market? We know that packaged bees are going to other continents. I'll be honest with you. I have an issue with them. We are going to other continents, yet we can't go to the North American continent, especially the northern American continent, where we have an artificial political Canada-United States.... I get it, but bees don't get it.

How do we manage this risk? How do we communicate it if there's really an issue? Your basing this on 2013 science. I'm having a hard time saying that, since 2013, since 10 years ago, we haven't had a significant update on science information in order for us to not only import queens but also import packaged bees.