Agriculture Committee on May 31st, 2023

[Dr. Parthi Muthukumarasamy]

I will make two quick comments.

First, in terms of bees flying over from across the border, bees fly relatively short distances—one kilometre to five kilometres. They are bound to their hives, so they go back to their hives.

The situation does not pose the same risk as the intentional introduction of 8,000 to 12,000 bees coming in packages and being introduced in the high-production areas.

The risks are very, very different, and that's why—

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

Respectfully, in the Abbotsford region, whether you put a beehive in the U.S. or in Canada, it's the same thing. They are very close.

Are we monitoring this particular region, to say, “Let's treat this as a pilot project. Let's look at this particular region”? From my understanding, there's absolutely no difference. There's no net that goes up thousands of kilometres.

I know that the bees are travelling from one kilometre to five kilometres away from the beehive, but in that particular region, I know for a fact that they are pollinating in blueberry harvests and going back to the U.S. I'm having a hard time explaining this to Canadians in that particular region, who are looking for whether it's their honeybees or pollinators. I'm having a hard time explaining that.

To me, if we're basing this on 2013 science, are we looking at this particular region? It is a perfect area to say that they are actually travelling one kilometre back and forth across the border. They're not checking in to CBSA, I can tell you that.

I'm not trying to dumb down the conversation. I'm trying to get the scientific basis as to why we're still refusing packaged bees from northern states to Canada.

[Dr. Parthi Muthukumarasamy]

Although our risk assessment was done in 2013, we review any new publications, new surveillance reports, any new science that's coming out, to continually evaluate whether there are any significant changes that would warrant a risk assessment.

Also, I mentioned in my opening remarks that CFIA has formally solicited calls for new information and scientific information from a number of stakeholders, which we have received and we are currently reviewing. In the next few weeks, we will make a decision on whether we will go ahead with another risk assessment or not.

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

Thank you.

I will ask this to my American friends on the other side.

Obviously, there has been an opening and they have openly asked for information.

Have you provided some information to CFIA up in Canada about this new scientific data that may be available?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Winter or Mr. McKinney, is there any response to Mr. Drouin?

Is there any sharing of information that has happened with the United States to our regulators here in Canada that you know of?

[Daniel Winter]

There's none that I know of. Certainly, we're more than willing to work through USDA and into Canada on any science we have. We can make that available to you.

I think it's important to understand—and I agree with you completely—that the bees can fly right across the St. Lawrence Seaway. I'm from northern New York myself, so I understand what you're saying.

I think it's important to understand that the risk assessment from 10 years ago does not contain the Tropilaelaps mite in Asia. Where you're importing bees from is the most important thing to recognize. A hive beetle or Africanized bees will have severe trouble in the freezing climates in Canada, so I don't think they are a huge issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Winter. We're at time, unfortunately.

I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Perron. Thankfully, he tabled our main estimates today on my behalf so we could get started.

You have six minutes. I might even give you a few extra seconds for that good deed.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

If I had known that reports had to be tabled, Mr. Chair, I would have done it before.

Thank you very much to the witnesses and virtual participants for being with us today. I am very grateful to them.

I'd like to continue with the folks from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

You say that you're constantly reviewing the bee standards from the United States, and I have a series of questions about that.

If I understand correctly, you have been importing queens without any issues. You're going to tell me it's because we can inspect them.

What's the difference between 8,000 packaged bees from the United States and 8,000 packaged bees from Ukraine? You can't inspect the ones from Ukraine any better, can you?

[Dr. Nancy Rheault, Senior Director and Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer, Animal Import/Export Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

At the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, we follow a rigorous risk analysis process. When we go through that process, we assess the risks based on the information we receive from the exporting country as well as the monitoring programs and measures in place.

When we assessed the situation in Ukraine, we obviously had a lot of discussions. We received scientific evidence to ensure that the imported bees came from safe areas. There were also questionnaires that told us Ukraine met the requirements. When Ukraine imports bees, a qualified vet certifies that the bees come from safe areas.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Can't you get that information from the United States?

[Dr. Nancy Rheault]

We did a risk analysis for packaged bees from the United States, and there are currently no mitigation measures to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

So if they have offered to cooperate, we can hope that they will one day be reassessed. Can we agree on that?

[Dr. Nancy Rheault]

Yes.

I'd also like to point out that, since bees fly, this situation doesn't carry the same risks as the intentional introduction of a hive of 8,000 to 12,000 bees packaged for import. In 2022, beekeepers imported 56,000 packages of bees. We're talking about twice as many packages of imported bees. There's no doubt that the intentional introduction of packaged bees doesn't carry the same level of risk as the biological aspect.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have another question. The previous witnesses mentioned the importance of restricting imports of bees from different climate zones. Maybe that's the way to look at it. For example, they recommend limiting imports of bees bearing the African gene, which are less resistant to the cold. Imports of bees from the United States could also carry a transportation advantage. The transportation of bees results in a lot of losses, so fewer would be lost because they would travel shorter distances.

Do you have any data on the losses caused by overseas transportation? What can we do to improve on that?

[Dr. Nancy Rheault]

Perhaps Mr. Pernal from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada can answer this question about bee transportation.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

This question is for anyone who can answer it. If not, we can get an answer later.

Can you answer it, Mr. Pernal?

[Dr. Stephen Pernal, Research Scientist, Apiculture and Officer-in-Charge, Beaverlodge Research Farm, Science and Technology Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

I can speak to the question if I interpreted it correctly.

One of the losses with long-distance transport from, let's say, New Zealand or Australia compared to the U.S.... There would be lower risk coming from a shorter distance, but I will also point out that Canada has successfully imported bees from Australia and New Zealand for decades now. Generally, those supply chains are quite good in bringing in packages. Occasionally, there can be losses, which are absorbed by the providers.

Transporting bees at shorter distances is inherently less risky, but the Canadian beekeeping industry has worked with suppliers in overseas locations to successfully transport bees from other continents.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you very much.

I'll go back to product licensing. Witnesses have told us that PMRA took six years to authorize the Apivar product when it was already being used elsewhere. The timelines seem to be quite long. Earlier, Mr. Barlow named a few other products that should perhaps be reassessed.

Are measures being taken to reduce the time it takes to register products, without running a risk, obviously?

[Frédéric Bissonnette]

I can't speak to exactly what happened, but we do publish performance standards, and they are met in about 95% of cases.

The processing time varies depending on the amount of scientific information to be reviewed. For a new active molecule, it can take two years, whereas a label change can take only nine months.

Our performance standards are generally very closely aligned with the Americans'.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

You only have 10 seconds left, so I can give you more time in the next round.

Mr. MacGregor, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for joining us today.

I would like to start my questioning with the CFIA.

Again, I'm trying to get into the specifics on how you conduct your risk assessment. You're trusting a lot of the information you receive from an authorized veterinarian who can provide some assurance or where the bees are coming from or whether they are free from disease. Is there an acceptable level of disease? If you were to look at a package of bees coming in.... You said it could be in the neighbourhood of 8,000 to 12,000 bees. If one bee were to show the problem of having a mite or disease....

What are the percentages you're looking at, as an acceptable risk? I want you to walk the committee through some of the specifics of how you arrive at these conclusions.

[Dr. Parthi Muthukumarasamy]

The risk assessment is not based on individual packages. It's based on the entire system the country has in place, including its veterinary infrastructure, its surveillance, its research, its control measures for bee movements, the prevalence of any disease we are concerned about and also its reporting. Every country and national competent authority, as we call it, has obligations under the World Trade Organization SPS agreement and also under the World Organisation for Animal Health to have certain measures in place to protect its bee health. Also, when they export and certify that these bees are safe, they have to meet certain parameters.

The risk assessment is based on a number of scientific parameters, as I mentioned. Once we are satisfied with all the control measures that are in place, then we look at how we can permit imports from those countries. We also have conducted audits in other countries, going on site to evaluate for ourselves that the measures that have been conveyed to us are actually in place.

There are a number of measures in place to ensure that the bees we import are safe and are free of diseases, pests and parasites.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

That is your baseline: They have to be absolutely free of diseases and pests. That is the only acceptable metric. There isn't any kind of variance allowed. Thank you for that.

I'll turn to the PMRA.

It has been reported that, with some of the chemicals used to control mites, some of those mites are now showing resistance. When that begins to happen with a well-known chemical that has been successful, it's kind of like an evolutionary arms race. That's just simply what happens. When a pest such as a mite begins to exhibit those kinds of traits, where it is steadily becoming more resistant to a long-accepted type of chemical treatment.... When the PMRA is doing its assessments of approved treatments, is it looking at the safe rate of application and whether it has to reassess whether more has to be used?

Do you ever consider that if you continue using a certain chemical, you're going to start doing more harm than good? How does this factor into your long-term thinking?

[Frédéric Bissonnette]

Part of the assessment includes a consideration of the potential to develop resistance. We do look at the rate, the frequency. It has to be a rate that works: not too much but also not so little that it could actually accelerate the types of.... In biology, resistance will happen. It's inevitable to a point, but we do consider it.

In terms of the rate, if the rate is no longer sufficient, the company can always reapply and seek an increase, and then we'll look at it from all the different aspects—human health, environment and value—to see if it's necessary. These processes are driven by industry. We can't go in and change a label unless it's to add mitigation measures and that sort of thing.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Okay, so you're depending on a company to come back to you to say, “We are noticing resistance to our product. We have to ask for a stronger rate of application.” Do you ever proactively go out into the fields to check up on a company to see if it's, you know, living up to its standards and so on?