Agriculture Committee on May 31st, 2023

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much to our witnesses and our neighbours in the States for being here today.

There's been a lot of discussion about importing bees to Canada from different countries. I'd actually like to focus on why bee mortality is so high and what's happening.

I'd like to address some of my questions to you, Dr. Hart, regarding, in particular, the use of neonics. I know it's been studied. It was reassessed in 2019 and we are monitoring it to see what's happening. I would imagine the science here and in the EU is very similar in terms of the effects of neonics, yet it was banned in the EU and it's not been here.

I'm wondering what the difference is in our assessment approach that has led to one conclusion in the EU and another here.

[Dr. Connie Hart]

I won't speak to how the EU made their decision, but our assessment was a risk-based assessment that looked at environmental exposure and effects for bees. It followed the new pollinator risk assessment framework that we had developed in conjunction with the U.S. EPA, so it has a large data component.

We looked at both laboratory and basic studies, but we also had many higher-tier studies. We looked at information from the public literature, as well as some registrant-submitted data. The higher-tier studies look at more realistic effects, so we had information on pollen and nectar residues in crops that were treated in Canada—the actual levels measured. We had semi-field studies, so that included tunnel studies where you put bees in a tunnel and they're exposed in a realistic situation to crops that are treated. We had feeding studies where, again, they're in a natural environment and they are exposed through a known concentration in their feeding solution to different test doses of neonics, and we looked for sensitive effects measures on that. The studies were over a long exposure period, so it was over a long, six-week exposure period, which is a lot of the growing season, and then they continued to be monitored through the fall and through overwintering, and we looked at the colony health in the spring as well.

We had all of that information. We also had sensitive information from public literature looking at other types of bees, such as bumblebees, and used all of those effects measured.

In 2019, as you know, we published our final decision on that. We removed a lot of uses for high pollinator-attractive crops to protect bees. We put other mitigations in place, such as restricting the timing of application so you could not apply during bloom for many pollinator-attractive crops, and other restrictions, such as some pollinator-attractive crops you could only apply postbloom.

We put all of those mitigations in place to protect bees, and we kept registered products with mitigation in place where risk was acceptable.

The difference with the EU was that they have different uses and things as well, but they did not necessarily have the same pollinator residue levels in pollen and nectar that we had in North America from those crops. To my knowledge, they did not look at the same field-level studies. That's the long study that I described with feeding. They did not have that as part of their package when they considered their risk profile.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Winter mentioned his concern about the interaction of different chemicals that might occur in a hive from bees bringing in different chemicals, obviously. Have you looked at that issue and examined what has happened, not only cumulatively but interactively, with these different chemicals?

[Dr. Connie Hart]

It's a challenging area, looking at multiple chemical exposure for bees.

We look at that when you have a product that has, for example, two different pesticides in it. We would look at that together, because we know it's being applied together. There has been research, for example, that has shown that certain insecticides and fungicides increase toxicity when they're together. When that research is available, we're able to put protections on the pesticide labels, such as, “Don't tank mix these products together.”

Beyond that, we rely on work with our partners, such as Agriculture Canada and other researchers, to do the research to determine where these interactions might be happening.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Has there been any testing done of the inside of the hive to see what chemicals have been found interacting when they bring the pollen back?

Bees can't read labels, so they're not going to be looking at the labels and saying, “Oh, we're not going to go there and there.” They're not going to have that same information that you're labelling on products.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We're at time right now, Ms. Taylor Roy.

Ms. Hart, if you'd like to, please answer the question succinctly.

[Dr. Connie Hart]

I would just like to say that it was a program that AAFC was looking at: monitoring colony-wide health across Canada. My colleague Steve Pernal could provide more information on that. It's more of a research question in terms of monitoring what's happening with colony health across Canada and getting that information.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Could I ask that the information be sent to us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Yes, certainly. We can make sure that it does happen. I'll look to my clerk.

Mr. Perron, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

I'm going to go to Dr. Hart or Mr. Bissonnette.

My question is about the neonicotinoids assessment. I know that Quebec has regulated these pesticides more. Compared to other provinces still using them, have you seen any differences in crop yields and bee mortality?

[Dr. Connie Hart]

Thank you for the question.

No, we have not received differences in incident reports. That would be I think the mechanism largely where we would see a difference among provinces. We've received low levels of bee incident reports across all the provinces in Canada, and there hasn't been a difference in reports of incidents from Quebec compared to other provinces.

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

Is it the same thing for crops?

[Frédéric Bissonnette]

We haven't heard anything about differences in crops.

As you know, in Quebec, an agronomist certifies whether there is a need or not. So we don't necessarily expect to see a difference.

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

Thank you very much.

I imagine that these assessments are an ongoing process. Ms. Taylor Roy is asking about experimentation in hives, and I do feel it's an interesting option.

Is that something you're looking at doing down the road?

[Frédéric Bissonnette]

We always try to keep an eye on what's going on. It's part of the transformation effort. I don't know if you've heard about it, but we received money from the government to explore how we can improve. One thing we've been looking at is more systematic monitoring and analysis of what's going on. We already have some mechanisms. For example, from time to time, we review what's been published; we have international contacts; we monitor international decisions. So we do have monitoring systems.

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

Thank you very much.

Dr. Rheault, with regard to assessments, from what I understand, one of the reasons we haven't yet accepted packaged bees imported from the United States is because the U.S. doesn't have uniform legislation, since the laws vary from state to state. Is that correct? In that case, could we not assess import possibilities with a particular state, particularly one of the border states, further north and in a climate zone similar to ours?

[Dr. Nancy Rheault]

When we do a risk analysis, we assess the acceptable risk. What is the acceptability of the risk?

When we did the risk analysis for packages of bees from the U.S., the risk associated with the dangers mentioned was significant. When we assess that the risk is not acceptable, we must ensure that we evaluate the mitigation and control measures taken before imports are permitted.

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

I understand, but my question was more about whether it would be possible to do so with specific states.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Your time is up, Mr. Perron.

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

Those are my 10 seconds from earlier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

No, I'm sorry, you've already had more time. Please respect the chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Perron.

Mr. MacGregor, you now have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to turn my questions to Mr. McKinney from the National Association of State Departments for Agriculture.

Sir, in your opening statement, you talked about needing more tools in the tool box and the need to fund additional research to combat problems associated, I guess, with the fact that we're seeing resistance to those current treatments.

In your mind, where do you see some of the most beneficial research occurring in additional treatments? What's the state of development of other chemical products? Is there any promising research showing maybe biological agents that might help? Is there any promising research into breeding that may help bees develop beneficial traits to allow them to be resistant to some of the pests they are having to deal with? Anything you can help guide our committee through on this, please....

[Ted McKinney]

I'll be brief because I think Mr. Winter might be able to help with some of the specifics.

Broadly, we are pursuing.... NASDA and many of our colleagues across agriculture are pushing for additional research at the USDA through part of our Farm Bill. It's been many years since that has seen an increase, and we're seeing the need for that across many areas, including that of bee health.

Having been in the industry, it is usually companies pursuing additional labels that get this. I think you're well aware that minor-use crops, minor-use needs, are often a very difficult decision because of the sensitivities, the liabilities and all that goes with that. This is why we're at a pinch point with these three primary products and a variety of other related products.

We are hoping that our university system can keep going on this. They are very active, in some cases, on bee health. Certainly, it depends on the location.

I think companies are there. We have an onslaught of biological products coming that could be applicable to many uses. Most of those would be insecticides, because that's what most people would like to get rid of. Insecticide research with biologicals is a key one.

I can't answer the specific question, but I think, generally speaking, that's the direction—we are hoping, at NASDA, at my level—we'd like to pursue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much to both of you.

We'll now go to our final rounds of five minutes for the Conservatives and five minutes for the Liberals.

I think, Mr. Barlow, you're going to kick us off.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'll split my time with my colleague, Mr. Lehoux.

This is for the CFIA.

I think we've all been talking about this, but as my colleague Mr. Drouin was saying, we're basing a lot of these decisions on information that may or may not be outdated. I think one of the recommendations we may come up with on this is that a new assessment be done as quickly as possible to re-evaluate the dangers of importing bees from the United States.

Can you give me a timeline on whether that's possible? Is it in the works to do that, or is that a regular thing that's done on a certain schedule?