Bill C-359

An Act to amend the Feeds Act, the Seeds Act and the Pest Control Products Act (provisional registration and approval)

This enactment amends the Feeds Act , the Seeds Act and the Pest Control Products Act to provide for provisional registration or approval of feeds, seeds and pest control products that are already approved by two or more trusted jurisdictions.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Yes, it's a good thing we have good ideas like Bill C-359. That should be a government bill, but unfortunately a government member had to do it as a private member's bill.

With regard to another issue, we do have a study perhaps coming up in the next little while. We've been talking about interswitching, but there's an important date coming up when the railways are relinquishing responsibility for rail crossings that are on private property and farmland. Can you just give us a quick assessment of the impact that this could have on your members—certainly as Canadian farmers—having to take the responsibility for the upgrading of these crossings?

[Keith Currie]

Certainly, CropLife would be better able to speak to the actual service on the ground. However, from what I'm seeing and hearing from my members, the answer is that the service has not changed.

I think it leads into what was mentioned in the previous session. I know there's a private member's bill, Bill C-359, that's been going through the House. It would lean heavily on our trusted partners around the world to help us expedite some of these products that we don't have but potentially could have because our partners are using them. Again, this is a competitive disadvantage.

These are the kinds of things that, through discussions, we hope you could talk about with folks like those at the PMRA in order to make life easier for us on the ground: to be more competitive, to be more productive and to be more efficient.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

I'm going to start with Mr. McCann.

I think we're talking here about a hypothetical situation. Sometime in the future there might be carbon border adjustments on the agriculture sector. We've been hearing it's going to be very complicated and it's certainly not likely to happen in the very near future, as the EU is moving in other sectors.

One of the themes of your opening statement was harmonization and that in many ways the best way we can prepare for this is to try to harmonize our practices with our major trading partners, in particular the United States.

You mentioned Bill C-359. I don't want to take the chair's thunder away from him, as he might want to ask you about this directly, but could you mention some of the key ways we could harmonize our agriculture practices, our subsidies and anything we do to support agriculture with those in the United States as a start in preparing for a future that may include a carbon border adjustment?

[Tyler McCann, Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute]

My opening remarks are in French and English.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee this morning. I always appreciate the opportunity to contribute to your work.

The Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, or CAPI, has been working on the link between international trade and sustainability for years. I would like to share my thoughts on how these two elements intersect—or collide.

It is essential to frame any conversation on sustainable trade around a couple of really critical facts. The world is facing increasing food insecurity. Supply, demand and stocks of key commodities are tightening. There are fewer net exporters and more net importers. Not all food is created equal. What it is, and how it is produced, all play an important role in its environmental footprint. Transport, especially ocean freight, actually has a very small impact on most food’s environmental footprint.

Therefore, trade will increasingly be essential to ensuring that food can get from the small number of countries where it can be produced in abundance more sustainably to those countries where they cannot produce enough to meet demand.

While economists and trade lawyers have long explanations for them, border carbon adjustments are there to ensure a level carbon playing field among countries, but how you measure the carbon and how you know if the playing field is level is immensely more complicated than that. The BCAs are not likely to be an issue for the food system for the foreseeable future.

While the EU is moving ahead with BCAs, the coverage is limited to six emissions-intensive trade-exposed products that are covered under the EU Emissions Trading System. Fertilizer is the only agriculture-related product impacted by the BCA. Agriculture production is not covered by the EU ETS, and there is no serious dialogue that it would be covered by the ETS or the BCA.

The world is struggling to figure out how to deal with carbon at the border. This is incredibly complicated, and the solutions are not evident. It is not likely that a border carbon adjustment will be the solution to that problem.

While it is not an agriculture commodity, it is important to recognize the impact that a BCA could have, and is likely to have, on Canadian fertilizer. Luter Atagher, a recent CAPI doctoral fellow, put out an excellent paper exploring the potential impact of a BCA on fertilizer.

The recent tariffs on Canadian fertilizer imports have shown how much of a negative impact tariffs can have on Canadian farmers and how Canada should be motivated to seek out a different approach.

Setting aside fertilizer, for most Canadian agriculture exports, the EU deforestation regulations are a significantly greater challenge than a theoretical BCA. It was positive to see yesterday that they have been delayed by a year, but there's a lot more work to be done there.

While much of the attention on the collision between sustainability and trade focuses on regulatory and border measures, it is important not to lose sight of the impact that domestic policies and green spending could have on Canadian exports around the world.

The increasing use of green subsidies in the U.S. is a great example of sustainability measures that have the potential to negatively impact Canadian exports. At the WTO, the green box is typically seen as not trade distorting, but that is an antiquated view of the world.

I would also like to make a few comments on the reciprocity of standards.

It's easy to understand why Canadian producers are concerned and support the concept of reciprocity. They produce very high-quality food and don't want to be forced to compete with imported products that aren't of equivalent quality. Producers also don't want to compete with products made or grown using inputs not available on the Canadian market.

Again, while it's easy to understand the concerns raised, it isn't as easy to find solutions.

First and foremost, the Canadian government has the authority to ensure that imported food is safe for consumption and meets Canadian requirements. Whether they have the resources is a different question.

The issue of reciprocity of standards is indeed a competitiveness issue, not a food safety issue. Beyond potential conflicts around international trade rules, the reciprocity of standards remains a difficult approach to implement without adding costs and creating friction in the food chain.

A better approach would be to encourage greater harmonization of farm input standards, regulations and approvals. For example, Bill C-359 creates conditions that can ensure access to competitive technologies without creating a thicker border and less functional international trade.

There is clearly a need to develop solutions that continue to improve agricultural sustainability while promoting trade and supporting food affordability. However, adding taxes and barriers at the border is not likely to have the desired impact. It is through collaboration and co-operation among governments, farmers and food producers around the world—not barriers, taxes and regulations—that we will find the solutions needed to meet the productivity growth required to deliver the economic, environmental and social sustainability the world needs from its food systems.

Thank you.

Opposition Motion—Measures to Lower Food Prices

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be in the House to debate and discuss initiatives presented by my opposition colleagues. Today, we are debating an NDP motion that was moved by the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

The Deputy Speaker said that extremely well and we will have this exchange. The 90th Apple Blossom Festival just took place in the Annapolis Valley. I think that the Deputy Speaker was not able to get home for it, but I know he was there in spirit. I will take the opportunity to recognize that the Apple Blossom Festival was created in 1933 as a way to celebrate our agricultural heritage in the Annapolis Valley and also to market our world-class Annapolis Valley apples. It was great. I thank all of the sponsors and the volunteers who helped make that available.

There was the 50th anniversary of the Woodville chicken barbecue. I think about people like Ron Rafuse and Alice VanHattem and all the volunteers, the army of volunteers, as well as Dan Keddy, as the president of the Woodville Community Centre. Good on them.

I thank the Deputy Speaker for teeing that up for me accordingly.

I will now talk about the motion before us today. It consists of measures and initiatives proposed by the NDP that target food prices. When I saw the motion moved by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I was not convinced that the initiatives presented by the NDP would really lower grocery prices.

The motion lays out three points. Point (a) calls on the government to “force big grocery chains and suppliers to lower the prices of essential foods or else face a price cap”. We can discuss that initiative. Point (b) calls on the government to “stop delaying long-needed reforms to the Nutrition North program”, and point (c) calls on the government to “stop Liberal and Conservative corporate handouts to big grocers”.

I am the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and I do not see any measures for our farmers in this motion. Farmers around the world, particularly those in Canada, are having a really hard time right now, because of labour shortages, the effects of climate change and the high prices resulting from the war in Ukraine, the war in the Middle East and other factors. In my opinion, it is very important to present specific initiatives for our farmers, not just partisan elements from the NDP.

I will talk about the price cap. This is something that we have dealt with before in the country. During World War II, there was intervention from the government to establish a variety of prices across the board. I do not know if all Canadians are at that point but I think it is important for parliamentarians to understand that we have to be balanced when we are talking about the conversation on food prices. Yes, I think we can highlight and ask large retailers to do more to reduce prices at retail, but we have to be careful not to push those cost savings down on the margins of farmers. When we talk in this way, sometimes the agriculture community asks about its ability to make a profit and its ability to return money. What about that dynamic?

Of course, we have heard a lot of testimony before the agriculture committee about the actual margins in grocery. They range between 2% and 4%. Could those margins be lower? I think anyone here could have an opinion and say that, yes, they could be lower or they could be higher. It is really subjective. Certainly, the actual gross profit in the sector has grown and there are moral and ethical questions about how much profit is too much.

I will give the NDP credit on that idea, but the price cap becomes an interesting question of whether the Government of Canada is the best constitutional authority to implement those types of price caps, whether that is better suited under the Constitution at the provincial level and whether that can be done without having a major impact from putting price caps and price mechanisms through the entire supply chain for the agriculture and agri-food processing sector. Those are some reflections that are not really well articulated in today's opposition day motion and those points would have to be borne out before we could ever move in that direction.

I want to talk about other initiatives that are important to our farmers. I mentioned the impact of climate change. In the Annapolis Valley, extreme storms, extreme cold and hurricanes in the Atlantic are causing problems for our farmers. This is having a direct impact on their products. We are having conversations at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food about the importance of improving the risk management programs.

When the Conservatives were in government, Mr. Harper slashed programs that were very important to our producers. I am talking about risk management programs, specifically agri-stability and agri-insurance. It is important to study these initiatives for our farmers.

With regard to the horticulture sector, I think it is also important to explore how the federal, provincial and territorial governments are going to find a way to increase the supply of local vegetables and fruit, particularly for the apple and vegetable sectors.

We think about our hospital system and education system, and I certainly applaud the government in its work to establish a national school food program. It is long overdue. We were the only G7 country without it and this is going to help make a difference on the affordability for individuals to access healthy, local food, but I think we can do more on procurement. It is a tough line. We have to be careful because we have trading relationships and we are a trading nation, but we have an ability to buy vegetables and fruits that otherwise could not find their way to the market, and we can find this in an affordable context in an institutional procurement setting.

I also want to elaborate a bit on the programs that highlight how important foreign workers are for the horticulture sector. We need to improve the permit process for the use of pesticides and other necessary farm products and tools.

I introduced Bill C-359, which is further down on the order of precedence for private member's bills. However, I hope the government will consider some initiatives in that area. I think that is important.

I must admit that I would need more than 10 minutes to discuss this very complex issue.

Finally, when it comes to the connection between our farmers and grocery store prices, what comes to mind is a code of conduct. It is very important to introduce and implement a code of conduct, an agreement between farmers, the links in the supply chain and Canada's grocery giants. It is important to create a good relationship within the supply chain.

I am going to leave it at that. All parliamentarians should be calling on major grocers to join the grocery code of conduct.

Department of Health—Main Estimates, 2024-25

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

Madam Chair, I have a suggestion. It might even be a possible solution. It would involve recognizing what is being done in other countries, and perhaps partnering with other countries. A private member's bill has been introduced, Bill C‑359, which proposes taking into consideration the fact that a given product has been approved in two different jurisdictions recognized by Canada in order to develop a system that might be faster. I am just tossing ideas around. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois will be there to collaborate, always with a view to maintaining the precautionary principle, the sovereignty of the decision-making process and the independence of the scientists.

I have one last question, which has to do with regulating tolerated thresholds in products. I say this in a constructive spirit to improve communication. How does the minister explain increasing the threshold for fludioxonil on beet roots for products imported from the United States last year, when, the year before, an increase in thresholds for glyphosate and fungicides in berries was announced during the summer construction holiday?

This news was released on Friday afternoon to keep it under the radar. I would not call that an attitude of openness, transparency and communication. It also spreads fear among the public. I would like my colleague to comment on that, and assure me that this summer, during the construction holiday, we will not be in for another nasty surprise.

[Keith Currie]

I'll start off with a shameless plug. There's a certain bill known as Bill C-359 that, if it went through the House, would certainly expedite access to a lot of inputs and tools. The government can take a holistic view of that and how we expedite access to the tools we need going forward to get them into the farmers' hands more quickly.

Certainly, one of the biggest things we're dealing with is the lack of flexibility within our BRM programming. The way it's set up now is more about broad acre cropping and more predictable climate cropping. Realistically, can we give our provinces, for example, more say in how those programs look on a more regional basis? If you're dealing with different aspects of climate, soils and weather right across the country, then a one-size-fits-all program just can't work. How do we improve the programs so that more people can get access? Certainly, more people can get access, including in the horticulture sector, which really has been left out of the whole BRM discussion, more or less, as far as accessibility goes.

There's another aspect to a lot of this that a few people have touched on. I live very close to where Ms. Flies lives and her farming operation. They're doing a wonderful job in their operation. Really, what we need to do is start with the soil. Everything that we do starts with the soil and how we make sure the soil is as good as it can possibly be.

As farmers, we grow plants. That's what we do. It doesn't matter whether you're a livestock farmer, a crop farmer or a horticulture producer; you grow plants. We need the proper, correct, right soil all of the time. What tools can we make going forward? It can be a sustainable agricultural strategy, with the tools within that potential option, or the government can come up with ways to award early adopters. You just heard people talking about not being awarded for being early adopters. Let's continue to award people who switch to a better practice or a different practice. I don't want to make the assumption that people aren't farming smartly.

As for my operation at home, part of it is certified organic and part of it is not. That doesn't mean that I don't farm sustainably in both pieces of my operation. It's just different. I think we need to make sure that we recognize that. We can then put tools in the farmers' hands going forward and make sure that everyone has access to those tools, especially in the business risk management aspect of it.

[Jeffrey Walsh, Director, Apple Grower, Nova Scotia Fruit Growers' Association]

Good morning, everyone.

Distinguished committee members and fellow presenters, my name is Jeffrey Walsh. I am a third generation apple farmer from Rockland, Nova Scotia. I'm here representing the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers' Association as the recently elected vice-president.

Our association represents tree fruit growers of Nova Scotia, which means primarily apples, but we also grow pears, peaches and other stone fruit.

The NSFGA was created in 1863 and has a long history of promoting education and advocacy among farmers. Over the last 30 years, Nova Scotia apple growers have invested in high-density orchards of valuable new varieties, making us a leader in Canada's production of apples.

Today I'm going to speak on three issues facing our industry.

The first issue is pest management and crop protection products required for growing apples.

As a farmer, I see the challenges that arise when certain products are either deregistered or limited to the extent that it's impractical to use them at all. The PMRA, or Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency, is responsible for rules and decides which products are allowed or not. The pest management centre, or PMC, is a different body that helps generate new data for guiding rules around pesticide use.

While the PMRA has been undergoing work to become more transparent and accountable, the PMC does not seem to be receiving the same support. The PMC collects data through research and studies that provide information on important decisions that have enormous impacts on our industry. As an example, many apple farmers in Canada are facing a serious disease in orchards called “fireblight”, which causes trees to die. There are limited products to fight this disease, and the ones we do have are essential to protecting our orchards. If we lose them, our entire industry is in jeopardy.

We need to invest in solid data and evidence to prove the safety and efficacy of these products and also to seek good alternatives if there are reasons to, so that we can continue to grow food. This leads me to my final point on this topic, which is that our association supports private member's Bill C-359. We should take advantage of work in other trusted jurisdictions to allow quicker access to safe and tested crop protection products for our Canadian farms.

The second issue is labour. Most horticulture farmers take advantage of seasonal agricultural worker and temporary foreign worker programs. These programs are essential to our businesses, and we could not farm successfully without them.

Some of these programs require the provision of on-farm housing, meaning that farmers are either buying or building accommodation, which is a huge cost. Due to the current housing market, many are choosing to build new; however, as I recently discovered after investing in accommodations of my own, none of the HST on the new build was eligible for an input tax credit, due to a policy of the Department of Finance. This came as a shock, as most other commercial necessities on farms are eligible for a rebate.

Along with the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we are requesting that this be changed, and we encourage you to support us in this work. It would help farms with cash flow and encourage more investment in worker housing. It's really important that farmers provide high-quality homes for employees to live in, as we want them to feel safe, valued and comfortable in their housing and hopefully return to us year after year.

As a final note on labour, I want to recognize the Government of Canada for implementing the recognized employer pilot, which has made it easier for farmers to apply and has reduced red tape while also ensuring that those who do not follow the rules are restricted in accessing these programs. It's imperative that we work together to make sure the employees and the farmers are benefiting and the rules are being followed.

The final issue I want to briefly to speak on today is cost. It's becoming more expensive to grow food, and despite high prices in grocery stores, farmers are seeing declining returns. For costs like labour, trellises, trees, orchard maintenance equipment, fuel and even the bins to put apples in, everything is going up. We are competing with exports from other countries and with states like Washington that put downward pressure on our prices. Oftentimes, those countries see less pressure in their costs of production than we face in Canada, and many of them are well supported by their government in the work they do.

I encourage all of you to keep fighting on behalf of farmers so that we can continue to compete. I appreciate the work all of you do on this committee to support growers and farmers in our sector. I appreciate your time today and I thank you very much for the invitation to speak.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I know that our chair sponsored Bill C-359 to address “provisional registration and approval” to ensure timely access to things like feed, seed and product. I certainly endorsed it as a co-signer with him. It is frustrating as a parliamentarian to see how slowly the bureaucratic process works sometimes. It's frustrating when you see things being utilized in the United States or Europe and we can't access them here for what could be two years.

Are there any examples that you could provide to us of those impediments?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We'll let the 20 seconds come back to the chair.

No, Mr. Steinley, that's okay. I want to take a chance with our good officials.

Ms. Beck, I want to start with Bill C-359. This is a private member's bill that I introduced that would amend the seeds, feeds and pest control acts to try to allow for foreign decisions of trusted jurisdiction. We leave that definition open for the agencies themselves to delineate who would be a trusted organization.

It reflects what I heard over the past four years, as a member of Parliament, from the Canadian agriculture industry. It says it wants to make sure it has access to the same tools that our competitors have in other jurisdictions around the world, particularly where there has already been scientific review that would be robust, similar to that done by our own Canadian agencies.

Has the department looked at the proposed legislation? Do you have any opinion or thoughts initially that you can share with me and this committee?

[Janice Tranberg, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Cattle Feeders' Association]

Our second ask is that the government foster a business environment that supports Canadian agriculture through regulatory, policy and taxation requirements that track alongside those of our international competitors. While the Canadian government cannot control global events, they can control the regulatory, policy and taxation burdens on Canadian farmers. The total cost resulting from the government piling on requirements for farmers is a catalyst for inflation and a threat to food security.

Now is the time for the government to commit to agile and competitive government policy that contributes to the profitability of farmers, to food security and to environmental sustainability.

There are many simple, non-monetary regulatory and policy changes that could have a significant impact on our sector: for example, creating an automatic exemption from the underused housing tax for farmers who own homes for the purpose of housing farm workers, as well as ensuring an efficient and timely approval process for new and innovative products that are available to our global competitors. This is supported by MP Kody Blois, who has a recent private member's bill, Bill C-359.

Another example is aligning Canada and the United States on specified risk material regulations, as well as addressing the economic and animal welfare challenges of electronic logging devices for livestock transportation, setting achievable targets within the sustainable agriculture strategy that track alongside our global competitors, and approving the desperately needed grasshopper control product lambda-cyhalothrin for livestock feed in Canada.

These are just some examples. As today permits, we stand ready to talk as well about additional recommendations that were included in the NCFA's written submission to the committee, including funding support for the Canadian integrated program for anti-microbial resistance surveillance and maintaining the interest-free portion of the advance payments program at the current level of $350,000.

NCFA thanks you for your consideration today.

Feeds Act

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-359, An Act to amend the Feeds Act, the Seeds Act and the Pest Control Products Act (provisional registration and approval).

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be up again to introduce this private member's bill. As you mentioned, the title of the bill is an act to amend the Feeds Act, the Seeds Act and the Pest Control Products Act on provisional registration and approval.

I have had the opportunity in this House, over the last six to eight months, to talk about the ways that we could drive competitiveness in the agricultural sector. If members talk to farmers across the country, farmers will talk about the important tools, whether they be new seeds, new feeds or crop protection products, and how we could find ways to leverage the science and trusted jurisdictions elsewhere as part of the regulatory process.

The legislation proposes a 90-day provisional registration, where an applicant arriving at Health Canada, CFIA or PMRA would be able to show the science of jurisdictions elsewhere in the world where there is approval. It would allow those regulatory agencies to define what a trusted jurisdiction is. It would allow for provisional registration to ensure farmers have access to these tools in a more timely manner, without compromising public safety or the scientific process that we expect our Canadian regulators to undertake.

For the regulatory model that would follow, I envision a moment where there could be a pause on the provisional registration if necessary. However, this bill is supported by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and a variety of stakeholders groups across the country.

I would encourage any member of the House to second it. I would encourage any member to perhaps take their name to it if they are higher up on the bid. I will be calling on the government to introduce this legislation in budget 2024.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)