Agriculture Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2025

[Ron Lemaire]

That's a good question, Ms. Dandurand.

We need federal-provincial alignment. The concept being put forward by my colleague and others, I think, will provide us with clear strategies to bring together not only federal-provincial regulators but also industry to be able to talk to the challenges.

There was a comment made around the registration of new tools for production in Canada. We're a market of 42 million people. We're not significant enough for the complexity of registration and the time and cost of implementation.

This isn't a new issue; this is a long-standing issue. How do we bring together a strategy where we can have an acceptance of equivalency with the right due diligence to implement? A regulatory council that can begin looking at how we bridge not only that area but others, whether it looks at regulatory infrastructure challenges we're having or at pest risk.... There is a range of tools we can use.

I like to use the example of the Regulatory Cooperation Council that was created years ago between Canada and the U.S. We need to take a similar approach and bring that together within a Canadian context.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

That's very interesting. That brings us to plastics reporting, which we hear about on a regular basis. I think the industry is well aware of that and agrees with it. In fact, it is already on board. Now we're adding a second layer, and there are differences between the provinces.

Are the provinces currently at the same level when it comes to plastics reporting?

How could this be applied at the federal level later on?

[Ron Lemaire]

At a federal level, the concept.... As Dr. Charlebois noted, the government is trying to do the right thing. Everyone recognizes that. However, it's applying a stick when it should be using a carrot and working with the provinces to take the data. Not all provinces report in the same way, but the data is available. It takes a lot more time to navigate all the provinces—and that's what I think happened here—which puts the burden on business.

I can give you an example. Three of our Quebec members came to us basically saying that they had to hire a full-time person just to try to navigate the data and put that in place. That would have been money that they could have saved and reinvested in the business in other ways to drive more sales and more products into the Canadian marketplace.

The give-and-take that's happening right now is a challenge. I think that when you have data already existing at the provincial level, it's about how you mine that data and about how the federal government, through ECCC, works effectively to collect and generate the data reports they need.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I just want to make sure of one thing. Does the need to have employees to do this work also stem from the fact that the regulations aren't identical from one province to another and that plastics reporting must therefore be done differently in each province and also at the federal level?

[Ron Lemaire]

Yes, there is some diversity. This is part of the harmonization of the EPR systems across the country, which is another discussion that has to happen and that is moving forward, so it's very complex. However, the opportunity is there to align those pieces, because other challenges we're having right now are with how these systems are provincially operating and whether they are truly effective in delivering the sustainability outcomes that they are supposed to be delivering.

The combination is twofold: Strengthen the EPR systems provincially and expand more broadly, and bring the data from those EPR systems into a national repository that you could then mine and use to develop policy.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair, or is that it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

You have nine seconds.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I'll give the nine seconds to Mr. Perron.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you.

Mr. Perron, you have six minutes please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for making themselves available to be with us today.

Mr. Lemaire, I'll start with you. In your opening statement, you said something that piqued my interest. You represent the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, so you're speaking for all of Canada. However, you told the committee that we should stop translating food labels because it costs too much.

Do you realize that, if that were the case, about 25% of the population would not be able to read the labels on the products they buy?

[Ron Lemaire]

That's a good question.

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

It is a good question, isn't it?

[Ron Lemaire]

It wasn't a comment around translating all of the label. We have appropriate labelling laws in Canada that address the French language rules and the identification of product to ensure that Canadians understand what they're purchasing.

The provincial rule that's being put in play is solely a trademark discussion, an alignment around the trademark itself, which actually doesn't apply to the quality of food or the safety of the food. This is where the rule goes beyond the requirement of a labelling direction that provides Canadians with clarity on what they're eating.

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

I take your point, Mr. Lemaire. However, in life, some things are essential. Canada has two official languages. Each jurisdiction, particularly Quebec's, is fully entitled to legislate in these sectors. Everyone on the committee agrees on harmonizing standards across the provinces as much as possible. We all know that certain essential local requirements will remain. That said, sometimes things have a cost. For example, people who interpret into English what I'm currently saying in French don't do this work for free; it costs money.

I just wanted to add that caveat. That's the first time you've said that, and it got a rise out of me. At the end of the day, we agree that this is important and that people have the right to read labels properly, right?

[Ron Lemaire]

Yes. However, there are certain considerations.

In Colombia or Peru, they make a decision on whether they want to sell to Canada a product we can't grow, and that's the challenge we're having now, based on those regulations. It's not to have a discussion or a debate on language but to have a debate on opportunities for trade and for access to what new Canadians are looking for in Canada. That's the bigger challenge.

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

We could talk about this for a long time. I'm not sure that the people of Alberta would like to see labels on products in French only.

[Ron Lemaire]

That's different.

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

Let's talk about something else that's more constructive.

A number of people have suggested setting up a national regulatory council or a new structure. We all want more coordination within the country, without impinging on anyone's jurisdiction, of course. I think I've been clear on that.

Apart from that, stakeholders have told me they fear the new structures will be too onerous. Some have told me that they don't want to see new structures set up because there are already structures in place. It's just that they're not effective. In short, they want us to work to make the existing structures effective, not to create new ones.

What do you think? Maybe we should work toward that. We should improve the efficiency of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, for example, and reduce delays in that area. The resources should go there, not toward setting up new structures.

[Ron Lemaire]

Yes, efficiency is key. How do we drive efficiencies in the system? I think the questions around the regulatory burden and efficiencies are hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.

The bigger question comes back to this. How do we find efficiencies in the system, and how do we do so in a way that has regulatory enablement? We heard already, through some of the discussions, that to do so accelerated timelines on regulations to, again, improve efficiencies and drive change. How are we looking at redundancy of regulations—federal and provincial—and how are we going to address those changes moving forward?

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

Thank you, Mr. Lemaire. I apologize for rushing you a bit, but I want to hear from Mr. Charlebois as well on the issue of whether we should focus on existing structures. Rest assured, Mr. Lemaire, you said some things that I liked, including about the existing registries in the provinces. We don't have to redo the work and create new registries. You see, we're not such bad friends.

I'll let you give us your opinion on the matter, Mr. Charlebois.

[Sylvain Charlebois]

I somewhat agree with you on that, Mr. Perron. In terms of bureaucracy, I'm not sure we need to make governance even more onerous by setting up another entity. I'm not comfortable with that.

However, I have always thought that our public policy approach should be reviewed. As soon as a new law or regulation comes into force, we have to assess the costs and benefits of our decisions. In the past, the process hasn't been rigorous enough, so that's what I would change.

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

You're right, it doesn't happen all the time.

Mr. Buy, I'd like to hear your opinion on the same issue.

[Serge Buy]

To add to what Mr. Charlebois said, I would say that we're not talking about setting up a new superstructure and adding 50 deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and so on to the bureaucracy. The idea is to use the people who are already there to improve coordination and co‑operation, to work faster, more simply and more efficiently, and to process some files more quickly.

I completely agree with you when you say that one of the first things to do is review the effectiveness of the existing organizations. In fact, we've been asking for that for nearly 20 years and approaching the government to say that it has to be done. We could give you many examples of inefficiency, duplication of work and other problems.

That said, at the point when we move forward on certain issues, it would be good to have a national structure to ensure coordination, while ensuring respect for provincial jurisdictions and everyone's identity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next we'll go to Mr. Epp for five minutes.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I'll start with you, Professor Charlebois. You identified...and I know that there are sensitivities in the room around what we would call food “taxes”, so I'll just change my language for the purposes of the room and call them food “policies”. This is around the food policy of the industrial carbon tax, the front-of-the-pack labelling and the plastics registry. Two more on my list are the clean fuel standards that impact fuel costs and obviously the deficits that inflate everything.

What other taxes are there specifically around food? You mentioned shrinkflation. You mentioned the under-reporting of food inflation, possibly because of shrinkflation. What other taxes are there that are directly or indirectly impacting food costs for Canadians?