Agriculture Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2025

[Evan Fraser, Director, Arrell Food Institute, University of Guelph, As an Individual]

Many thanks for this great opportunity.

The problem I'd ask you all to consider predates my career.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

One minute, Mr. Fraser. I'm sorry.

Mr. Perron, please go ahead.

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

I'm sorry to interrupt the witness, but the interpreter has informed us that Mr. Fraser's sound was not approved by the interpretation service.

Did Mr. Fraser provide a text that someone could read?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Has Mr. Fraser been approved by the interpreter?

I've been told that Mr. Fraser was approved.

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

We're told that he did not, Mr. Chair. There's a technical issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Let's suspend for a few minutes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I call the meeting back to order. Here is the situation: There are two tests that take place for sound quality. Our two online witnesses passed the original test, but the second test was not a go.

This is what we're going to do. Mr. Fraser has produced his opening statement. Interpretation has said that, if he presents, they can read the translation, so that's not a problem. Our witness Phillips will have to produce her opening statement in order for that to happen.

We will proceed, and when it's time for Q and A, interpretation will let us know if the sound quality is acceptable.

We'll start in-house with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business for five minutes, please.

[Jasmin Guénette, Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Hello. My name is Jasmin Guénette. I am the vice-president of national affairs at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I am joined by my colleague Juliette Nicolaÿ, policy analyst with our Ottawa team.

We thank the committee for its kind invitation.

I will make my remarks in English. My colleague will make her remarks in French. We will be able to answer questions in both languages.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business represents 100,000 small and medium-sized enterprises across Canada. We have members in all sectors of the economy, including nearly 6,000 in the agricultural sector. We survey our members regularly to understand their top priorities.

Reducing the regulatory burden and paperwork consistently ranks as the top priority for our members in agriculture. It is followed by reducing the tax burden and protecting the supply chain.

A significant portion of the regulatory burden on small businesses in the ag sector is imposed through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA. We published a report last week revealing that nearly three out of five SMEs say that the regulatory burden associated with the CFIA has increased over the past five years.

My colleague will share some of the key findings of that report and the recommendations we are making.

[Juliette Nicolaÿ, Bilingual Policy Analyst, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thank you, Mr. Guénette.

SMEs have reported to us that the CFIA's rules and requirements change quite frequently. As a result, companies must constantly monitor, interpret and adapt to new directives. All of this hinders their productivity and growth.

Administrative formalities are often difficult to understand and ill-suited to the reality of small businesses. SMEs therefore regularly rely on CFIA resources to try to understand and continue to comply with them. Unfortunately, the agency's customer service is unsatisfactory. The majority of SMEs rate it as fair or poor.

Many SMEs report that it is difficult to find good information on the agency's website. That being the case, SMEs try calling the agency. However, it is equally difficult to reach officers by telephone and obtain adequate support.

Our members also reported inconsistencies between different inspectors and various inspections, which complicates their efforts to remain compliant with guidelines.

It is therefore essential that the government reduce the administrative burden and red tape imposed on SMEs by the CFIA. We recommend implementing the two-for-one rule, meaning that for every new rule introduced, two must be eliminated.

The CFIA must also improve its customer service, be subject to more ambitious service standards and be transparent in disclosing its performance.

With respect to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, we also want to tell the committee that several SMEs expressed frustration with the timeliness of assessments.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to share our views with you today. We look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next we'll go to Mr. Fraser.

[Evan Fraser]

Thank you very much.

The problem I'd ask you to consider predates my career, and it certainly may be as old as Confederation. I think we need to challenge ourselves to create a policy regulatory environment that fosters more innovation in agri-food and, in particular, that captures more of the value of our agricultural products.

When I was doing a Ph.D. on this topic in the early 2000s, farmers around me were literally pulling out their crops and their hair because they couldn't find processing markets. A huge amount of our fruits and vegetables that became ripe every summer were spoiled and were unable to be utilized. There was a logic then, in the 1990s and early 2000s, based on free trade, that the California producer could out-compete the Canadian producer for about 10 or 11 months of the year, so our processing sector moved to California.

Today, though, that logic is changing again. The trade war and climate change are unsettling the paradigms of the last three decades, and I would say that innovations are giving our producers and our processors the tools they need to do things in a very different way.

Consider that robotic milkers and smart tractors are giving crop producers and livestock producers the tools they need to produce far more food than anybody else in the world, frankly, with fewer inputs and emissions. New strawberry varieties bloom all year round, and those plus low-cost LED lights mean that we can have fresh strawberries any month of the year, anywhere in Canada. Anecdotally, two weeks ago in downtown Toronto, I ate some mozzarella cheese that emerged from a brewing facility, not from a cow's udder.

I think we need to remind ourselves that innovation lies at the heart of the food system and that it is also intrinsic to our national security, as well. I think if we get the policies and regulations right, we can create a system that's more sustainable, more robust, that offers healthy and affordable nutrition and that captures more value of our raw products. To do this, I'd like you to consider four policy objectives.

The first has to be the regulatory reforms, and in particular, regulatory reforms between the provinces and the federal government. In B.C., for instance, agricultural land cannot be used for food-processing facilities unless 50% of the product is sourced locally. This means we will never see a blueberry jam factory on a blueberry farm in British Columbia because, frankly, the sugar, the packaging and whatnot come from outside of Canada.

The second policy area has to be training and innovation, and we need to build on Canada's exceptional network of universities and colleges to create a training platform that attracts the best and the brightest minds. For too long, our robot engineer technicians, or students studying robots, have been dreaming of working for NASA, not realizing that there are actually better and better-paying jobs in Leamington, for instance.

Luckily, we have progress. I'm thrilled because, just this year, the team has received $16 million from ISED to launch a national training platform on agri-food innovation. We're really excited about that, and I'm happy to take questions about that.

The third area is that we need to de-risk private investment in this space. Agri-food tech is not like normal technologies or normal investments. It's linked to a growing season and a biological cycle. Agri-food has a slower return on investment than other investments, so it is unattractive or less attractive to private equity and venture capital. We can do things, though. We can help de-risk investments, and there's a tremendous policy agenda around de-risking investment in this space, which I'd be happy to provide details on.

Finally, I think there's a really important, urgent need to better align the work of our research councils with the needs of industry so that we align NSERC, SSHRC and the CIHR funding and make sure it responds directly to the needs of the emerging agri-food sector. We know that we are great at doing research as a nation, but we are not particularly good at commercializing that research. One reason, I believe, is that relative disconnect between research councils and industry needs.

If we do these four things—create a more stable regulatory environment, attract the best minds, de-risk investment and align the research councils with industry—I think we have opportunities to position Canada as the world's pre-eminent powerhouse in the agri-food sector, globally.

The Royal Bank agrees. In an article in the Western Producer, an RBC executive stated that investments in this area were Canada's “moon shot”. Justine Hendricks said that Farm Credit Canada calls this our “generational opportunity”. I believe that is the case. I'm in Calgary right now, working with ventures and start-ups in agriculture, and my mind has been blown, for the last eight hours, with the amazing ideas that are out there.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I'm very excited to answer questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Phillips, we're going to try, but if the interpreters have issues, then we have to stop, and we'll figure out where to go from there.

Please proceed.

[Connie Phillips, Executive Director, Alberta Beekeepers Commission]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present at this hearing.

My understanding and familiarity with regulations and enforcements come from over 30-plus years in agriculture and agri-food—working for governments supporting private sector research, innovation and competitiveness, and more recently working for the private sector in Alberta's commercial beekeeping, pollination and honey industries.

With this experience, I'm fully cognizant of the need for and value of food safety and related regulations throughout the supply chain. In particular, after eight years of working in the private sector, my perspective and understanding of how regulations are imposed, and their impact on industry, has become very clear. My observation is this: In the agri-food industry, while the regulations are critical to the credibility of Canada's agriculture and food production industries, currently there are imbalances and inconsistencies in policy development and regulatory enforcement, particularly when managing risk, which is resulting in unreasonable barriers and impediments to progress, innovation and competitiveness for producers.

From the perspective of the private sector, government ministries set policies and regulations and then create agencies to implement and enforce the regulations. In this way, the ministries have divested themselves of the responsibility of operations, and at the same time have neglected the role of oversight of these agencies. This oversight is critical for ensuring a balance of potential competing interests.

Further, it appears that, especially in more recent years, the primary purpose of the regulatory agencies is to protect both themselves and the government. This results in a lack of consideration for the industry's viability, sustainability and competitiveness. Both the CFIA and the PMRA have stated recently that they do not have a duty of care to consider the economic interests or impacts of their decisions on industry or stakeholders. In other words, in making decisions, both agencies have stated that neither has a legal obligation to consider the socio-economic impact of their decisions. This is having a significant detrimental impact on industries.

My next comments are derived from my more recent experience in the beekeeping industry. I have three examples of where the regulatory and government systems are failing the industry.

First, Canadian honey competitiveness and value are being reduced by poorly controlled imports of fraudulent and adulterated honey. Canada has a reputation as a transshipper now. As a result, we are losing export markets. We require immediate implementation by the CFIA of more robust, mandatory, importer-funded, honey-adulteration testing with enforceable penalties.

The PMRA's slow, risk-averse and cumbersome approval process is prohibiting the use of critical hive treatments to keep honeybees alive. Those hive treatments have been proven effective and safe in other reliable jurisdictions. Our request is for the PMRA's immediate review and approval of varroa mite treatments using the Environmental Protection Agency's data.

Third, 20 years ago, Canadian beekeepers lost 15% of their bees annually. Now they lose, on average, 30% of their bees every year. Imagine if the dairy and beef herds were losing 30% of their animals every year. The need for stock replacement is critical for the survival of the industry and those crops that depend on honeybees for pollination. Those countries currently exporting stock to Canada have become increasingly risky to the viability of the industry, which has been reporting packaged bees and queens that are disease- and pest-infested. A new risk, the Tropilaelaps mite, is now in close proximity to Italy and Australia, and has the potential to devastate the Canadian beekeeping industry. We request an immediate review of those countries that import bees to Canada from outside North America. Until those new risk assessments are completed and include industry input, all imported stock from outside North America should cease.

Overall, on an ongoing and structural level, beekeepers are asking for improved and more consistent application of the regulations that encourage growth, innovation and long-term industry viability, and a genuine science-based partnership.

We recommend establishing mandated working groups between the commercial industry and regulators.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to the Conservatives and Mr. Gourde for six minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Guénette, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business just released a rather devastating report on the services provided by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The report seems to suggest that everything has deteriorated over the past five years. For example, the Agency's services are less accessible and there is more paperwork to complete. Your members are very disappointed.

However, we met with agency representatives and, according to them, everything seems to be going well. They said they were working closely with agri-food businesses and want to help them.

So those two statements are quite contradictory. We're very pleased to see the other side of the coin today.

Can you tell us a bit more about that?

[Jasmin Guénette]

Yes, of course. I can begin with a preliminary answer, and my colleague can add to it.

We did not speak with Canadian Food Inspection Agency workers. We directly surveyed our members, who are entrepreneurs. We asked them a long list of questions on the quality of the agency’s services to determine, for example, which services they received from the agency and how those interactions went. The survey results were published in a report last week. Generally speaking, the answers indicated that the services it provides to small and medium businesses need a great deal of improvement.

[Juliette Nicolaÿ]

There are two key points.

First, the majority of small and medium businesses, meaning 58% of them, found that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's red tape increased over the last five years.

Then, when small and medium businesses want clarification on how to comply with regulations, they try to use the agency’s website, but don’t find the answers there. When they have to communicate with the agency, they spend an hour on the phone. All that impacts those businesses, because SMEs don’t have a lot of employees. They are the ones who have to take the time, when it could be better invested in improving and growing the business.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Speaking of employees, I’m sure the Canadian Food Inspection Agency added to its employees, but reduced its services. In contrast, businesses often have to cut down on staff to survive.

How do your members perceive this contradiction, based on your survey results? Are they feeling frustration about that?

[Juliette Nicolaÿ]

Based on our findings, only a quarter of our members thought that service from the CFIA was good. However, if an SME were in a situation where only a quarter of its clients thought its services were good, it would be very bad for that business. Indeed, our members expressed frustration about CFIA wait times, officers’ attitudes and the time it took to get an answer once they could get an officer on the phone.

It all suggests that a great deal of progress must be made to improve customer service at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. One way to achieve this would be setting stricter standards, adhering to them, and being able to clearly show if they’ve been met.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

You have 6,000 members in the agri-food sector. They contribute significantly to Canada’s gross domestic product.

Could all the time lost because of the agency’s many standards negatively impact our gross domestic product?

[Jasmin Guénette]

Obviously, the regulatory burden negatively impacts Canadian businesses, not only in agriculture, but in all sectors. When we ask our members about the main factors putting pressure on their costs and operations, regulation is often number one or listed in the top three.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

We often hear that Canada’s agri-food industry has significant potential and the value of our agri-food production could exceed $100 billion a year.

In your opinion, are there currently any barriers preventing the fulfillment of this potential, be it on the level of investment or the level of service provided by the government?

[Jasmin Guénette]

The budget will be tabled tomorrow. We hope the government will announce tax measures to help businesses invest more in their operations, machinery or equipment. We hope these measures will help businesses develop and grow to serve not only the Canadian market, but the international market as well.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

When it comes to rail and port infrastructure, the government seems to treat farmers like second-class citizens. However, that infrastructure is key for exporting products and making sure they’re delivered on time.

Do you think the national priority should be to invest in this infrastructure to help the agricultural sector? Or should it be to invest in passenger transportation infrastructure, as per the $250 billion or $300 billion projects currently on the table?

[Jasmin Guénette]

Unfortunately, in recent years, several strikes and labour disputes paralyzed ports in British Columbia, the Port of Montreal, the St. Lawrence Seaway, CN and CPKC. Many work stoppages made things complicated for businesses, endangered their survival and had a very negative impact on their sales and operations.

When we consult our members, as I was saying in my remarks, they tell us that maintaining a healthy supply chain is one of their priorities. So, obviously, it is important for them that it not be compromised by the unexpected—