Agriculture Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 12 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Before we continue, I'd like to ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. You will also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking or are asked a question directly by a member. For those participating by teleconference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use your earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, September 18, the committee is resuming its study of the government’s regulatory reform initiative in agriculture and agri-food.

I would like to welcome our witnesses joining us here today: Dr. Charlebois, from the Agri-Food Analytics Lab; Serge Buy, from the Agri-Food Innovation Council; and Ron Lemaire, president, Canadian Produce Marketing Association.

I'll give each person up to five minutes for opening remarks and then we'll proceed to the first round of questions.

We'll start with the Agri-Food Analytics Lab.

[Sylvain Charlebois, Professor, Dalhousie University and Senior Director, Agri-Food Analytics Lab]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the invitation, committee members.

I'll ask the committee to disregard my opening statement, because I actually wrote an opening statement for another session. I've made some notes that are going to be relevant to today's session about bureaucracy and the administrative regime that impacts our agri-food sector's competitiveness overall.

I'll make three points to start things off today: Canada's competitiveness compared with other G20 countries right now, taxation and shrinkflation.

Let's start with point number one, Canada's competitiveness. Recently, we had the pleasure to prepare a report with the firm MNP. A document was submitted to the clerk in both English and French.

The abstract of the report is simply this: Canada's competitiveness is actually strong right now. Out of 20 countries, including those in the EU, Canada ranks number seven within that group. It is the number one country within the second tier. There are lots of things that are going our way when compared to other countries, and I would say traceability and food security overall.

Three things came up in our report that probably would warrant some attention from the government.

First is that there is a tendency in Canada to use policy to build competitive advantages to allow our farmers and processors to compete. Based on what we've seen elsewhere around the world, other countries don't necessarily use policy to build competitive advantages. It is our belief that if you do that, it simply is not a competitive advantage.

Second is the lack of capital investment. From the public sector, it's been quite decent in the last several years, in particular with the superclusters. Protein Industries Canada is a good example of a supercluster that I believe is working well for our farmers and the sector, but the lack of private capital is really hurting our competitiveness overall when compared to other countries around the world.

Third is infrastructure. Our infrastructure is in dire need of investment. From ports to railroads to roads, there is a severe deficit of investment across the country, from the Maritimes, where I am, to B.C. Some of our ports are ranked the worst in the world when it comes to efficiency.

Point number two is about taxation. Our fiscal regime in Canada is burdening our companies, farmers and consumers. A lot of products are taxed at the grocery story and taxed at the restaurant. I certainly would recommend that this committee look at taxation overall, from farm gate to plate.

The GST holiday policy earlier this year was a good example of how fiscal policy can actually impact food affordability. Based on our evaluation, when the GST holiday was implemented in December, it allowed for some opportunistic pricing to occur, meaning that a lot of companies raised prices to occupy that gap, and when the GST holiday ended in February, the GST was slapped back on higher prices. We need to be careful with taxation, because it is a powerful tool that is actually controlled by the government.

Point number three is shrinkflation. Because of shrinkflation, there are more products being taxed. There are a lot of products that are considered food, and when they get smaller, according to the CRA rules, they become snacks, and snacks are taxable. A growing number of products are being taxed at retail.

The worst part of shrinkflation, I would say, other than the fact that consumers are annoyed by the practice, is that fact that Statistics Canada's ability to assess inflation I think is flawed. We believe that inflation often is underestimated by Statistics Canada. Because of shrinkflation, when you look at the basket of goods, you often see that quantities don't reflect exactly what's in the grocery store, for one, and, based on our analysis, Statistics Canada often lags in terms of assessing the true measure of inflation.

On that, I'll stop now and allow other witnesses to testify. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much, sir.

Next we'll go online to Mr. Buy.

[Serge Buy, Chief Executive Officer, Agri-Food Innovation Council]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Agri-Food Innovation Council, I would like to express our sincere appreciation for the opportunity to appear before you today and contribute to this important discussion. We've also submitted a written brief, which we hope you've received and which outlines our key recommendations in greater detail.

In preparing for today's presentation, we consulted with our members and stakeholders. Their insights, gathered through recent outreach and ongoing dialogue, have shaped the perspectives that I'll be sharing.

Let me begin by acknowledging a fundamental truth: Canada has a robust and respected regulatory system. This reputation is built on the dedication and professionalism of those working in agencies such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada. The provinces and their own agencies also play a vital role in upholding those high standards.

Equally important are farmers and ranchers, whose commitment to excellence is central to Canada's standing in global agri-food markets. They depend on the work of those agencies, as well as the innovation and investment from companies that bring new products to market. Those companies invest heavily in research and development, driving progress and helping our sector remain competitive.

That said, we must also recognize that our regulatory system faces challenges. It's difficult, in fact, to find a parliamentary report on agriculture, food exports, value-added products or innovation that doesn't include recommendations to reform the regulatory framework.

Many of those reports highlight the burdensome nature of the current system and call for action to remove barriers to innovation, trade and growth. While some progress has been made, such as the much-needed changes introduced in the 2024 feed regulations, there is still work to be done, as noted by the Animal Nutrition Association of Canada.

Let me share a few examples of the challenges our sector faces.

Some companies, despite having products approved in larger markets, choose not to pursue approval in Canada due to the complexity, cost and time involved. As the Beef Farmers of Ontario have pointed out, this puts our producers at a competitive disadvantage. The lack of coordination across jurisdictions creates unnecessary hurdles for Canadians. Take, for instance, the restricted feeder cattle program, an example of how fragmented regulations can impede progress.

How do we move forward? Our brief outlines two key recommendations.

First, introduce updated governance standards for regulations, including regular reviews, burden reduction targets, improved coordination across jurisdictions and greater transparency. Those measures will support innovation and reduce compliance costs.

Second, accelerate regulatory approval timelines for agri-food products by increasing reviewer capacity, leveraging AI-assisted risk screening and recognizing approvals from trusted international jurisdictions. This will help avoid duplication, reduce delays and enable faster market access for safe and innovative products.

The outcomes of those recommendations will be reduced compliance burden; increased investor confidence; fewer barriers for small businesses looking to innovate; greater public-private collaboration; faster time to market for agri-food innovation; stronger collaboration between regulators and investors; and improved capacity and efficiency in regulatory agencies.

One tangible and actionable solution would be to create a national agricultural regulatory council. This body, composed of federal and provincial and industry representatives, could work collaboratively to identify and resolve regulatory inconsistencies, promote harmonized standards, support joint innovation initiatives and foster regional innovation clusters. The result? A more streamlined, responsive and future-ready regulatory system.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I look forward to your questions and to working together to strengthen Canada's agri-food innovation ecosystem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next is Mr. Lemaire.

[Ron Lemaire, President, Canadian Produce Marketing Association]

Good afternoon, and thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to appear on behalf of the Canadian Produce Marketing Association.

The fresh produce supply chain is one of the most globally integrated in the world. To ensure the ongoing viability of Canada’s food system, we need a strong, cohesive domestic and internationally focused regulatory framework that supports free and fair trade. Canadian businesses rely on rules-based trading that enables the movement of safe high-quality fresh fruits and vegetables across provincial and international borders.

We're very supportive of the government’s red tape review, which is both timely and necessary to strengthen our sector’s competitiveness.

The CFIA’s recent omnibus regulatory package on labelling and grade standards serves as a clear example of the effective regulatory modernization achieved through consultation and collaboration with industry. It also demonstrates the importance of federal leadership, as many of the improvements included had been discussed for years without resolution. It was only when a clear directive came from the Prime Minister's Office and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to prioritize regulatory reform that meaningful progress was achieved.

The result of this leadership, combined with strong government and industry collaboration, is a regulatory package that alleviates a significant burden for the fresh fruit and vegetable sector.

We are encouraged by the renewed sense of urgency within government to address red tape and regulatory burden. At the same time, we must emphasize the importance of industry consultation to avoid unintended consequences in expediting regulatory reform.

For example, while the goal of improving internal trade is important, applying the provisions of the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act too broadly risks creating new barriers to trade by deferring to a patchwork of provincial and territorial frameworks in critical areas such as food safety, plant protection and organic standards.

Canada’s Safe Food for Canadians Act and the regulations already provide a strong world-class federal foundation for food safety and quality, and it's essential that this framework be maintained. CPMA therefore recommends that they be excluded from the application of the new act to prevent unintended consequences that could undermine food safety or erode confidence in Canada’s reputation as a trusted supplier of safe food.

We also want to highlight the real-world impact that inconsistent or regionally based frameworks can have on trade. For example, Quebec’s Law 14, previously Bill 96, creates challenges for fresh produce moving across Canada and into the country. The requirement to translate trademarks on packaging introduces significant complexity and cost and is likely to lead to reduced availability of fruits and vegetables for consumers when foreign exporters are unwilling to modify their packaging to comply with province-by-province rules.

In a world in which we want to reduce food prices and ensure Canadians have access to healthy food year-round, this is exactly the kind of costly requirement that a harmonized national regulatory approach is designed to prevent. We have also seen first-hand the challenges that arise from the overlapping of regulatory responsibility across departments, making it difficult for industry to navigate processes and identify clear points of accountability. Greater cross-departmental coordination would help ensure timely and consistent outcomes for everyone.

Looking ahead, there are several key areas we'd like to note for future work: expanding joint reviews for crop protection products, as identified by the PMRA in their recent report; advancing regulatory co-operation and alignment with key trading partners in areas such as plant health and being mindful of emerging issues like packaging requirements; and applying a cross-department competitiveness lens to ensure coordination across departments, reduce consultation fatigue and improve the quality of industry input.

Finally, when we talk about the structure of regulation, whether federal or provincial, we believe it’s important to provide the right tool for the right issue and to consult with industry to help make that determination. For trade-enabling areas like food safety, fragmented oversight would be deeply problematic. Consistency and national standards are essential. In other areas, such as plastics reporting, where provincial mandates are clearly established and data is already being collected, applying additional and duplicative federal plastics registry requirements creates administrative burden and red tape for our food industry and, ultimately, added costs to the end product, without benefit.

In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to participate in this important discussion. I look forward to questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

We appreciate all of the witnesses joining us here today.

We'll start with the Conservatives for six minutes.

I'll go to Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Thank to our witnesses.

Mr. Buy, you were talking about the need to accelerate approvals of certain products. That's interesting.

I had a meeting with the Alberta irrigation districts last week. They have a herbicide they want to use and that they've been asking for decades to have. In fact, it has been used in the United States since the 1960s, but still, the PMRA has blocked approvals here. We've also heard from the PMRA that it takes up to 12 years to get products approved in Canada.

For the Innovation Council, have you done an analysis of the economic impact these types of delays have had on innovators and on the agriculture industry in Canada?

[Serge Buy]

No. Sadly, we haven't done that analysis, but we have heard many times that the delays in approvals of products have been detrimental not only for innovation but for our economic competitiveness. That is indeed a significant challenge for everybody.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

You appeared before the committee in the last Parliament, and we talked about the Liberals' border carbon tax, which they had once again in their election platform. They are talking about implementing that again. With the current tensions with our trading partner south of the border, would this be a good time to implement a border carbon tax?

[Serge Buy]

No, I still don't think it would be. I think that at this point most of the industry believes in a harmonized approach on this. In the end, should we decide to go in that direction, I think it's going to end up hurting our own Canadian consumers, drive inflation even higher and create more challenges for everybody than needed. I'm not sure taxes are the answer to everything in this case.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Yes, at that appearance, you recommended not going ahead with the border carbon tax because of the inflationary measures it would have and the increasing food costs for consumers. Do you still stand by that recommendation?

[Serge Buy]

One hundred per cent.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Dr. Charlebois, thanks for being so nimble in your presentation today.

On a similar line of questioning, you published a research paper last year on the carbon tax and its impact on the supply chain.

They still have an industrial carbon tax in place. Have you done any work in terms of the impact of the industrial carbon tax on the supply chain and the food costs in Canada?

[Sylvain Charlebois]

Our study, if you recall, was focused mainly on the industrial carbon tax: the part that most consumers don't see. That's been our concern from day one in looking at wholesale prices.

Since the publication of both studies—because we published two studies, two papers—the gaps between wholesale prices in Canada versus the U.S.—food wholesale prices—have actually increased. We believe that one factor driving this is the carbon tax, so we're very concerned.

Of course, we're looking at food prices into 2026 right now with “Canada's Food Price Report”. Again, at this point, we feel that we actually may provide Canadians with some bad news for 2026. We are expecting food inflation to continue to be a problem moving forward.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Are you going to give us the answer before the report comes out on December 4 on what the—

[Sylvain Charlebois]

Not yet—on December 4, I promise.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Okay. We have to wait. That's fair.

It's interesting that you raise this, because timing is everything. This came up a number of times during question period today in terms of the industrial carbon tax, the front-of-pack labelling and the plastics on food ban, and the impact this has on food prices. The Liberal ministers, in their responses, said that “here are the Conservatives again, talking about imaginary taxes on food”, but you yourself have said in your research that the industrial carbon tax does have an impact on food prices.

Would you say the same about the front-of-pack labelling and the P2 plastics ban? The Deloitte study said that, combined, there would be about $14 billion in additional costs. Would you agree with that assessment from Deloitte and that the industrial carbon tax would have an impact on what consumers are facing on the grocery store shelves?

[Sylvain Charlebois]

I would, yes. I do appreciate why the government is doing what it's doing—because it wants to better products and it wants to be seen as a good environmental steward—but at the same time, with more policy come more red tape and more cost.

This is the trap that we've fallen into several times over the last few decades, and here we are now. If you look at, say, the G7 right now, we're the only country within the G7 that has seen four consecutive months of a food inflation rate increase. We're not going in the right direction right now.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I appreciate that.

Mr. Lemaire, I know this is right up your alley. You've talked about this a lot, too. Although the government is talking...these are imaginary increases, I'm assuming that you would agree that a P2 plastics ban, the plastics registry and the front-of-pack labelling are all having an impact on the costs that consumers are facing at the grocery store.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

You have 30 seconds.

[Ron Lemaire]

[Inaudible—Editor] driving change.

The other issue is that we should start looking at the administrative burden with regard to the registry. Last week, Environment and Climate Change Canada was at an event and noted that there were only 1,000 companies registered for the plastics registry nationally. The last time I looked, there were many more companies than 1,000.

Why don't we have a high pickup? It's because of the burden, the cost and the challenge in actually understanding how they go through the process when they're already involved in EPR programs in many of the provinces.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next, we'll go to the Liberals for six minutes.

MP Dandurand.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many thanks to the people who made themselves available to testify today.

Mr. Buy, in your opening remarks, you alluded to a national agriculture council that would be made up of the federal government, the provinces and territories, and industry. Could you expand on that a bit?

Mr. Lemaire, I would then like to hear your comments on the subject, since you also alluded to something similar.

Mr. Buy, first of all, could you give us a better idea of what you have in mind?

[Serge Buy]

Obviously, there are differences among the provinces. In addition, some provinces sometimes have concerns about what is being done at the national level. What we mainly see from time to time is a lack of coordination and co‑operation, causing pretty serious delays and concerns among innovators. You've heard a bit about how some things are approved by some authorities and not others.

The idea is to have a discussion forum or an implementation forum where decisions could be made about regulations and innovation could be improved in this area. The idea has been put forward by a number of people, and we are absolutely in favour of it.