Evidence of meeting #13 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ombudsman.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

LaRush  Vice-President, BASF Agricultural Solutions Canada Inc.
Cheff  As an Individual
Barber  President, Forum of Canadian Ombudsman
Mailloux  Ombudsman, Ombudsman of Montreal
Bawden  Corporate Secretary, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
MacDonald  Executive Director, Inspection Support, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

The Chair Liberal Michael Coteau

Good afternoon. I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 13 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 would 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 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 that links to a short awareness video.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of participants. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking, or until a member asks you a direct question. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. 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 the earpiece and select the desired channel. All comments should be addressed directly through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

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'd like to welcome our witnesses today. We have Eric Cheff, as an individual, and Leta LaRush, vice-president, BASF Agricultural Solutions Canada Inc.

Thank you for joining us here today.

Mrs. LaRush, you have five minutes.

Leta LaRush Vice-President, BASF Agricultural Solutions Canada Inc.

Good afternoon. Thank you, everyone, for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of BASF Agricultural Solutions Canada.

BASF is the world's leading agricultural science company, operating in more than 100 countries and employing over 20,000 people globally in our agriculture solutions division. Across this network, our Canadian business plays a significant role. The innovation, manufacturing and regulatory expertise developed here directly supports our global business and the farmers we serve in every major agricultural region. I'm also proud to share that Canada has been selected as a focus market for BASF globally, prioritizing Canada for R and D investments.

In Canada we operate manufacturing facilities in Lethbridge, Alberta, and in Regina and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, producing seed and crop protection products for domestic and export markets. We employ more than 600 Canadians across production, commercial, research and regulatory roles. We proudly invest millions each year in local R and D and stewardship activities.

Everything we do as a company is grounded in one purpose, and that's to support the people who do the biggest job on earth—farming. Canadian farmers are among the most innovative and resilient in the world. They are central, not only to Canada's food security but also to global food systems. When Canada's farmers thrive, the world benefits.

Our company exists because of farmers. When they succeed, Canada succeeds, but Canadian farmers cannot compete domestically and globally if the systems that govern innovation move slower than the challenges they face in the fields. That is the unfortunate reality today under the PMRA and CFIA. We work closely with both agencies as part of a shared system designed to protect human health, the environment and food security. Industry and farmers experience these regulatory frameworks together, not in isolation. When one part of the system slows down, the entire pathway to innovation is affected.

While both agencies play important roles, my testimony today will focus on the bottlenecks within the PMRA's review and re-evaluation processes and how these delays shape what tools farmers can access in the field. We value the PMRA's science-based mandate and Canada's reputation for safety, yet the agency's ability to deliver timely, predictable and science-based decisions has eroded. Files that should take months are taking years. The uncertainty and delays in timelines are impacting our ability to bring farmers the tools they need, when they need them.

A clear example is a new innovation that builds upon glufosinate, a very important herbicide for Canadian farmers. The new chemistry would provide increased efficacy and improve value for farmers. Unfortunately, as glufosinate is under review by the agency for re-evaluation and special review, we don't anticipate that our farmers will have access to this technology until the end of this decade. The U.S. received the approval in 2024.

These types of delays have a direct impact on farmers' ability to manage weeds, protect yields and adopt more sustainable practices. They also send a message to innovators: Canada is potentially no longer a first-launch market of new technologies. That means investment, research and early access could shift elsewhere.

BASF supports the intent of the government's regulatory reform initiative, and we recognize and appreciate the efforts by CFIA and PMRA to modernize, but the pace and outcomes remain inadequate. To truly serve farmers and the public, Canada's regulatory frameworks must be both rigorous and responsive.

We see three priorities to achieve that balance. First, to build predictability in both the PMRA and CFIA, they must be resourced and empowered to focus on their core mandates and commit to meet their established timelines. Second, the PMRA must adopt a model that uses the scientific evaluations and more efficient processes of such trusted jurisdictions as the United States and Australia. Third, ensure that the agency's mandate reflects both science and competitiveness. Farmers operate in a global market. Decisions that ignore timelines and economic impact ultimately hurt Canadian agriculture's sustainability and viability.

These are practical and achievable reforms. They will not compromise safety. Rather, they will strengthen it by ensuring that science, transparency and accountability guide every step of the process.

Chair and members, BASF is proud to manufacture in Canada and to partner with farmers in every province. Farmers are the backbone of this country. They feed our families, our communities and the world. They quite literally do the biggest job on earth. It's our collective responsibility as government, regulators and industry to make sure that they have timely access to the tools and technologies that make that job possible.

Thank you, Chair. I look forward to your questions. For any questions beyond my own expertise, I'll ensure that information is provided in follow-up.

Thank you.

The Chair Liberal Michael Coteau

Thank you very much. We appreciate your being here.

Next we'll go to Eric Cheff, who is online.

You have five minutes, sir.

Eric Cheff As an Individual

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Eric Cheff. I'm the owner and operator of At Heights Drone Services, an Ontario-based company in which I'm in partnership with Johan Wall.

For four years, we've successfully conducted drone operations across approximately 4,500 acres, accumulating over 500 hours of flight time. Our work demonstrates the transformative potential of drone technology in delivering safe, precise and efficient application of herbicides and fungicides, enabling farmers to optimize crop protection even under challenging weather conditions.

When we launched our business, we were informed that regulatory approval for agricultural drone application was imminent. Four years later, the absence of clear legislation continues to impede our ability to meet growing demand, forcing us to decline work from farmers weekly. Extensive studies by chemical manufacturers have validated the safety and efficacy of drone-based application, yet Canadian farmers remain unable to fully leverage this technology due to regulatory delays.

Drones offer a proven method to apply crop protection products at optimal times with reduced rates, enhancing environmental sustainability and global competitiveness for Canadian agriculture. The lack of progress in approving drone application for agricultural pesticides stifles innovation, limits productivity and places Canadian farmers at a disadvantage in the global market. We urgently request that the federal government, in collaboration with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, expedite the development and implementation of regulations to enable safe and effective use of drones in agriculture. This advancement will empower farmers, support scientific progress and strengthen Canada's agricultural sector.

I'm available to provide further insight or data from our operations and to discuss advances on this critical issue.

The Chair Liberal Michael Coteau

Thank you very much, sir.

That's the end of our presentations.

We will go now to the Conservatives for the first six minutes in the first round of questions.

Mr. Epp.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

I'll start with you, Mr. Cheff.

The U.S. EPA and Australia's APVMA consider drone applications to be approved for materials that are licensed for aerial application. With the delay—you mentioned four years in your testimony—what's that cost to you? How has that affected your business and local farmers' ability to manage their crops?

3:40 p.m.

As an Individual

Eric Cheff

On a weekly basis, we're turning down work. These farmers are struggling with Mother Nature. They can't get into their fields. They're not able to apply these products to benefit their crops at an affordable time. This is really hurting not only the yields but also our business. We work on everything hand in hand. It's all about time and efficiency.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Thank you.

You work with a network across Canada. Can you describe some of the other locations?

My understanding is that you're competing or that you have farm fields next to the U.S. border, where drones are flying over similar crops in similar weather and similar climatic conditions. Is that an accurate statement?

3:40 p.m.

As an Individual

Eric Cheff

Yes, that's very accurate.

In the U.S., they're using anything that's already been licensed for aerial application. We have a lot of these products available to us. They are already being applied by helicopter or aircraft. It would be great if Health Canada would just let these products be used now for drones and continue the research and data. It could even ask us, as applicators, to give it that kind of data to speed up any further or newer products to come in, to show how these drones work. A lot of these products are used with aircraft, but the data wasn't there at one point in time. We're back to square one with aircraft and drones. It's the same thing. Let's use it, and let's see how much data we can grab from that.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

My understanding is that you have information back from PMRA via Health Canada that continuing the process of registering drone use is not a high priority. Is that an accurate statement?

3:40 p.m.

As an Individual

Eric Cheff

Yes, that's very accurate. We've even been in collaboration with Agris, which is a large fertilizer supplier, and they've heard that it will be up to 10 years before we have any type of regulation.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Have you had any direct concerns conveyed to you as to why there's a delay and why it's not a high priority? My understanding is that they can fly in more challenging conditions with less risk to the environment, to drift and things like that. Is that also an accurate statement?

3:40 p.m.

As an Individual

Eric Cheff

Yes and no. Yes, it is safer, because you're looking at a smaller aircraft with smaller capacity. If there is an incident where you'd have a crash or something like that, you don't have a life that could possibly be lost. We had a close call up in the London-Kitchener area, where a pilot had a mechanical failure and crashed his helicopter, so that's part of it.

The second is environmental conditions. We don't carry 250 gallons of product in the air. If you have a failure, you could have that as an environmental risk. We have a reduced amount with the smaller capacities. There are a lot of factors involved in this that make it a safer application.

We fly a lot closer to the crops. It's all GPS-controlled and mapped. We have lidar systems, radars and sensors. Everything is very well controlled. You don't have to worry about human error; the sensors don't lie if they're reading properly. There are a lot of safety protocols involved in this. If you operate safely and effectively, there's less risk of an incident happening.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Thank you.

I want to get one question in to Mrs. LaRush regarding InVigor canola and 11 years of glufosinate. What's the impact to Canada? Australia can use it. Can you give a broad impact statement?

3:45 p.m.

Vice-President, BASF Agricultural Solutions Canada Inc.

Leta LaRush

On the questions around glufosinate, which I used in my example, in that example, the U.S. has access to use a new form of glufosinate that, unfortunately, we don't have access to in Canada because glufosinate's going through special review. The special review process works such that we can't submit any label changes or new chemistries associated with glufosinate during that special review.

I'm not sure if that answers your question, but that also has an impact as it relates to InVigor as well.

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

It puts Canada at a competitive disadvantage.

3:45 p.m.

Vice-President, BASF Agricultural Solutions Canada Inc.

Leta LaRush

There's no question. Yes.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair Liberal Michael Coteau

Next, for the Liberals, I'm going to go to MP Dandurand.

Marianne Dandurand Liberal Compton—Stanstead, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank both witnesses for joining us today.

Ms. LaRush, later on, we'll talk more about a complaint resolution process with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA. I imagine that, over time, you have been through certain situations with these two organizations and you may have had to follow their process.

Can you comment on how the current system works?

3:45 p.m.

Vice-President, BASF Agricultural Solutions Canada Inc.

Leta LaRush

Yes, I think you're referring to consultation with those two respective agencies, for which they've been working on the transformation agenda for quite some time and for which there has been the opportunity for some discussion with them around changes that we think are important to modernize the agency and increase efficiency. Unfortunately, we feel that some of the feedback that's been provided as industry, through that consultation period, has not been heard, or they haven't acted upon it.

I'm not sure if that answers your question directly, though. Maybe I misunderstood.

Marianne Dandurand Liberal Compton—Stanstead, QC

No, that's interesting, but I was mostly talking about a redress process or a redress officer. When you have a complaint about what's going on or what's happening, how does the CFIA or PMRA address it?

3:45 p.m.

Vice-President, BASF Agricultural Solutions Canada Inc.

Leta LaRush

I think they sometimes offer consultation. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any formal process for us to make complaints as industry when we have a concern, particularly about some of the issues I've talked about today, including the timeliness of getting some of these products through registration.

Marianne Dandurand Liberal Compton—Stanstead, QC

Thank you for your response.

Would you like to see this implemented? Do you think that we should do it? What type of solution could we come up with to improve the process when disputes arise?

Based on your experience, what could we do?

3:45 p.m.

Vice-President, BASF Agricultural Solutions Canada Inc.

Leta LaRush

Yes, I think it's to make sure that we have the right people at the table and industry having the opportunity to provide feedback when we have concerns around particular issues. Maybe I'll give you a couple of examples of things that I think the PMRA isn't doing today that would certainly help to improve the efficiency in the way that things are moving through the process.

For example, we're currently not using studies from other jurisdictions and including these as part of our review process. I think that's a very pragmatic thing that we could be doing to help speed up the review process.

As I mentioned already, we also have some concerns about the fact that we cannot submit any label changes at the time that a product is going through special review. Again, I think that would be a very pragmatic solution, and easy to adopt, and we would encourage the PMRA to think about it and to support in that area.