Agriculture Committee on Nov. 6th, 2025

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

From the information we have, before the CFIA cancelled the redress program, 18% of the complaints were reconsidered or amended, and of the service complaints, 39% were founded.

If there's such a high instance of problems within the CFIA, why was this redress officer position cancelled?

[Merril Bawden]

I can confirm that the CFIA remains focused on service excellence and regulatory integrity. In addition to the digital tools I mentioned, the CFIA now relies on internal review and stakeholder feedback to identify areas for improvement. The agency's commitment to transparency and accountability supports ongoing efforts to address valid concerns.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

We have just heard from the ombudsmen. They were saying that it's very important to have independence in this role. Is this role currently undertaken by CFIA employees, or is it independent of CFIA?

[Merril Bawden]

It is taken on by CFIA employees.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

We've had a lot of stakeholders as witnesses before this committee. They're saying that they're having a lot of trouble navigating CFIA just on simple procedural questions.

For example, people have had to cull their herds because of tuberculosis, and they're having real trouble following the process and the interpretation of the officers on the ground.

What would be the mechanism for them if they had a complaint?

[Pamela MacDonald, Executive Director, Inspection Support, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

We always encourage industry to speak with their local inspector first whenever they have a question or a concern. Our inspectors have access to on-the-spot national experts, who are available should they receive a question and need further support to respond to industry's questions.

Industry also has the opportunity to speak to the supervisors and executives responsible directly for our inspectors on the ground, which includes an executive of the area level, the provincial level, who does not have direct reporting accountability for the individuals—which is that arm's-length piece that exists regionally—but has access to the specialized knowledge in order to provide that support and information to industry.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Do you think it would be helpful for these people with their complaints if there were an independent ombudsman or independent redress officer in CFIA? They're becoming very frustrated with the process.

[Pamela MacDonald]

I can speak only to the process that exists, which does include an executive at the area level who is able to address questions and concerns provided by stakeholders.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'm going to ask Mr. Barber from the Ombudsman Forum a question now.

Do you think the PMRA would benefit from having an ombudsman where complaints from industry could be taken seriously without being influenced by the PMRA itself?

[Tom Barber]

I'm sorry, but PMRA.... I'm not familiar with that acronym.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

The pest.... I'm sorry. Pest risk management.... Oh man, it just slipped me here.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

It's the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Yes, it's the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. I'm sorry about that. It's one of the organizations we're studying here at the committee. We're finding that there are a lot of complaints coming in from industry, yet no one seems to know how to navigate the system to get these complaints addressed.

[Tom Barber]

I'll speak from my experience in the ombudsman field for the last 20 or so years. I've worked at three different ombudsman offices. I've overseen and been involved with complaints about multiple organizations.

Organizations tend to not be very good at being self-reflective. They tend to get entrenched in their process and their policies, and they don't have the ability to look at it from that independent ombud's perspective: Why did you do something in this way? Why do you do this that way? Maybe there's a better way of doing it.

That is why I think the independence and that fresh perspective that you'll get from an external organization coming in to take a look would be very helpful, and I'm not speaking about just the organizations and the sectors here. I would say that's the case for almost any large organization where you have lots of policies and you're dealing with the public. It's very beneficial to have that independent oversight.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

How much of a difference do you see between organizational ombudsmen or independent ombudsmen? Is there a big difference in the number of complaints or the number of complaints that are amended?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'm sorry to interrupt. We've run out of time. We've gone over by about 15 seconds. Maybe someone else will ask the same question.

We'll go over to the Liberals and MP Chatel for six minutes.

I'm sorry about that.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bonk asked a very good question.

I would like to hear the answer, so please continue.

[Tom Barber]

One of the other pillars of the ombudsman role is that it's not the first line of complaint. It's typically the last line of complaint.

The public should attempt to address their issues through the existing complaint process as a first step. What I found in my time is that about 80% of the complaints that an ombudsman receives will be referred back to the organization and referred back to that internal complaint process. The complaints generally won't need to come back to the ombudsman. They will get resolved through that internal complaint process.

When you get into that other 20% of complaints, that's when you need some potential ombudsman intervention. Maybe the government organization doesn't understand the complainant, maybe the complainant is having trouble accessing the government organization, or maybe there's a dispute about facts that the ombudsman can investigate and help clarify.

In my experience, again, it's about 80% that will be resolved through the existing complaint process, but it's that roughly 15%-20% where the ombudsman can really help be effective, drive change and provide positive outcomes.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Thank you.

This committee has heard a great deal about the attempts by agri‑food industry stakeholders, such as farmers and food processors, to address tremendous challenges. These challenges include climate change, trade wars and other international trade issues, and the adoption of new standards.

The industry and the departments met at the agile regulations table. They identified 150 regulatory irritants, which are recurring complaints from the industry. It seems that the challenge lies in resolving these complaints, whether they concern the system or the service, and identifying best practices that could be implemented.

Ms. Mailloux, could the creation of an ombud position help us to work with the industry in order to find solutions to the problems identified?

[Nadine Mailloux]

You're right to point out that, in certain situations, recurring complaints are the ones that do the most good for an organization.

For example, at the City of Montreal, we sometimes see that the same issue gives rise to multiple complaints and we notice a trend. We then expand the scope of our investigation and get in touch with the organization, in this case a neighbourhood service, to talk to its expert staff and see what's wrong.

In most systemic investigations, we make recommendations regarding deeply ingrained practices in the system, including logistics and internal issues. These practices lead to people experiencing the same situation over and over again.

In some systemic investigations, we observed situations that hadn't been identified by the complainants but that, as the investigation unfolded, appeared to pose a problem. We issued a notice of concern to the City of Montreal.

That's why any ombud worth their salt must be able to carry out systemic investigations.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Mailloux. That's really enlightening.

Mr. Barber, one concern that comes up in connection with the creation of an ombud position relates to the downsizing of the public service. While the creation of an ombud position is considered a positive development, the question arises as to whether this constitutes an appropriate time to do so, given the current efforts to reduce bureaucracy.

[Tom Barber]

Obviously, considerations about the size and reducing the size of the public sector are a little above my pay grade, since I'm not an elected member. You do not need an incredibly large ombudsman's office to be effective.

Ultimately, you need to make sure the ombudsman's office is properly resourced in order for it to address complaints, but I don't think you necessarily need to dramatically expand the number of full-time public service staff in order to staff an ombudsman's office.

It's hard to estimate exactly the number that you would need as long as the office is well resourced. The internal complaint process that these organizations have is generally working well. The ombudsman's office can focus on those complaints that I mentioned earlier, namely, the ones that don't get captured by that internal process, and the ones that need the extra help in getting a resolution.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

I imagine that there would still be a positive impact. If systemic complaints were addressed much more proactively and if the department were to improve, it would benefit farmers and increase their productivity. There would be economic benefits, but this would still require a certain institution.

Ms. Mailloux, I would like to hear your thoughts on the costs and benefits of an ombud's office, but I have run out of time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'm going to have to ask you to stop there. It's been six minutes and 30 seconds.

I apologize.

Next, we'll go to Mr. Perron for six minutes.