Agriculture Committee on Nov. 6th, 2025

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

Do you have the same observations regarding the Canadian Food Inspection Agency? Do you also work with them?

[Leta LaRush]

Yes, we also work with the CFIA. I think there's also an opportunity to improve timeliness as it relates to getting products through the system with the CFIA as well.

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

Are there similar systems within the Canadian Food Inspection Agency? Is there an appeal process, or is it the same situation as with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency?

[Leta LaRush]

Unfortunately, I'm not aware of a specific appeal process to raise the concerns that I've been speaking to today as they relate to the way they make decisions around chemistry, and when chemistry, as well as seeds and traits, are reviewed.

Another example that I think might be worth sharing is that of some of the requirements that exist as they relate to relabelling product. An area where we've tried to provide feedback with the PMRA specifically, not CFIA, is with respect to their process when there's a requirement for a label change. They actually require those products to be pulled off the shelves and relabelled, as opposed to other jurisdictions like the U.S., where they'll give us a time period by which that product needs to be relabelled.

As you can imagine, that significantly impacts efficiency. It's taking away time that we could be investing in manufacturing product. Instead, we're having to bring product back through the channel and relabel it, all while farmers are not having access to that technology during that period.

Again, this is something that we have given feedback about to the PMRA, something that we have concerns about. I think your question is as it relates to a specific review process. Unfortunately, we feel that some of that feedback is not being taken on board, and that is what has brought me here today.

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

Thank you.

I'll do my colleague, Mr. Perron, a favour by giving him an extra 30 seconds. I won't have time to ask any more questions.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us.

Ms. LaRush, you talked about labels. I gather that, basically, when the requirements for a product change, you must immediately remove it from the shelves in order to relabel it.

Is that right? Yes? Okay.

What would you like to obtain? Would you like a buffer period to comply with this requirement?

[Leta LaRush]

Yes. I think what would be more pragmatic is to notify us that by a certain date labels have to be changed—that for any new product that label has to be changed—as opposed to having to immediately bring all of those products back into our inventory and relabel. Again, as you can imagine, there's a lot of cost invested in bringing product back. It creates a lot of complication for our channel partners. Again, it's about more time and notice and just a more pragmatic approach.

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

I understand. However, it will depend on the change requested. Sometimes, a previously unknown toxicity or something similar is discovered. It may be justified in some cases. You're probably right in saying that, in most cases, the industry could be given a buffer period to improve efficiency. I understand your point.

You spoke about studies carried out with other countries. We've worked extensively on this issue during this study. As I said, we believe that sharing expertise could be beneficial. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. We could even share responsibility for testing or analyzing new products with trusted jurisdictions. However, we must maintain our decision‑making independence at home. We must remain independent and refrain from automatically adopting something approved in other places, because the climate and soil may be different. Some products used here may not be permitted in other countries, or vice versa. This would have consequences. How can we improve our efficiency without taking any chances?

Everyone agrees that the approval process is quite slow.

How can we share our expertise with our neighbours without losing our sovereignty? We shouldn't take any chances. We need to test solutions here at home, in our climate and soil type, for example.

[Leta LaRush]

Changing the approach to how we collaborate doesn't necessarily have to mean changing the science we use to make assessments of these products. For example, when a trusted regulator like the Australian APVMA has completed a full risk assessment on a product, we should be able to reference that, rather than needing to restart the process.

To answer your question, I don't think it necessarily means that we should compromise science, safety or the rigour we have in our processes. It means that we can incorporate some of the learning, science and data from trusted jurisdictions in our decision-making process to help speed up timelines.

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

Of course, we would carry out tests here at the same time in order to compare the results. We can build on their foundations. I think that we agree on this point. We could be more effective in this area.

You spoke about labelling. An important request has been made. Labelling requires transparency. As you know, we believe that gene‑edited products should be labelled to ensure traceability. This is the government's responsibility.

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, is often asked to operate with greater transparency. The process is unclear. Would you like access to a platform to track the progress of the product assessment in the queue? Could this meet a need in the industry? The timelines would be clearer.

[Leta LaRush]

I'm sorry. The audio was quiet at the end, but I believe I got the essence of your question.

One of the areas where we see a huge opportunity for improvement is having transparency and visibility around where a product is as it's going through review. Something that is extremely challenging and could have the potential to impact our decision to invest is not having a predictable timeline for how long it's going to take to get a product to market or how long it's going to take for one of these reviews to take place.

Having clarity from the onset around the expectation of what that timeline is going to be, and then having some accountability to deliver on that timeline, is very much needed.

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

Okay, we're on the same page. Thank you.

We also need to carry out testing. Resources are needed. You said in your opening remarks that the PMRA must be given enough resources.

In your opinion, which parts of this agency's structure should receive the most resources? Would it be the assessment services?

[Leta LaRush]

I would encourage that, from a resourcing perspective, the resources be focused on the agencies' being able to deliver on their core mandate. Unfortunately, that was an area of disappointment when we looked at the work that was done through the transformation strategy and some of the proposals that were being made. We didn't feel they were addressing some of the concerns and feedback we had provided as an industry around the unpredictability in regulatory timelines, and the ability to take pragmatic approaches, such as using studies from other jurisdictions and some of the other examples that I mentioned. I would say those resources should go back towards investing in their core mandate as agencies.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank everyone for their testimony. This will conclude this portion of the meeting. We will suspend for five minutes while we change panels.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Let's come to order.

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

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking, or until you are asked a question directly by a member. For those participating by teleconference, 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 the 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 made through the chair.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, September 18, 2025, the committee is resuming its study on the government's regulatory reform initiative in the agriculture and agri-food sector.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses. From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, we have Pamela MacDonald and Merril Bawden. From the Forum of Canadian Ombudsman, we have Tom Barber. We also have Nadine Mailloux, Ombudsman of Montreal.

Welcome to our committee. Thank you for being here. You have up to five minutes per association or individual.

We'll start with our folks online.

Maybe we'll start with you, Mr. Barber, from the Forum of Canadian Ombudsman. You have five minutes.

[Tom Barber, President, Forum of Canadian Ombudsman]

Good afternoon.

My name is Tom Barber. I am president of the Forum of Canadian Ombudsman, a national association dedicated to promoting the ombudsman role across Canada. I also serve as the ombudsperson at the New Home Ombuds office in Ontario. I've worked in various roles in the ombudsman field for the past 18 years.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the importance and value of ombudsman institutions. An ombudsman is an independent, impartial and confidential resource who helps people resolve complaints about unfair treatment, maladministration and poor service. When problems occur, the ombudsman acts as a bridge between the public and the government organization, helping both sides understand what went wrong and what can be done to fix it. Our role is to listen, to investigate and to recommend solutions to the problems we identify. In short, the ombudsman's role is to ensure fairness for the public where authority and power are exercised by government organizations.

Ombudsman offices play a critical role in strengthening trust in government. We identify inefficiencies, communication gaps and procedural barriers that frustrate people trying to access services. When these issues are raised and resolved, the result is better service delivery, greater consistency in decision-making, and ultimately improved public confidence.

Most complaints can be resolved informally and quickly, often through communication and clarification. This flexibility allows the ombudsman to resolve issues without lengthy or adversarial processes, saving time and resources for both the government and the public.

The ombudsman also plays a systemic role. We analyze trends, conduct systemic investigations and make recommendations for improvements to policies and processes. An effective ombudsman acts as an early warning system, identifying emerging issues before they escalate into crises or systemic failures.

If farmers and other industry stakeholders are experiencing frustration dealing with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the organizations the ministry oversees, it is my recommendation that the government consider creating an ombudsman office. This office would provide an independent and impartial avenue for addressing concerns and resolving disputes within the sector.

However, to be effective, the ombudsman office must be founded on several key principles.

The first principle is independence. The ombudsman office must be structurally and operationally independent from the organizations it oversees. This builds trust and ensures freedom from interference in the ombudsman operations.

The second is legal foundation. There must be a clear legislative mandate that defines the ombudsman powers and protections.

The third is investigative authority. The ombudsman must have the authority to access the documents and information necessary to carry out its investigations.

The fourth is accessibility. Industry stakeholders must know that the office exists and be able to access it easily, without fear of reprisal.

The fifth is confidentiality. Ombudsman investigations are confidential, and the information it receives should be legally protected.

The sixth is transparency and accountability. The ombudsman must report publicly about its findings and activities and recommendations.

The final principle is impartiality. The ombudsman must approach every issue fairly and without bias. The ombudsman must not take part in political or administrative activities that would affect their impartiality.

I'll close my remarks with a quote from a speech given by the Honourable Michael Tulloch, Chief Justice of Ontario, at Ombudsman Ontario's 50th anniversary reception:

Oversight is not a mark of mistrust; it is a mark of democratic maturity. It is how institutions show respect for the people they serve, by opening themselves to scrutiny, learning from mistakes, and striving to do better.

The Forum of Canadian Ombudsman would be happy to share with the committee resources that expand on the principles for effective ombudsman oversight.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak. I welcome the committee's questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next, we'll go to the Ombudsman of Montreal for five minutes.

[Nadine Mailloux, Ombudsman, Ombudsman of Montreal]

Good afternoon, committee members.

My name is Nadine Mailloux. I'm the ombud for the City of Montreal.

I'm also the president of the International Ombudsman Institute, the world's largest organization in our field. It comprises over 200 national legislative and parliamentary ombuds from more than 120 countries.

I've been an ombud for 25 years. I served as the president of the Forum of Canadian Ombudsman until last June. I co‑direct two university certificate programs for ombuds at the Université de Sherbrooke and York University. All these experiences have brought one reality to light. Ombuds play a vital role in building and, at times, restoring trust between members of the public and their institutions.

Let me start by sharing a belief with you. Access to an independent and impartial body is a pillar of modern democracy. However, what defines an ombud? What can Canadians expect in 2025 when they turn to an ombud? They expect the following. Their disclosure will remain confidential. The information disclosed will be treated independently of the entity concerned. The complaint will be handled by an individual who is free from constraints and free to determine the outcome of the case without any direction imposed. They can also expect that person to have the authority to demand accountability, to review the facts, to recommend a course of action and to answer for it publicly.

An ombud isn't just any role. The title shouldn't be used lightly. Ombuds carry a responsibility and guarantee fairness and justice for the individuals who seek their assistance. Without these guarantees, the role loses its meaning. We're no longer talking about an ombud, but simply an internal function.

In 2019, the European Commission for Democracy through Law of the Council of Europe, commonly known as the Venice Commission, adopted 25 principles to guide the establishment and operation of an ombud office. The United Nations has recognized and reaffirmed these principles on two occasions. Don't think that these principles are merely theoretical. They provide the necessary foundation for ensuring that our institutions remain effective and credible. If you decide to move forward with creating this type of mechanism, a recent OECD study provides some useful guidance. It summarizes the factors that promote public trust in institutions as the perception of effectiveness, transparency and the perception of having the power to influence the process or system. Think about your experience as a member of the public. The ombud certainly plays a role in this area.

I'm here today to answer your questions and to explain our role. I can tell you why it's crucial to comply with certain standards. It's really about protecting the factor that unites us, you and me. That factor is people's trust in their institutions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next, we'll go to the CFIA for five minutes.

[Merril Bawden, Corporate Secretary, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today regarding the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's approach to complaint resolution and stakeholder feedback.

CFIA is a science-based regulator with a dual mandate: to protect, and to enable trade. Our primary responsibility is to safeguard Canada's food supply and plant and animal health. At the same time, we play a vital role in enabling trade to support the economic resilience of the agriculture and agri-food sector.

The complaints and appeals office of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was established in 2012 to review concerns related to service quality, administrative errors and process issues in regulatory decisions. Importantly, it did not have the authority to overturn or amend decisions made by CFIA inspectors. Because the complaints and appeals office could not alter decisions and its mandate was limited to assessing adherence to process and recommending improvements, it was deemed to overlap with existing oversight mechanisms. It was dissolved in 2022 to streamline operations and reduce redundancy.

Stakeholders are now encouraged to resolve concerns through a tiered approach, first by engaging with the CFIA staff involved, then escalating to supervisors, and finally by submitting formal feedback through CFIA's centralized contact channels. Service standards guide complaint handling, and digital platforms facilitate feedback collection. Internal oversight mechanisms, including the inspector general's office, support consistency and continuous improvement across regions.

We understand that members of this committee have expressed concerns about transparency, impartiality and consistency in the absence of a centralized redress mechanism. I want to assure the committee that CFIA remains committed to responding to inquiries in a consistent way and to maintaining public trust, transparency and accountability to government operations.

We regularly communicate with industry via multiple channels, including public opinion research. Our research, conducted by independent public opinion research companies, consistently shows that the industry understands that the agency is doing well in key areas. Of the food businesses interviewed, 89% say the CFIA is doing well in ensuring that food sold in Canada is safe. Another 80% report that CFIA representatives are respectful, and 72% say they are helpful with the regulations. Finally, 71% say CFIA is a fair regulatory agency, pointing out that our information helps prevent non-compliance.

There is room for improvement, for sure. Only 59% say we have clear guidance on regulations, and 51% report that the agency listens to industry priorities. Of course, in focus groups, only some see compliance with regulations as being good for business.

Although a dedicated office like the complaints and appeals office is no longer in place, the CFIA continues to monitor service performance and examine feedback trends to help identify and address broader issues. These efforts are supported by internal processes and a commitment to continuous improvement.

In closing, the CFIA's work is guided by science, transparency and collaboration. Our approach is about building a system that is efficient, predictable and responsive, without compromising on science, food safety or market access. We will continue to work with stakeholders to identify new opportunities, while delivering on the commitments we've already made.

Thank you for your attention. We welcome any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all of our witnesses.

We'll start with the Conservatives and Mr. Bonk for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

My questions are for the CFIA. In 2012, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency created a complaints and appeals office, sometimes known as the redress office. There were a lot of complaints that went through the redress office before it was cancelled.

Has the redress office officially been cancelled?

[Merril Bawden]

Yes. I can confirm that the complaints and appeals office—

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

What is the new complaints mechanism called?

[Merril Bawden]

There are a number of processes that we now have in place. We have opportunities for feedback from external stakeholders through online portals and by telephone. To address complaints, we have a series of escalation that happens through our operations branch.