Agriculture Committee on Sept. 25th, 2025

[Matt Jones]

Quickly, on cost recovery, it is standard to review fees periodically. We haven't increased our fees since 2017. We did have a proposal out for public consultation. We received a lot of feedback on that proposal, and we're working on an alternative proposal that responds to the feedback we have received. Yes, we are hopeful that the revenues generated through those fees will allow us to expedite our processes along with the greater use of AI and the other mechanisms we're bringing forward to free up bandwidth and accelerate our processes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

There were two items you asked to be tabled, right?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Yes, that's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Mr. MacDonald, you have the final five minutes in this session.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Good afternoon, everybody.

Thank you to the witnesses for attending today.

I am going to follow up on the Bloc's questions about drones. I'm a farmer from P.E.I., and I am very enthusiastic about drone use.

The process has been challenging to get the pesticide products approved for spraying. We've been using them for seeding, and we've been using them for fertilizing. The product-by-product approval process is slow. Is there a reason for that? I find a drone much safer than a self-propelled sprayer full of thousands of gallons of liquid.

[Frédéric Bissonnette]

We've had a lot of questions about how they behave compared to traditional helicopters or airplanes. We were not unique, and a lot of other countries had similar questions, like developing modelling like Accolade. If you spread that quantity at that speed, where would the droplets fall? That's why we work internationally, through EDC and with industry, to develop models, for example.

There were also questions...because an airplane might be filled once or twice, whereas a drone is typically smaller and will have smaller reservoirs, so how often do you need to fill it? That is part of the risk assessment. If you fill it once, you're exposed once. If you fill it 20 times, you're exposed 20 times. Those are some of the questions we're trying to address to make sure that they can be used safely. We do believe that the technology will help, and we're pushing everybody to move this as quickly as we can.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

For the CFIA, you spoke earlier about an omnibus package of regulatory changes. When are these going to occur?

[Robert Ianiro]

Our submission has gone to TBS. That will be, obviously, subject to a Treasury Board meeting. I suspect that this is a priority, and I would suspect that the measures we put forward in the said omnibus bill will be advancing quite quickly, given the importance of carrying through and seeing progress in the areas we've shared.

That is something that is part of the Treasury Board process, which I am not in a position to speak to, but I can assure you that this is being given the highest priority by the government and, I understand, the Treasury Board Secretariat.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Since I don't know when I'll get to return to agriculture, I'm going to ask another question based on P.E.I. concerns. In P.E.I., because of the suspected potato wart, producers have been asked to fill out a separate permit every time they send soil samples to companies in Ontario or whoever may be doing their soil analysis. In the past, they were able to get a seasonal permit for sending the soil samples. It's very much an irritant with the producers that, for every individual soil sample, they have to get a new permit.

Can you comment on that? Is there any way of eliminating that red tape for them?

[Robert Ianiro]

I will have to take that back. I'm not sure. I'm sure that if there's an opportunity for us to look at that, we would, but I have to take it away. I'm not familiar with the issue you raise. I'm sorry.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Okay. Thank you for that.

We were talking about scheduling and timing. As a final question, do you feel you're ahead of or behind your schedule? Do you have benchmarks that are going to make you achieve these regulatory changes faster?

[Robert Ianiro]

From a CFIA perspective, we are definitely very confident that what we put forward is, as I mentioned in my remarks, achievable. We had one of the largest submissions of any of the regulators. In fact, the CFIA had the largest number of proposals. They are recognized as being some of the strongest. In fact, we were highlighted, I think, three or four times in the actual summary of the progress report.

They'll be monitored very closely, and, as I mentioned, it's just the first tranche. We're confident that we have the plans and resources in place to execute them in the timelines that have been outlined in the progress report, and the progress reports will continue to be issued. I understand, in the future, that we'll give updates on what we've done as well as add additional initiatives that have been identified along the way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you for the questions.

Thank you so much to our witnesses for being here. We appreciate your joining us.

We will suspend now for five minutes and get ready for the next round.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I call the meeting to order.

I would like to take a few moments to make some comments for the benefit of our new witnesses. Both of you were in the room when I did the first round of this, but I'll still go over it.

One, wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by teleconference, click the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

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

Three, I 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 on the government regulatory reform initiative in agriculture and agri-food.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses who are joining us here today.

We have with us the Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec.

Please excuse my French; I apologize.

We have Mr. Patrice Léger Bourgoin and Catherine Lessard via video conference. We also have, from the Canadian Cattle Association, Dennis Laycraft, and from the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, we have Chris Duyvelshoff.

Thank you so much.

You'll have up to five minutes per organization to give opening remarks, and after that we'll proceed to a round of questions.

I invite Mr. Léger Bourgoin to start.

[Patrice Léger Bourgoin, General Manager, Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, good afternoon.

Let us be clear from the outset: Protecting the health and safety of workers and consumers, as well as protecting the environment, are key issues. We must remain extremely vigilant at all times.

Let us also be clear that the scientific independence of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, must be recognized, maintained and unquestionable. However, the agency must demonstrate transparency, diligence and proactivity.

In fact, the greater the scientific independence, the more transparent the process must be and the more clearly justified the decisions must be.

Access to plant protection products is necessary to control pests and ensure food security. For this reason, the Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec (APMQ) works closely with the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture and promotes emergency registration applications.

The APMQ also identifies the needs of the entire Quebec horticultural sector. For registration extensions, it collaborates in providing the information required by the PMRA.

Scientific independence and transparency, I repeat, also come with a receptiveness to new information to be taken into account in the registration of plant protection products. This new information may include monitoring data, field studies and usage information. The PMRA must assess the impact of its decisions on the day-to-day activities of a produce farmer.

While other jurisdictions, such as the United States and the European Union, process similar applications within a reasonable time frame, we can only note, with great dismay, the excessive delays associated with the registration, registration extension or re-evaluation of plant protection products in Canada, especially in a context where market globalization puts us in competition with products from these countries that are sold in Canada.

As we heard just a few minutes ago, long delays already existed, but they are now excessive and can take up to a decade. There are several reasons for this. Bureaucracy, which has become institutionalized to an excessive degree in some cases, has led to a clear loss of agility. Rigid processes mean that evaluation procedures are often lengthy, even for products that have already been approved for other crops in Canada. In addition, we can see that there is very little synergy between the PMRA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Finally, specifically for the horticultural sector, the underfunding of the Pest Management Centre creates undue delays in the extension of registrations, i.e., the addition of new crops or new pests for a plant protection product. It takes five years to add a new crop to the label. That is far too long for an agricultural sector that wants to be both innovative and dynamic.

I will now give the floor to Ms. Lessard.

[Catherine Lessard, Associate Executive Director, Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec]

Furthermore, the regulatory framework is also ill suited to the context of climate change. The Pest Control Products Act dates back to 2002. Neither the regulations nor the procedures take into account the rapid evolution of technological innovations or sustainable agricultural practices.

Here is an example that speaks for itself. On the one hand, the Canadian government rightly supports reducing pesticide use; on the other hand, curiously, the PMRA continues to study the use of drones, which would allow for more targeted interventions and substantially reduce the use of plant protection products. The same applies to precision sprayers.

We emphasize the need to increase the efficiency, adaptability and predictability of registration processes. In Canada, the majority of vegetables are produced in very limited geographical areas. In the event of climatic or agronomic events in these areas, a large proportion of regional production can be lost, leading in the most extreme cases to shortages in local supply. Yield losses in the field caused by extreme weather events are becoming increasingly frequent.

As pest control needs can vary depending on the region, crop type or agricultural practices, it is necessary to have access to a diverse selection of pest control products and methods. Over time, needs are increasing, but control tools are lagging far behind. Furthermore, the pressure this situation places on the profitability of vegetable farms is a cause for concern. Risk management programs that are ill-suited to the current climate context add to the damage already experienced by producers.

In conclusion, the current approach is delaying access to safer and more effective solutions for farmers, which is undermining the competitiveness of Canada's agri-food sector. A rigorous but flexible and agile regulatory system is needed to meet the needs of the sector while preserving food safety and the health of citizens and the environment.

This concludes our opening remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

That was exactly five minutes, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Laycraft is next. You have five minutes.

[Dennis Laycraft, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Cattle Association]

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, members of the committee and my fellow witnesses. Thanks for the invitation to appear today. This is an incredibly important issue for our industry.

I'm the executive vice-president of the Canadian Cattle Association. I've been working on regulatory issues for many decades, and it is one of those competitiveness issues that we are constantly focusing on. This past year, I'm proud to say, thanks to very strong market conditions, that we're back to being the largest source of farm cash receipts in Canada. That has a lot to do with our market access and our ability to market our product as the highest-quality grain-fed beef in the world.

I want to talk particularly about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. They're our regulator, and they're charged with many parts of compliance for our industry—everything from meat inspection to some of the oversight on grading to process verification. I could go on on that. From our view, it's imperative that there's either a culture shift or a structural change to how those services are delivered.

While we're hearing about some of the reforms—and they're welcome, as we do work closely with the agency—when you apply the lens of an enforcement regulator to a quality assessment or working on a process verification, you actually need different skill sets for each of those if you're going to do it efficiently.

We're very interested in potentially looking at some restructuring. If you look at the United States, they have the AMS, the Agricultural Marketing Service, under the USDA. For the number of the approvals and their work on quality assessment, we've seen large numbers of approvals occur in months, whereas in Canada it takes years to get that done, and time is money when you're in the process of competing in these various markets that we're looking at.

As we have a look at this regulatory process, we approach it with a competitiveness lens as well. We truly believe Canada has some of the greatest potential in the world to increase our high-quality agriculture exports and will be one of the leading food producers in the world. We think it will actually drive some of the important competitive growth in our economy.

There are a few examples I want to point to, but I'll preface those with this. Last year, we exported 7 billion dollars' worth of beef and live cattle, and $6 billion of that goes to the United States. It just stresses the importance not only of that market itself, but also of regulatory alignment with that market.

We heard earlier about the movement on the specified risk material. We actually helped fund and worked closely with the agency on the risk assessment, but that's the easy part. Now we get into the regulatory change. How many years is that going to take if we don't put the right lens on getting that done when it certainly has a negative impact on our industry? We're confident that with the risk assessment we can move forward with those changes and still maintain our full market access around the world.

Regarding the “product of Canada” labelling, right now we have a requirement that the animals have to be in Canada for 60 days, just as an example. On the other hand, we just worked hard, going around the world to confirm that actual slaughter conveys origin. That's the basis on which we are arguing to get rid of the mandatory country of origin labelling requirements in the U.S. It's about getting consistency with the international requirements.

We heard about the harmonization of regulations on drug registrations with the U.S. Again, even when you get to generics, you're actually behind when the generics become available, and it becomes even more significant. We've seen good progress there, but we need to continue working actively on this.

I have mentioned the need for structural change. That is something we'd like to focus more on, but we can do that with some examples later in the question period.

At this time, I want to thank you for the chance to raise these issues, and I look forward to the conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

You have 10 seconds to spare. Thank you so much. I appreciate that.

Next, we'll go to the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada for five minutes.

[Chris Duyvelshoff, Chair, Crop Protection, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members, for the invitation.

My name is Chris Duyvelshoff, and I'm representing the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada. I am pleased to appear today because the committee study focuses on the heart of our work: ensuring that science-based regulation supports reliable and accessible Canadian-grown food.

Your attention to CFIA and PMRA reform is an opportunity to align strong protections with practical delivery on the farm. FVGC supports strong, evidence-based regulation. Canada can uphold high standards while improving predictability and minimizing impacts to food production by using a food lens to make policy decisions. Right now, decisions at PMRA and CFIA are not viewed through a food lens. This results in two major problems for growers.

First, crops don't wait, and neither do pests. Farmers need predictable science-based approvals so they're not left without crop protection tools.

Second, farms already meet strict CanadaGAP food safety audits yet face repeated checks for the same rules.

When Canadian regulators make decisions, they already assess human health and environmental evidence. A food lens adds a complementary perspective. What does this decision mean for food security and a stable domestic food supply? Using a food lens as a guide, FVGC proposes the following five practical changes at PMRA and CFIA that would support producers and enhance food security.

First, we recommend that PMRA utilize existing reviews from comparable regulatory agencies where scientific standards and the evidence base are equivalent. When peer regulators such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other OECD agencies have completed comparable risk assessments, Health Canada should recognize those assessments and the underlying data while addressing Canadian-specific considerations as needed.

Second, we recommend that PMRA develop regulatory pathways for new technologies such as drones with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other global regulatory partners. The use of aerial drones provides the opportunity to protect crops where ground-based application systems cannot be used. For example, after a flooding event, a field may be too wet to use traditional tractors and sprayers. American growers have had access to this technology for several years.

Despite the PMRA working on a regulatory framework for drone technology since 2019, there remains no clear pathway for approval in Canada.

Third, we recommend that the minor-use pesticides program be properly resourced for its mandate and aligned with the U.S. by waiving annual fees for products used solely on minor-use food crops. Additionally, for submissions that make small common changes, such as adding a crop or pests in a greenhouse, PMRA should skip formal consultations.

Fourth, we recommend that the emergency-use registrations for unmanageable pest outbreaks be authorized for up to three years, with accelerated timelines for critical cases. To minimize the need for emergency uses during special reviews and re-evaluations, preconsultations with affected stakeholders should be permitted so that solutions can be identified early.

Finally, we recommend that the CFIA eliminate duplication and enhance standardization to reduce the audit burden. For example, CFIA should formally recognize CanadaGAP and other certification programs recognized by the Global Food Safety Initiative to eliminate duplicative regulatory requirements.

Additionally, inspector protocols and training should be standardized nationally so that enforcement is fair, risk-based and predictable across Canada. Moreover, phytosanitary export documentation should not be duplicated when such information is already available, and approvals from one agency, such as CFIA, should be respected by others, such as CBSA, to avoid repeat inspections of the same elements.

In closing, Canadians expect food to be plentiful and safe. By making decisions through a food lens, the government can deliver both.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

I'll go to Mr. Epp for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to say it's good to be back on a permanent basis, as much as I enjoyed being a semi-permanent guest in the last Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We're glad to have you back.

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

I'll direct my questions initially to Mr. Duyvelshoff.

In the opening testimony from Matt Jones, the ADM for PMRA, he basically outlined the PMRA mandate, saying that what is at the core is keeping Canadians safe. We've heard testimony about how far we're behind, particularly compared to our U.S. counterparts.

Are you aware of the reconciliation between imported foods that perhaps are already registered or are not registered or are using other products that aren't for use here in Canada? Is there a link between PMRA and CBSA import mechanisms?

[Chris Duyvelshoff]

In terms of imported food, PMRA would look at whether or not those residues are allowable from the perspective of human health, but it would not consider whether those could be used by Canadian growers at that point, because they haven't been, necessarily, applied for use in Canada by a company.