Agriculture Committee on Sept. 25th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting four 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 by 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 has a short link to an awareness video.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Number one, please wait until I recognize you before you start talking. For those participating by teleconference, click on 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 can also select the appropriate channel for interpretation—either floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. Number three, I remind you that all comments should be addressed 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, and we appreciate your patience and understanding regarding these matters.

We have a little committee business. Before we move forward, I’d like to ask members for their consent to adopt the budgets for both the briefing on tariffs and the current study of the committee on the government’s regulatory reform initiative. Draft versions have already been circulated. Are there any objections to or comments about the draft budgets? Is everyone fine?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

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

I'd like to welcome our witnesses here today. Thank you for joining us. We truly appreciate it. Joining us from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is Robert Ianiro; from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food we have Steven Jurgutis; and from the Department of Health we have Matt Jones and Frédéric Bissonnette.

I know that you have a speaking order you've agreed to. It will be up to five minutes for opening remarks, and then we'll proceed with a round of questions from all members. The list that I've been given is this: Steven, Robert and then Matt. Is that correct? Okay.

We start with the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Welcome.

[Steven Jurgutis, Director General, Policy, Planning and Integration Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Canada’s agriculture and agri-food regulatory framework is considered among the most robust internationally, supported by science-based decisions, trusted food regulatory bodies and a regulatory regime that strives to adjust to emerging challenges. These strengths can also lead to complexity, which can be challenging for businesses and producers to navigate, and be perceived as limiting for economic growth, innovation and competitiveness. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has been working with other regulators—primarily the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency—to address regulatory challenges facing the sector.

On July 9, the President of the Treasury Board launched a 60-day review of regulations across all departments and agencies with regulatory responsibilities. As part of this exercise, ministers were instructed to review regulations in their portfolios and propose measures to eliminate red tape. On September 8, departments and agencies from across the Government of Canada published progress reports on their respective web pages to outline early achievements and next steps in the ongoing commitment to eliminate red tape. Canada’s red tape reduction office, led out of the Treasury Board, will be working with federal regulators to move these initiatives forward, including undertaking consultations with partners and stakeholders.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and its portfolio partners welcomed this opportunity to highlight efforts to modernize agriculture regulations—to reduce red tape, improve service delivery and support innovation—without compromising the health, safety or environment of Canadians.

AAFC’s Progress Report includes 18 initiatives—six of which have been achieved and are ongoing or upcoming, some of which include proposed legislative modernization.

Through a variety of initiatives outlined in the report, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is working to support a more streamlined and agile approach to the regulatory system. As an example, through the Department’s Agile Regulations Table—a novel government-stakeholder collaboration model launched in 2020—we have prioritized regulatory innovation and agility by jointly engaging industry and regulators to determine priorities and pursue regulatory innovation and experimentation. Through this table, we will continue to address the cumulative and economic impacts of regulations, aim to resolve persistent regulatory irritants and enable innovation through pilot projects.

Another example is that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada digitized and streamlined various processes under the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act Program, including for submitting loan registrations, defaults and claims for losses. This is expected to result in faster service delivery and further reduce the administrative burden on producers, lenders and public servants. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will continue its work to support a more streamlined and agile approach to the regulatory system. In fact, most of the ongoing initiatives outlined in the department’s report are anticipated to be completed within the next two years.

We know that Canadian farmers depend on a nimble regulatory framework to foster growth and innovation in the sector. To support this growth and innovation, we remain committed to working with industry and regulatory partners to establish a more efficient, transparent and responsive regulatory system.

As you will soon hear from my colleagues, taken together, the progress reports published by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada represent the start of a substantial red tape reduction agenda for the agriculture and agri-food sector.

I would now like to invite my colleagues from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada to present their progress reports and their efforts to modernize regulations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Go ahead.

[Robert Ianiro, Vice-President, Policy and Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s efforts to support regulatory reform and reduce unnecessary red tape.

For several years, the CFIA has been modernizing its regulations. The goal is to reflect the latest science, remove outdated requirements, better align with international partners and create more flexible and agile frameworks. As part of the Government of Canada’s Red Tape Review, the CFIA examined its existing regulations and how they are administered to identify new opportunities to reduce red tape and support the economic growth and resiliency of the agricultural sector.

We took a broad approach in our review. We looked at ways to remove unnecessary rules or prescriptive requirements in regulatory measures. We also considered non-regulatory actions to reduce duplication with other jurisdictions, streamline regulatory administration and improve service delivery. As we continue to find opportunities to reduce red tape, we remain committed to upholding the high standards that Canadians expect from our food safety and agricultural systems and to ensure access to international markets.

Our progress report on red tape outlines 26 actions: 12 that are recently completed or imminent, and 14 planned actions in the short, medium and longer term. It includes a mix of regulatory changes, of which there are 10; policy measures, of which there are 13; guidance, two; and proposed legislative amendments, one. We have grouped these actions under key themes, such as removing outdated rules, improving alignment across jurisdictions, streamlining requirements and providing flexibility, and enhancing client experience.

We deliberately identified policy actions where we could make progress in the short term, and longer-term initiatives where we need to further engage stakeholders and seek the appropriate authorities.

I'd like to briefly highlight a few examples of where we are making progress.

First, the CFIA has advanced an omnibus regulatory package focused on red tape. We have made a series of targeted amendments that address stakeholder issues by removing prescriptive requirements, providing increased flexibility for businesses, and levelling the playing field for Canadian producers. We are also looking to repeal outdated regulations that are no longer needed and burdensome without impacting health or safety.

Second, we've identified a series of actions to support international alignment and collaboration with key trading partners. We can be more efficient in our pre-market assessment process by sharing information and recognizing decisions from trusted foreign partners. This approach will help get new products to market faster. For instance, we recently created an alternative pathway recognizing decisions from the U.S. and EU on certain feed products to expedite their pre-market assessment and product approval in Canada.

Lastly, we know stakeholders want faster, more streamlined services and a more efficient delivery of services. That's why we're expanding our digital tools through the My CFIA online platform. For instance, we are moving various plant health programs online, creating a one-stop shop for stakeholders. We are also enhancing digital export certification to align with exporters' needs.

All these efforts not only enhance client experience but enhance trade and access to international markets.

In closing, our approach is about building a system that is efficient, predictable and responsive without compromising on science, food safety or market access. The actions outlined in our progress report are thoughtful, targeted and achievable, but we know that meaningful reform is not a one-time exercise. We will continue to work with stakeholders to identify new opportunities while delivering on the commitments we've already made.

Together, these efforts will reduce red tape, foster innovation and enhance the competitiveness and resilience of Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you so much. With seconds to spare, I appreciate that.

Mr. Jones.

[Matt Jones, Assistant Deputy Minister, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health]

Good afternoon. I'm Matt Jones, the assistant deputy minister for the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and I'm joined by my colleague, Frédéric Bissonnette, who is the senior director general of operations.

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency is responsible for regulating pesticides under the Pest Control Product Act.

The act sets out requirements for the assessment and regulation of pesticides in Canada, including the need for science-based regulatory decisions regarding pesticides. It also defines the agency's primary objective, which is to prevent unacceptable risks to Canadians and the environment from the use of pesticides.

Pest control products are essential to the production of healthy and nutritious food. Pesticides, however, must be used carefully because of their potential toxicity. Before a pesticide is sold or used in Canada, it must undergo a scientific assessment by Health Canada. A re‑evaluation of registered pesticides is conducted at least every 15 years to ensure that they meet current standards. The evidence submitted to the agency is used to support the human health risk assessment. Special consideration is given to the possibility that a pesticide may have adverse health effects, including cancer and birth defects.

Health Canada also does an environmental risk assessment. The assessment takes into account the way substances migrate and are transformed in the environment, as well as the associated risks.

Lastly, we assess the value of the product, including its effectiveness, socio-economic impacts and overall contribution to pest management. Economic considerations include trade impacts on Canadian producers, crop value gains, access to alternatives, economic efficiency and broader social benefits, such as food security and public health.

There are many scientists at PMRA, and they are conducting these risk assessments every day. They take their work of protecting health and the environment very seriously.

PMRA's work also includes monitoring the risks of existing products on the market, for example, through periodic re-evaluations, special reviews, incident reporting and compliance and enforcement activities. Occasionally, over the course of this monitoring, new or unexpected risks can be identified, and these need to be addressed. This might result in changes in how a pesticide can be used or, in some instances, in products being removed from the market.

For growers, potentially losing access to something they rely on for pest control can be extremely challenging, especially when alternatives are limited. While PMRA already consults on all of its decisions, we will enhance our engagement with growers, industry and provinces to learn more about how pesticides are being used in practice and to better understand the challenges that stakeholders are facing.

We've been working through the red tape reduction report to identify a number of opportunities to improve how we are operating. This includes expanding joint reviews with trusted foreign regulators and strategically using reviews already conducted by other reputable regulators to accelerate our own endeavours. We are introducing a secure digital portal for real-time application tracking and modernizing pesticide labels to improve clarity, accessibility and efficiency.

We're also proposing regulatory changes to eliminate unnecessary renewals that take time, consume internal capacity [Technical difficulty—Editor] from registration, freeing up resources to focus on higher-risk areas.

Together these initiatives reflect a shift towards a smarter, science-based regulatory approach that is focused on risks and the needs of our stakeholders.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.

We'll go for six minutes to Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses for being here on what I think is a pretty critical study.

Mr. Ianiro, it's good to see you again. Thanks for coming. I'm going to start with the CFIA.

In its election platform, the Liberal government also committed to an amendment to or an expansion of CFIA's mandate to ensure that it also includes food security, the cost of food and economic impact on farmers and producers.

Has that change happened, and if not, when do you expect that change to the mandate to happen?

[Robert Ianiro]

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency was established under the CFIA Act, and it actually makes clear that the agency does, in fact, have a dual role. We're obviously a science-based regulator. We're dedicated to mitigating risks to food safety and protecting plants and animals, but we're also in place to facilitate trade. In fact, the act does make reference to—

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I'm sorry. It's a pretty straightforward question. Are you changing or are you adjusting the mandate to include costs and food security as part of the changes that have been promised by the Liberal government, yes or no? If it hasn't happened, do you have an idea of when it might?

[Robert Ianiro]

The change isn't required, because the economic aspects of trade and commerce are already in the preamble that establishes the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Okay, thank you.

As you mentioned, the CFIA recently released its “Progress Report on Red Tape Reduction”. Mr. Ianiro, the comment that I'm hearing most from industry is that they were not consulted, or there was very minimal consultation. They were not allowed to really have a say in what those issues were that you put out there.

How many days of consultation were provided to agriculture stakeholder groups, and were they permitted to submit recommendations for the red tape reduction report that you mentioned earlier?

[Robert Ianiro]

While there may not have been a formal consultation process, I can assure you that many of the examples I provided specifically came through input that was received from stakeholders.

For example, the Fresh Produce Alliance of Canada asked for the prescriptive labelling changes as they relate to fruits and vegetables.

The changes we made to leveraging foreign authorizations came from the Animal Nutrition Association of Canada.

We were looking at, as you know, harmonizing our feed ban with the U.S., and that came from the CCA and the CMC.

We heard from Maple Leaf Foods and Farm Credit Canada about wanting to level the playing field on how we address salmonella enteritidis testing for foreign importation of hatching eggs.

I think we did our utmost. There's obviously more to do, but we definitely considered all the stakeholder feedback that we received and addressed it as best we could in our current progress report.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Ianiro, thank you for your answers. We know the chief redress officer, as part of the CFIA, was a critical office that was eliminated by the Liberal government. We know that almost 27%, or well over a quarter, of all the complaints brought in by customers, producers and businesses to the CFIA were justified, and many of those decisions had to be reversed.

Can you table with this committee an updated report on how many CFIA complaints have been received between 2015 and today, broken down by subject matter, by province and by the outcome of those complaints? That would be very helpful to this report, as well.

Now I want to turn to AAFC. Thank you very much, Mr. Jurgutis, for being here.

The sustainable agriculture strategy and what's come out of that is a big reason this study is happening and is a linchpin of why this is so frustrating. More than half of the farmers who were polled and surveyed on the sustainable agriculture strategy perceived it as a negative impact. Many thought it was onerous, and stakeholders were very negative on the impact of the SAS. In fact, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Canola Council of Canada, Cereals Canada, Grain Growers of Canada, Pulse Canada and Soy Canada have all abandoned this partnership. To quote those organizations:

Together, we have consistently voiced that there is a lack of industry alignment regarding the targets and actions proposed in the SAS. As a result, we have collectively decided to step back from the Advisory Committee, as the strategy's direction does not fully represent the interests of our members.

To paraphrase that, what they're saying is that whatever suggestions or advice they're bringing to the advisory committee, Ag Canada is going in its own direction despite that. That's why they have stepped aside.

Does the Liberal government still plan to impose the SAS on Canadian agriculture?

[Steven Jurgutis]

I would say that fairly extensive consultation was done for the SAS over a number of years. Certainly, there were differing views, in terms of perspectives and approach, from stakeholders and other groups as well. At this point, the work that's been undertaken on the SAS is, I would say, on hold. I wouldn't say it has been abandoned.

In terms of directions and next steps, those are yet to be determined. We very clearly understood and heard the perspectives of, in particular, some of the stakeholders you've named, and others as well.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

I have one quick question for PMRA.

The decision on dicamba resembles previous decisions on lambda cy and other neonics.

Why are we continually running into this problem where the re-evaluation of the decisions...where label changes are published before the science is done? This causes a lot of consternation within industry for farmers and producers.

Why are we not learning the lessons from these continual mistakes on how PMRA reassesses these products?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Give us a really short answer to this, please.

[Frédéric Bissonnette, Senior Director General, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health]

There is currently consultation on dicamba. We welcome input. Our planning can engage with the sector.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you so much.

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

We have MP Harrison online.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Hello, everyone.

I'm here on my farm. It's raining, thank goodness. We've been in a pretty significant drought for a few months, so it's pretty nice to see the rain.

Thank you for being here.

My first question is for the Department of Agriculture.

We are having stakeholders in the second hour. I know you are in regular contact with them, but I think it's really important to encourage you to follow this study closely. It's important to listen to the stakeholders and the people being heavily affected by the choices that are being made.

On reducing regulatory red tape, what are some of the most common concerns you're hearing from farmers and producers?

[Steven Jurgutis]

We have extensive engagement with representatives from across the agriculture sector. One thing I mentioned in my opening comments, and this is actually in the report as an example, is an agile regulations table that I co-chair with industry and representation across the sector, provinces and territories. We have an opportunity to have members of CFIA, PMRA and others be a part of that committee to explore together and look for opportunities to improve regulatory burden within the sector.

A lot of what we hear through that table and through others, in conversations we have with the sector, are the aspects of what would be considered by some as unintended consequences and accumulative burden. We want to have a comprehension of the fact that there are often multiple layers of different types of regulations that impact a sector. They come from a wide number of regulators. It's not exclusively those you see seated before you at the table today, but a number of other regulators as well.

I think we've made some good progress toward finding ways to not necessarily just make regulatory changes, but to have a better comprehension between regulators and the sector to understand what those burdens are, look for solutions and be able to bring things forward that could cut across the board.

As part of that group, we'd identified some 150 irritants. I think there were about 34 or 35 we were able to resolve. Some of those have to do with interpretations of regulations, timing of when consultations happen and various other aspects.

I think the importance is on the ongoing engagement we have, which includes a multitude of regulators as well as a cross-section of the agriculture sector.

Thank you.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

My question is for Mr. Ianiro. Mr. Barlow spoke on this, and I would like to go a little further with it.

Understanding the need to balance reducing regulatory burden with safety, can you talk about the consultation process, what that actually looks like and how you decide who is part of the consultation process?

[Robert Ianiro]

We're always open and are constantly meeting with a broad range of stakeholders across all of our regulated areas, be it in areas of animal health, food or plants. We've gotten a fairly substantial list of feedback from a variety of stakeholders across those three areas. A lot of the actions we've taken in the short term, and for sure, in the second phase of our progress report, in more of the short-, medium- and longer-term initiatives, respond to that.

We're constantly meeting with stakeholders. We're always open to hearing feedback. Many of the initiatives we have under way are going through either preconsultation phases or Canada Gazette. We're obviously looking at continuing to make any adjustments and receiving feedback from those stakeholders. A week doesn't go by when I don't meet with various stakeholders.

Of course, we have our normal formal processes, either through prepublication or the gazetting process.