Agriculture Committee on Sept. 25th, 2025

[Steven Jurgutis]

We have a number of initiatives, which are outlined in the report. All the elements that are described in the report are the responsibility of our department. As I mentioned, one example is the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act, which falls under our department's responsibility.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Ianiro, you talked about improving the efficiency of the work, among other things. The government has given you a mandate to improve the situation. Isn't your permanent mission to improve the situation? If the government isn't asking you to improve, are you waiting for someone to ask you to do so? If you see that regulations contain something that makes no sense, why not make corrections along the way? Why don't you conduct a review every five years, without the government having to ask you to do so?

[Robert Ianiro]

We're always open to improvement. Every day and every week, we are making efforts to improve our requirements and regulations. It's not just about the process we're discussing today.

We are constantly getting feedback from stakeholders. We are doing regulatory amendments, policy changes and guidance changes on an ongoing basis. What I covered today were just some of the things that we've done and tied to the progress report, but we're always open, and it's part of our job as a regulator to continue doing what is being suggested.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much, sir.

I'll go the Liberals for five minutes, with Mr. Connors.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Yes, good day. Thank you for coming out.

I'm going to go along the lines of updated regulations and stuff like that.

Organizations like PMRA and CFIA are obviously large organizations, and these regulations are designated to keep Canadians as safe as possible.

When it comes to outdated regulations, sometimes it may appear obvious, but how does the department determine when the regulations are outdated, and is there any review mechanism to consistently ensure that the regulations are current and working and benefiting farmers and Canadians?

[Robert Ianiro]

Perhaps I can start. There are a variety of inputs or things that would trigger a review. I think it could be a change made in some of our trading partners, so that we need to better align to ensure that we're competitive. It could be a change in science. For example, one of the initiatives that we have under way in the progress report is eliminating a bunch of aquatic diseases that had to be reported, and there were always additional import permits.

We've continued to follow the science and have come to appreciate that those diseases are no longer an issue. We're eliminating those diseases from our regulations.

It could be a combination of changing science and aligning to changes with our trading partners. There are a variety of inputs. I would say that this happens on a continuous basis. We appreciate the red-tape initiative that has been initiated by our colleagues at Treasury Board Secretariat. It's a laudable initiative, but as I said in my opening remarks, this is an ongoing initiative. This is the first stage, and we need to continue doing this. Hopefully that helps give some examples of what drives some of those ongoing regulatory changes.

I should have mentioned clearly that feedback from our stakeholders is critical. When it doesn't compromise health and safety or put any of our trade agreements at risk, we're more than open-minded to making those changes.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

When we're looking at reducing red tape and making the system less burdensome, how much work goes into ensuring that our regulations are still compliant with international standards and those of other countries? As we're looking to diversify our economy and move into areas where we haven't moved before, will the department take a proactive approach and look at those countries as they open up to us as potential trading partners?

[Robert Ianiro]

The very system that we have domestically in Canada for our food safety system is based and founded upon international standards. Canada is definitely recognized as a leader in the area of food safety, following those international standards. It is that very system and those regulatory requirements that are assessed by the foreign jurisdictions to determine whether we will be granted access to those markets. There's no doubt that any time we're making regulatory changes we're considering those impacts.

I can give you a concrete example that is of interest to this committee. When we're looking at harmonizing our list of specified risk material with the U.S.—we are committed to doing that, and we are on track to do it—we want to consider the trade impacts. We want to do our part to level the playing field and make it competitive for Canadian producers, who, right now, are at perhaps a $25-million-a-year disadvantage. We also need to do this in a way that is accepted by our trading partners. We expect that will be the case, but we are doing our homework to make sure that none of those markets are impacted. We have no reason to believe they will be. That's a concrete example of how we consider the trade aspects, because it is very much founded on the regulatory system that we have within the country.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Are there any supports in place to help a farmer or producer who is looking at moving to an international market navigate some of the complex issues they would have to manage their way through? If so, do you see them regularly taking advantage of them?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'm going to have to intervene. Maybe we can answer that question in the next round, because time has run out.

Mr. Perron, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Of course, everyone agrees that health and safety are paramount. We keep all of that in mind.

Mr. Bissonnette, you said that drone technology is advancing quickly and that something should be in place in a year. However, you've been looking into this issue for a while now. How long have you been studying this issue?

[Frédéric Bissonnette]

We are working on this issue with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. I don't have the exact date, but we may have started two years ago. The industry generated data to find out, for example, where droplets go when a drone is used for watering. We've been looking at this issue for about two years, but I'd have to check the exact date.

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

As a neophyte, I find that quite long. However, if you work with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, that may explain certain things.

Does that mean that the use of drones is not yet allowed elsewhere?

[Frédéric Bissonnette]

It depends on the country. Some countries allow the use of drones. In a number of South American countries, for example, the solution is to use a backpack. In that case, exposure to substances is worse. In those circumstances, it would be better to use a drone. In Europe, it's more like in Canada. In the United States, a decision was made to allow the use of drones. It really depends on the country; it's not the same everywhere.

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

Ordinary people will be happy to know that you are working on this. The use of drones seems logical to me.

Does it often take up to 10 years to do an analysis? Do you have a list of the products that were analyzed and the time it took to do so?

Right now, you're trying to improve the process. Does that mean it won't happen again? It seems to me that 10 years makes no sense.

[Frédéric Bissonnette]

It really depends on the circumstances. In the case of minor-use products, the time frame can be long, as this is not solely the responsibility of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. A series of steps have to be followed. I don't have the numbers with me, but only a certain number of products can be registered each year.

As for the regular registration of products from the industry, there is currently a backlog. We have a plan to clear it. We believe it will take a year or two, excluding consultations.

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

Okay. Thank you very much for your answers.

Mr. Ianiro, I don't have time to ask you a question, but I do have time to tell you something about the reciprocity of standards: We would like to see a little more inspections at the borders. If you have any data on that, I invite you to send it to the committee. Thank you in advance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

We have Mr. Barlow for five minutes.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'll go back to the PMRA, with Mr. Jones and Mr. Bissonnette.

Saskatchewan and Alberta have had an incredible outbreak of gophers in the last couple of years. This year we've seen yield loss of higher than 25%.

I talked to a farmer on the weekend who alone has lost 120 acres of canola twice—once in the spring and again this fall as a result of gophers.

Alberta and Saskatchewan have asked the PMRA.... Well, I don't think Alberta has, but Saskatchewan has put forward an emergency-use order for permits for strychnine next season.

It is my understanding that the departments of agriculture in Alberta and Saskatchewan worked with PMRA. They did a study that showed the use of strychnine under the right regulations, used properly, had no impact on predators or scroungers—no deaths occurred.

What is the status of the use of strychnine in Alberta and Saskatchewan? They asked for it. Is PMRA looking at that and reinstating the use of strychnine? Otherwise, we're going to see catastrophic losses in yields next year.

[Frédéric Bissonnette]

Currently it's not registered. It was banned in 2020.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I believe it was.

[Frédéric Bissonnette]

I don't believe we have received an actual emergency registration at the moment. I'll have to check. Last time I checked, earlier in the week, we hadn't had one.

We are willing to talk to them. We actually met with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture yesterday to explore potential solutions. Because it was found to be unacceptable, we will have to find a way to proceed in that direction. We would have to have reassurance that the product can be used safely.

With regard to the data in question that you're speaking about, yes, we worked with them to develop the protocol. We didn't actually conduct the study, obviously. The study did not demonstrate that the risks we identified previously were addressed. Essentially, there were prior studies conducted showing that the gophers were staying above the ground, which is the main issue, because the strychnine lingers in the tissue. That smaller-scale study actually showed that you still found gophers at the surface, but it was on a much smaller scale than some of the original ones.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

I'm going to continue the questioning of my Bloc colleague, by highlighting that it's taking 10 years to study the safety of herbicides, when it should take two to four years.

At one time, Canada was in the top five countries in terms of timelines to get these products approved, but now we're near the bottom. We're under 20—I believe 21 is the number. In my mind, and certainly to the industry, this is unacceptable.

Is it true that PMRA is not meeting its own standards in terms of timelines in getting active ingredients approved?

[Frédéric Bissonnette]

Right now, we are not meeting the 90% meeting timelines. I think we're around 79%, for a variety of reasons. There is not one unique reason.

We actually came up with a plan. We consulted with CropLife on a plan to get back to performance. We believe this year will be worse, because we're cleaning shop, but we believe that next year we'll be in a good spot to actually bring back performance to where it used to be.

I will also highlight that the EPA is actually in a worse situation. They only met performance 20% of the time, so there is something going on among regulators.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I'm worried about you guys, though, so I appreciate that.

Can you table with the committee how many new active ingredient joint reviews since 2020 have been registered with PMRA, and can you table with the committee the service standard performance results, broken down by category and review type? That would be very helpful as well.

Sticking with the PMRA, the Liberal government is proposing to hike fees with PMRA substantially when it charges companies to keep crop protection products registered in Canada. My understanding is that the fees in Canada would be four times higher than those in the United States. When we're already having a difficult time encouraging companies to register and market their products in Canada because of the timeline it takes to get approved, now fees are going to be hiked substantially. I think that's going to have an incredible impact on our competitiveness.

Can you tell me how much the PMRA is expected to collect from these fee hikes, and is it going to be used to improve services so that these timelines you're talking about, these 10 years, get back down to two to four years and get us back into the top five countries?