Agriculture Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number five 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 using the Zoom application.

Before we continue, I would 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 our interpreters. You will also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

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

For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your 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.

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 to the best of our ability. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

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

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

From the Canada Grains Council, we have Mac Ross.

From the Canadian Meat Council, we welcome Claire Citeau and Jorge Correa.

From CropLife Canada, we have Émilie Bergeron; and Gregory Kolz, vice-president, government affairs.

Welcome.

Each organization has five minutes, and then we'll go to questions from the different parties.

We will start with Mr. Ross.

You have five minutes.

[Mac Ross, Vice-President, Trade Policy and Crop Protection, Canada Grains Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

Thank you for the invitation to appear today.

As noted, my name is Mac Ross, and I'm the vice-president of trade policy and crop protection with the Canada Grains Council.

The Canada Grains Council is the national organization representing the entire grain value chain, including Canadian farmers, seed and life science companies, exporters and all major field crop commodity associations.

I'm pleased to appear here today, as the committee's study on the government's regulatory reform initiative in agriculture and agri-food concerns an area that is critical to the success of our sector.

While the Canadian grain sector already accounts for an annual economic impact of $172 billion, reducing red tape is imperative to further unleashing the economic potential of our sector.

Canada's heavy regulatory burden is slowing investment, innovation and growth across our sector. Canada currently ranks near the bottom of OECD countries on administrative and regulatory burden, and that puts our competitiveness at risk. This is a serious concern for the grain sector, which has further potential to be a major economic driver for Canada if it's empowered rather than constrained. To achieve this, Canadian regulations must be modern, efficient and aligned with economic growth objectives that allow farmers, exporters and innovators to compete on a global stage.

Canadian farmers, as you know, have a tremendous capacity and an eagerness to adopt and implement modern plant science innovation, such as crop protection products and seed innovation. These tools help Canadian farmers sustainably intensify their productive capacity, positively contributing to the Canadian economy and to food security at home and abroad.

Canadian farmers rely on both the PMRA and the CFIA to gain timely access to these tools and to support trade.

As a relatively small market, we can't afford to have a regulatory system that is more expensive, less predictable and mired in more red tape than that of our competitors. If we're serious about boosting Canadian competitiveness and economic growth, we need to make sure our regulatory approaches align with our strategic objectives as a country.

As such, the Canada Grains Council proposes the following five no-cost changes at both the PMRA and the CFIA to ensure regulations support a growth agenda for Canada.

First, require the PMRA to consider food security and economic impacts in all their regulatory decisions without compromising on health and safety.

Second, instruct the PMRA to leverage reviews and best regulatory practices from other trusted, risk-based jurisdictions to remove duplication and to keep Canadian farmers competitive.

Third, deliver world-leading regulatory performance standards by requiring the PMRA to meet 100% of its performance targets.

Fourth, sunset the PMRA's transformation agenda, which has been under way since 2021, and refocus PMRA resources on delivering core mandate activities.

Fifth, regarding the CFIA, expedite the CFIA's development and full adoption of electronic phytosanitary certificate, or ePhyto, exchange, for both import and export of grain with our participating international trading partners. Unfortunately, Canada is currently behind many of our competitors in making this transition.

At a time when the global trading environment is increasingly volatile, Canada can't afford to have its “own goals” by way of our own domestic regulatory burden. We believe these five no-cost recommendations for the PMRA and the CFIA will help create a regulatory environment in Canada that moves at the speed of commerce and provides timely access to innovation for Canadian farmers.

This will be an important study for our sector, and we look forward to playing an active role as it takes shape. We thank all members in advance for taking this important work seriously.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next, we'll go to the Canadian Meat Council for five minutes.

[Claire Citeau, Vice-President, International Trade, Canadian Meat Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee, for the invitation to appear before you today.

My name is Claire Citeau and I am vice president of the Canadian Meat Council. We are the voice of Canada’s federally licensed meat industry—the largest component of the food processing sector, with annual sales of more than $32 billion and supporting nearly 300,000 jobs across the country. Our members process nearly 90% of Canada’s meat, supplying Canadian families and more than 90 export markets with safe, high-quality protein.

The Canadian red meat sector is diverse and includes large multinationals and many small and medium-sized businesses.

Today, our industry faces serious headwinds: punitive Chinese tariffs, persistent labour shortages, shifting international trade rules and livestock supply pressures that leave processors operating on razor-thin margins. The sector is inherently dependent on trade for carcass utilization and to get better value for our products internationally, with over half of Canadian meat production destined for exports, including to the U.S., China, Japan, Mexico and South Korea, among others.

I will now turn it over to my colleague.

[Jorge Correa, Vice-President, Market Access and Technical Affairs, Canadian Meat Council]

Good afternoon. My name is Jorge Correa. I am vice-president of market access and technical affairs for the Canadian Meat Council.

To build resilience and safeguard the sector's contribution to Canada's food system, economic growth, and rural employment, we recommend a number of finance priorities. The first is the meat processing resilience fund. Amend the AgriStability program to support federally regulated meat processors facing supply-driven negative margins, ensuring that processors have access to risk management programs comparable to those available to producers. Prioritize trade diversification and market access. Extend the AgriMarketing funding envelope to strengthen industry engagement abroad, including such initiatives as the first industry Canadian meat advocacy office in China, renewed support for the Indo-Pacific agri-food office and funding to help industry meet foreign regulatory requirements.

Next is China tariffs compensation. Engage substantially with China to reopen the market to beef, remove tariffs on pork and provide compensation to offset the 25% retaliatory tariffs on Canadian pork, which represent $177 million in annual losses. Comparable compensation has been extended to other sectors. Ensure that the CFIA has the resources and expertise, both domestically and in Canadian embassies abroad, to keep exports moving and to streamline inspection through digitalization and AI-assisted tools, e-certification and clearer guidance to ensure national regulatory consistency.

We recommend the following urgent regulatory reforms. Exempt meat inspection from Bill C-5 unless provincial systems are demonstrably equivalent to federal standards. Align the enhanced feed ban program with U.S. standards. The CFIA estimates that this change could save the processing sector $25 million annually. Extend labour market impact assessment validity to two years. Continue supporting the provincial nominee program, which is managed by provinces, and create a sector-specific immigration stream to stabilize the workforce. Invest in preparedness for and response to foreign animal diseases, including African swine fever and foot-and-mouth disease. Implement the recommendations of the Industrial Inquiry Commission on West Coast Ports within the fall 2025 budget implementation act to prevent disruptions that hurt agri-food exports.

Canada's meat sector is proud of its food safety record and of the role it plays feeding Canadians and the world, but regulatory inefficiencies are real barriers to competitiveness and growth. Solutions exist, and because the fate of our industry is so closely tied with that of the regulator, the solutions that would unlock savings and efficiencies for industry would also create savings and efficiencies for the government.

Ultimately, we look forward to continuing to work with government to maintain world-class standards, reduce unnecessary costs and strengthen Canada's position as a global agri-food leader.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Finally, we turn to CropLife Canada for five minutes.

[Gregory Kolz, Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

My name is Gregory Kolz, vice-president of government affairs at CropLife Canada. I'm joined today by my colleague Émilie Bergeron, vice-president of chemistry. Thank you for inviting us to appear today as part of your ongoing study of the government's regulatory reform initiative in the agriculture and agri-food sector.

CropLife Canada is the national voice of the manufacturers, developers and distributors of pesticides and plant breeding innovations. Our members deliver critical solutions that support Canadian farmers as they grow food for Canadians and the world and drive economic growth for Canada. Our members are poised and ready to deliver much-needed innovations to help reignite productivity growth in the agriculture sector, but in order to so, they need the right regulatory environment.

This past July, CropLife Canada was pleased to see the Government of Canada initiate its red tape review. The federal government's efforts to streamline services, cut duplication and reduce costs for Canadians and businesses come at a critical time for the agriculture industry and the plant science sector specifically. Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry is a vital part of our economy and our food security. The industry contributes almost $150 billion annually to our GDP and employs 2.3 million Canadians. That's more than the automotive, forestry, steel and aluminum, and oil and gas sectors combined. We are the largest manufacturing sector in the country and a key driver of domestic economic growth.

That said, if Canada's economy is to become the strongest in the G7, it will need the agriculture and food sector to flourish and grow. While the sector already accounts for 7% of the country's GDP, the opportunity exists for the sector to double its contributions over the next 10 years. We believe much of this opportunity lies in low-hanging fruit, including implementing several no-cost measures that improve the efficiency of the regulatory system and ensure that farmers have timely access to the innovative seed and crop protection tools they need in order to increase productivity and compete in the global marketplace.

I will turn to my colleague.

[Émilie Bergeron, Vice-President, Chemistry, CropLife Canada]

While the recent red tape reduction report from Health Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, points to a desire to reduce the regulatory burden, recommendations pertaining to innovations in plant science are disappointing and would do little to remove red tape and drive economic growth.

Simply put, the government must take bold and decisive action. Health and safety will always be of paramount concern, but we must collectively find a balance between regulating for risk and regulating for growth.

The challenges are particularly acute for the PMRA. The number of new product submissions to the PMRA annually is half what it was 10 years ago, but approval timelines have almost doubled over the same period. This has done a serious disservice to Canada’s reputation as a global leader in regulatory affairs and put Canadian farmers at a disadvantage.

Introducing new phytosanitary products to the market typically takes 12 years, spanning from initial R and D to regulatory approval. Each additional year of delay means lost opportunities for farmers and they may incur devastating losses linked to pest outbreaks that could have been averted if not for innovations trapped in the PMRA’s tangled web of bureaucracy.

[Gregory Kolz]

CropLife Canada and our members share the belief that there is a clear need for enabling regulations that support Canadian innovation and competitiveness while promoting fiscal responsibility and efficiency in resource utilization.

This is why we are recommending that the government focus on eliminating redundant bureaucratic processes, such as the PMRA transformation agenda, and refocus resources on delivering timely approvals of new crop protection tools and predictable and risk-based re-evaluation decisions, ensuring Canadian farmers have access to innovative products and technologies to produce safe and abundant food and feed.

As the government looks to drive more investment and innovation in Canada, we must ensure that the regulatory system is positioned to handle an increase in new product submissions and re-evaluations. This will require efficient, predictable and modern regulatory approaches that are as innovative as the products they are designed to regulate.

The plant science industry stands ready and willing to work with the government to create a path forward where we have a world-leading regulatory system that maintains high standards for health and safety while also enabling timely access to innovative products.

Thank you for your time, and we look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much. That was right on time, so we appreciate that.

We'll go to the Conservatives to begin a six-minute round for each of the parties.

We'll begin with Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here on what is a very important process for us to go through.

Last week, we had officials from the CFIA and the PMRA here. My first question to them was this: Are plans under way for you to meet the Liberal government's mandate by adjusting your mandate to include economic impact and ensure the decisions you make have economic growth as part of that process?

The officials from the CFIA and the PMRA said there was no reason for them to change their mandates, as those things were already within their purview. I would argue that's absolutely not happening.

We'll start with CropLife. Would you agree with that assessment, that there is no need for the CFIA and the PMRA to change their mandates?

[Gregory Kolz]

We would disagree with that assertion.

Yes, it does appear in the preamble. There's no questioning that. That is a valid statement. Unfortunately, however, it does not seem to be taken into consideration as much as we believe it should. We do believe they should look at maintaining health and safety as a priority, but they also need to ensure the economic and competitive lens is applied to their decisions.

This is also consistent with the commitments the government made in its recent platform, talking about ensuring it recognizes the cost of food in all of its regulatory decisions without compromising on health and safety. Therefore, we want to hold the government to account on that promise.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Ross, you said something similar in your presentation.

Would you agree or disagree with the statements made by officials from the CFIA and the PMRA in terms of economic impact in their mandates?

[Mac Ross]

I would disagree with the assertion that that promise does not need to be fulfilled and that the mandate doesn't need to be changed. As mentioned already, health and safety will always be of the utmost importance, but we need to find the appropriate balance between regulating for risk and regulating for growth.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

I'm going to go to CropLife again. We had a recent decision by the PMRA again on dicamba, which sounds very similar to what we went through with lambda-cy and decisions on neonics.

It seems like we're always having these proposed label changes being published before the scientific discussion or assessments have even been completed. That is having consequences within the agriculture industry.

Why do we continue to run into these same problems? Why is this always happening? What is the impact on your members and producers? What needs to be done to ensure that these decisions are being made in the proper sequence, so we don't continue to have these problems as we have with dicamba, lambda-cy and neonics?

[Émilie Bergeron]

Yes, this is a long-standing issue that we have with the PMRA. That is why we were so disappointed when we saw the red tape reduction report from the PMRA.

We were expecting them to talk about improvements needed on the re-evaluation process, which led to the dicamba decision, and others that you named, over the years. We were so concerned as well because we've had these discussions with the PMRA for the past 10 years about how to improve the re-evaluation system and how to build efficiencies in the program so that these black boxes, this lack of transparency and these decisions that come without information or discussion with the registrant and the ag industry on the impact and the science behind the decision.... That never happened.

What we've been proposing to the PMRA for a long time now—I said 10 years, but I think it's more than that—is really to have a step before the proposed decision, when they release the risk assessment. It's very similar to what is going on in the U.S. The U.S. does that. They stop at the risk assessment, have a discussion with the registrant and agricultural industry on the risks, what is at stake and new science that may emerge that may help make a better decision, and then they move on with the process.

The PMRA so far hasn't agreed to move in that direction, but we feel that now, today, this new decision kind of shows the importance of going back to the discussion and having a clear, comprehensive review of how to improve the re-evaluation system.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Ms. Bergeron.

I have another question for all of the witnesses here.

Ms. Bergeron, you brought up the red tape reduction report brought forward by the government. We also had Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's officials here last week admit that there was no formal consultation process. You kind of mentioned that when the report was presented, you were expecting to see some things in there that were not there.

I just want to confirm this. Maybe each one of you can answer. We'll start with CropLife.

Were you approached as part of a formal consultation process into this red tape reduction report, yes or no?

[Gregory Kolz]

I can confirm that we were not consulted during the process.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Claire from the Meat Council, were you consulted?

[Claire Citeau]

Yes.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mac, did you have official consultations as part of the red tape reduction report?

[Mac Ross]

We were not approached for official consultation.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

It's interesting that some were and some weren't, considering that you would be two of the most critical stakeholder representatives within that.

I have about 30 seconds here.

This is again for CropLife on the PMRA. You mentioned the transformation agenda quite extensively. There are going to be additional costs. It's four times higher than what the United States is being charged.

Have they explained to you what these additional funds are going to be used for? Are you going to see any better service as a result of the $80 million in additional fees being charged?

[Gregory Kolz]

We were intrigued by the response given last week, whereby I believe one of the officials said that they were “hopeful” that the funds would be used to help improve services. To this point, there are no guarantees. In fact, it remains unclear what the plan is exactly to ensure that they can actually meet the standards they are supposed to meet.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.