Agriculture Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'm going to have to interrupt you there.

Thank you so much.

We'll go to the Conservatives for five minutes, the Liberals for five minutes, and then we're going to end this round.

We're going back to Mr. Barlow for five minutes.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Just really quickly, Ms. Citeau and Mr. Correa, you said that you were consulted as part of the red-tape reduction report. Was that consultation, or were you asked to give a submission? Can you clarify what your activity was there?

[Jorge Correa]

We were consulted by the Treasury Board, and we provided a report to the Treasury Board.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Just as we were talking about specific red-tape reduction—to the Meat Council again—we did a study a couple of years ago on livestock transportation, and the Liberal government wanted to extend the hours and force livestock to be unloaded and loaded back onto tractor trailers, which puts animal health and certainly biosecurity at risk.

There have been multiple studies now by the CFIA and the AFC that show that there are no measurable benefits whatsoever to animal welfare with these new regulations. Is the Meat Council doing any work with the AFC to repeal those new regulations and go back to the policy that was in place before in order to streamline animal transportation back to the way it's been going on for decades?

[Jorge Correa]

No, it seems that we have adapted to these new conditions. We're not currently working on any efforts on that.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

As part of Bill C-5, I know that you presented to the trade committee over the summer and highlighted some of your concerns about the assessment of processing plants in provincial and federal regulatory assessments. Can you highlight those concerns here for this committee as well? Again, it sounds like the government is pushing ahead with these changes despite concerns raised by the processors.

[Claire Citeau]

I will start on the trade side. We have obligations to report to trading partners any regulatory changes that will affect meat trade. That itself, I think, poses questions in terms of our trade standing in the world. If we start deeming federal plants as provincial plants, I think it raises questions about our regulatory system. We are going to have to notify trading partners, and we certainly don't want people to question the robustness of our CFIA inspection system.

[Jorge Correa]

I will add briefly that, concerning the provincial system compared with the federal standards, we have many differences in the 10 provinces and three territories. Those standards are below the federal standards, and we produce 97% of our meat under those standards. The three per cent produced in the provincial facilities could not risk what we do at 97% of our federal establishments.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

To Mr. Ross with the Grains Council, it is my understanding that about 80% of the grain shipments are double inspected. How much money and effort would it save if we were to eliminate that double inspection, that doubling up of that regulation, and streamline that process?

[Mac Ross]

I can't speak specifically to the outward inspection issue, but when it comes to trade execution and the regulatory space, I think a key priority for us has to do with the CFIA and their adoption of electronic phytosanitary certificates, or ePhytos. With the rapid digitization of the global trading system, Canada should be at the vanguard of that but, unfortunately, we're well behind the rest of the world and many of our competitors in making this transition to ePhyto exchange.

Digitization is obviously a cost-efficiency driver, but it will also help our exporters execute trade faster and get paid more quickly. That's a main priority when it comes to that trade execution piece from a regulatory perspective.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We'll go to Mr. MacDonald for the last five minutes.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Good afternoon. Welcome to all of our witnesses. Thank you for coming here today.

I might start with the temporary foreign worker program as I know it's a big component of the process in industry. I was in a stakeholder meeting in P.E.I. last weekend. Representatives from Atlantic Beef Products were there—they'd be one of your smaller processors, I presume—but they're the only beef processor federally inspected in Atlantic Canada.

I understand that the move from one year to two years on the LMIA is complicating and adding red tape to processors and producers that use the program.

Could you paint a picture for me? Where would we be if we eliminated the temporary foreign worker program? I would assume it would be dire. Do you have recommendations for other programs that will make employees available to the agriculture sector?

[Jorge Correa]

I can talk about the testimony of our members. They use the temporary foreign worker program a great deal. With this program, we can produce the meat that we produce today. Communities have been created through those establishments around many rural locations in Canada. People have very good jobs. They're able to have their family here and work in our meat plants.

When we discussed what to say here, our workers mentioned that we need temporary foreign workers working. I see this today. We've been having some challenges, because some sectors abuse this, but the meat sector is not abusing it. We need to have this program in place.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you for those comments.

I know in P.E.I. 80% of the workforce at Atlantic Beef Products is made up of temporary foreign workers, and we do have one of the higher unemployment rates in Canada, and those are good-paying jobs. Local people are not available to take those jobs.

I'll move on now to a comment. I was disappointed to hear that the PMRA doesn't seem to have the ambition for change or to proceed and get to 100% commitment on these timelines. As a new member of government, I am totally committed to removing red tape and regulation for producers and processors so they can succeed.

What other steps can we take? There's a review in process. We hope they'll meet the timeline. Do you have any other suggestions? I'll give this to the Crop Council and the Grains Council to make suggestions.

[Gregory Kolz]

Again, I think it comes from a shift in culture, and that starts at the top. In order for them to shift their approach, I would suggest that it probably should be a directive from the minister or the government as a whole.

Looking at the fact that the cabinet has been given a very unifying or very precise mandate in their mandate letters, I would argue that the agencies should follow similar guidance there.

Sometimes these things take time. Perhaps the departments or the agencies are resistant to that change, but I do believe, and it speaks to what we spoke about earlier in terms of the shift of mandate, if it is made very clear that the economic component needs to be part of the decision-making process, and that is emphasized over and over again, then there's reason for optimism that eventually they'll follow that directive.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Ross, can you comment?

[Mac Ross]

I've already touched on how, as a relatively small pesticide market here in Canada, we incentivize and attract investment will contribute to an agile, predictable regulatory system, and we should aspire to be a global leader in regulatory performance by requiring the PMRA to meet 100% of its performance targets.

The only other thing I'll add is that we've seen performance decline in recent years. At the same time—I touched on this already—the PMRA has been undertaking a transformation agenda, which has been under way since 2021, and which, from our perspective, has had an ever-expanding scope of priorities, little of which has had a meaningful, positive impact to our sector. I do think a step that can be taken is moving on from the PMRA's transformation agenda and refocusing PMRA's resources on their core work, like these performance targets and their core scientific activities, to ensure that Canadian farmers have timely access to new and innovative products and technologies, and to foster an environment where companies are looking to invest in commercializing new products here in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you so much.

I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us here today, and for your commitment to helping build a stronger agriculture and agri-food sector here in this country.

This ends the first part of our meeting.

We will suspend for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I call this meeting back to order.

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'd like to welcome our witnesses from Food and Beverage Canada, Food, Health & Consumer Products of Canada and the Union des producteurs agricoles. Welcome.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. You will have up to five minutes to give your opening remarks. After that, we will have questions from members.

I'd like to start by inviting Food and Beverage Canada to make a statement.

[Kristina Farrell, Chief Executive Officer, Food and Beverage Canada]

Thank you for the invitation to be here today.

Food and Beverage Canada is the national industry association for Canada's domestic food and beverage manufacturers. Our members include all six of the provincial and regional food and beverage manufacturing associations, as well as companies big and small.

As I said last week—and it bears repeating—food and beverage manufacturing is this country's largest manufacturing industry and largest manufacturing employer, but the key difference between us and others is that our industry's purpose is to feed Canadians. Every day, our members take Canadian farm products and turn them into the safe and nutritious food you see on your table.

While our members are committed to high standards for food safety, the health of Canadians and environmental protection, they are increasingly challenged by regulatory complexity and duplication. Canada has a good process for consulting on new regulations, but no process for identifying and repealing duplicative, outdated or unnecessarily costly ones. This gap means that compliance requirements continue to grow, even when they provide little additional benefit.

For small companies without large teams or in-house regulatory expertise, simply trying to understand how these changes impact them can be a full-time job. Even for medium-sized businesses, a single regulation can cost $10,000 to $50,000 in consulting fees just to comply. Multiplied across dozens of overlapping rules, that's money not being invested in automation, R and D, and energy efficiency. This is showing up in the data. Statistics Canada reports that from 2020 to 2024, Canada's manufacturing productivity fell by 7%, even as our trading partners moved ahead.

Another challenge is a lack of alignment across jurisdictions as well as across departments. We see this between the provinces and the federal government. The federal plastics registry, recycling and extended producer responsibility requirements not only overlap with provincial systems, but differ significantly from one province to another. With no harmonization in place, businesses are left navigating a patchwork of conflicting rules that add cost.

We also see this lack of alignment between departments. On the one hand, the government encourages industry to help address food affordability, but on the other hand, overlapping rules like the proposed pollution prevention planning notices and anticipated new PFAS regulations, which will directly impact packaging decisions, add costs that make food more expensive. At the same time, timelines for front-of-pack labelling requirements risk leaving companies in some cases with no choice but to discard large volumes of packaging inventory. It's an unnecessary waste that further drives up costs.

This lack of coordination undermines both productivity and affordability. With businesses navigating a challenging trade environment marked by rising tariffs and doubling down on market diversification, this calls for regulatory agility, not new costly regulations.

I will now hand it over to my colleague.

[Jean-Emmanuel Poitras, Director of Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Food and Beverage Canada]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, we appreciate the government’s regulatory reform initiatives under the Red Tape Reduction Act and the recent progress reports from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, and Health Canada.

Health Canada’s move toward a more flexible risk-based approach is commendable. However, implementation must come with clear timelines, otherwise industry will continue to operate in uncertainty.

The government’s reforms shouldn’t stop there. They must also address other regulatory inefficiencies and irritants that create friction and unnecessary costs for our industry. Reforms must repeal duplicative frameworks, such as the federal plastics registry and instead strengthen existing systems in collaboration with provinces and industry; improve consistency in inspection guidance and interpretation across CFIA regions; proceed with a phased compliance approach to front-of-pack labelling enforcement; and revisit “Product of Canada” labelling rules to make them practical and consumer friendly. More importantly, Canada should adopt a systematic process to review and repeal outdated regulations. We recommend a reverse burden of proof model, where industry identifies regulations that no longer make sense, and the government must justify why they remain in place within a set timeline.

In conclusion, our industry is not asking to lower standards for health and safety. We are asking for regulatory efficiency so that the money now spent on duplicative compliance can instead go to modernizing plants, boosting productivity and keeping food affordable.

My colleague Kristina Farrell and I would be more than happy to answer your questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you so much. You saved the committee 30 seconds, so I appreciate that.

Next, I'll go to Michael Graydon from Food, Health & Consumer Products of Canada.

Mr. Graydon.

[Michael Graydon, Chief Executive Officer, Food, Health & Consumer Products of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

FHCP members manufacture 80% of the goods you find in the centre aisles of grocery stores and pharmacies across Canada. Our sector employs more than 350,000 Canadians in nearly 10,000 facilities nationwide, making us the largest manufacturing sector employer in the country. We also transform close to 40% of Canada's agricultural output into value-added products that feed Canadians and supply global markets.

Today, more than half of the products on Canadian grocery shelves come from outside the country, mostly from the United States. Rising costs, fragmented and outdated regulation, and a highly consolidated retail environment have pushed production elsewhere, resulting in higher costs for Canadians.

What we need is a clearer, more competitive path for investment so that we can strengthen self-sufficiency at home and open new markets abroad. In the United States, manufacturing investment per worker is more than three times higher than in Canada, and our regulatory burden is a key reason for this gap.

When I speak to FHCP members, I hear the same story: regulations are outdated, inflexible and out of step with our trading partners. Canada's regulatory environment is more prescriptive and restrictive than most of our competitors. That means the cost of investing and bringing products to market here often outweighs the benefits. Almost all food products must be reformulated to meet Canadian requirements, which adds cost and complexity. The bottom line is that unless Canada aligns its rules with trusted trading partners, we will continue to discourage investment, reduce the opportunity for trade diversification and limit consumer choice.

One practical step is to adjust regulations to accommodate trade. This means allowing products manufactured for export to meet the standards of the destination market, even if those differ from Canadian domestic requirements.

By relaxing rules for export production, Canada can help its manufacturers compete internationally without compromising Canadian consumer protections at home.

Plastics regulations are also a pressing issue. FHCP was a founding member of the Canada Plastics Pact and the first association in Canada to support the Ellen MacArthur Foundation principles for a circular economy. Our members are committed to reducing packaging, but the federal plastics registry duplicates provincial systems and creates costly reporting without better outcomes. The single-use plastics ban, introduced without coordination with trading partners, risks disadvantaging Canadian exporters. The United States has already flagged Canada's plastics policy as a trade barrier.

There is also growing concern about environmental claims. FHCP supports truthful, transparent communication with consumers, but recent changes to the Competition Act have created confusion and risk for manufacturers. Without clear guidance, companies face rising compliance costs and legal uncertainty. The result is “greenhushing”, where many businesses stop communicating their sustainability efforts altogether. That penalizes responsible companies, discourages innovation and undermines investment. We urge government to clarify the rules and adopt a practical, business principle-based approach that protects consumers without stifling industry progress.

Finally, labelling rules need modernization as there are too many requests for on-pack labelling, which are an ineffective consumer communication technique. Digital labelling offers a practical alternative to on-pack requirements. It reduces costs by avoiding multiple label changes while meeting the objectives of reducing packaging and provides consumers with information they want in a technological format that they are very comfortable using. Moving quickly here would support affordability, availability and accessibility of current product information.

In conclusion, groceries, household essentials and consumer health products are not symbolic luxuries; they are the everyday goods Canadians rely on. This is an industry that is ready to invest, innovate and grow, but we cannot do it with outdated regulations that raise costs and hold us back.

If we modernize regulation, align with our trading partners, fix plastics and labelling policy, and clarify rules around environmental claims, we can start to rebuild capacity, reduce costs and give Canadians more secure access to the products they depend on every day.

I will welcome your questions at the conclusion of the presentations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you so much. I appreciate that.

Our final presentation before we open up for questions is from Union des producteurs agricoles.

Welcome.

Mr. Doyon, you have five minutes.