Agriculture Committee on Oct. 6th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Welcome, everyone, to the sixth meeting 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 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 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 the members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by teleconference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. 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.

All comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. If you're online, please use the Zoom “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order to the best of our ability. Please have patience. We appreciate your understanding in this regard.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, September 18, 2025, the committee is resuming its study of the government's regulatory reform initiative in agriculture and agri-food.

Welcome to our witnesses. Thank you so much for being here, both in person and online.

From the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we have Stéphanie Levasseur and Maria Alkayed.

From the National Cattle Feeders' Association, we have Janice Tranberg and Cathy Jo Noble. They are joining us in person. Welcome. Thank you for being here.

From Producteurs de grains du Québec, we have Salah Zoghlami.

Thank you to everyone for joining us. We appreciate your time.

Each group will have up to five minutes.

We'll start with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

[Stéphanie Levasseur, Second Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

I'll be speaking to you in French. I sent the committee my notes in advance, so the interpreters shouldn't have any trouble following me.

My name is Stéphanie Levasseur, and I am the second vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, or CFA, as well as an apple grower in southern Quebec.

The CFA is Canada's largest general farm organization, representing approximately 190,000 farm families from coast to coast to coast.

The discussions we are having here today aim to inform the government's regulatory reform initiative that seeks to reduce red tape and modernize regulations, which, in our view, is extremely important.

Canada's agricultural and agri-food industry is deeply rooted in both rural and urban communities across Canada. We contribute almost $150 billion annually to the GDP, and the sector employs 2.3 million people.

With a sizable agriculture sector, vast natural resources and a relatively small population, Canada is well positioned to make agriculture a strategic driver of economic growth.

The time has come for agriculture to become the cornerstone of Canada's future. It is strategically positioned to boost economic growth, drive innovation, support sustainability and productivity objectives and improve the standard of living of all Canadians.

And yet, Canadian farmers are being squeezed between rising input costs, ongoing labour shortages, increasingly frequent and severe climate events, and deepening financial pressures, compounded by growing global instability.

All of this is happening against a backdrop of declining agricultural productivity growth at a time when the demand for agricultural products and food security concerns has increased.

Canadian farmers need access to innovations, new technologies and pest control products if we are to compete and help grow Canada's economy, as we believe we can.

We need to streamline and realign our regulatory priorities if we want to make that happen. The first step is to make agriculture a priority not just for the agriculture department, but across the Government of Canada. That is why the CFA recommends that the government consider agriculture and agri-food a national priority by amending the cabinet directive on regulation to mandate that government regulations reflect the economic interests and competitiveness of Canadian producers and strengthen Canada's food security by ensuring a stable, competitive and sustainable domestic agriculture and agri-food supply chain.

As the main government regulators, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, directly impact the availability of pest control products as well as, among other things, the labelling, packaging, licensing and certification of Canadian agriculture and agri-food products. As such, these agencies are major actors in this reform.

While their duties are critical to maintaining Canada's domestic and international reputation as a supplier of safe, quality agriculture products, decisions are made without sufficient consideration of food security, food prices and much less their economic impact on Canadian agriculture and its competitiveness. In our view, this needs to change.

In addition, to level the playing field with countries we trade with, timelines for the regulatory process need to be shortened and efficiency increased. Re-evaluations should not take a decade. Evaluating drone usage for some crops, for instance, should not even take five years.

Access to both innovative and existing products and technologies that farmers and producers need to produce the safe food that Canada and the world needs should be prioritized.

Right now, Canada is lagging behind other countries in terms of access to much-needed pest control products, feed, feed additives and emerging technologies.

To accomplish this, the CFA recommends better alignment and collaboration with trusted and like-minded international regulators to harmonize decisions, expedite decision-making, and leverage the trusted research work that is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'm going to have to stop you there. It's been a bit over five minutes. You'll have an opportunity to answer questions when they're directed to you.

[Stéphanie Levasseur]

Perfect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you so much. I'm sorry for interrupting you.

Now we'll go to the National Cattle Feeders' Association for five minutes.

[Janice Tranberg, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Cattle Feeders' Association]

Thank you. Good afternoon.

The National Cattle Feeders' Association is the national voice of cattle feeders. Cattle feeders are beef farmers who bring their calves onto their farms at the age of about six to 12 months. They modify their diets from grass to a high-energy feed to produce more beef using fewer resources, which results in an improved environmental footprint.

The growth of Canada’s beef sector is limited by duplicative and unnecessary regulations. We call on the government to modernize regulatory systems so as to serve as partners rather than obstacles to Canadian farmers.

Today, we will outline three recommendations for regulatory reform.

Our first recommendation is on labour. There exists a profound and chronic shortage of labour in the agriculture sector. Foreign workers are necessary to maintain and grow our beef sector. The majority of foreign workers hired by cattle feeders are for year-round, long-term jobs. They're not seasonal. As a requirement for bringing in these foreign workers, Canadian employers must first advertise for domestic labour, but it's with little success. With no other option available, feedlots bring in employees through the temporary foreign worker program with the goal of moving them through the system to permanent residency.

The TFW program is complicated, backlogged and fraught with unnecessary and unpractical rules and processes. The main route to permanent residency, which was the agri-food pilot, has recently been cancelled, and no other program is in place to replace it. It's time for the government to build the right foreign worker program for the sectors that have a genuine need and a positive track record, such as the agriculture sector.

[Cathy Jo Noble, Vice-President, National Cattle Feeders' Association]

Our second recommendation is in regard to the timely approval of innovations.

Agriculture is one of the most innovative sectors in Canada, but Canada’s approval of innovations takes years in what is a cumbersome system that duplicates efforts across departments as well as across global jurisdictions. This creates a scenario where innovations that can deliver sustainable and cost-efficient solutions are available to our global competitors, but not to Canadian farmers.

We propose that Canadian regulators provide provisional registration or approval of products that are already approved in two or more trusted global jurisdictions, so that Canadian farmers are not left behind.

Third, we recommend a modern Canada-U.S. border process. The Canadian and U.S. beef industries operate within an integrated market, with cattle often crossing the border more than once in their lifetime. As such, regulatory inefficiencies and duplication at the Canada-U.S. border must be addressed.

Livestock moving across the Canada-U.S. border in either direction must be inspected by a vet accredited by the USDA or CFIA at the origin as well as at the destination, and there is further inspection at the border. For cattle coming into Canada, the process is an unnecessary duplication by the CFIA officials. If Canada and the U.S. accept each other's inspection systems as equivalent, then with technical advancements, there is ample opportunity to improve the process, which will reduce government cost, industry cost and stress on animals.

There are a limited number of border crossings that have vets to do the inspections. The working hours of the vets are limited—for example, it's not in the evenings or on weekends—and these vets are also dealing with domestic animals crossing the border, such as dogs and cats. The result is a negative impact on the flow of commerce and increased wait times that impact the drivers as well as the welfare of the animals.

We have provided three specific recommendations in our remarks. Beyond that, we're happy to discuss the need for a transformation of culture, mandate and reporting structure for the PMRA, CFIA and VDD. This will catalyze investment in the Canadian agriculture sector. Maintaining food safety standards, consumer confidence and economic growth can be done on a parallel track.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you.

Our final speaker in this segment is from Producteurs de grains du Québec.

You have five minutes.

[Salah Zoghlami, Director of Agronomic Affairs, Producteurs de grains du Québec]

Good afternoon Mr. Chair, members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting us to participate in this study.

The effective implementation and management of measures to regulate technologies, biotechnologies and other strategic agricultural inputs is crucial for the grain sector in Canada and Quebec.

Our recommendations in the context of this study are for the PMRA and the CFIA.

Overall, these government agencies must take food security and economic and operational impacts, particularly on farms, into account in all their regulatory decisions, without compromising health and safety.

Health and safety remain paramount, but a balance must be struck between assessing risks and assessing the ability of farms to remain competitive and productive. The growth of food production depends on it.

Balanced regulation can protect public health while promoting economic growth, competitiveness, and rapid access to innovation. The goal is to maintain the current level of protection, but by adopting approaches that allow the agricultural sector to thrive.

More specifically, it is essential that the PMRA draw on evaluation processes and regulatory best practices from other countries that are considered reliable and risk-based in order to eliminate duplication and maintain the competitiveness of the agricultural system.

Agricultural producers are ready to adopt modern crop protection technologies. Rapid access to safe and effective products is essential. Regulatory delays and lack of transparency hinder the introduction of new technologies. By drawing on practices in other countries, Canada can improve its regulatory efficiency without compromising safety.

Canada can and must become a global leader in agricultural innovation. To do so, clear signals must be sent to investors. Furthermore, given the modest size of the Canadian pesticide market, regulatory performance must be exemplary in order to attract innovation.

Consequently, it is essential that the PMRA achieve all of its regulatory performance objectives.

Rather than a major transformation, we recommend redirecting resources toward core activities to ensure rapid access to innovations.

We need to fast-track the development and full adoption by the CFIA of the electronic phytosanitary certificate exchange system, ePhyto, for the import and export of grains with international trading partners.

The digitization of global agricultural trade is moving quickly. Canada must fully adopt the ePhyto system to remain competitive. This will reduce costs, improve trade security and facilitate trade. While progress has been made with Mexico, Canada still lags behind the United States and Australia. The United States already exchanges ePhytos with over 100 countries.

More broadly, reducing red tape and administrative burdens is essential for the grain sector. While some of the government's actions are positive, the overall approach remains far too passive. This is particularly true with regard to the commitment to consider food security and economic impacts in PMRA decisions, as promised in the Liberal Party's spring 2025 platform.

The industry has long supported improvements to the PMRA's pesticide re-evaluation process. The agency has reported that the workload is exceeding its resources. One of the main constraints is the requirement to repeat risk assessments when new data becomes available after proposed decisions have been published.

It is troubling to note that, each year, the number of applications for new product registrations submitted to the PMRA is declining—in fact, it has dropped by half over the past decade—and that approval times have nearly doubled. This puts Canadian agriculture at a significant disadvantage and undermines its competitiveness. Given that it takes an average of about 12 years for a new crop protection product to reach the market, agricultural producers are susceptible to devastating losses due to pests in the meantime.

In addition, the PMRA had promised to consult with agricultural groups earlier and more frequently.

We consider this essential in order to avoid major changes after the decisions have been published.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'm going to have to stop you there. You've exceeded the five minutes.

We'll start with the Conservatives.

You have six minutes, John.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Thanks again to our witnesses for being here.

You can certainly sense the frustration of some of the witnesses who are having to deal with these agencies.

Ms. Levasseur, I want to start with you. I believe you said that you were an apple grower. We've had the recent decision on dicamba from the PMRA, which is very similar to what agriculture went through with the lambda-cy decision a year ago. This had a devastating impact on apple growers specifically. It seems this is happening yet again, where PMRA is making a decision on a label change before the science is even complete on that potential change. We know that PMRA made a mistake when it came to the difference between animal feed and the food system.

What impact did that potential label change on lambda-cy and banning the use of lambda-cy have on your apple orchard? Maybe you can talk about the impact it had on your CFA members.

[Stéphanie Levasseur]

Well, I may not be able to talk directly about that particular product, but history has repeated itself many times in the past five or six years, I'd say, where PMRA has been trying to recoup lost time because they hadn't been doing their re-evaluations in a proper and timely fashion. They're kind of speeding it up to get back on track, but as you say, they do not always take into consideration the fact that there's no alternative. It doesn't enter into their equation. For them, it's only a question of assessing risks to health and nature, and they don't really have any inclination to take into account what effect it has on the growers or producers.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

I have limited time, so I want to go to my next question. Again, it's for CFA.

The Prime Minister made a commitment in his election platform that there would be a mandate change to CFIA and PMRA to include food security and economic impact in their decisions, which is exactly what you are alluding to. However, when we had the officials here a couple of weeks ago and asked them if they had a timeline to act on this mandate change, the response from the CFIA and the PMRA was that they have no reason to change the way they do business.

As a representative of one of the largest agriculture groups in the country, what would be your response to that answer from the officials from CFIA and PMRA, that they have no intentions of acting on those mandate changes and the promise in the Liberal platform?

[Stéphanie Levasseur]

It's kind of disheartening, really. It illustrates well the lack of coherence in government regulations that we've been living with. Sometimes the left hand says the opposite of what the right hand says. This is a perfect example.

If the mandate is there, these agencies should comply and work with us to achieve what the Prime Minister is asking of them, without putting into peril the security of the public or the safety of our food supply. We do need to stay competitive, and we do need them to accelerate the process to keep our tool box replenished.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I have one quick question—just a yes or a no, if that's okay.

The CFIA has put out their red tape reduction report. Was CFA offered a formal consultation as part of that process? We have heard that agriculture groups were asked not to participate. Do you know if you were allowed or if there was a formal consultation, yes or no?

[Stéphanie Levasseur]

No. We were not invited.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

I want to go now to the cattle feeders.

After a number of studies that have happened—I want to get my dates correct here—and some follow-up by AAFC was conducted in 2018, 2019 and 2020 in assessing the new rest stop hours for animal transportation, it has now been shown that there is no scientific reason to be making these changes.

Would you expect that Transport Canada and CFIA would now reverse these changes and allow you to go back to the system that was working well for decades?

Maybe, Janice or Cathy Jo, you have a bit of an assessment of the impact these changes are having on the industry in terms of unloading and loading cattle.

[Janice Tranberg]

Thank you for that question.

The biggest challenge is lameness. When you take cattle on and off a truck, you cause lameness. Some of the concerns, I think, that they were addressing were more the public concerns about whether these animals were getting sufficient amounts of food and water. When they were bringing these recommendations forward, they were actually in the process of doing some research that they had funded to find out what would be the impact of the length of time. We did request that they pause until the science was there to make the changes, but the changes were made, as you suggested.

Now that the research has come out and is public, it has shown that there is more harm to loading and offloading, but we haven't seen any changes coming forward. Some of the complications are.... For example, if you're driving a truck all the way across from Alberta to Ontario and get hit by a snowstorm—we just had snow in Alberta—and something gets delayed, all of a sudden now you have to find a spot. You have to offload those cattle and bring them back on. That is increasing the risk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll move to the Liberals for six minutes, with MP Harrison.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.

We have heard witness testimony over and over again that the duplication of regulatory burden is their biggest frustration. Where would the cutting of red tape have the biggest impact on your sector?

[Janice Tranberg]

There's a number, but I'll just go to one of the examples that we provided on the border services.

As a truck gets inspected, a seal gets put on it. A seal means literally that it seals the truck. The animals have been run through a chute. They've been shown to be healthy. All the numbers match up. They go on the truck, and the truck is sealed. Now you get to the border coming from the U.S. to Canada, and that's done by a USDA vet. Now you're at the Canadian border, and you have to wait for a vet, so you have to time your truck to get through when the vets are actually there. Not only that, the vets are also looking after cats, dogs and other things that are crossing the border. Now you have this load of animals sitting on the truck for over the time that they're allowed to be on a truck, for over the time that the trucker is allowed to be driving. Then they have to go through their vet inspection. When they get to the destination, again, within 48 hours, the animals are offloaded. They're kept in a separate pen. They cannot mingle, and a CFIA-accredited vet has to come and inspect all the cattle.

In my mind, that's a complete duplication of CFIA vets. If we didn't have that, if we trained our CBSA agents to just go through the paperwork and make sure everything is okay, I think that would be a good savings, and it would also help with transport and commerce.

[Cathy Jo Noble]

I think it's particularly important for cattle feeders because we're transporting live animals. As much as we support the diversification away from the U.S., we have live animals, and we can't transport live animals easily in the volumes that we're sending down to the United States. It has to be that Canada-U.S. relationship.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

When the truck arrives and there is no vet available, is there a time limit, or what happens? How long are people potentially waiting?

[Janice Tranberg]

When the truck arrives in Canada, as I said, the cattle get offloaded, and they have to be in a pen that is specific to those animals. They can't mingle with any other animals, and a vet has to be there within 48 to 72 hours. I think that's less of a concern, because we have our relationships with our vets in each province; it's more at the border. When it's been sealed at one end, it can't be opened until it gets to the other end, so that seal remains on there. What is the need to have that vet at the border?

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

You spoke a little bit about some innovations that you would like to see move forward. Could you speak more to the innovations that you would like to see approved?