Agriculture Committee on Oct. 6th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Okay, I think that's actually a good idea.

Mr. Collins, you can stay on. If there are questions directed to you, don't answer them. You can submit the answers back to the committee officially. Just jot them down, and we'll be able to add those into our report.

Madame Chatel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Mr. Chair, I was going to raise the same issue my colleague just raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Okay, excellent. I think we're good.

Thank you, Mr. Collins, for your understanding—and please stay on.

[Brent Collins]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We have Mr. Innes for a five-minute presentation.

[Brian Innes, Executive Director, Soy Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A regulatory system that does not impose unnecessary burdens is important to our international competitiveness. Your study is very timely, because there are many things facing our industry from abroad. Yet, what we do here in Canada to enable our competitiveness is completely within our control.

I'm here representing the soybean value chain. Soy Canada brings together members from across the value chain, including our seed developers, our farmers, our processors and exporters—from the Atlantic all the way to the Rockies. We are the third most valuable crop in Canada, and we produce world-leading food-grade soybeans to produce soy milk, tofu and miso, as well as commodity beans to process into animal feed, oil for humans and biofuel.

With more than 70% of our production exported, we're very focused on global markets and what our sector needs to be competitive.

I'd like to highlight three areas where action and direction could make a real difference for our sector.

First, we suggest the committee recommend the PMRA consider food security and economic impacts in their regulatory decisions without compromising on health and safety.

This is important, because it would lead to processes and decisions that deliver better outcomes for farmers while upholding health and safety.

There are many voices in the conversation about regulating crop protection products, but ultimately, we need to think about why we need these products in the first place: food security and competitiveness.

In the soybean sector, we're living a real example of how this renewed focus would create real benefits. The recently proposed decision to remove all post-emergent uses of dicamba herbicide on soybeans would take away a valuable tool for our farmers. If food security and economic impact were priorities, the PMRA could consider that this crop protection tool has real value for farmers to control weeds resistant to other herbicides, and there would be an ability to consider that the most valuable and practical time to use this tool is after the soybean crop emerges. This is the very use the proposed decision is set to take away. How was removing the most valuable use pattern considered by the PMRA?

Second is that the committee recommend that the CFIA's ongoing seed regulatory modernization effort must not make processes slower or more expensive.

We're seeing a real risk of the process to list soybean varieties becoming slower and more expensive.

For food grade soybeans, currently the Canadian Seed Growers' Association provides a variety listing service that processes applications within a few days. The CFIA is proposing to take over this process.

We're concerned that this will mean a slower and costlier registration process for our soybeans.

Last is that the committee recommend that the CFIA expedite the rollout of electronic phytosanitary certificates. Canada is an international laggard in electronic documentation, significantly behind our U.S. competitors, who can use these electronic phytosanitary certificates for more than 100 countries. This frustrates our customers and imposes costs on our sector that our competitors just do not have.

For example, consider our soybean exports to Japan, where almost 3,000 paper phytosanitary certificates are required. This creates an extra burden in time and in courier costs. We estimate these costs to be about $1 million per year, just for our soybeans to Japan. There are also added risks and financing costs that come with that.

It's a self-imposed cost in Canada that's hurting our competitiveness and frustrating our customers. It's embarrassing to have our customers repeatedly ask why we can't do this. We were able to send emails 30 years ago, but today we are sending 3,000 paper copies of phytosanitary certificates to Japan.

We must do better, and the committee has an essential role to play in motivating change.

Thank you for your interest in how your political leadership can have a real impact on improving the regulatory environment and our competitiveness.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much, Mr. Innes. We appreciate your testimony.

Now we'll go to the Conservatives for six minutes.

Mr. Epp, go ahead.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for appearing today. I'll ask each of the witnesses—Mr. Collins, I would welcome your response in writing—to answer the following question in the order of testimony. That would be Pulse Canada and then Soy Canada.

This comes from Robert Arnason under crop management news: “It should take two to four years to review the safety of a pesticide.... [PMRA] began looking at the health and environmental safety of glufosinate-ammonium [the active ingredient in Liberty] in 2018. It expects to complete the evaluation in 2027.” Yes, that's 2027—nine years. PMRA is allowing present uses to continue as it goes through the re-evaluation process, but it will not allow new uses. BASF's InVigor canola hybrids have a tolerance for Liberty but cannot receive registration for it to be used, as they are considered a new product. “Glufosinate-ammonium has been used [in Canada] for 30 years...and...there are no known cases of harm to humans when applied according to labelled instructions.”

By the way, the BASF LibertyLink canola system was launched in Australia in 2021. With respect to canola, we compete with Australia in the Indo-Pacific, which is a focus of this government's attempts to expand our agri-food exports through the new office we have in Manila. I was just in that region three weeks ago promoting those same exports.

Here is my question for all of you. In your specific sectors, do you have any products that the Canadian industry does not have access to because of the extremely slow processes at PMRA?

Mr. Northey.

[Greg Northey]

No specific product comes to mind, but to a pulse farmer and a farmer of all the other crops, these kinds of issues are a problem, obviously. It's clearly not acceptable. As we noted in our opening testimony, whenever we see the kinds of reports from regulatory agencies that we saw in September, where they talk about ambition and they have the correct words but we're not seeing the action, it's a problem.

I think the question around drones is a really good one. In the U.S., farmers have access to drones right now, while the PMRA conducts its reviews. We haven't been able to get there. Ultimately, these are always the issues that we face with our regulatory agencies. We've faced them for many years.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Just before I go to Mr. Innes, from your agency's perspective, what would be a solution to get past the announcements and get to the action?

[Greg Northey]

I think you've heard testimony in the past few days, and Ms. Levasseur reflected on it as well, on what kind of mandate change would be required at agencies. Obviously, they're respecting the health and safety of Canadians, for sure, but what would it look like if they took into account different aspects within their mandate that would focus on the kinds of things we're talking about, whether it's competitiveness or whether it's the things our farmers need and our industry needs? We've talked about it for many years. That is ultimately what would drive change.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

You mentioned the mandate change. That was in the Liberal election platform, and yet we've heard testimony at this committee by both agencies that their mandates do not need to be changed. Do you agree?

[Greg Northey]

No. They do need to be changed.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

I'll shift to Mr. Innes, please.

Are there any other products that the soy industry does not have access to in Canada vis-à-vis our competitors?

[Brian Innes]

The example I cited in my opening remarks could be a real example of exactly what you're talking about, where American farmers would have access to this herbicide dicamba. If the proposed decision from the PMRA becomes final, that would mean our Canadian farmers would not have access to that herbicide.

It's a really significant impact when you think about how farmers need to manage resistant weeds. Whether we're talking about kochia in western Canada or whether we're talking about water-hemp or fleabane or ragweed, all of these weeds are resistant to herbicides. Our farmers look for ways to manage their crops and create the best yields they can. When you take away tools—and certainly tools relative to the other folks who are able to produce just miles away—that has a real impact on our sector, eroding our competitiveness.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Do you have any comment on the need for a mandate change by both of the agencies we're studying?

[Brian Innes]

The really important part is that there should be direction to the agencies to consider economic competitiveness, as well as think about economic impacts. Whether it's a mandate change or whether it's a direction that then gets implemented in policies—there are many options and ways in which it can be done—there needs to be a change in how they do business.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Collins, I would welcome your written comments on both of those questions.

In August 2025, Food and Beverage Canada testified to the finance committee that the federal government should conduct a reverse burden of proof with respect to regulations and the elimination of regulations. What would be your comment?

We also heard testimony that we should have harmonization where there are two trusted partners who have done the review process for either re-evaluation or the certification of new active ingredients.

Mr. Northey, what would your comments be?

[Greg Northey]

I think it's an interesting idea. Right now, we have a one-for-one rule in Canada. Ultimately, they look at administrative burden. However, the reality is that, while the administrative burden is one piece, the cumulative burden of all the regulations is what impacts the sector. If a new regulation comes in, even if it's a modernized regulation, the ability of the regulated party to understand the regulation—how it's rolled out and the interpretation—is the full burden. Whether it's a reverse burden of proof, as was suggested, or whether it's just a better focus on the economic impact of the cumulative burden of regulation, all ideas should be on the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to the Liberals for six minutes.

MP Chatel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here with us today.

Thank you, Mr. Innes, for emphasizing our study's importance.

Indeed, we in this new Liberal government are committed to reducing red tape and ensuring that we have a modern regulatory system. That's why we're undertaking a reform. As Mr. Northey said, there is an accumulation of regulations, and although each one has a purpose, this accumulation poses a problem.

Our agencies have taken a first step, and this committee's aim is to encourage them to go even further, particularly by listening to what experts like you have to say.

As for the idea of simply changing the agencies' mandate, I fear that this may not be enough. As government officials told us a few weeks ago, food security and economic issues are already part of their mandate, either implicitly or explicitly.

In my opinion, we need to go beyond defining a mandate. We really need to institutionalize collaboration and best practices. We have heard some excellent recommendations in this regard, particularly from the representatives of the National Cattle Feeders' Association. Mr. Epp also mentioned this.

According to them, if “two or more trusted global jurisdictions” recognize a product already, then we should provide what they call a “provisional registration”.

That means that the product would be immediately available while the analyses are being done.

My colleague Mr. Epp also spoke about the reverse onus proposal. This would involve, for example, creating an external advisory committee to represent the industry. This committee would be responsible for reviewing seed regulations and could recommend solutions to the reported problems. Its recommendations would be binding unless the agency can prove that a particular solution can't be adopted because it poses a health risk.

Our own officials have also proposed treating high-risk and low-risk products separately. The goal would be to speed up the registration of low-risk products and take the time needed to deal with high-risk products.

I'd like to hear your comments on these recommendations first, Mr. Innes.

I'll ask Mr. Collins to send us a written response later.

[Brian Innes]

Thank you very much.

I'll start with the idea of drawing on how things are done in other countries to speed up decision-making in Canada.

For us in the soybean space, in seeds, for example, it's not that helpful, because oftentimes our seed varieties are very focused on local conditions, whereas varieties produced in other areas, even in Michigan or in North Dakota, don't perform naturally in Canada.

What's more important is that we think about the culture of the regulatory agencies we have. Those agencies should be encouraged, as you rightly note, to discuss with industry what is important for food security and economic competitiveness, and that can be a consideration in those decisions.

When I think about dicamba, for example, which I mentioned, it's not that we need to follow decisions; we need to consider what our farmers need here in Canada and arrive at a regulated outcome that both protects health and safety and delivers food security and competitiveness. If we thought about how we use the products in Canada, at what temperatures and against what weeds, and where the soybeans are in their growth period, we would arrive at better outcomes, but because our culture is broken, we have a really hard time.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

My time is almost up but I'd also like to hear from Mr. Northey.

Mr. Innes, I'd like you to provide us with additional details in writing regarding our desire to institutionalize collaboration and come up with concrete solutions. This would help us move forward in defining this economic mandate on food security, without compromising the health and safety of Canadians.

Mr. Northey, the floor is yours.

[Greg Northey]

All these ideas are great. I think the key is to realize that there will be no one-size-fits-all solution, because the range of regulations that impact our sector is very broad. Bill C-5, PMRA and AAFC all have some regulations that impact us, so the three suggestions—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I have to stop you. It's about 20 seconds over. I apologize.

Mr. Perron, you have the floor for six minutes, please.