Agriculture Committee on Oct. 9th, 2025

[Erin Sawley]

I think Diane can speak more to that one, because we weren't given very much flexibility at all.

[Diane Sawley]

When we first met with the CFIA, they indicated that, yes, we could test our herd in the fall because of where they were at. They then came back and said no; they were going to quarantine us. It would have meant that our herd would have been under quarantine from July 24 until sometime in October when we tested. For that whole period of time we were under quarantine. At that point, we said we wanted to test our herd because we wanted to mitigate the length of the quarantine so we could market our cattle.

They were flexible in changing the dates, but the consistency in their messaging was not good. Also, there's the fact that every time you ask your caseworker a question, they have to go back to the team. We were told on several occasions that every case is done on a case-by-case basis, so there is no consistency. There's no framework as to how this is going to operate.

We had two commingled herds, which means other producers had cattle mixed with ours. One of them was on the Waldron Grazing Co-op, which is the largest grazing co-op in Canada. It's on open grasslands. It could have affected 74 different operations if we had determined we had TB, and they could not give us proper protocol for biosecurity. They would always tell us that it's done on a case-by-case basis and that until something happens, they can't determine what that will be.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Could you tell me more about working with the provinces? Are the provinces involved and helping out?

Please be brief, as I have only 25 seconds left.

[Diane Sawley]

In Alberta, our ABP has been good in helping us go between us and the CFIA, but with regard to actual producer support, it's all by mouth.

We're not getting any support through our producer groups other than communication.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Perron for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Erin Sawley, I didn't have time to tell you this earlier, but I wish you all the best; we are with you.

Ms. Diane Sawley, since things don't seem to have been completely resolved in your case either, I wish you the same.

You mentioned that, whenever a decision has to be made or a minor issue arises, officials at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency don't seem to have any autonomy. That's what we see in most departments. Public servants have no leeway and have to stay in their little boxes. Beyond that, they have to get the approval of their superiors. It can take two or three weeks, even a month, to get an answer.

Did I understand you correctly?

[Diane Sawley]

Yes, that would be correct. The caseworker you deal with is just an in-between. It goes to the top and then it's a waiting game from there.

[Erin Sawley]

I would agree with that.

I have to add that it's especially frustrating when you get put on a call with maybe the epidemiology planning group and they tell you that what they would have done is different from what you're hearing from a different planning group that manages a different part of the operation.

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

It's incredibly sad.

Ms. Diane Sawley, if you have any recommendations to improve things, please send them to us in writing. Perhaps there should be better training and more autonomy for the people who go into the field to conduct the assessments.

Do you feel that the delays at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are due to a serious lack of resources, or do you think there's also a culture and efficiency issue?

[Diane Sawley]

My guess would be that it's more an inefficiency in working culture than a lack of resources, because when they sent their crew out to do the testing, they had more than enough people.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

We'll do three minutes each, if that's okay.

We'll go to Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

I really appreciate the frank responses from our witnesses and their understanding of the importance of doing everything they can to follow the protocol in protecting our disease-free status in Canada. However, I think what's excruciatingly frustrating here is that there don't seem to be any lessons learned. We had the bovine TB outbreak in Alberta in 2016, and we lost almost 12,000 head of cattle as a result of that.

Erin and Diane, you're both saying that there seems to be an incredible lack of knowledge at the CFIA about how to deal with this, and a lack of communication. It doesn't seem like they learned anything from the outbreak in 2016. They didn't put together a framework, or even amend the Health of Animals Act to have the compensation portion changed.

Another example is a recommendation we had from the biosecurity report to change the compensation to include clean-up, disinfecting and other costs, and the response from the government at that time was that producers should use AgriStability and private insurance. Do they cover, or are they even accessible for, an issue like this that you're dealing with? Diane and Erin, maybe just take a second on that. Can you access private insurance or AgriStability to cover your costs?

[Diane Sawley]

To my knowledge, private insurance would not be an option. I am not aware that AgriStability would be either.

[Erin Sawley]

I agree. We actually had our cattle insured. We went through the motions to make a claim to have some of the costs covered, but diseases are not covered in any way, shape or form.

It's the same with AgriStability. We're working right now to see how that program may help us, but it's not looking great.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

It's frustrating when the government is recommending programs to cover your costs that you don't even qualify for. It's an incredible lack of knowledge or a dismissiveness for the government to offer these programs.

Lastly, can you talk about the impact this has had on your mental health as you try to go through it? It's one thing to depopulate a herd that you've worked years to build, but to have 300 days of not knowing where you are is.... Our goal is to make sure we grow the cattle herd in Canada, not lose young ranchers, entrepreneurs and business owners. What has the impact been on you and your family, Erin?

[Erin Sawley]

We have young children, and I don't know whether they'll want to continue on. It's been very trying. There have been a lot of uncertainties to handle for that many days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We'll go to our last speaker in this round, MP Chatel, for three minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for taking the time to testify on this important aspect of our study. The purpose of the study is to provide concrete solutions as part of the review of the processes of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Their experience is very useful to us, and I thank them very much. The shared sentiment around this table is clear: We fully support them in the face of this challenge. I thank them for taking the time to tell us about it.

A number of producers have told us that the time it takes to pay compensation is one of the major problems with the system. You're confirming that for us as well. They mentioned that caps are another issue, especially if you own an elite herd. It's really a significant problem when the value exceeds the cap set out in the regulations. Let's remember that compensation is governed by regulation. From what I understand, the situation is worse in the United States, where compensation is even lower, and by far.

The emotional impact as well as the feeling of being in limbo and going through this on their own is another important issue to consider. I'd like to hear your thoughts on potential solutions, because that's precisely what we're looking for. What you experienced can help improve the system.

I'm thinking of some models, such as the one in the State of Michigan, which is working with the federal government to provide compensation, or the one in the Netherlands, in Europe, where the federal agency compensates for the loss of a herd. However, as you pointed out, there is a whole related aspect to consider, which is rebuilding. When a herd is destroyed, it has to be rebuilt, which requires considerable investment.

My colleague talked about the AgriStability program. Since we will soon be reviewing these programs as part of the federal, provincial and territorial discussions, it would be important to have your recommendations.

Do you think it would be appropriate to set up a system combining federal compensation and a risk management program, such as AgriStability, to better support producers?

You can provide a written response to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'll have to stop you there. Thank you so much.

Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. I think I can say, on behalf of all of us in the room, that we really appreciate that you shared your stories with us. We look forward to getting any further submissions that you feel would help us in this study. We appreciate your time, and I personally wish you all the best.

We'll suspend for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'd like to call the meeting back to order.

I'll make a few comments before we start.

Please wait until I recognize you. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

We are continuing, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, September 18, 2025, our study of the government's regulatory reform initiative in agriculture and agri-food.

I would like to welcome our witnesses. From the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers, we have Richard Lee. From the Ontario Tender Fruit Growers, we have Phil Tregunno. Finally, from the Prince Edward Island Potato Board, we have Greg Donald.

I'll give each person five minutes, and then we'll open it up for questions.

We'll start with you, Mr. Lee.

[Richard Lee, Executive Director, Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers]

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

I'm here today on behalf of the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers and a sector that contributes significantly to Canada's food security, export competitiveness and rural economies. Our growers are committed to producing safe, high-quality food while upholding Canada's reputation as a trusted trading partner.

We support the government's goal of modernizing regulatory frameworks to ensure that they remain effective, efficient and responsive. At the same time, we believe that reforms can be expedited in ways that reduce unnecessary costs to producers without compromising health, safety or trade integrity.

As to areas where reforms can be expedited, streamlining approval processes for crop protection tools can be done by expediting PMRA reviews of low-risk and reduced-risk pest management products, particularly biologicals and integrated pest management solutions, and by aligning timelines with those of trading partners such as the U.S. and the EU to prevent competitive disadvantages. On the modernization of food safety and inspection protocols, the CFIA could expand the use of digital platforms for documentation, traceability and compliance reporting, which would reduce paper-based redundancies. Due to a shortage of adequately trained inspectors, the CFIA has demonstrated inconsistent oversight practices that either disproportionately impact greenhouse operations or fail to provide the necessary resources to support fair and effective inspections.

There are opportunities to reduce costs without compromising health or trade. Concerning risk-based regulatory oversight, shift from one-size-fits-all compliance to risk-based models, focusing resources on higher-risk activities while easing the burden on operations with strong compliance histories.

With regard to international harmonization, reduce costs associated with retesting or recertifying products already approved by trusted international regulators, pursue mutual recognition agreements to minimize duplicative regulatory requirements for exports and develop a North American perimeter strategy that aligns with our key trading partner to protect food security and the investments made in farming.

To have simplified reporting and record-keeping, consolidate overlapping reporting obligations into a single standardized platform accessible to both the CFIA and the PMRA, and provide clear guidance and templates to reduce administrative costs for growers.

On cost recovery and fee structures, review cost-recovery models to ensure that fees charged to growers are proportionate to the actual regulatory service provided, and consider exemptions or reduced fees for small and medium-sized operations adopting sustainable practices.

Ontario's greenhouse vegetable growers generate more than $1.8 billion annually, forming a substantial share of the $5.3 billion that greenhouse vegetables contribute to Canada's economy. Serving both domestic and export markets, the sector sustains over 35,000 jobs across the full value chain.

Regulatory delays or duplications increase input costs, reduce competitiveness and slow the adoption of sustainable practices. Streamlined, science-based reforms will allow growers to access safer, more effective pest management tools, reduce administrative overhead and maintain Canada's reputation for food safety and trade reliability.

In conclusion, Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers is a committed partner in advancing Canada's regulatory reform agenda. We believe that by expediting approvals, reducing duplicative costs and modernizing oversight, the government can strengthen both the competitiveness and sustainability of our sector while continuing to safeguard public health and international trade standards.

We urge the CFIA and the PMRA to prioritize reforms that deliver measurable efficiencies for producers, ensuring that Canada's agri-food system remains resilient, innovative and globally competitive.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next we'll go to Greg Donald.

[Greg Donald, General Manager, Prince Edward Island Potato Board]

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

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Prince Edward Island potato industry. P.E.I. is proud to be a national leader, producing over 20% of Canada's potatoes. Our industry contributes more than $1.5 billion to the island's economy and supports thousands of jobs.

I'm here to ask not for lower standards but for smarter, more efficient regulation, regulation that protects health and safety—I think we all agree on the importance of that—while also supporting competitiveness, innovation and trade. I'd like to make three key points here today.

One is that CFIA and PMRA must adopt a more business- and trade-oriented mindset. These agencies play essential roles in safeguarding Canadian agriculture, but their current approach is overly cautious, slow-moving and disconnected from industry realities. We need a cultural shift to change this.

We must also ensure our producers aren't placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to importers of food.

Here are some examples. CFIA should act not just as an enforcer, and should not be seen by producers as a barrier to trade but as a partner in trade, with timely certifications, consistent policies and science-based decisions. There needs to be a food lens applied to considering how regulatory decisions affect producers and supply chains. We need to ensure Canadians that we do have a good supply of affordable and quality food.

The sector should not be the one constantly adjusting to bureaucracy. It's time for the system to adapt to the sector.

Similarly, PMRA's approach must move faster in approving tools like drones and crop-protection products already used in comparable countries. Delays limit competitiveness and stall innovation. Both agencies must embed economic impacts and business practicalities into regulatory decisions, not as an afterthought but as core responsibilities.

The second main point I'd like to make today is on the opportunity to reduce or cut costs and red tape without compromising safety or trade. Producers face redundant, overlapping and outdated regulatory requirements that increase costs without improving outcomes. There are multiple food safety audits covering the same things. Export shipments are subject to repeated inspections. There is the continued use of outdated inspection methods, like hand-grading potatoes for inspections, when automated technologies are available. Our packers use them, things like optical sorters, cameras and in-field tests that can be used by inspectors 24-7 and entirely remotely.

The third key point I'd like to make today is that political leadership is needed on stalled and long-standing issues. Some regulatory issues simply can't be solved through process improvements alone. They require political direction to move forward.

The 2021 U.S. market closure to P.E.I. fresh and seed potatoes is a really good example. Despite science being on our side and risk controls in place, trade was halted, causing millions in losses and lasting damage to our seed trade. The situation exposed a critical flaw. Scientific risk assessments mean little if not backed by strong political leadership. We need our leaders to defend science-based trade decisions and push for resolution when agencies alone can't.

In conclusion, our message is simple. We support strong regulation, but strong doesn't have to mean slow, burdensome or disconnected from business realities. We urge this committee to recommend reforms again for those three things: a more business and trade-oriented mindset with the agencies, streamlined and harmonized compliance requirements, and the use of political leadership to resolve stalled and long-standing issues when science alone isn't enough.

The P.E.I. potato industry is ready to be part of the solution. We are committed to safe, high-quality food and strengthening Canada's global leadership in agriculture.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next, we'll go to Mr. Tregunno online.

You have five minutes, sir.