Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, good afternoon.
Thank you for your invitation.
The committee’s work on regulatory reform is essential. The lack of significant progress signals a need to step up our efforts. The all-party support for regulatory reform shows just how important this file is, and should spur action.
CAPI's work is increasingly driven by the need for an agriculture policy reset that focuses on growth by adding value through investment and innovation and adding risk mitigation in an era of increased volatility and uncertainty. Regulatory reform is essential for both.
Not a day goes by without our running into the issue of regulatory reform. We read studies that highlight Canada's poor performance in global rankings, the cost of regulatory accumulation and the potential benefits of reducing regulatory burden. We hear about it when we talk to farmers, processors and the sector about the challenges facing ag innovation, investment attraction and why other countries perform better than Canada does.
In our 2024 agri-food risk survey, the policy and regulatory environment was the highest-ranking risk facing the sector. Not only did respondents identify it as a top risk; they expressed little confidence in our ability to mitigate it. It's not a surprise that there was no confidence in our ability to mitigate extreme weather or geopolitics, but the domestic policy and regulatory environment is entirely within our control. We should be able to do something about it.
In 2025, we asked an additional question about why respondents selected the policy and regulatory environment as a risk. The good news is that the policy and regulatory risk was not the top risk this year; the bad news is that this is because all of the other risks are getting worse. When we asked, “What leads to your belief that policy and regulatory risk is an issue?”, 50% of the respondents selected unnecessary regulatory burden as the driver.
In the conclusions from our first risk report, we highlighted the need for government to do less but to do it better. Smart regulation is a key to doing it better. The need for smarter regulations highlights the critical role that regulations play. A smart regulatory framework provides credibility for customers and end-users, facilitates trade, encourages investment and provides predictability and certainty for regulated parties, but bad regulations work against all of those things.
I think there are four things that are needed for a smart regulatory approach.
The first is enabling legislation. The Safe Food for Canadians Act modernized much of the legislative framework, but there are opportunities for further legislative reform, including in the Canada Grain Act and the Seeds Act.
The second need is an enabling regulatory framework. There is significant room for improvement in delivering a regulatory framework that's focused on health and safety, enables growth and facilitates investment.
The third is ensuring that regulatory bodies have the resources they need to effectively deliver the regulations. Efficient delivery is critical, but it is important that regulators have the resources they need to do their job.
The final need is to have the right regulatory culture. This is often the most challenging part and the hardest to change.
This brings me to six recommendations focused on creating a better regulatory system.
First, the minister should appoint a new CFIA ministerial advisory body. The board should first be given 30 days to provide recommendations on strategic reform of the CFIA and other regulatory agencies, including the PMRA and the Grain Commission. The recommendations should touch on structure, oversight and mandate.
Second, the government should reform and institutionalize the agile regulations table, providing it with independence, the mandate to establish regulatory modernization priorities and the tools needed to hold regulatory agencies to account.
Third, the government should appoint a regulatory ombudsman who can solicit feedback from stakeholders, report publicly on challenges and make recommendations for further reform and modernization.
Fourth, the government should establish a regulatory performance framework that directs regulatory agencies on the need for timely, risk-based regulatory frameworks and decisions.
Fifth, this committee should hold annual hearings to solicit stakeholder priorities, make recommendations and report on progress, or lack thereof, by departments.
Finally, I want to triple the support for amending the legislation so that we can accept provisional registration of feed, seed and other crop inputs that are approved by equivalent foreign regulatory systems.
These recommendations reflect the reality that we will not have meaningful regulatory change when the officials who have created it, managed it and lived within the regulatory framework are the ones who are tasked with modernizing it. There is a need for leadership, oversight and accountability if we really want to reduce the regulatory burden that holds the sector back.
I know you have heard of specific changes from other witnesses, but I believe systemic changes are the only way to unlock the sector's full potential.
I look forward to your questions.
