Finance Committee on Oct. 6th, 2026

[Pierre Petelle]

Yes, Bill C-30 did.

Bill C-31 takes away a bit of the administrative bureaucracy and gives it back to the scientific experts at the PRD. If nothing changes—and right now we have a 15-year clock—automatically, every single product has to be re-evaluated from A to Z, even though maybe nothing has changed. Maybe it's a product like garlic, oil or vinegar that really has very little risk, but it has to go through the process. It's an administrative process.

This would put some of that expert judgment back into the hands of the department to say, “Nothing has really changed. We've been following the science on this. There is no need to use scarce government resources to fully re-evaluate this product. We'll continue with its registration.” It's really about taking away a sort of time-stamp requirement and turning it into more of a scientific judgment.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

We're not changing the safety standards. We're not increasing any health risks to the human population in Canada. It's basically just the process of review.

[Pierre Petelle]

Exactly, and they are still required, every 15 years, to assess whether a re-evaluation is required or not. It's not as if 15 years just comes and goes. If there hasn't been any change scientifically, it has to be looked at, and they will determine whether or not a full re-evaluation is needed.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you.

Mr. Arcand, I'll let you continue on the demand signal talk that my colleague brought up.

[Alan Arcand]

Yes, I was just going to agree with what my colleague here said. The manufacturing sector operates on a very long timeline, so creating a system in which you have certainty of demand for a product through a long-term contract will enable manufacturers to plan. It will also give them the confidence to make what are sometimes very significant investments up front if they know that demand is going to be there over the long term. That is definitely a positive feature of such a system.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you.

I'll turn my attention back to CropLife. In terms of the productivity mega deduction that the Prime Minister just announced, it's not in Bill C-31, but it makes a measure that is in Bill C-31 permanent. When you look out to the clients you deal with or the businesses that are part of your membership, do you feel that's going to entice investment in the regions of Canada, given a little more surety and the lower-tax break?

[Pierre Petelle]

Yes, and when I listen to the colleagues to my right, I hear that there are a lot of similarities in terms of what attracts investment and innovation. It's really your tax structure and your regulatory burden—they are very similar issues.

Some of our members are local Canadian companies; others are multinationals. Their dollars can move depending on the markets that are attractive in terms of investment. At R and D facilities and plant breeding facilities in Canada, there's a lot of investment and good-paying jobs that should benefit from this type of thing. For farmers themselves, in terms of their costs, some of the equipment they use is as much as half a million to a million dollars per item. If they can write those off more quickly, that should help with innovation and productivity.

This committee is focused on the finance of the country. One thing that's often forgotten is that the agriculture and food sector in Canada is a $150-billion industry. We're talking a lot about critical minerals, defence and other things, but the one thing about agriculture is that farmland will never move to the U.S. or to any other jurisdiction. The farmland is here forever, so if we're able to provide the incentives and the environment, this is an industry that can really—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Petelle. We're going to have to end it there.

Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.

We will now continue with Mr. Garon for two and a half minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll turn to you now, Mr. Arcand. I'm going to ask you some questions along the same lines as the ones I asked Mr. Mueller.

Obviously, no one was hoping for U.S. tariffs. The government responded with countermeasures; Canadians and Quebeckers were largely in agreement on that. Obviously, no one wanted it. It creates additional red tape, particularly because of tariffs, but also because of the mechanisms through which certain businesses can get tariff refunds. I gave the example of businesses that have no choice but to source from the United States. That's the case for a certain grade of steel and for many minerals, for example. Sometimes, there's no another option. There aren't any Canadian businesses to turn to. The solution is either to pay the retaliatory tariffs or to halt production. For that reason, there's a refund mechanism.

This isn't a criticism of the government. It's impossible to think of everything, and the government had to act quickly. However, businesses tell us that it can sometimes be quite cumbersome and quite complicated. It can be an extra burden on top of the tariffs and countermeasures.

Do you have any proposals that could make this mechanism easier, more systematic or more automatic when a business, manufacturer or exporter can demonstrate that it really has no option but to source certain inputs from the United States?

[Alan Arcand]

First, thanks for the question.

I would agree that there are certain inputs that Canadian manufacturers need that are available only in the U.S. The U.S. is always going to be our largest trading partner. It's just a fact of life. Gravity is what it is. They're a large market. However, I've heard of issues with the remissions program, similar to those issues Mr. Mueller mentioned. We appreciate that the program is in place—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I don't have much time left.

Do you have any concrete proposals? The government is listening, and we're all listening. Businesses are looking to us to find a way to make this process easier.

[Alan Arcand]

I don't know if I have any specific recommendations on making it simpler, but I agree that having adequate resources for the program so that applications can go through the process more quickly would be helpful, if that's possible. Some of these companies are small, and they need as much support as possible to figure out the process. It's always an ongoing complication. It's more of an administrative burden for a lot of these companies. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact of life. Those kinds of support programs or consultation with industry are always helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Arcand.

Thank you, Monsieur Garon.

We're going to continue now with Mr. Bexte, for five minutes, please.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here today, and colleagues, for welcoming me to sub today.

It's a very interesting discussion. There are lots of aspects of different things with some overlap related to Bill C-31.

I will go to CropLife first.

Mr. Petelle, I appreciate the earlier nod to regulatory red tape reduction and trusted jurisdictions in the regime. I've introduced a private member's bill to do that, specifically in ag, related to feed, seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and veterinary medical products.

First, can you describe the scale of the challenges to get new crop protection products to market?

[Pierre Petelle]

The latest estimate to get a brand new active ingredient into the hands of a farmer, for example, is about a 12- to 13-year process at around $300 million U.S. This is not an everyday undertaking. Products that are being researched today will not be in the field for a decade. Regulatory certainty, predictability, having a clear path and meeting timelines are absolutely critical for our industry.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

You mentioned earlier that the agriculture industry is about $150 billion in Canada. I believe that. I live in the middle of it. My small part is not that much.

What is the scale of the opportunity for the ag industry, if we can really get the red tape reduction figured out?

Industries, SMEs especially.... It's an organic industry. It is distributed, small activities, all across the country, that coalesce into a large $150-billion industry with large companies involved in it.

What is the scale of the opportunity if we can get this fixed?

[Pierre Petelle]

Actually, a group of us in the ag and food space are working with a private sector company to try to better quantify that, to give more concrete, defensible numbers. FCC, Farm Credit Canada, has done some analysis on our end, on the productivity side. If we were able to return to the productivity growth we had 20 years ago, which was around 2% per year, every year—right now, we're down to about 1%—that's a $30-billion opportunity for Canada.

That's just a very small slice of what we're talking about. I think the numbers will be quite staggering when we get the final numbers for the growth potential to truly make Canada a superpower.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

From my own perspective, I know that even just changes of $10 per acre on the net, either on the cost or the revenue, have a huge impact on the success of a farm, on its economic viability and health. It's encouraging that work is going on to quantify that and figure it out.

We've seen some piecemeal changes, with either regulation or parts of action in different legislation, whether it's Bill C-31 or Bill C-39, in the ag space, in terms of seeds, feeds, fertilizers and veterinary medical products. How important is it to have, as an example, the FARM act passed and legislated, to ensure that there's a broad backstop and that all these changes happen and are implemented—not just regulatory change but also legislative change?

[Pierre Petelle]

I mean, for us, it's a cultural thing. The philosophy of agriculture and food as a growth sector, as an economic driver, is something that isn't necessarily taken for granted—even around this table, probably. If we can have an approach whereby regulators are not there just to block all approvals and look under every stone.... It's really about having a system that mitigates risk and protects human health and the environment but also understands its role in the economic success of the sector.

That's what we're seeing a bit. Bill C-30, certainly, was very instrumental in that. I think this bill also starts to move in that direction. Bit by bit, we're getting there, but certainly it's a shift we're trying to see here.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I appreciate that. It's a major shift.

I have a very short period of time left.

Mr. Arcand, I have a question.

In the ag industry, so much of the opportunity is related to what you would call SMEs, though they're big on the “s” side—small. For farm-based businesses that may have manufacturing or are considering the move to manufacturing and value-added, is that 90% rule on the new building thing an impediment?

[Alan Arcand]

I wouldn't call it an impediment. It's another avenue to boost investment, along with the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Arcand. We're going to have to end it there.

Thank you, Mr. Bexte.

Mr. Petelle, I want to clarify one thing. You talked about the regulator blocking. I think a lot of people would view Health Canada's role as protecting human health and making sure that adequate science is done. I just want to clarify your position on that.

[Pierre Petelle]

If I used the word “blocking”, that was not my intention.

With any sort of regulator, you can go to the nth degree of certainty, to the point where nothing gets approved.

We often see that in Europe's approach. They add so many layers that, really, nothing can get through. Their farmers are protesting in the streets, because they literally have no way of protecting their crops.

That's what I'm getting at. We want to protect human health and the environment. Our industry strongly supports that as well, but it has to be in a context that also understands the implications for economic success, the success of agriculture and the success of farmers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you for clarifying that.

Monsieur Lavoie, you have five minutes.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Mueller, I'd like to start with you.

You obviously mentioned the Defence Investment Agency. Of course, a new bill was tabled this morning by the secretary of state, Mr. Fuhr, on behalf of Minister Lightbound. You haven't had time to read it, but I'll quickly tell you what it involves:

[The bill] enacts the Canadian Corporation for Defence Investment Act. That Act establishes the Canadian Corporation for Defence Investment, a corporation whose mandate is to, among other things, carry out activities related to production, procurement and investment in respect of national defence for the benefit of the Canadian Forces or the Department of National Defence or for associated governments.

Basically, it addresses production, procurement, investment and broadening the concepts of security, whether that be national security or economic security. I also think that it can clarify some things. I heard my colleagues talking about strategies earlier. It's a corporation that ultimately aims to be more agile so that it can move forward with a clear vision.

With that in mind, Mr. Mueller, how do you think this corporation will be able to ensure, under this new bill tabled this morning, that it successfully fulfills its mandate and addresses the gaps that are currently observed?