THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 5, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Parts 4, 5 and 6 of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, good morning. It has been good to see everyone around the table today. I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses as well as those watching the meeting on the web.
My name is Robert Black, a senator from Ontario, and I am chair of this committee. I would like to introduce our members of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry starting with the Deputy Chair, Senator Simons from Alberta; Senator Cotter from Saskatchewan; Senator Deacon from Nova Scotia; Senator Klyne from Saskatchewan; Senator Marwah from Ontario; Senator Mercer, Nova Scotia, north end of Halifax; and Senator Oh from Ontario. We have regrets from Senator Petitclerc. She may be able to join us later. Senator Plett from Manitoba, regrets, as well as Senator Ringuette from New Brunswick.
Today the committee begins the examination of the subject matter of those elements contained in Parts 4, 5 and 6 of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.
Our first panel will provide some general information on the bill and on Part 4 of the bill, which proposes to amend the Agricultural Products Marketing Act.
I would like to introduce our first witnesses for the first panel of the meeting. Today I welcome from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, James van Raalte, Executive Director, Regulatory Policy and Cooperation Directorate, and from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Steven Jurgutis, Director General, Policy, Planning and Integration Directorate.
Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. You each have five minutes for your opening remarks. We will begin with Mr. Jurgutis to be followed by Mr. van Raalte. Mr. van Raalte will be talking to us today about the global aspects of the legislation, including the overall process of developing the bill. He will continue to be available for questions throughout the second panel and next week as well, throughout our committee’s examination of this matter. Mr. Jurgutis, please, the floor is yours.
Steven Jurgutis, Director General, Policy, Planning and Integration Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me start by telling you that I am coming to you today from the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Nation here in Ottawa.
On behalf of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, I’m pleased to speak to the amendments that we are proposing to improve the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, APMA, for Canadian farmers.
The APMA was enacted in 1949 to complement provincial legislation which enables provincial marketing boards to market their agricultural products within the province. Provincial marketing boards that receive federal delegation under the APMA are then authorized to market their agricultural products in interprovincial and export trade.
In 1957, the APMA was amended to allow provincial marketing boards with an APMA delegation to establish and collect levies on agricultural products destined for interprovincial and export markets.
The act currently authorizes over 90 provincial agricultural marketing boards across Canada to collect levies from farmers to market their products out-of-province or internationally.
Currently, the process to delegate the authority to collect farmer levies under the act is quite cumbersome, requiring an individual Order in Council for each request.
Delegations have been developed at different points in time since 1949. They are not only inconsistent but oftentimes are not updated in a timely manner due to competing priorities for both federal departments and provincial marketing boards. So we are proposing to streamline the regulatory process.
These amendments are not changing any of the powers that have already been delegated to provincial marketing boards; they are simply changing the mechanism through which the powers are delegated.
[Translation]
Federal powers to market agricultural products in interprovincial and export trade will now be delegated to provincial marketing boards directly in the schedule to the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act, or CALA, rather than through individual regulatory instruments.
As a result, any future amendments or updates to the delegated authorities will be easier and more efficient as they will be made through ministerial orders rather than orders in council. This change will reduce legal risk and the burden on provincial marketing boards.
For those marketing boards that already have this authority, they could avoid duplication by changing their federal and provincial collection rates simultaneously. Reducing the administrative burden will allow marketing boards to focus on market research and development and help their producer members take advantage of the growing global demand for their products.
Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. van Raalte, we’ll give you the floor now. Five minutes and then we’ll move into questions. Thank you very much.
James van Raalte, Executive Director, Regulatory Policy and Cooperation Directorate, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Apologies to Senators Deacon and Ringuette who were at the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and heard much of this last evening as we studied Part 1 of the bill.
Bill S-6, an Act respecting regulatory modernization, proposes to amend 29 pieces of legislation via 46 amendments.
These amendments would help keep regulations relevant and up-to-date by reducing administrative burden for business, facilitating digital interactions with government, simplifying regulatory processes, making exemptions from certain regulatory requirements to test new products and making cross-border trade easier through more consistent and coherent rules across government.
Bill S-6 is the government’s second Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill, or ARMB. The first was introduced through the Budget Implementation Act, 2019.
Announced in the Fall Economic Statement 2018, the ARMB instrument is meant to be a recurring legislative mechanism that enables the government to make common-sense changes across many pieces of legislation at once in order to address overly complicated, inconsistent or outdated requirements raised by business and Canadians.
The ARMB is one part of the government’s agenda to improve Canada’s regulatory system, while continuing to ensure the health, safety and security of Canadians and protection of the environment.
As such, taken individually, the individual amendments in Bill S-6 are modest in scope. Taken as a whole, they will make an impact and contribute to the government’s regulatory modernization agenda.
Grouping relatively minor legislative changes in one bill is both time and cost efficient. Bill S-6 is designed specifically to propose multiple, non-contentious legislative changes all at once.
These are fixes that the President of the Treasury Board can represent or sponsor on behalf of her cabinet colleagues. Anything above and beyond this threshold may be a good proposal for regulatory modernization but should be brought forward by the individual minister responsible for parliamentary and public scrutiny.
All of the 46 proposed amendments are either stakeholder driven — there are 33 of those — or in response to issues raised by Parliament’s Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations — the remaining 13.
TBS launched a public consultation via Canada Gazette over the summer of 2019 and invited interested stakeholders to share their views on themes related to regulatory modernization, including to propose suggestions for the next ARMB. Forty-eight stakeholder submissions referred to legislation. However, most of these responses were not within scope or actually proposed changes to regulations rather than legislation. However, all feedback was shared with responsible regulatory departments and agencies.
Following this consultation, a what-we-heard report on regulatory modernization was published by the Treasury Board in November 2020. Through that consultation, the following four themes emerged for changes to legislation: reduce administrative burden; increase regulatory flexibility and opportunities for experimentation; enable harmonization with major trading partners; and remove duplicative, redundant and unclear requirements.
Similarly, a call-out to regulatory departments and agencies was initiated in August 2019. That resulted in 174 proposals submitted, impacting 72 acts across 14 organizations. All of these proposals were extensively reviewed to ensure there would be no negative impact on the health, safety and security of Canadians and the protection of the environment.
Beyond what is contained in Bill S-6, additional proposals were set aside from further consideration for a variety of reasons. Some were considered too broad in scope or deemed not regulatory in nature while others were not considered, for example, if they sought to alter service fees or proposed additional activities that actually contributed to increasing administrative burden.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, the process to develop the third version of the bill is already under way based upon COVID lessons learned. The President of the Treasury Board has committed to introducing the third ARMB in spring 2023. Beyond that, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat has launched its newly launched Let’s Talk Federal Regulations platform to seek input from Canadian businesses and individuals on ways we can improve Canada’s federal regulatory system. Therefore, consultations on the fourth ARMB are expected to be launched in fall of 2022.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Happy to answer questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. van Raalte and Mr. Jurgutis.
As we’ve done in the past, we’ll have questions now. This panel will go till about 9:30, so I suggest we keep our questions limited. We do know that Mr. van Raalte will be with us in the second panel and in next week’s panel, so if there are further questions, we can get them to him then.
As has been our previous practice, we’ll say four minutes at this time just to see how we get through. We’ve got a number of questioners already. We’ll start with our deputy chair. I will give you a one-minute warning, so if you are answering or answering a question and you see the one-minute warning on the screen, you’ve got one minute.
Senator Simons: Listening to you speak reminds me a little bit of when I do my spring cleaning. Sometimes I can make a bigger mess while I’m trying to get things organized. I’m wondering, now that you’ve committed to doing this on an annual basis, are you already at work on the 2023 version? What’s the cycle at which you begin and conclude each round of cleanup?
Mr. van Raalte: Thanks for the question, Mr. Chair. We’re still working on the cycle because a lot of it depends, especially under the COVID pandemic, on the bandwidth for stakeholder consultation. In fact, as I mentioned, the first bill was in 2019. We were working well toward 2020, and then the pandemic hit and other legislative priorities overtook many departments and agencies for very good reasons.
We took some time last summer to start the process for the third round of the bill with an intake from departments and agencies based on what we were learning out of the pandemic — what sorts of flexibilities did we realize we didn’t have from a legislative perspective that then created barriers to good regulatory practices. We are in the process of putting together the package for the third bill for cabinet consideration. As I say, we’re looking to launch the intake or the consultation for the fourth round in the fall.
Ideally, we would have a rhythm. As you know, the short title is “Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill.” So we are driving toward an annual process of bringing that forward for Parliament’s consideration.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator C. Deacon: Mr. van Raalte, lovely to see you again and thanks for taking yet another question from me.
I’m really interested in the difference between the capacity that you currently have and the time it takes — the 18 to 24 months without a pandemic — to complete the process and the current capacity. The need seems to be so much greater. That was a point of our discussion last night. There can be about 100 different requests coming into Treasury Board and only five being dealt with.
What thoughts can you give to this committee, in particular? Because of the need for agricultural innovation to make sure that Canada does, in fact, become the world’s bread basket again, there is a great need to deal with climate change and all the opportunity we have. What advice do you have for this committee in terms of how to speed up that process?
Mr. van Raalte: Thanks for the question, Mr. Chair.
I think there are a couple of ways to think about it, senator. One is that this is the first stand-alone bill we’ve had. For us, it is a bit of seeking feedback from parliamentarians on how much more they want to see and what types of legislative changes they may want to see in a bill like this. We constructed the bill to be non-contentious, meaning that, as much as possible, we were seeking stakeholder consensus that these were straightforward fixes that were needed to improve the regulatory system.
There are also no costs. There is no hit on the fiscal framework in terms of all of these measures, which is why the bill can be introduced in the Senate first. Also, we targeted measures from that stakeholder perspective as well as responses to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.
We would appreciate feedback on other criteria in terms of — the bill has to be a manageable size. You can imagine that my appearance at seven standing Senate committees over the next few weeks is a lot of fun, but it also means I’m not doing other things I could be doing. It has to be a manageable package for parliamentarians and stakeholders to be able to digest at any one time, so advice from parliamentarians on scope and ambition would be helpful, realizing that the public debate and scrutiny about that direction on regulatory modernization is going to create challenges in any one bill. I’ll stop there, sir.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for being here. My question is regarding part 4, Agricultural Products Marketing Act, or APMA. How do the proposed changes in part 4 improve access to domestic and international markets for Canada’s agricultural producers and firms? Do these changes also benefit Canada’s workers who work in these sectors?
Mr. Jurgutis: For marketing boards that currently market within their provincial borders, interprovincially or internationally, this process will make it less cumbersome and easier for them to manage how they collect and use the levies. In other words, they’ll have more time to spend on things that are important for producers and their commodity groups, such as marketing their commodities and working on research and innovation and other activities that will enable producers to have better access domestically, interprovincially and internationally. Essentially, these types of initiatives and changes, will require less paperwork of marketing boards and create less difficulty, which will allow them to concentrate more on the types of activities that are a direct benefit for their producers.
In terms of impacts on labour, I don’t think there’s any direct link in terms of some of the changes in that regard, other than to say that, again, this provides a degree of simplicity and reduces some of the work and effort that marketing boards would need to put into this space and allow them to concentrate on other areas.
Senator Ringuette: My question is for Mr. van Raalte. It also is a follow up to our discussion from last night. I consider the Senate standing committee on a different front, very proactive in its studies. In regard to your consultation, and now that it is going to be a yearly process, how can you integrate the Senate standing committee at the front end, instead of just at the result, the legislation that we have in front of us?
Mr. van Raalte: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. I’d be happy to have a conversation more broadly with the committee about that. The committee at any time is welcome to identify non-contentious, straightforward legislative changes that you see as a barrier downstream to regulatory modernization. That then will require a bit of analysis of what that means and what the implications are, et cetera. I’m trying to be respectful of our different roles, Mr. Chair, in terms of the legislative branch informing the executive branch about opportunities for change. We would welcome that input at any stage in the process.
Senator Ringuette: Would it be possible in your front-end process, in regard to the slate of suggestions that you’re getting from different stakeholders — and I know they’re redirected to the different departments — but could they, at the same time, be redirected to the different Senate standing committees?
Mr. van Raalte: Yes, they could.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you.
Mr. van Raalte: We’d be happy to share any and all input we get from stakeholders, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Cotter: Thanks to both of you for joining us today. My main question focuses on the specifics of the legislation we’re looking at today, but let me just say at the outset, if I might, Mr. van Raalte, if spending all of this time with senators is fun, either you need a little bit of help, or there are vacancies in the Senate; you could join us and spend your full time with us.
Mr. van Raalte: With respect, Mr. Chair, my very first job in Ottawa was working for a senator. I have a deep and abiding respect for the institution, and I am honoured to be here with you, and I mean that very sincerely. I say “fun,” but this is a career — This has been at the top of my list. I’m happy to take your questions.
Senator Cotter: Thanks. My question is for Mr. Jurgutis.
In the legislation that we’re talking about right now, the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, there is a series of provisions that link up with provincial marketing boards. I have two questions. One is on the degree to which there has been consultation with the provinces to ensure that provinces are onside with this regulatory streamlining.
My second question about the exception in the framework with respect to the marketing of milk. Could you speak to that and why it’s carved out?
Mr. Jurgutis: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the questions.
On the first question, yes, there were two series or rounds of discussions and consultations with the provincial administrative bodies who have a role to play in terms of the provincial marketing boards. We received positive feedback about the changes that were being proposed as well as the mechanisms by which they would be put in place. We didn’t hear in those discussions and consultations any concerns or potential negative aspects of the change that was being proposed.
In terms of the exception as it pertains to the marketing of milk, currently, there is a link between what is done interprovincially. Essentially, this is a space in which the collection of levies for any of that interprovincial activity was within this act, the APMA. Essentially, the exception that was previously in place remains within the change that will happen that will go forward. The difference is just that there will be a bit more of that connection and synergy between the activities and the delegated powers for the provincial boards that are for the activities strictly within a province, as well as for the interprovincial, and, in this case, for the marketing of milk that would stay interprovincial.
There is not a difference in terms of what that current exception is in this new legislation.
Senator Cotter: Why is milk itself carved out from the general framework here?
Mr. Jurgutis: I will have to get back to you with the specifics on that. I know there is a historical, specific reason, but I prefer to make sure I get that exactly right in terms of providing you with the correct information, so we commit to get back very quickly on that.
Senator Marwah: Gentlemen, I congratulate you on the initiatives you’ve taken to reduce the burden and modernize regulations. I think it is a great idea.
In your comments, Mr. van Raalte, you said a lot of the changes were driven by industry and a lot came from stakeholders. In that sense, as part of those consultations, were there many changes or any major changes that the industry liked that you have chosen for now not to make, and, if so, why?
Second, is there a large backlog of other changes that you’re planning on working on? How big is the backlog? Are you talking about 20 changes, 100 changes?
Mr. van Raalte: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. As I referenced in my opening remarks, there may have been some very good ideas, but they either fall out of the scope of this bill in terms of the threshold at which the President of the Treasury Board is carrying a single piece of legislation on behalf of cabinet colleagues. The way I like to describe this is that I consider this bill to be good hygiene. It’s like dental floss removing plaque or buildup. If it’s a cavity or a root canal that needs to be filled or fixed, the individual minister responsible needs to bring that forward in his or her own bill for parliamentary scrutiny or for public scrutiny.
Is there a backlog? Off the top of my head — and we’re still sorting this out — there’s probably about 30 or 35 proposals moving forward in our preparation for the next piece of legislation. That could go up or down. We’re still sorting that out. Moving forward beyond that, it depends on what’s identified by stakeholders, departments and agencies. We don’t have an inventory. A lot of it can depend on how we shape our call-out for the types of things or the types of priorities we are looking for.
Again, as I said to Senator Deacon, advice on some of those priority areas would be most welcome from senators and the committee.
Senator Klyne: I only have one question, but it’s in two parts. It is for Mr. Jurgutis of Agriculture Canada, and it is also related to Part 4 of the bill, which deals with the Agricultural Products Marketing Act.
Based on what you said in the introductory remarks, the changes proposed to the legislation through Bill S-6 are about streamlining the regulatory process and not about changing or modifying any of the powers that have been delegated to provincial marketing boards. Given that you’ve advised Senator Cotter that the consultations have taken place with the boards, the first part of my question is the following: Now that consultations have taken place, do you have a timeline for when those boards may begin to see improvements in efficiencies and processing?
Second, as I understand it, the bill also builds on or makes more explicit the range of powers given to boards with a new section 3. This is done by explaining that they may exercise any or all powers available to them at the provincial level. Why was that not previously available to them, and what is the upside or benefit of now making it explicit that they have the full range of powers that were available to them?
Mr. Jurgutis: Thank you for the questions.
In terms of the first one, there will be a period of 36 months from the time that the bill receives Royal Assent for marketing boards to ensure, as part of this requirement, that they are communicating with their members about what the changes are and what established levies are. The reasoning behind having a long period was to allow time for marketing boards to be able to do that.
Realistically, we’ll probably see that a large number of them will move to satisfy that requirement rather quickly, just recognizing that, in some cases, some of the boards in some of the provinces are rather small, so implementing the change might take longer for them. However, they will have a period of up to 36 months, and it will be incumbent upon them to ensure they meet that requirement, which is to make clear to their members what the levies are and about any potential changes might be coming. I would envision that all of that would happen fairly quickly.
In terms of the specific second part of your question — and I’ll look to get back to you in writing just to make sure we’ve got this right — but, essentially, part of the changes here are just to have clarity between how the provincial aspect and the interprovincial and federal aspects would work together. This doesn’t really necessarily change any of the powers that they have; it’s just making sure the language in there is clear so there’s a synergy between the two. Essentially, they still have the same power they previously had in terms of establishing and setting levies for their members to undertake the same activities within the province. This is just to make sure that, within that, we have coherence between the two.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I just have one question for you, Mr. Jurgutis.
Carrying on with the levies question, clause 96’s proposed amendment to subsection 2(3) establishes that a marketing board has the power to establish and impose these levies. Are there existing regulations that ensure that these levies and charges are set at rates relative to the finances of a given product or commodity? If not, how can we ensure that our agricultural producers and processes are protected financially?
Mr. Jurgutis: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am not aware specifically whether there’s a stipulation that has a correlation between commodity prices, for example, and the amount that could be collected on levies. Generally speaking, we haven’t seen or heard issues from producers in terms of levy amounts. Certainly, in some small number of cases, there might be issues or concerns raised, and that’s part of the reason there are provincial supervisory boards, which also have a role to play. The changes will make sure there is clarity as to what that is, at the provincial, and interprovincial and federal levels.
I will need to clarify whether there is an exact stipulation. I don’t believe there is, but there are mechanisms in place — and they vary by the different marketing boards — as to how levies are set and what they are to be used for. That is with the participation of producers, as well. It’s very much a direct, close relationship and correlation between how that is established and how the levies are set and how the money is used.
The Chair: Thank you very much. With that, colleagues, Mr. van Raalte from the Treasury Board will carry on us in the second panel and beyond. He won’t be making another presentation, however.
I’d like to thank both witnesses for your participation today. Your assistance with the study is very much appreciated.
For our second panel this morning, we will hear from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency via Ms. Karen Reynolds, Executive Director, Policy and Regulatory Affairs Directorate. From Fertilizer Canada, we have Nadine Frost, Director, Policy and Industry Standards and Cassandra Cotton, Vice President, Policy and Programs. From Seeds Canada, we have Barry Senft, Executive Director, and from the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association, we welcome Douglas Miller, Executive Director.
Thank you all for joining us today. We will begin with opening remarks from Ms. Reynolds from CFIA, to be followed by Ms. Frost from Fertilizer Canada, Mr. Senft from Seeds Canada and, lastly, Mr. Miller from the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association. You each have five minutes. I will put my hand up when you have one minute remaining.
The floor is yours, Ms. Reynolds.
Karen Reynolds, Executive Director, Policy and Regulatory Affairs Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Good morning, honourable senators. It is a pleasure to be here this morning to speak to you about the 22 legislative amendments that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is seeking under the second Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill.
In some cases, the reason we have so many proposals is that the same legislative change is being sought across multiple acts for consistency purposes. Many of the proposals you will see here today respond to feedback received from agriculture stakeholders.
For example, stakeholders have repeatedly requested that the agency increase its use of digital tools to simplify and streamline transactions. That is why there are seven different legislative amendments to enable digitalization. The amendment to the CFIA Act would provide the agency with necessary authorities to administer and enforce its acts and regulations through electronic means. That would allow businesses to interact with the agency via electronic means rather than having to rely on paper-based transactions.
Additionally, in six different acts, there is a requirement for the agency to send notices for the removal of unlawful imports by registered mail. The CFIA is seeking amendments to enable those notices to be delivered via any other method that provides proof of delivery, namely electronically.
Enabling digital communication with stakeholders will speed up our service delivery while reducing administrative burden.
There are also three legislative amendments focused on enabling market access and innovation. For instance, the agency is seeking authority under the Feeds Act and another under the Seeds Act to make regulations respecting recognition of a feed or a seed safety system of a foreign state. This would help streamline pre-market assessment processes and facilitate market access to new and innovative feed and seed products. It also addresses feedback from stakeholders.
Additionally, the agency is seeking an amendment to the Health of Animals Act that would provide the minister with a new authority to approve third-party biosecurity programs that prevent the introduction and spread of animal diseases. This authority would provide greater flexibility to Canadian businesses to meet regulatory requirements. It would also respond to feedback from the Canadian swine industry, who have put forward a proposal to allow Canadian livestock trucks returning from the United States to be cleaned and disinfected by approved wash stations located in Canada. Legislative changes followed by regulatory amendments would be needed to implement this type of proposal.
Nine of the agencies’ proposals are considered technical amendments. These include clarifying existing authorities, supporting alignment across different Canadian Food Inspection Agency acts and, in some cases, responding to concerns raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.
For example, there are three proposals that deal with the authority to regulate the release of certain products, such as novel supplements, seed and veterinary biologics. These amendments will provide clear authority in law prohibiting the release of seeds, novel supplements and veterinary biologics. They would also align authorities in CFIA’s legislation with current authorities set out in our regulations. By providing clear authority and legislation and aligning it with the regulations, this would address the questions raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.
There are also some technical amendments to reflect current business practices. For example, one of the amendments would allow the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association to determine varietal purity assessments for all seed crops, not just for grading purposes. This would formalize current business practices and continue to facilitate international and domestic trade.
Lastly, the agency is seeking legislative amendments to ensure that we are prepared for future emergencies. As seen under the COVID-19 pandemic, legislative and regulatory frameworks must be flexible and adaptable to respond to unforeseen events or emergencies. Under the Safe Food for Canadians Act, there is existing authority to make interim orders if the minister believes immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk. However, this interim order is limited to a single year. This may not provide the agency with sufficient time to conduct stakeholder consultations and draft new regulations if they are required to address the situation.
A legislative amendment to update the existing authority in the Safe Food for Canadians Act would allow the Governor-in-Council to extend an interim order for an additional two years. While the Safe Food for Canadians Act has authority to make interim orders, the Health of Animals Act does not. The rapid spread of African swine fever has underscored the importance of being able to respond to fast-growing animal diseases. As such, an amendment to the Health of Animals Act would allow the minister to issue an interim order if the minister believes immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk to human health, safety or the environment.
That concludes the summary of our 22 proposals. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Reynolds. If you’re asked to answer questions, could you please speak slowly, because your microphone isn’t working 100%.
Ms. Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Nadine Frost, Director, Policy and Industry Standards, Fertilizer Canada: Good morning, all. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My name is Nadine Frost with Fertilizer Canada. I’m joined today by my colleague Cassandra Cotton, who is our Vice‑President of Policy and Programs.
Fertilizer Canada represents manufacturers and wholesale and retail distributors of fertilizer. Fertilizer is responsible for half of the world’s current food production, and our industry is a major contributor to global supply, supporting food security in Canada and around the world.
The prosperity of the agricultural and agri-food industry in Canada is dependent upon producers’ timely and safe access to effective fertilizers and supplements driven by science-based and consistent regulatory oversight.
Fertilizer Canada and our members have been highly engaged in positive collaboration with the CFIA’s Fertilizer Program throughout the process of modernizing the Fertilizers Regulations. We strongly supported the modernization of the new Fertilizers Regulations, which recently brought in important amendments that facilitate market access for safe and innovative fertilizer and supplement products, supporting innovation in the sector and maintaining high product safety standards. The amendments that were brought in with the new Fertilizers Regulations also brought in measures with the intent of reducing regulatory and administrative burden. Our industry is currently within the three-year transition period of the new Fertilizers Regulations.
These amendments that are proposed to the Fertilizers Act as part of Bill S-6 include a number of amendments to the act. We don’t have significant concerns with the proposed changes. We understand these amendments are facilitating administrative corrections and clarifications and improving conditions for the fertilizer safety program’s administration and processes.
We wanted to take an opportunity to briefly highlight some of the fertilizer industry priorities for modernization in general across the Fertilizers Act and Fertilizers Regulations.
The fertilizers and supplements sector is in a period of rapid growth and innovation. This is supporting farmers in their environmental and economic performance so we can continue to feed the world sustainably. This is leading to things like increased uptake of new products, including enhanced efficiency fertilizers, nitrification and urease inhibitors, polymer-coated products as well as biological products, including biostimulants.
The industry association and our members champion the 4R nutrient stewardship program for sustainable fertilizer use; that is using the right source of fertilizer at the right rate at the right time and in the right place. Having access to the right source of fertilizers and supplements under the 4Rs is critical for optimizing nutrient-use efficiency and minimizing nutrient losses to the environment.
To achieve this, our industry continues to develop new and novel products, which leads to an increase of applications for new product registrations at CFIA. These applications are often of increased diversity and complexity. It’s critical that our industry receives the regulatory oversight necessary to keep pace with this change and that the intended benefits of regulatory modernization are met. As one example, CFIA is currently expanding their interpretation of the definition of a supplement under the Fertilizers Act, and this is going to further grow the number of products and materials that require registration with the agency.
At the most recent Canadian Fertilizer Products Forum early this year, the CFIA reported that service delivery standards were down over the past year across the program, in part due to limitations from COVID-19. In particular, they reported that barely half of new registration submissions for fertilizers and supplements were being completed within service delivery standards.
Our industry was severely impacted by a registration backlog over a decade ago, and with the accelerated pace of innovation and new product registrations in our industry, we can’t afford another backlog limiting the sector’s growth and, ultimately, the ability for Canada’s farmers to access innovative fertilizer and supplement products.
Beyond the regulatory modernization efforts, there are ongoing policy initiatives at CFIA that we need to make sure are appropriately resourced and prioritized to meet the needs of the sector.
As I mentioned before, we’re within that three-year phasing period, and we need to ensure the transition to the new regulations is prioritized. There have already been challenges due to supply chain issues and COVID-19 disruptions in past years.
We’ve had a long-standing ask to the agency to establish a process for updates to the list of primary materials, and this would enact on the intent of the modernized regulations to improve regulatory agility and find efficiencies.
The Chair: Ms. Frost, can I ask you to wrap it up, please.
Ms. Frost: In summary, we are very supportive of modernizing the Fertilizers Act and Fertilizers Regulations and achieving market access and innovation in the sector. It is critical that regulatory oversight keeps pace. Thank you.
The Chair: Similarly with you, I’m not sure your mic is working in sync with ours, so answers to further questions should be slow and concise. Thank you.
Moving on to Mr. Senft from Seeds Canada.
Barry Senft, Executive Director, Seeds Canada: Good morning, Mr. Chair and senators. We appreciate the invitation to address the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on Bill S-6.
Seed regulatory modernization is a critical file to our industry, and I am looking forward to offering input on Bill S-6.
Seeds Canada is a relatively new organization, and I just want to take a moment to speak about who we are. Although we’re new in our current form, we have a strong history in this sector. In February of 2021, four long-standing organizations came together to form one new national seed association.
As the national voice of the seed sector, our membership spans coast-to-coast, with the full-seed value chain represented within Seeds Canada: seed growers, breeders, analysts, processors and distributors.
Now, as it pertains to the Seed Regulatory Modernization, SRM, from a policy perspective, we have been actively involved in the seed regulatory modernization process that has been offered to the seed sector by CFIA. We participate in the SRM working group and the various task teams. Along with representatives of the grains value chain, a seed summit was organized that brought together over 750 stakeholders to discuss the changes required to modernize the seed system and regulations.
Canada’s seed industry is constantly changing. There have been significant improvements in how we develop varieties resulting in improved plant performance and better environmental outcomes. Technology is changing how business is done. For example, rather than going out and inspecting plants individually, genetic testing can be done to determine variety and purity. However, some of the components of the Canadian seed regulatory system have not changed since fields were worked with a horse and plow, and there has not been a fulsome review of the regulatory system in a generation.
Therefore, Seeds Canada is very supportive of legislative and regulatory modernization. Seeds Canada is working with its members and partners in the value chain to help build a vision for the seed system for the future, a seed system that is modern, diverse, competitive, positioned for growth and, most importantly, contributes to the sustainability of agriculture.
Seeds Canada believes that legislation and regulation require changes, and these changes should encourage the use of a full range of tools to improve regulatory clarity for our seed customers, industry partners and Seeds Canada members.
As mentioned, Seeds Canada members are value chain partners, which include producer groups and end users, and are fully engaged in the present CFIA-led seed regulatory modernization process that’s currently under way.
Now, as it pertains to Bill S-6, unfortunately, the changes included in Bill S-6 were not discussed in the existing SRM process and did not result from a meaningful consultation or engagement with the sector. This means that neither Seeds Canada nor other industry partners have been afforded the time to do the due diligence necessary to develop a position on how these items impact the value chain or members directly.
Our preliminary work has revealed potential concerns with some of the proposed changes and we believe that the Seeds Act changes do not respect the spirit of using the seed regulatory process to discuss and approve common-sense updates to legislation and regulations.
Now, Seeds Canada supports the overall emphasis of what a bill like Bill S-6 does and tries to achieve — for example, greater electronic service delivery by CFIA — but at this time Seeds Canada cannot support the changes to the Seeds Act. We therefore request that the committee amend Bill S-6 to remove the changes to the Seeds Act. There is an existing process in place where government is working closely with the entire value chain that should consider a whole suite of changes to the Seeds Act. That is the appropriate mechanism to meet these changes. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Senft.
Douglas Miller, Executive Director, Canadian Seed Growers’ Association: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee for the invitation to share our views on Bill S-6 and its impacts on the Seeds Act as part of this important study.
The Canadian Seed Growers’ Association is Canada’s national seed crop certification authority and has worked with the Government of Canada for over a hundred years to deliver Canada’s seed certification program. CSGA is a member-based organization with 3,100 seed-grower members representing 2,500 seed-producing operations. We are a non-partisan, non‑political organization, and we are not a lobby or advocacy group.
Our mandate is to deliver a national seed crop certification system for the benefit of Canadian agriculture. We also establish procedures for pedigreed seed crop production and set standards for varietal purity. CSGA is given the authority to fulfill our mandate from the Seeds Act.
We are supportive of the amendments relative to CSGA’s role in the Seeds Act as part of Bill S-6 and the spirit of the regulatory modernization initiative, which is to remove barriers to and support innovation and economic growth.
The amendments to the Seeds Act being discussed today directly impact CSGA. The amendments clarify CSGA’s authority to determine the varietal purity of all seed crops, not just those where varietal purity is required for grading purposes. CSGA views this amendment as housekeeping in nature as it reflects the current operational nature of Canada’s seed crop certification system.
The additional clarity around CSGA’s authorities is important as it ensures that new, niche and specialty crop kinds have a pathway to seed certification in Canada, enabling international trade.
Those crop kinds, although insignificant in total acreage, are important and provide opportunities for the future, ranging from alternative biofuels to superfoods to cover crops needed to fight climate change. For perspective, the amendments being proposed that identifies CSGA would impact a significantly small portion of CSGA’s certified seed acres over the last five years. This is in the realm of 0.002% of our total acres in the last five years. The existing act covers 99% of the crop kinds certified by CSGA.
In conclusion, we are supportive of this amendment to the Seeds Act and the work towards further regulatory modernization. Thank you for your time and undertaking this important work. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses.
Senator Simons: My question is for Ms. Reynolds of the CFIA. While I’m thrilled to hear that the CFIA is going to stop using letters to do everything and do things online and digitally — that makes a lot of sense — I am a little more concerned to hear about the amendments that deal with animal disease and the idea of using third-party services.
Could you talk a little bit about the safety pros and cons of allowing third-party assessors to inspect for animal disease? I come from Alberta where we dealt with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, in a really devastating way. I just want to make certain that we’re not doing anything that might inadvertently make it easier for animal disease to spread.
Ms. Reynolds: Thank you for the question, senator. The proposed amendments to the Health of Animals Act would provide the minister with, as the honourable senator mentioned, new authority to approve third-party programs that would be designed to prevent the introduction or spread of animal disease in Canada.
I’d like to stress that these are amendments to the legislation that would have to be followed by amendments to the regulations that would actually set out the criteria for the approval of any third-party program.
The proposal, as I mentioned, would support Canada’s businesses and support alternative ways to meeting certain regulatory requirements. I would like to note that the agency already has experience with third-party programs in the food and organics space. Those programs must meet strict regulatory requirements, but they can also support flexibility and innovation in terms of enabling the development of private-sector programs that meet the strict regulatory programs.
I appreciate the comments of the honourable senator. Any third-party program that would be approved by the agency would need to meet strict regulatory programs and the thresholds of the new regulations that would need to be developed. Thank you for the question.
Senator Simons: I just want to understand who these third parties are and what those programs would look like. Are we talking about feed inspection to look for contaminated feed, or are we talking about the inspection of actual animals to check their health? Can you be a tad more specific in the time we’ve got?
Ms. Reynolds: Yes. In particular, the program we’re talking about here is a proposal put forward by the Manitoba Pork Council to enable the washing of livestock trucks in Canada rather than in the United States. Swine trucks cross into the United States and must be washed prior to returning to Canada to prevent the introduction of disease. This third-party program that specifically spawned this regulatory program would enable a third-party program to be developed in Canada to enable those trucks to be washed in Canada.
That’s the example of the program that instigated this regulatory amendment.
Senator Klyne: My question is also for Ms. Reynolds of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, although if anyone from the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association or Seeds Canada want to weigh in, please do so.
There has been a lot of controversy lately over the licensing and use of gene-edited seeds both in Canada and abroad. I’m advised that when it comes to gene editing, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is proposing guidance or updates to help explain which plants require authorization from CFIA before being grown or planted in Canada. I further understand that the CFIA launched consultations last fall to bring changes to the regulations relating to genetically engineered seeds.
Stakeholder consultations have also been under way to keep pace with technology to improve transparency, and the CFIA is carefully considering relevant and scientific information about the use of gene-editing technologies in agriculture.
What changes proposed in Bill S-6 impact the regulation and use of gene-edited seeds? Additionally, how will Canadians and the agricultural sector benefit from the advances offered by those changes and the new science around gene-edited seeds?
Ms. Reynolds: Thank you for the question. I would need to commit to following up with my colleagues at the CFIA in order to provide a response to the honourable senator related to his question on gene-edited seeds.
The Chair: Thank you. Do we have any input from Mr. Senft or Mr. Miller?
Mr. Senft: From our perspective, I will make a general comment.
The technologies you mentioned are tools we need to be adapting, following a science-based process. They are examples of how we need to be moving forward in the acceptance of technologies like this for our farmers to be competitive with other parts of the world. That would be my only comment.
Mr. Miller: The only comment I’ll make to this is CSGA supports science-based regulations, and plant breeding innovation is an important file for many Canadian farmers. We hope it gets addressed soon.
Senator C. Deacon: Thanks to our witnesses.
Ms. Reynolds, I would like to focus for a moment on the importance of stakeholder consultation. In January, I couldn’t help but notice that CFIA sent out a request for public consultation on the size of diced white potatoes sold in cans. I thought, “Boy, if the CFIA is consulting on issues like that rather than letting the market just sort it out, your inbox must be pretty full of requests for regulatory changes.”
I want to make sure we’re managing what really needs to be managed. Just to get back to the point just made by Mr. Miller about the need for innovation in agriculture for us to really compete globally, that means our regulators really have to work with innovators to find ways to incorporate that into their businesses.
The process here focuses on using Canada Gazette-based engagement, which favours incumbents versus new entrants. How are you managing all of these different elements? You have a huge regulatory burden to carry to consult on the size of diced white potatoes sold in cans and other things like that, and you also have other burdensome irritants that need to be addressed and the need for really systemically based regulatory review that requires legislative changes to empower us to really move ahead? That’s a big challenge on the CFIA’s desk. How are you balancing all of that?
Ms. Reynolds: Thank you for the question, senator.
I will speak to the consultations that led to the amendments we’re here to talk about today under the second Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill. As my colleague from Treasury Board Secretariat already identified and as you mentioned, honourable senator, some of the amendments we are making here today were surfaced through Canada Gazette consultations, noting the need for digitalization and the seven proposals we are putting forward.
Some of the other amendments that we are proposing to make under the bill were brought directly to our attention through our regular interactions with stakeholders. Some of those include a clarification, for example, in the definition of “food” under the Safe Food for Canadians Act and, as I just mentioned in response to another question, a proposal put forward by the Manitoba Pork Council as it relates to the approval of third-party programs.
In summary, I would say that we are drawing on our consultations across a myriad of platforms, whether they be more formal through the Canada Gazette process or through our regular interactions with our stakeholders, to be able to identify continued amendments that need to be made, either to our legislation or our regulations. The Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill, as James already mentioned, provides us with an opportunity to make common-sense changes to our legislation, which, without the Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill, would be very difficult to make.
We welcome the opportunity to advance the proposals contained in Bill S-6, which, again, would be difficult to make without having a vehicle like this to participate in. Thank you.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses.
My question is for the CFIA. How do these proposed amendments make it easier for businesses to interact with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency? What are the expected impacts on competitiveness and costs? For any new products to get onto the shelf, time and costs are critical factors.
Ms. Reynolds: Thank you for the question, honourable senator.
With respect to competitiveness, the suite of regulatory proposals related to digitalization will reduce the administrative burden for businesses that need to interact with the CFIA.
We have seven proposals. The primary one is an amendment to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, our overarching legislation, which would enable businesses or any regulated party that interacts with the CFIA to be able to do business with the agency digitally.
We have been making progress in implementing digital tools in the agency over the past number of years, and this legislative change would reduce any ambiguity related to the ability for businesses to interact with us digitally. That is the primary amendment in this package that would reduce the administrative burden for stakeholders. Thank you for the question.
Senator Mercer: My question is to start with Ms. Reynolds and any other witness who would care to comment.
This committee over the years has heard time and again about regulations for the approval of new products or new products in agriculture.
Will these changes to the regulations speed up the approval process? We’ve heard time and time again about the theory of once tested, twice approved. So we test it here in Canada, but perhaps the Americans could use our data to approve it and get going that way, and vice versa, if the Americans tested something and they approve it, we have a close look at it.
What we’ve seen time and time again is our people waiting for years sometimes for the approval of a product that our competitors have been using, sometimes for a significant time. Is this going to cut this out and speed up the process so our farmers are not put at a disadvantage?
Ms. Reynolds: Thank you, honourable senator, for the question. Mr. Chair, as I mentioned in our overview of our proposal, we are seeking to advance two proposals, one under the Feeds Act and one under the Seeds Act, to enable the Governor-in-Council to make regulations respecting the recognition of a feed or seed safety system of a foreign state. I want to be clear that regulations would need to follow to set out the criteria for a foreign state’s system to be approved.
That being said, with approval of a foreign state system, we would expect the pre-market assessment process to be streamlined for the related products without compromising safety.
These amendments should facilitate access to new innovative feeds and seeds. Again, it also addresses feedback we have received from stakeholders who have identified, as you mentioned, the importance of timely pre-market assessments. Thank you for the question.
Senator Mercer: We’ve seen with this pandemic the need to approve vaccines quickly, and I hope we’ve all learned a lesson or two through this process.
Senator Cotter: I might have two sets of questions. Maybe I could zero in on what seemed to me to become a more substantive question.
If I understand, Mr. Senft, your organization does not support the section of these regulatory amendments that would address the Seeds Act, and if I understood it, Mr. Miller, your organization does support them. I would be interested in understanding that more fully, particularly your view, Mr. Senft. I wasn’t expecting this set of observations. I do note on your own website that Seeds Canada is part of the official working group engaged in the regulatory consultations. I would like to hear a little bit more about the reservations that you have and, specifically, perhaps, whether you’re interested in a significant regulatory reform rather than the housekeeping efforts that Mr. Miller described that this bill is all about. Particularly Mr. Senft, could you speak to that?
Mr. Senft: Thank you for the question, senator.
That’s exactly the issue that we’re bringing to you today. We are fully engaged in a CFIA-led seed regulatory reform process. The issue is there hasn’t been a significant, detailed overview of the Seeds Act for a long period of time. A number of changes have occurred — and there have been changes made to the Seeds Act — but they have been done piecemeal, for lack of a better description.
So when CFIA proposed the seed regulatory modernization process, we at Seeds Canada wholeheartedly supported that concept, and we are committing significant resources to that process. That’s why we are a bit surprised that while we’re in the midst of this process — this major overview — this piece of regulation has come forward apart from that. As such, it has not been included in the larger context of the review, where it could be dealt with, with the broader audience, the full seed value chain, and, hopefully, with what other major changes are made to the regulations and, if needed, the legislation.
Our issue is why this is coming up while there is such a significant overview that should include this topic anyway.
Senator Cotter: Without putting words in your mouth, Mr. Senft, would it be fair to say that you might not have objections to these modest changes, but you see an opportunity here in the need for a larger reflection on the regulatory framework that exists with respect to the Seeds Act and the seeds regulation?
Mr. Senft: The issue in the SRM process is government’s roles and responsibility in the Seeds Act, industry’s roles and responsibilities in the Seeds Act and who is responsible for what. On this issue, Bill S-6 should be part of that discussion, whether it’s CSGA or whoever. I think it’s surprising that we’re dealing with this while we’re having a major review of the Seeds Act that has all the value chain participants in that discussion.
Senator Cotter: Thanks. I looked at your position paper, and I think I saw that message fairly clearly.
Senator Marwah: I have a macro question, and I would like to hear the perspective of the government officials as well as that of the industry. I have full faith in our regulatory standards and am supportive of modernizing our standards, but we do live in a world of global trade. We have many free trade agreements, and many Canadian companies compete extensively globally. With that in mind, with these changes, would we say our standards are competitive? Where do we stand? Are we or are we not competitive?
Second, how do we ensure other countries are adhering to their standards?
I would like to hear the industry’s perspective as well as the government’s perspective on those points. Ms. Reynolds, do you want to start and tell us where you think we stack up competitive-wise globally?
Ms. Reynolds: Thank you for the question, honourable senator. I want to begin by noting the honourable senator’s reference to international regulatory cooperation and the importance of that in the regulatory space. With respect to that comment, I will refer again to the proposed amendments that we have in the bill related to changes to the Feeds Act and Seeds Act to enable the agency to recognize feeds and seeds safety systems in other foreign jurisdictions. International regulatory cooperation is key to good science-based regulation. This would enable us to use the assessments of trusted regulatory partners to streamline our own pre-market assessments here in Canada. That is the specific interaction with your comment, honourable senator, that relates to these particular amendments under Bill S-6. Thank you.
Mr. van Raalte: On a broader perspective than just the CFIA perspective, I think that this issue of competitiveness has been a priority for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat for a number of years now. We worked closely with our partners at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in terms of how they measure regulatory competitiveness or what their views are in terms of OECD members.
This is a new field of measurement, Mr. Chair. We are looking at developing a competitiveness tool to apply to all regulatory submissions coming through for Treasury Board consideration. We’re just starting that process, but we are looking at considerations around economic growth and trade, investment attractiveness, innovation, cumulative effect and barriers to competition. I welcome the honourable senators’ questions and any input the committee may have in that area going forward.
Senator Marwah: Mr. Miller and Mr. Senft, would you care to comment on whether our standards in seeds are really competitive globally?
Mr. Miller: Absolutely. As Canada’s national seed crop certification authority, CSGA is actively engaged on the global front, making sure that the Canadian standards are up-to-date, modernized and internationally harmonized. We work really closely with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency at the OECD seed schemes to make sure standards are, again, up-to-date, modernized and harmonized.
We are also a founding member of an organization called the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies, or AOSCA, which is more of a North America-centric seed standard-setting organization. We work there to ensure that, again, the standards are up-to-date to facilitate international trade and movement of seed.
Mr. Senft: I would just comment that your point about global competitiveness is very important for the seed development industry. The issue is that global companies that are in seed development will look around the world to see where their assurances of a return on their investment are. Seed development is risky enough. So they need an up-to-date regulatory environment that is sound and predictable before they make that choice of coming into it. As a general comment, that’s why we’re so supportive of the SRM proposal — or process that’s going on — so that we are competitive to what’s going on in other places in the world.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Ringuette: A quick question for Mr. Senft and Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller, you said that you had 3,100 Canadian members. I gather you’re entirely a Canadian membership entity. How does your organization differ from the Seeds Canada organization? You’re both seeds organizations, but what’s the difference between your organizations?
Mr. Miller: It goes back to our mandate, senator. Our mandate is to deliver Canada’s national seed crop certification program. First and foremost, we do see ourselves as a regulatory partner with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Our members are coast-to-coast — from P.E.I. to Vancouver Island — seed growers. So that’s our organization.
We also work really closely with provincial branches to ensure grassroots participation. Our organization is really about grassroots participation.
Senator Ringuette: I’m sorry, but my direct question is the following: What’s the difference between your organization and Seeds Canada? I understand that you have a mandate, but is it the same membership?
Mr. Miller: There will be some overlap but not a lot. We are more of a seed crop certification body, and they are more of an advocacy group, though they do have some regulatory functions that they perform.
Senator Ringuette: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Senft: Thank you for the question. Just further to Doug’s comment to you, Seeds Canada is, as I mentioned in my introduction, a recent merger of a number of the value chain participants. So we’ve got a broad range of the seed value chain within us, from seed analysts to seed growers to seed developers. Some of our role is similar to that of CSGA, but there is a difference of mandates and membership that make up the two respective organizations.
The Chair: I have a question, and then we’ll move to second round. My question is to Fertilizer Canada and our seeds organizations. Do your organizations have any concerns regarding the amendments that give the minister additional powers over approval of registrations or approval of programs regarding safekeeping or safeguarding Canada from disease? If so, why or why not? We’ll start with Fertilizer Canada.
Ms. Frost: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the question.
Our understanding is that a lot of the amendments specific to the Fertilizers Act are aligning the act with the current fertilizers regulations, which, as we noted, underwent a full modernization and were brought into force in 2020. So, our current understanding, based on our conversations with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, is that those interpretations and changes would not directly impact the program management or the day-to-day operations of the fertilizer safety section.
Having said that, we’re still digging into and having conversations about the contents of this bill, so if there are specific concerns or any unintended consequences that pop up that we’re aware of, we’ll absolutely be raising those. Thank you for the question.
Mr. Miller: We are here today just to speak on the amendment that is directly related to CSGA. I would defer to my colleagues who would have more experience in this realm.
Mr. Senft: My response is similar. We haven’t looked at this. It’s part of a Seeds Canada issue that we haven’t had time to review this bill in its entirety, so that is one of our concerns.
The Chair: Thank you. I know you did flag for us, Mr. Senft, the very short timeline and turnaround that you’ve been given. On behalf of this committee, we apologize. It is the process that we’re being put through at this time.
Senator Klyne: This question is for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Clause 127 of the bill would allow the CFIA to carry out its mandate using electronic means. I’m all for modernization, as is my colleague Senator Sabi Marwah. The question I have is this: Could you walk this committee through, using this approach, the inspections of dairy farms, livestock operations, poultry and egg producers and food processing and packaging? Are other countries using this approach? I can understand it might be faster and cheaper, but is it better, and will inspections continue to be consistent and thorough, protecting all stakeholders’ interests?
Ms. Reynolds: Thank you, honourable senator, for the question. Mr. Chair, I would need to commit to follow up the honourable senator’s question as it relates specifically, as I understand it, to so-called virtual inspections and the utilization of digital technologies to conduct inspection activities. The amendments in the bill, as I mentioned, facilitate the agency being able to undertake its activities digitally. However, with respect to specific individualized digital activities, I would need to commit to follow up to provide further information to respond to the honourable senator’s question. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. This is a good point to mention that our clerk will follow up with all of our witnesses if they’ve agreed or offered to follow up with further information. We do need to expedite that because we need the report. We need that information by next Thursday, by our meeting next week. Just giving everyone a heads-up and our clerk will follow up.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you again to our witnesses. Ms. Reynolds, in your capacity as Executive Director of Policy and Regulatory Affairs at CFIA, I really want to look at your capacity to manage the burden that we have in front of us. Bill S-6 does a very tiny narrow slice, but you have a large existing regulatory administrative burden, as I mentioned earlier, in terms of being involved even in the size of diced white potatoes in cans; you’ve got the much bigger issues that you have to deal with.
Then there is not just the Bill S-6 slice but the transformation of the whole regulatory pie. You need to keep up with new business models and new innovations to make sure that Canada is globally competitive and that our farmers really are keeping up with the changes, especially as we digitalize and deal with climate change.
Do you have the capacity to manage what seems is a very large burden that can create conflicts just in terms of the differences of expectations between the seed growers and Seeds Canada at this meeting? I would like you to speak to that and what the need is for resources and, perhaps, process changes that go beyond Bill S-6 to deal with this much larger issue. Thank you.
Ms. Reynolds: Thank you, honourable senator, for the question. The agency is certainly a very large, science-based regulator. The scope of our regulatory activities is vast, as the honourable senator mentioned. The agency is responsible for some nine pieces of legislation, seven of which are captured under the Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill.
As I mentioned, we welcome this opportunity through the Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill to make common-sense changes to our legislation to keep it up-to-date. It is a vehicle and opportunity that we would not have unless this bill provided that opportunity.
More generally, the honourable senator may be aware that we do have a fulsome, forward regulatory plan. As mentioned by my colleagues from Seeds Canada, Canadian Seed Growers’ Association and Fertilizer Canada. We are actively engaged in our regulated industry in various modernization efforts to continue to ensure that our regulations remain up-to-date and support competitiveness and innovation while ensuring the safety, health and well-being of Canadians.
We have an active regulatory agenda that we continue to advance and report on, and that information is available. Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: I don’t want to put words in your mouth. The answer to the question is that you do feel you have the resources and the process to enable Canada to keep up globally and be a competitive and innovative agriculture and food producer, that you’re all set with what you’ve got?
Ms. Reynolds: Honourable senator, thank you for the question. I’m speaking broadly to our regulatory agenda. I would need to commit to follow up with respect to a more specific answer that the honourable senator is seeking. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Cotter, I cut you off in round one, but you also wanted to hear from Seeds Canada and CSGA.
Senator Cotter: If I could. This is a slightly more technical set of questions, but perhaps at the end I want to come back and see if Mr. Miller has any observations about the amendment to the Seeds Act.
Ms. Reynolds, one question is a sort of combination with the Seeds Act and, as I understand it, with respect to veterinary biologics, which is a technical term with which I’m not particularly familiar. It looks like there are provisions in the act which address the release of seeds and the release of biologics. I’m interested in whether there were some developments or issues that have caused us to see the need to add that in.
Second, with respect to Ms. Reynolds, I think. You spoke to the need to modernize the issues around interim orders in the Safe Food for Canadians Act. I noticed that, but I also notice there is what looks to me like a new interim order along the same lines that’s capable of being issued under the Health of Animals Act. I was wondering what is the motivation for that. I’m here referring to what looks like a new provision, 64.11(1). What motivated that addition?
Ms. Reynolds: Thank you, senator, for the question. In relation to your first question, honourable senator, you were speaking of the three proposals. They are the same, effectively, in issue and are technical in nature with no visible changes to our current practice in relation to regulating the release of veterinary biologics, novel seeds and novel supplements.
The trigger for these three proposals was the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations who questioned whether existing legislative authorities, specifically in the Seeds Act, support the existing parts of the seed regulations that prohibit the release of novel supplements.
The Standing Joint Committee didn’t specifically note novel supplements and veterinary biologics, but since these frameworks across these three different commodities are similar, we are seeking the same amendment across these three areas. Again, it is consistent with existing practices. It is aligning the legislation with the regulations as it relates to the release of these products.
I will move on to your second question relating to interim orders. We are seeking under this Bill S-6 an amendment to the Health of Animals Act which would allow the minister to issue an interim order if the minister believes immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk to human or animal health or safety. As I mentioned, this interim order would be applicable for one year.
The interest in this proposal was generated due to lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to ensure that we have the appropriate tools to respond effectively and quickly to emergencies.
In view of the escalating situation of African swine fever, this generated the need for this proposal as it relates to the Health of Animals Act. Thank you.
Senator Cotter: I was going to ask Mr. Miller to comment, but I guess I can’t resist this comment. Normally, the practice is for the regulations to be aligned with the act and not the other way around. I’m happy to see that this is happening, but it sounds like the regulations got ahead of themselves under this legislation and now we have to expand the act to make sure it makes room for the regulations.
Could I ask Mr. Miller if he has a comment regarding the Seeds Act amendments and their adequacy?
Mr. Miller: Absolutely, honourable senator. From our first panel, we heard the analogy talking about flossing. We consider this amendment that pertains to CSGA to be like brushing your teeth before going out to a party. Barry touched on seed regulatory modernization. We consider that a party. It’s a once‑in-a-generation opportunity to influence and help build the next generation seed system that is going to develop a thriving and sustainable agri-food sector in Canada.
When we look at seed regulatory modernization, it’s easy to get confused about what it is and what it isn’t. It is not a discussion about plant breeding innovation or about the act. It’s all about how we can adjust the regulations.
The timeline for the seed regulatory modernization process is looking to 2025. In a few years from now, we’ll be back here talking about the great work we’ve done as part of the SRM process, but for right now. we’re talking about housekeeping items that are going to help keep the trains running on time, that will help to ensure that niche specialty crop kinds have a pathway to seed certification in international trade. For us, this is purely a housekeeping item, and it’s like brushing your teeth before a party.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I have one final question, and it appears that we’re done. This is to Ms. Reynolds. Clause 104, which deals with subsection 5.31(2) of the Feeds Act, highlights the fact that in the Feeds Act, the minister may make approval or registration subject to additional conditions that the minister considers appropriate, including conditions respecting the prevention of harm to human or animal health and to the environment. That is similarly highlighted in other sections.
But my question really is the following: Is there an existing system of checks and balances to ensure that the minister cannot act without taking into consideration information regarding the feed or fertilizer product or program in question, whether it be from the CFIA or another regulatory body?
Ms. Reynolds: Mr. Chair, thank you for the question.
I’ll just briefly touch on the proposed amendment as it relates to conditions. The stakeholders would be familiar already with the actions by the agency to provide conditions on certain product registrations. Similar to some of my previous responses, this particular amendment would ensure alignment between the legislation and the regulations, and it would not result in visible changes to current practice.
With respect to the specifics of the second part of your question, I will commit to following up. Thank you for the question.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Cotter: I apologize for dragging this out. This is a question for Mr. van Raalte as sort of the quarterback of this whole project, if I might describe you that way. I’m trying to get away from the dental metaphors. When we get a chance to study universal dental care, we might invite you back as witnesses, perhaps.
My question is a serious one. Across this whole piece, the general working rule is that regulations have to be intra vires the legislation. I’m now a little bit concerned that what we are actually seeing is an exercise where the regulations, not just in this area but maybe in others, have gotten ahead of the legislation, and part of your job here is to expand the legislation so that the umbrella is big enough to fit the ongoing regulations and regulatory framework.
Can you speak to that in a general way, Mr. van Raalte?
Mr. van Raalte: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
It’s a very important point in that, from time to time, we do see that, based on the historical context of when the legislation was drafted and the evolution of drafting concepts, regulations and the interpretation of the regulations can exceed the interpretation of the legislation. The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations is one of the helpful organizations, if I may put it that way, that points out when that happens. At other times, we find it ourselves or it’s been pointed out by legal counsel, et cetera.
There is a certain legal risk associated with that, and in those cases, this type of legislative instrument can help us rectify that.
Senator C. Deacon: Mr. van Raalte, I will pick up on that point, because I think it’s a very important one. Perhaps we are playing catch-up in order to manage government legal risk rather than working to prioritize changes that will create economic and social opportunity at a larger rate by incorporating innovation into our regulatory framework.
For me, it is a bit concerning that this tidy-up is actually not helping Canada move ahead. There could be elements where we’re just helping to manage legal risks. It’s an internal matter. I’m very concerned about where it interacts with the Canadian economy and Canadian business and not necessarily our internal manifestations.
Can you speak to that concern that now has arisen? Thank you.
Mr. van Raalte: Thank you. I guess the corollary is that if the courts struck down the regulation and they were absent, then we’d be hard-pressed to quickly fix that, so I note the senator’s concerns, and I’ll take that back for consideration.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.
The Chair: With that, thank you very much, Ms. Reynolds, Ms. Cotton, Mr. Senft, Ms. Frost and Mr. Miller, for your time and participation. As I have noted before, your assistance with this study and bill is very much appreciated.
I would also like to thank the committee members for their active participation and thoughtful questions. I thank the Senate interpretation and logistics team here in the committee room, and thank you to those who are watching this morning.
At this time, before we close, I would like to pay tribute to Senator Mercer. As we will all know, tomorrow is Senator Mercer’s last day with us. He is the longest severing member on this committee, and I know we will miss him and his experience, insights and input.
Senator Mercer, on behalf of this committee, thank you for your continued dedication to serving Canadians over so many years, and in particular, for serving the stakeholders in the agriculture and forestry sectors. For me, it has been a real honour to work alongside you on this committee during my four years here and in the Senate Chamber.
Senator Mercer: Thank you, chair. The commitment I made to former senator Carstairs, who was the Leader of the Government in the Senate when I was appointed, was that I would come and join the Agriculture Committee temporarily. That’s the way she put it. We didn’t have anyone to come to the committee right then, so I drew the short straw. I said that I would certainly do it for a short period of time. Eighteen‑and‑a‑half years later, the short time is up.
I would like to thank everybody on the committee: the wonderful clerks we’ve had, and the chairs we’ve had, Conservatives, Liberals and independent people. I’ve acted as deputy chair several times throughout the process.
It’s been a pleasure for me. I’ve learned so much about the sector. When I came to the committee, I had no expertise — and I still have no expertise — in agriculture, but I did have expertise in two things: I am the principal grocery shopper in my family, and when I’m home, I’m the principal cook in my family; I do the cooking and baking. I do it all. I’ve just recently started teaching my 6-year-old granddaughter. She and I bake pies for every major family event, and she’s enjoying it — I don’t think half as much as I am having her with me.
I’ve learned so much from my colleagues around the table and also from the many witnesses. I’d like to thank them all, all of the clerks and my colleagues who have sat on this committee with me over the years. Thank you all.
The Chair: If there is no other business, honourable senators, this meeting is suspended to transition to an in-camera meeting. Thank you.
(The committee continued in camera.)