THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 12, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 8:01 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the role of the agriculture and agri-food sector with regard to food security in Canada.
Senator Mary Robinson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Mary Robinson, and I am the chair of this committee. Welcome to the members of the committee, our witnesses and those watching this meeting online. I would like to start by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Before we hear from our witnesses today, I would like to start by asking the senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin from British Columbia.
Senator McNair: Good morning and welcome. I’m John McNair from New Brunswick.
Senator Burey: Good morning. Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, Ontario.
Senator Muggli: Good morning. Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: I would like to ask everyone to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. I would also like to remind all those participating to refrain from switching languages mid-sentence and to try not to speak too quickly. Clear audio supports accurate interpretation, transcription and captioning.
Today the committee is continuing its study on the role of the agriculture and agri-food sector with regard to food security in Canada.
For our first panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, Professor and Director, Agri-Food Analytics Laboratory, Dalhousie University; Alex Boyd, Chief Executive Officer, Greener Village; Geoffrey McCarney, Executive Director, Smart Prosperity Institute; and Michael Twigg, Director, Nature Economies, Smart Prosperity Institute.
Thank you for joining us. We will begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from members. You will each have five minutes, and I will catch your eye when you have one minute left and I will really start staring you down when you are out of time. Dr. Charlebois, you have the floor.
Sylvain Charlebois, Professor and Director, Agri-Food Analytics Laboratory, Dalhousie University, as an individual: Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation.
When we talk about the future of Canada’s agri-food sector, the conversation often starts with food prices. But prices are not the problem; they are the signal. The real challenge facing Canadian agriculture today is structural, and I’d like to ground my remarks in evidence from work conducted by the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University.
I will make three points this morning. First, Canada is quietly losing agri-food competitiveness. Our food inflation problem really started in 2008. In our annual Canada’s Food Price Report 2025, which draws on national price data, industry surveys and supply-chain modelling, we consistently observe that food price pressures are increasingly driven by structural costs, not short-term shocks.
Our work points to a clear conclusion: When productivity growth lags and capital investment stalls, affordability deteriorates over time, regardless of temporary relief measures like the bona fide GST credit program.
Second, policy complexity has become one of the sector’s main cost drivers. In multiple lab analyses on carbon pricing and food costs, we found that the most significant impacts occur at the wholesale and processing levels, not directly at retail. This distinction is often missed in public debate. When competitiveness is weakened upstream, costs compound as products move through the system. We need to optimize supply management.
We have also examined supply-chain disruptions and regulatory friction, including the role of inspection capacity and transportation bottlenecks. Our findings show that uncertainty — delays in inspection, certification or transport — acts as an implicit tax on Canadian food producers, particularly exporters.
Third, food security today is about resilience, not just production. In our research on consumer trust and food labelling, we find that transparency and clarity matter more than enforcement-heavy approaches. When trust erodes — whether due to pricing confusion, labelling fatigue or misinformation — support for domestic agriculture weakens.
We’ve also studied institutional food procurement, particularly in publicly funded settings. Decisions made without a full understanding of supply-chain impacts can unintentionally reduce resilience by narrowing sourcing options and increasing dependence on imports.
Let me close with this: Our research consistently shows that short-term affordability measures do not fix structural weaknesses. You cannot rebate your way out of a productivity gap, you cannot regulate trust into existence, and you cannot achieve food sovereignty without coherent policy signals that support investment, inspection capacity and innovation.
If Canada wants an agri-food sector that is affordable, competitive and resilient, the focus must shift from managing prices to enabling production, investment and system-wide coherence.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Boyd, to you next.
Alex Boyd, Chief Executive Officer, Greener Village: Thank you. I want to start by expressing my appreciation for the opportunity to speak with you about the experiences that I’ve gained working on the front lines of food insecurity.
Greener Village has been serving people in the community of Fredericton for over 40 years. That’s 40 years of support for people who would not have had enough food to eat without us, 40 years of development to address the growing need and immediate hunger that people inevitably face when they are food insecure, but also 40 years of development to provide deeper programming along the lines of education, empowerment and community building.
You have received, and will continue to receive, testimony from witnesses who are far more informed on policy, statistics, food systems and food insecurity. Greener Village is a practical place, providing real help to people who are suffering, and though we use and gather statistics, I believe it is very important to note that the statistics, while extremely valuable, need to be framed in the light of the lives of the people that they represent.
Food insecurity is a growing problem. For the sake of this opening statement, let’s call it a disease. We need to eradicate the disease. It impacts our longevity, limits our potential, compromises our security and erodes our community cohesion. But while we seek to eliminate the disease, we also have people who are suffering from the symptoms that the disease causes.
They’re facing barriers at this very moment to access the very basics to keep going. They’re facing barriers at this very moment to access the basics they need to realize their potential.
That’s the role that food banks across our nation have taken: standing in the gap, trying to keep resources in the hands of the people that need them — whether that’s the single mother who is trying to decide if she should eat today or save the food for her kids; the newcomer family that is struggling with job opportunities as they navigate a totally new cultural environment; the university student who is desperately working to realize their potential through education; the disabled couple who come to a Learning Kitchen class just to experience community; or maybe it’s that person who is trapped in the cycle of poverty and can’t find a way out. Food banks are standing in the gap, and I’d like to share with you the innovative solution that Greener Village is embarking on to reduce these impacts and ensure that people have access to fresh, healthy food.
Agricultural products have often been challenging for food banks to use meaningfully. Food banks are not seen as prime partners for local agriculture, and they also face infrastructural barriers to be able to use the fresh food products that may become available, especially at scale. Because of challenges with infrastructure, many food banks rely heavily on processed, shelf-stable products that are not typically from local sources and may not be the healthiest. Investments like the Local Food Infrastructure Fund aim to mitigate these gaps, but there are still significant investments needed countrywide to address the challenges.
While these barriers remain real, there is also a significant opportunity for local agriculture in partnership with food banks. In Food Banks Canada’s HungerCount 2025 report, they noted a staggering 2.165 million visits per month to food banks. These visits reflect a massive volume of food that is being procured through food donations or with donated funds to food banks. What could and would our system look like if all the donated funds that are purchasing food could be worked into the local agricultural system? Even if $25 per visit could be invested, that would be over $50 million in spending every month on local agriculture. Instead of funds being used to ship products across the world in heavily processed formats, we would invest in Canadian distribution of products that could be processed locally for families in need.
That’s why Greener Village is in the midst of a construction project to build our THRIVE Perishable Food Rescue Center. This new facility’s purpose is very simple: to save viable fresh food from waste and invest in locally grown products. The centre will be able to receive and process fresh produce and transform it into a freezer stable product that will be distributed to food banks all throughout New Brunswick. Greener Village and its partners FeedNB and Food Banks Canada are already creating partnerships with local producers to create healthy local food that can be processed and distributed. This means higher quality foods for the people I mentioned above, improving health and providing better nutrition so people can perform better at work or school.
We are hopeful that our THRIVE Perishable Food Rescue Center can be a successful pilot to reimagine how food banks can reduce food waste and process local agricultural for those most in need. Any future food security initiatives must include The Global FoodBanking Network as a partner.
Thank you for inviting me to contribute to this important study. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
The Chair: Perfectly timed, Mr. Boyd. Thank you. Lastly, we will hear from Mr. McCarney and Mr. Twigg.
Geoffrey McCarney, Executive Director, Smart Prosperity Institute: Thank you for the invitation to appear today.
I am the executive director of the Smart Prosperity Institute, a national environment-economy research institute at the University of Ottawa. I am joined by my colleague Michael Twigg, Director of Nature Economies, who has led our nature and agriculture research teams for more than five years.
Our work focuses on how policy and market tools can improve Canada’s productivity, competitiveness and resilience by strengthening the natural systems that underpin them. Our submission to this committee today aims to establish that food security is an economic and environmental resilience issue — in addition to an urgent social issue rooted in affordability and equitability of access.
We see several worrying trends in the sector, and the numbers are telling. Canada has slipped from fifth to ninth among global food producers. We waste more than half of the food we produce — a third of which is considered avoidable. Our reliance on imported food has grown steadily over the past two decades. These trends point to two main concerns.
First, our production systems are becoming more unstable. Across several provinces, we see declines in soil health, imbalances in vital soil nutrients and rising sensitivity to drought. In 2024 three quarters of Canadian farmers reported being impacted by severe weather. At the same time, farm income dropped by 26% — the largest single drop since 2018. During this time, crop insurance payments have nearly tripled, from $1.9 billion in 2018 to $5.7 billion in 2023. While conditions improved in 2025, about 75% of farmers still faced abnormally dry conditions. More recent data shows that payments remain above 2018 levels, with crop insurance payments for the first three quarters of last year alone reaching $3.3 billion.
Infrastructure bottlenecks compound these risks. In 2024 Western Canada, which handles 70% of Canadian grain shipments, saw an increase in transit times of more than 40 days, increasing storage times and port losses.
Second, our national food system is reliant on raw-commodity exports and food imports. This makes it increasingly vulnerable to swift changes in international trade and global market conditions. About $65 billion of the sector’s total value is exposed to global supply-chain disruptions, geopolitical instability, trade conflicts and climate shocks beyond our borders. Recent major disruptions have shown how quickly international supply-chain risks can materialize and compound the ones we are facing at home.
Our message today following these observations is straightforward: In addition to its socio-economic dimensions, food security in Canada depends on two things.
First, food security begins with financially resilient producers. If Canadian farms are not economically stable, Canadian food systems are less secure, and Canada will be forced to increasingly rely on more volatile supply sources.
Building this financial resiliency, in turn, requires investing in the natural systems that support our food production. We cannot address food security in Canada without recognizing that our food systems fundamentally depend on the health of the natural systems that sustain them. This includes agricultural soils, water, biodiversity and broader climate stability.
Second, we need to encourage system-wide efficiency to keep things affordable from farm to table. Avoidable food waste has increased by 6.5% in recent years, alongside food insecurities of more than 5%. Racialized communities are most at risk.
If we want a more secure food system, we need policies and markets that support producers in reducing their climate risks and improving the health of their soil. Encouraging proactive risk management efforts, such as building soil health through regenerative agriculture practices, can be dually beneficial, reducing farm-level losses and limiting the insurance sector’s total liabilities. Business risk management programs are also incredibly important, especially in a climate-exposed sector, where risks are expected to increase.
In addition, we need to think about how existing policies and programs are encouraging adaptation and lowering systemic risk. This includes ensuring that we are aligning public programs and private incentives to increase farm resilience. The benefits of a resilient food system accrue to both public and private actors, and a widespread transition toward more resilient practices will require investments from both parties. High-impact policies, markets and programs are those that activate private sector value propositions, enable private sector off taking and attract blended finance.
Infrastructure is another key piece, and we need to invest in modernized port and railway infrastructure, as well as the expansion of domestic value-added production capacity, including processing facilities. Building more autonomous food systems and more reliable transportation infrastructure will reduce our exposure to external disruptions, while also seizing higher value export opportunities and creating new jobs in Canada.
Finally, we need to reduce avoidable food waste through circular system design. The loss of food, nutrients and resources at every stage of the supply chain is unsustainable and underpins a dual crisis of affordability and waste. A circular food system would cut waste and make better use of what farms and agricultural producers already have.
This includes measures to cut costs and improve on-farm resiliency, such as encouraging the use of composted manure or crop leftovers to boost soil health while reducing reliance on synthetic fertilizers, as well as measures that improve revenues by getting more out of what we already produce and use, including by improving infrastructure for better storage and shipment of harvests.
Food security is not just about producing more. It is about increasing the financial and productive resiliency of Canadian farms while reducing the sector’s exposure to unnecessary long-term risks and costs. It is about making production systems and agri-food value chains more reliable and efficient, reducing waste and increasing predictability throughout the food system.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McCarney.
We will move now to questions from senators. Senators, you have five minutes for questions, and that does include the answer. If there is time, we will move to the second round.
Senator McNair: Thank you for being here again today. I have a question for Mr. Boyd. According to your website, Greener Village hands out over 2,100 grocery boxes every month to client families and has seen a 42% increase in client demand in the last year. Alex, you can tell me what factors have contributed to the 42% increase in client demand at Greener Village?
Mr. Boyd: Thank you for the question. We are seeing increases in every demographic that we serve — more newcomer families, seniors and working people who just aren’t able to make ends meet. Our clients tell us that the cost of housing and the cost of food products are the things that contribute most to them coming to Greener Village for support. That means we are seeing new families every single day, and we are seeing families for longer periods of time as well.
Senator McNair: What barriers do clients face in accessing healthy food in your region and why?
Mr. Boyd: The largest barrier to access healthy fresh food is cost. Unfortunately, heavily processed quick meals are cheaper at the grocery stores than fresher products are. Additionally, food education and understanding how to use healthy products well are lacking in society as a whole. We used to teach our kids in the kitchen. We’ve become very busy, and that’s not always an option.
That’s why organizations like Greener Village are trying to do that educational piece to help people understand how to use good food well so that it is not just drudgery to eat healthy food. It can be a joy to eat healthy food, but only if you have the knowledge of how to produce that food well.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you all for being here. I’m going to start with Dr. Charlebois. Effective coordination in Canada’s food system depends on good information. I like to say that data is king. What key data is currently missing, and what barriers prevent governments from collecting it or sharing it effectively? Do policymakers have access to timely, real-time data on food insecurity and supply chain risks or are the decisions relying on something more subjective?
Mr. Charlebois: Thank you for the question. It is a very important question. We’ve written on Canada’s data deficit for more than a decade now. It is a problem. We get calls at the lab, and we’re asked to get some information about this market or that market, what is happening, especially when it comes to food inflation because food inflation is probably the biggest topic right now. We’re assisting the Province of Manitoba right now. As you probably know, Premier Kinew has been very proactive in trying to understand food inflation in his own province, and it’s not easy. There is just no data. To predict food prices in Canada, we are using data from the United States and the EU. That’s telling.
Senator Sorensen: So the answer is no, there isn’t enough data.
Mr. Charlebois: That’s why we created the lab in the first place: to provide data, democratically, free of charge, in English and French, to Canadians desperate to find data.
Senator Sorensen: Do you have a comment on that topic? I just wondered if you had input on that because you looked at each other.
Mr. McCarney: It relates to a lot of Michael’s work, so maybe I will let him speak to it. Specifically, what we’re working on is trying to understand the same data challenges and overcome the same data challenges by understanding the productivity impacts of improving natural systems, and the same data gaps exist there.
Michael Twigg, Director, Nature Economies, Smart Prosperity Institute: Thank you for the question. I would say the same thing. When we are looking at it from the producer’s perspective as well, a lot of the uncertainty around different challenges or different transitions to more regenerative or food security in terms of the supply of food, that uncertainty and the lack of data are really constraining in terms of taking those additional risks. When you think about things like economic risks at that level, the margins are just too small from a data perspective to be able to take on that uncertainty and really run the risk of not having the yields, not having your income, and then not being able to provide food into the system as well. So data is a big concern.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. And I think that’s a good point for us all to be reminded of as we move down this report.
Mr. Boyd, I’m fascinated by your initiative, and I’m curious to know this: How can initiatives like yours complement Canada’s broader food-security strategy, and what are challenges to scaling your model across the country? Or are there similar models across the country? And I am also really interested — it may come in another answer — about what the most effective ways to recover, store and distribute perishable foods are.
Mr. Boyd: Thank you for that question because, actually, it’s a paragraph I skipped to meet time, so I’m going to actually read it if that’s okay. Thank you for that.
It’s a meaningful connection to the agriculture industry that is so challenging for food banks and for individuals as well. Many times, we are relegated to purchasing from distributors, grocery stores or some other end user as opposed to early in the agricultural system. So creating an environment where more individuals, institutions and organizations can connect directly with farmers is a matter of infrastructure. And if you don’t have the ability to handle the food at harvest, at the volume that it is going to come out at harvest, then you’re not going to ever enter into the conversation. We have to be able to get at the farmers early and say, “This is what we need produced at this volume.” But if we can’t handle it when it gets produced, then that’s a problem.
It’s the same, I think, for individuals: Except at farmers’ markets, it is very hard to connect to the early stages of agriculture. We end up at the end stage of the food system getting things. Greener Village, the Perishable Food Rescue Centre, is really a first of its kind in the way that we are doing it; so we are using it as a pilot with Food Banks Canada as that partner to show that this is a viable model that we can reproduce elsewhere in the country. We are hoping that means that in the coming years we are going to have a lot of these food rescue centres in strategic places across the country to reclaim more food that is going to waste, but also allowing food banks to become upstream in the food system as opposed to at the end of the food system.
Senator Sorensen: I live in Banff, which is a small town with a lot of transient youth, and our local grocery stores will provide our small food bank operation with produce, but it is in and out and gone in a couple of days, but it is an interesting model. Thank you.
Senator Martin: Thank you so much for your presentations. I picked up on two points that you raised. Even though I have a lot of questions I prepared, I thought I would hone in on those two points.
One of the things I heard from several of you is regarding food waste, that we do waste a lot of food in Canada.
I recently visited an organization called Food Link Society in British Columbia, where I’m from, and they made a distinction between food banks and food recovery and what they are doing. Mr. McCarney and Mr. Boyd, in terms of the waste that we are seeing, you did mention that we need to connect some of the key organizations and parts of the sector to create this whole chain.
Could you speak more about how we can prevent the food waste that we are seeing? The organization I mentioned is the largest food recovery organization in B.C. Just hearing about that, we need more of that, and I assume, Mr. Boyd, your organization is also doing that. Could you speak to how we can reduce waste? What should we specifically do in Canada?
Mr. Boyd: Thank you for that question. Food waste is hard. Inevitably, when you are producing food, there is going to be some level of waste that is unavoidable. But there is also a lot of waste that is avoidable. That comes in a surplus product and in a visually unappealing product. Some countries in the world have outlawed food waste at the grocery story level. France is the leading example on that. That’s something that we say, listen, in a country like Canada, where we have food, throwing it out when there are people who do not have enough food to eat is a moral problem. I can’t remember which pope it was who said that we have a moral problem when we are throwing away products that people are desperately in need of.
When it comes to waste on the agricultural side, it is often because the economics for a farmer getting it off the field don’t make sense. It would cost them more in labour to harvest than it would in benefit. That’s where, as I mentioned before, the food bank’s investment of donated dollars to secure that food off-field would be more economical than buying it at the end stage of the food system.
There are different ways that we can apply the resources that we currently have if we have the infrastructure like our food rescue centre to be able to take that and put it into a product that can then be distributed.
Mr. McCarney: Thank you. I think that leads well to what we would say. The France example is interesting, where they’ve mandated the recovery of food from grocery stores. When you think about those kinds of incentives, but you also want to be careful that you’re not creating policy incentives that are going to reduce food waste while increasing the cost of food, because then you’re just taking from one hand while giving to the other. So, looking at examples where it doesn’t drive up costs to recover food, and seeing how that is working in France is interesting. You can also think about just increasing connectivity within the system. Producers, vendors or retailers often aren’t aware that there is an option of what they can do with their food waste, and so it gets disposed of, because it is not in their interests to be outsourcing those things around. That’s extra cost for them too. If those connections can be brought forward in a creative way, then you can smooth those changes in the system.
On farms as well, and looking at food waste on farms and whether we’re getting it off the farm or reusing waste in farm systems, a lot of times these sorts of things require upfront investments from producers that are risky for them and take some time to recover. While you could reduce food waste, you’ve got to cover that productivity investment gap and help farmers smooth that risk in an uncertain and difficult climate. Is there anything you would add to that?
Mr. Twigg: Yes. I would just like to add that the majority of food waste doesn’t happen on the farm even though that is an issue. I agree with Mr. Boyd’s comments that it is not economically feasible to harvest what’s actually being produced. But when we are thinking about where a lot of the food waste happens, it is in distribution, manufacturing and retail. At the end of the day, there is no cost of the supply at that stage. There is no cost to waste, and that’s one of the main issues we have with trying to redirect some of those waste elements in that area.
Senator Martin: I’ll go on the second round.
The Chair: Dr. Charlebois wanted in on that too.
Senator Muggli: Dr. Charlebois, make yourself comfortable. I have some questions. You may have written about some of these things. Could you talk about why the reduction in carbon tax does not translate into any reduction in the price of food? If transportation is cheaper — and we blamed transportation costs at one time and the carbon price for increased prices on food — why has the price of food not decreased?
Mr. Charlebois: Thank you for the question. Based on our two studies we published in academic journals, we’ve demonstrated that the compounding effect of the industrial carbon tax, which is still there, is impacting our industry’s competitiveness, essentially. A lot of the debate has been around retail prices, and we’ve argued that there is no correlation between the carbon tax and retail prices because with retail, a lot of things can happen.
There are 45 different recognized factors that can impact retail prices on an hourly basis, such as the weather and our own behaviour. The debate about retail prices is futile, as far as I’m concerned, when it comes to carbon pricing. The focus has to be on supply chain competitiveness, and we still have a carbon pricing policy that is impacting our competitiveness. We’re starting to see the impact of that with our food inflation because Canada has the highest food inflation rate among G7 countries right now.
It is an important point, so thank you for allowing me to address it.
Senator Muggli: Can you also talk about your thoughts on a grocery code of conduct?
Mr. Charlebois: Thank you. It is a very important policy. I need to recognize the efforts of the federal government in that regard. I’ve been advocating for a code of conduct for years. Many Canadians believe that grocers are profiteering and gouging Canadians. That is not the case, but they are gouging suppliers. That’s the problem. They implement fees out of the blue, and suppliers are forced to raise prices.
What’s unique about the agri-food industry is that suppliers have to pay their clients to do business with them: Loblaws will receive a payment from Pepsi, Coca-Cola, et cetera, to do business with them and to be listed as a product. Every now and then, unilaterally, grocers raise fees for no reason, forcing suppliers to raise prices, which brings more volatility to the market, affecting consumers. Margins aren’t changing at retail, but the game is always changing wholesale, and that is a problem.
The blackout period just ended on February 1. So from November 1 to February 1, suppliers aren’t allowed to raise prices. But what happens when you have three months of the year during which you can’t raise prices? Suppliers jack up prices in October, and they jack up prices in February again. That hurts consumers even more. So the relationship is really dysfunctional, and we are hoping that the code will discipline the market.
Senator Muggli: It’s very interesting to understand the manipulations that happen.
Mr. Charlebois: A lot of people don’t know this, but this is the black box game that no one knows about.
Senator Muggli: Thank you for that. Also you said that one of the key measures is to enable production, and I want to talk about this domestically because I know we produce a lot of food for the world. I’m not thinking in terms of food security for the world in this sense; I’m thinking about food security or insecurity domestically. In your opinion, is there a key research focus we should have on food production in our country that we should be investing in?
Mr. Charlebois: We’re already doing a lot. I submitted to the Senate a report we produced with MNP. I’ll make sure that the clerk receives it. In that report, it is recognized that the investments that we make to support innovation at farm gate are incredibly strong in Canada.
We have two problems in Canada. First, the private sector is not doing enough. A lot of the heavy lifting is from the government. That’s not sustainable, so that needs to change. Although, on Tuesday, we heard from Farm Credit Canada, or FCC, that there are 20 investing groups that are pledging to invest $5 billion in the agri-food sector, which is a good sign. It supports processing, which is a very important point you made.
The other problem we have in Canada is that we aren’t able to scale up businesses.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Charlebois. We’re out of time for this question. We can come back to it in the second round. Excellent. It is a cliffhanger.
Senator McBean: I’m going to stay with this topic a little bit longer, although it’s being filled out in another committee, where we’re looking at housing, and we are talking about the “missing middle.” Mr. Charlebois and all of you have talked about how in agriculture it’s an expensive middle. I found it interesting to hear about this gouging of the supplier.
Mr. Charlebois, I recognize that you’ve said that one of the problems is policy complexity, but, in your view, are there federal policies or regulatory reforms that would have a great impact on strengthening domestic food production and distribution?
Mr. Charlebois: Thank you for the question. Going back to the earlier question, the point I wanted to make was that interprovincial trade barriers are incredibly problematic. If you just eliminate barriers, you can actually help Canadians. Each and every Canadian would save $500 to $700 a year on food because you’re basically empowering many provincial licence facilities to sell outside the province. That raises competition just within our own country.
I believe that the federal government has done its job to enable conditions to get provinces to do the work. The heavy lifting has to come from provinces, and I have yet to see any evidence that provinces — in particular, Ontario and Quebec — are opening up the market to other provinces. It has been incredibly frustrating to see it.
I believe that would allow two things to happen. It would allow more competitiveness to emerge, but it would also help many great small companies in Canada to scale up. It’s impossible in the Maritimes, for example, where I’m from, or where Mr. Boyd is from in Fredericton, to actually have a company in New Brunswick, P.E.I. or Nova Scotia to scale up where you’re remotely located and very far away. If you could sell to Quebec and Ontario easily without spending $2 million and obtaining federal certification, that would help.
Senator McBean: Mr. Boyd, I was very interested in — as some of my colleagues have talked about — your idea of transferring some of that donation money into purchasing agriculture — perishable foods.
What system would best allow for this money to pool to do that? Do you think home economics should be reintroduced into the school system?
Mr. Boyd: To your second question, absolutely. The more hands-on skills we can give our young people, the better off we’ll be. School isn’t just about educating the mind; it’s about educating the whole person, and home economics is a big part of that.
As far as investing food bank dollars into the local agricultural system, it’s a challenge because the food bank’s network, even though we are a network, consists of individual agencies. So each agency has to utilize their resources according to what makes the most sense to them. But the forward-thinking agencies are all saying:
If I can work with a local farmer to produce the food I need to give to clients ahead of time, that’s better for me in the long run anyway.
It’s probably more economical, especially if we have the ability to process. That’s what was really missing in New Brunswick for a long time, and that is what the Perishable Food Rescue Centre is going to alleviate. If we know we’re going to serve 25,000 client families a year, we know how many pounds of carrots we need to provide a two-pound bag for every client visit. We can then go to that farmer at the beginning of the season and ask, can grow me 25,000 pounds of carrots? And they say, yes. Then, we have that product accounted for ahead of time. That’s easier for us than waiting for a deal or a canned good or whatnot.
Senator McBean: One of the things I’ve been hearing about is plastics in the distribution of food. How much would a system like that need to use plastics?
Mr. Boyd: They would need to use some. We are working on a variety of potential packing solutions as part of our study right now. We have a project manager working specifically on how we’re going to package frozen products. Obviously, it’s not going to be canned.
Senator McBean: So the intention would be to take this fresh food and freeze it?
Mr. Boyd: The end product will be frozen because that’s the healthiest version.
Senator McBean: Is it more difficult for people to get frozen food home?
Mr. Boyd: We surveyed our clients, and they said that they don’t have an abundance of frozen food because frozen food is more expensive to garner themselves, so we have found that most people have capacity for frozen food. For those who don’t, we will still have alternative options; but for most of the families we serve, frozen is still a very good option.
Senator Burey: Thank you for being here. We have so many questions. I have so many questions. I really don’t even know where to start because I know I’m going to run out of time, but luckily, we have a second round.
I’m going to start by saying that I appreciate you talking about the two aspects of food security — affordability, or price inflation, and structural food production, or supply chains and all those kinds of things — and for giving us a more holistic picture of the systems we need. Kudos to this committee for getting the ball rolling even if we’ve heard that the Prime Minister is stealing our food security studies and our food security strategy. I’ll come to that later, but thank you. The Senate got it started.
I want to start with you, Mr. Boyd. Thank you for the wonderful work you’re doing. I’m from the Windsor-Essex area, and we have a lot of greenhouse capital, and we have the Leamington Regional Food Hub, where they harvest fresh food from the producers, freeze it and send it all over Ontario. You were talking about B.C. There are many ideas like this, but they’re not scalable, so that would be interesting. They also give unemployment help, training and all those kinds of things. The thing about Canada is that we have all of these pilot projects, but we’re not doing it at scale.
I wanted to see if your group looks at what’s happening around the country and tries to get best practices from them.
Mr. Boyd: Thank you for that. Yes, absolutely. One of the most amazing parts for us as a small, local agency in New Brunswick is the partnership with Food Banks Canada that connects us as a network. Even though we’re all individual agencies doing individual work, we are connected by a network through advocacy, education and the sharing of information and resources. We are looking at the Hub of Opportunities, formerly Unemployed Help Centre of Windsor, as a key model of how they do business. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Burey: I will move toward the structural changes that you talked about: competition and investment. You talked about interprovincial trade barriers and that the federal government has done its part. Are there other factors that can improve competition, and can you speak to the panel about that?
Mr. Twigg: That’s an important question, so thank you for that. I’d like to bounce it down to the producer level to talk about internal competition in the Canadian context.
A lot of the work we do looks toward proactively trying to manage risks so that we can get a greater package of goods at the producer level from the farm level into the marketplace. In terms of style and policy elements that can be driven toward that, there is an opportunity to think about what on-farm practices, like beneficial management practices that focus on cover cropping, intercropping or soil health management, allow a producer to enter into a market and take greater risks in terms of what they’re able to offer. That’s important in the Canadian context so that we’re able to grow the food basket that we’re continually providing to Canadians, rather than looking outside of our borders for that type of food production and procurement.
It was said in our opening statement that, over the last two decades, the share of Canadian produce we consume has actually decreased. These are things that we do produce but are not economically feasible for producers to continue providing to the marketplace. So if we’re thinking about competition from that perspective, we’re actually losing ground to externally procured food.
Alleviating some of the risks at the producer level is one of the ways we can drive competition, both on the field and in grocery stores as well.
Mr. Charlebois: I did mention, briefly, in my opening remarks, something about supply management. I know it’s a sensitive issue politically, but I think we need to recognize that supply management has been around for well over 50 years now, and it needs to change. It needs to be optimized.
We are wasting a lot of milk and butter fat. McGill and Dalhousie just published a study last year demonstrating that we are probably wasting anywhere between 600 million to a billion litres a year.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Charlebois. You’re out of time.
Senator Martin: May I ask you to complete what you were going to say? I’m very curious.
Mr. Charlebois: The study is in an academic journal, and we found there is a lot of waste on farm, but this week, we also released a statement about skimming. Cows will produce butter fat and skimmed milk, but the demand for butter fat is higher. By the time it gets to the processing sector, there’s probably anywhere between 1% to 5% of skimmed milk that is wasted. The only province that I’m aware of that reports any of this waste is Ontario. We have no idea about Quebec.
Going back to your data-deficit question, which is incredibly important, I would certainly urge marketing boards, if they are to convince Canadians that this is an important policy, to at least be transparent about waste, because they’re not right now.
Mr. McCarney: If I might revisit a conversation from earlier as well, we need to think structurally about providing incentives for not only the food system we have now but also the food system we want to have going forward. We can’t lose sight of the future impact of changing competitiveness, both within Canada and with producers we compete with globally. While we can debate whether certain policies are impacting costs now, we have to think about how those costs balance our potential loss of competitiveness in the future by not providing incentives to shift our system to lower-carbon, resource-efficient production systems. We have to balance those trade-offs. If providing the right incentives to producers to ensure we’re not only taking into account conditions now but also getting ready for the future food system we want — a sustainable, resource-efficient productive, competitive system — we’re offloading the cost to the future instead of bearing them today and thinking about waste to properly manage them today. A lot of that gets to how we’re incentivizing carbon reductions and on-farm practices. That’s important to reflect on.
Senator Martin: That’s part two of what we could do as a committee, looking at the future. Right now, we’re trying to assess what’s happening.
The one point that I picked up on from several of your presentations was regarding system-wide coherence. I know there are interprovincial and interterritorial trade barriers, but in terms of making the whole system coherent, that’s a multifaceted, complex issue. How do we do that? If you have an answer — because I know you included it in your presentations — maybe we could get something in writing as to how we could achieve greater system-wide coherence. That would be very helpful. Thank you.
Senator Muggli: Dr. Charlebois, could you give me a couple of examples of interprovincial trade barriers that would help us with the end cost of food in the grocery store?
Mr. Charlebois: Thank you for the question. The biggest portion of the $500 or $700 amount that I mentioned earlier is probably coming from supply management. As you are probably aware, quotas are managed by provinces. I’ve been asked several times over the years whether there is one thing we could do to optimize supply management, because I don’t believe we should end the quota system at all. We need to keep it for our industries for food security’s sake. Since we’re just north of the United States, they have very competitive farms in the United States, and if we were to eliminate quotas tomorrow, we would see the disappearance of our dairy sector, at least. That’s not what Canadians want. But if you are to optimize the supply management system, you just need to allocate new quotas nationally, instead of provincially. That would reward efficiency; that would reward effectiveness. But as you can imagine, if you do that, all the wealth in the dairy sector, in particular, would actually move westward, and Quebec would know that.
Senator Muggli: I’m going to get my last question in because you might have to provide an answer in writing. We’ve got the producer and we’ve got the end price at the grocery store. Do you have any data of the breakdown of who gets what percentage along the way?
Mr. Charlebois: Very good question. We get that question a lot. There are 26,000 SKUs in a grocery store. There are 26,000 different variations and stories. It varies. Going back to dairy, obviously, if you buy a carton of milk, about 60% of that price goes back to the farm, but that is probably the highest percentage we can find.
Senator Muggli: How about a loaf of bread?
Mr. Charlebois: Bread, it’s probably around 5% to 10%.
Senator Muggli: To the producer?
Mr. Charlebois: Yes. The rest would actually be across the supply change, again, depending on the brand and depending on the grocer. If it’s a specialty store, obviously, the margin is a little higher in retail, but it really depends. But the bottom line, going back to the data deficit situation, is that it’s incredibly difficult to understand exactly.
Senator Muggli: If you have any publications on this that you could send us to just explain how complicated that is, that would be helpful.
Mr. Charlebois: Absolutely.
Senator McBean: At home, climate change is posing its own challenges for Canadians. A fierce heat wave in 2021 pushed up the price of grain and forced ranchers to purchase feed for their cattle, and this increased the cost of cattle feed, which, in turn, drove up the cost of beef. Events like are just one example of this ripple effect. According to studies from the University of Calgary, climate change is a big factor in the cost of food. Would any of you like to comment on that?
Mr. McCarney: This goes to the point I was raising before. If we aren’t adjusting and providing systems to help farmers adjust to increasing risks of things like climate change and other environmental disruptions, we’re losing the resiliency in our food system, and that’s going to come back in higher food costs and less food security down the road. So we need to be thinking about the right policies and practices to be put in place to support producers in adopting risk-management practices and adjusting that system at the same time as thinking about how across our economy we’re moving forward with the low-carbon strategy and doing that with recognition of the global context we’re operating in and where our trading partners are going, but being ready for that future.
Mr. Charlebois: Thank you for the question. When it comes to climate change, we have recognized that it’s probably the one factor that is impacting food security the most in Canada, for sure. However, I saw that study from the University of Calgary. I would say that climate change brings more volatility to the market as well as unpredictability. We’re doing a lot of good research to empower farmers to do a better job in coping with climate change. The problem is that sometimes impacts are sudden, and that brings more volatility. The biggest enemy for consumers — for Canadians — is volatility. Not necessarily food inflation itself. Food inflation is a problem, but when prices go like this, especially in the periphery of the store where healthy products are and fresh products are, it pushes consumers away from the periphery into the centre where there are more processed foods. That’s the danger of climate change. So you need to make sure that you have stability in the system and keep consumers in the periphery of the store.
Senator Burey: Again, you’re on the hot seat, Dr. Charlebois. In your beginning statement, you said something as a pediatrician: Prices are just the signal. But I wanted to really talk to you about trust and transparency. Could you expand on what that means and what that would look like as one of the pillars of making this a more secure system?
Mr. Charlebois: Thank you for the question. I have two concrete examples of that. In the meat section last fall, there was a debate around cloning and cloned meat. The offspring of cloned animals were approved by Health Canada, and there was just an announcement on their website without any press release. There was a consumer backlash, and we were asked to actually provide some information to the public about what was going on. Eventually, Health Canada decided to pause the approval for a reason. It wasn’t going to be labelled. Now we’re in this debate with gene-edited pork right now. It was approved by Health Canada just a few weeks ago. I do think the science is pretty clear. It’s safe, but we’re not talking about safety here. We’re talking about recognizing the heterogeneous nature of our market. Some people will actually appreciate it and some people won’t. And if they go to the meat counter and they don’t know where the gene-edited pork is, they’ll move away from the category altogether, penalizing organic producers, like duBreton in Quebec, for example, which is the largest organic producer of pork in the world. So the less you give to consumers, the more they’ll get confused and the more they’ll get skeptical, and that’s the danger we’re facing right now.
The Chair: I have a question. I have a couple minutes, I think. Mr. McCarney, you mentioned in your opening remarks the financial resilience of farmers, and you eventually got to BRM in that list of items that you rolled out. I was wondering if you could speak about BRM and if you have any opinions on how that could be improved, how we’re lagging behind other jurisdictions and how we share the risk with our food producers.
Mr. McCarney: It’s something we’re actively working on and Michael is leading that work, so he might be best placed to speak to that.
Mr. Twigg: Thank you for the question. Yeah, it’s something that’s near and dear to our hearts. The one word that comes to mind is “proactive.” Proactive business-risk management is proven across the board to reduce costs at the farm level — so it prevents incidents from being as severe — and in the best-case scenario, it looks like nothing is happening at all. So you’re able to have more stability and less volatility. What we’re hearing is, for a producer, that’s also something that comes into consideration. Every year, there are decisions upon decisions upon decisions, so if you’re able to stabilize some of the externalizing risks in that sense, it can create more certainty, more confidence and more willingness to innovate.
The statistic we often use is that it costs one fifteenth of the total cost for proactive business-risk management versus paying for the damages in the outputs. So when we’re thinking about things like the fact that drought conditions last year have already cost $3.3 billion for the first three quarters — that’s not even a full year — it would cost one fifteenth in order to incentivize proactive business-risk management at the field level. So, looking to address it up front reduces costs both for the producer and for the system at large, which ultimately would create more security across the food system in Canada.
The Chair: Can you give us an example of what proactive looks like?
Mr. Twigg: Proactive can be the incentivization of different practices. Soil organic matter is one element of proactive business-risk management that reduces the incident or severity of drought conditions on-field. So when you’re incorporating either its residues in the field from crop-production procedures, such as covering soil for more parts of the season using cover cropping or intercropping practices, these types of activities can prevent the severity of drought. So it reduces the amount of moisture that is expelled into the atmosphere from things like tilling practices or even just regular crop-production practices. Incentivizing those does come at a cost: These aren’t free things that farmers would be able to engage in. There is a cost, uncertainty and a yield impact as well. Putting funds up front to encourage those types of practices would allow those to build resilience over time and result in less volatility down the road.
The Chair: Can you comment on, for example, the On-Farm Climate Action Fund, the OFCAF, and how the plan is funded? How it is subscribed to? What is the appetite of producers across the nation? Is the funding adequate?
Mr. Twigg: The adequacy of the funding depends on a case-by-case circumstance. Each producer has a different situation. Some will find it very adequate for their realities, and some will find it inadequate for their realities. It is a difficult assessment to make in terms of whether the funding is adequate. It is well directed for what it is trying to achieve. One of the things we’ve been talking about is the idea of being less reactive in some of the funding aspects and programming that we are looking forward to and being more proactive about. That goes back to the proactive element rather than the reactive element.
When we are coming up on negotiations for the future and an agricultural policy framework, this is something we can bring to the table and try to emphasize. It is more of a revision of what is already going on rather than a complete transformation.
The Chair: That’s interesting. I would like to ask you additional questions, but I have to honour the time as well. Once again, I thank the witnesses for being with us, preparing your opening remarks and answering our questions. We will now turn to our second panel.
For our second panel, we welcome Mary Lou McDonald, President and Counsel, Safe Food Matters Inc.; and Lisa Bishop-Spencer, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Food Integrity. Thank you both for joining us in person.
Joining us online, we have Ashley Bruner, Director, Research and Stakeholder Engagement, Canadian Centre for Food Integrity; and Carrie-Anne Palmeri, President of the Board of Directors and Organic Program Manager, Nature’s Path Organic Foods, Canada Organic Trade Association.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you all for being here today. We will now hear your opening remarks for five minutes each, which will be followed by questions from the senators. I will signal you when you have a minute left, and then I will let you know when you are out of time. With that, Ms. McDonald, the floor is yours.
Mary Lou McDonald, President and Counsel, Safe Food Matters Inc.: Thank you. First, I would like to thank the committee for having me. It is a privilege to come to this platform and share as a Canadian.
I am Mary Lou McDonald with Safe Food Matters Inc. We are a charity that works in the regulatory arena. Our goal is to make sure our food is safe. Our work has been mostly focused on pesticides and contamination of food with pesticides. We have gone as far as suing Health Canada over its registration of glyphosate, which is a product in Roundup. Our concern is about the preharvest use of glyphosate on field crops, like legumes, barley, lentils and chickpeas, which we are all eating. That case is still ongoing, so I know a lot about that — more than I would like to, frankly.
Food security means that all Canadians have access to food that is safe — safe food matters — nutritious and culturally diverse. I will address these through three dimensions: food quality, food access and the consumption market. I will talk about the goods, that is, how to increase the positives; and the bads, that is, how to reduce the negatives.
I also have a more fulsome brief on this on our website under our filings, which is in draft. I will send that to you as well for links, et cetera, for the data behind this information, if you would like it.
With regard to food quality, the important thing for the positive is to increase the nutritional aspect of food. We know that good nutrition comes from good soil. The Health Council of Canada reports that chemicals, pesticides and industrial agriculture have depleted essential minerals in our farmlands such that we have 40% fewer nutrients than we did 50 years ago.
Even when we are eating healthy food, we may not be getting the nutritional bang for the buck that we used to. Modern wheat, for example, has 19% to 28% less zinc than it did. Broccoli has lost 60% of its calcium. This all stems from soil depletion. When you have chemical-intensive farming, what happens is that you need to bring in food inputs and fertilizers, and these replace some major nutrients but not all the micronutrients. That comes from rebuilding the soil. We have a hidden hunger going on.
When it comes to reducing negatives, reducing contamination is important, and we see that as reducing pesticides that are getting into and onto our food. The major contributor to that is preharvest use. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, testing found that 85% of grain-based products in Canada have glyphosate in them, and preharvest use, which is spraying a week or two before harvest to kill weeds or to kill the crop so that it is easier to pick up, accounts for only 2% of glyphosate use but 50% of dietary exposure.
The labels are not working in terms of saying it is safe to spray when seeds are at 30% moisture content or less, because there is so much variability in a field that you can never really determine what areas are wet and the seed-moisture content varies as well, especially with indeterminate crops, which means they are always growing new seeds, so there will always be young seeds. It is the young seeds that attract the pesticide residue of systemic pesticides. One of the ways to reduce that contamination is to get rid of preharvest spraying.
Let’s talk about access to food. I was happy to hear a lot about waste. One of the negatives is waste. The stats are incredible. Second Harvest has a great report that shows that food insecurity has doubled, but 60% of the food produced in Canada is wasted. Interestingly, one of the main drivers there is the best-before date, which I didn’t know. You guys all seem to know that, but I didn’t. It was quite amazing. The best-before date is not required except on certain foods. It is there, and people think, “To be a good conscientious parent, I have to chuck this stuff.” So doing something there would be very helpful, I think.
What would be positive on the food-access front would be infrastructural changes. Infrastructures that support direct access, which we’ve heard about with food banks. Canada’s National School Food Program is a fantastic thing —
The Chair: I’m sorry, Ms. McDonald, you are out of time. You can take maybe 10 seconds.
Ms. McDonald: I will move to market development. With consumer markets, young people want organic today.
The Chair: Thank you. Next to Ms. Bishop-Spencer.
Lisa Bishop-Spencer, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Food Integrity: Thank you, chair. Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to appear today.
My name is Lisa Bishop-Spencer. I am the Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Food Integrity, or CCFI. Joining me from Windsor is Ashley Bruner, Director of Research and Stakeholder Engagement.
CCFI is an independent, national, non-profit organization created to build trust in Canada’s food system. We conduct Canada’s longest-running public trust research to understand how Canadians experience the food system and how confidence changes over time.
The perspective we offer today is that food security is experienced not only through production and supply but also through affordability, confidence and trust in the system’s capacity to continue functioning.
Ashley will briefly outline the research evidence, and I will then discuss its implications for food security and resilience.
Ashley Bruner, Director, Research and Stakeholder Engagement, Canadian Centre for Food Integrity: Our research shows that Canadians experience food security first through affordability. In our national public trust research, the cost of food consistently ranks as Canadians’ top concern, ahead of health care and inflation. This indicates that food security is experienced at the household level through everyday purchasing decisions rather than through awareness of national supply.
We also track confidence in the food system over time. Public confidence has improved over the past year, and trust in food safety and regulation remains strong. Our data suggests this increase is closely tied to heightened pro-Canadian sentiment during a period of global uncertainty and geopolitical instability. When international systems feel less predictable, Canadians tend to express stronger confidence in domestic food production. We observed similar patterns during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Longitudinal tracking shows this confidence is situational. It rises during moments of disruption and declines once attention shifts.
We also observe a gap between whom Canadians trust for food information and where they encounter it. Scientists, farmers and health experts are among the most trusted sources, while information is most often encountered through media, retail environments, brands and digital platforms.
During periods of affordability pressure, this misalignment increases confusion and contributes to misinformation. More than half of Canadians, in fact, report changing what they buy or eat because of alarming food claims, and many later discovered the information was inaccurate.
Taken together, this shows that food security is shaped not only by availability but by confidence, trust and information flow.
Ms. Bishop-Spencer: The research has clear implications for food security.
Food security exists not only when food is available but when people believe the system will continue to work for them. Public confidence does not replace sound policy or strong production, but it shapes how Canadians respond to pressure within the system.
When confidence is strong, volatility is absorbed more effectively. When confidence erodes, anxiety and misinformation spread quickly. This helps explain why affordability, food security and trust are so closely linked.
Food sovereignty is also a factor in food resilience. When confidence strengthens, we see people believing that Canada has the capacity to produce food domestically while remaining connected to global markets. When domestic production is recognized as a strength, participation in global trade is experienced as a choice rather than a vulnerability.
Finally, the ability to innovate is a core factor in our food security. Innovation is not understood by Canadians as technology for its own sake but as outcomes such as reliable supply, sustainability and affordability. When trust in innovation is low, confidence in the system’s capacity to respond to emerging pressures declines, and regulators tend to adopt a more risk-averse approach. Over time, this limits our adaptability and increases our vulnerability. In essence, food security is both a technical and social condition. Canada’s food system can be secure on paper and fragile in practice if public confidence collapses. Recognizing public trust as an integral component of food security strengthens resilience.
Thank you. We would be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Ms. Palmeri, you now have the floor.
Carrie-Anne Palmeri, President of the Board of Directors and Organic Program Manager, Nature’s Path Organic Foods, Canada Organic Trade Association: Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Carrie-Anne Palmeri, President of the Canada Organic Trade Association and Organic Program Manager at Nature’s Path Organic Foods, the largest independent organic breakfast foods and snacks company in North America. Organic agriculture is a proven contributor to Canada’s food security, aligned with the Food Policy for Canada.
Food security means reliable access to healthy, culturally appropriate food. Canada’s organic system delivers on that through federally regulated and third-party certification grounded in prevention and resilience. Demand is continuing to grow. In 2025 Canadians spent $10.55 billion on organic products, with sales up 8% year over year, placing Canada in the top five organic markets, globally. This level of market maturity provides meaningful durability for Canada’s food system.
In a climate risk era, as you’ve heard today, food security is about performance under stress, not just yields in ideal years. Organic agriculture increases soil health, organic matter and water-holding capacity, which improve a farm’s ability to withstand droughts and floods and deliver stable yields. Long-term research at the Rodale Institute’s 40-year Farm Systems Trial shows that organic yields are comparable to conventional in normal years and deliver about 30% higher corn yields during drought.
We have seen this play out in British Columbia. Since 2020, B.C. farmers have faced the pandemic, the 2021 heat dome, catastrophic floods and ongoing droughts and wildfires. When grocery shelves were empty and transportation corridors were cut off, local organic farms and supply chains filled critical gaps, feeding their communities through direct sales. Also, their soil-building practices reduced topsoil loss during floods, helped farms endure repeated drought cycles and kept food moving.
Food security is built upon both resilient land and resilient relationships, and organic strengthens both.
We don’t often think about it, but input dependency also shapes food security. Global fertilizer markets, highly exposed to geopolitical disruptions, create volatility for farmers. Organic systems reduce that vulnerability through closed-loop, on-farm nutrient cycling, which lowers reliance upon imported inputs and strengthens Canada’s food sovereignty.
Farm economics matter for food security, as well. Research led by the Canadian Organic Growers found that organic farms achieve, on average, 117% higher net return per acre due to less dependence on inputs and price premiums. Organic contributes further to rural vitality through crop diversification, reduced pesticide exposure and higher farmland retention.
To wrap up, there are two key policy opportunities for Canada to consider. The first is to introduce organic-specific programs and supports. The National Organic Action Plan, launched in 2025, outlines key recommendations to grow organic food and farming in Canada. Our key trading partners, the EU and the U.S., have already adopted bold organic policy strategies and targets, invested significantly in research and created transition supports to de-risk organic adoption. They have also supported organic market development to create predictable demand and opportunities to incentivize resilient organic systems. Canada needs to do the same to keep food dollars domestic, strengthen rural economies and translate strong consumer demand into long-term food security.
The second key policy opportunity is to align existing federal tools with food security outcomes. The National Food Policy for Canada centres on resilience, sustainability and nutritious food access, which are all core strengths of organic. Federal programs, like the National School Food Policy and the Local Food Infrastructure Fund, can better align to support organic supply chains.
Public procurement is a proven lever for food security. Copenhagen has achieved 90% organic school meals at no extra cost, and B.C.’s UBC Okanagan land-to-table pilot showed that small organic farms can reliably supply institutions. Nature’s Path has demonstrated scalable access through the U.S.’s national School Breakfast Program, serving 1.5 million bowls of the first-ever USDA organic school-compliant cereal in more than 350 schools since 2024, allowing kids to start their day with a healthy food option.
Our National Food Policy can build on models like these to prioritize organic options in public procurement in national and regional food programs. In closing, food security depends upon resilient land, strong farmers and rural communities. Organic agriculture delivers on all three.
Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, witnesses.
Colleagues, I suggest five minutes for the question and the answer. For witnesses, the senator controls the floor in that moment, so they determine who gets to speak.
Senator McNair: Thank you to the panellists here today. My question is for the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity. You can decide who should answer.
In 2025 your organization conducted an Omni survey to better understand how people felt about innovation in Canada’s food system. My understanding is that the survey found that, while most Canadians are optimistic about innovation, about one in five consistently expressed concern. Have you been able to determine why Canadians have uncertainty about innovation in our food system? Also, how, if at all, do concerns drop when innovation is framed around tangible outcomes, such as food security, job creation and a reliable food supply?
Ms. Bishop-Spencer: Thank you for the question. I will field this one.
We have learned over the last while that our innovation message isn’t landing. When it comes to telling the truth about innovations and new technologies, there are two groups that Canadians resonate with, which are “someone like me” and “scientists.” This is an important finding. We’re seeing that Canadians are looking for someone they can relate to, but they are also looking for expertise. However, when it comes to messaging about food system attributes — when we talk about food system attributes — of course, “affordable,” “safe” and “healthy” hit the top of the list, but at the very bottom of that list is “innovative.” That was an important finding for us as a sector because we realized that our message isn’t landing.
So, we did speak with Canadians and asked how we can position innovation in a way that you will support it, and we learned that, again, one in five Canadians consistently reacts with anxiety when it comes to the words “innovation” and “food production.” That is consistent with what we know. People love innovation with education and health care, but when it comes to food, it becomes deeply personal for them.
When we speak about innovation in terms of outcomes, that’s when it resonates — when people understand what is in it for them. When we can say that, because of the work we do, more food is produced here in Canada, which gets more endorsement and understanding from people. When we say that, because of the work we do, we can help feed 400 million people around the world — that’s when we see people adopting the message.
What we learned over the last year is that when we position innovation in terms of outcomes, that’s when we can capture Canadians’ pride in innovations, as well as their understanding. When we use terminology that Canadians don’t understand or relate to, they become distant from it. So, it is important for us to frame innovation in this sector — which is so innovative — in ways they understand. “What’s in it for me?” is what it really comes down to.
Senator McNair: What should the federal government be doing to help build that excitement and trust, also?
Ms. Bishop-Spencer: Many ideas spring to mind when you ask that question. The first is to really endorse organizations that promote innovation in the sector. The second thing is to create an environment in which innovation can thrive.
Again, we’ve noticed that when it comes to food security, if trust in the system is not there, innovation can sometimes become overly protected. We find that regulations become a little bit too restrictive, I would say. In the sector, we need the ability to innovate more.
The federal government has — I don’t want to speak on behalf of policy; we don’t endorse policy one way or the other — a role to play in teaching Canadians that this is a sector that is an economic contributor, an innovator and an important part of the Canadian fabric. When we can proudly say that Canada’s food system is an economic engine, an innovative engine and a contributor to Canadian identity, that’s when we will resonate with Canadians more.
Senator McNair: As we heard from the previous panel, transparency and clarity are critical. Thank you.
Senator McBean: Ms. McDonald, I have heard the argument before that organic foods have more nutrients in them, and I’m wondering this: How do you measure and compare the quality of food and the nutrients that are in them? What makes today’s organic broccoli better than today’s regularly farmed broccoli?
Ms. McDonald: You can look at the actual studies in relation to this, but it’s key minerals like iron and copper. If you give me a minute, I can look at my notes.
Senator McBean: Sure.
Ms. McDonald: If it’s in the soil that’s been regenerated, it will go into the plant and into our body. It will be bioavailable to us. Whereas if it’s a desert soil and we put inputs into it, we won’t get the micronutrients that come from the soil.
Senator McBean: I wanted to let you know that I have been a disciple of this thinking for a long time, but at the same time, I’m here in AGFO, and I’m hearing that our farmers are actually innovating and having better soil and so forth.
So, are we comparing organic produce of 15 years ago, or are we comparing organic produce to foods that were grown in non-innovated senses of soil management and cover crops, and all the different things? Do you think there’s a potential that the gap is closing between organic and regularly farmed produce?
Ms. McDonald: I don’t know, but what I do know is that there is a concept in my brain of an ecological barrier. You can only get so much out of nature, and you have to work within that system, as much as we may not like it.
So what does innovation mean? Does it mean we’re trying to innovate out of that barrier and bring in tools that will affect that and pump out more yield, to the detriment of a sustainable system that carries on moving into the years? That might be a problem. It’s almost a whack-a-mole solution. We’re missing this nutrient here, so let’s bring in this input, as opposed to creating the input naturally.
Senator McBean: I’m actually on the same side as you. I’m trying to figure this out. It’s like adding water a little bit.
How could Ottawa ensure that food safety regulations remain robust while also supporting innovation and efficiency across the agri-food sector? I’m listening and trying to figure it out. Isn’t there space for hybrid systems where a farmer can be increasing yield using organic practices? I’ll let you both chew on that for a bit.
Ms. McDonald: To me, what does innovation mean? What is the product? What is the outcome? What’s it looking for? If innovation means we’re going to bring in a bunch of genetically engineered foods or pesticides that end up hurting that natural system I’m trying to promote, that’s a problem. If innovation means we’re going to bring in a bioavailable nutrient input that goes into the soil, all good. So what does innovation mean?
I’m all for innovation if it helps regenerate the soil, because that’s the foundation for all of this. That’s what consumers are wanting and recognizing. Authentic food is what they want, and “authentic” means from real soil that feeds my body and keeps me nutritious.
Senator McBean: I’ve actually had some fantastic lettuce recently that came from peat.
Do you have anything on hybrid systems? Even licensing and certification of organic farmers are one of the other things. What is a good way of keeping that so farmers don’t find themselves trying to produce a crop that’s just really expensive? The biggest benefactor of that is actually the grocery store, not the farmers themselves.
Ms. McDonald: When it comes to organic, it’s all good after three years. You end up making more money and your system is working after three years. So there is that key point of the transition. What’s needed is support through that three-year transition, and then we’re good to go.
Senator McBean: As in profitable?
Ms. McDonald: As in profitable; as in better than conventional. Upland Organics farm in Saskatchewan is a fantastic example of that. They have produced lentils to scale on an international scale; they have survived drought when their conventional neighbours have not; they have gotten through that three-year transition; and now they’re chugging away many years later.
Senator McBean: Okay. Thank you. Just so you know, Ms. Palmeri, I’m going to come back to you with the same question on second round.
Senator Sorensen: I’m glad you’re going back to Ms. Palmeri on that question. I’m not going to yield my time, but your question was great.
I’m going to start with Ms. McDonald and Ms. Bishop-Spencer, but I hope I have time to change the question for Ms. Palmeri.
We have heard a lot about affordability, sustainability and resilience, but food policy touches on multiple levels of government. From your perspectives, what are the biggest policy gaps in Canada’s current approach to food security when dealing federally, provincially and municipally? Do they sometimes work at cross-purposes? I’ll start with Ms. Bishop-Spencer.
Ms. Bishop-Spencer: That’s an interesting question.
What we’ve heard from our members is that we are functioning in an environment where public trust is often not considered as part of the considerations that are happening. I think what we need to do is create an environment in which public trust becomes part of the infrastructure.
We frequently work with data, we work with science, we work with all of those things, but we need to understand that public trust is our ability to function. It’s our social licence. It’s more than our social licence. It needs to stop being treated as a communication exercise on the corner of a desk and really needs to become part of how we do business and how we function as a society.
Without public trust, we see confidence in the system erode. Confidence in innovation erodes; confidence in all of the regulations we have erodes. So we need to ensure that we are functioning with public trust as a priority, and I think we need to ensure that we walk a fine line.
Right now we know that confidence in Canada’s food safety inspection system has reached a new high in 2025. Nearly 3 in 10 Canadians now strongly agree that they trust the safety of Canadian food. That’s a significant 13-point jump over last year.
It gives rise to the role of transparency and effective regulation as a foundation of trust in the broader food system. But at the same time, it can’t be so restrictive that it stifles the sector’s ability to innovate and evolve. We just need to walk a very fine line, ensuring that we maintain public trust while allowing the sector to breathe.
Senator Sorensen: I’m going to Ms. Palmeri with the next question, and you’re welcome to comment on the question I just asked. And I’m hoping to get back to Ms. McDonald, if we’re at crossroads.
Ms. Palmeri, how can national food policy better support small- and mid-sized farms, Indigenous producers and under-represented groups while strengthening overall food security?
Ms. Palmeri: Thank you for the question. I would go back to what we’ve heard, which is that we need to de-risk the transition to better practices, whether that’s organic or organic on the spectrum. What we want to do is make it possible for farmers to take the risk on behalf of society to bring on new and better practices — like the practices that we see in organic systems — and have the support to do so. Because that initial period of practice adoption is the toughest for farmers, particularly before they can access that market premium through additional claims like organic, for example.
Senator Sorensen: Would that be the federal government’s responsibility to ensure that?
Ms. Palmeri: Correct. We’ve seen really successful transition incentive programming in the U.S. and the EU. The National Organic Action Plan that we put forward in 2025 prescribes levels of transition support that we think would be successful for this purpose.
Senator Sorensen: Ms. McDonald, let’s move back to the different levels of government on working at crossroads, or how one interferes or doesn’t interfere with the other. In your world is it mostly the federal government that has to consider what you’re most interested in?
Ms. McDonald: What I’m most versed in is the PMRA, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and their assessments of pesticides, which are like a sieve, and all sorts of pesticides get into our food.
So if their assessment process could be improved, it would make a world of difference. We’re using consumption data on what Americans eat. We’re not looking at the entire product; we’re only looking at the active ingredient. We’re looking at the body burden of people. We’re looking at each pesticide in a siloed way, saying, all we ever eat is glyphosate and that’s it. We don’t eat dicamba and glyphosate, ever. We have tanked mixtures spraying this at the same time. They’re assessed individually in their own siloed way. It’s not looking at the real world.
If we could assess the real word, it would be very helpful, and we would stop a lot of the negative in relation to food quality, I think, of the pesticides getting right into our food.
Senator Sorensen: Pardon my ignorance because I don’t know. On the topic of pesticides, is that a national decision of what can and cannot be used, or does it go down to the provincial or the municipal level?
Ms. McDonald: Like the beauty of Canada, it’s all of that. The pesticide is federally approved, but the provinces often implement it in terms of granting the licence to pesticide sprayers.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Ms. McDonald: You’re welcome.
Senator Muggli: I think this is a question for everyone. I’m curious about what investments we need to further the research in this area so that producers may be more interested or see organic farming as an opportunity? I know you talked, Ms. McDonald, about the three-year turnaround, but is there research that should be occurring as it relates to disease and pest resistance? I’m curious about that. Maybe I’ll start with Ms. Palmeri.
Ms. Palmeri: Thank you for the question. So within the National Organic Action Plan that we released, our recommendation is to establish a national organic research secretariat at the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada to coordinate the research into the sector, because they are quite broad.
Particularly, we need to look at how we’re funding that research process as well. Right now the industry cash-matching requirement is a difficult requirement to overcome for research granting.
We would recommend starting with establishing that secretariat, which can then be the housing place for funding initiatives.
Beyond that, in order to make a convincing argument for the producer community as to the benefits of bringing on best practices, we need to continue showing the environmental performance of those practices, the productivity capacity of those practices, the farm income results and, overall, how they’re contributing to resilience and allowing farmers to navigate uncertain markets and environmental conditions.
We do have some solid research that just came out of the Canadian Organic Growers group around these things, and we need to continue to build that argument.
Senator Muggli: Ms. McDonald?
Ms. McDonald: The first thing that comes to mind is research that really tracks how our youth is considering food on the trust aspect of it, because this youth transformation is incredible.
Organic or healthy food used to be seen as a luxury but now it’s a need for them; it’s become a value to them because they see the health effects of contaminated food.
In order for a market to be good — kind of switching gears here — it needs to show social, environmental and economic value. The social aspect of it hasn’t been explored that much, but it really is becoming prevalent in terms of new consumers within Canada, and also the consumers that we’re hoping to do deals with in these other mid-nation trade deals. Consumers in Europe want to see it in creating trade barriers just because of the social aspect. It doesn’t look healthy; their MRLs are higher than ours.
We’re about to get into a trade discussion with India, and our MRLs are higher than their chickpea MRLs. That might be a bit of a problem. It would be easier if we were able to track and have early warning systems for traders in relation to the context internationally and the context of consumers domestically.
Senator Muggli: When you talk about young people wanting this, who are these young people? I assume there’s a stratification by income?
Ms. McDonald: There is a stratification by decade, by generation.
Senator Muggli: Do young people living in poverty have the same interest? Because there’s a lack of education, awareness, et cetera, are people thinking about where am I getting my next meal or where am I getting my next organically produced meal?
Ms. McDonald: I don’t know the answer to that, but I imagine the CODA would, the Canadian Organic Trade Association, and their stats don’t make that distinction that I looked at. But I can research that and get back to you.
Senator Muggli: Very interesting, yes.
Ms. Bishop-Spencer: I’m going to take it a little bit back because we don’t advocate for one type form of production over another, but we do know that we’re at a period right now where we’re seeing one of our highest levels of confidence in the direction of the food system and impressions of the food system. Those impressions are very high among Generation Z as well, particularly Gen Z men.
What we need to do is really get government support for initiatives that build public trust. So I speak to the Canada’s Food System initiative that Senator Robinson mentioned in the chamber last week, which is an initiative that is a sector-wide, unbranded initiative aimed at building trust in Canada’s food system, and telling all of the stories of the food system from before the gate to beyond the plate, creating the environment in which people can better understand their food system, understand who is involved and what they’re doing. They are asking what the practices are and what the concerns are so that we can create that broader awareness.
Initiatives like Canada’s Food System allow us to tell those stories, to amplify and to elevate the food system to the point where it has the same importance in Canadians’ minds as education and health care do.
Senator Burey: Thank you for being here and for the richness and the depth of this discussion, and your expertise, because so much depends on public trust. Thank you, Ms. Bishop-Spencer, for helping us to see that it should be an essential pillar of that infrastructure of our food system.
I’m always interested about young people. I want to hear from everyone about how we can get young people in schools — now I’m going back to elementary schools — involved. They are an essential pillar. They’re acolytes for their parents about this food system, trust and transparency. So it’s a kind of out-there question, but if I could just have comments from everyone on this.
Ms. Bishop-Spencer: I don’t mind starting with that, if it’s okay with you.
Organizations such as Agriculture in the Classroom work very hard to create knowledge and education, build trust in the system and show people how it works. It explains to people that you don’t need to grow up on a farm to have a career in agriculture, and that there are lots of wonderful things about our system.
Organizations like Agriculture in the Classroom work hard to bring our sector to the minds of young people. I think it’s going a long way.
We are also seeing more young people being exposed to information. What is important right now is that they’re not exposed to misinformation.
It is important for the sector to step up and the government to support those who are stepping up to tell the true stories. We know that farmers and scientists are the most trusted and perceived as the most transparent in the system. So if we can create opportunities for them to better tell their stories, particularly with those young people, I think that we have an opportunity.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much. I’d like to hear from Ms. McDonald. I saw you putting some notes down.
Ms. McDonald: We’re talking a lot about public trust, but I think the fundamental question is, is the system trustworthy? The young now have a “spidy sense” that I didn’t have, because they can tell when something is AI. In law we called it the “sniff test;” something is not quite right with that. They might be feeling that a bit in terms of the public’s trust of the food system right now.
Then things like cloned meat get rid of their trust and genetically engineered pork gets rid of their trust. Transparency is key; it’s almost more important than safety when it comes to developing trust. They’ve gone through COVID so they don’t trust us as much as they used to.
Let them see the authentic food; let them touch it and see what it is to grow in real soil and taste a real carrot, and the difference between an organic carrot and a nonorganic carrot. Prepare it and make a stir-fry in home economics classes. Make them part of feeding themselves. Teach them how to feed themselves.
Senator Burey: Do we have time for any other questions? Ms. Palmeri, yes, let’s have you speak, please.
Ms. Palmeri: Sure. I think here I can speak from both the perspective of the trade association and also as a food manufacturer. So Nature’s Path is a second-generation, family-run company that’s been manufacturing organic food since the 1980s, and we’re still trying to unlock that true, resonant and connecting factor for society with food, particularly as we become more and more distanced from where our food comes from.
I actually just received some great data from a trusted source that is starting to show that people want to know where their food came from and want to feel connected to how it was grown.
So we’re looking at bringing even greater transparency into our food system now to show — for example, be more transparent about our supply chains, the deep relationships we have with farmers that support livelihoods and communities, et cetera. So that’s one point.
Another point that is really undeniable is taste and overcoming the notions we have that healthy food doesn’t taste as good. So through our school breakfast food program, for example, we have found that when we put taste first —
The Chair: I’m sorry, Ms. Palmeri, we’re out of time on this question. Thank you.
I actually have a question. As the chair, I’ll take my opportunity to ask a question.
I wanted to ask Ms. Bishop-Spencer this: At the Centre for Food Integrity, you do a lot of polling and data collection. I was wondering if you could speak to the annual report. What’s the breadth of it, and who do you do it for in Canada? Who asks you to do it? Is there something you could give us in writing that would let us see what the data is that you’ve collected?
Ms. Bishop-Spencer: I will ask Ashley to talk about the methodology, but I can say that we can absolutely provide our highlight report from our annual Public Trust Research Report. We conduct it every year in the late summer or early fall, and we present it in October. So it gives us long-term tracking.
We’re actually coming up on our tenth year of doing this research, and I’ll ask Ashley to speak to the methodology.
Ms. Bruner: Absolutely. Thank you. It’s a national, online survey of a very large sample size, close to 3,000 Canadians. So we’re able to slice and dice our research and drill down into the Gen Z men and millennial moms, for example. It is a unique — talking about the data gap earlier — long-standing tracking survey.
Again, being a non-profit charity, we’re able to drill down into many issues — organic, pesticides, innovation — without advocating for one side or the other. So we’re really proud of the data set and the information we’re able to provide, hopefully, to benefit the entirety of the food system. We can really elevate the story across the board no matter whom we represent and which silo we’re in, growing together.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Bishop-Spencer, do you have anything to add? We would like to see that high-level report. That’s great.
Ms. McDonald, I have a question. I heard you make reference within a soil profile if nutrients are added to that soil — as opposed to naturally occurring within that soil — I understood you to say they were bio-unavailable. Was that right?
Ms. McDonald: No. I think if nutrients are added, they’re probably bioavailable, but the inputs, for example, of fertilizers are just two or three nutrients that go into the soil, as I understand it, whereas our body and regenerative soil create a lot more than that.
The Chair: You and I have a different understanding. My background is soil science.
Ms. McDonald: Okay.
The Chair: I know when you’re growing a crop — for example, a high-value horticulture crop — you take leaf samples throughout the growth. And what you do — much like how I would give blood for my doctor to find out if I’m low in iron, or high in iron, or whatever I’m lacking — is take that sample in agriculture to determine where the plant is and what it needs.
Through the different growth phases, much like a person — whether you’re a pediatrician or geriatrician — there are various needs throughout the life cycle of plants. What happens is actually an application, and many times the source would actually qualify as an organic source. I know many organic growers who use the same methodology, and they feed the plant what they need.
I try to take multivitamins. Now that I’m a woman approaching my mid-life, perhaps, or past it, I take calcium, for example. We apply those products, either Foli Early, which is like a liquid vitamin sprayed on a plant, or we might apply them as a soil amendment before a crop is even planted. Because every time we harvest a crop, those nutrients you and I are relying on accessing in our food, it means — like a bank account — we’re withdrawing that from the soil.
So in order for that plant to actually thrive, grow and produce a crop the following year, you have to replenish it. Like your bank account, you have to put that back in.
So I just wanted to clear it up that, when you were using the term “bioavailable,” I had a different take on it that might come from a place of greater knowledge. I just wanted to share that with you.
Ms. McDonald: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
In our next round, we have three minutes for questions.
Senator McNair: Ms. McDonald, in your presentation you spoke about micronutrients and the reduction in broccoli. Do you have any other facts or statistics? Can you just review that quickly for me?
Ms. McDonald: If you give me one second. This is not my area of expertise, but I do have a link to it.
Senator McNair: That’s fine if the link is there, but it’s a staggering figure on the broccoli.
Ms. McDonald: Yes. Here we go. It is the Health Council of Canada report. There is a link in the report that I have not yet provided to you on safefoodmatters.org in our filings page. It says that calcium levels of broccoli are down more than 60%; protein content in maize dropped by 20%; magnesium levels fell by 25%. Studies have found reductions of between 6 and 38% in calcium, phosphorous, iron, riboflavin and vitamin c across various crops.
Senator McNair: What’s your best-before date and changing practice around that? What is your suggestion there? That’s a generational thing, as far as I see. As you said, the younger generation thinking they’re great parents, or whatever, are apt to dispose of anything on that date.
Ms. McDonald: Well, this is not my area either, but I didn’t know that. I mean, it seems that you did, but it seems to me that you only put a best-before date on the product if it’s really needed. If it’s just a push to try and get us to throw stuff out so we buy more, that shouldn’t be allowed. Some inquiries and examination of that might be useful.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
Senator McBean: Ms. Palmeri, what investments in research, particularly certification support, would strengthen Canada’s organic sector and its role in national food security? I’m trying to figure out how to make it less onerous for farmers and keep their costs close to the regular farming practices for the produce.
The Chair: Ms. Palmeri, I’m going to jump in and ask you to be fairly concise. We have about a minute.
Ms. Palmeri: Again, I would go back to the funding mechanism for transition. Supporting farmers through that three-year transition process as they bring on new practices, seek out certification and achieve certification is probably the most impactful way we can take them along the journey.
Senator McBean: If the cereal they’re giving the kids is USDA certified, and if we’re trying to inform and build people’s trust in the system, is there also not a Canadian certification system that would be building trust in our own system?
Ms. Palmeri: There is, yes. The Canada Organic Regime is our equivalent.
At this time, we are also requesting continued funding for the support of those standards, the CFIA branch that is overseeing that system and the continuation of the program now that the Canadian General Standards Board is being dismantled.
Senator McBean: Could you get back to us in writing on whether it is more onerous to have Canadians certified in the standards so that we can have Canadian-certified foods on our own shelves?
Ms. Palmeri: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you for taking the time to appear before us today. This was an informative session, and we appreciate your contribution and the time it took you to prepare and to come before us. It will contribute to our study of this bill.
Thank you to the interpreters, pages, support staff, technicians and all those who ensure we as senators can conduct our work in the committee setting in a timely fashion.
(The committee adjourned.)