THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 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: Honourable senators, I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
My name is Mary Robinson, and I am the chair of this committee. Welcome to 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, I would like to start by asking the senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, Ontario. Welcome.
Senator McNair: John McNair, New Brunswick. Welcome.
Senator Greenwood: Good morning. Margo Greenwood, British Columbia. I’m sitting in for Senator McBean.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Black: Robert Black, Ontario.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Saskatchewan, Treaty 6 territory.
The Chair: I would like to ask all senators 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 not 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 officials from Competition Bureau Canada. Please welcome Mike Hollingworth, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Competition Promotion Branch; and Melissa Fisher, Deputy Commissioner, Mergers Directorate.
Thank you both for joining us.
We will begin with our opening remarks before we move to questions from members. You will have five minutes for your opening remarks. I will start staring you down when you have about a minute left.
The floor is yours, Mr. Hollingworth.
Mike Hollingworth, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Competition Promotion Branch, Competition Bureau Canada: Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable senators. Thank you for having us today.
My name is Mike Hollingworth, Acting Deputy Commissioner of the Competition Promotion Branch at the Competition Bureau. As you know, I am joined today by my colleague Melissa Fisher of the Mergers Directorate, also at the Competition Bureau.
The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that protects and promotes competition for the benefit of Canadian consumers and businesses. We administer and enforce Canada’s Competition Act, a law of general application that applies to every sector of the economy.
[Translation]
More competition means lower costs and greater opportunity for Canadians. It drives productivity and innovation and helps make everyday goods and services more affordable.
[English]
The bureau has a dual enforcement and advocacy role under our legislation. As an enforcer, we review mergers and investigate anti-competitive business practices like abuse of dominance, price fixing and deceptive marketing. As an advocate, we conduct market studies and advise policy-makers on how to design competition-friendly rules and regulations.
With respect to the committee’s study, you’re covering an important issue with the topic of food security. We know that Canadians are feeling financial strain across many aspects of their daily lives, especially food. When we prioritize our work at the bureau, be it in enforcement or advocacy, affordability is a key focus.
[Translation]
Many things affect food security. Competition is an important factor, but it is one of many. This is something that we studied in our 2023 market study of the retail grocery market. The study focused on barriers that are limiting competition and harming consumers.
[English]
Our study found that Canada’s grocery industry is concentrated, with most Canadians buying their groceries in stores owned by five grocery giants: Loblaws, Sobeys, Metro, Costco and Walmart. Our study highlighted barriers to competition, such as property controls blocking the opening of new grocery stores; and areas of innovation in the industry, such as online grocers and delivery services.
We have also taken enforcement actions in the retail grocery space. We have been investigating the use of property controls in the industry and commenced formal investigations into their use by Sobeys and Loblaws. Since then, Loblaws has publicly committed to ending its use of property controls, a commitment that we continue to monitor.
[Translation]
As part of this enforcement work, Empire Company Limited agreed to remove a property control that restricted retail grocery competition in Crowsnest Pass, Alberta. The bureau found that the restriction, in place since 2017, protected Empire from competition by ensuring it would be the only grocery store in the area.
[English]
We also review mergers throughout the food supply chain. We have acted to protect competition in grain handling, the supply of crop inputs — such as seeds, fertilizers and insecticides — and grocery retail, among others. We remain vigilant when reviewing transactions in this space as we enforce a stronger Competition Act.
Yes, the Competition Act has been strengthened in recent years through three significant rounds of amendments addressing everything from merger review to civil and criminal anti-competitive conduct to the bureau’s investigative tools. We will continue to prioritize issues of affordability in our work, including in the areas of food and groceries, as we use all the tools at our disposal.
We are happy to answer any questions you may have today. Before doing so, I would note that the law, the Competition Act, requires the bureau to conduct its investigations in private and to keep confidential the information we have. This obligation may prevent us from discussing certain facets of our investigations and work or even the existence of certain investigations.
Thank you for having us today, and we look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Perfect timing. Thank you, Mr. Hollingworth.
Senator Black: Thank you for being here, and thank you for that last comment just so we are not trying to weasel things out of you. How will the Competition Bureau ensure that farmers and growers — producers — are not negatively impacted by changes that might be aimed at making food more affordable and lowering food prices?
Mr. Hollingworth: The Competition Act is there to deal with conduct among competitors and to protect the competitive process. We do that through our enforcement work. As I mentioned, we prioritize any conduct that relates to affordability issues.
Let’s take the example of where there may be supply restrictions that are harming farmers. There may be a merger among crop inputs. We will review that vigilantly and continue to do so. The other part of our work is to continue to advocate for competitive markets in all aspects of the economy, including the food supply chain. That means speaking to all levels of government — federal, provincial, territorial and municipal — to lower barriers to competition. If there are any regulatory barriers hindering aspects of the supply chain, it’s our role to speak out and make recommendations to policy-makers at all levels of government.
Senator Black: Thank you. What does that monitoring and enforcement look like? Are you walking into stores and taking pictures, looking for whistle-blowers or a bit of both?
Mr. Hollingworth: Thank you for the excellent question. It depends on the situation. In this case, the monitoring I was suggesting was as part of that investigation into the use of property controls, which are restrictive measures that are part of commercial real estate that hinder the ability of new competing grocery stores to enter.
In that particular case, Loblaws proactively and publicly released a statement of measures it was going to take to remove those property controls. Not to be too technical, but they come in two facets. Some of them can be placed directly on title within a municipality, so they are actually listed as restrictive covenants. When that piece of land is sold, that restriction stays.
We will continue to monitor land registries to make sure those covenants are removed. As well, they’ve committed to not enforcing exclusivity arrangements, which is that arrangement between the landlord and the tenant, in this case Loblaws. We will continue to monitor the market in terms of hearing from stakeholders. We will, as you suggest, proactively reach out to make sure that those commitments follow through.
Our investigation into both Loblaws and Sobeys does continue, however, and we will see where that takes us down the road.
Senator Black: There was something very recently — just this week — on social media that indicated that one of the five had made some changes or was considering doing so. Am I right that there has been some movement in the recent past?
Mr. Hollingworth: Outside of Loblaws making that commitment, I am unsure; that is the extent of it that we’ve heard. We’ve also heard of provinces taking action to limit the use of those property controls. That is something that they are able to legislate. The Province of Manitoba has been a leader in that regard — in outlawing that type of restrictive measure.
Senator Black: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: Thank you for being with us today. We appreciate it. We’ve heard from some of our witnesses that sometimes there are, I will say, random and spontaneous charges for shelf space in big grocers. That ultimately ends up putting pressure on prices for the consumer at the end of the day. What role does the Competition Bureau have in trying to help manage that conduct?
Mr. Hollingworth: Thank you for the question, senator. It is a very important issue. Anything that affects prices for Canadians we know will be top of mind. The Competition Act doesn’t capture conduct that relates to bargaining and inequality of bargaining between the retailer and the supplier themselves. Again, good, aggressive competition is beneficial, so that’s why that conduct in itself is not captured under the framework of the act. We’ve recognized that, both in a retail grocery market study and in a past investigation. That may put a supplier in a concentrated industry at a disadvantage, much as it would with a consumer with fewer options.
Recently, there was the introduction of a voluntary code of conduct, which is outside the purview of the Competition Bureau. We are not a rulemaking authority. We don’t have the ability to enforce that code, but that will govern commercial relationships between suppliers and retailers.
I’m not best placed to speak to outcomes from the code or how that will proceed, but at the end of the day, predictability and certainty within these commercial relationships would generally be viewed by us as a positive. That certainty may provide suppliers the ability to invest, innovate and create new products and services for that retail segment. The conduct isn’t captured under the act, but there are other mechanisms outside our jurisdiction that may tackle that.
Senator Muggli: I appreciate that clarity. It’s hard to understand who can manage what in this industry. Is there anything that you would like to hear from this report that would better support your work?
Mr. Hollingworth: Thank you for the question, senator, and for the offer.
Senator Muggli: There are no guarantees.
Mr. Hollingworth: No. I absolutely won’t hold you to anything today. We very much welcome the fact that competition is receiving attention with respect to various government initiatives in this study. It is such a key driver in productivity and in healthy functioning markets. To the extent that competition remains at the forefront, as policy-makers, as those studying the issues, we would welcome that.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: I’m not going off script, but I have a question that is of great interest to me: Under what circumstances are there exceptions? I’m sure every situation would be different. I happen to live in Banff National Park, where I was previously the mayor. Our land use bylaw in that community is restrictive in terms of who can come in and when, et cetera, right down to how many hair salons, et cetera. Is that an example of an exception? That land use bylaw is signed off on by a federal minister. Maybe it is unique to Jasper and Banff, but I’m curious about that.
Mr. Hollingworth: I appreciate the very interesting question, senator. In a beautiful area like Banff, we understand that there are different —
Senator Sorensen: We are in a restricted square footage, right? We can’t grow.
Mr. Hollingworth: There can, at times, be conflict between laws and the Competition Act — between the principles we’re trying to enforce and other pieces of legislation. Not to get too technical, but the doctrine of paramountcy does exist. We also have something that is referred to in our strange little competition world as the regulated conduct doctrine.
If a municipality, a province or the federal government should choose to legislate and create certain conditions that do restrict or would seem to create conditions that would restrict competition, that is probably not an area we could enforce. I am not able to comment on specific hypotheticals, but, in general, tension can exist between laws at times.
Senator Sorensen: You answered my question. Thank you. My scripted question is about this: The government has linked its emerging food security strategy to stronger monitoring of competition in Canada’s food supply chain.
You mentioned grocery stores. What other competition-related factors are currently affecting food prices? I have notes here about food processing and distribution. I understood the grocery store one. What are the others that are primary?
Mr. Hollingworth: Certainly, the principal area that we have studied in depth for the advocacy function has been in that retail grocery space. Looking further upstream, in terms of farmers, producers, processors and transporters, that is not an area we have studied in depth through our advocacy function. We have taken discrete enforcement actions in each of those areas.
However, we are certainly aware that there are levels of concentration in areas as we look to outside reports. Again, concentration, overall, is not something the act immediately covers, but it does raise concerns about a lack of competition. That competition may increase costs for farmers and processors, which all trickles down to consumers. Anything we can do to remove barriers, such as regulatory barriers, to incentivize competition at all levels of that supply chain is certainly something that is advantageous.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Senator Martin: Good morning. I’m from British Columbia, so my first question is looking at my province, though this would be a concern in certain areas across the country.
B.C. producers rely heavily on transportation, ports and distribution infrastructure along the West Coast to move food within the province and across Canada, as highlighted in federal reports on B.C.’s agricultural and transportation corridors. My question is this: Have you observed competition concerns related to transportation, storage or distribution services that affect agri-food supply chains through British Columbia? Could such bottlenecks be undermining food affordability in Western Canada and perhaps in the rest of Canada?
Mr. Hollingworth: Thank you very much for the question. Any constraints on competition are top of mind for us, and constraints within the food supply chains are certainly something to which we are paying attention and which we will continue to prioritize. We haven’t specifically studied that area, so I’m not able to speak with any specificity.
We have made several submissions over the years in relation to rail transport. Obviously, owing to physical infrastructure, there are limited facilities that exist for transport through that means. Some shippers also have limited options, especially if we are talking about the middle of the country and the strong grain producers that exist in the Prairie provinces. Those shippers are referred to as “captive,” as they have limited options. It’s not an area that we’ve studied, in particular, to identify competition issues, restraints or regulatory barriers. However, overall, in that one mode of transportation — in rail — we have made a number of submissions that indicate it is a very concentrated area, owing to issues of physical infrastructure but also to there being a limited number of players.
Senator Martin: Thank you. My second question is related to big box stores. What I’m aware of, based on talking to small-business people, whether it is owners of gas stations or small grocers, when a big box store comes within a 100-mile radius of an area, everything else is devastated or impacted greatly. There was discussion about how to allow these big box stores to operate without them having a devastating impact on the surrounding areas.
Having said that, with independent or small regional growers, that would play an important role. To what extent is the Competition Bureau examining the impact of major grocery chains’ buying and contracting practices on small and independent retailers, both in British Columbia and across the country? How might this affect local food security?
Mr. Hollingworth: Thank you very much for the question, senator. Ensuring that small- and medium-sized businesses — in this case, independent grocers — can thrive and flourish is something we highlighted in our retail grocery market study.
As you indicated, they face a number of barriers and challenges. First and foremost is the degree of competition they face from a very concentrated industry, from what we have referred to as the five grocery giants. Those grocery giants can be vertically integrated. What I mean by that is that those giants may operate as both wholesaler and retailer, so independent grocers may be reliant upon their competitors for the supply of their goods. They are at a disadvantage in that respect.
They also face struggles, as you highlighted, with respect to real estate and obtaining that real estate. We did draw a circle around issues that independent grocers are facing. One of the recommendations we made throughout that study is the removal of those property controls that we were speaking of, where large incumbent grocers carve out territory through these restrictive measures, like a title or through exclusivity arrangements. We will continue to tackle those. The government did strengthen the Competition Act to allow us to better tackle those measures.
We also recommended that when governments are looking to incentivize or to offer grants and contributions, those are not directed toward the grocery giants but toward independent grocers so they can thrive, grow and better compete with larger-scale players.
Senator Martin: There was one idea presented to me, which was certain restrictions on these large stores to not be able to be open seven days a week, but that’s a whole separate discussion. My heart really went out to those smaller retailers who are just trying to survive. I think this is a very important area for us to continue to look at. Thank you for your work.
Senator McNair: Thank you again for being here today. On January 26, the Prime Minister of Canada announced that the federal government is developing a national food security strategy to strengthen domestic food production and improve access to affordable, nutritious food.
According to the news release:
This strategy will also include measures to implement unit price labelling and support the work of the Competition Bureau in monitoring and enforcing competition in the market, including food supply chains.
Could you tell us about your understanding of what unit pricing labelling actually is? Could you also go into detail about how specifically the national food strategy will support the work of the Competition Bureau in monitoring and enforcing competition in food supply chains?
Mr. Hollingworth: Thank you for the question, senator.
To unpack the first part on unit price labelling, forgive me, will take a few sentences. The bottom line is that it is basically a price per unit of measurement, as is suggested in the title. That allows the consumer to accurately compare prices between competitors.
Let’s take the example of orange juice, which, when I was growing up, came in one carton size. Now it comes in all sorts of packaging sizes, so the ability for a consumer to make an informed decision is hindered by the fact they are, forgive the phrase, comparing apples to oranges. What this does is ensure an explicit price would go on a label or website that indicates, for example, a certain container costs 40 cents per 100 millilitres. If that were harmonized across stores and provinces, it would allow the consumer to make a more informed purchasing decision. As they’re fighting for every dollar every time they go shopping in retail and grocery and at the gas station, it allows them to make that purchasing decision quicker. It is something we recommended in that retail grocery market study.
Senator McNair: Thank you for that. You talked about property controls and that Manitoba is leading the way in dealing with them. You also talked about new measures the government made to allow you to deal with them. Can you give us some examples of what those new measures are?
Mr. Hollingworth: Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
As you highlighted, Manitoba did take action that we welcome and are heartened to see. It was an amendment to the act to allow civil collaboration, so that is — sorry for the technical speak — agreements among competitors. In the act prior to amendments that came about in 2023 and 2024, that specific provision was limited to competitors themselves and was not able to capture other types of arrangements, meaning different parts within a supply chain, so vertical arrangements weren’t necessarily captured under the act itself. That provision was amended, and it can now capture any agreement or arrangement that would substantially lessen competition. It gives us another tool in the tool kit where we see examples of that and have the evidence and facts necessary to prove that conduct exists. It allows us to take action in a more efficient manner.
Senator McNair: I’d like to make a comment on the important work that the Competition Bureau does and mention our appreciation for the work that all of you do on a daily basis for Canadians. Thank you.
Mr. Hollingworth: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you very much for being here. I’m a little bit more awake now.
We had the pleasure of having a field study — a field trip — where we went to the Ontario Food Terminal. We had the opportunity to see the great work that they are doing in terms of providing a space for independent grocers to come in, get their produce and bring it to urban areas and beyond — and actually across Canada. It is amazing.
We were fortunate even to have, in that group, researchers from the Dalla Lana School of Public Health and others who were able to share some of the studies in terms of how important it was for independent grocers to be able to access that. One of the surprising things, at least to me but I’m sure to others also, was the cost. For consumers who bought from independent grocers, it was around 80% of the cost, so we have the research evidence.
My question is this: In the work where you did make some recommendations, how would that support the affordability issue that we’re dealing with in terms of food security? What types of policy recommendations to the government, in terms of things like the Ontario Food Terminal, do you have?
Mr. Hollingworth: Thank you for the question, senator.
Security and food pricing are top of mind for all of us. If an independent grocer is able to obtain supply at more reasonable costs and is able to compete on fairer terms, that competitive constraint will flow down to the consumers. So, again, “Heated Rivalry” is a good TV show, but it’s a great thing for competition because the more the players are aggressively competing for supply and better terms, the more they’re competing among themselves to offer new products or services and the more downward pressure is put on prices overall. It will create more options, more services and more ability to innovate.
The ability for new and existing independent grocers to expand and for new entrants from outside Canada to enter the marketplace will be beneficial to consumers, as they are feeling strain on their pocketbooks.
Senator Burey: That was probably a recommendation to make sure that places like the Ontario Food Terminal continue the work that they do to make food available.
I’m sure there will be other questions on this from my colleagues, but how does Canada compare with our comparator countries in terms of competition in the agri-food sector? How are we doing?
Mr. Hollingworth: Thank you for the question, senator. Ultimately, our advocacy work has very much focused on that study on the retail grocery sector. We looked specifically within that space. When we say “food,” immediately our minds go toward that study.
We haven’t specifically studied or looked into or had investigations that would do that deep-level dive into comparison at the producer or processor level.
With respect to the retail space — and our study spoke about this in detail — other countries have taken action to incentivize new entry to allow their independent grocers to flourish and thrive. Some of those were similar to what we already mentioned today, such as mandatory codes of conduct to deal with imbalances in that bargaining power for suppliers and retailers to create a bit of certainty in that commercial relationship.
It was to deal with property controls. Overall, it was to create conditions, such as lower regulatory barriers, in the countries we highlighted, the U.K. and New Zealand, to allow for foreign entry of discount retailers. In that particular case, a retailer known as Aldi entered into those spaces.
The Chair: I have a couple of questions. They’ve been touched on a little bit.
I want to go back to the Ontario Food Terminal. What we saw there really impacted our thinking. It really illustrated to us the value of an asset like the Ontario Food Terminal to bring foods, particularly culturally appropriate or valued foods, to pockets of diverse communities, like what we see in the GTA. We heard comments that the food terminal is constantly under threat of being closed. The land it’s on is valuable, and they face a lot of pressure, and it’s an antiquated piece of infrastructure.
The farmers from the 200-kilometre radius surrounding the food terminal who rely on that market view that as a means to protect agricultural land, when you go all the way upstream.
Could you give us a bit more? Have you looked at how a piece of infrastructure like the Ontario Food Terminal is so vital, not only to protecting farmland but also to providing affordable food? We did hear from Sarah Elton via a report. Her numbers hadn’t been released when we heard them, but Ms. Elton gave us some staggering figures proving to us that the food terminal is vital. Do you have a lens on that or a really strong look at that?
Mr. Hollingworth: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the question. No, we haven’t specifically looked at that particular piece of infrastructure or that model of operating. Certainly, any time that producers and retailers have greater options, it will be beneficial overall for processors, farmers and consumers at the end of the day. But it’s not a specific area that we have studied.
The Chair: If someone wanted you to specifically study that, how would that come to be?
Mr. Hollingworth: As was mentioned, we have dual roles in terms of our enforcement and our advocacy. We prioritize issues of affordability when we’re looking to take on certain issues.
One of our tools with respect to that advocacy role is called a market study. That study can be initiated by the Commissioner of Competition, who heads the Competition Bureau. We can also be directed to conduct a market study by the Minister of Industry.
At the end of the day, our resources are not infinite. We do make decisions with respect to the biggest bang for our buck in terms of where regulatory barriers might exist within the entire Canadian economy, in all spaces, and where there are opportunities to make recommendations to policy-makers at the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal levels to lower those barriers.
The Chair: I had a question that is perhaps more in Ms. Fisher’s area of expertise. Mr. Hollingworth spoke a bit about vertical integration. On the merger side, I’m looking at the cost of inputs for producers. You had mentioned fertilizer, crop protectants and a few of those things, Mr. Hollingworth, but I’m thinking about telecommunications and how important they are for precision agriculture.
We need competition within that, and we need to have improved access to cellphone coverage. It is so important for the modems we have in all our farm implements when we go down the field.
Can someone speak — I am thinking of Ms. Fisher, but maybe not — to where Canada is competitively on the telecom side?
Melissa Fisher, Deputy Commissioner, Mergers Directorate, Competition Bureau Canada: I can speak to the consolidation side and protecting farmers. Maybe my colleague can talk about the telecommunications side.
On the enforcement side, our investigations are based on evidence. We do very detailed study. We have to collect the evidence and make a decision based on it. If, based on that evidence, we determine that there is likely to be a substantial competitive farm as a result of a merger, then we will take action.
We have taken action along the food supply chain. For example, with respect to seeds and agri-chemicals, together with our international counterparts, we have required divestitures with large, vertically integrated companies.
On the grain-handling side, we’ve taken a matter to the Competition Tribunal opposing the acquisition of a grain elevator where we thought the prices that farmers would receive for their canola and wheat would be depressed as a result of the transaction.
More recently, we advised the Minister of Transport on the Bunge-Viterra transaction. It was likely to depress canola prices in certain areas of Western Canada as well as increase the price of canola oil in Eastern Canada.
Then, as my colleague mentioned earlier, on the retail grocery side, we’ve also required divestitures of retail grocers to ensure competition in local markets is preserved.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Black: You mentioned aseptic marketing. What is that? I have a comment on unit pricing. My wife uses and loves unit pricing. I have a hard time finding and being able to read the unit pricing. If you could do anything, mandate enlarging the font because it’s down in the corner and covered over.
Mr. Hollingworth: To clarify, senator, was the question about deceptive marketing?
Senator Black: Did you say “deceptive”? I thought it was “aseptic.”
Mr. Hollingworth: Deceptive marketing is one of the provisions under the Competition Act that very much deals with false or misleading representations made to the public. It can cover any representation. It can cover speech. It can cover text. But if you’re going to present a price, if you’re going to present a claim, it has to be backed by some degree of truth and evidence.
We’ve taken a number of cases in this space, particularly related to what we call drip pricing, which Canadians are seeing and which frustrates them. That’s where the price that one sees at the start of a purchase is not the price that one pays at the end. Throughout that purchasing process, if we’re talking about shopping online, fees are dripped over time and added on. Again, a price that’s represented has to be a price that’s attainable at the end of the day, so the act was strengthened. We had always been able to take cases like this, but it was strengthened to explicitly recognize this as conduct offside of the act.
There are a number of cases under way, including one against Cineplex that’s working its way through the court system and another against DoorDash, for this type of behaviour — there are no allegations of wrongdoing, as this is a case before the courts — that we view as false or misleading.
Senator Black: With respect to the font size, am I the only one who’s ever complained about that?
Mr. Hollingworth: As someone who wears contacts every day and struggles to read small print as well, I sympathize with you, senator. It’s not something we specifically have heard, nor do we have in our mandate the ability to mandate rules and regulations. We respond to conduct and make those recommendations. At the end of the day, that would fall under the purview of someone else.
Senator Black: So this question is for somebody else to deal with.
The Chair: Also, some of the shelves are really low. It’s hard on the knees.
Senator Greenwood: This is a curiosity question. Last summer, I had the opportunity to travel to Iqaluit, Pond Inlet and some other northern communities. I wondered whether your work is applicable to those communities because the prices are extraordinarily high. If it is, what does that look like?
Mr. Hollingworth: That is an area that we have touched on in a number of our submissions on our advocacy side. Those rural and remote communities, particularly in the North, face challenges that don’t exist in the rest of the country. We’ve highlighted, in our retail grocery market study, those barriers and challenges that they face. At the end of the day, our job is to make recommendations to lower any barriers that are artificially creating challenges or exacerbating those challenges.
We also spoke about that in our airlines market study. That was a separate study we did in 2024 about the challenges those communities face with remaining connected to the rest of the country and how that has a differential impact with respect to those communities.
Senator Muggli: You mentioned a little earlier, in your study, approaches being used by the U.K. and New Zealand. Can you tell us a little bit more about those approaches and what you learned?
Mr. Hollingworth: Thank you for the question, senator.
Looking toward our international counterparts, particularly when doing our advocacy work, is hugely helpful. The U.K. and New Zealand both have different legislative frameworks than we do with respect to our competition rules. We highlighted two big things in our study.
One was the use of a mandatory code of conduct to deal with those imbalances in bargaining power that exist between suppliers and retailers and to help provide certainty with respect to that commercial relationship.
The other one, which we’ve now taken action on in Canada, was property controls. They’ve put not just a little circle but a big red circle around the use of property controls and the restrictions that they had, particularly in those smaller geographic spaces. They highlighted those that were impeding the entry of new competitors. It was certainly impeding the ability for independent grocers to grow because the lack of real estate in a smaller geographic area. If you put a restrictive measure on that very limited real estate, it just exacerbates that problem.
Those are two of the highlights we looked at when we were looking at our international comparators.
Senator Muggli: So these are practices that are fairly embedded in, for example, the U.K. and New Zealand?
Mr. Hollingworth: That’s correct. On the code itself, Canada now has a voluntary grocery code of conduct. The bureau doesn’t have the mandate to oversee it, as we’re not a rulemaking authority, but that has been implemented and launched as of January of this year.
We’re also taking action with respect to those property controls on an enforcement basis. We can only act when there is misconduct. Provinces have the ability to legislate changes with respect to those local contractual rules that are property controls, and, as I mentioned, Manitoba is taking action in that regard.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
Senator Martin: I have a question I don’t think has been asked this morning. As I said, I’m from British Columbia, and we’ve had flooding issues and forest fires. All of this disrupts the system, so I was curious about the fact that there is an increase in consolidation across parts of the agri-food supply chain, particularly in grocery retail, food processing and agricultural inputs. From your perspective, how does market concentration at different stages of the food supply chain affect the resilience of Canada’s food system, particularly in times of disruption, like extreme weather, pandemic, trade shocks, et cetera?
Mr. Hollingworth: Thank you for the question, senator. It’s an excellent question and certainly something that we continue to think about as we’re approaching our work. High price concentrations raise concern for us. They are indicators of markets that may not be competitive.
At the end of the day, concentration among farms in whatever level of the supply chain in and of itself is not offside the act. When we take enforcement action, we take action against conduct by those firms. We often say it’s okay to be big, and that’s something that one aspires to because they got there through their innovation, growth and productivity to achieve that scope and that scale, but it’s when they are both big and bad that the bureau can act.
A concentrated supply chain and a lack of competition within the supply chain are going to lead to a less resilient economy overall, which is why we continue to advocate not only to take enforcement action but also to advocate for policy-makers at all levels of government to find ways and measures to reduce any regulatory barriers that exist in that system that are preventing competition from flourishing at any level of the supply chain. At the end of the day, where you have flourishing, healthy competition, it will create more resilient supply chains because there will be more options at every single level.
Senator Martin: It’s worrisome when everything is also concentrated in urban centres. We really have to figure out how to support the smaller retailers in rural and remote areas — and the North; that’s a big one. Food prices are just astronomical up there; I’m aware of that. Please continue to do your good work and address this issue. Thank you.
The Chair: For my last question, I wanted to go back to the deceptive marketing lens that you put on and talk about labelling. I get concerned when I see people feeling as if they need to buy food that is more expensive because it’s being marketed as having greater health benefits or that it’s safer. In particular, I’m thinking about non-GMO and verified non-GMO for crops like tomatoes or wheat where there are no GMO options available. Can you speak to us about how you police that? If you find any issues, what are the penalties and what is the mechanism there?
Mr. Hollingworth: Thanks for the question. At the end of the day, food labelling of itself is not under the purview of the Competition Bureau.
The Chair: It’s under that of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA?
Mr. Hollingworth: Correct. At the end of the day, we know that Canadians, as they’re making decisions to purchase goods — and we’ll take this outside of food for a second — are looking to make decisions that may be related to their local suppliers or Canadian-based suppliers.
To the extent that there are companies that are looking to profiteer off this moment with the idea of buying Canadian and supporting local suppliers, we’ll continue to take action.
We have guidelines in place that provide a framework for manufacturers who are looking to label their goods as made in Canada or produced in Canada. We provide a road map of what may trigger action under the Competition Act. Food labelling isn’t covered under our act, but we are certainly concerned at any time there is a representation that may be looking to deceive the customer.
The Chair: Okay. I understood you were looking after deceptive marketing concerns, but you are not? All right. Thank you.
We have exhausted our questions. Thank you to our witnesses for taking the time to be with us and for answering our questions.
We turn now to the next panel. We welcome Jennifer Wright, Executive Director of the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council; Scott Ross, Executive Director of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture; and, from the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, or FVGC, Business Risk Management Working Group, we welcome Catherine Lessard, Chair, and Mike Chromczak, Vice-Chair.
Thank you all for joining us. We’ll begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from committee members. You will have five minutes.
Jennifer Wright, Executive Director, Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council: Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to speak today.
Canada’s ability to maintain food sovereignty depends on a strong and innovative agriculture and agri-food sector, one that is supported by a skilled, stable workforce capable of producing, processing and delivering food in an increasingly complex global environment.
When we talk about food sovereignty in Canada, we often think about land, input, equipment and access to markets, but there is another critical factor that is sometimes overlooked: Food sovereignty is not just about what we produce; it is about whether we have the people needed to produce it.
Canada’s agriculture and agri-food sector is one of the pillars of our national economy. It contributes roughly $150 billion to Canada’s GDP each year, which is about 7% of the national economy, and supports one in every nine jobs across the country. It supports our rural communities, sustains our economy and ensures that our country can produce safe, high-quality food for our population and for global markets, but, most importantly, this sector feeds Canadians.
The strength of this system depends on one crucial resource: people. People are the foundation of Canada’s food system, from planting crops and caring for livestock to operating advanced machinery, processing food and transporting products across the country.
Without the workforce that powers these activities, food production simply cannot happen, and that is where we face a serious challenge.
Labour market data from the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council, or CAHRC, shows that Canada’s agriculture sector continues to face chronic and growing labour shortages.
Our most recent data on primary production indicates that in 2022, roughly 28,000 jobs were left unfilled during peak season, resulting in an estimated $3.5 billion in lost sales for Canadian agriculture. That is not just lost opportunities in the abstract but crops that could not be harvested, production that could not expand and food that never made it to markets.
The primary production side of the industry alone employs over 351,000 Canadian workers, along with approximately 71,000 temporary foreign workers who play an essential role in supporting seasonal and specialized labour needs.
Yet despite these contributions, the workforce gap is expected to widen. By 2030, Canada’s agriculture sector may face a vacancy rate of 15%, up from 7% in 2022, driven in part by an aging workforce, with over 85,000 workers expected to retire in the coming years.
This is not simply a labour issue. It is a food sovereignty issue. If farms cannot find workers, crops remain in the field. If processors cannot staff their facilities, production slows. If supply chains lack skilled workers, food becomes more expensive and less accessible. In other words, workforce capacity is directly tied to Canada’s food sovereignty.
At the same time, agriculture is evolving rapidly. Today’s farms and food businesses are highly sophisticated operations that rely on advanced technology, automation, precision agriculture and data-driven decision making.
The sector needs workers with a wide range of skills — from equipment technicians and animal care specialists to data analysts, food scientists and logistics experts. This means the solution to workforce shortages is not just about filling jobs. It is about supporting a modern, skilled workforce that will remain to power the future of food production in Canada.
That requires three things. First, we must strengthen domestic talent pipelines by increasing awareness of agricultural careers and investing in training and skills development to upskill, reskill and retain the current workforce. Second, we must continue to support responsible and effective pathways for international workers, recognizing the vital role international workers play in sustaining our food system. And third, we must ensure that workforce planning is treated as a core pillar of not only Canada’s food policy but also the overall economic strategy in Canada.
The work of CAHRC and its labour market research help us understand these challenges and plan for the future of our sector. The National Workforce Strategic Plan for Agriculture and Food and Beverage Manufacturing report brings focus to all stakeholders regarding the actions needed to ensure the required workforce is there, now and in the future.
Ultimately, food sovereignty is not just about land, technology or markets. It is about our people. It is about ensuring that Canada has the skilled, resilient workforce needed to produce food sustainably, competitively and reliably for generations to come.
A resilient agricultural workforce is not simply an industry issue; it should be a national priority tied to food security, economic growth and sovereignty.
I look forward to questions from the committee. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wright.
Scott Ross, Executive Director, Canadian Federation of Agriculture: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
My name is Scott Ross. I am the Executive Director of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, or CFA. The CFA is Canada’s largest general farm organization, representing more than 190,000 farmers and farm families across Canada.
Canada’s agriculture and agri-food sector contributes $150 billion to GDP and supports 2.3 million jobs, making it a strategic driver of economic growth and rural vitality.
When we talk about food security, we need to recognize that it’s not one issue in isolation, but a complex and interconnected system that extends well beyond the farm gate and Canada’s borders. It involves farmers producing food, processors transforming raw products, distributors and transportation networks moving goods across vast distances, retailers setting prices and managing supply and governments shaping policy and regulation.
It also includes global trade systems, labour availability and consumer purchasing power. For example, a drought in one region can affect global grain prices, while a labour shortage at processing plants can disrupt supply chains and transportation bottlenecks can delay food travelling across vast distances to reach remote communities. All these elements interact to determine the extent to which Canadians have reliable access to affordable food.
In a Canadian context, food security discourse has traditionally focused on matters of affordability rather than sovereignty, production capacity and supply chain resilience. Canada produces enough food and participates in a global market that provides variety, but rising costs mean many households struggle to afford it.
Although Canadians have faced steadily increasing food prices in recent years, farmers have received only a small — and shrinking — share of what consumers pay at checkout. According to RBC, raw agricultural commodities account for roughly 10% of retail food prices. The remaining costs come from processing, packaging and transportation, sectors heavily influenced by supply chain disruptions.
Many agricultural commodities traded on global markets have seen little price growth. Meanwhile, farmers are burdened with escalating production costs, squeezing their margins even further. As a result, Canadian farmers and farm gate pricing have, at best, a very modest capacity to influence retail food prices.
But Canada’s food system does not operate in isolation. Farmers are part of a global marketplace where supply-and-demand dynamics shape production decisions. Within this context, there are factors farmers can influence and others that are beyond their control. Farmers can control production practices, investment decisions and, to a certain extent, succession planning and risk management strategies that build resilience and prepare for the future. However, many of the most significant risks to stable food production are largely outside their control, such as weather and climate variability, global commodity pricing, labour availability and disruptions, input costs and geopolitical instability.
Farmers’ capacity to adopt innovative technologies and practices holds some potential to mitigate these forces, but access to many cutting-edge technologies remains constrained by slow, unclear and costly regulatory approval pathways. This reality underscores why supportive policies and a stable regulatory environment are essential. Farmers can adapt and innovate, but they cannot offset systemic risks alone.
Perhaps Canada’s biggest and most existential risk to food security is that agriculture is not valued or prioritized at the national level in the way it should be. As the government develops a new national food security strategy, this is the moment to anchor long-term investment in the sector to strengthen food security, sovereignty and Canada’s overall resilience.
Doing so requires prioritizing high-impact, future-focused areas where Canada can lead globally and reduce dependence on foreign supply chains, including ensuring farmers and food production remain at the centre of Canada’s food security; reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens that add cost to food production without strengthening food security outcomes; streamlining approval processes and improving access to food innovations, plant science and animal genetics; making Canada the top global destination for investment in value-added processing; becoming a leader in the development, adoption and export of ag-tech innovation; and modernizing Canada’s transportation and trade infrastructure to improve supply chain efficiency.
Ensuring long-term food security, food sovereignty and sector competitiveness requires a whole-of-government approach. Only coordinated, cross-departmental policy supported by targeted investment, modernized regulation and shared national objectives can truly deliver on the promise of food security and economic sovereignty for Canadians.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ross.
Catherine Lessard, Chair, Business Risk Management Working Group, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada: Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
In addition to being Chair of the Business Risk Management Working Group of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, I am also Deputy General Manager of the Quebec Produce Growers Association.
Ensuring Canadians have reliable access to safe and nutritious food depends on many factors. One of the most important is maintaining our ability to produce food locally rather than relying on imports. Local production is a key pillar of food security.
Across the country, growers are facing increasing pressures that affect their ability to continue supplying locally grown fruits and vegetables. The fruit and vegetable sector is one of the most labour-intensive in Canadian agriculture. Many crops must be planted and harvested by hand, often within very short time windows. If workers are not available at the right moment, crops can simply be lost.
In Quebec, for example, growers rely heavily on the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program and the agricultural stream of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program to ensure that fruits and vegetables are planted and harvested. These programs have been essential to the sector for decades. However, when there are delays, administrative barriers or uncertainty in the rules, growers face a very real risk that crops may not be planted or harvested, with direct consequences for food security. We saw this during the pandemic, when many acres of asparagus and lettuce were lost in Quebec simply because there were not enough workers available to harvest them.
Food security is also increasingly affected by extreme weather events, which can significantly reduce fruit and vegetable production. To adapt, farmers need to adopt innovative practices supported by strong research. Investing in research is, therefore, an important part of strengthening food security.
Farmers also need programs that help them manage climatic and market risks.
My colleague Mike Chromczak will speak about these.
Mike Chromczak, Vice-Chair, Business Risk Management Working Group, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada: Thank you, Catherine.
Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable senators, for the opportunity to appear today.
My name is Mike Chromczak, and I am the Chair of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association, and Catherine’s co-chair at FVGC and a proud farmer.
Today, fruit and vegetable growers are part of the primary agricultural backbone keeping Canada’s food supply chain intact, nourishing Canadians with fresh produce and supplying processors and the entire agri-food economy. We consistently operate with very narrow profit margins and exceptional production risks. Growers continue to face stubborn production cost increases, weather volatility, changing pest pressures, labour challenges, market volatility and competitiveness gaps with neighbouring jurisdictions that continue to erode margins and threaten the integrity of our domestic food security.
Federal business risk management, or BRM, programs have proven to be important tools for farmers to ensure food security and food sovereignty in Canada. We have several well-designed programs in place. However, many of these programs have been cut significantly over the past 13 years. In addition, many programs are reactive in nature instead of helping to mitigate risks and invest in strengthening the supply chain.
The Advance Payments Program, or APP, is a great example of a well-designed mechanism to get interest-free operating credit to farmers efficiently. The APP defaults each year to a $100,000 interest-free limit and requires ministerial approval each spring to increase it. A permanent interest-free limit of at least $350,000 makes the program more certain for growers and delivers effective cash flow support upfront when growers need it the most.
Restoring the AgriStability trigger to 85% — with an 80% compensation rate — would also significantly strengthen the competitiveness and support for fruit and vegetable farmers that we need while still staying within the guardrails of World Trade Organization, or WTO, trade obligations.
I will close by saying that the headwinds facing growers have intensified with the current fight against food inflation. Our farmers are bearing a disproportionate burden in that fight, pushing many to the brink.
Consumers, retailers and our government should be seen as partners in the effort to reduce food costs, and modernized, effective, investment-focused BRM is essential, so our farmers can continue feeding Canadians the safest, healthiest and most nutritious food in the world.
Thank you for the opportunity to share the perspective of Canadian fruit and vegetable growers, and I look forward to further discussion.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chromczak and Ms. Lessard. We will now proceed to questions from senators.
Senators, in the first round, you will each have five minutes for your question, or questions, and that includes the answers.
We will start with the deputy chair, Senator McNair.
Senator McNair: I’m going to start with the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada. Your website indicates that you represent growers throughout the country and advocate on important issues that impact Canada’s fresh produce sector. We just came from a field fact-finding study. We were at the Ontario Food Terminal so we saw a lot of produce from both within Canada and outside Canada going through there.
The work of your group focuses on four key priorities, according to your website: labour, which seems to be a common theme for everyone at the table today; crop protection; competitiveness; and applying a food lens to policy decisions.
You have touched on the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program. How vital are they to Canada’s produce sector? Are they working well at this time?
Mr. Chromczak: They are absolutely vital. They are the backbone of our sector. Without the workers on my farm and my peers’ farms, we would not be able to produce the fresh fruits and vegetables that Canadians expect and demand. The program has served us well. It served our farms and economy, and it has also served our workers and their homes’ families and communities very well.
Senator McNair: I’m curious about the return rate. Are you getting the same workers coming back each year in your personal situation?
Mr. Chromczak: I can speak for myself. I began fruit and vegetable farming in 2011. I would say 75% of my workers are still the original group that came at that time. I’m so proud of the work they do, and they have become a part of our family. Again, they are the core of our business. Each year, there is natural attrition. We may welcome one or two new employees, and they feel happy to join the team. We’re fortunate to have them. It shows a consistent and healthy workplace dynamic for employees and for us as employers.
Senator McNair: It is good to hear you confirm that. We heard from one witness in the last little while who was indicating a different story, and the media sometimes picks up on the bad cases. But generally, I find that Canadian farmers look after foreign workers very well and develop those family relationships and rely on them.
Mr. Chromczak: We certainly appreciate that perspective. One initiative we have taken specifically in Ontario is launching the More than a Migrant Worker campaign. It highlights the good-news stories behind the program. They have been to my farm and countless farms to interview workers: to hear their stories about how long they have been coming to Canada, how proud they are of the jobs and careers they have built and the impact this has had on their families and communities — the children they have put through school, the businesses they have been able to start back in their home countries, as well as the homes they have built and the impact it has had on the country and the community.
Senator McNair: I commend you on telling those stories. I hear similar stories in my province. We talked about a similar situation where somebody was sharing that his children had all graduated with university degrees. Anyway, enough said.
I have one more quick question: In your opinion, how should the federal government apply a food security lens to policy decisions related to the fruit and vegetable industry specifically?
Ms. Lessard: When we are looking at regulation, no matter what ministry or area, we often do not consider what the impact will be for food. The food lens is looking at any regulation and thinking about what would be the impact on the food sector, especially fruit and vegetables in our cases, and seeing if it will affect that. Could there be an impact, eventually, from these regulations on our sector? Could it eventually change the ability of our farmers to provide fruit and vegetables? This is the whole idea: to not forget that we contribute to the economy and that food is the basis of life.
More specifically, when we are looking into business risk management programs, it is also to ensure that these programs are effective for the fruit and vegetable sector. Often, they were designed in other sectors, be it grains, animal production or others. We are a small sector, but we are significant. Therefore, we want to ensure that these programs also take into account our realities and our specificities.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
Senator Black: Thanks to each of our witnesses. You have answered many of my questions. I do have one for Mr. Ross. Every year, the CFA calculates the date by which the average Canadian household has earned enough income to cover its entire annual grocery costs. This day is marked as Food Freedom Day and was in early- or mid-February this year. This year, the CFA noted, “Global disruptions and inflationary pressures have further strained food affordability and food security across the country.”
Can you elaborate further on that? Do you expect that next year’s Food Freedom Day might be down the way a bit?
Mr. Ross: Thank you for the question, senator. I will say Food Freedom Day, for quite some time, has hovered generally around the same space, and it is a reflection of a couple of dynamics. One is obviously the cost of food itself; the other is the disposable income Canadians have available to them.
What we have seen is historically it has not swung significantly over the years. However, what we do see in our analysis is that the impact falls disproportionately on the lower-income quintiles of Canada. So when you look across the entire spectrum of food affordability, there is not a dramatic change. However, we have seen an increasing inequality in affordability relative to income levels in Canada.
When we speak about the impacts of geopolitical uncertainty and turbulence, it speaks to my opening remarks around supply chain disruptions being a major driver of uncertainty and affordability constraints. This is a global issue relative to Canada. Certainly, the regularity with which we can now see labour disruptions in our supply chains and the halting of our economy that happens as a result of that has dramatic implications for farmers and their ability to invest and remain viewed as reliable suppliers.
As I said before, we operate in a very interconnected system globally. Supply chain disruptions in Canada that impact our ability to be resilient as a supply chain have bearing both domestically and globally on food security. Over time, we are seeing increased uncertainty and turbulence without policies necessarily keeping pace with that, leaving farmers in an uncertain environment and less able to invest in efficiencies and innovations that help address some of the structural issues around food affordability at the farm gate.
Senator Black: I had three pages of questions, and you have already answered them in your remarks. Thank you very much.
Senator Muggli: I will start with the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada. I’m interested in understanding whether you experience issues related to fluctuating access to shelf space with big grocers or to preferential space or whatever that might look like. I’m curious whether you see an impact. Mr. Ross might have some feedback on that too.
Mr. Chromczak: Our sector is quite diverse. A lot of our products are fresh, ready to eat, primary products that hit the grocery store; some are processed and value added. That is where you may see a difference between shelf space and jockeying for position in the retailer.
From the freshness standpoint, we are very fortunate to have usually preferential treatment as being the freshest, best-valued produce in the entire year when we are in season. Thanks to provincial programs — I can speak to ours in Ontario, with Foodland Ontario — promoting front-of-store display contests and display initiatives, when customers and consumers walk in, they see our fresh asparagus, greenhouse tomatoes and broccoli right at the front of the store. It helps identify that this is different from what they usually see for most of the year, and it helps to move that volume that we need to when we are in season. I cannot speak to the frozen aisle. Maybe Catherine could touch on that.
Ms. Lessard: I would like to add that we have seen some issues during the past few months or year, especially increases in Chinese products, be they frozen or fresh, in the aisles of our retailers. We have seen a lot of Canadian frozen products, especially vegetables, disappearing and being replaced by Asian frozen vegetables. We were not expecting that, but this is also true in the fresh aisle. We are seeing carrots from China in main retailers, and also snow peas from China, which were not there before. It is worrisome, especially for fresh vegetables because we want to ensure we still have growers able to grow snow peas and carrots. If they are being replaced by produce from China, eventually, it can create a gap in the ability to deliver these produce to our retailers.
Senator Muggli: Are big grocers charging you more to have preferential space on the shelves?
Ms. Lessard: Not directly. We have to pay fees, of course, when we went to —
Senator Muggli: Are those fees fluctuating or spontaneously increasing when you least expect it or are they pretty stable?
Ms. Lessard: They are changing from produce to produce and from grower to grower. So I cannot speak about a certain commodity or a certain grower, but we have seen, yes, some changes in some cases.
Senator Muggli: Do you have recommendations about how that could be better managed?
Ms. Lessard: We are asking for more predictability and transparency.
Senator Muggli: How could that be provided?
Ms. Lessard: I think, in these cases, we have to have better communication with our retailers and ensure this is clear and that we agree on these prices.
Senator Muggli: The code of conduct is voluntary. Do you think more needs to be done in that regard? Mr. Ross, you might have some feedback on that too.
Mr. Ross: I can speak to your first question on this as well. I think what we have seen over time — and maybe it speaks to some of the challenges in answering that question directly — is often, as pressure mounts on affordability, price reigns more and more supreme. We have been bolstered lately by a “buy Canadian” sentiment in Canada. It is certainly helping mitigate some of that, but there is no question that we are seeing from the retail community an increasing focus on the lowest price possible over value-driven purchasing sentiments.
To be fair, historically, despite sentiment about buying Canadian, prices often reign supreme in decision making at the retail checkout.
We do have an industry-led code of conduct that’s just getting off the ground right now. We have been in contact with many of our colleagues in other jurisdictions, like the U.K. and Australia, that have gone through this exercise. In many respects, the most important change that they saw come through a code of conduct was not necessarily individual disputes being resolved, but a culture change through more transparency, supply chain predictability and dialogue up and down the supply chain.
So it’s too early to say right now whether an industry-led voluntary code could be successful in enacting that kind of change. We do have a year. We are just getting off the ground. I was part of the board of directors to start that code of conduct. In one year, there is going to be a review to look at if the voluntary code is working because as a federation across Canada, the jurisdictional challenges of regulating a code are significant. We are putting our best foot forward as an industry to see if we can drive change, but it’s to be seen, so we are really encouraging, at this point, supply chain stakeholders to take part in that code and demonstrate whether it can accomplish the kind of culture change we need to see.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you very much for being here. I’m directing my question to Ms. Wright. First, I’m delighted to find out the organization exists. I live in Banff, where our only economy is tourism. I had to come to Ottawa to learn that there is a Tourism HR Canada, and Phil is a fantastic advocate for our industry.
You elaborated on a couple of questions I had for you around labour shortages and automation. I’m curious to know if there is a difference across the country. Are there areas and sectors of the industry that are more seriously in need of employees than others? I’m also very curious to hear, maybe from Mr. Chromczak, about housing. In the meetings I have in many industries, tourism included, housing comes into play. In our industry, it is interesting. We tend to build housing for temporary foreign workers, or TFWs. Also, there is the path to permanent residency in terms of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Lastly, I’ll mention holiday work visas from other countries, which, again, are very popular in the industry I work in.
Ms. Wright: Thank you for pointing out the work that we do. I know Phil well. I used to be their director of research years ago, so a good connection, and I worked with them very closely as well.
With regard to agriculture specifically and in terms of regional differences, I would say there are labour shortages across every region and every aspect of the industry.
We do see them more acutely in some commodity groups than others, and depending on the region, they may be a little greater than in other areas, especially if there are more competing industries around as well. As we know, every industry in Canada is facing labour shortages. Most industries are facing an aging workforce, other than tourism, which has a quite young workforce, but that is another challenge on its own. It’s something that’s being felt across the board.
From the temporary foreign worker point of view, when we look at our data and primary production data specifically, we talk about the needs we have and the value that farm workers bring. If we look at our 2022 data, we’re looking at a shortage of just over 100,000 workers, of which temporary foreign workers fill 71,000 jobs. If we did not have foreign workers, we would be in a serious situation. We still have a gap of about 28,000, and that’s only in primary production. That’s not the value chain. It is an extremely important program for us.
As far as the pathway to permanency goes, it really depends on the commodity because it doesn’t work for all commodities. It also doesn’t work for all of the workers. Not everyone wants to move to Canada permanently. My colleagues from Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada gave great examples of workers coming and being part of our seasonal commodity production and then returning home and bringing that value back to their homes, their kids and their communities. So a pathway to permanency is one avenue, but it’s not the only avenue. I think having that open dialogue and recognition of where it works and where it doesn’t is very important as well.
From a housing point of view, there are standards in place that are regulated through the process for employing foreign workers. Some of that is federal, some provincial and some municipal, but certainly, a lot of standards go into that. The program and the pathway or stream that workers are here on depends on what type of housing they have.
I will just comment, though, on housing from a general standpoint. We’ve done some research on infrastructure needs in attracting and retaining a workforce, specifically in rural Canada. Housing is a major concern for all workers and all employees in the industry, and making sure that infrastructure is there to support attracting and retaining your workers, no matter where they come from across Canada, is very important.
As far as holiday work visas go, I know that they are used in the Okanagan, with cherry production and fruit production in general. Maybe that’s something that could be explored a bit more across Canada. Scott may have more details about that. That’s not something that we’ve worked as closely with. I just know that it’s well used in the Okanagan.
Senator Sorensen: And you’re bound to get an Australian server in Banff.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much for being here. There are some familiar faces. Thank you for being here, all of you, but Ms. Wright in particular, because I, too, wasn’t aware of the wonderful work your council is doing.
In your opening statement, you spoke about three areas: the domestic talent pipeline; international workers, which I think we did spend some time on; and workforce planning. I want to go back to the first, the domestic talent pipeline. Can you tell us more about that? I’m a pediatrician by training, and I’m always interested in getting kids involved in science and technology. When I heard about that, I was excited. Can you tell us more about that?
Ms. Wright: Sure. It’s definitely an area I love to talk about as well. I have a son who is now 20. Many people have heard this story before, but he grew up in the city, and I grew up on a farm, and he has that connection and desperately wants to be working in agriculture.
Making those connections with a domestic workforce and with youth is extremely important. Some of the work that we’ve been doing as a delivery organization of the Student Work Placement Program, a wage subsidiary program for post-secondary students, has helped us connect post-secondary students that wouldn’t otherwise think of agriculture as a career with work experience while they’re in school. So we’re connecting technology students, biology students and agriculture students as well, of course, with agriculture employers to see where they can take their knowledge and skills in the agriculture sector once they’re out of school.
We have a significant amount of work to do. We have done some research around the perceptions of the industry for non-agriculture people, looking at where those career opportunities are and where they see themselves potentially in the industry. Surprisingly, over 50% of the respondents to that work, which was a significant survey, couldn’t recognize another occupation in agriculture other than being a farmer. Being a farmer, obviously, is one, if not the most important, occupation in the industry, but there are so many other jobs across the industry to get connected in. When they dug a little deeper — they thought it was a trick question — they were really committed to that.
I often say agriculture is a fantastic sector. We’re really good at telling each other how great the sector is, but we need a little bit more work in reaching out. Our organization is working on doing that. There are a number of other organizations, such as Ag in the Classroom Canada, 4-H, the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity, CFA and other groups, reaching out beyond our circle of people we see and getting that message out a little more.
A lot of work still needs to be done both on the post-secondary side and in schools, reaching out, again, to those audiences that aren’t connected day-to-day to learn more about what we have to offer for careers.
Senator Burey: Could you comment a little further on how important this is for food security and, to use your term, food sovereignty?
Ms. Wright: When we look at the labour supply, agriculture has the oldest workforce of any industry. The average age is 58, just on the primary production side. Farmers and people in agriculture like to work for a long time, but they’re going to retire at some point.
When we look at that supply of young people coming in, it’s really decreasing. We’re looking at populations across Canada in rural areas declining. We’re looking at not as many smaller farm families — smaller families in general, but smaller farm families — and not as many kids in those farm families going on into succession and taking over the farm. It’s essential that we make connections not only with students but with mid-career people as well.
As we see the economy and workforces shift, we need to have the mechanisms there to connect with people that may be looking for new opportunities and seeing where they can apply their skills that they’ve earned in one sector into our sector as well, raising that awareness that you can be a drone operator and work in agriculture. You can be a data analyst and work in agriculture. There are so many opportunities and so many people in our domestic workforce that have those skills that can come and work in agriculture as well.
The Chair: I’m building on the discussion of succession and the aging farmer — age 58. Ever since I have been in agriculture, it has always been just a few years beyond where I am, which is crazy. I wanted to tie that back to the business risk management suite of programs — one of my favourite topics, as Mr. Ross knows.
Mr. Chromczak, were you born into a farm family or did you enter from the outside?
Mr. Chromczak: I appreciate the question, Senator Robinson. I’m a third-generation farmer. My grandparents immigrated from Europe after the war, and I grew up growing tobacco and have transitioned, in my generation, into a fruit and vegetable farm.
The Chair: That leads nicely into my question about looking at the business risk management suite of programs. We heard you say you want more certainty, and we look at the natural consolidation or amalgamation that we see on the primary side in order to respond to the demand for economies of scale from buyers. You mentioned 13 years ago, so I think in 2013, we saw that BRM suite gutted, and we’ve seen a lack of keeping up with inflation, let alone with investment and raising thresholds because of that consolidation.
If we were to look at your grandparents’ farm compared to your farm, the cash flow, the input costs and generally the cost of land, all of it is being driven up. I’m wondering if you could speak to how greater certainty through business risk management, or BRM, might facilitate succession and, in the end, how the result would contribute to Canada’s food sovereignty, as well as our ability to access and have a sustainable food strategy.
Mr. Chromczak: That’s an excellent question, senator, and I genuinely appreciate it.
Certainty with respect to BRM is crucial to our growers, our partners and our financiers. The bottom line is growers aren’t growing because of safety net programs. They know that they’re there just in case, but competitiveness has become a major issue. As inflation has hit, farm gate sales have risen. The budget committed to BRM programs has not kept up and followed suit, whereas neighbouring jurisdictions, particularly the United States, have invested billions of dollars in direct cash incentives and programs that we need to compete with. They’re able to subsidize their margins in a lot of cases.
The Marketing Assistance for Specialty Crops is one program in particular that was announced last year. It was a US$2.85-billion program that was a pure cash injection to farmers to help them find new markets, and those markets are ones that we are competing in. We do not have a similar mechanism.
Farmers are inherently resilient. We’re determined. But at a certain point, we can only compete so much, and we can only operate on razor-thin margins and negative margins for so long. That’s why programs like AgriStability and AgriInsurance are so vital to us. I mentioned the Advance Payments Program as another investment in our operations, and I see the program as a partnership in recognizing the value of domestically grown fruits and vegetables and all agricultural commodities.
The Chair: Thank you. I have a minute left. I’m going to ask Mr. Ross to weigh in on this if he wouldn’t mind.
Mr. Ross: Building on Mr. Chromczak’s comments, there are a couple of elements when it comes to business risk management that warrant attention. It’s not just the amounts spent but also its responsiveness to the needs of the industry. One of the challenges Canada faces is that we have whole-farm, one-size-fits-all programs, and often, one size doesn’t fit anyone particularly well. There are many sectors, particularly in horticulture, in livestock and in greenhouse production, as examples, where many of the tools we have available in Canada for business risk management are not available to them, and we have inequities in levels of support. We continue to hear from many farmers, for example, who are highly diversified that they find the tools do not serve their interests particularly well.
While certainty is important, responsiveness and flexibility in what farmers can access and the nature of those tools are critical as well. We need to ensure we are looking at not crowding out the private sector, as well as innovative tools and development that help serve more niche needs. We also need to recognize that, increasingly, across our sector, we need to complement these one-size-fits-all tools with more options for farmers so they can tailor their risk-management strategies to their individual needs as opposed to trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
Senator Muggli: There are still so many questions. I’m trying to get as much of your knowledge in the record as possible because you have so much to offer today.
Ms. Wright, you mentioned earlier food being left in the fields because of the lack of workers. Does anyone have data on how much food was left in the fields due to the inability to harvest related to the workforce?
Ms. Wright: We don’t have the exact data on that. We have our estimates through our economic modelling, which tell us that because we didn’t have enough workers, there would have been an impact of about $3.5 billion. That was in 2022. We did see, as my colleagues from Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada outlined, during the COVID pandemic, that there was a significant amount of food left in the field. They may have some more data on that specifically, but certainly, there is a direct correlation.
We’re seeing farms leave the industry totally, retiring or selling their land because they can’t find enough workers. Our employer surveys show they’re doing 30% to 35% more work to cover the shortage of their labour supply. You can’t do that forever, so that’s where I would come at it from a data point of view —
Senator Muggli: Are you modelling data to see what that could potentially look like going forward if we don’t fix that program? Mr. Ross?
Mr. Ross: I don’t think modelling has been undertaken. One of the challenges is that the impact of the labour shortage is not only felt in product left in the field. It’s often felt as reduced value available, which could be on a packing line where they’re not able to process some of the cuts that would otherwise give more value to a carcass. It manifests itself in so many different areas.
There is work going on to look at the impacts of farm margins and what it means from a profitability perspective, but because of the complexity of all the different climate variables and other things, it’s very hard to model what could happen in the future because, in many respects, it’s not just the labour shortage itself. It’s how it interacts with some of the other dynamics farmers are having to deal with.
Senator Muggli: I’m interested in the timely transportation of goods. We met, on our field excursion, with an organization called Second Harvest. We noted that, sometimes, when you can’t have timely transportation, you have excess food that ends up at Second Harvest, which is fine. It’s being used. But I’m curious about the impact of non-timely transportation and if there is anything that you would recommend for our report on addressing the transportation of goods?
Mr. Ross: One immediate point that comes to mind is addressing interprovincial barriers around trucker mobility. We have a massive shortage in trucking across the country, and it is constrained by artificial barriers between the provinces. That’s because of licensing regimes, tire weights and various things that disrupt the flow of goods across provinces, which are unnecessary at the end of the day and break what could be a large Canadian market into many smaller markets for producers or add costs transactionally to change trucks at the border.
These are all well-understood issues that we have seen attention devoted to, but rubber needs to hit the road, pardon the pun, to see those barriers addressed. There are certainly regulatory issues that constrain it, and more generally, where we are seeing real concern — and this speaks to our export markets as well — is that Canada is facing an unprecedented regularity of labour disruptions in terms of strikes and work shortages in critical infrastructure for our farming community. While some of that product is necessarily going to export, it has broader implications for the entire agri-food industry in terms of certainty, resilience and the ability to invest.
I think Canadian farmers are increasingly concerned that we are losing the ability to be viewed as a reliable supplier of goods by virtue of this. It is an area that is so wholly outside the control of farmers that they are looking for external policy support to help address this and to find ways to not in any way prevent effective collective bargaining but to ensure there is less of an incentive to strike and more of a timed process that allows for these things to happen in a way that doesn’t disrupt the economy.
Senator Muggli: I appreciate that feedback. It’s important for our study. Since you’re still talking, what’s your top recommendation for us on how to support your work on the code of conduct?
Mr. Ross: As I mentioned earlier, we have a one-year review where we need to look at how things are playing out in the code.
In the interim, one of the concerns we have is about focusing exclusively on the retail purchasing point. Artificially constraining retail prices often has deleterious effects on the supply chain because those processes get downloaded onto processors and farmers who have no ability to pass them along. What is critical is looking at the provisions of the code. We need to take the time to assess whether the code is driving the type of change we hope to see. Practice-based principles that address good practices in the supply chain, promote transparency and set rules are vital.
If you just focus on the retail end point, you’re exposing everyone in the supply chain to turbulence and volatility, and probably undermining the transparency and predictability we need. It’s vital to look at whether the code will have sufficient teeth through naming and shaming, which is primarily the vehicle they will have to enact this culture change I spoke of. If that has substance and actually does see that culture change, it’s a very positive development, but it’s wait and see at this point.
I will say farmers by and large are very concerned about retaliation and reprisal in this system. So it is really systemic, and culture change is warranted because, even in other countries where they have regulated codes, there is still an understanding. It is very hard to prove reprisal or retaliation. Whether a retailer chooses to do business with another farmer or somebody else, it’s very hard to ascertain what is behind that. It really is critical there is this understanding that we all benefit collectively as a supply chain through more efficiency, transparency and predictability. That really is part of what’s unique to the Canadian code: It’s accountable both ways. Suppliers are held accountable under our code as well as the retail side, but the proof will be in the pudding at the end of the day as to whether this is working, at which point there needs to be a further conversation of this kind to see if it is really enacting the kind of change we hope to see.
Senator Muggli: Thank you for that answer.
Senator Sorensen: I would ask Mr. Chromczak and maybe Mr. Ross to elaborate a little — I enjoy the stories of your personal experience — on the housing piece and the path to permanent residency, and then maybe Mr. Ross on a higher level.
Mr. Chromczak: I would certainly comment on the housing. We’re all aware of the national housing crisis. Farmers and our workers are certainly not immune to or unaffected by it. We’re seeing it directly on our farms.
At a time when we’re looking for nation-building opportunities and investments, we see investment in food production as an opportunity to protect food security and food sovereignty. One opportunity could and should be in on-farm housing.
We’ve got to a point where many of our larger farms might need to house workers off-farm, and that’s displacing other home seekers and renters from those units. The opportunity and the value of having our workers on the farm make things safer, more efficient and more comfortable for our workers.
There are countless stories — and again, it’s going to require municipal, provincial and federal cooperation and initiative, but there are examples of development fees alone costing in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to put up a housing unit on a farm and then further regulations regarding setbacks, septic, et cetera. A program or investment around helping growers to increase the number of units and the quality of units would definitely be beneficial and help support that food security perspective.
We’ve undeniably seen an incredible increase in the standard of housing since COVID. COVID was an eye-opener for a lot of people. We see things through a different lens now. The workers on my farm and I were so proud of our homes leading up to COVID, and then COVID changed everything. Since then, we have built new homes on the farm. We have more space for our workers. We have amenities — such as high-speed internet, laundry facilities and air-conditioning — more privacy and more space, and those are things that we’re proud of. Those were significant investments that we bear as growers, but it’s an investment in the quality of life for our workers and the productivity and outcomes on our farms. So we see value in it. It would definitely be beneficial to have a partner in those investments as well.
Senator Sorensen: Mr. Ross, do you have a couple of comments? I don’t know when we’re going to get the stare down.
Mr. Ross: I would focus on the point Mr. Chromczak made. One of the challenges with housing is the multiple orders of government involved and the constraints. Ultimately, there has been an active discussion for years now about federal housing standards in this program, and the unfortunate reality is there are so many cooks in the kitchen and whether it is municipal bylaws and zoning requirements that limit, for example, a farmer’s ability to have multiple housing units on their property that it is very challenging to see that realized. But the knock-on effect of this discussion happening without an apparent end result is uncertainty around investment. There is a reluctance to invest if there is an understanding the rules are going to change suddenly. That is certainly a point of concern.
On your other question around pathways to permanent residency, to Ms. Wright’s comments earlier, it’s not the same for seasonal versus year-round labour. There are sectors of our industry that are very reliant on and have demonstrated track records of effective pathways to permanency. The challenge we often find is eligibility criteria in federal immigration policies are very limiting and constraining for agri-food workers’ ability to enter the country, whether that’s educational needs or language requirements.
We were very pleased to see an agri-food immigration pilot put in place, but it has subsequently sunsetted. We are very strongly calling for the return of that on a permanent basis. It’s not going to solve all the problems in this space, but it certainly gives certainty and predictability not only to the primary production side, but increasingly farmers are also feeling the effects of constraints on the processing space, where they’re also struggling to find access to workers. It’s those industries, the year-round side of labour needs and the processing community where we vitally need that pathway to permanent residency to help complement temporary foreign workers in the seasonal space who, as Ms. Wright said earlier, don’t necessarily want to live in Canada on a permanent basis. Ultimately, it’s a vital part of the puzzle — it’s not the whole solution — but this is not one panacea. This is a very complicated issue at the end of the day.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
The Chair: I have one last question before we wrap up, and it is for Mr. Ross. We are certainly in a time of great instability and see, every time we turn the news on, that consumers feel it at the gas and fuel pumps. The 190,000-plus farms that you represent are faced with the biggest-ticket item of their year, which is putting the crop in the ground. Does anyone have the number? To put the crop in the ground in Canada well exceeds $50 billion, and that would be maybe using last year’s pricing.
So when we look now at what farmers are facing and the massive amount of uncertainty — I saw on the news today a farmer in the Prairies saying his fertilizer was up 60%, and this is on the eve of putting the crop in the ground. We know that there are barriers to entry to market for fresh fruits and vegetables as they try to get space and make arrangements with grocers. We know that food processors like to have their contracts in place so they’ve got predictability for their sales. And we know that commodity prices are something that farmers have no ability to change.
Taking into account that primary producers are, for all intents and purposes, price takers, meaning they have no opportunity to influence the price they’re being paid, can you speak to the impact of this uncertainty on your members?
Mr. Ross: I think it’s considerable, and it’s not necessarily realized and felt today. The implications are the long-term ability to continue to invest in efficiency and innovation and into their operations moving forward. So there are certainly fundamental viability challenges for some farmers that are going to be faced with the inability to have that certainty. But the concern overall are the long-term implications of this uncertainty on the sector’s ability to continue to invest and address the competitiveness concerns that Mr. Chromczak referenced earlier.
There are a lot of tools in the tool box that can help address this. As we look at a national food school program, that has the potential, with the right procurement policies in place, to provide defined volumes and demand for Canadian farmers that can help support revenue diversification stability. But at the end of the day, the consequences of this uncertainty around planting decisions are implications for their ability to invest and grow their operations moving forward. That’s a space that’s critical.
You mentioned crop inputs and the cost of putting their crop in the ground. We need to explore a critical input strategy for our sector to ensure we have supply chains that are resilient to supply us. We saw this with the Ukraine-Russia conflict, with tariffs applied on Russian fertilizer and Eastern Canada suddenly facing dramatic shortages or increased costs. Similarly, with the current conflicts in the Strait of Hormuz, there are obviously concerns around access to fertilizer as well.
So when we talk about a national food security strategy, we need to look at the entire value chain and ensure farmers have greater predictability so they know they can invest when times are good, versus sitting on capital. As you know, if you speak to any farmers, they’re more than excited to invest in their operations. However, they need the foundation to ensure they can do so with predictability so they’re not undermining their viability for future years.
The Chair: I wanted to ask a question of you, Mr. Chromczak: What do you pay your foreign workers versus your domestic workers, and what does it cost you to have a foreign worker versus a domestic worker? If you could, please answer quite quickly.
Mr. Chromczak: Yes, the wage rate for our workers is negotiated and set by the negotiation process. This year, our workers will be paid $16.85 an hour on the farm. When we calculate transportation costs, housing expenses and amenities on the farm, we typically calculate costs being closer to $25 per hour per worker.
Our local workers — students that I would have working on the farm — would be paid that same wage for the same job as my other workers. Then, highly skilled trades are paid, obviously, prevailing market rates above that.
The Chair: Does it cost you more to employ your foreign workers than it does to employ your domestic workers?
Mr. Chromczak: It certainly costs me more, absolutely. But it comes with a proven track record and reliability. There is certainly value in my team, for sure.
The Chair: Unfortunately, we are out of time. I want to thank you all for taking the time to appear before us today. It has been incredibly informative. Thank you so much. We appreciate your contribution to the study.
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.)