THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 16, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 8:01 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the role of the agriculture and agri-food sector with regard to food security in Canada.
Senator Mary Robinson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Mary Robinson, and I’m 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 today, I would like to start by asking the senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator McNair: Good morning. Welcome. John McNair from the province of New Brunswick.
Senator Hay: Good morning. Katherine Hay from Ontario. I’m representing another senator today, so I’m an interloper. Welcome.
Senator McBean: Good morning. Marnie McBean from Ontario.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Black: Good morning. Robert Black, Ontario.
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 not to speak too quickly. Clear audio supports accurate interpretation, transcription and captioning.
Today, the committee is continuing its study on the role of agriculture and agri-food with regard to food security in Canada. We have the pleasure of welcoming the following: Michael Bourque, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fertilizer Canada; Pierre Petelle, President and Chief Executive Officer, CropLife Canada; and Paul Enwerekowe, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Crop Protection, Croplife Canada. Thank you all for joining us.
We will begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from members. You will each have five minutes, and I will try to get your attention when you have got one minute left, and then I will shut you down when you hit the five-minute mark.
The floor is now yours, Mr. Bourque.
Michael Bourque, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fertilizer Canada: Thank you very much for inviting us to appear today.
We appreciate the work you are doing and for inviting my colleagues Catherine King and Frank Annau to appear before this committee earlier this year as part of your study on the national strategy for soil health.
Fertilizer Canada represents the producers, manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retail distributors of nitrogen, phosphate, potash and sulphur fertilizers. Together, our members contribute over $42 billion annually to Canada’s economy and support more than 118,000 Canadian jobs.
Fertilizer is essential to food security, both here in Canada and around the world. It supports approximately half of all global food production. As the global population continues to grow, we will need to produce more food on the same amount of land. That is simply not possible without fertilizer. At the same time, global supply chains that support our food systems are becoming increasingly uncertain.
The current conflict with Iran is a reminder that fertilizer is a globally traded commodity and is highly sensitive to disruption. Whether it is instability in the Middle East, the war between Russia and Ukraine, or even a rail strike in Canada, supply chain shocks create volatility that impacts farmers.
For Canadian farmers, fertilizer is often their single largest input cost. When markets become volatile, farmers face difficult choices, each carrying consequences for yields, farm profitability and, ultimately, food prices.
When access to fertilizer is constrained or treated as optional, the consequences can be severe for both food production and overall economic stability.
We are the world’s largest producer of potash and a significant producer of nitrogen fertilizers. At the same time, we depend on imports for key new nutrients, particularly phosphate, which we do not produce domestically. In fact, very few countries are self-sufficient across all essential nutrients.
Fertilizer is inherently global, and food security depends on very reliable supply chains and secure access to international markets. We must be able to both export and import fertilizer efficiently. There can be no food security without reliable access to the fertilizer market.
Domestically, our focus must be on using fertilizer as efficiently and sustainably as possible. Canadian farmers are already leaders in this space through the strong adoption of 4R Nutrient Stewardship, applying the right source at the right rate, at the right time and in the right place. This is a science-based, farmer-led approach that improves productivity and profitability while reducing environmental impacts.
It is essential that policy not unintentionally target farmers’ fertilizer use. For example, policies that measure emissions using fertilizer shipment and sales data, such as the arbitrary 30% fertilizer emissions reduction target, can act as targets on fertilizer use. This runs counter to a science-based approach that optimizes efficacy such as 4R practices. If not designed carefully, emissions policies can lead to lower yields, reduced competitiveness and unintended consequences for food security.
In a world of increasing uncertainty, Canada has an opportunity to lead. We have the resources, the expertise and the production capacity to support both domestic and global food systems, but maintaining that leadership requires a policy environment that supports farmers and recognizes the integrated and vulnerable nature of supply chains. This includes improving Canadian farmers’ access to innovative products, supporting science-based practices like 4R Nutrient Stewardship and ensuring our regulatory system keeps pace with international competitors.
It also means strengthening the broader conditions that support our sector, cutting unnecessary red tape, addressing labour disruptions in critical transportation networks, investing in trade-enabling infrastructure to diversify imports and exports, and ensuring the investment climate supports strong domestic production.
Fertilizer is more than an input; it is a strategic asset in an increasingly uncertain world.
I’m discovering that there is a lack of awareness about the very basics of fertilizer use, the importance of fertilizer for food security and Canada’s significant role as a supplier to the world. People understand that oil is a globally traded commodity but are not aware of the exact same dynamic when it comes to fertilizers. So we really appreciate the opportunity to shed some light on our industry and the importance of inputs like fertilizers and crop protection to food security and Canadian prosperity. Thank you, and I look forward to questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bourque. I see that Senator Burey from Nova Scotia has joined us.
The floor will now be turned over to CropLife Canada. I understand that you will be splitting your time. Please go ahead.
Paul Enwerekowe, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Crop Protection, CropLife Canada: Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable senators. My name is Paul Enwerekowe, and I’m the director of regulatory affairs at CropLife Canada. I’m joined by Pierre Petelle, our president and CEO.
Thank you for inviting us to appear today as part of your ongoing study of the role of the agriculture and agri-food sector with regard to food security in Canada.
[Translation]
CropLife Canada is the national voice of developers, manufacturers, and distributors of pesticides and plant breeding innovations. Its members provide critical solutions that help build more resilient agricultural production systems to ensure a safe and nutritious food supply for Canadians and the rest of the world.
Canada’s agriculture and agri-food sector is a vital part of our economy and food security. It contributes nearly $150 billion annually to our GDP and employs 2.3 million Canadians — more than the automotive, forestry, steel, aluminum, and oil and gas sectors combined. Agriculture is the country’s largest manufacturing sector and serves as the cornerstone of food security.
[English]
Crop protection tools and plant breeding innovations are critical for improving agricultural productivity and contributing to the economic success of agriculture. For example, crop yield losses for some fruits and vegetables would exceed 50% or more without crop protection products, impacting their availability and price.
In fact, according to Farm Credit Canada, consumer prices for many Canadian food staples would be up to 65% higher without the benefits provided by plant science innovation. That’s up to $6,665 more per year on food for an average Canadian household.
Maintaining Canada’s long-term food security depends on a regulatory system that is timely, predictable, transparent and science-based. In recent years, Canada’s regulatory approval system has become slower and less reliable. Performance timelines have slipped and decisions are often unpredictable.
CropLife Canada and our members share the belief that there are simple, clear changes the federal government can implement to modernize the regulatory system and reinvigorate investment in Canadian plant science innovation.
A critical first step is explicitly recognizing food security as a core policy objective within regulatory processes that affect crop protection.
In particular, Canadian regulatory agencies, such as the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, or PRD — and formerly known as the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA — should be required to consider how its decisions affect national food security and agricultural competitiveness.
Identifying regulatory approaches that manage health and safety risks while ensuring farmers’ access to essential, existing or new tools is critical. Amending the Pest Control Products Act to explicitly require consideration of these impacts would elevate food security as a key policy priority and support better decision making.
I will turn it over to Pierre to conclude our remarks. Thank you.
Pierre Petelle, President and Chief Executive Officer, CropLife Canada: Thank you, honourable senators.
We know that Canadian farmers are second-to-none when it comes to innovative practices. That’s why it is imperative that we give them the crop protection tools they need in order to remain sustainable.
Recently, we’ve heard some misguided testimony at this very committee actually pushing for fewer tools in the hands of farmers. Restricting access to effective crop protection tools and the latest seed genetics does not contribute to farm sustainability nor does it improve soil health. It simply handcuffs growers and results in more food waste.
The plant science industry stands ready and willing to work with the government to create a world-leading regulatory system that maintains high standards for health and environmental protection, enables the timely introduction of innovative plant science products and enhances Canadian food security.
Thank you for your time. We look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, all.
We will now proceed to questions from senators. Senators each have five minutes for their questions, and that does include the answers.
Senator McNair: Thank you. My question is for Mr. Bourque.
We wake up every day hearing about oil shock. As you indicated, the United Nations estimates that one third of global seaborne fertilizer volume passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran, as we know, has restricted international shipping, and the U.S. now has a naval blockade there.
Are we going to be experiencing fertilizer shock? Are Canadian farmers going to be experiencing that? Maybe you could expand on how you think the conflict in the Middle East is going to directly impact Canadian farmers.
Mr. Bourque: They are already experiencing shock, senator, because the price of fertilizer — particularly nitrogen, urea — has gone up significantly. That’s because there’s so much production from the Middle East. The production of natural gas‑based fertilizers is obviously centred in the Middle East, where natural gas is abundant and inexpensive.
As the situation is so volatile, it is very difficult to predict what is going to happen. However, we can say with certainty that the shock will continue for some time because, even if the strait were to open today, there is going to be a backlog of shipping traffic. We don’t know what kind of damage has been sustained by these various parts of the supply chain, the plants themselves, access to natural gas and so on, in the producing countries.
There will be a shock. It is compounded by the fact that there are a number of producers. Russia is another big producer; we don’t know what they are going to do. The war with Ukraine really impacts them as a producer. China is a producer but has decided that they are not going to export any of their fertilizer; they are going to keep it for domestic use.
So there is absolutely no doubt that farmers are going to feel the impact of this global system, which is under severe strain. For this growing season, thankfully, that shock is very minimal, applying to a small percentage of farmers who didn’t prepurchase fertilizer and then had to buy at higher prices, but certainly, availability was not an issue.
For the fall, we’ll see whether availability starts to become an issue. It really depends on the global situation.
Senator McNair: What would your advice be to the federal government with respect to helping Canadian farmers going forward in the next season?
Mr. Bourque: The best advice that we have is that it is a globally integrated system. There are many different actors involved. One of the reasons I did mention all of the different members that we have is because we have companies that are buying shiploads of fertilizer from far-flung countries. They are expending the capital to do that.
If, for example, the government stepped in and said, well, we’re going to force a lower price or do something and subsidize somebody else, that company could lose money and potentially be out of business. So you have got to be careful about how you disrupt the market.
I much prefer, in a situation like that, where you help the end user, which is the farmer, to get through a season. There are options for farmers when they don’t have enough fertilizer.
Ultimately, it will probably lead to lower yields and, therefore, impact their own profitability. Those are the things that I think the government can help with.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
Senator Black: Mr. Bourque, thanks very much, all of you, for your statistics. It never ceases to amaze me — the wow factor — of the numbers that agriculture employs, the number of jobs that are involved and the fact that fertilizer is involved with half of our food production.
I do want to correct one small thing with you. You mentioned something about the increase in population and that we would require more food production on the same amount of land. I would tend to think that there will be a lesser amount of land going forward, with what we’ve heard through the soil study, across this country and around the world. That’s the small point. I think we’re going to have to do more with less. So that’s that.
My question to you is this: Does your membership experience any barriers in distributing fertilizer across the country, and is that pain equal? I expect I know an answer, but I want to have it on the record.
Mr. Bourque: We very much do on a regular basis. Let me just start with export.
Canada is the Middle East of potash. It happens to be in the middle of the country. We have to travel 1,700 miles to port. That’s often disrupted through everything from weather to strikes, lockouts, port closures, bridge malfunctions and all kinds of supply chain issues.
One of the things that I mentioned is that food security essentially depends on supply chain security. There has been a big focus on securing trade deals, and that’s very important. I think the government should do that, but an even higher importance needs to be placed on managing what we can control here, which is fixing this infrastructure by investing in it and enabling private-sector capital and dealing with the labour issue, which is something that another Senate committee that I visited is looking at. I hope they have some good conclusions. This is also the case with the regulatory system that Pierre mentioned, which has impacted us.
If we have to spend money that is misallocated because it is toward a regulatory initiative that really is not necessary, then that’s money that could have been spent on shoring up that supply chain. I like to say that we are super users of the supply chain in fertilizer because we have the heaviest product, we use all of the ports, all of the terminals, all of the roads and railways, and when something is not working properly, we know about it. We also have to import all of our phosphate, much of which is from the United States. So, again, we rely on that rail-and-truck infrastructure. We really need to focus on supply chains for food security. There is no doubt about it.
Senator Black: Mr. Petelle, it is always good to have CropLife Canada in the room. Thanks for being here, both of you. How does CropLife Canada define food security and food sovereignty? What are your thoughts about a definition of those two things?
Mr. Petelle: On food security, yes, there are vulnerable populations that are food insecure, and that’s a broader issue than just food production. I know that. But when you look at global food security, there are only about five or six countries that feed the rest of the world, and we’re one of them. So, like it or not, we play a huge role in global food security. So when we talk about productivity, growing more on the same land and making sure our infrastructure is able to export those crops, that we’re a reliable exporter and how much that contributes to our GDP, all those things are also contributing to global food security.
Food sovereignty is a more complicated thing, in my view. I saw a recent study which indicated that there is one country in the whole world — Guyana — that is considered truly food self‑sufficient in every type of commodity. We rely on trade, and that’s a normal thing. We will never grow oranges here in Canada. If we do, climate change has really gotten off the rails. But there are many things that we will never grow here, so it is normal and expected to be a trader. In Canada, we rely heavily on trade. Some of our crops are 90% exported.
Senator Black: Thank you very much.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you for being here. I want to focus on the need to engage federal leaders on strengthening Canadian agriculture. Specifically, Mr. Bourque, you commented on an arbitrary 30% reduction. I’m going to ask you to clarify exactly what that was. We hear fairly regularly about these numbers that get pulled out of the air for a reduction in different things. This may be a bit of a redundant question, but I will ask it: Is the federal government fully leveraging the expertise of industry stakeholders when developing policies related to food security, and where do you see the most significant gaps in that collaboration?
I don’t understand how those things happen. I don’t know at what point somebody picks a number and says, “This is a reduction we want to see across this country.” It seems to me that industry has to come in and be very reactive to the goal as opposed to proactive. I will start with Mr. Bourque, and if you can restate what that 30% reduction was. I’m assuming that Mr. Enwerekowe might have some comments as well.
Mr. Bourque: The federal government introduced the target of reducing emissions associated with fertilizer use by below 30% levels by 2030. The target is currently described as voluntary, but it continues to influence stakeholders and officials, and we still do not have a very clear sense of how that is supposed to be achieved. The concerns that we would have with that are regarding its arbitrary nature. We were not consulted about that number. Now, in fairness, this was the previous regime that was imposing this, and we have now seen that things are starting to change a little bit, but it is still a bit of an uncertainty, which, I would suggest, impacts the ability of companies to invest in Canada. This has been noted by the Bank of Canada and others who see that this uncertainty impacts investment. So I am not just making it up.
The gaps in collaboration are really starting to close. We are starting to be heard a lot more. The fact that we live in this currently crazy world at a moment when Canadians are rallying together, trying to work together and feel some urgency. I would like to see a lot more urgency. That’s my primary message when I meet with officials. Certainly, the gap in collaboration appears to be closing, but I am a trust-but-verify kind of guy.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. Mr. Enwerekowe?
Mr. Enwerekowe: Thank you for the question, senator. We have been calling on the government for a long time to increase the level of engagement with stakeholders, including industry. The most important things for us are timeliness and predictability. Regulatory decisions are never made in a vacuum. There are crop yields to take into consideration. There are many impacts across the value chain, and it is important for any regulator to regularly consult with its regulated party.
Senator Sorensen: Yes. Thank you. Again, I always reflect on meeting with a cattle rancher who was asked to reduce his water use by 30%. When somebody came out to have a chat with him because he was prominent in the industry, they said, “Well, you have already reduced your water usage,” he said, “Yeah, I know that.” So I don’t know. I would love to understand the process when, all of a sudden, policy gets written.
Mr. Petelle: Building on what my colleague said, it is one thing to engage and to have formal public consultations, which regulators in Canada are obligated to do, and there is a lot of that. But the point you made earlier was about seeing industry as a partner. We saw a bit of that during COVID, trying to get vaccines done and trying to get sanitizers out. There was a level of cooperation and collaboration that had not been seen in a long time, and government realized that we cannot do this alone; we need industry expertise. We have slowly gone back to the old ways, where government will develop 99% of the way and then seek industry input. It is time for that to change, and that sense of urgency that Michael is also talking about — and ambition — needs to increase.
Senator Sorensen: I couldn’t agree more.
Mr. Petelle: Later, when we touch on the response of the government to the recommendations from the House Committee on Agriculture on regulatory reform, I would love to have a few minutes to talk about that.
Senator Sorensen: Somebody will ask that question.
Senator Hay: In my learning in preparation for showing up today, I heard this morning that Canada, of course, is a major agricultural exporter. But domestic food insecurity is rising. Is this true, in your opinion? Please give your comments on that. While that may be true, the key tension that I hear is production and innovation versus affordability and access. My question is about domestic food insecurity rising. How do we balance production innovation versus affordability and access? I have a follow-up question on technology if there is time.
Mr. Bourque: In terms of innovation, affordability really ties together because, for example, we had, and we are still in the middle of, an issue with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency concerning labelling. There was a regulation that passed, requiring the labelling of bulk fertilizer shipments. We already have a labelling system. This was going to be a new system that was going to be very costly. There was no use case, no risk case and no reason for this new regulation, in fact.
We have spent considerable hours and time on this and, at the same time, we know that it takes CFIA quite a bit longer to approve new products than it does in the United States, for example, which comprises the farmers that our farmers are committee competing with. They might have access to a new product in as few as six weeks that takes us two years. That is a competitive advantage that those farmers have, which might lead to a lower cost of production, more efficacy or both, which directly impacts affordability at the end of the day.
If fertilizer producers have to spend a whole bunch more money — in our case, this was about $120 million for the labelling — we have to pass that on to our customers. Those customers are farmers who will then pass it on to their customers. The best thing we can do is take a very hard look at all of this excessive red tape because Canada is now, unfortunately, well known for having a system in which it is hard to obtain approval.
If we can do a better job, companies will be more competitive, and there will be more investment in Canada. These things all lead to lower prices. We have seen it in other products.
Senator Hay: So regulation upstream is directly impacting food insecurity in Canada?
Mr. Petelle: Absolutely. I would add, in fact, that Canada ranks 32 out of 38 OECD countries in terms of regulatory burden. We’re not even in the top 10. We’re basically in the basement. To your point about food security, domestic food insecurity is more complicated than just growing more food. However, when you put it into practical terms, if you have a vegetable grower, for example, with a diseased pressure that comes in or an insect pressure that has come up from the South because of climate change, if they don’t have the crop protection tools to control that, they could be looking at losses of 30%, 40% or 60% of their production. Obviously, if you are looking at acres and acres of a vegetable, for example, and your productivity drops by 40%, it will have an impact on your own income and also on the price of that commodity at the farm gate. There is a tie-in.
On broader acre crops, people see fields of wheat and canola — and we export most of that — but those dollars go to our GDP and our tax base. It enriches our country, it makes us more resilient and lets us afford to send food to the North, and lets us afford hospitals and health care. There is this notion that “we produce enough food.” I have heard some witnesses talk about that. That is nonsense. We want to be able to produce in a more sustainable way, but to the maximum capacity of that soil because it helps Canada’s GDP. It is a logical goal that we should have.
Senator McBean: Mr. Petelle, as you were speaking, I was thinking of the game where the farmer goes through the crop, collects the grain and makes the bread, and the bread makes the village. We need to produce and sell to buy other things, too.
Mr. Enwerekowe, I really appreciated how, in your testimony, you were giving us detailed examples of some of the regulatory system burdens. I want to give you more time to talk about some more of those if you have other examples.
Also, if you have examples of good and innovative policies, or anything that is helpful, that’s always nice in a report to make sure that we’re telling them some of the things they are doing well. Then we can hit them harder with the things they should be doing better.
Mr. Enwerekowe: Let’s start with the good news or the better news. In recent months, there has been a lot more openness about starting to engage with the industry on complex issues. These matters of science take time and effort. We appreciate that openness, and we’re starting to have more of that openness and engagement to hopefully start unpacking some of the regulatory issues that we’ve been experiencing.
The industry relies on guidance and predictability. You need to know what your regulatory framework is going to be in order to bring your innovations to market. It takes well over a decade of research and development, and hundreds of millions of dollars, to bring new plant science innovation to market.
You need a regulatory pathway that is predictable so that you can know what the outcome is going to be. That relies on clear guidance. We are finding, in many cases, increasingly, that we are operating in an area where the guidance is becoming less and less clear.
That adds time, inefficiency and delay to regulatory decisions, and it’s a snowball effect in terms of business decisions made by industry. That’s one example of many, just at a high level, of why it’s important for the regulator and the regulated party to have an open and ongoing dialogue.
Senator McBean: Thank you. Mr. Bourque. You talked about the fact that one of the problems with our potash is that the ports are coast to coast. There has been talk about developing a port in Churchill. My first question is this: Would that be helpful and advantageous? The other thing I wanted to ask was this: Are there alternatives to products that go through the Strait of Hormuz?
Mr. Bourque: On Churchill, there is absolutely zero benefit to the fertilizer industry to have that port open. That said, I understand why the government is focusing on that from a security standpoint and a sovereignty standpoint, but we should not be looking at it to help our industry.
We carry very heavy products. I happen to be the president of the Railway Association of Canada, so I’ve spent a bit of time with rail. The Omni tracks that operated the rail up to Churchill were my members. I know exactly how much effort, money and treasure are required to build up that railway to be capable of handling the things that northerners would need, and that is significant. The Strait of Hormuz has sulphur, which, ironically, we have in abundance in Western Canada from the oil sands, but it is landlocked and is not economically viable to move. But it is a critical ingredient to help process fertilizer. It is a big producer of urea, and a lot of urea comes through the Middle East and the Strait of Hormuz.
Senator McBean: Are there options? Can we figure out how to take our sulphur and be more self-sufficient?
Mr. Bourque: That is a business case. If the price goes high enough, then someone will figure it out. I would encourage you to keep asking the question. I’m probably the wrong one to answer it.
It is possible that when the prices are very high and there is a shock, like we’re living through now, to imagine that there is a business case to be made to build a new nitrogen plant somewhere in Canada. It might make sense in Alberta, where there is access to natural gas.
Ultimately, it is a business decision because these are very capital-intensive projects, and you would need to be assured that the prices are going to remain high enough to pay that back over a period of time. By the way, that is an area where I was told there were projects under development or consideration, but which were stopped because of the requirement for emission reduction. That killed the project.
We’ll have to see what domestically we can do, but it is a global system, and we’re traders. Much like on the food side, we need supply chains to be open. We need these markets to be open for import and export.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Good morning, everyone, and welcome. This is very intriguing and interesting. This question is for all of you.
You mentioned the vital importance of agriculture to the Canadian economy; yet so many people don’t know this. You mentioned the numbers. Can each of you give me some idea of why we don’t know this and why this is not common knowledge? I’m from Windsor-Essex. We have a lot of agriculture, but it is also the automotive capital. Everyone knows about the automotive capital but not that.
Can you give us some ideas about why we are in such a state of ignorance?
Mr. Bourque: I’ll start with that, because, on the panel, I’m the most ignorant. That’s because I have only been in this job for a year, and it is absolutely shocking to me how big this industry is and how little people know about it.
From coast to coast, we produce everything from cherries to oysters and everything in between. As I said, we’re the Middle East of potash; nobody knows that. They didn’t even know how to pronounce it.
We have to do a better job, as an agriculture sector, of explaining exactly what the value proposition is, how big we are and how much we contribute to the economy. These are things that my colleagues and I work on regularly. The chair wrote an article about it a year ago, talking about how Canada can be a food powerhouse. Many of us have taken that and said, “We should be a food superpower in much the same way we’re an energy superpower.” We have a lot of work to do to explain that to Canadians.
Mr. Petelle: It’s a matter of circumstance and affluence. As the country became more affluent, people didn’t have to grow their own food; they became lawyers, doctors and senators. Less than 2% of the population is directly involved in agriculture. It’s not that surprising that someone in downtown Toronto wouldn’t think about where their food is produced; they go to the local market, and it’s always there and plentiful.
The agriculture sector wrings its hands a lot about people not knowing enough about us. We are a significant industry, and when I hear the Prime Minister talk about critical minerals and energy, we need to see the words “agriculture and food” added onto that sentence. In terms of the people making decisions, we don’t need to convince every Canadian, but we do need to convince the top people that agriculture is an absolutely key contributor to economic growth in this country.
Mr. Enwerekowe: Maybe we are the victims of our own success in this regard. Canadian agriculture is innovative and resilient. We have just one growing season, so it’s one shot to get it right, and we do get it right. Somehow, we produce more and more food, which I think is a miracle.
Maybe we tend to get a little bit complacent with that and take it for granted. It is easily forgotten how much work it takes to produce high quality and nutritious food, especially in a northern climate.
Senator Burey: Thank you for that, but taking ownership of it and moving that along is crucial. I’m certain this report will add to it.
You mentioned that Canada should have food security as a core policy or pillar. Can you expand on that, Mr. Enwerekowe?
Mr. Enwerekowe: Yes, absolutely. Thank you, senator, for the question.
The availability of food is central to food security. We live in a very prosperous country, and, in general, we have very good access to food, but in other parts of the world, that is not always the case. So, when we say that agriculture is vital to food security, it’s a country’s ability to feed itself, its people and the world. That’s what we’re really trying to impress as the point.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
The Chair: I’m going to take a moment to ask a question.
I appreciated the comments on efficiency and the idea that we need to maximize yield. For Canadians who live outside of the agricultural world, I think about how people look at fuel efficiency in their vehicle. We don’t drive the 12-cylinder vehicles that our grandparents drove; now, we are driving EVs. We want to get to the same place faster and more comfortably — all of that — and that is what we are saying we have to do with soil and crop productivity: We need to improve our sustainability, maximize our productivity and do that in earnest, because we do have a growing population.
When we talk about Canadian farmers’ ability to be competitive, I would like the folks from CropLife to tell us what it means when we can’t access those same tools as competing nations. You talked about us being the top five or six exporting nations. What does it do to Canadian producers? What does it do to our ability to attract capital and have people coming in and do that value add? How would that really augment our GDP on ag exports?
Mr. Petelle, we did see a report on regulatory changes in the other place called Unleashing the Potential of the Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector through Regulatory Reform. We saw that report released by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in 2025. I want to know if you want to comment on that and work in some comments on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA. Tell us what it is and how it can be doing a better job for us.
Mr. Petelle: There is a lot to unpack there. My colleague mentioned the years of investment and time it takes to get a new molecule, for example, for crop protection. Canada is a small market. Even though we produce a lot of food, we export a lot. In the crop protection space, we represent only 4% of global sales, so we have to make sure those companies, especially the multinationals, look at Canada as a market such that they feel they will bring their latest innovation to that market, even though the big return on investment might be Brazil, the U.S., et cetera.
That’s part of our role: We have to make sure our regulatory system is at least as good as those bigger markets because the business case for registration here isn’t as strong as it is with many other nations. That is the first point we have to remember.
When we talk about slipping timelines or less predictability, as my colleague mentioned, it takes away some of the incentive to bring that product to Canada. To your point, if those products don’t come here, then our competitors to the south and in other parts of the world have access to better weed-control technology or a product that can control a new insect pest that our farmers don’t have now.
This becomes a very dangerous slope to go down.
Right now, we are in a good position in Canada. We get most of the new products at the same time as our colleagues regarding crop protection. Seed technology is another thing. Genetics are constantly changing. There are new techniques, such as gene editing. We have to make sure we are at the forefront of that so our farmers have access to the later technologies.
The House of Commons Ag Committee did release the report you mentioned about competitiveness through regulatory reform, and the government tabled its response to that report just a few days ago.
There is a disconnect between the level of ambition of the Prime Minister and the cabinet versus what the departments think their role is, based upon what I read in the report. The committee, which was multi-party and non-partisan, had some very bold and ambitious recommendations for consideration — 26 of them. When you read the response, point by point, it is a rebuttal and rejection. It’s a “we already do that” kind of a response as opposed to, “We can look at some of this and work with industry and make the system better.”
There is some political will. Certainly, in talking to the Minister of Health, and, in the opening letter, there is some acknowledgment that there are some things to be done, but when you get into the meat of the response, which comes from the departments, I don’t think that sense of urgency or ambition is there yet.
I’m not criticizing them. It is a slow process to adapt those things and to look at science differently, but you can put up barriers and roadblocks to the nth degree when it comes to regulators. There is no end to how much data you can ask for or how many roadblocks you can put up. But I’ll continue with your analogy about vehicles. We can lower the speed limits on our highways down from 100 kilometres per hour to 20, and it would be safer. Even 10 kilometres per hour would be safer, but there is a limit to what that level of regulatory burden achieves. So we have to find the right balance. We have become a little bit on the lower side of the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit in Canada.
The Chair: Thank you. If you have anything else you want to add to that, you can submit it in writing. That is the case for any of the witnesses.
Senator Black: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Petelle, on the government’s response to the other place’s report. My question is to you. I know you are familiar with the recent research cuts that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, or AAFC, has announced, which they are moving forward with. Could you elaborate, from your perspective, on the importance of research to our country’s food security and food sovereignty?
Mr. Petelle: In agriculture research, there is a lot of data out there that shows the return on that investment can be $10, $20 and I’ve heard even the highest number of $30 returned for every dollar invested in agriculture research. The data is clear that it is a worthwhile place to invest, and you get a high return.
The other part of that is public research. There’s a lot of private research, and the companies I represent invest a lot in that private research. Again, if the regulatory environment and the business environment are welcoming, more of that research and development will be done here as opposed to the U.S. or Brazil. Our job to try to entice our members to do more of the core research right here in our own backyard.
We have a good case for it. We grow a variety of crops, we have different climates from coast to coast, and it is a good testing ground for a lot of products. I keep harping on the regulatory environment, but it really is the engine that unlocks the potential. On the private side, that is something that is in our control.
On the public research centres, I don’t want to weigh in too heavily on that. There was some neglect in those areas and some investment that needed to have been done long ago. Whether consolidating them and working more effectively are the right things, we’ll see. But a conversation needs to be had among academia, public research and private research to maximize the return on that and to look for more innovative ways for public-private partnerships to capitalize on agriculture research.
Senator Black: Thank you.
Senator Burey: My question is on the regulatory battles — that’s what I’m going to call them. I’m a physician, and I’m aware that we have the same problem in medicine, where we can’t obtain here the drugs that are available around the world — even old drugs — because of some of the complexities that you spoke about.
Coming to the Senate, this is what I have always done in terms of systems thinking. Are you collaborating with your other sectors, like the health sector and physicians’ organizations? We are going through the same problem. Or is it’s just going to silos? Agriculture does it this way. Are you going across sectors to really bring that case forward? I ask because the regulatory environment is affecting all sectors in Canada.
Mr. Petelle: I used the statistics earlier about Canada being rated 32 out of 38 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, countries in terms of regulatory burden. That is not just in our space; that is across the board. We are members of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. We have also heard the Business Council of Canada representing a much broader sector than agriculture. The message is consistent with all those groups: We don’t take regulatory burden seriously enough.
I would bet that if I sat down with my colleagues from the pharmaceutical industry, medicine and others, we would probably share many of the same issues. When I have sat with groups like forestry, mining and all the sectors that we want to unleash in this new government, they complain about the same things. The regulatory nimbleness is not there. The examples that Michael gave demonstrate an out-of-the-blue, strange regulatory focus that suddenly comes to light, which has no apparent benefit but does bog down the system.
I hear that across sectors. We’ve talked about this regulatory burden for 20 years, and now that the Prime Minister seems to be much more focused on this, we would love to see the departments enabled to be able to do things differently, take some risks and be bolder.
Mr. Bourque: There was a private member’s bill tabled in the House that would enable reviews from other countries to be used here. This is long overdue. We are spending the money five and six different times between allies. This is very unproductive, and we’re well overdue to do that, as we are in areas of drugs and other products.
It’s the same thing in the fertilizer industry, where we have innovation, advancing globally, enhanced efficiency, fertilizers, stabilizer, inhibitors and biostimulants, but if there is too much of an impediment here, the kind of thing you hear is that we have this approved in the United States, so we’ll just put another sales person in California and we will get the sales we would have gotten from Canada. So we don’t have to bother with the two‑year time frame, uncertainty, and so on. So we really have to work on this.
The Chair: I keep thinking about a sports parallel here. We send our team to the Olympics and talk about how we underfund our Olympic team and how other countries that better resource their teams show up with all this technology. We are doing the same with Canadian agriculture.
Mr. Bourque: On regulation, we own the podium.
The Chair: Yes, we do. It’s glass half empty or half full, and I think we had better go with half full and get at it.
Senator McBean: You are literally in my lane right now. So much just exploded in my head.
Actually, I’m right on Senator Burey’s heels, because I’ve written down my question and it was simpatico. I’m thinking of Senator Hay, who, on your first time here, said, “Oh my gosh, I hear about this regulatory burden everywhere.” This is not the first time we’ve had the conversation or the first committee we’ve been hearing this, obviously.
Removing regulations can be seen by some as putting the foot on the gas and taking our hands off the steering wheel. What I wanted to ask you is this: Who is best placed within crop life and fertilizer to revise these regulations and find a balance of innovation and safety?
Mr. Petelle: Sometimes it is not even about changing regulations or removing them; it is an approach. Some of the examples that I’ve been made aware of are often interpretations of policies more than the actual policies themselves.
Part of it is a cultural thing. In departments in the past, whenever there has been an issue — and I’m just speaking from the pesticides world right now — in media, such as noise or an issue about a product, rather than elected officials standing up and saying, “No, we have a robust system; these are the best scientists in the world,” and defending the approach, it has been, “Oh, we’ll do more; we’ll create an independent science panel. We’ll do this; we’ll do that.”
They’ve eroded their own confidence with these regulators. So, over time, the natural reaction is for the regulators to be even more conservative in their assessments, and it becomes a culture of not taking any chances and going to the nth degree of risk mitigation and prevention. Over time, you create a system that is the opposite of ambitious and nimble.
It’s not all about removing regulation. Yes, there are things we need to scrap, but often, it’s a cultural element, and it’s about giving permission and direction to the regulators to meet the moment.
Mr. Bourque: When we talk about using other countries’ regulatory approvals, we’re really just being efficient in accepting the science that someone else has already reviewed — another country that is as competent as we are.
We’re not taking more risks in this case. We’re simply being more efficient. We can allocate those resources elsewhere.
The other thing I will mention is that, in the agriculture and food value chain across all of the colleagues that I have talked to, there is universal frustration with the fact that we tend to be siloed into the Department of Agriculture, and we have very limited exposure to Industry Canada or whatever that artist is called now. The glass half full tends to be the innovation and industry departments, where they are looking at exports and looking at how we can sell Canadian goods and grow; whereas an agency like PMRA or CFIA is about managing risk and the regulator. The reflex is always to regulate. We need to have more of a recognition that we can be a food superpower and much more ambitious. Even the term “food security,” as important as that is, is narrow. We need to think about a much more ambitious program, and that requires an all-government approach, particularly with those who would see the benefit of having innovation brought into the regulatory system, but also more of an export, growth kind of focus.
Senator McBean: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you so much for being here. We appreciate you taking the time and making the effort to be here to answer our questions. The level of engagement speaks to the quality of your presentations. Thank you.
For the second panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming officials from three organizations. First, from the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, we have Jimi Onalik, President; Stephen Traynor, Vice-President, Policy, Planning and Northern Projects Management Office; and joining us online, we have Torrine Johnson, Acting Vice-President, Pan-Territorial Operations. Also, from Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, we have Marie-Claude Petit, Vice-President of Operations. Lastly, we welcome officials from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or ACOA: Dave Boland, Vice-President, Newfoundland and Labrador; and Elizabeth Beckett, Director General, Regional Operations, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you all for joining us. We will begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from members. You will each have five minutes for your presentations. I will catch your eye when you have a minute left, and I will shut you down when you hit five minutes. We will get started.
The floor will be yours now, Mr. Onalik.
Jimi Onalik, President, Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency: Good morning. Ullaakkut. I will try to deliver a gold medal-winning Senate appearance here, but I’m not feeling any pressure at all.
My name is Jimi Onalik, and I am the president of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, or CanNor. I have been in the federal system for two and a half years, and was previously with the Government of Nunavut. Half of my career has been in the aviation sector in the private sector.
I would like to start by acknowledging the incredible spotlight that you are bringing to this very important but really complex issue.
The Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, similar to other regional development agencies, or RDAs, has a responsibility to help develop the economy of the three territories. We have a number of programs for accomplishing this. We use very targeted grants and contributions. We are also, interestingly, unlike some other RDAs, responsible for coordinating the federal participation in environmental assessment processes for major projects, which has a direct correlation to food security in many of the communities.
We also have a role in helping coordinate the Government of Canada’s efforts around Inuit employment in the federal government in Nunavut. Again, I see this as very much a direct line to food security.
When asked about our role, I try to say that our primary function, when it all comes down to it, is to help families put food on their tables. That’s no small feat in the three territories in which CanNor operates. It is not a secret that these places have the highest rates of food insecurity in the country.
My minister is Minister Chartrand. She has been relentless in her efforts to have us focus on the food economy in the three territories because of the need. We have been able, over the last year, to really double down on our efforts in this area, but this is an enormous problem and challenge. You well know that there are no magic bullets when it comes to food insecurity and economic growth in the territories.
CanNor has a portfolio of nearly $100 million in 2026-27. We deliver several funding programs, including our flagship IDEANorth. I’m primarily here to have a discussion, and much of the information around CanNor is available online. We do a lot of amazing work. We work very directly with communities. We hear first-hand the challenges that communities face when it comes to addressing economic growth, and food security is top of mind in every interaction we have in the three territories.
I’m really glad that my colleagues are here to get into a bit more detail on the collective efforts that we’re undertaking as the RDAs operating in Inuit Nunangat in the Arctic. I’m primarily looking forward to having a discussion today. So qujannamiik, thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Onalik. Time does fly here. It is a very engaging conversation and topic. So I appreciate your alarm at how quickly that time went. Thank you. Next we have Ms. Petit.
[Translation]
Marie-Claude Petit, Vice-President, Operations, Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions: Honourable senators, good morning.
First of all, thank you for inviting me to speak about the contribution of Canada Economic Development, or CED, for Quebec Regions in supporting the agriculture and agri-food sector and food security in Canada.
My name is Marie-Claude Petit. I am the Vice-President of Operations at CED. I am very pleased to be here with you today.
But first, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
[English]
The mission of Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions is to promote regional economic development in Quebec. Through our 12 business offices rooted in the community, we support businesses and the regions to foster sustainable economic prosperity.
For the fiscal year 2026-27, our forecasted budget in grants and contributions is just over $360 million.
[Translation]
While CED’s primary mission is not food security, its initiatives can nonetheless have tangible impacts on the agri-food sector, particularly in northern regions.
The Northern Isolated Community Initiatives Fund, or NICI, is part of both the Food Policy for Canada and the Inuit Nunangat Policy.
For Quebec, CED has been allocated a budget of $3.79 million in grants and contributions through March 31, 2027, to address the needs of Nunavik.
With its regional focus, its well-established collaboration with Inuit and local partners, and its co-development approach with community stakeholders, CED is particularly well positioned to implement the NICI in Nunavik.
[English]
We are implementing the fund in close collaboration with Inuit partners, thanks to a dedicated team that meets regularly with partners, including the Makivvik Corporation and clients in various communities.
To date, we have authorized 10 contributions for a total of over $3 million in funding, which has generated close to $5.9 million in investments.
[Translation]
CED recognizes the unique circumstances in Nunavik and the time required to co-develop and successfully complete projects. That is why CED is working closely with local stakeholders and federal authorities to establish the conditions necessary to carry out the projects within the current timeline.
[English]
We also support the agri-food sector to foster a prosperous, inclusive economy and to contribute to community vitality.
[Translation]
Quebec’s food industry is, in fact, the largest employer in the manufacturing sector, with 66,000 jobs across more than 2,600 companies. In this key sector, CED’s initiatives aim to increase production and productivity, support innovation and promote Quebec’s agri-food products.
[English]
Our actions complement those of federal and provincial partners, including Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
[Translation]
CED also aims to increase the participation of under-represented groups in the economy, particularly Indigenous communities, in collaboration with its federal and provincial partners.
[English]
In summary, although the Food Policy for Canada falls under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions works in line with its objectives. Our support for food security in Nunavik and the regional agri-food industry contributes to economic growth and resilience in the sector, to the benefit of local communities.
Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Our last witness is Mr. Boland.
Dave Boland, Vice-President, Newfoundland and Labrador, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency: Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
My name is Dave Boland, and I am the vice-president for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am pleased to join you here in Ottawa and respectfully acknowledge that we are on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
Joining me today is Elizabeth Beckett, director general of regional operations for ACOA in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I appreciate the invitation to speak about the work ACOA does to support the Government of Canada in addressing food security in the Atlantic region.
Atlantic Canada has strong natural resources, a favourable production environment and established processing expertise. At the same time, the region faces higher vulnerability to food insecurity than the national average, particularly in rural and remote communities.
The province of Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, has distinct challenges due to limited agricultural land, short growing seasons and a heavy reliance on imported food. Local production meets only a fraction of demand, increasing dependence on external supply chains.
The food, seafood and agri-food processing sector is a major pillar of Atlantic Canada’s overall economy and an important component of regional food security. It contributes approximately $4.7 to $5 billion to regional GDP, supporting more than 55,000 jobs, and represents approximately 30% of total manufacturing GDP in the region. This is largely concentrated in rural, remote and coastal communities.
Despite recent momentum, global disruptions and economic challenges have put a spotlight on vulnerabilities within global supply chains.
Atlantic Canada’s concentration in resource-based industries, combined with a relatively small domestic market, increases the region’s exposure to worldwide economic volatility, as well as workforce and transportation pressures. This underscores the importance of diversification and resilience.
Prince Edward Island is a good example. Following major export disruptions in the potato sector, ACOA supported investments in modernization, automation and storage improvements. These investments strengthened food system resilience and reduced vulnerability to future disruptions.
ACOA supports food security through a range of targeted tools and measures. Since 2024, ACOA has supported more than 200 projects across Atlantic Canada’s food processing sector, representing approximately $81 million in investments focused on productivity improvements, facility modernization, automation and supply-chain resilience.
One example of this is the Northern Isolated Community Initiatives Fund, or NICI, which supports community-driven food initiatives in northern and remote regions.
The expanded NICI Fund, announced in Budget 2024, now extends beyond the territories to encompass all of Inuit Nunangat, including the Nunatsiavut region of northern Labrador, which falls within ACOA’s program delivery area.
This expansion supports federal commitments under the Inuit Nunangat Policy, as well as food-related projects that strengthen and diversify economic activity and improve food accessibility in the Nunatsiavut region.
ACOA has been working closely with the Nunatsiavut government to understand their self-identified priorities and approach to culturally appropriate food initiatives and to provide guidance toward application submission.
Improvement investments include replacing and upgrading aging community freezers and related equipment in several Nunatsiavut communities, and providing basic equipment maintenance training for staff. This investment will directly improve food storage, access and resilience.
From the outset, we have been committed to a respectful and collaborative approach. This included reaching out to find a local translator for NICI-related web content to ensure that the program information was available in the local dialect of Inuktitut, a first for the agency.
We also recognize that other northern Indigenous groups in Labrador face significant economic challenges in their respective communities. The agency continues to build relationships with them to identify how our programs may be able to assist.
Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to share ACOA’s role in addressing food security issues in Atlantic Canada. I am happy to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you to all witnesses for your testimony. We will now move to questions.
Senator McNair: Thank you to the panellists today. We appreciate you being here and participating in this study.
My question is to ACOA, and it is not a question with respect to Newfoundland, but a recent announcement about a business in New Brunswick, so you may not be able to deal with it, or you may be aware of it. Minister Dominic LeBlanc announced that Krishna Foods, a growing New Brunswick food manufacturer, would receive federal funding to expand and upgrade its facility and acquire new equipment to accelerate its growth. Krishna Foods recently marked a major milestone for growing New Brunswick food manufacturing, with the completion of its newly upgraded food production facility in Cap-Pelé. It has increased production capacity and improved operational efficiency and space to support or allow for future growth. The company employs eight people and expects to hire additional staff in the coming months. There is also funding through Opportunities New Brunswick for productivity improvements.
Can you speak a little bit about other impacts that flow from these sorts of announcements and developments, particularly for the smaller community of Cap-Pelé and the province generally? What effect do these types of success stories have on food security from your perspective? I’m curious to know if there are any other success stories that you want to speak about, of a similar vein for Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Boland: I’ll allow my colleague to speak to some of the other success stories.
When we invest in companies like that in New Brunswick and in other parts of Atlantic Canada, we do so with a view to how they can locally impact in terms of jobs created and in terms of enhancing local investment, but much of it is geared to how we increase the wealth in the region, focusing on external markets and how they can be competitive and be more productive as they are trying to get to external markets. That’s a big part of that.
At the same time, the more we can do to make investments in our local food industry goes a long way to enhancing food security. When you invest in companies in small rural regions, it has a big impact that you may not see if you were in a larger centre in terms of the employment and wealth that can be generated. It goes a long way to securing some of the supply chains that currently are beyond our borders. If you look at New Brunswick, right now, about 90% of the agricultural food is imported into New Brunswick, so by being able to invest in companies in New Brunswick like that, you are able to diminish that a bit.
I don’t know if there is an example you want to speak to.
Elizabeth Beckett, Director General, Regional Operations, Newfoundland and Labrador, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency: We make some complementary investments with community organizations. In Fredericton, we work with the community services group to look at a food waste reduction program through the Perishable Food Rescue Centre. We look at it comprehensively in those small- and medium-sized communities in Atlantic Canada to ensure we are looking at how we can ensure there is an opportunity for food production and food systems in the region to be part of economic growth.
We have also invested in the Centre of Excellence in Food Security and Sustainability in P.E.I., an important component of looking at some of the innovation that is in precision agriculture technologies, and that can be spread and shared throughout the region. We make those kinds of complementary investments in the not-for-profit ecosystem as well as the direct investments with businesses.
Senator McNair: The Fredericton one, is that Greener Village?
Ms. Beckett: Yes, it is Greener Village.
Senator McNair: We had a presentation to this committee on Greener Village.
Ms. Beckett: It’s a great example of an organization that is really strengthening the food system in Fredericton.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: Nice to see you all. I have a two-part question for all three organizations, and we have five minutes, so good luck.
Looking at your current suite of programs, how do you measure success when it comes to food security outcomes? If you had to prioritize one investment, infrastructure, or otherwise, that would have the greatest impact on food security in your region, what would that be? We will start with Mr. Onalik.
Mr. Onalik: The situation related to food security is dire. It is actually really hard, with all the factors impacting the food security situation in the three territories, to find a clear indicator of success in some ways. We spend a lot of time on what in other jurisdictions may look like very foundational investments, working with communities to plan and identify what would work for them, considering their unique infrastructure situation, wildlife situation and geography. We primarily look at how a community views success, and it looks quite different in each of the three territories.
Senator Sorensen: If there was one investment, infrastructure or otherwise, where would money be best spent to have the greatest impact on food security? I understand you may have a similar answer.
Mr. Onalik: It is similar, but there is a theme across all three territories, and it might seem a little bit counterintuitive. The price and availability of power are such a huge driver of the ability to deliver programming. In a previous life, I actually had a community store I had to put under administration in Nunavut. Our power bill was $40,000 a month before we even sold any food. So, power is a big one.
Senator Sorensen: Wow, thank you. That is an interesting answer. Ms. Petit?
Ms. Petit: In terms of impact, for us, what is very important is working very closely with partners in Nunavut. We don’t understand the reality. Before we launched the programs, I went to some communities. For me, it was eye-opening to be there in a community where you have a hotel but there is no restaurant. It is a different reality. You see the challenges they are facing.
Working very closely with them and having discussions about long-term projects. We discussed a project with a certain key player for the development in Nunavut. It’s looking at the impact and the long-term situation if we buy those kinds of equipment in the various communities. Who will make sure to keep them in working order and all that?
For us, it is working with a key partner and looking at the longer term. We have support project — a greenhouse — and now we’re moving to another stage because it has proven to work very well.
Mr. Boland: Thank you.
From an ACOA perspective, particularly looking at the Nunatsiavut region, the priority is understanding the community-driven priorities. As you are trying to bring things forward, it is just understanding and taking the time to work with the communities. The Nunatsiavut government is a close partner of ours with which we work to help understand the needs of their five communities. It is a five-community region and a bit different to understand how you do that. Then it’s taking our programs and working with them in a way that we find the flexibility that we can in our programs to try and make that work.
One of the big issues that continues to come up is the logistical infrastructure that will be required to ensure that we are getting supply chains up there. It’s an important thing. Community infrastructure, like freezers and greenhouses, is absolutely a priority, as well as some of those infrastructure pieces. Of course, there are always the capacity concerns in terms of a workforce on the ground to actually be able to work in those facilities that you establish.
Senator Sorensen: It is helpful that those are similar answers. You need to go to the communities. Thank you.
Senator McBean: The other committee I sit on is the Banking Committee. We are doing a study there on the access of SMEs to capital and credit. Ms. Petit, I heard a few things you said — your 10 projects that had a cost of $3 million ending up being a $5.9-million investment — and, Mr. Onalik, how you’re also charged with employment.
As much as we’re looking at food sustainability, we want regional sovereignty where communities are able to take care of themselves.
Yesterday, we also heard from the First Nations Bank of Canada, and we know there is farm credit, but I don’t know if farm credit helps in developing those areas, so it becomes BDC and other Crown corporations. What federal programs can better support small- and medium-sized agri-food businesses in the areas that you’re working in? Are there success stories going on, and are there areas that have gaps that should be bridged?
I’ll start with Ms. Petit.
[Translation]
Ms. Petit: First of all, as I mentioned earlier, we support economic development in various sectors. The agri-food sector is one of them. It is, after all, a very important sector in Quebec.
Earlier, when I mentioned about 10 projects totalling $3 million, I was referring specifically to the NICI fund. However, we have a variety of regular programs.
When it comes to investments, I recently had the opportunity to visit a number of businesses. I’m thinking of Gaspésie, which has faced some significant challenges in recent years. There’s been a decline in the shrimp industry, so, we supported the community in conducting studies and identifying other avenues. One of those avenues was redfish. Since then, we’ve supported small businesses in the region in making this transition and acquiring new equipment.
In addition, a company I visited a few years ago specialized in lobster. There were still some challenges with lobster, particularly regarding the impact of declining sales in China, which meant a smaller market. The company decided to diversify a bit by adding snow crab to its product line. As a result, they needed new equipment to diversify their production.
We are present and attentive to the needs of different regions. For my examples, I chose Gaspésie. Different regions face different realities. We have offices in various regions. We are attentive to the specific challenges that arise in each location. For our part, we have programs in place to support them.
[English]
Senator McBean: Thank you. I want to get to Mr. Onalik. Are there federal programs that you are using for assistance to capital and credit for these programs that are helpful? Do you find there is federal access?
Ms. Petit: For us, we are using grants and contributions — mostly contributions — for SMEs. We are working with the various partners to ensure that we are able to support the project with other partners; we are not alone. So, in the agri-food sector, we will work with other partners in the provincial sector, as well.
So, we have in our regular programming the capacity to support that.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
Mr. Onalik: At CanNor, we try to take an approach to be as flexible as possible with our grants and contributions. The interesting piece of the three territories is that the sustainable ideas that have come forward are really unique. The federal funding is not always designed, for example, to help sustain and grow our reindeer herd, but in the Inuit Nunangat region, that is seen as an incredibly important piece of the food-security puzzle.
We actually found that access to capital is not always a huge limiting factor. In tiny communities that are not connected by roads and that have very tricky supply lines, we spend a lot of time, actually, on working with proponents to deal with the underlying economics of some of these projects, helping to identify new markets that make these businesses more viable. It’s really that sort of flexibility.
With regard to the comments about capacity, you don’t necessarily know where communities will have these strong champions. As you all know, the people involved in this sector are incredibly passionate and incredibly hard-working, having to go above and beyond all the time. It’s really trying to match the capacity and the underlying economics.
Senator McBean: Can I interrupt you? Did you say you have no problem accessing capital?
Mr. Onalik: Not “no problem,” but it is not always the first order of magnitude. If we’re able to work with a company to increase their fundamental viability, they have access to a wider suite of both private and government funding programs. That is why we really focus on a lot of our nonrepayable contributions to help communities get to the level where they can access BDC funding or private capital.
Senator McBean: Okay, thank you.
Senator Hay: I’m going to move into a world I used to work in. First of all, thank you all for being here.
I was in Iqaluit two or three years ago in October with colleagues in the youth mental health space. We went into grocery stores and convenience stores and whatnot. First of all, just the incredible cost of goods, in general, was staggering. Then there’s the scarcity of fresh food available. The huge amount of highly processed foods at exorbitant costs would be, I suspect, stable. I saw that.
I also wondered how much these costs would be in January, February and March too with supply chain issues. We also did some work in Nunavik as well, and there is no question that food insecurity is a major determinant of health in general.
My question is about federal investment in innovations and new ways of providing regional, local food, such as growing pushes toward greenhouses and other ways to increase food sustainability. In your opinion, what is promising, what is scalable, and what will have real impact? There is a shiny gadget, and if we do this, it will be phenomenal. But what is real in there?
Mr. Onalik: Thank you for that. This is so complex. In a previous role, I was the supervisor of co-ops for the Government of Nunavut. All the community co-ops and food retailers had to submit their audited financial statements every year. This is not a sector where the companies are making a huge profit, and it is hard in that environment to really look at addressing some of these costs. There are so many factors, and I keep coming back to power. The cost of power and the availability of power are incredibly challenging in all three territories.
We had the coldest winter in the Yukon this year. The grid there came within 2% of collapse, so operating in an environment like that is really tough. Honestly, when we tried to influence both price and availability, it hasn’t necessarily had a huge impact.
I keep coming back to that straight line between the rate of food insecurity and median income. They’re directly related, so we can try to address some of the cost issues, but fundamentally, until we’re able to get more income into the hands of families so they can afford some of the food, a lot of this is for naught.
There is a real exciting opportunity when it comes to the Arctic. The recent announcements around projects of national interest will see employment levels at much higher levels than before. But one of the tricky secrets of the three territories that we struggle with is that there’s actually a huge labour shortage.
Something that CanNor is proud of is that we spend a lot of time helping to prepare people for the 5,000 vacant jobs that exist in the three territories. In my mind — and there are smarter people than me working on this — focusing on income is the fastest way to address food insecurity.
When you start mixing the levers of cost and profitability when it comes to private or community-owned businesses, you end up with a lot of unintended consequences.
The Chair: I see people scratching questions off their list. That was great testimony.
Senator Burey: We have such a great group of senators that we keep adding to what the previous speaker asked about.
We are trying to get at that wicked and knotty complex issue that, with all this economic development, what are the impacts? What are the outcomes? How can we measure it? All those kind of things that, as you say, are extremely complex issues to tease out.
Over the time that all of you have been in your current jobs, maybe even a five-year span, if you know that much, what about the social cohesion piece of this? For economic development — you may not have measurable numbers — can you give us a sense of that piece, which is a really important piece?
Mr. Onalik: That is such an important angle to this.
As I said before, the level of passion and dedication required to advance these systems and businesses has to feel appropriate and impactful to community members. That is something we struggle with, to be honest. Looking at some of the options that have come forward, like sea-can greenhouses, for example. In my hometown of Rankin Inlet, we don’t sit around saying, “I wish I had more kale.” Gaining better access to food, but food that people culturally want to eat is really tricky.
Especially in an environment where most Inuit communities and Indigenous communities are reliant on caribou — and we have seen the caribou population decline — how do you maximize those opportunities to allow communities to have access to the food they want? It’s tricky.
We’ve seen success in places like the Inuvialuit region, and it’s really the community trying to find their own solutions in a way that just isn’t necessarily obvious in other parts of the country.
Torrine Johnson, Acting Vice-President, Pan-Territorial Operations, Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency: Thank you for the opportunity and giving me a chance to speak. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here. I’m speaking from Whitehorse, Yukon. I work with CanNor. I’m a vice-president. With regard to the question about social cohesion, Jimmy answered it in a good way, and there is not much more to add. We’ve had a lot of the projects over the years, like community freezers, cut-and-wrap facilities and grocery stores. We have a whole suite of programs that support all of these activities. The biggest impact that we have had is actually working with the communities in a holistic and intentional way.
To put more weight on the territories, some of these projects are being innovated by the communities and are very community driven. One of the biggest successes is having a community-driven and community-run program. They are developing creative, place-based solutions that respond to northern conditions.
I just wanted to add that last piece. Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Mr. Boland: When you speak of the social cohesion part behind social development, you can’t overstate how important that is in rural and remote communities. The leadership can come from all parts of the community, but also the passion that you speak of to drive projects forward. In communities where that’s present, and where that’s a driving force, that’s where our job as economic development agencies with the Government of Canada is a lot easier because you have people who are willing to drive things forward and actually get creative at the community level.
That’s where you see a lot of innovation take place. Whereas if that’s lacking, you can invest as much as you want and are really never going to get traction and see the results that you want to see.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much.
The Chair: I want to pivot a bit here and ask a question. I want to focus on aquaculture. We know it is the fastest growing food sector, and it is a vital pillar of Canada’s food security.
We have seen some divergence in regulation, policy and licensing when you look at the West Coast, in particular, in comparison to the East Coast. We have aquaculture across the country, but more specifically, we’re speaking about that stark divergence in policy.
In Atlantic Canada, we’ve seen support like the recent $473,000 that was invested in innovation within the Atlantic Canada Fish Farmers Association. I had to look at what that was called; I had the acronym. Then, on the West Coast, we see this total ban of open net pen salmon farming by 2029.
I have heard the concern that we’re scaring away investment that is incredibly innovative and impressive that would be a significant contributor to the issue of food security. When we look at the patchwork of regulations across the country, it causes me a lot of concern. We’re talking about how we improve our food security when we’re driving away this potential source of amazing protein and something that I see as also being that economic driver in many First Nations rural communities, particularly in Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, where we’re big aquaculture people.
How does ACOA reconcile this? Is ACOA in discussions with DFO about this? I ask because I understand that we have this sense of the tide moving from the West Coast to the East Coast on regulations and the concern that causes.
Mr. Boland: I’ll let DFO speak to the regulations on the West Coast. On the East Coast, regulations and licensing are at the provincial level. As long as that is the case, we will continue to work with our provincial partners, but also the companies and communities that are built up around aquaculture. You’re right. It is a driving force, in particular, in rural parts of Atlantic Canada, which is great to see in terms of where you can see that growth. Aquaculture is a big part of the economy. There is a lot of growth there. We continue to see investment. We continue to see companies like Cooke Aquaculture out of New Brunswick with a presence throughout Atlantic Canada continuing to invest and grow.
We see that in Newfoundland and Labrador and parts of P.E.I. as well. It is something that gets raised in terms of the difference between the East Coast and the West Coast, but we continue to see investment and growth. For communities that are in areas where aquaculture is present and growing, we continue to see a lot of support based on the economic opportunities it creates.
The Chair: Is there a difference in how licensing is regulated on the East Coast compared to the West Coast?
Mr. Boland: You are getting into an area where I do not have a very high level of expertise, so I would suggest that DFO would be the best one to speak to. My understanding is that on the East Coast there is more of a provincial role.
Ms. Beckett: That is my understanding as well. We work closely with the provincial department in Newfoundland and Labrador when we make investments in the agriculture sector. So they do have a role in licensing, but DFO would be the experts on the full regulatory environment there.
The Chair: As agents for the ACOA, do you ever get involved in helping sectors like aquaculture folks to resource them to address this issue? It is definitely a concern from an opportunities perspective that we might see this same kind of regulatory deterrence of investment. Is there a role for ACOA in this?
Mr. Boland: There isn’t in terms of advocacy on that issue. We would focus our investments with some of the companies that are looking to invest here and to ensure that they understand that the federal government is here to invest in the projects to help move them forward.
We also take the opportunity, in partnership with the Atlantic provinces, through our Atlantic trade and investment initiative, to be able to support initiatives like the Boston seafood show recently, where you had a lot of aquaculture companies to be able to promote their product and to be there in support of them as well. That goes a long way in demonstrating our support for the sector on the East Coast.
The Chair: I have more questions, but I want everyone to know I am stopping on time. We will go to second round now.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you again. We have consistently heard that food security challenges vary significantly by community but are led by community. I am really intrigued by this. It is really important for the report — we’re studying many areas — that we hear things like that the biggest challenge is power and that success is partnership with community. Other regions would say different words. I want to see the words “reindeer herd” and “caribou.” I want you to know how important this testimony is and that we recognize it is different. Our three northern senators, consistently, in committee or in the chamber, will try to elaborate to the rest of us how different the world is than the one I live in, and I think most of us in the room today live in.
So the education we receive from these organizations is imperative to try and help us to understand.
My question is this: How effectively are federal regional development agencies coordinating with communities and your organizations to engage directly with you and the community to try to be as effective as possible?
I’m trying to figure if, when the feds are involved with the northern regions, are the people on the ground there getting it?
Mr. Onalik: That is such an important point. One of the things we’ve had to do as a relatively new organization is primarily — and this sounds like a tiny thing — to have people in the community a lot.
We just signed off on our travel plan, and these are expensive places to go. They are difficult places to get to. But it is really important to have people on the ground who are listening. Then those employees at CanNor are asked to listen but are also given program flexibility to do the weird things that come up when you often go to communities.
What has really been helpful for CanNor — not only related to food but to other things as well — is that our main programs have an incredible amount of flexibility to fund things that perhaps another RDA might not look at. We spend a lot of time on very foundational planning and studies in order to empower communities that way.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Stephen Traynor, Vice-President, Policy, Planning and Northern Projects Management Office, Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency: If I could speak to that point, in a lot of our programming, we listen first and then find the solution to help you get to where you’re going. What is your idea? As opposed to saying, here is our program, make sure you hit all the buzzwords, and then we’ll see where it fits in. It is about the idea first. What program do we have that fits in? We have the IDEANorth program, which is broad and flexible. We have other smaller boutique ones, like our Northern Isolated Community Initiatives. So it’s about the idea first and finding the solution and the best fit for the funding program to match.
If that helps incentivize you to be able to develop your business case, as the president has said, to get further funds from someone else in a bigger program, that’s where we also have impact. If you want to get here, sometimes the capacity isn’t in the North, and you need to be able to develop the business case to think and get the pieces to be able to leverage the other money as well.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Ms. Petit: As was said, it’s very important to work with partners on the ground and go there with a dedicated team. I say that because we cover the whole government, but we go into the various communities. Since we put in place the Northern Isolated Community Initiatives, or NICI, program in 2024, we have regular meetings with senior management to discuss projects, saying, okay, what do you have in mind? How can it fit? Does it fit in that program? Maybe we can do it in our regular programming and take the time to work with them to develop the project sometime. It’s a really a co-development approach that we need to have.
Senator Sorensen: Travelling to these places is expensive. I know that Senate committees try. You defined your experience from another life. I know there is a group up in the Arctic right now. I tried to get myself up to Hyder by this summer, but I gave up. But I am going to the Yukon, so it’s important that we experience them, and I encourage senators to get to these places.
Senator McBean: I was in Whitehorse last month for the Arctic Winter Games.
[Translation]
Ms. Petit, could you tell us more about the greenhouse project you mentioned that is currently under way?
[English]
Maybe you could provide some more details, because it is one of those projects that works so well.
Ms. Petit: When I went to Inukjuak two years ago, they were already working. We had approved a project for a greenhouse, but they had built a small one just to ensure that everything was working well and to ensure its success. I had the chance to visit that tiny greenhouse before they started building a bigger one. Things are going very well, and now they want to add some educational aspects, like cooking classes, to this greenhouse project, so it keeps growing to provide more support to the community. The various partners in the community are involved in the project, ensuring its success moving forward.
If you want more details, I would be happy to provide that in writing. I have so many projects, and I know about some of that project, but we will be happy to provide more detail to the committee in writing.
Senator McBean: That would be wonderful. Information about its inception and how it is growing as well as its possibilities of even stepping up in the future would be wonderful. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, everybody. As you could see, we could go on for quite some time. I’m really pleased about that because I appreciate how difficult it is for people to get here, and I appreciate you making the effort to be here. Sorry, Ms. Johnson, that you are not here. We did hear from Senator Pat Duncan at our last meeting, and I know we all have the utmost respect for what it means for our senators, particularly from the North and the West Coast, to travel so far every week that we sit. So thank you so much for being here and for all the effort and work you put into your presentation and answering questions today. It is so important to inform the report.
(The committee adjourned.)