THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 21, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 6:33 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on the role of the agriculture and agri-food sector with regard to food security in Canada; and, in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
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 and our witnesses, as well as 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 for today, I would like to start by asking the senators around the table to introduce themselves, and I will start with our deputy chair.
Senator McNair: Welcome. John McNair from the province of New Brunswick.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, Ontario.
Senator Black: Robert Black, Ontario.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Saskatchewan and Treaty 6 territory.
The Chair: Thank you all.
I would like to ask all senators to consult the cards on the table for quick guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. I would also like to remind 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 agriculture and agri-food with regard to food security in Canada. We have the pleasure of welcoming Tyler Groeneveld, Chief Executive Officer, Protein Industries Canada, and he is joining us online. From Food Link Society, we welcome Zahra Haeri, Board Member and Ali Haeri, Treasurer, who join us online. Third, from the BC Agriculture Council, we welcome Paul Pryce, Director of Policy and Government Relations. 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. I will signal that your time is running out by catching your eye when you have got one minute left and then cutting you off abruptly when you have hit the five-minute mark. The floor is now yours, Tyler.
Tyler Groeneveld, Chief Executive Officer, Protein Industries Canada: Good evening, Madam Chair and honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Tyler Groeneveld, and I am here on behalf of Protein Industries Canada, an industry-led innovation cluster focused on growing Canada’s food production and value-added agriculture sector.
Canada is experiencing a profound economic transition. Global instability, rising protectionism and fragile supply chains are reshaping how countries think about resilience and security. In that context, food is not just an agricultural issue. It is an economic and strategic one. Canada has a clear advantage in that we grow diverse, carbon positive, northern hemisphere crops. But too often, we export them as raw commodities and allow other countries to capture the value that comes next: processing, manufacturing, jobs and innovation.
That model is increasingly a vulnerability.
Food security is not only about how much we produce. It is about whether we can process, manufacture and supply food on our own terms. This is the “missing middle” in our system. The gap between primary agriculture and finished food products. Closing that gap is one of the most practical ways Canada can strengthen food security. Processing changes the equation. A ton of Canadian crops sold as a raw commodity has one value. That same ton, when processed into ingredients — like protein, fibre and starch — can generate up to ten times the economic value while also creating domestic supply, jobs and resilience.
This is not theoretical. Food and beverage manufacturing is already Canada’s largest manufacturing sector, generating over $160 billion annually. But we are under-leveraging it. Our current levels of food and beverage processing use only a small portion of our crops, limiting economic benefits and food security opportunities for Canada.
Building on the sector’s potential by strengthening domestic processing capacity would directly support the objectives of this committee’s study. First, it improves food security by shortening supply chains and reducing reliance on imported finished goods. Second, it enables more regionally distributed production, bringing processing closer to Canadian communities. Third, it strengthens resilience against trade and tariff disruptions by diversifying how and where food is produced and manufactured. And, fourth, it creates economic opportunity by anchoring more value locally. The opportunity is significant. By scaling value‑added agriculture, Canada could generate up to $42 billion annually in new economic activity and create thousands of jobs. But it is not happening at the pace it could.
The core barriers are well understood. There is a capital gap for mid-scale processing facilities. Many projects require $50 million to $300 million in investment and struggle to secure lead financing. Regulatory timelines are often longer and less predictable than in competing jurisdictions, and existing federal programs are not always well designed for first-of-kind food and ingredient manufacturing.
In short, we have the supply. We see domestic and global demand for ingredients from our crops. We have companies with the ambition to scale, but they cannot do it alone. What we are missing is the coordinated effort to scale. However, there are practical steps the federal government can take. In the near term, we can make use of existing tools, adjusting program criteria, enabling stacking of supports and improving regulatory timelines.
In the medium term, targeted measures, such as dedicated streams for food and ingredient manufacturing and expanded access to risk-tolerant capital, can help close the “missing middle.” Over the longer term, Canada can treat food and ingredient manufacturing as what it is: a strategic national industry on par with energy and critical minerals, supported by investment tax credits, modernized regulation and coordinated policy.
This is ultimately about positioning Canada for the future. In a world where supply chains are frequently disrupted, countries that can produce, process and supply goods domestically will be more secure and more competitive.
Canada has everything it needs to lead. The question is whether we choose to capture the opportunity. We grow it here. We should make it here.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Perfectly timed. Thank you very much, Tyler. Next, we will go to Ms. Haeri, who is here in the room with us, from Food Link Society. Thank you.
Zahra Haeri, Board Member, Food Link Society: Good evening, chair and honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. And a special thank you to the Honourable Senator Yonah Martin for giving Food Link Society the opportunity of being here today.
My name is Zahra Haeri. I am an Engineering Group Manager at General Motors Canada and a volunteer board member at Food Link Society.
In my professional role, I work on propulsion thermal management of electric vehicles. Outside of that work, my volunteer role exposes me to a very different kind of environmental problem, one that directly affects food security across Canada.
Canada does not have a food shortage problem. We have a distribution and coordination problem. Every day, large volumes of perfectly fine food are lost, not because it isn’t needed, but because it is not moved in time to where it is needed most.
At Food Link Society, we have built a practical, working solution to this problem.
We operate across 11 cities, 26 distribution sites and have more than 400 volunteers. In 2025 alone, we rescued over 2.5 million pounds of food, delivered 1.8 million meals, supported more than 184,000 food access visits and prevented over 6 million pounds of CO2 emissions. Last year, we redistributed over $11 million worth of food and in-kind support into the community, while operating on less than $600,000 in total revenue.
This work has led to Food Link Society being recognized by United Way BC as the largest food recovery organization in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.
This is not a pilot. This is a functioning system.
What it demonstrates is simple: This is not a supply issue. It is an infrastructure issue. We already have the food. We already have the demand. What’s missing is the system that connects the two efficiently, reliably and at scale.
Food Link Society focuses on what is often overlooked — the last mile. The final step that ensures food actually reaches people.
We not only serve individuals and families directly, but also supply food to other charities, community organizations and churches, strengthening their capacity and expanding the reach of the entire system. We also distribute food directly through community settings, such as affordable housing and schools, reaching people earlier and helping reduce reliance on emergency food services. In doing so, we help reduce pressure on food banks and front-line services.
We work closely with national partners like Second Harvest, and we were honoured to receive their Frontline Impact Award in British Columbia.
This reflects strong collaboration across the sector, but it also highlights a gap. There is currently no clear and consistent funding pathway to support local, last-mile food recovery infrastructure, even though this is where the impact is delivered. As a result, the system remains fragmented, reactive and more costly than it needs to be.
What we are demonstrating is a complementary approach. We recover surplus food in real time, move it quickly through local networks and deliver it efficiently into communities. We are not creating supply. We are unlocking it.
Food banks and charities play a critical role, but they largely operate downstream, responding to need. Food recovery infrastructure, however, operates upstream by preventing waste before it happens, improving food quality and consistency, and strengthening the entire system.
The opportunity in Canada is not to replace what exists, but to strengthen it by filling the gaps and missing layer, which is a coordinated, well-supported last-mile infrastructure.
So our recommendations are, first, to establish a dedicated federal fund for food recovery infrastructure. Second, ensure funding models include direct support for local, last-mile delivery organizations. Third, integrate food recovery into national strategies across food security, climate and supply chain policy. Because this is not only about food access; it is also about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving system efficiency and making better use of resources we already have.
We are not here to ask for support for one organization. We are here to demonstrate that a better system already exists and that it can be scaled. We already have the food. We already have the demand and capacity. We’ve built the last‑mile infrastructure. What we need right now is a system that recognizes and supports it. Thank you.
The Chair: Again, perfectly timed. Thank you. No pressure on you, Mr. Pryce. We have you up next.
Paul Pryce, Director of Policy and Government Relations, BC Agriculture Council: Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to address you today. Although the day is still quite young here on the West Coast, I understand it has already been a very full day for you there, so I will try to keep my comments brief.
My name is Paul Pryce, and I have the pleasure of serving as Director of Policy and Government Relations at BC Agriculture Council, or BCAC.
Our organization is comprised of 29 distinct commodity groups from across British Columbia, through which we represent about 20,000 farm families, producing 96% of the farm gate sales in the province. I should also note that we are, in turn, a member of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, or CFA.
Geopolitical tensions and disruptions to international trade have brought the topic of food security to the front of mind for many Canadians, if it ever left their thoughts after the COVID-19 pandemic. In British Columbia, the importance of this issue has been keenly felt, as repeated severe flood events have affected hundreds of farms and threatened to cut off access to the Port of Vancouver. Although the flooding this past December was not as severe, the 2021 floods saw 1,400 farms impacted, encompassing 15,000 hectares of some of the most productive farmland in the country.
We believe that food security begins with farmers. When farmers are safe and have the support they need to do whatever it is they need to do, they are able to overcome any challenges that might be thrown at them to produce the exceptional goods that Canadians enjoy.
Too often, however, farmers must produce these goods while also fulfilling an ever-growing and sometimes conflicting list of regulatory requirements. Different levels of government may have the best of intentions and, understandably, wish to show that they are safeguarding the interests of their constituents. But if food security is one of the top concerns for Canadians, then we believe it is important to return to the fundamental question: What is the purpose of farming? Is the purpose of farming to feed Canadians, or are there other considerations that should take priority?
If farming is indeed critical to food security, as we at BCAC believe, then there are a few tangible steps that governments can take. One is to recognize agriculture as an essential service. Another is to recognize farms as critical infrastructure.
To be clear, we do not wish for our sector to be designated as an essential service for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act. We don’t want to see anyone’s right to strike restricted.
However, in Canada’s National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure, farms were recognized as critical infrastructure. Public Safety Canada, in its Guidance on Essential Services and Functions in Canada During the COVID-19 Pandemic, listed agriculture as an essential service. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, also lists agriculture and agri-food as an essential service for the purposes of determining which applications to prioritize. For what it’s worth, the Government of B.C. also recognized agriculture as an essential service during the pandemic, and a recent provincial task force established by Premier David Eby acknowledged that agriculture provides an essential service.
Recognition of this status in terms of policies and programs does not mean exempting farmers from all the rules for all time. After all, during COVID-19 restrictions, farmers were still required to follow public health orders.
What it means, however, is shifting our mindset toward removing as many obstacles as possible so that farmers have a clear path to success or even, in some situations, to survival. For example, in B.C., farmers have historically been required to evacuate from their farms in disaster situations even when it may be safer for them to shelter in place.
Recognizing farms as critical infrastructure and farmers as essential services means finding a path to reconcile existing laws with the need to allow some farmers to stay where they are if it’s safest. Failing to make that recognition means preserving a one‑size-fits-all solution — one that is bureaucratically clean but is oftentimes messy in its implementation.
We hope that the committee’s report can advance this recommendation to call on the Government of Canada and other levels of government to recognize agriculture as an essential service.
I look forward to answering any questions the committee members may have.
Thank you once again, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Paul. You won. You came in under the five-minute mark.
Thank you very much to all our presenters. We will now proceed to questions from senators. Senators will each have five minutes, and that does include their questions and your answers. We will first go to our deputy chair, Senator McNair.
Senator McNair: Congratulations to the witnesses tonight on being so tight on timing. I think this was a record as far as having people cross the line just at the right time.
My question is for Mr. Groeneveld. My understanding is that Protein Industries Canada, or PIC, is one of Canada’s five Global Innovation Clusters, and in a news release on February 25 of this year, PIC announced the Strengthening the Canadian Supply Chain Program to help Canadian companies remain competitive in the wake of global trade uncertainties. My understanding is a total of $1.7 million has been invested in nine projects from B.C. to Quebec, with PIC committing $1.3 million and the companies committing the remainder.
Could you advise how the nine companies were selected for this initiative, and how might this initiative increase food production and value-added agriculture in Canada? I’m also curious on your opinion on how $1.7 million in funding is sufficient to help Canadian companies remain competitive and deal with supply chain issues.
Mr. Groeneveld: Thank you for the question, senator. Strengthening the Canadian Supply Chain Program was a program Protein Industries Canada put in place for Canadian food manufacturers to take a look at their ingredient panel and, really, take a look at where the ingredients they use in their consumer-facing products originated from.
The money we have invested helped these 13 companies so far. We have put out two different intake opportunities for companies to come to us and say, look, we recognize there are ingredients that we are using that we’re importing from other countries — often the U.S. but as far away as India — in a recent announcement we just had. So we’re helping them look for Canadian-made ingredients and helping them reformulate their ingredient panels. They don’t want to change the taste or texture. They want broad consumer appeal. If we can use Canadian cereals or pulses or whatever the ingredient may be that they are trying to replace, then there is very important and expensive research that needs to be completed in order to assess whether you still have the functionality, the nutrition, everything that you require in the promise that they make to consumers.
This is just the beginning. Fortunately, these companies have identified their needs. We have an independent project selection committee that takes a look and says yes, there is an opportunity, and we help those companies co-invest. So they must invest, and we also contribute significant funds in the expensive reformulation, testing and all the analytical work that they need to do.
So this is just the beginning. I think that $1.7 million that we have invested was money exceptionally well spent when there are 13 companies now across the country that are using more Canadian ingredients. This is, by definition, food security by strengthening supply chains. So I believe that if we continue this type of program, we would continue to find more opportunities and more companies, recognizing that there may be Canadian ingredients that they are just not aware of.
Senator McNair: Thank you for that. Congratulations on the success so far. What further support is needed from the federal government to help Canadian manufacturers and processors create or reformulate products for the Canadian market using home-grown ingredients?
Mr. Groeneveld: This is what we call capacity-building dollars that we use to invest here, senator. We, unfortunately, do not have an endless supply of funds to help Canadian industry, but we are back now working — this is a national opportunity, as you highlighted. We continue to seek the types of funds so we can undertake projects like the Strengthening the Canadian Supply Chain Program. This type of program and programs in addition to that, like unlocking growth capital that I highlighted in my announcement or looking for opportunities to really close the gaps for companies that are very well cash-flow positive but have opportunities to build more and produce more in Canada. That’s the opportunity, and it requires long-term funding.
That’s why I advocate that this needs to be a national priority sector for the country aligned with critical minerals and energy.
Senator McNair: Thank you for that.
Senator Muggli: Thank you to the witnesses for being here. My first question is for Mr. Groeneveld. Just going on your “grow it here, make it here,” comment, I wonder if there are themes regarding particular products where there has been processing advancement. Are there any themes in terms of what kinds of products are being processed here or success stories you can tell us about?
Mr. Groeneveld: I think the leading success story, senator, is the Canadian canola industry, and that’s a crop that has come along in the last 50 years. Let’s use that. It seems like a long time, but in the history of Canada and our agricultural production, it is relatively young — 75% to 80% of the canola we grow in Canada, we do some initial processing by crushing that crop into oil and canola meal, which is protein and fibre. But the opportunities are there to look at these other crops. It was in the 1800s that the first country elevator was built outside of Winnipeg. But we have a long history of growing it. You aggregate it into an elevator and put it on a train and send it to port, and you send that raw commodity around the world.
Outside of canola, I would say that just about every other crop we grow across the country — some of them are very scalable crops from the Prairies, but there are also very valuable crops in central Canada, Atlantic Canada and B.C. that we can add incremental value. But we need to start quick — in addition to shipping commodities around the world, which we always will given the abundance of what we produce, making it here is saying let’s take a percentage of that and look for value-added opportunities to generate significant economic value here that we have traditionally allowed other areas of the world to capture.
Senator Muggli: Just as an example, what would it take to stand up a pasta-processing plant?
Mr. Groeneveld: Great example. Isn’t that ironic? We grow 5 million acres of durum wheat that becomes pasta, and aside from a few small plants, we ship most of it to the U.S. or Italy or it goes to North Africa into couscous. We import back from the U.S. and Italy a lot of pasta that we consume, and that is a concern. We’re vulnerable there. We do not have the ability to process it here, so when we do have that 1-in-100-year crop failure, we are not solving for our own problems first. We are shipping it somewhere else and it is coming back.
What is required is that we need to recognize that capital — and we talk about stacking programs. The Government of Saskatchewan and the federal government can create a strong economic environment for a company to build in southern Saskatchewan. Let’s build where the crop is grown and create the semolina that turns into pasta. It just requires stacked programs that give industry the incentive to build it here versus export it there and then bring it home and often at a much higher cost than if we did all that work ourselves.
Senator Muggli: Okay. I had a couple of questions also for Ms. Haeri. Where does most of the rescued food come from?
Ms. Haeri: [Technical difficulties] grocery stores, and we gather the surplus food there. We built a network through Reliance, Food Basics, and there are different areas that we go gather food depending on what type of relationship we have with the stores. We are reputable, and people trust us now because we operate on time. We gather surplus food. These are foods that are before their best before date. Chain grocery stores and big grocery stores usually throw out food before the best before date. This is perfectly fine food. We go gather those for free and distribute it through a different place.
Senator Muggli: Are you gathering any of it from producers that are maybe unable to sell excess production?
Ms. Haeri: No, from grocery stores.
Senator Muggli: You talked about infrastructure. What kind of infrastructure is required? Are you talking about coolers and things such as that.
Ms. Haeri: Exactly. There are three main things: the refrigerated transportation; cold storage, and, potentially, reliable, stable funding that we could rely on to operate.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
Ms. Haeri: No problem.
Senator Black: My question is for the Food Link Society. We were in Toronto a few weeks ago, and we met with an organization similar to yours.
Are you learning and collaborating with similar like-minded organizations across the country? Is there some sort of dialogue between you?
Ms. Haeri: We have very close collaboration with a lot of different industries. For instance, this is not a food recovery. Second Harvest is one of the biggest food banks that we have.
We had our team in Toronto visit their facility last year and have a talk and see how we can potentially help for increasing our scope of impact. Also, we won the Frontline Impact Award from Second Harvest, which shows that close collaboration.
But regardless of how closely we work with similar organizations like ourselves, we still have a gap. One thing our organization does — and I believe it is innovative in avoiding food waste — is that currently, we do not rely on storage or anything. We distribute it in real time.
So we have a solution. We just need to scale it larger, and for that, we need your help. But, yes, we do collaborate closely, and we learn from them.
Senator Black: Mr. Pryce, what, in your mind, would be investments that would most strengthen Canada’s food system?
Mr. Pryce: Thank you, Senator Black, for the question, and thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to respond.
I would say that strategic investments through the Next Policy Framework would be the key priority. It is important even in this period of fiscal restraint that the Next Policy Framework, the NPF, includes significant commitments into business risk management but also innovation. No farmer wants to see their crops devastated by a disaster and then looks to have a paycheque from the government. It is imperative that we have the opportunity to innovate and prevent those risks and proactively manage them. So a commitment to innovation and research is integral to achieving that outcome.
I hope that responds to the question, senator.
Senator Black: My last question is to Mr. Groeneveld. Good evening. It’s nice to see you.
If you had the opportunity to put pen to paper, what one or two recommendations would you provide for this committee when they finalize their report?
Mr. Groeneveld: Thank you for the question. Food production and value-added agriculture need to be a national priority sector. The reason I say that is critical minerals, energy, auto, housing, defence, we don’t argue with that, but the problem is capital flows to the national priorities because it means the government is committed to those sectors long term. Right now, agriculture and food production qualify, but it seldom gets invested in because it could change. That’s why we need to elevate this national priority and have dedicated equity and funds that help companies build green field facilities and help companies scale that are cash-flow positive. We can do it coast to coast. This is a national opportunity.
Senator Black: That is what I hoped you would say. Thank you.
The Chair: I had a question for Zahra or Ali.
Looking at all levels of government — federal, provincial, territorial and municipal — what could governments do to enhance food access with broader social programs in communities throughout Canada? What could governments do to help the work you are doing, to make it easier? Are there tax credits? What ideas do you have?
Ms. Haeri: I can answer this, and then Ali can chime in with any additional points.
We are a food recovery distributor, and we are working upstream. We gather surplus food and redistribute it, making the whole system more efficient. However, we need to be recognized as essential infrastructure and ensure there are funding models for us that we can apply and get. That’s where one of my asks for stable, predictable funding is.
Usually, wherever we go, we are not under the category that covers us if we want to apply for any source of government funding. However, we are addressing three national issues, which are: food security, climate change and supply-chain efficiency.
That would be my ask, to be known as essential infrastructure and having funding models in place to help us work on the last mile.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ali Haeri, Treasurer, Food Link Society: I want to add something to whatever Zahra said on the previous question about where the food is coming from. Most of the food is coming through the warehouses. If you have seen the presentation that Zahra provided, the pallets of apples are only past their time, so a store is not accepting them because, in terms of the store, they don’t have enough shelf life. Still, the apples are great. They are very strong and nutritious. We get pallets of food and give it to schools, and students get nutritious food on their tables.
The others are coming through the farms and warehouses. Those are the two other main sources of food we are getting.
To answer your other question, Senator Robinson, the last funds we got from the government were from the Local Food Infrastructure Fund, and it was in 2023. We bought one reefer truck through the cost-sharing fund. After that, we could not get anything because there was no open grant or funding or anything for food recovery charities and organizations. It happened to provincial and federal, both of them.
I don’t want to say that they ignore us, but someone didn’t see us, meaning that we are not visible. That is why we are telling the honourable senators sitting here that this is the area that was missed in Canada. We have a huge amount of resources. I’m pretty sure, because you are in agriculture and you are experts in that, $50 billion is the amount of avoidable food cost that we can avoid. With that one, we can feed all Canadians for six months for free. It means that nobody needs to have any food. We only need to save the avoidable food waste happening in Canada.
That’s the thing Zahra is mentioning. They only see us as doing something that we should do and bring it back and at least help people in need. I am not talking about people with high incomes. We have a lot of people with low incomes and food banks that are stretching a lot. This is the way we can help them without investing too much. Only if there is a reefer truck, pick it up and drop it off. Our model is a volunteer-based model.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here. I just wanted to ask a question about the investments that all the witnesses are suggesting, whether it is from the value-added chain, infrastructure, and into things like the Food Link Society. Can you speak about how this would improve affordability and access to healthy and nutritious food?
Ms. Haeri: For us, it is a very clear way to access it. As I mentioned before, we have 26 distribution centres across 11 cities. We collect the food and gather everything.
It can be people with low income. It can be a variety of different people. It can be single mothers, immigrants, or people at a shelter. We help the food banks. We give access. Our model helps people before they become reliant on emergency food services, so it is very reliable. It brings consistency to the families. That’s how we give them access to food.
For us, our day-to-day model, as Ali mentioned, is to go to the grocery stores we work with, gather the food and then distribute it. One of the examples we shared with the Senate in the one‑pager is that we get tons of pallets of perishable food that is still perfectly good to eat and that we can still distribute.
If I got your question right, it was how we’re giving families and others access to perishable food. That is how we work right now.
Senator Burey: They are not paying for this food?
Ms. Haeri: They are not paying for this food. We have systems in place to make sure they’re low income because the demand is high and we have limited capability right now based on our infrastructure. I mentioned we were running on less than $600,000 in revenue last year, but we also had a huge impact on how many families we worked with. Because we operate in B.C., we had about 184,000 food access visits in 2025 alone.
Mr. Haeri: Senator, can I add something to Zahra’s answer? When a store wants to dump a kind of apple, for example, they must pay the municipality for the green bin. Since we go pick up the nutritious and good parts of the food, they pay us a little money. That little money helps us run our fleet, but it is not enough. It is only covers us a little. But it is on a volunteer basis. Our rule is to not take any money from low-income people, so all the 184,000 food access visits are all free.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Mr. Groeneveld, did you have anything to add about how the investments in the value-added chain can improve affordability in Canada?
Mr. Groeneveld: Generally speaking, we create value-added ingredients. Ours, admittedly, is a longer-term play. Farmers make more money when there is more local processing. We see that in the canola industry, where they get 50 cents to $1 more per bushel, which is about $20 per acre. Some of the companies we’ve funded that are buying peas or fava beans are paying up to 28% more to growers than the companies that are trying to export that as a raw commodity. It improves on-farm profitability, builds locally in communities from coast to coast, creates jobs and significant economic activity, so the follow-on benefits are significant. But generally speaking, I think the opportunities are to create a more food-secure supply chain for Canada, and those opportunities are not as directly correlated, in the short term, to improving the cost of goods on supermarket shelves.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: Mr. Groeneveld, I just wondered if you could give some examples or thoughts on what kinds of incentives could support industry food processing. Are there some examples you could give us of what sort of incentive would actually move that forward?
Mr. Groeneveld: I would argue that we have adequate venture capital and early-stage funding in Canada. It is that lead equity that companies need. They need a company to lead. That will require more risk-taking. Nobody has asked about the $5 billion that Farm Credit Canada, or FCC, announced, and that’s wonderful news. The promise is wonderful, but we would like to see a percentage of that with a larger risk profile than the FCC is investing. That would be one.
In critical minerals and mining development, there is a long history of programs, like flow-through shares and tax incentives. Food production and value-added agriculture have never qualified for that because we are not talking at the scale of $1 billion. We are talking in $30 million to $300 million, as I mentioned. We need to have smaller cheques that create significant economic opportunities available. We have existing programs in other priority sectors, so it is just a matter of almost scrubbing those same programs, including this and bringing down the hurdles. The minimum $100-million investments that Canada Infrastructure Bank will make, that is generally beyond many of the projects that the value-added agriculture and food production industry is looking for.
Senator Muggli: What ministry is this best situated in, those kinds of incentives?
Mr. Groeneveld: I would say that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, has been a wonderful partner of ours. They have the Strategic Response Fund, so there are funds there. Regarding Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, FCC is a Crown corporation under that and the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I’m trying to think but the ministry is slipping away from me, senator.
All of these groups have capital. We are not looking for more money in government. We are asking for access to existing funds and capital that is already in the government and to allow our sector to qualify for it.
We grow a crop every year, and we are the most carbon‑friendly crops globally. The timeline for us to do this will be much shorter than it would be to build roads and dig mines or pipelines to the West Coast or back to the U.S. We can do it quickly because we already grow the crop, so the economic opportunities are much shorter for the Government of Canada and for taxpayers.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Groeneveld, I had a question building on that, I think. In your opening remarks, you talked about regulations and where they put us in a competitive nature. I was wondering if you could help us understand when we look at competing nations — I assume you meant on an international scale. Where does Canada sit in our ability — are we viewed as a friendly place to invest and come in and start processing and value adding?
Mr. Groeneveld: That’s a good question.
We have a stable government and a very reliable regulatory system. We produce, arguably, the most sustainable crops globally, so there are lots of reasons to invest. But it’s the uncertainty in the regulatory timeline.
We have some companies that are in southern Saskatchewan that are built in North Dakota. We have a company that we work with on derisking innovation in southern Alberta that has Montana saying, “We have the sate, municipal and federal government in the U.S. Here is a package.” It is all together. “This is what we build, and this is what we’re going to do.” In Canada, we have to go through federal, provincial and municipal hurdles. We just don’t have that coordination that is required.
I think the second part of it is that when you get further down the processing chain — and a recent example is that we are trying to help complete a study about real nutritional benefits looking at improving Type 2 diabetes and the risk factors associated with that while trying to use plant-based foods. The trouble is Canada does not have plant-based foods to do the multi-facility regulated trials. It is done by professionals. We can import American goods to do the trial, but we cannot because one of the ingredients, monk fruit, is approved as a sweetener on the table, but when you put it in a plant-based alternative for a food study, we are subjected to delays and arguments that I believe we will win in the due course of time. But the speed of doing this research, which links food as a solution for health and outcomes, is so delayed. It is easier to do studies elsewhere or not at all, if we don’t start looking for opportunities for common sense.
If you can eat it in the U.S. and it is a nutritional supplement and we’ve got a similar product in Canada, why cannot we import — for the study only — that particular product, senator?
The Chair: Within that, is there one agency or regulatory body that you think we could be asking to suggest that there be a deep dive in how they approach examples like you have just given us with monk fruit?
Mr. Groeneveld: I think it is Health Canada. It’s not only Health Canada because it takes many to influence, but I believe that’s the agency we need to work with. We have a great relationship, and we have a subject-matter expert on staff looking at regulatory reform. There is a lot of ambition, I would say, in the federal government. But Health Canada is where it starts, senator.
The Chair: Thank you. One last question. I spoke recently with a potato exporter in Prince Edward Island. You may know that Prince Edward Island grows potatoes. This exporter was applying for funding to improve their packing line and facility in order to capture more export markets. They didn’t manage to trigger — I think they had to trigger a $25-million project and they were at $21 million or something to that effect. Is that similar to what you are describing, or is it different?
Mr. Groeneveld: It is very similar, in parallels. We operate as a partner of the federal government, and our funding comes from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, but industry has to lead with that first dollar. Then for expenses that are provable, we can help refund a percentage of that. So it is a great policy. The challenge is, often with these programs — and I’m not talking about our cluster program, but generally speaking — you rely on companies to come in and apply to programs, and there is a checklist. You had someone who is just short of that. So where do they go? Well, they go home. That’s the sad reality. We would argue you need an organization like ours to work with industry. It is not an intake opportunity that many federal government departments are. It is an opportunity — we work in the agriculture and food production sector across the country, so we are able to broker these gaps and go out into the business community.
It is very similar to what you said when something doesn’t meet all the check boxes and someone has to go home or look somewhere else, and it is a real challenge.
The Chair: And lose that market and lose that opportunity for our nation. Yes, it is a challenge.
Mr. Pryce, I wanted to ask you — I understand that B.C. has established the Premier’s Task Force on Agriculture and Food Economy, and this happened in February 2025. I wonder if you would be in a position to speak about how this came to be and what is the status or the progress of it. What do you expect? What does it cover? What are they looking at?
Mr. Pryce: Sure. Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. As you rightly pointed out, in February 2025, the Premier’s Task Force on Agriculture and Food Economy was established. It had been an election promise of the governing party in British Columbia to pull this group together. So I was happy to see, in October 2024, that election happening and, within four months, that commitment being delivered.
The task force brought together stakeholders from across the entire food system. This was producers and also processors, retailers, government as well, all together at the table to really discuss the policy and program challenges that were facing in the food system and really ground truthing some of those problems, developing some recommendations.
That committee completed its work in November or early December last year, with about 32 recommendations to the premier. These covered quite a few different issues. About eight of them related to water, just because we have had protracted issues with drought in British Columbia. It is unfortunate when we talk about flooding in December 2025, but drought is also the big challenge for a lot of our producers and some of our food system partners as well.
So now we have shifted from the development of these recommendations to implementing them. In June of this year, we will have the inaugural BC Agriculture Forum in Penticton, British Columbia, at which the government will be providing an update directly to its food system partners about where we are at and the implementation of these 32 recommendations.
It is good that we have these frequent touch points to see how the situation develops in implementing these, because 32 is quite a lot. There could have been even more, but at least narrowing it to 32 still is a big pull for government.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McNair: Just quickly, Tyler, I have a question for you. Earlier you mentioned lowering the thresholds to be able to access existing funding pools that are out there. How low would you go? What is the right threshold and why, from your perspective?
Mr. Groeneveld: I think that if we had funds in that $5 million to $20-million range or $5 million to $30-million range, that would unlock a whole bunch of small operations.
So 5 to 25, 30, senator, would be my quick answer. If you allowed me to quickly expand, I would say we have cash flow‑positive companies across Canada that are producing product that could expand. But as one of them told us most recently, “Every time I go to build a new plant or do a line expansion, I have to go back for more capital. I’m operating 24-7. I have only been in business for three years. I don’t have a track record, and I have to put my house deed up in order to secure this.” She says, “I’m tired of putting my house deed up when I am employing people and running 24-7 and I have got sales, but my track record is not long enough for the —” you know, for an investment community to come in and say, “Look, we’ll lead in this additional fundraising.”
Certainly, it could be more, but you kind of hit that drop-off valley of death once you get up looking for $5 million, because we have got VC funds to help companies start. They have got a great idea, but then they have got to somehow scale, and they need to put steel in the ground, and there is a gap there.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: My question is for Ms. Haeri. In terms of food recovery, are you able to get a good balance of food recovery? What is your success in recovery of proteins?
Ms. Haeri: We do get proteins as well. I would say our success story is the model we have built and the team that we have, and that’s why it is important that we make it recognized as infrastructure and scale that one. So we juggle things around. As Ali was saying, we get pallets of mushrooms. Sometimes we get a chunk of protein, like steaks and good meat, chicken. We get ducks. It depends on what the stores are throwing out and what is left there.
We have a lot of different families that we know and we distribute through them, so it is a lot of voluntary basis and a lot of organization between where we go and where we deliver based on what we have. We have a system in place that works. If it is scaled, then that kind of juggling portion of it is already built into our network and how we are operating on the day of.
But, yes, we do get proteins depending on what the grocery stores or whatever random —
Senator Muggli: Can you tell us what you would like in terms of proteins?
Ms. Haeri: I would say we do get it a lot. Sometimes we may not have it, but as I said, it depends on the day. One thing is we definitely have more surplus of food than we could actually address — that we have the capacity to — we have a lot of demand. We have a lot of food already, but we are a limited organization, and that’s why we need to scale. But we could find more, yes.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
Mr. Haeri: The amount of mushrooms are coming through farms, and they cannot distribute it to grocery stores because they are kept on the farm for two weeks or something, so they are not fresh enough for big grocery stores. There are pallets of mushrooms. It is not only one, two. No. These are pallets of mushrooms, and every month we are getting those.
You asked what can the government or senators do. I’m pretty sure you know that in France there is a law that forces any restaurant or grocery stores over 400 square metres to find a food recovery charity, and they must donate that extra food to them. In Italy, they put in incentives. They are not forcing but enabling them.
Any dollars coming to food recovery organizations — 16 times more comes back to the table of the people. Because we are recovering the resources that already were expended, and we are not spending money to buy things. In terms of the value added, each dollar becomes $16 back to the community. Thank you.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
The Chair: Fantastic. Thank you, everyone. That wraps us up. I wish to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be with us and for answering our questions. We certainly appreciate you not only joining us, but the effort you put in to prepare your statements and be ready to help us better understand the topic.
This concludes the public portion of the meeting.
(The committee continued in camera.)