THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 11, 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; and, in camera, for consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Mary Robinson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Mary Robinson, and I am the chair of this committee.
Welcome to members of the committee, our witnesses and those watching this meeting online.
I would like to start by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Before we hear from our witnesses today, I would like to start by asking the senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator McNair: John McNair, New Brunswick. Nice to see you here.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Martine Hébert from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
The Chair: 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 Cyr Couturier, who is an aquaculture scientist and expert. Thank you very much for joining us.
We’ll begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from members. You will have five minutes for your remarks. The floor is now yours.
Cyr Couturier, Aquaculture Scientist and Expert, as an individual: Thank you very much, senators, for the opportunity to address you this morning about this very important issue. Obviously, it’s important to Canada and everybody else.
I’m an expert in agriculture and agri-food production, primarily in the seafood side of things — farmed seafood. In particular, I was asked to address some of the issues related to oyster farming and some of the major diseases that are occurring right now in our environment.
One of the issues we are seeing is that changing ocean dynamics and climate change are actually increasing instances of various diseases and pathogens in our waterways in Eastern and Western Canada, so it is affecting the food production capacity in shellfish and even finfish in Canada.
To provide just a bit of a historical background, on the East Coast of Canada, in particular, oysters have been a long-term food source for Indigenous Peoples, and oyster leases in Prince Edward Island were even mentioned in the British North America Act, or the BNA Act, of 1867 in some of the documentation.
The impacts are severe: lost incomes for farmers and the value chain across Canada, and lost employment for Canadians in six provinces now with the incidents of disease and bacterial infections in oysters, in particular.
The Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program, or CSSP, is co‑managed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA. It has needed regulatory modernization for the last 20 years. The sector has been asking for this. The previous government committed to doing this about four years ago. With regard to the regulatory reform, including the consultation paper, our regulator Fisheries and Oceans Canada is sitting on the whole consultation piece and has yet to do it.
On the animal health side, shellfish producers in the five provinces on the East Coast, including Quebec, do not have business risk management opportunities, as they are not considered farmers under legislation, even though your colleagues in the Food and Agriculture Organization, or FAO, will tell you that aquaculture is farming. The government has offered some resources to the wild and farmed oyster producers in P.E.I., mostly of late.
On the economic side, some estimates of about 10 million of the sector-wide products, particularly in Prince Edward Island in 2026, will be lost from the oyster food farmers, and the situation is not likely to improve for another five years. That has been a devastating aspect of this disease. Several of the smaller farmers are going out of business permanently and will have lost their incomes permanently.
On the finfish side of things, the loss of food production in B.C. salmon farms by 2029 imposed by the previous government, owing to the lack of science-based decision making by the ministry at the time, is estimated to result in a loss of about $9 billion in GDP from poor policy making — of course, from the feds — and thousands of jobs in this agri-food sector, including many First Nations.
If you just look at the Klemtu First Nation, which has been involved in salmon farming, for example, for 25 years in their own territory, they have gone from full unemployment in their territory to almost 100% employment and no more suicides. All of this is mostly a result of producing this food activity of salmon farming. Yet, the federal government still wants them to stop doing this.
As an aside, there are nearly 200 First Nations involved in some aspects of farming seafood across Canada in many provinces, including a dozen for salmon farming in their own territories. Obviously, it has been with the true partnership and truth and reconciliation agreements.
Why are we risking this by trying to put farming fish or shellfish on land? It’s akin to trying to grow cows at sea, which is possible to do, but it’s technically not very wise to do. The federal government also had a report done in 2024 from the previous Minister of Fisheries, two ministers ago. The report issued by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, said that it wasn’t feasible to put all these fish on land. They won’t release the report, obviously, because it is contrary to the previous government’s documentation.
Lastly, aquaculture and agri-foods are an opportunity for Canada to provide local, healthy and affordable foods for Canadians rather than importing a lot of it from many countries. An example of this is the ban on salmon farming in British Columbia. Right now, Canada imports $700 or $800 million per year of salmon fish filets rather than producing local food security for Canadians. They are importing it from places as far away as Chile, Norway and other places where we may not necessarily trust their food safety. Even though the CFIA inspects this, as you may know, in agri-foods, they do it based on risk assessment. They probably check 1% to 2% of shipments from different countries. They are not able to inspect all food that comes into Canada. So they do it on a risk basis.
I can also speak to the science of oyster disease management and recovery, and what actions can be taken for the recovery of the sector and to adapt to our changing environment.
Thank you, senators, for allowing me these few minutes to comment.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Cyr. We will now move to senators’ questions. Senators will have five minutes to ask and have their questions answered. We do have a little bit of flexibility this morning. If we get into something interesting, I suggest we stay in it.
Senator McNair: Mr. Couturier, thank you for being here. A couple of things you said in your opening comments left question marks for me. You talked about a consultation process that is essentially stalled right now and hasn’t started on the oyster side. Why is it stalled? Why isn’t Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, moving forward with this?
Mr. Couturier: The CSSP is what I was talking about, and actually, they have done the consultation process on the review. They have a paper prepared, but why the minister isn’t releasing it, I have no idea. CSSP is the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program. It protects the health and safety of Canadians but also allows Canadian farmers to be able to trade in their various trades. That includes oysters.
I have no idea why the minister hasn’t released this paper. Our sector has been asking for it for quite some time, particularly our leaders in Prince Edward Island and in British Columbia, and they can’t seem to get an answer out of the minister. We’re told it’s imminent. Basically, I believe it will show that the government hasn’t been doing its job, and I can go into more detail about those sorts of things.
It doesn’t require a lot of resources if it’s done appropriately and if they actually allow the industry to partner with them on food safety initiatives, which is the way it’s done in other countries, even in our trading partners. I don’t know why our regulator is averse to this, but it seems to me CFIA or Environment and Climate Change Canada or DFO want to maintain a grasp on everything. It’s not a costly option.
Senator McNair: The other statement you made was around finfish and the B.C. side of the country, and you used the description “lack of science-based decision making.” Once again, what is behind that? Is it the fact that we no longer have scientists working in the industry?
Mr. Couturier: Obviously, the government has cut back on a lot of the science for the last decade. There was a recommitment to put more science into fishery management issues, but that hasn’t really appeared. Lately, you know the budget cuts that have happened in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and, of course, Fisheries and Oceans. Most of it has gone toward policy.
In terms of the science and decision making, the decision-making process in British Columbia for the ban on salmon farming was not made based on relevant science. At the time, the deputy minister recommended that there was minimal to almost no risk with continuing to farm salmon. Indigenous groups and other academics produced 500 pages of studies showing that the risk of impacting wild salmon was minimal. Yet the former minister, years ago, refused to accept that acknowledgment from the department’s own scientists and just committed to a ban.
I know that the last minister in the Trudeau government, Madame Lebouthillier, tried to get over this, but in the political sense, the B.C. caucus runs the roost and the former Minister of Fisheries from there is now going to be our EU ambassador.
I’m not mentioning any names here, but you’ll know who I’m talking about.
Senator McNair: Thank you for that.
Regarding MSX and Dermo, I’m from New Brunswick. I live in Bouctouche, so I’m familiar with the aquaculture industry on that side of things. Did we drop the ball? Should we have seen this coming?
Mr. Couturier: That’s a good question because I know it has impacted your area in Bouctouche, Maison BeauSoleil and those producers. They have all been identified in the Dermo and MSX zone. MSX in particular was noticed years ago in Cape Breton, as you may already know. Some people believe that it was imported. What probably happened, in reality, is that we dropped the ball. We weren’t looking for it.
Regarding oysters, these diseases tend to move around, especially when you have changing environments and climate. One aspect of climate change that we all have to anticipate in our food production is that new pests and parasites, including these types of parasites, will become more prominent. One of the issues, I think, that happened in this particular case is there may have been some movement of oyster seed that was not authorized, or the government didn’t have the proper controls in place, like they do in several other provinces, and so it was moved around, but the oysters themselves were also stressed.
I’ll give you an analogy. Over the last three or four years, in Prince Edward Island and maybe in some parts of Atlantic Canada, it has been fairly dry in the summer with less rain. Occasionally, they have storms but rarely, so what happens then is that an oyster becomes stressed, and because there is not enough food, it grows slower. When an oyster is stressed, it’s like a human being. These viruses and parasites that are in the background are just waiting to take hold of you, so we either have not very cold winters, and we have seen that over the last three or four years, or we have dry summers, so the parasites are around. They obviously take hold of the organism and cause major damage.
I think there is a combination of things. We took our eye off the ball. By we, I mean the government. The industry may not have enforced their own rules for movement. There was movement and things like that. Now, the whole East Coast, including Quebec all the way through to Labrador, is in a Dermo and MSX zone, which means, basically, there will be no compensation, but they control the movements. It will be up to each individual province to negotiate with the federal and provincial governments if they are compensated.
In Prince Edward Island, I have seen some of that. I have seen some of that in New Brunswick as well.
Senator McNair: In the second round, I would like to talk more about the recovery process. Thank you.
Senator Black: I do enjoy oysters. Are you confident about the recovery?
Mr. Couturier: Well, yes. There will be a recovery, but it will take some time. The different processes that are in place right now that the sector and even the government are trying to do are fairly positive. But one of the things working against us, obviously, is climate change. The environment is changing. Some things are becoming less predictable, so let’s say we’re able to get oyster seed that is resistant to these parasites. That doesn’t mean that the parasite itself is not going to evolve and become more virulent. The analogy I would give there is the COVID virus. You know how that mutates. This is what we’re going to see in agriculture and agri-foods for a long time into the future.
These organisms have been around a lot longer than humans or oysters, and they evolve. I mean, if they kill all their hosts, obviously, they will not be around much longer, so they are pretty adaptable.
Senator Black: Thank you. In terms of food security, aquaculture is frequently overlooked when we discuss Canada’s food systems. We have talked about that in the past. Can you elaborate on the important role that the aquaculture sector plays in feeding Canadians and how we can leverage the sector to strengthen our food security? I know you touched on that in your opening remarks, but just expand, please.
Mr. Couturier: Aquaculture, including shellfish, finfish and even seaweed, is used in some food resources. The top seafood that is eaten by Canadians is actually salmon, and that’s farmed salmon, in particular, because it’s available year-round. It’s healthy, nutritious food. It’s recognized by Health Canada as part of a balanced diet and for getting your vitamins.
Just telling Canadians that they can’t farm this or telling First Nations that they can’t farm this in a food-safe environment is nonsensical.
It’s like any other food that we produce locally. There is great aquaculture in Ontario, with the trout in your area. Fortunately, they are allowed to do that in Ontario. Canadians’ favourite seafood is farmed Atlantic salmon, and so not by decreasing it, by increasing it.
If you’re going to try to grow this on land, like I said before, it’s going to cost you a mint. It’s never going to be profitable. That’s the way it is.
Senator Black: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Couturier, as we look right now at food affordability, I like your analogy that you wouldn’t grow cows at sea. It’s pretty pricey to do that. When we consider the high cost of beef, we’re hearing in the news today about the National Food Security Strategy and how, when we look at high beef prices, people have to understand that they can’t snap their fingers and suddenly have a larger beef herd, and volume certainly — supply and demand — influences price.
I’m thinking about our oyster situation and the affordability of oysters. You have recognized that, at the BNA, there was recognition of oyster leases. We know it is a highly valued, nutritious, delicious food that both Senator Black and I have been known to cart all over the country, and when we look at how losing that as a food source — and also as an export — it is crazy to think of the impact of that.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Mr. Couturier, it’s very interesting to listen to what you have to say, especially about salmon farming. I’m not an expert, although I’m much better at telling the difference between a filet of trout or a filet of salmon recipe. You said that the employment impact in Indigenous communities has been really very positive. You also said that suicide rates had dropped in these communities as a result.
In the meantime, is there a feasible substitute? To me, a filet of trout on my plate looks a lot like a filet of salmon; I can prepare them in the same way. Is it the same for fish farming? Are some species of fish easy to replace with others, to keep the benefits of these fish farms in the communities?
Mr. Couturier: Trout farming is done practically everywhere in Canada, especially in Ontario, but in cooperation with Indigenous communities, based on their territories. In Canada, we should only farm native fish species. It would be feasible to import an oyster species, or southern and African species, and farm them here in Canada, but all sorts of things need to be considered first, including any diseases that we might be importing as well. Are you from Quebec, Senator Hébert?
Senator Hébert: Yes, Quebec produces excellent trout in the Eastern Townships, including lake trout.
Mr. Couturier: Yes. I know a lot of people who do that.
So, that needs to be promoted a little more in the provinces. Aquaculture and fish farming take place in freshwater, but farming salmon and oysters requires brackish or salt water.
In Quebec, the problem with sea-based farming is that ice forms in the St. Lawrence. Farming salmon would require using a facility, a land-based recirculation system. Two large companies are lobbying Quebec to allow pen production. Some, however, have already tried that over the past ten years. They spent billions of dollars on production, but they are not cost-effective. They killed a fair amount of fish. I don’t know whether Quebec entrepreneurs and developers will succeed, but I don’t think the technology is ready to do that on a large scale.
There are lots of options for Indigenous peoples, as well as Quebecers and Canadians, to produce even more fish. All it takes is permission from the government.
Senator Hébert: I understand that switching from one fish species to another isn’t easy when farming fish in brackish or salt water pens, because those species would have to be imported and that raises other issues. I clearly understand that. Thank you, that answers my question. I’m sorry, but this issue is new to me.
Mr. Couturier: That’s no problem.
Senator Hébert: Except for having had a small aquarium as a child, I know nothing about raising fish. I think it was you, Madam Chair, who brought up the issue of international export markets. I would like you to tell us a little about the current situation, because yesterday, President Trump said again that he wasn’t interested in renewing the agreement with Canada. We know what that means. It is not a short-term threat. I’d like you to talk to us about the impact of the trade war with our American neighbours in terms of delayed investments or industry revenues.
Mr. Couturier: Yes, that certainly had an impact on all fish farmers, aquaculturists and breeders. There are no tariffs, so that’s not a problem. We export 75% to 80% of our oysters and mussels to the United States, and a little less trout and salmon from Canada, so the demand is there. The industry has managed to avoid tariffs. The problem is that we don’t produce enough to meet the demand. The United States has a $20-billion seafood trade deficit. Canada is filling about $8 billion of that amount.
All U.S. consumers, even fish farmers, have recommended against putting tariffs on this industry. I don’t know whether Mr. Trump is going to stick to his decision, but his Department of Agriculture did speak on that, of course. For now, I don’t think there are many tariffs, but we never know what Mr. Trump is going to do from one day to the next.
Senator Hébert: We have to wonder sometimes. It’s difficult to see a strategy.
[English]
The Chair: I am pleased to welcome Senator Muggli, who just joined us.
Senator McNair: Mr. Couturier, back to the lack of science-based decision making, what would be your recommendation to government if we wanted to reverse that trend?
Mr. Couturier: It’s a big mistake that the Government of Canada cuts out science and provides advice to the minister, or ministers, in the food-producing departments, in particular, Agriculture and Agri-foods, but also Fisheries and Oceans. Fisheries and Oceans are a food producer. Fisheries is caught or farmed seafood as food. That’s why it’s called seafood. It was a foundation of Canada in 1867, as you well know, since the time of the Constitution Act, or the BNA Act.
Cutting back science and then ignoring that science, even when the evidence is there, doesn’t make sense. My recommendation to the government from this committee would be this: Don’t make political decisions. Take the best evidence you have, either from academics or others, and make decisions based on merit, on the basis of science and evidence-based decision making. There’s going to be a risk in everything we do in life, as you know. When the risk is minimal, and you do really good science and you have independent science that says this is it, I think the ministry, in those food-production departments, should just accept that as a recommendation from their deputies or whoever advises them in the bureaucracy and not make political decisions that are not evidence-based. That’s the bottom line.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
I’m jumping all over the place. Back to oysters: What’s happening with the export market now in Atlantic Canada? Has it dropped through the floor, essentially, or is there still something going on?
Mr. Couturier: There are still many oysters being exported, at least the ones that are alive. I think in Prince Edward Island, maybe a little less in New Brunswick, but in some other areas as well. Oysters have diseases, but those that are alive, it doesn’t affect human health, so they can be exported. It’s not a major issue, as long as you don’t put them back in water if you’re exporting to the United States or maybe even, in your case, from la Maison BeauSoleil, which has been exporting a few to France from your area. If you don’t put them back in live holding, in water, then you’re allowed to export them. The problem we have, in some cases, is we’ve lost about 50% of oyster production in different bays and inlets around the East Coast of Canada. What I suspect is happening is that there’s a lot less export than has been going on. They have to feed the Canadian market first.
It’s a fairly big industry. Probably 100 million pieces of oysters are produced in Prince Edward Island alone on an annual basis, and many of those aren’t around now.
Senator McNair: I’m hearing discussion of 50% mortality rates also in my area.
Mr. Couturier: New Brunswick, that’s terrible.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
Senator Black: Mr. Couturier, throughout your career, you’ve spent a lot of time mentoring students and community members about sustainable aquaculture. Thank you for that. How do you see the next generation influencing the future of the industry and contributing to our country’s success with respect to food security in the years to come?
Mr. Couturier: Thank you for that recognition, Senator Black. In fact, I was given by a colleague of yours the King Charles III medal for my contributions to science, food security and training young people in many different countries.
Young people understand that there’s a future. Aquaculture, in particular, offers a great opportunity. It’s recognized by the United Nations as a sustainable food production activity, with a low impact on the environment. In fact, it’s one of the lowest-impact protein producers. I don’t want to say anything bad about our land-based folks, but in terms of environmental impact, aquaculture is low in environmental impact, recognized not just by the United Nations but international certification bodies.
Young people nowadays want to be involved in a food production activity that’s good for the environment and good for people. They’re going to play an important role. They’re starting to advocate quite heavily now for their future because we can’t have everybody leaving our rural areas and moving into the cities. A lot of people want to continue to farm, whether it’s on land or at sea. I think they are the future, obviously, and they’re concerned about the environment. They’re going to do what’s right. I think it’s time that Canadians, old people like me, get out of the way and let them thrive.
But you still have to have the enabling environment for that to occur. You don’t really need subsidies. What you need is innovation to continue farming. You need a will by the federal government and by the provincial governments to support enabling regulatory environments that allow these young people to thrive. They’re pretty savvy. What we have to stop doing — I’ll speak about all agri-food producers — is complain. They’re always complaining about this and that and their problems. At our workshop yesterday, one of the recommendations from one of our colleagues in Ontario, who is on the OFA board, was that young people and Canadians are tired about hearing farmers complaining about how bad things are. There are a lot of positive attributes in farming. Make it positive. I don’t know if I answered your question, senator. I’m sorry.
Senator Black: You did. Thank you.
I’ve asked this question in the past. By the way, thanks for not referencing old people with “like you and me.”
Mr. Couturier: You’re welcome. We’re all young. It doesn’t really matter.
Senator Black: I have this fear that we’ll come to a time, because of policies that you’ve talked about and viruses, when we might not be able to feed our own province or country, let alone the world, and we’re expected to do that today.
What would you say to that? Does that bother you? Do you have the same fears over time?
Mr. Couturier: I don’t think I have the same fears over time. I don’t know what the food strategy is going to look like today or what the Prime Minister is going to announce. I have to be hopeful, and I am hopeful. A lot of young people are hopeful that it will go in the right direction, that we will fight the good fight of climate change and we will help our food producers with innovation, new tools for combatting diseases, pests and parasites and all these sorts of things. As long as the investment is there from the public and the private sectors, I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to continue to do what we do well here in Canada and are well known for and become a leading food producer.
Your committee is probably well aware of the Barton report from 2015 and all those recommendations around the idea that aquaculture and agriculture are great things and should be not only promoted but have some of the biggest economic impacts on Canada. The CFA, whose board I’m also on, as was Senator Robinson. She was the president. That’s a $150-billion sector. When we add all of the food manufacturers as well, we’re talking about another $200 billion or $300 billion. The whole food system in Canada is probably the largest contributor to GDP. I don’t know if that’s exactly right, and if we take Alberta oil out. The food sector, manufacturing and production on farms, distribution, retail and all of that, there are 2.3 million Canadians who work in that sector. It is the largest industry in Canada, for sure, and we are feeding Canadians so we can’t let that fall.
Senator Black: Thank you for your wise words. Thank you for being here today.
Mr. Couturier: You’re welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Mr. Couturier, I would like to hear your opinion on other related matters. The budget and the economic update introduced by the government contained various initiatives for various industries. I would like to hear your opinion on the fish farming industry.
Are the measures included sufficient to support the industry in light of the challenges it currently faces? I’m thinking of certain accelerated capital cost allowance measures to try to stimulate investment and encourage companies to invest, or regulation reduction measures in certain sectors?
Do you feel that your sector has been well served by what was introduced? If not, what would you recommend?
Mr. Couturier: I think that the federal government is currently in the process of reducing overregulation or bureaucracy, with CFIA and the like, but that’s bureaucracy. I spoke to the Minister of Health two or three weeks ago. She told me that she was trying to make some bureaucracy-related changes. We try to agree on trade standards with our trade partners, like the standards with Australia and others, in order to get new products and to help food-sector farmers and producers.
Bureaucracy doesn’t move quickly. Even if the government wants to do something, it is not easy. Every two, three or four years, the departments change, the politicians change, but the bureaucracy remains. Some cuts have been made to different departments, and that’s one of the problems. So my recommendation to the government would be to invest more and, most of all, get rid of regulations that hurt food production so that Canadians can prove themselves a little more and engage in a little more research, as I mentioned to you already.
Stimulating investment is not a problem for fish farming, especially when it comes to salmon farming. I can tell you that there are always people, there is always money ready to invest in aquaculture and salmon farming. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with Mitsubishi, a company with international sales of about $200 billion. It is active in aquaculture and just bought a company in Canada, Cermaq, which farms salmon in British Columbia as well as Newfoundland and Labrador.
They are ready to invest hundreds of millions of dollars here, in Canada. They have the oceans for production. The same goes for British Columbia. If the right to safely farm salmon in the ocean is available, investors are ready to put up $500 million today to increase production.
None of that really needs to change. Like the Prime Minister also said, yes, we want to encourage investment, but regulations and policies are not helping.
Senator Hébert: If I understand you correctly, it might have been better to include the entire agri-food sector, including the sector we are discussing today, within the major projects framework as one of Canada’s strategic sectors like the others, be it energy, critical minerals or others.
On the matter of regulations, we will see what happens. One possible avenue would be to introduce regulatory sandboxes, especially for an industry like yours. That would be interesting.
What three main items or recommendations would you like to see in a Canadian food security policy or strategy?
Mr. Couturier: That’s interesting. I haven’t given it much thought.
Our food producers are breeders, farmers and fishers. Canada has to be able to feed itself. You come from Quebec, you know all about the popularity of locally produced foods and that Quebec farmers are proud that their food production sustains the people. I think that is true in the rest of Canada too. My recommendation would be to support our agri-food producers.
I believe that major projects allow the possibility of supporting our food product manufacturers. Not everyone can afford to carry out $100 million projects. It is not absolutely necessary. However, you can implement that for the big agri-food producers.
We need a food strategy geared to Canadian production and meant to feed Canadians and First Nations who so wish.
Secondly, we have to remove regulatory barriers that prevent Canada from producing food at an affordable cost. Food security also involves being able to produce food products for a market that Canadians can easily access. Food affordability is a matter of access.
I can tell you now that farming trout, salmon, oysters and all that obviously costs less than beef. Still, we could use a little help, even if it’s nothing more than letting the industry do its job.
[English]
Get out of the way. Let agriculture — pride, food producers in particular.
[Translation]
These are only two recommendations —
Senator Hébert: Madam Chair, it would be good to include the comment “Get out of the way” in the report.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I knew we could count on Cyr for some stingers for our report. Thank you, Cyr.
Mr. Couturier: They’re not stingers, are they?
The Chair: Mr. Couturier, I’m going to ask a quick question. Did you say that we import $700 million to $800 million of salmon fish filets?
Mr. Couturier: Yes.
The Chair: It comes primarily from Chile or Norway — those are a couple of nations who do export to Canada.
Mr. Couturier: Yes.
The Chair: You talked about the risk assessment inspections. Right now, there’s a lot of talk about Mercosur and what’s going to happen with beef. Is there something in there for aquaculture?
Generally, can you give us a sense of how Canadians should be viewing food that’s produced in Canada and sometimes viewed as more expensive, and how we have to compete against food produced in other areas and how it comes to a different standard of assessment on importation?
Mr. Couturier: You want me to comment on that?
The Chair: Perhaps you can send us a little blurb in writing if you want to craft something that we could include in the report. It’s up to you.
Mr. Couturier: Yes. I could probably do that and do a follow-up.
The Chair: Okay, because I have another question that I wanted to ask too, and we are suddenly going to run out of time. I’ll leave that with you to write something to us if you don’t mind. I’m giving you homework, professor.
Mr. Couturier: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: We hear about how aquaculture is agriculture. I have a pin that says that. We hear how it falls under multiple departments, and we hear about the challenges with aquaculture producers and aquaculture farmers accessing business risk management. We talk about the challenges we’re facing, particularly in oyster farming and the wild fishery in Atlantic Canada.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on how we could make a recommendation. What could we say in our report on the food security strategy as to how aquaculture could be best partnered with government?
I’m a big fan. You’ve heard me talk before about how government isn’t our parole officer; they’re our agent, and they should be helping us be everything we can be. They should be protecting us and making sure that we capture all the market.
To unleash the potential that you noted — Dominic Barton was big on highlighting, in 2017 — how would we best contribute to food security and economic security? Senator Hébert noted something you said in your opening remarks about the reduction of suicide and the benefits. I’m wondering if you might be able, in your homework, to give us a sense of what you think we should be recommending to government, as cogs in the wheel, how government should be working with aquaculture to help it reach this potential.
I’ll get you to give us something in writing because I want Senator McNair to have a moment for his question if that’s okay.
Mr. Couturier: If you could get the clerk to send me that homework in a written document, I’ll send you something in the next few days.
The Chair: I’ll send you your grade after we read it.
Senator McNair: I’d rather hear his response to your first question in 30 seconds while we have him here today.
Could you give him a summary of your first question again?
The Chair: Mr. Couturier, it’s about the imports we see in salmon filets and how it’s a risk assessment. How do we see competition as domestic producers of food? Should we be putting different requirements on imported food to level the playing field? What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Couturier: This is all related to Canada’s trade policy. They should support Canadian food producers first and not necessarily remove trade barriers.
One of the issues that I see, for example, with the salmon filet, a lot of it comes from Chile. That’s fine. Apparently, they apply the same regulatory environment inspection with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, on imported foods as they would on Canadian foods, but I’m not so sure that they do.
I’ll just leave it at that for this point in time. Maybe they should. If they do that, then maybe that will be a greater incentive for Canadian producers to invest in food production. It’s only by investing in greater volumes that you can reduce the price at the farm gate, for example.
The other issue in 30 seconds is that — as you well know, senators — the big retailers will not buy from Canadian producers if they can get volume on a consistent basis from non‑Canadian producers. I’ll mention Costco, Loblaws and all these folks. That’s because they have customers who want to eat these foods.
For example, if a Canadian farming operation cannot supply all of their chains — let’s say, Costco, in particular — then they’ll go to another supplier, and it doesn’t really matter where that supplier comes from.
If Canada could produce more food in its own territory, they would have greater access to the grocery stores, the retailers and things like that. That could be one recommendation that I would make to the Government of Canada.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: I would like to pursue the same line of questioning as Senator McNair.
I have met people involved in other food sectors in Canada. One of their complaints concerned the fact that, when the government issues calls for tenders or makes purchases to meet its own needs, in prisons, for example, it sometimes gives preference to foreign products over Canadian products. With respect to the “Buy Canadian” policy, and considering everything you’ve just said, to your knowledge, is this a current practice, or could we advise the government to give preference to its own products in meeting its needs, whether in prisons or elsewhere?
Mr. Couturier: Prisons, hospitals, all that. In terms of supply chains, these public services have budget constraints and so on. If they issue a call for tenders, companies will produce food products for hospitals and the like. That would be a good recommendation.
I don’t think that will happen anytime soon. However, I’m sure that the big farm operators would be proud to be included in these calls for tenders. If the federal or provincial governments want to support that — I mean “Buy Canadian,” “Achetons québécois” or “Buy Ontario” and all that — then the government would have to invest a little extra money in supplying prisons, hospitals, public services and schools. Limiting calls for tender to Canadian producers would be a good policy. It might increase our GDP and contribute more to the economy. Public services are important. They are a part of Canada’s economy.
The “Buy Canadian” program also stimulates the economy. We need that right now, because we’re on a downward trajectory.
Senator Hébert: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: I have one last question, Mr. Couturier, and I think that will wrap us up.
I’m thinking about the salmon farming production on the West Coast since the B.C. open net ban has come into place. I’m wondering if you can talk about how much production has dropped in percentage. It would be helpful for all of us in our report to understand the dollars lost in relation to that.
As we talk about economic security in Canada and the growing aquaculture industry globally, I’m wondering how we compare. What are we losing out on when we look across the globe? We hear about Norway and Chile, and we hear about this potential. Can you give us some figures and something to chew on there?
Mr. Couturier: There are a couple of things. In the 1980s, Canada was looked at as one of the top 10 seafood producers, both farmed and wild, on a global scale. We’ve dropped down to number 30.
On salmon production, we were number 1 or number 2 in the 1990s. Norway and Chile quickly rose, and now the Faroe Islands and a few other places. We’ve dropped to number 5.
You might have heard Tim Kennedy say at one point, “We’re number 4.” We are not number 4. We’re number 5 now. We’ve lost a tremendous amount of ground in terms of jobs for Canadians and so on.
This recent ban that was actually announced first in 2021 by one of the federal ministers and was, again, implemented in 2024, I guess, with Lebouthillier having to say that, has resulted in the loss of several thousand jobs. I don’t know the exact amount, but the industry is about half the size it is in B.C. from what it was before. It has dropped.
It was 140,000 tonnes across Canada in salmon. We’re down to about 90,000 tonnes now, and more than 50% comes from Eastern Canada. It has dropped considerably. Probably $100 million per year has been lost over the last several years, and it’s going to continue.
In terms of spin-off benefits with suppliers, as you know, in agriculture and agri-food, there is the farmer, but there is a whole network of people. When you add all of that in, it’s a significant loss to the economy of not just British Columbia but Canada because you have these well-paying jobs and people aren’t contributing tax dollars anymore to the economy. When it was first announced in 2021, Premier Horgan — at the time, the NDP premier in B.C. — said, what are you going to do, Mr. Trudeau, with all these jobs that you’re losing to my economy? That’s even though the NDP are on the fence about animal agriculture.
It’s a major loss to the Canadian economy and the B.C. economy. B.C. is in tough shape with a $13-billion deficit this year. They are essentially broke, just like Newfoundland and Labrador, but why wouldn’t they encourage more food production and good-paying jobs? Economic reconciliation is an important thing in Canada. Why would the Government of Canada say no to dozens of First Nations who want farmed salmon? It doesn’t make sense to me. They are not asking for handouts.
The Chair: We don’t necessarily need to be number one, but to recover and to recapture that market, what is the timeline? Is it too ambitious?
Mr. Couturier: Just to get back up to number four, you referenced the herd. The brood stock — the herd for salmon, for example — is a six-year cycle when you talk about investments, genetics and everything else they have to do. To recover that, if you don’t have at least a six-year permission window, we have run out of time now for 2029. People are already killing their brood stock — their herd — in B.C. It’s not easy to replace, just like the beef herd.
If the government doesn’t make a decision this month to basically say, we support salmon farmers and we’re reversing the ban, you’re going to continue to see tremendous more losses, but recovery is possible in the next four or five years if that ban is removed immediately. The industry wants to produce food for Canadians and export food, of course, in market share and so forth. Americans are asking for this. Canadians are asking for this. If they weren’t, why would they be importing almost $1 billion in Canadian fish filets from foreign countries? Their favourite seafood is farmed salmon.
The Chair: How is Canada viewed internationally as far as investors coming into Canada? What signals have we sent to those investors?
Mr. Couturier: We have sent poor signals because regulatory uncertainty is the big killer. You have probably heard about that in other natural resource areas. The Prime Minister wants to attract investors and make things easier for investors. We haven’t had any investors invest in Canada in about a decade, or very little investment in Canada in a decade, because of the regulatory uncertainty of the previous government. Hopefully, the current government can make it a bit more secure. But in terms of food, investors are willing to invest, but they need regulatory certainty. If you don’t know if you’re going to be operating in two, three or four years, and you’re a food producer, why would you invest? It’s the same in food manufacturing. If I don’t have a supply on a regular basis, I’m not going to be able to seek investment. My banker is not going to give me any money if I don’t have a viable business in three or four years, so the time is critical now.
I mentioned Mitsubishi, which is a $200-billion company, and they are willing to invest a lot in Canada. Canada doesn’t have any problems with Japanese companies investing in Canada. Mr. Mitsubishi, or the CEO of the company, should be talking to the Prime Minister. He probably already has, but it’s just getting through all the noise that is out there and the politics, as you know, senator. That’s a big thing.
Perhaps your committee can make a recommendation with regard to foreign direct investment or any other investment. Even Canadians are not very good at investing in their own companies. I could relate many stories in ag and agri-foods where Americans are investing in Canadian producers because they see a future in that. It’s ridiculous. But if they don’t see a future, are they going to invest? No. Regulatory certainty and approval are definitely needed, at least within a window of 6 to 10 years.
The Chair: Perfect. We have left the door open. When we get to the questions, you can give us all the content you want. That would be wonderful. I want to thank you so much, Mr. Couturier. I know you are Alberta. I appreciate you getting up early. You have a busy agenda today. We really value your expertise. Thank you so much for taking the time to answer our questions.
For the second panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming Beth Bechdol, Deputy Director General, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. From Syngenta Canada Inc., we welcome Shaun Vey, President, and Christina Stroud, Head of Corporate Affairs. Thank you very much for joining us.
We’ll begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from members. You will each have five minutes.
The floor will be yours first, Ms. Bechdol. I understand you have to leave after your opening remarks. Thank you so much for being with us. I’ll ask that senators pose any questions for you during the Q and A portion of the meeting and we can hear back from you in writing if that works for you. The floor is now yours.
Beth Bechdol, Deputy Director General, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Thank you, Senator Robinson, Senator McNair and distinguished members of the committee. It is a pleasure to appear before you once again, this time from Rome. Sincere apologies that I have other commitments that require me to move quickly from this session.
Senators, Food and Agriculture Organization, or FAO, was founded in Quebec City in 1945, which makes it particularly meaningful to be speaking with a Canadian parliamentary committee about food security today.
Around the world, food security is becoming more complex. Conflict, protracted crises, animal disease, weather extremes and volatility in energy and fertilizer markets increasingly affect how food is produced, traded and priced. What happens in one part of the world now affects food systems far beyond national borders.
As someone who grew up on a grain farm in the Midwest in the United States and now works with governments and producers across every region of the world, I have come to appreciate that food security is ultimately about more than food. It is about productivity, affordability, access, infrastructure, trade, resource protection and the resilience of the systems that connect them. That brings me to Canada.
Canada is one of the world’s leading agricultural producers, a trusted exporter and a recognized leader in agricultural science and innovation. Yet, access to affordable, nutritious food remains a challenge for many Canadians, and understanding that apparent contradiction is, in my view, one of the most important and admirable parts of this committee’s work.
I would like to offer three observations.
First, Canada is not facing a food production challenge. It is facing a food access challenge. Canada, like other developed economies, produces far more food than it consumes. Yet, many Canadians continue to face difficulties accessing affordable and nutritious food, particularly in northern, remote and Indigenous communities. Geography, infrastructure, transportation costs and affordability all play a role. Around the world, FAO sees that successful food security policies focus not only on production, but also on the systems that connect food to people.
Second, Canada’s food security is increasingly linked to global stability. Today, we are focused on how energy affects fertilizer, fertilizer affects production costs, and production costs, ultimately, affect food prices. Recent developments in the Gulf region provide a timely reminder that events far from Canada can still affect Canadian agriculture and Canadian consumers. That is why open and predictable agricultural trade remains so important during periods of uncertainty.
Third, Canada has an important role to play in strengthening food security, both domestically and globally. You are respected internationally not only because of what you produce but also because of the expertise you contribute. Your leadership in agricultural science, soil health, food safety and animal health is recognized around the world. I was particularly encouraged by Canada’s decision to undertake — and I know leadership came from this committee — its first national soil health survey in nearly four decades. It demonstrates the importance you place on understanding and protecting one of agriculture’s most fundamental resources.
You also have an important role to play in advancing science‑based standards through Codex Alimentarius and the International Plant Protection Convention. These standards help protect consumers, facilitate trade and strengthen confidence in global food systems. The same principle applies to animal health.
Recent concerns surrounding highly pathogenic avian influenza, new strains of foot and mouth disease, New World screwworm, now identified on the southern border of the United States, and other transboundary animal diseases remind us that protecting Canadian agriculture begins long before a disease reaches the border. Early detection, surveillance and international cooperation remain among the most effective investments countries can make together.
Food security is not achieved through a single policy or program. It is built over time and through investments in farmers — you know this very well — in women farmers, in young farmers, and in science, infrastructure, healthy soils and water, strong animal and plant health systems and stable markets. The question that is most relevant today is how those strengths continue to benefit all Canadians while contributing to food security beyond your own borders.
Today, we have a very strong and solid relationship not only with you, the members of this committee, but also with our Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada colleagues and with Global Affairs Canada. There is a strong leadership role that Canada is playing in the strongest and most difficult of food security issues today.
We see you as a trusted partner in that effort. We thank you, members of this committee, for your important work, and we look forward to your comments, your reflections and any questions you might have that come from this important conversation being held today. Thanks very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bechdol. I believe this committee did actually visit Rome. I know they connected with the World Farmers’ Organisation while they were there. I was involved with that organization. I believe Senator Black connected with you. Thank you for the shout-out for the work this committee has done. We appreciate your time, and we’ll be sending you some questions.
Next, we will hear from Mr. Vey and Ms. Stroud. I understand you’re going to be splitting your time, so please go ahead.
Shaun Vey, President, Syngenta Canada Inc.: Thank you, Senator Robinson. Great to see you and Senator Black again today. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
My name is Shaun Vey, and I am the president of Syngenta Canada.
Syngenta Canada is a leading science-based ag-tech company that helps support farmers across Canada by providing crop protection, biologicals, seeds and seed-care products, as well as digital agricultural innovations and professional solutions. We are honoured to be here as part of your study on food security. At Syngenta, our mission is simple: Advance Canadian agriculture to help feed the world. We believe Canada has a big role to play not just in helping our economy prosper domestically but also in solving our global food security challenges.
For Canada, a global agricultural powerhouse, food security is more than economic security; it’s a strategic imperative. Canada plays a critical role in the global food supply, feeding hundreds of millions of people around the world annually.
Plant science innovation is a critical — and often underappreciated — component of food security. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that up to 40% of global crop production is lost annually to plant pests, diseases and weeds. Plant diseases alone cost the global economy over $220 billion per year; invasive insects cost at least $70 billion.
Advances in crop protection, seed technology, biological innovations and sustainable farming practices directly enable farmers to protect yields, manage disease and pest pressure and adapt to a changing climate.
Organizations like Syngenta are at the forefront of this work. By developing new tools tailored to Canadian growing conditions, Syngenta equips farmers to produce safe, abundant and sustainable food.
Unfortunately, we’ve seen Canada’s ranking in global agri‑food trade slip from fifth to seventh place, and it could fall to ninth by 2035 if no corrective action is taken. Regulatory timelines for new crop protection tools and seed technologies have increased in Canada and can take years longer in Canada than in the U.S. or Australia.
To course correct, Canada must make deliberate investments in innovation, sustainability and productivity in our food system.
Every acre protected from preventable crop loss, every yield stabilized against pest pressure and every farm operation made more efficient through better tools and data are direct contributions to Canada’s food security and global standing.
A strong food security policy for Canada is one that treats innovative crop input tools as strategic assets not as problems to regulate. We are asking this committee to see Syngenta and companies like us as partners in the food security mission.
Canada has every natural and institutional advantage to lead the world in food security. Canada’s farmers are ready, and the science exists. What we require now is deliberate policy action that explicitly links agricultural productivity to trade, competitiveness and climate-resilient objectives.
My colleague Christina Stroud, who is our head of corporate affairs, will speak to what we are seeing on the ground and what Syngenta is doing about it.
Christina Stroud, Head, Corporate Affairs, Syngenta Canada Inc.: Thanks, Shaun, and thank you, senators, and our fellow witnesses for this opportunity.
As Shaun has described, Canadian agriculture has the capacity to feed the world. But food insecurity is growing within our own borders, which demands attention.
Farmers themselves are not immune to food insecurity. When farm costs rise, access to new technology is limited, and margins tighten, then farm stability is challenged. Supporting the economic viability and consistency of Canadian farms is inseparable from supporting Canadian food security.
In rural communities, the lag in digital infrastructure compounds this vulnerability. The connectivity gap limits access to new on-farm technology, employment, markets and services — placing rural Canadians at greater risk of economic precarity and food insecurity. Closing that gap is as much a food security investment as any crop protection tool.
As I’m sure you are aware, food bank use in Canada has increased by 99% since 2019, and 29% of Canadian food banks serve rural and remote communities. These are the same communities where Canada’s farmers, and many of Syngenta’s employees, live and work.
At Syngenta, we have been taking action on this for more than two decades. Since 2000, we have donated more than $1 million to Food Banks Canada. As the founding sponsor of its Rural Support Program, we’ve focused our efforts on helping rural food bank locations improve their access to food donations.
In 2023, we launched the Zero Hunger Challenge to bring even greater awareness and action to the issue of food insecurity. It is a Syngenta Canada-led initiative built around food drives, harvest donations and industry partnerships, with a deliberate focus on rural food banks. In three years, it has facilitated more than $500,000 in donations to food banks across the country.
Canada has farmland, farmers, the technology and the research capacity and tenacity to be part of the solution to global food insecurity. Addressing hunger here at home is part of that solution.
The private sector can act, and we are. We welcome this study and the conversation it will generate. We look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Stroud and Mr. Vey. Now we will move to questions from senators. Senators will have five minutes in which to ask their question and have it answered.
Senator McNair: Mr. Vey, you talked about innovation investments and some of the things that your organization is doing. You also talked about new tools tailored for Canadian agriculture. Can you give examples of what that constitutes?
Mr. Vey: When we talk about new tools tailored for Canadian agriculture, obviously, we’re a global innovation company, so we do research globally and look to scale that to markets all over the world.
But what I mean by tailoring is that we then bring those tools and test them with our scientists in Canada to make sure they are fit for Canadian conditions. As you know, Senator McNair, our conditions are very different than that of Argentina or Brazil. We will test a lot of our new innovations in Canada for years before we bring them to Canadian farmers to make sure they work on the pests our farmers are working to protect against and to make sure the formulations work in our climate because our climate is very different.
We are always looking locally to take our global innovations and make sure they fit Canadian farmers. It is the same with the digital tools we have developed globally. You know, we need to understand our farmers and the challenges they have, and make sure those tools are tailored to help Canadian farmers.
Senator Muggli: Thank you for being with us. I really appreciate it. I’m from Saskatchewan, and I’m a farm kid, so I’m familiar with some of the challenges related to farming. It has changed a lot since I was a kid.
For the record, I have a question for Ms. Bechdol: What factors are required to be considered a trusted exporter? She described Canada as a trusted exporter. I’m interested in how you become a trusted exporter.
Now I’ll move over to folks at Syngenta. A couple of questions: In terms of testing innovations, are there regulations that need to be addressed in Canada to get some of these tools to market more quickly?
Mr. Vey: I can start with that. We think we have a sound regulatory system in Canada already. Our bigger challenge, Senator Muggli, is that the timelines to get the innovations have now lengthened. In the past, we would be able to get new crop protection tools to market and new innovations in maybe two years. They would go through a two-year process with the PRD or formerly the PMRA. Now, we are seeing some of our newer innovations. This is taking up to four years. We have doubled the timelines to get new tools into the hands of farmers. That’s our more recent challenge. Why is that happening?
Senator Muggli: Yes.
Mr. Vey: I think the demands on extra studies, taking a more cautious approach to some of our approach to regulating these technologies. So just the time it takes to get that data to satisfy those requirements. The challenge is more around how regulatory timelines to get new innovations have just gotten longer. To give you an example, we registered our most recent new active ingredient in January. That process took four years, when, in the past, it used to take two years to get a new active ingredient registration. That’s one of the bigger challenges is just the delayed timelines driven by more data requirements, a more cautious approach to risk and those types of things.
Senator Muggli: I was interested in why. Why is it taking so long? What could we do about that? Is there a recommendation we could make to try to support that process to move more quickly?
Ms. Stroud: I will add that there are added layers. The whole transformation agenda added a number of additional layers to consultation. If some of our recommendations are being consulted in the post-market phase when they have a concern around risk rather than later after they have reviewed their assessment, so we can be engaged earlier and have good dialogue. I think that’s one of the key elements to it is they have added sort of additional layers of consultation that really bog things down.
Senator Muggli: Does the U.S. process move quickly, and they get the products into market quicker?
Ms. Stroud: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Muggli: We have heard that from other witnesses. I have another question about collaboration with university entities. Can you tell me about what sort of collaboration you do with Canadian universities, and if you have any concerns around continued and appropriate funding to these institutions that you collaborate with?
Ms. Stroud: We do have a number of research projects with multiple ag universities across Canada: Alberta, Saskatchewan and Guelph, and we have fantastic collaborative relationships with them.
Some of the discussions that I have had with them — and Shaun, I will let you speak to the research side and some of the focus areas — is that we are fantastic at innovating. Where there tends to be a lag is how do we take those innovations and commercialize them, especially for universities where they are researching new technology with start-up companies, for example, or coming into a new development area. The research is great, but then we don’t know how to get it to commercialization. When you think about farmers, there is so much at stake. They tend to be risk averse. If you’re going to take some of your farm out of production to test something, it’s pretty risky. It is a loss of revenue. We want to make sure that the system is set up to incentivize farmers to be able to test some of that at a large scale and take it out from a research capacity into broad-scale research.
Senator Muggli: What would incentives look like?
Mr. Vey: In terms of getting to go commercialization, is that your question?
Senator Muggli: Correct.
Mr. Vey: I think the incentives would be that we have to help them with managing the investment to get it there because there are a lot of risks associated with new innovations. There are a lot of upfront investments. We need to provide the right incentives to get those products to market so that we can test those innovations and help them manage the risk associated with scaling up initially.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: I’m going to continue in the same direction as my colleague just discussed with you. Programs exist, including BDC programs. Do these programs suit the industry’s needs? Are they accessible? If not, do you have any recommendations in that regard?
[English]
Mr. Vey: I’m not familiar with the BDC program specifically. Ms. Stroud, I don’t know if you are and can comment. I’m not familiar with that one specifically.
Ms. Stroud: I’m not an expert in that. I have certainly been around the table when discussions have come up from farm organizations around some of those programs, but I’m not an expert in that specific area.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: I understand that the recommendation is to raise the industry’s awareness about existing programs. If you aren’t familiar with them, it means that some promotional work needs to be done.
My next question is for Ms. Bechdol. You recently issued a press release in collaboration with the International Fertilizer Association to commemorate your 10-year partnership. In the statement you gave, you spoke of a science-based approach to fertilizer management. Can you clarify why you chose to include that information in the press release? What challenges currently exist in that regard?
[English]
The Chair: I asked for that in writing after the fact. She had to leave.
Senator Hébert: Sorry about that. I missed that. I thought she was going to reappear.
The Chair: I have a question before we move on to round two, or maybe just a point.
Ms. Stroud, you mentioned farmers might be risk-averse. I thought that I’d better say something or you and I are going to hear from them.
I think, estimates are, to put the 2026 crop in the ground, that it’s going to cost producers $22.5 billion this year, which is a record-breaking cost, unfortunately, of planting this year. Obviously, this is with the challenges we see in fuel and fertilizer in particular.
I suspect if one of them were in the room, they might suggest that their risk bucket is rather large and rather full right now. I just wanted to interject to get you and me both out of a bit of hot water with that comment.
Ms. Stroud: I agree 100%. Agriculture is a risky business. It was more in reference to the fact that if we’re going to ask them to test new technology and advance new innovation, then they have to take some of those acres out of operation.
The Chair: I think they’ve probably made all the investment they can at the high-stakes poker table, and they have to cover their bases to make sure they’re there next year for you to sell them products and to grow food for us.
Ms. Stroud: Yes.
Senator McNair: You mentioned your organization’s million-dollar contribution to Food Banks Canada. I commend you for that. It’s putting money where your mouth is — no pun intended.
You also talked about your 2023 Zero Hunger Challenge. Can you give me a few more details or describe what that involves?
Ms. Stroud: Sure. It’s a program that all of our employees get involved with. We do internal initiatives, but we also work a lot with our farm customers and communities to raise awareness for food insecurity and also raise funds.
I can give a couple of examples. Through our Zero Hunger Challenge, I can’t say the precise number of farmers that have been involved, but they definitely step up. When we build fundraisers, it often has customer events. We’ll bring in a local food bank representative; we’ll host raffles and create opportunities for farmers to give back to their communities. The response is consistently enthusiastic.
One recent example is that we held a zero hunger, truck-bed challenge at one of our offices. One of our farm customers donated nearly 200, five-pound bags of potatoes — that is 1,000 pounds — that filled an entire truck bed that went to a local food bank.
It’s our twentieth year of having a golf tournament. So at any of our internal events tomorrow, we’re going to ensure there’s a component being donated to the Zero Hunger Challenge.
Senator McNair: I commend you for that. You’re driven by innovation on the scientific side, but I suggest you’re also doing innovation on the social side. I commend you for that.
Ms. Stroud: Absolutely, yes. Thank you.
Senator McNair: If Senator Black were still here, he would put his question to the panellists. We call it the “fear” question. He has a fear that we’re not going to be able to feed ourselves and our country. Your presentations were both pretty positive. I think I know your answers, but do you have that same concern? Do you think we’ll be able to feed not only our country but help feed the world?
Mr. Vey: I can start with that, Senator McNair. Thanks for the question.
I don’t have the same concerns. Of course, I’m concerned about our industry, but I think we are well situated to continue to be an agricultural powerhouse, as we talked about.
As was referenced by Ms. Bechdol, we produce far more food today than we consume. Of course, not everything we consume we produce here, but we produce far more food than we consume; I don’t see that changing.
I would rather we focus on how we continue to feed ourselves in a more cost-effective way. I think that’s more important in today’s climate and economy. How do we also invest in giving the world more of what it needs, which I believe is Canadian agriculture?
We farm very sustainably. We have some of the best farmers in the world. We’re the best in the world at some things in agriculture. I would rather see us invest in that so we’re not just feeding ourselves locally, but also continue to be the country that is relied upon to feed the world safely and sustainably.
Senator McNair: Thank you. Ms. Stroud, is there anything you want to add?
Ms. Stroud: I agree 100% with how Mr. Vey has framed it. When we look at food security, it tends to be the food people have on their tables, the cereal and the bread they’re eating. It’s important to think about the whole food value chain in terms of how it impacts the cost of the food landing on that table, and it starts with the food being grown on farms.
We want to ensure there’s no disconnect with how that food is getting on the table, and trying to find ways to reduce costs across the entire food value chain.
For us, and our farm customers — and Mr. Couturier, the previous witness mentioned it as well — when we look at streamlining those regulatory pathways and thinking about ways we can make it more affordable to grow lots of food, it helps that end value chain.
Senator Muggli: I’m interested in having a little conversation here about digital technology. In your development of digital technology and protection of data, use of AI, et cetera, do you have concerns around cyber security and potential threats to our food production systems by bad actors?
Mr. Vey: Ms. Stroud, do you want to start with that?
Ms. Stroud: I can start and then welcome your addition.
Cybersecurity is a concern for us, both as citizens, but also as a Canadian organization. We’re a very high-tech organization. We invest a lot in AI and digital tools, and with that comes the responsibility of ensuring we are protecting the data we’re privileged to have, and that our systems are secure to protect our own organization.
We have a huge dedication to cybersecurity in our IT teams. That needs to continue to be a part of the discussion. I know with the AI policy — the strategy that just came out — that’s a concern as well. We need to make sure Canadians understand and trust the systems we have, and that’s through education.
I don’t think we can ever let our guard down when it comes to security, especially when it comes to the digital space. I don’t want to say it’s not a concern, but I think we are continually investing and making sure we’re in front of that.
Mr. Vey: I would echo what my colleague Christina Stroud said. One of our main concerns that we always have our guard up around is cybersecurity. As she mentioned, we have the privilege of having a lot of data. We want to protect that data.
We invest in a lot of training so that our staff is really up to speed on what to look for, because we know that these hacks happen all the time, such as phishing emails, for example. There are different things that we invest a lot in, just to make sure our staff have their guard up to ensure they are watching for these things, and we’re protecting ourselves as best we can.
But to your point, it’s one of our concerns, for sure.
Senator Muggli: We’re doing an AI study right now in another committee, and I’m beginning to sense that there is a time when we won’t be able to control what happens as it relates to bad actors. That makes me worry about our food security systems and how so much of the new technology that food producers are using could be jeopardized.
I appreciate your efforts in making sure you’re doing whatever you can to protect those systems. Thank you.
The Chair: I have a question. I wanted to speak to the fear question a little bit and talk about how I remember a time when there was kind of a silver bullet in crop production. We used to apply Ridomil once a season, and that took care of blight impacting our potato crop.
Now, we know with the evolution of blight spores and pathogens, and with the evolution of our technology, we go in now with snipers instead of grenades to solve our problems in crop production. It means a lot more re-entry. In that vein of no silver bullet, we have to have multi-pronged answers to everything.
We heard our friend Beth Bechdol from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, or FAO, talk about how Canada does not have a production issue; we have an access issue.
As I understand, Ms. Stroud, you were listening to Cyr Couturier earlier. He talked about oysters, and the question was asked of him: Should we have anticipated these diseases and pathogens coming into the waters?
I’m looking at you folks, and I’m saying, if we don’t have a production issue now, I think what we’re hearing is that we have to keep our eye on the horizon, and we have to anticipate what’s coming.
We did hear mention of the screwworm. Who mentioned the screwworm? Somebody mentioned this new pathogen in the U.S. I wanted to raise that issue and put it out there so it’s on the record.
I wanted to talk about how manufacturers like Syngenta view Canada as a market for your products. You are a global manufacturer. I look at crop protectants as medicine, and I wish everybody did. That technology, again, we don’t throw grenades at our problems like we did in the 1970s. Just like when we treat illnesses now, we are very nuanced with the technology we use. We go in with a sniper and deal with the problem and have less collateral damage.
When we look at manufacturers and how they view Canada as far as investing in the regulatory process to get a product to market, what are Canadian producers and the Canadian food system and economy missing out on because of how heavy the burden is for new entrants to the markets, new technologies and new tools? We hear over and over from producers that they can’t access the same tools.
It’s like going to the Olympics and running in a 100-metre dash with one leg tied behind your back. Can you speak to that a bit?
Mr. Vey: It’s a great question, Senator Robinson.
In my career history, I grew up on a farm in Saskatchewan, similar to Senator Muggli, and I have grown up in this company. Canada has always been very much viewed as a very attractive and science-based market that a company like Syngenta wanted — and wants — to continue to invest in because of that.
We have traditionally been, in new research and new active ingredient research, a top-five or top-seven country. What that means is that we would be at the forefront of new innovations and one of the first countries to register new technologies.
I’d say that’s shifted over the last seven to nine years. To give you an example, I mentioned a new active ingredient that we had registered in January. I think we were the thirtieth, roughly. Don’t quote me exactly, but we were somewhere in that twenty‑fifth to thirtieth country in the world, so we have slipped considerably.
What does that mean? My global colleagues, when I talk to them about investing in Canada, they still view Canada as a great market and still science-based, but they have a lot more questions now around our regulatory system. Like, if we invest, what is the likelihood we’re going to get it? Is this going to continue to take double the timelines? What’s the cost to that? That’s because we are always looking at how we recoup our investment in that innovation and getting those technologies to farmers.
That’s how I would answer, and maybe I’ll ask Christina Stroud if she has something to say.
Ms. Stroud: You’re probably aware of this, Senator Robinson, but a new crop protection product takes 10 to 12 years and about US$300 million to bring to market as a global number. It’s a huge investment.
To your point, we’re having to predict that far out what farmers are going to need if it’s going to take us 10 to 12 years to get that product to market. It’s continual forward thinking and continued research investment to find out what those new pests are that we’re hearing about and what we can develop that’s going to support that.
When you’re putting in that kind of investment, to Shaun Vey’s point, you want to make sure that you’re recouping that investment. It’s a basic business case study for where you’re going to invest.
The longer it takes to get those products to market here, the harder it is for us to make a case for those investments here. That results in farmers not having access to those technologies ahead of when some other countries are then having access to those technologies. It really reduces our farmers’ competitiveness here.
The Chair: In the Senate right now, we’re doing a pre-study on Bill C-30. Within Bill C-30, there’s mention of changing — and it was something you said, Ms. Stroud — the nimbleness and how, if it’s taking us 10 years to have a medicine — a crop medicine, and we call them pesticides — available to the farmer to ensure they can continue to grow the crop, right now, to get that expedited, Bill C-30 is hoping to allow that.
At the same time — and I’m sure you’ve looked at it — it must not erode the core mandate of the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, or PRD, or the core mandate of Health Canada, which is protecting human and environmental health and safety. I’m just connecting that.
Ten years: that is quite something. Again, if you put more of a human lens on it and say someone is suffering through an illness that’s potentially threatening their life, and the medicine is available in other countries, but it is not available in Canada, I’m pretty sure I’m travelling to that country where I can get the medicine so I can save my life.
Not to be too dramatic, but when we look at food, and we go back to the Prime Minister’s comments about a nation that can’t feed itself, we have to look at this through a serious lens.
I have one question that I wanted to ask Ms. Bechdol. It’s about the average age of a farmer. Maybe the two of you might have input as well.
What is the average age of a farmer globally — other countries than Canada — and are we about to see the largest transfer of capital in just Canada, or is there something similar happening globally?
We want to better understand the issue of succession within our country. We look around, and misery loves company is why we do it. We talk about being the first, fourth, seventh or ninth. How are we doing in succession? That will be my question for Ms. Bechdol.
I don’t know if either of you have a view on that because it is your market. Do you have anything to add about succession and your perspective on it?
Mr. Vey: I can offer a perspective. I’ll try to stay away from facts because I don’t want to misquote things.
Our average age of Canadian farmers is somewhere in the mid-50s. That is my understanding from the last time I checked the data. That hasn’t changed for a while.
What I’ve seen in my time is that we went through this period prior to COVID, when agriculture and commodity prices were good. Farmers were making good incomes. Personally, I saw many of my university friends go back to the farm because farming was an attractive place.
What I’m curious about now, Senator Robinson, is this: With the more challenging times now, are we going to continue to see that? You’re right. We are going to see a transfer of assets as farmers grow older and want to retire. They’ve worked hard for a number of years to steward the land and feed us. Is our industry going to continue to be attractive? Will we continue to see young people go back to the farm? Can they get in and get enough capital to acquire the land and equipment? That’s one of the things I am watching.
Here is an interesting fact: I was in South America earlier this year. One of the interesting things I learned about places like Argentina is that their average age of farmers is a lot younger. I don’t want to misquote, but the average age is somewhere in the mid-40s in Argentina. Again, it is due to attractiveness. The government and industry are all working together to prioritize the sector. It’s looked at as an attractive sector. That’s something we need to work on in Canada. We need to help our young farmers — those who want to get in — and make the sector attractive because it’s really important. It’s foundational to our future.
Senator Muggli: I have a quick question: Is your company delving into food processing technology at all?
Mr. Vey: At this point, I’m not aware of us delving into food processing.
Ms. Stroud: We do work with food processing with some of our digital tools with crops, for example. Food production companies that want to know that their farm inputs and crops they’re buying are grown sustainably. We know they are, but they want to make sure they can show that in a measurable way. We have a tool called Cropwise, and farmers can input their information into that, and it gives them a rating about their sustainably. If they’re using that tool, food producers have a way of understanding which farmers are growing crops sustainably in a way that they can identify.
Senator Muggli: Thank you. That’s good to know.
The Chair: That concludes our time.
I would like to take a moment to thank Christina and Shaun. Thanks for all the preparation you have put into this and for joining us by video. Next time, we may be able to get you in person. It’s always good to see folks in person.
Have a great day.
(The committee continued in camera.)