THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 2, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026.
Senator Éric Forest (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. I wish to welcome all of you, as well as all the Canadians watching us on sencanada.ca.
My name is Éric Forest, senator from Quebec and deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
I would now like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Gignac: Clément Gignac, Kennebec division, in Quebec.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ross: Good morning. Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Martine Hébert, Victoria division, in Quebec.
The Deputy Chair: This morning, we are continuing our study of the subject matter of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026.
Senator Galvez: Can I raise a point of concern?
While preparing for this meeting, I started looking through my ecotoxicology books. I noticed that the information we have received will mention pesticides, but never what constitutes those substances. However, the number of pesticides that are allowed affects the entire food chain. Just like that, we find glyphosate, chlorpyrifos and other short- and long-acting pesticides in our Canadian products. The ecotoxicological effects can be acute or chronic. I would like to ask whether we’ll have the chance and the opportunity to speak with people who are familiar with the chemistry and ecotoxicology of pesticides.
The Deputy Chair: I will make a note of that, and we’ll check on that as we plan the upcoming meetings. Thank you for that comment. Those present could probably also shed some light on that concern if they’re able to do so.
We welcome, from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Brodie Berrigan, Senior Director, Government Relations and Farm Policy, and by video conference, Stéphanie Levasseur, Second Vice-President. From CropLife Canada, we also welcome Pierre Petelle, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Émilie Bergeron, Vice-President, Crop Protection. Finally, from the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, Aimee Rae, Policy and Regulatory Affairs Director, will also be with us.
Thank you for accepting our invitation. We will now hear a short statement from each of the organizations. I want to leave time for as many questions as possible.
We will begin with Ms. Levasseur.
Stéphanie Levasseur, Second Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture: Thank you and good morning, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
My name is Stéphanie Levasseur, and I am the second vice‑president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, or CFA. I run an apple orchard in Frelighsburg, in the Eastern Townships in Quebec.
The CFA is Canada’s largest general farm organization. It represents over 190,000 farmers nationally.
As you know, agriculture does not operate in a vacuum. Decisions made in many government departments, for example, regarding issues of health, trade, finance and the environment, directly affect the competitiveness, resilience and sustainability of Canadian farms.
A coordinated government-wide approach is essential to maintaining the vitality of our food system and our competitiveness in global markets.
Fundamentally, food security depends on the productivity and economic viability of the agricultural sector.
For years, Canadian producers have been calling for regulatory mandates that explicitly recognize the importance of not only protecting health and the environment, but also ensuring economic viability, competitiveness and access to affordable food.
In this context, we welcome and support the recognition of economic and food security in Bill C-30’s proposed amendments to the Pest Control Products Act and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. However, the effectiveness of these amendments will depend on their actual implementation, which includes ensuring that decisions remain science-based.
We are also advocating for continued cooperation with the industry and the agricultural sector to ensure that these considerations are truly integrated into day-to-day regulatory decision making rather than staying as broad overarching objectives.
From the CFA’s perspective, this shift includes a more balanced and risk-based regulatory approach. Effective regulation should focus on managing risks rather than systematically seeking to eliminate them through disproportionate means or without regard for the actual conditions of use.
Excessive caution and zero tolerance for risk can have perverse effects. They can delay approvals, restrict access to essential tools and lower productivity without actually improving safety. In the face of rising costs, climate challenges and global competition, farmers need access to effective products to protect their crops and care for their animals.
At the same time, we also want to be clear about what these legislative changes should not do. They should not add new layers of bureaucracy, lengthen already significant approval timelines or impose additional and uncertain requirements on registrants or producers. They also should not require regulatory bodies to carry out extensive independent economic analyses that could further slow down decision-making.
Resources are also a major issue for both the Pesticide Regulatory Directorate and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Sufficient resources are essential for maintaining inspection capacities, addressing risks to animal and plant health and ensuring harmonization with major trading partners. To maintain its reputation as a reliable supplier of safe, high-quality food, Canada needs a well-functioning regulatory system.
More predictable and more timely regulatory decisions would enable producers to plan with confidence, invest in innovations and stay competitive in a rapidly changing global market.
In conclusion, we look forward to working with parliamentarians and regulators to ensure that these changes are implemented in a way that strengthens Canada’s agricultural sector without weakening public trust in our regulatory system.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you today.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Levasseur.
Ms. Bergeron, you have the floor for the next four minutes.
Émilie Bergeron, Vice-President, Crop Protection, CropLife Canada: Mr. Chair and honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to appear before you as part of the legislative review of Bill C-30.
My name is Émilie Bergeron, and I am the vice-president of crop protection at CropLife Canada. I am joined by my colleague Pierre Petelle, President and Chief Executive Officer of our association.
CropLife Canada represents plant science innovators who provide Canadian farmers with the tools and technologies they need to produce healthy, sustainable, affordable and abundant food while protecting human health and the environment.
Canadian agriculture is one of our country’s most important strategic assets. It is a major driver of trade, exports and economic growth, and a key pillar of food security in Canada and abroad.
Farmers are operating in an increasingly challenging environment. Climate change is intensifying production pressures due to extreme weather events, pest invasions and evolving health risks. At the same time, farmers have to contend with global supply chain disruptions, ongoing geopolitical uncertainty and increasing competition from other countries that export agricultural products.
It is in this context that the provisions in Division 8 of Part 3 of Bill C-30 are both necessary and timely. The proposed amendments to the Pest Control Products Act would make it possible to take into account the food security and national and regional economic security considerations in regulatory decision making. CropLife Canada and its members support this approach.
[English]
To be clear, health and safety must remain paramount. Canadians rightly expect that all pest control products approved for use in this country meet rigorous science-fixed standards for the protection of human health and the environment. At the same time, regulatory decisions can have significant implications for agricultural productivity, competitiveness, supply chain resilience and access to innovation.
The government’s proposed amendments in Bill C-30 signal a clear recognition that food security, economic security and competitiveness are national priorities.
Once Bill C-30 becomes law, CropLife Canada and our members believe it will be essential for the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, or PRD, to operationalize these amendments in a manner that reflects the pace, ambition and intent of Parliament.
Therefore, we strongly encourage the PRD to operationalize their new mandate in a manner that is transparent, predictable and meaningful. Economic and food security considerations must be incorporated into decision-making frameworks in a way that provides clarity for stakeholders and supports timely access to innovation.
Equally important, the PRD must engage affected stakeholders throughout this process. The objective should be to improve regulatory outcomes, not create additional complexity or unnecessary administrative burdens.
By strengthening stakeholder engagement, incorporating real‑world evidence and applying these new considerations in a practical and transparent manner, the PRD can help ensure that growers continue to have access to the tools they need without compromising health safety or environmental protections.
In closing, CropLife Canada supports the intent and direction of Bill C-30. While no legislation is perfect, these amendments represent an important step toward modernizing Canada’s regulatory framework to better reflect today’s realities and tomorrow’s challenges.
Once the bill is passed, we encourage the PRD to fully embrace this updated mandate and work with stakeholders to ensure its benefits are realized in practice.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to your questions.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Well done, four minutes exactly. Thank you.
[English]
Ms. Rae, you now have the floor.
Aimee Rae, Policy and Regulatory Affairs Director, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance: Good morning, senators. Thank you for the invitation to appear this morning as you study Bill C-30.
My name is Aimee Rae, and I am the policy and regulatory affairs director at the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, or CAIA. CAIA is the national association that speaks for Canada’s seafood farmers, representing their interests in Ottawa to regulators, policy makers and political leaders. Our members produce fish, shellfish and seaweeds, and are also suppliers to the sector.
Canada’s aquaculture sector generates over $6 billion in economic activity annually, provides jobs for more than 18,000 Canadians — mainly in rural, coastal and Indigenous communities — boasts one of the lowest carbon footprints of any animal protein and feeds millions of people in Canada and around the world.
To begin, I will present a few points regarding aquaculture. Aquaculture is agriculture: It is the farming of aquatic organisms, including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants throughout their life cycle. It is recognized as a farming activity by the Canada Revenue Agency, and many Canadian producers file as a farm business.
Aquaculture is the fastest-growing food production sector in the world. More than half of seafood produced globally is farmed. With capture fisheries severely constrained, the growing global demand for sustainable protein will be increasingly supplied by the aquaculture sector.
Canada has a competitive advantage in sustainable aquaculture and could — and should — be a global leader. We have the longest marine coastline in the world, a strong regulatory environment and hundreds of millions of dollars in private capital already invested in existing infrastructure and cutting-edge technology.
CAIA welcomes the proposed amendments to the Pest Control Products Act and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act that will explicitly recognize food and economic security in decision making.
Policy decisions regarding licensing, conservation areas, international trade, drug and pesticide approvals, and food safety have major and material impacts on Canada’s ability to feed itself, reduce reliance on imported food and increase production and value-added processing.
It is encouraging to see these amendments and other recent changes in the Government of Canada’s approach to regulation and policy. Health Canada’s Reliance Order, which will enable greater veterinarian drug availability in Canada by relying on regulatory decisions made in trusted foreign jurisdictions, is another example. CAIA recommends that this be extended to the PRD for pesticides and the CFIA for vaccines for greater impact.
Regulatory approaches should manage risk and balance the trade-offs that come with all human activity. The last decade has seen a regulatory trend in Canada towards zero-risk approaches, which has contributed to economic malaise. Regulation needs to reflect the reasonable and science-based management of risk.
Transparency and a scientific foundation for regulatory and policy decisions are critical to maintain public trust and to attract and retain business investment in Canada.
In closing, we support the move towards greater consideration given to food security and economic impacts at the PRD, the CFIA and across federal government departments. Inflation and food affordability are top issues of concern for Canadians. Food security — securing domestically grown and processed food at affordable prices — should be a top priority for the Government of Canada.
Thank you for your work on this issue and for the opportunity to be here this morning. I look forward to your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Rae. We will now proceed to questions.
[Translation]
Senators, you will have a maximum of four minutes for the first round. I invite you to ask your questions directly to the witnesses.
Given how many of you there are, I would ask the witnesses to keep their answers succinct.
[English]
Senator Ross: Good morning. Do you think the proposed changes in Bill C-30, Division 7 of Part 3, will encourage investment in the agriculture and aquaculture industries, as well as innovation? Can you talk about that a bit?
Pierre Petelle, President and Chief Executive Officer, CropLife Canada: The companies we represent are the ones providing the early stage: seed technology or crop protection products. We’ve seen that when the regulatory environment is suitable, those companies bring their latest technology. It helps farmers — the members that my colleague is representing — to be more competitive because they have the latest seed technology, genetics and crop protection product to defend against whatever pest pressures are growing for that particular crop.
We have seen that. We have seen our members making strategic investments in canola-breeding facilities and canola-crushing capacity in the West. So when the environment is right, regulatory-wise, investment and innovation follow.
Senator Ross: What about in aquaculture?
Ms. Rae: Yes, thank you for the question. We believe that this will help spur and increase investment. One big issue is competitiveness. For the aquaculture sector in Canada, producers don’t have access to the same tools in the tool box in terms of veterinary medicine and pesticides, so moving to a regulatory approach that balances the risks, moving away from a zero-risk threshold, and considers food security and economic security in regulatory decisions would help provide more tools in the tool box for our sector and, therefore, help with productivity and competitiveness.
Ms. Levasseur: Ms. Rae said it all. The fact that we would be on a more level playing field with our competitors would certainly encourage farmers to produce more because we will be able to do it more competitively at a better price for market. For sure, it would help increase production and investments.
Senator Ross: Any time there is a change in a regulatory environment or in the legislated changes to an industry, there are often costs associated with that: administrative costs, compliance costs and those sorts of things.
Can you address if that is a concern at all or if that is outweighed by the benefit?
Mr. Petelle: In this case, this change will almost have the opposite effect. Before a product that is critically important to a sector of agriculture is removed, our hope is that it will require additional analysis. Is there a way to mitigate that risk in a different way? Is there a way to consider other approaches that will help alleviate the issue that is being raised?
For us, it should result in net savings for farmers and the agriculture sector. When you look at the economic engine that agriculture already is — 7% of GDP — for us, there’s only one direction to go, and we think those investments will spur this sector to become even more of a factor.
Brodie Berrigan, Senior Director, Government Relations and Farm Policy, Canadian Federation of Agriculture: Thank you for the question. To add to what Stéphanie was mentioning, it’s important to recognize that Canada has been at a significant comparative disadvantage to a lot of countries internationally in terms of the time to market for some of these products. By incorporating more food security and economic security in the mandate of our main regulators in the agriculture sector, hopefully we can close that gap.
Right now, we see products two to five years after some of our main competitors internationally. The OECD released a study in 2023 — so a few years ago now — that ranked Canada 32 out of 43 countries in terms of regulatory burden. The proposals that are put forward through the amendments to Bill C-30 will go a long way towards sending the signal to investors that Canada is a place to invest.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. My question is for the Federation of Agriculture. From your perspective, how quickly do you see these changes being implemented? In the introductory remarks, it was stated that effectiveness depends on implementation, so I want to get a sense of how quickly you think these changes will be implemented.
Ms. Levasseur: The question should be directed to the agencies themselves, but we hope that it would be done fairly quickly. It’s a big change of culture too in those agencies. It certainly won’t be done in a matter of days or months. Hopefully, we can start implementing those changes quickly so that we become more competitive on the market.
It all comes down to the fact that we can’t use it but you can eat it because we import products from all over the world that have access to tools that we don’t. It’s critical that we be able to play on the same field as our competitors to be able to bring the product to the market at similar prices and cost to our businesses; the faster the better.
Mr. Berrigan: If I could just add to that, senator. I think what’s really important from our perspective is that industry is consulted on the implementation, and that we don’t look for burdensome new processes to be layered onto the implementation of these operational changes at PRD and CFIA. What we don’t want is for them to feel like they need to hire economists and on-board a lot of additional processes, timelines and steps that will actually lengthen the decision-making process.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you. With regards to economic and food security, what criteria do you think should be used in defining these terms? Do you have any concerns that these terms will be defined in regulation versus in the bill itself?
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you for the question. It’s a really important one. We will be looking for the details in regulation, hopefully, where these definitions will be spelled out in more detail.
From our perspective, when we are looking at concepts like food security, what we want to ensure that we are looking at are meaningful, systematic changes in the productive capacity and productivity of the agriculture sector; so long-term, systematic changes that will make us more productive.
I know there is often a temptation to move towards more retail fixes and short-term measures that might address food security concerns, but that’s tantamount to slapping a fresh coat of paint on a house when really we need to be focused on ensuring that we have a strong foundation for our agriculture and food system in Canada.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Robinson: I have a question for CAIA. In Division 7 of Bill C-30, we see mandate additions for CFIA, one of which mentions regional economic security, implying that economic security looks different across Canada. Can you give us some examples of how economic security looks different across Canada and oftentimes why a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t really work best for everyone?
Ms. Rae: Thank you, senator, for the question. One of the greatest examples here on regional economic security is when we look at British Columbia. The largest agri-food export from British Columbia is farm-raised Atlantic salmon. There have been some policy decisions taken in British Columbia regarding shutting down salmon farms, which has had a very large impact on the regional economies.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, most aquaculture facilities are in small, rural, coastal and First Nations communities. All of the Atlantic salmon farmed in British Columbia is done so in partnership with First Nations, and many of these nations rely very heavily on aquaculture as a source of employment.
Just to give some numbers, in 2019, DFO announced the closure of 19 salmon farms in Discovery Islands, so there was an economic impact analysis done by the sector in terms of the impact on that. What we saw between 2019 and 2023 was that output dropped by 40,000 metric tonnes, which is equivalent to about 250 million salmon meals a year. The economic impact was about $390 million in annual contribution to GDP; over 1,500 jobs were lost. Again, one feature of the sector is that this employment is in small, regional areas and small economies, where there aren’t a lot of other job opportunities.
It varies across the country. In Atlantic Canada, there are some different examples in rural and coastal communities in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island as well, but I think that’s one example of regional economic impacts being significant and the importance of bringing those into consideration in policy decisions.
Senator Robinson: Thank you. My second question might be for CropLife or CFA. I’m not sure. Last week, this committee heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. They did an analysis of the Spring Economic Update 2026, where they mentioned how geopolitical uncertainty presented a downside risk to global growth, and within that, specifically highlighted the conflict in the Middle East. Their focus was primarily on global oil supply and oil prices.
Last week, when I asked them if they had looked into the impact that this conflict would have on global fertilizer supply, they said they had not. I wanted to give you the floor to explain what we’re dealing with here and how it impacts food and economic security, Canada’s ability to be competitive in food production, facilitating trade and commerce. The list goes on for quite some time.
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you for the question. There is no doubt that the Canadian agricultural system is vulnerable to a number of geopolitical shocks. We saw this first materialize in the context of the Ukraine-Russia war, which saw some shortages and significant price hikes in fertilizer, particularly for eastern Canadian farmers.
We are seeing that situation materialize again, placing upward pressure on fertilizer prices as a result of the conflict in Iran and the chokepoint around the Strait of Hormuz, but fertilizer is not the only vulnerability in the Canadian food production system right now. There are several.
The vast majority of our crop protection products are produced in other countries. Our equipment and machinery are produced in other countries. A lot of veterinary products and antimicrobials are produced in China and other parts of the world. From our perspective, we need to take a hard look at the vulnerability of our food production system, do a bit of a mapping exercise and look at something like a critical farm input strategy — similar to the critical mineral strategy we have here in Canada — that would take a hard look at where those vulnerabilities are, and make sure we have some mitigation and measures in place to mitigate against the effects of these geopolitical shocks.
Senator Robinson: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: I’m going to follow up on what my colleague just asked you. I’m interested in the issue of international market development. We know that this is a very significant challenge that Canada is facing right now, that is, trying to diversify markets internationally. Will the changes being made support your respective industries in these efforts to diversify export markets?
Ms. Levasseur: If I may, I believe they will. As mentioned a bit earlier, this will put our domestic businesses in a better position to compete, especially when it comes to the prices of our export goods. However, at the moment, if we don’t have access to the same tools to help with production, that can absolutely hurt our production costs, making it higher, so if we’re also looking to export . . . .
As we know, our closest neighbour is the United States. That market was a perfect fit. However, if the goal is to go elsewhere, since it will be much farther away, transportation costs get added to production costs that are higher to begin with. This does hinder our ability to get into these new markets.
[English]
Ms. Rae: Thank you for the question. I wish I could respond in French, but my French is rusty. Building on that answer, in a scenario where we have greater production and more competitive production, it would ultimately lead to growing imports. On the diversification side, the U.S. is the largest importer of seafood; it is the largest market for our product, which tends to be fresh, but certainly, our sector is making efforts and has diversification with buyers in Asia looking for more Canadian seafood. We know — and this is true across the agri-food sector — that “Brand Canada” is very strong. The world does want more Canadian agri-food and seafood, and this would be helpful in terms of achieving that objective as well.
[Translation]
Ms. Bergeron: Absolutely. This will support the competitiveness of Canadian producers by giving them faster, privileged access to the pesticides or genetically modified seeds or innovations they need to increase their productivity and meet international market demands more quickly. If it’s implemented properly, this will have a major impact on the competitiveness of Canadian producers.
Senator Hébert: Ms. Levasseur, in your introduction, you mentioned that you were concerned about not adding any new layers of bureaucracy, any obligations for further economic analysis and so on. Is your concern based on the provisions as they are currently worded, or is this a wish you have for the future application of the legislative provisions?
Ms. Levasseur: We hope that all of this will be implemented in consultation with partners, such as producers or other stakeholders in the supply chain, as well as ourselves. We already do this kind of analysis, so you would be building on things that are already being done rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, which would increase delays. It’s more a desire to do this in partnership with the regulatory agencies rather than ask them to start from scratch, because the data already exists. As I said earlier, it’s also so that we can access tools that are already being used elsewhere for foods we consume here. We can’t produce them with those tools, but you can consume them, because they’re imported. It’s more of a desire to work in partnership.
Senator Hébert: Isn’t that the case now?
Ms. Levasseur: The regulatory agencies are very limited.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Galvez, this is your chance to raise your concerns: The floor is yours.
Senator Galvez: As a first question, are any of you pesticide chemists?
[English]
No? Okay, I have questions.
I’m a bit confused because sections 7 and 8 are under the title “Emergency Orders.” My colleague seems to think that this is going to change forever, but in the bill, it is under “Emergency Orders,” and it’s related to emergency use in situations such as national economic security, regional economic security and national food security, which, as are clearly pointed out, are not defined yet. But it’s “Emergency Orders.”
Already, it says that it’s going to provide this permission for three years, but it can be developed for nine years, it says. That notion of emergency is a little bit weird, I would say.
Given that context, I quickly consulted a bibliography to determine where we find pesticides, and it says here in a scientific reference from Environment Canada that pesticides are routinely detected in Canadian rivers, streams, wetlands, groundwater and, occasionally, in drinking water sources. What are these pesticides? Atrazine, 2,4-D, dicamba, MECOPROP-P, Butachlor, Metribuzin, Bromoxynil, et cetera. More recently, we are also finding neonicotinoid insecticides in the order of nanograms and even micrograms per litre.
My first question is this: If we are finding excess pesticides in all these waters, why do we need more pesticides in our crops? Can somebody answer that question?
Mr. Petelle: It’s not about having more pesticides in crops; it’s about having the right tools available to farmers. They have multiple challenges that vary every year, especially with climate change. There are insect pressures and disease pressures that they didn’t have before. You can’t just use one product over and over; you have to have a variety of tools to prevent resistance, and so on. That’s the first clarification.
The other part is that with detection technology — you’re right — you can detect almost any product, including pharmaceuticals that we ingest every day, and find it in streams if you go down deep enough into detection limits. The key is around the dose. The old expression is that the dose makes the poison. That is why, when the pesticide regulator looks at the data that is submitted — to answer your earlier question — they look at ecotoxicology, impacts on aquatic organisms and non‑target terrestrial organisms, and impacts on humans, obviously, as well as residues in food, et cetera. That’s all part of the data evaluation, and that’s why it takes years to evaluate it.
Senator Galvez: Those are very important, and some of you have talked about the risk. The receptor of that pesticide, in excess, for the new products you’re going to bring in order to make more competitive products, affects the whole ecosystem, and in the ecosystem, there are insects, as you mentioned, but there are also humans. When you do the risk, it’s mainly detected in humans. Of course, before humans have a chronic effect, they will have to take litres and litres of this water, but the algae and the little insects, which are included in the food chain, will die with much lower dosages than us.
That’s why, for me, it’s so important that we understand this. We say pesticides, but really this is a big family. When you look at the half life of the pesticides, there are pesticides that disappear in some hours, but there are pesticides that last in the ecosystem for years.
Mr. Petelle: This is why the evaluation of pesticides is so robust. They do look at all the things you’ve described, and the risk is not just for humans. If the risk to aquatic organisms or to birds is too high, the product will not get approved. So all of those factors are part of the risk assessment. They don’t look at just one study. They look at the weight of evidence and a number of different studies from different sources for existing products. This is OECD-level scientific rigour that many countries have agreed upon. The bar is quite high for pesticide reviews.
I appreciate your concerns, but we have a robust system in Canada and in most of the world, and we do have a water-monitoring program in Canada that routinely demonstrates that while there are detections. They’re well below the levels that have been assessed as being problematic.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome to the witnesses.
My question is for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Mr. Berrigan, you mentioned an OECD study that ranked Canada 32nd out of 45. How could the changes to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency help us get a better ranking, say, over the next five years? Can you tell us more about that?
[English]
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you very much for the question. This is a study that was conducted in 2023 by the OECD that assessed a state of regulatory burden across all OECD-member countries, and the conclusion was very sobering from a Canadian perspective. They proposed amendments in Bill C-30 to include more of an economic lens and economic considerations related to food security, and economic security in the mandate of the CFIA will go a long way, in our opinion, in streamlining the regulatory approach of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and, hopefully, improving our international ranking related to the regulatory burden.
The fact of the matter is that we need to do something about that. We are in very fierce competition with a number of countries around the world, particularly in what many have characterized as a new world order in our international trade regime.
A good example that comes to mind is a recent decision by the CFIA, prior to Bill C-30, of course, to eliminate destination-inspection services on fresh produce products. I’m not sure if you’ve heard about this, but it’s touched a number of Canadian producers.
Essentially, what happens is that you have CFIA inspectors doing quality assurance: Is the fresh produce that’s being imported as originally promised when it was exported by a country? Without those destination-inspection services available, you’re impacting the trade relationship with a potential competitor or partner internationally, and so having had the economic considerations and the food security considerations embedded in the mandate of the CFIA, would have, we believe, and hope, prevented the cuts to those services and maintained those critical services for our fresh fruit and vegetable producers in Canada.
Senator Gignac: Thank you for the answer. We see in the economy the rise of protectionism, and it’s not only about tariffs; it’s about non-barrier tariffs. These kinds of things have been used by many countries now. Do you think in the Canadian case that this amendment to the law will reduce productivity to have more of a trade war with others or will it not really have an impact?
Mr. Berrigan: We can only see positive potential benefits as a result of the change in the economic mandate. Consideration of food security and economic security will be important for our Canadian producers in terms of increasing our market diversification and, hopefully, addressing some non-tariff barriers to trade internationally.
As you know, Canada has a free trade agreement with the European Union. Unfortunately, we’ve had a very hard time actually using our full market potential and our already negotiated market access of Canadian pork and beef products as a result of non-tariff barriers to trade in that market. So it is our sincere hope — we’re optimistic — that, by implementing the mandate change for CFIA and PRD, we’re one step closer towards facilitating greater market access with our trading partners around the world.
Senator Gignac: Are we closer to the best practices we see in Europe with this kind of amendment in the bill? I am trying to follow you on that.
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you for the question. I don’t think that’s what we’re saying. Europe has a very different regulatory approach, particularly when it comes to agricultural products, and we wouldn’t necessarily want to emulate that approach at all in Canada. Our focus is very much on ensuring we have safe and science-based decision-making. That goes to the previous senator’s question around the use of pesticides as well.
Our focus is on ensuring we have science-based standards rooted and anchored in international standards around health, safety and science when it comes to the trade in Canadian agricultural products.
Senator Pupatello: Thank you. I need to divulge that I’m a member of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which is likely a member association of yours, although I don’t think that puts me in conflict in any event. You have thousands of members.
My question is very similar to Senator Gignac’s around examples of what could not be done before, that this, in fact, is going to allow you to do. That example of the inspection off site like that is very interesting, because I have heard that before; if we don’t know what they’re doing at that end, we’re making some assumptions when they come in, or there’s going to be a lag in knowledge that materials are coming in and food stuffs that we’re eating. We might find out a year later that this is the process that they used, which is not nearly equitable to our standards.
Give me another example of what you could do in terms of an immediate response to be more competitive or faster acting if there’s going to be some kind of a massive issue, like a new pest discovered or something?
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you for the question and for your membership. I don’t think that necessarily puts you in a conflict.
A couple of years ago, the Pesticides Regulatory Director, the former PMRA, had a two-year ban on a product called lambda-cyhalothrin, which is a product used on corn, soybean and cereal crops. It was a ban on pesticides used on those products that were destined for feed. That was a really interesting and very troublesome distinction between feed use versus general use of those products.
The confusion that caused — and the two-year ban on the use of that product in particular — had a significant impact on agricultural producers in Canada not having access to it, and the confusion around saying, well, if I’m growing products for this end use, does it change relative to whether it’s for feed use or whether it’s for general consumption?
For us, if we had had an economic and food security lens in the mandate of the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate at the time, our hope is that we would have prevented a decision that would have had harmful economic consequences for the agricultural sector, introduced a significant amount of confusion and put us at a competitive disadvantage with our American counterparts on this particular product. That’s just one example.
Senator Pupatello: You need to get to why it was banned, because I make an assumption, as a normal, regular citizen, that you’ve banned a product all of a sudden because something has been discovered that is really bad for food.
How do you square something that really ought not to be used in the food process and the requirement because it actually works? A silly example is a pesticide for lawn control that all my neighbours would love to have — all those old pesticides that are actually used to kill weeds — and instead, they’re struggling with these natural-type things that are absolutely not working. I think we have to have an education on how beautiful dandelions are, after all, because that’s what we have. That is a silly example versus something serious in the food supply.
You do look at that. The farmers would say, “Oh, gosh, we just found out this is really bad.” Is it that you get into the details of why it was banned, and you realize that it needs to be ameliorated a little bit?
Mr. Berrigan: That was part of the challenge in that particular case; it was actually banned for animal-feed use, but was still okay for general consumption. There was a lot of confusion about why it would be banned for some uses and not others. I think this is exactly the type of economic lens that needs to be factored in when making these decisions so that there is better consideration of what the actual impacts are.
Again, we always come back to the fact that these decisions need to be anchored in a strong, science- and evidence-based decision-making processes, and we would always go back to that and lead with those.
Senator Pupatello: The same question is around the 19 fisheries that would have been closed down in B.C. Why were they closed down? You make an assumption that there must have been a good reason, and so when you just hear they shut them down, it sounds like a dramatic kind of decision to take. What would the rationale have been for that?
Ms. Rae: Thank you for the question, senator. It’s an excellent one. It’s a long answer, but I’ll try to keep it very short.
When the DFO minister announced the closure, it was acknowledged that it was not based on science; it was because of a lack of social licence. So the department’s own scientific research found that there was no more than a minimal risk to wild salmon related to salmon farms, but because of the lack of social licence, the government took that decision to close down the farms.
Senator Pupatello: Can I ask you what a social licence is?
Senator Forest: Second round.
Senator Robinson: Can you give us a sense of what social licence is, please?
Ms. Rae: Thank you for the question, senator. Social licence is one of those broad terms which can be defined in a few different ways. In this case, social licence was basically a lack of public support for the sector in the province of British Columbia. The reality was that it was a very small yet vocal group of activists who were against salmon farming, and that was determined to be the lack of social licence in that case.
Senator Robinson: I’m writing down, “Squeaky wheel gets the grease and NIMBY.” Is that accurate?
Ms. Rae: Yes.
Senator Robinson: I wanted to take a moment with CAIA. You mentioned in your opening remarks that aquaculture is agriculture. When we think about agriculture, we don’t typically make that association. Even though aquaculture falls within DFO, you still liaise a lot with CFIA and PRD, so these mandates really do affect you. Could you speak a little bit to that relationship?
Ms. Rae: Thank you for the question.
Aquaculture is agriculture, as you mentioned. DFO is our primary regulator as well as the champion department for development — or has been historically — yet aquaculture as a farming activity shares so many of the same kinds of challenges and characteristics of land-based farming. Our producers and farmers face risks, for example, around weather, pests and disease.
One good example is what is happening on Prince Edward Island with oyster farmers, who are facing a severe disease outbreak of MSX and Dermo. The CFIA has deemed all of Atlantic Canada waters to be endemic to these two diseases, which have no impact on food safety, but they do cause high mortality amongst oysters. So the oyster farmers in PEI are facing a crisis right now. It’s the time of year where they’re pulling up oyster cages and discovering high levels of mortality.
Our primary relationship with the CFIA and PRD would be similar to other land-based sectors, including approval of pesticides for use in the sector primarily for fin fish, and the CFIA for safe food for Canadian regulations, implementation, export permits and things like that, as well as the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program, or CSSP, co-administered by the CFIA, ECCC, and DFO.
Senator Galvez: You mentioned that there are other tools apart from pesticides that you want to use under these emergency orders. What are these other tools?
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you for the question, senator. Stéphanie, feel free to jump in.
I’m not sure there would necessarily be other tools under these emergency orders. From our perspective, these emergency orders should only be used in exceptional circumstances and only when grounded, as I said previously, in sound science, an evidentiary basis and in consultation with industry. I think that’s very important to clarify.
There are several other tools farmers use to support pest-management practices; one is mechanical, and there are beneficial insects that can be introduced that actually support pest control. When we have conversations with our members at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we talk about not only the four R’s of nutrient stewardship — right use, right place, right time, right amount, et cetera — but we’re also looking from a holistic perspective at how we can manage those pests so that we’re not reliant on pesticides.
Pesticides are very expensive for farmers, and they do not want to use them unless they absolutely need to. In fact, crop inputs like pesticides have gone up substantially over the past several years; we continue to hear about this from our membership. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Pupatello: One of you mentioned — I think it may have been Pierre — other trade zones, like the EU and America, and the alignment of some of the regulations with those jurisdictions so you can open up new trade opportunities.
Is there work that you’re aware of, or would you be interested in that type of work where we’re aligning with other regions beyond those two? Those are kind of established, although I think we could do more on every front, but I think it was mentioned around aquaculture and the need for protein in Asia, et cetera.
I’m not sure it’s affiliated with this bill, because this does continue to mention the emergency nature of the need, but does this help? I ask because one of you mentioned those trade zones.
Mr. Petelle: Senator Gignac also mentioned non-tariff barriers. I keep going back to this tool box, but having many tools available to a grower is absolutely critical, because there are certain markets that have certain approvals for products, and farmers know that they can use an alternative. They have a variety of options.
In terms of standardizing rules, Canada has done a lot. At the OECD in particular, there’s a working group on pesticides that has really standardized a lot of the data and processes that are required for evaluating pesticides among many different countries. That’s not to say that countries use non-tariff approaches to change that; Europe is a prime example of that. They routinely make political decisions on scientific approvals that have been cleared by the regulator, but then they use almost the social licence example to say, “Well, our people don’t want this product, even though the science is very clear it’s fine.”
This is where we have to be careful when we talk about alignment. That is a jurisdiction that, as Brodie mentioned, we would absolutely not want to align with. I think they’ve used subsidies and pesticide bans as they go hand in hand to take the temperature, but we’ve seen that erupt with tractor protests across all of Europe, and most of that was based on the regulatory burden that hit a breaking point for farmers. So we want to make sure that our farmers have tools rather than penalties.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for being here. This has been a very informative and interesting discussion. Thank you for your time, and let us all wish ourselves good luck.
Ms. Levasseur, what is your pet that we can see behind you? I’m curious to know.
Ms. Levasseur: It’s a Highland cow in the winter. They live outside in the winter. This is a picture from my neck of the woods after a snowfall.
The Deputy Chair: Very good. Thank you very much and have a good day.
Honourable senators, for our second panel, we are pleased to welcome Chris Duyvelshoff, Chair of Crop Protection, from the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada; and by video conference, Ron Lemaire, President, from the Canadian Produce Marketing Association.
Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today.
We will now hear opening remarks. Mr. Duyvelshoff, you now have the floor.
[English]
Chris Duyvelshoff, Chair of Crop Protection, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada: Honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, or FVGC.
FVGC welcomes the government’s intention, through Bill C-30, to amend the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act and the Pest Control Products Act to include consideration of economic and food security. FVGC strongly supports these components of the bill. For Canada’s fruit and vegetable growers, we believe these amendments are important and necessary. FVGC also supports the measure allowing for immediate expensing of greenhouse infrastructure.
FVGC represents growers nationally who produce the fruits and vegetables Canadians put on their tables daily, coming from fields and greenhouses across the country. These are familiar foods but also strategic foods. For many produce items, Canada does not produce enough domestic supply to meet national demand. Apples, strawberries, onions and garlic are everyday items that we produce domestically yet for which Canada is a significant net importer.
For Canada, success in this sector is about more than farm income or economic opportunity. It is our national food security. Incorporating a food lens and farm realities into the decision making of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, or PRD, has been a long-standing ask of FVGC. Practical implementation of these new provisions will be crucial.
Importantly, senators, this is not a request to weaken Canada’s protection of human health, food safety or protection for the environment. Canada already has a strong global reputation for science-based regulation and food safety — a reputation that fruit and vegetable growers want to maintain. The proposed food-security lens is about holistic regulatory decision making, not lower standards.
The new language must be meaningful. It must not be symbolic language that is present but does not factor into decision making. For the PRD, the availability of crop protection solutions has direct consequences for domestic food production and national food security. Fruit and vegetable growers face pests, diseases, invasive species, erratic weather, rising input costs and competition from imports. If a critical pest management product is delayed, unavailable or removed without a viable alternative, the result can be lost crops, reduced yields, poor quality, higher costs and less Canadian-grown food. Ultimately, this increases our reliance on imported fruit and vegetables to fill our plates.
A food lens means the PRD should not be blind to the tangible impacts of its decisions. While continuing to protect human health and the environment, the regulator should also understand the impacts of new registrations, cancellations and emergency-use requests on Canada’s capacity to produce food and keep food affordable.
Through Bill C-30, FVGC would ask that the PRD be empowered to seek, receive and meaningfully assess evidence from growers, provincial governments, Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada, and other relevant departments on the food production implications of its regulatory decisions.
We ask that this information be used in three practical ways. First, PRD should prioritize new registrations, which can fill pest management gaps that pose the greatest risks to domestic food production. Second, PRD should use all practical measures within its health and environmental mandate to retain access to critical pest management tools and uses where their removal would most jeopardize Canada’s ability to produce its own food supply. Third, Canada should further enhance incentives to promote and retain registrations of new pest management solutions for fruit and vegetable crops. As many horticultural crops are grown on a smaller scale, the private sector is often not focused on these crops as a primary market.
Application of a food lens principle applies the same to CFIA. FVGC supports a CFIA mandate and operating culture that considers national food security and the cost of food in regulatory and operational decisions. That should include prioritizing regulatory reviews that support domestic food production, focusing enforcement on risks to Canada’s food system, such as ensuring that non-compliant imports do not undermine Canadian growers and assessing new policies for their effect on domestic food production.
In closing, FVGC strongly supports Bill C-30’s recognition that national food and economic security belong inside the scope of federal regulatory decision making. This goal is smarter regulation: science-based, protective of human health and the environment and open-eyed to the realities of producing food in Canada.
Thank you.
Ron Lemaire, President, Canadian Produce Marketing Association: Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members.
On behalf of the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, or CPMA, and our members, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present to committee this morning.
For many of you who are not familiar with our organization, CPMA is a more than 100-year-old not-for-profit trade association representing companies active in the marketing of fresh fruit and vegetables in Canada.
Our over 900 corporate members include major growers, shippers, packers, marketers, importers and exporters, transportation and logistics firms, brokers, distributors, wholesalers and retailers, and food service distributors, including fresh-cut operators. So that includes the entire value and supply chain for the fruit and vegetable sector in Canada.
We represent over 90% of the fresh fruit and vegetables sold in the country, and today I want to begin my remarks with a simple premise. If the goal of Bill C-30 is affordability and economic resilience, then Canada’s fresh food system must be treated as core infrastructure, not a downstream outcome.
Fresh fruits and vegetables are unique in our economy. They are highly perishable, deeply integrated across North American supply chains and extremely sensitive to cost volatility. Every policy signal — whether related to transportation, labour or regulation — shows up quickly and directly in the price Canadians pay at the grocery store. This is due in part to crop rotation, seasonality and a range of other factors.
It is in this context that I would like to highlight key measures in Bill C-30 that are important to the fresh fruit and vegetable supply chain. First, CPMA welcomes provisions in Part 1, providing temporary and immediate expensing for eligible greenhouse buildings. This is a meaningful step towards expanding production capacity in a key segment of the Canadian produce industry and improving year-round supply. But the devil is in the detail on how we implement and deliver on this.
Second, CPMA is extremely pleased to see provisions in Part 3, Divisions 7 and 8, which could address long-standing concerns from our members and partners in the agri-food sector — as you heard from previous testimony — as long as there is transparency, consultation with industry and a science-based decision-making process that brings economic development within the model of moving forward.
Part 3, Division 7, makes amendments to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to clarify the agency’s mandate, which includes not only food safety plant and animal health and consumer protection but also the facilitation of trade and commerce and the consideration of national economic security, regional economic security and national food security. This is very much welcome by our sector.
Division 8 makes a similar amendment to the Pest Control Products Act, requiring the Minister of Health to consider national economic security, regional economic security and national food security for the purposes of the act, including and allowing the emergency use amendment or reinstatement of pest control products.
Taken together, these provisions constitute a welcome recognition of the importance of the long-term economic viability of our growers and others along the food supply chain as a critical part of strengthening Canada’s food security. Affordability cannot be sustained without a strong, efficient and resilient food system behind it. The fresh fruit and vegetable supply chain is a significant contributor to Canada’s economy, generating more than $18 billion in GDP and supporting 188,000 jobs across the country.
But in the current context of trade and geopolitical volatility, increasing extreme weather events and rising costs present real and present threats. The sector’s adaptive capacity is strained to its limits. With success in 2025 achieved through compression, not growth, we see a challenge looking at 2026.
A recent CPMA survey showed that 43% of our respondents noted for 2026 that, while they are still optimistic, they are concerned; while we have 44% cautious and very concerned. This split definitely influences business decisions on how the industry will move forward.
Now is the time to prioritize agriculture and food production as a strategic cornerstone of the government’s broader Build Canada economic strategy.
CPMA encourages the government to build on measures introduced in Bill C-30 by advancing a more coordinated approach to food systems competitiveness and one that recognizes the food supply chain as essential to Canada’s economic performance, public health and long-term resilience.
Thank you.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
We will now move on to the question period.
I remind you that you have four minutes to ask your questions. The more concise the question, the more time there will be for answers.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Welcome to our witnesses, and thank you for being here. I have two questions which are kind of long-term, looking at what’s happening in the industry and the climate.
My questions are with regard to pests, insects and bugs. Are you witnessing a change of pests that are affecting agriculture and, therefore, the pest control that you have to engage in as a result of climate change?
Mr. Lemaire, you mentioned greenhouses. What’s the status of the greenhouse industry part of ag overall? Where do you see that going in the next decade or two? Maybe I’ll start with you, Mr. Duyvelshoff.
Mr. Duyvelshoff: Thank you very much for the question.
With regard to climate change and new pests, absolutely. We have seen a number of significant invasive species that have been first reported in Canada or have occurred in Canada over the last 10 to 15 years, probably partially related to climate change and also likely due to increased trade.
New pests are becoming an increasing problem, and they demand new pest management tools. That is one thing that we are always challenged by, and in some cases, we don’t have the research here to show what will necessarily work. Yes, it is becoming an increasing challenge.
Mr. Lemaire: That’s a very good question. On the greenhouse perspective, it’s a $2-billion industry, and people forget that. Everyone talks about the automotive industry. Let’s start talking about fresh fruit and vegetables and agri-food. We are a superpower in Canada, and we can drive change, jobs, the economy and food security, which is essential to the livelihood of our nation.
When we sit down and look at where greenhouses could go, the goal has to support, not only access to the tools, as my colleague noted, around the increased invasiveness of new pests coming into the market, but also looking at how we drive infrastructure.
The challenge greenhouses have is access to energy, the tax system in place, access to labour and the challenges of municipal rules and diversity of rules across the country, which force many of them to drive their businesses south of the border, where they have greater incentives to build greenhouses and have greater opportunities than to export.
We are integrated, I should note. Many of our Ontario greenhouse operators have operations in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. This is also purposeful in how we provide year-round supply of food and how we can generate an economies-of-scale model because we are only 40 million people, and we can in greenhouses grow a lot of tomatoes, a lot of cucumbers and a lot of peppers, so we need a valve for release, and that is the trade valve. The North American trade model in a perishable industry is vital moving forward.
Senator Cardozo: I’ve had the chance to see greenhouses in Southern Alberta, and they are bigger than anything I could have ever imagined.
Mr. Lemaire: Whole Leaf? A big lettuce operation?
Senator Cardozo: No, it was something World.
Mr. Lemaire: Okay, a different one.
Senator Cardozo: It was just huge, and it was very exciting to observe.
It is interesting what you say about the need for energy because the other industry that is coming along is data centres, who want large amounts of energy.
Do you see competition there?
Mr. Lemaire: We have spoken to the data centres, actually, about how we offgas or off-use their heat that could be driven into energy into greenhouses.
The challenge is that data centres need to have proximity to major urban centres, and you don’t find a lot of greenhouses in proximity to major urban centres.
If the data centres are willing to move to rural Canada, then we have the potential of leveraging the energy — the heat — from those data centres to drive agriculture.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Ross: This question could be for both of you. What impact do you think the changes in Division 7, Part 3 will have on investment in the agriculture industry? What impact do you think it might have on innovation? What about the cost of production and, therefore, the cost of food?
Mr. Duyvelshoff: Thank you very much for the question.
Access to pest management solutions, whether they be through the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, or PRD, or through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, are crucial for the fruit and vegetable sector.
As one of the previous panellists mentioned, pest management is a significant cost to production. In this sector, specifically, labour is the leading cost of production, pretty well across the board, but pest management is right up there. Having access to effective tools is critical for having a competitive production environment in order to keep the cost of production down — ultimately food cost — so I do believe that the amendments proposed for the CFIA and the PRD will lead to impactful change.
What we’re hoping to see with those amendments is that those regulatory bodies engage with the sector and with producer groups such as ourselves to understand where the most critical bottlenecks are in accessing pest management solutions and then prioritizing their work in order to fill those gaps.
Mr. Lemaire: I don’t have too much to add other than that the CFIA has begun restructuring, and there are some welcome changes that we are starting to see in the modelling that they are putting forward, and that is a trade division that will look at economics. We need to ensure they have a voice and they have scope of knowledge.
This is a challenge we are seeing across the bureaucracy: a shift in agriculture knowledge and scope of knowledge of our sector. Decisions are being made, and the previous witness talked to the Destination Inspection Service and decisions made around that strategy, which were clearly made due to a lack of knowledge specific to the scope and importance of the system to the global market and the domestic market.
Transparency and consultation — those things I noted in my testimony — are key for the agency and for the PRD to continue.
Senator Robinson: I wanted to ask a question of our fruit and vegetable grower representative and Mr. Lemaire, if you want to weigh in.
Bill C-30 introduces food security, economic security and, for the purposes of PRD, seriously detrimental infestation. These terms have not yet been defined, but they will be defined later through regulations.
I would like to hear from you about something you think cannot get missed when government sits down to define these terms, and how important do you feel it is that government work with you to define these terms?
Mr. Duyvelshoff: Thank you very much for the question.
First of all, we look forward to working with government as Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada and our other colleagues in the agriculture industry on discussing what those terms should be.
For ourselves, as fruit and vegetable growers, national food security goes hand in hand with domestic food production and being able to feed ourselves with a complete diet, which would include fruits and vegetables, importantly, without being significantly reliant on imports to fill our plates. That’s something, from our perspective, that we shouldn’t miss from the fruit and vegetable sector.
I did want to come back to the seriously detrimental infestation and just provide one example. There was a pest control tool that was phased out several years ago, and it was used, in particular, in rutabaga production, which is across the country but, in particular, with some rutabaga production on Prince Edward Island. Since the loss of that particular tool, the crop losses that they have experienced have been upwards of 75%, and it’s no longer possible or economical to have rutabaga production on Prince Edward Island.
That’s one example of a very serious infestation that has completely eliminated not only an economic opportunity but also the ability to produce our food here in Canada.
Mr. Lemaire: I can add that we can see these challenges not only here in Canada, but we can see case studies that have happened globally.
The German government acted in a similar way by removing access to certain monitored use products, and they immediately saw a drop in domestic production. They had no solution for alternative products to introduce to market.
We have to remember that the process we are looking at here on emergency use is a last resort. It’s wonderful that we are talking about it, but we need to ensure that we are not looking at all these one offs and that we are putting in play a system that enables the agri-food sector — and, for our interests, the fresh fruit and vegetable sector — access to new products.
To a question with previous witnesses, is it meaning more pesticide use? No. It’s more effective tools in the market that are cost-effective and create a competitive environment for us so that we can grow rutabagas, and we can grow more products in the market.
Senator Robinson: Thank you.
I wanted to talk a little bit about Division 7, which allows for exemption orders under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, or CFIAA, and Division 8, which allows for emergency orders under the Pest Control Products Act, or PCPA. Both say these orders will be made public, but they are not subject to the Statutory Instruments Act, which, amongst other things, mandates publication in the Canada Gazette.
Mr. Lemaire, you had talked a little bit about the Destination Inspection Service, or DIS, and how that came to be. I was wondering, in that same vein, do you think this creates a more agile regulatory process, or does it remove transparency from the process?
Mr. Lemaire: I think it is a slippery slope. We need a balance. It’s a double-edged sword for industry. We have been asking for less regulatory burden, but at the same time, we need to have an ability to provide input, especially around areas where we’ve seen a softening of knowledge within the departments and within the bureaucracy.
We are not the enemy. Our industry is here to feed Canadians, and we want to do it in the most cost-effective and science-based manner. Our goal is to work with government, as we have across different agencies and departments, and we are working with the CFIA today to look at how we can now modernize DIS.
With the removal of the program, they have realized the challenges, and we are working with a senior-level working group to find solutions and to try and put something in place that will, hopefully, be better in the future. If the consultation had happened before the decision, we wouldn’t be in this position today.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Mr. Lemaire, in your opening remarks, you mentioned that the industry should be “treated as core infrastructure.” I think I know where you’re going with that statement, but I would like you to explain exactly what you meant.
[English]
Mr. Lemaire: Thank you for the question because this is extremely vital moving forward.
This is where we look at the national scope on food security, regional economic strategic approaches and how we connect the two together. The key moving forward for our sector is a federal umbrella that will enable strategic investments around infrastructure, but the federal government also has to enable the provinces to support regional economic growth. It’s the collaboration between the federal-provincial-territorial model through ministers and across departments that is key.
What we are seeing with the current government today is a better alignment across departments and ministers. For us, this is fundamental because the silos of government have been our greatest challenge. Our industry is sometimes a ping-pong ball: We approach the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, and we’re told to see the Minister of Agriculture. We go see the Minister of Transportation, and we’re sent back to ISED. You see where I’m going with this.
The key for us is a strategic path in the government and a core decision-making process, whether it’s at the PMO level or working with empowered ministers to make decisions to drive investments into our sector. That’s key. It takes an entirety-of-cabinet approach to make it happen at a government level.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: A structure has been created; it’s called the Major Projects Office. We know that it targets certain strategic sectors. Are you saying that the agricultural sector should have been included in the strategic sectors? My understanding is that bodies like this can also ensure interdepartmental coordination, as you are calling for.
[English]
Mr. Lemaire: Everyone thinks they’re special. I’d like to say we’re more special than everyone else because we do feed Canadians. The agri-food sector needs to be highlighted. Within that model, how do you prioritize agri-food, and how do you look at the strategies that will enable it? How do you enable access to energy? How do you enable the right tax incentives to support growth of business and incentivize innovation? How do you enable increased food manufacturing and support that?
To get there, you need the zoning at a municipal level, the labour framework in place and you need to drive private equity and other investors into the market. Right now, it’s happening but it’s a very heavy lift to deliver that program.
The federal strategy is very positive, but we need to take the lens of food, as fruit and vegetable growers have noted, and focus it more aggressively to drive change, because we’re not primary right now.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Do I still have time?
The Deputy Chair: That will be for the second round.
Senator Hébert: I was going to talk about labour and immigration.
The Deputy Chair: We’ll come back to it.
[English]
Senator Galvez: If I had the power, I would second the proposal of my colleague Senator Hébert. It would be great if this could be included in major infrastructure projects.
You have both talked about extreme weather events, climate change and impacts on agriculture. That is so refreshing; thank you so much. It’s so evident, but we don’t think too much about those.
I remember when we started talking about planet warming 25 years ago, the theory was that Canada was going to increase the amount of our agricultural land in unbelievable amounts and that we should be happy that the planet was warming. That’s what we heard. Now, 30 years later, I would like to know where we are in that subject.
We also know that some agricultural soils are impoverished, so we’re losing agricultural soils. I don’t know if it’s a race between good temperatures and impoverishment. I would like to have an answer to those things or an idea of what is happening with those.
Also, on the issue of greenhouses, in Quebec, which is my province, we have an explosion in that, which is fantastic. The number of products that we’re producing is really fantastic. In the winter, we can now consume tomatoes, cucumbers, et cetera. So, how can we increase, support and promote more of this happening in Canada?
Mr. Lemaire: I will speak briefly on greenhouses and let Chris follow up with that.
Quebec has hydro. My good friend is the president of Savoura — Luc Prévost — a fabulous greenhouse operator in Quebec. They are a national and global competitor because of infrastructure access.
There are many other things we have to address, such as labour and some other tax challenges, but, overall, the first step has been addressed in how we access energy. If we can look at that strategy across the country — especially when you see, as an example, in Ontario, access the natural gas and a greenhouse grower — the requirement they have to pay for the line to the greenhouse, which could be in the millions of dollars, already creates a deterrent for growth. That is a simple example.
Mr. Duyvelshoff: Thank you for the question. I’m glad you brought up the greenhouse diversity we’re seeing today; it’s amazing. Actually, the Greenhouse Group had to change their name. They used to be the Greenhouse Vegetables Group, but they have now expanded beyond vegetables and are producing many other commodities. One great example is strawberries. We have seen a huge growth in protected agriculture strawberry production, both in high tunnels, which is a kind of less sophisticated greenhouse, and full-glass greenhouse production, year-round, with LED lighting where strawberries can be harvested all year. That’s amazing. That’s producing our own food locally, in Canada, and is offsetting imports, in fact. It’s a great success story.
There are many other opportunities. I know of a research greenhouse that grows tropical fruits on an experimental level, so there is definitely a lot of potential.
Competitiveness is important. To be able to do that economically, and access to pest-control tools, labour and so on are key parts of being able to do that successfully. That leads us back to the importance of Bill C-30 for continued growth in the sector.
Coming back to your first question, climate change and challenges are things many farmers are recognizing. For a real-world example, 20 years ago, there was essentially no irrigation in apple orchards in most of Eastern Canada. It’s now very common across the board, and producers have recognized that they need to start applying water. That’s one example, but climate resiliency is a key part of continued sustainability for the agriculture sector.
Senator MacAdam: My question is for both witnesses and is with respect to Part 1 (d) of the Summary of Bill C-30: “. . . providing temporary immediate expensing for eligible greenhouse buildings . . . .”
To what extent did you have consultations with regard to the implementation of that? Are there any specific design elements that you think need adjustments? One you mentioned in your introductory remarks was that the devil is in the details, so I’m wondering if you can comment on that, both of you.
Mr. Lemaire: It would be more appropriate for us to provide you the full brief in writing. As we start diving into the details around how the industry can link and implement with government, that is fundamental. I don’t want to misrepresent how the industry needs to see the model moving forward.
As an example, we were surprised, as an industry, when this happened. A good example of this came out of nowhere. Having said that, Minister Champagne, Kody Blois and a few others visited Leamington and had the opportunity to see the power of the greenhouse industry. We suspect it came from that visit, but it goes back to their comments earlier around this: While the speed of government operated in a good way in putting this forward, we think, if we had been engaged, we could have provided some elements of guardrails that industry could quickly link into, to move forward with.
However, we’re happy to provide you with the full brief.
Senator MacAdam: It’s also temporary. That’s what it indicates. Are there comments on that in the brief too?
Mr. Lemaire: Temporary doesn’t help long-term sustainability. This goes back to my comments earlier about the fact that we’re looking at one offs. While we appreciate the approach, the goal is to determine how we put sustainable, long-term strategies in place and how we enable industry and government to work together to expand and build a viable network of food.
Senator MacAdam: I look forward to the document.
This is for the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada. With respect to Divisions 7 and 8 of Part 3, in a news release following the Spring Economic Update, your organization stated that you urged the government to act quickly on the implementation and that you look forward to working with the government to ensure these commits translate into practical improvements for Canadian growers.
Do you know how the application and effectiveness of these measures will be assessed in terms of improving food and economic security?
What should we be watching for in terms of these measures and how they will be assessed to determine whether they’re successful or not?
Mr. Duyvelshoff: Thank you very much for the question. From the perspective of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, this is something we’ve been attempting to do for many years. We’ve been preparing information on how the sector may be affected by regulatory decisions and submitting that information to the agency when they’re doing their reviews. The response that we’ve received back so far has been that this is not part of their current area of responsibility. From the perspective of fruit and vegetable growers, we have the information on hand.
We look forward to working with the government very soon on what those next steps of implementation look like, along with the rest of our other stakeholders from the agricultural sector.
The key consideration is that this information is available. We’re not looking for the PRD to hire, for example, a number of experts to be able to produce this themselves. From the information from the sector along with other government departments, it’s about understanding where the biggest impacts are going to be felt from these decisions and then working to minimize that impact.
As Mr. Petelle mentioned on the previous panel, that could be looking for extra mitigation. Going back to the rutabaga example, if that’s the only tool for rutabagas, what can we do to ensure that we can try to keep that solution available for farmers?
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome to the witnesses.
According to Statistics Canada data, Canada has reduced its dependence on imported fruits and vegetables over the past 10 years, or from 2013 to 2023. You referred to the temporary measures set out in Bill C-30. However, many other factors are going to influence that dependency ratio. I would like to come back to what my colleague Senator Hébert said.
Could the changes in immigration and the economic situation make Canada more dependent and reduce its food self‑sufficiency when it comes to fruits and vegetables?
[English]
Mr. Duyvelshoff: Thank you for the question. From the perspective of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association of Canada, by immigration, are you referring to labour?
Senator Gignac: My question is more about this: Many things could influence our dependency on fruits and vegetables, so there are some initiatives in Bill C-30 that could help, but there were other things going on in the last three years, because over the past 10 years, Canada has reduced its dependency. But my concern is that it’s outside of Bill C-30 — I agree — but is the kind of immigration we have in Canada, limiting foreign workers, a concern in terms of our dependency?
Mr. Duyvelshoff: Fruit and vegetable growers having access to a labour pool is essential. These are hand-harvested and hand-tended crops. I don’t see that changing in the short term. Certainly, we’re looking at things like automation to try to help. However, continued access to that labour source is going to be crucial.
Mr. Lemaire: Expanding beyond the foreign worker discussion and immigration, the overall immigration policy on our food model in Canada, and the cultural mosaic that we live in across the country, we have a diversity of food demands in different regions of Canada that we track and work with.
The strength of Canadian growers is that they are looking at diversifying their product strategy. With regard to bok choy and other products we didn’t grow in the past, they’re now working on implementing these new products to meet the immigration demands of their diets. They’re looking at new Canadians enjoying the foods that they may have enjoyed back home. But this is also a balance between our trade strategy, our immigration strategy and our domestic growth strategy. It’s fully integrated on how we move that forward.
We have to ensure that we put forward the best free trade agreements possible, starting with Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. From there, we look at market access for other countries. We have been very much engaged with the federal government on a range of free trade agreements that are being discussed and trying to enable access for Canadian products leaving the country, even though perishable foods now rely on infrastructure, such as air freight in many cases, especially for cherries, blueberries, and so on.
Beyond that, we are starting to look at inbound products and what the right inbound product is. This is the question. This is always a seasonality discussion as well, relative to the fact that we’re not growing from January to April, and we need to ensure that the flow of product continues so that we can enjoy half your plate of fresh fruit and vegetables, and we don’t see from a selfish perspective of an industry that Canadians migrate away from fresh fruit and vegetables and go down to a quarter of the plate. That doesn’t help the health care system, because we know that the consumption of half a plate of fresh fruit and vegetables drives down health care costs because it improves health. We actually have a full report on that strategy if the committee is interested.
Senator Pupatello: I want to pick up on the competitive nature of the business and what we can do to be more competitive. I’m getting a sense that you believe that elements of Bill C-30 are helping the competitive nature of it. The way it’s written, it’s not giving more power to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA; it seems to be clarifying what they can consider in a subjective review of something that needs to be done. Are you comfortable with that? You’re very supportive of the bill. So you must be comfortable with that.
Mr. Lemaire: “Very” is a very strong word. We’re supportive of the bill. We’re supportive of change. But we have to ensure we don’t see an erosion of the science-based strategy moving forward, and we don’t see an erosion of the consultative process and transparency. The example of the decision around Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy, or DIS, is a good one in terms of the gap in transparency and the gap in sound knowledge on the issue.
We need to work with the government. If the parameters and the guardrails are in place to ensure transparency, consultation and sound science, then this works very well. How you implement that is the key.
Senator Pupatello: We certainly want a lower cost of food.
Mr. Lemaire: Without a doubt.
Senator Pupatello: You said apples and onions, and you mentioned a couple of others when you were speaking earlier, saying that we don’t supply enough for what we eat. I don’t know whether we’re getting a better price for what we’re bringing in and that the Canadian market is giving us a more expensive apple or onion, for example. When you’re in Europe, everything is much more expensive, and they eat less. Is there a correlation between higher prices and eating less? I ask because we’re certainly eating more than Europeans, but we don’t eat as much as the Americans, and their food is cheaper. Do you see where I’m going here? What are we going to do as a function of this to go to the next step so that our food actually becomes more affordable?
Mr. Duyvelshoff: Following up on the items that I mentioned, which were apples, strawberries, onions and garlic. We talked a bit about strawberries already and greenhouse production, offsetting imports there. There’s absolutely potential for expanding that sector in Canada.
Right now, pest management is a huge barrier for expanding the further production of strawberries. They have a couple of fungal diseases they’re working with, one of which is actually a relatively new invasive issue, so that’s where Bill C-30 amendments to the PRD are particularly important.
Garlic is a similar situation. We import almost all of our garlic. We do produce it here domestically here as well. They have a disease called fusarium that limits the storability of the crop. That being said, it’s possible to grow domestic garlic and store it for 10 or 11 months of the year. We can do it.
Similarly, for apples and onions, we have the technology to be able to produce those crops and store them for most of the year, but they have to be competitive with our trading partners. We don’t have tariffs to these crops coming into Canada, so we need to be able to produce them competitively, and access to pest control tools is a critical part of that.
Mr. Lemaire: I noted adaptive capacity in my testimony, and the adaptive capacity of our sector over many years has been extremely sound. If we have a bad weather incident or something, we’ve been able to adapt, but the capacity to continue to adapt is very strained as of today. Part of that is due to access to fertilizer, geopolitical challenges around the world, logistics costs, the higher cost of fuel, and so on. You’re adding segmented costs across the system, and why we see it faster in fruits and vegetables is because of that crop rotation and seasonality. There is more rotation, as opposed to making a can of beans, putting them on a shelf and into the market.
We need to sit down and look at the whole system and start delivering through a model that does look at our agri-food sector as the superpower it is, and looking at access to the right tools, whether it’s crop protection or infrastructure; the access in modelling around our taxation system for food and how we enable production and the right municipal and federal frameworks that connect together to limit provincial competition. If I’m growing in Quebec, I would like to compete at the same level in Ontario. It sounds funny, but it is interprovincial competition around growers in Quebec and Ontario. If you’re growing an apple in one region and an apple in the other, you’re technically competing against each other. We need to enable them and not create a competition between them. That also includes our export strategy.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: I’m going to continue on the issue of workers, since this is a crucial issue.
In the past, the Temporary Foreign Worker Program did a good job of meeting the needs of seasonal production in the summer. Today, with year-round greenhouse production, those needs have become permanent. However, as my colleague Senator Gignac pointed out, Canada’s population is declining. In this context, restrictive immigration policies risk harming the industry. Am I wrong in saying that that’s a threat?
[English]
Mr. Duyvelshoff: Yes, it is. Access to labour is an ongoing issue, definitely. Many greenhouses do have a short shutdown period. Year-round production is the goal, and having a labour source is crucial to that.
We have the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program, which is critical for our sector. In the last number of years, that program has expanded the number of countries that are participating in the program. It’s a very successful program. We have a specific information series on that called “More Than a Migrant Worker.” It has a website, and we’ve just released some outstanding videos focusing on Jamaican workers, which highlights their experiences here in Canada but also in their home country, and the impact their ability to work in the seasonal agriculture program has on their lives at home. I would encourage everyone to take a look at that.
Mr. Lemaire: We should consider the post-farm gate, because there are challenges for packers who are not on farm. There are many across the country who will buy from the farmer and pack the apples, or whatever product they have. The labour base there falls outside of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. This is an issue, especially the threshold that has been changed, which we’ve been asking the government to elevate. With Food and Beverage Canada, Food, Health & Consumer Products of Canada, and a range of other partners within the agri-food system, this is very important.
Senator Robinson: Mr. Lemaire, when we were talking about the DIS, I didn’t get a chance to talk about the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, PACA, and how we did everything on our side to get reciprocity. Could you give us a sense of what it would mean for food and economic security for our primary producers?
Mr. Lemaire: This was one of the elements relative to the decision around removing DIS within a vacuum, without recognizing that is one of the elements when we requested, with tremendous support from the Senate of Canada, to encourage the government to move this forward. We do not have reciprocity without a federally regulated destination inspection program, which is one of the legs of the stool. We’re now working with the government on the bankruptcy and insolvency regulations, which is the one we were missing. So we’ve added a leg and we’ve taken a leg away, which is why DIS taken away in a vacuum is a concern, and this goes back to moving forward on Bill C-30 to ensure that vacuum doesn’t happen there. It’s fundamental that we work together and continue to push forward to ensure DIS remains.
Senator Robinson: Thank you both for being here.
Senator Cardozo: The greenhouse farm I mentioned is in Medicine Hat is Big Marble Farms, and they have 72 acres of agricultural area.
We’ve been talking about government regulating much of this in terms of pest control. If they didn’t and backed off completely, would you want them in there, or would you do it yourselves?
Mr. Duyvelshoff: It’s crucial that we have a system in place to protect human health and the environment. Ron mentioned earlier the integrated nature of the fruit and vegetable sector. It’s true for our own members, both greenhouse and field. We have producers that grow in multiple provinces in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, and those commodities need to be able to move back and forth, depending on the season. In order to do that, we need a recognized system for human health and environmental protection. We do, and we don’t want to change that. That’s recognized across the world and is crucial for our ability to trade.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: Congratulations on this holistic approach on environment, economy, agriculture and health. It’s extremely important.
I should have mentioned to the panel before the reason for my questions. During my own studies in the St. Lawrence, I saw frogs with three legs and trout with tumours with pesticide content.
My question is about adding value along the agri-food chain. For example, we export flour, but we import pasta that is made with Canadian flour. What can we do in order to increase the value chain, processing primarily? What are the new fruits and vegetables that will be grown in greenhouses?
Mr. Lemaire: I’ll be very quick and let Chris wrap up.
Looking at the holistic approach and ensuring that we can deliver a good product to Canadians, it’s very important that we continue to maintain the science and provide the new products into the system. Those new products will enable us to broaden our product diversity across the country. I’ll give you an example on the strawberry discussion, which is growth.
Sometimes we talk about all the new products and forget about the growth of existing products that can build market share. Strawberries could use more tools that could be leveraged from the field into the greenhouses because they are delivered differently, but they are not allowed under regulatory modelling.
Mr. Duyvelshoff: New crops of interest are cane berries, raspberries, blackberries, and one greenhouse is experimenting now with melons and, as I mentioned earlier, tropical fruits. There is a lot of potential.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
We have reached our time limit for this meeting.
Thank you to the witnesses for making themselves available and for the discussions we have had together. Thank you, colleagues, clerk and analysts.
(The committee adjourned.)