The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to study the government's regulatory reform initiative in agriculture and agri-food. Witnesses included Leta LaRush, Vice-President of BASF Agricultural Solutions Canada Inc.; Eric Cheff, an individual drone service operator; Tom Barber, President of the Forum of Canadian Ombudsman; Nadine Mailloux, Ombudsman of Montreal; and Merril Bawden and Pamela MacDonald from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).
Leta LaRush described how delays at the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) and CFIA hinder farmers' access to new tools, citing a new glufosinate-based herbicide approved in the U.S. in 2024 but unavailable in Canada until the end of the decade due to a special review. She recommended that PMRA adopt scientific evaluations from trusted jurisdictions like the U.S. and Australia, be resourced to meet established timelines, and have its mandate reflect both science and competitiveness, without compromising safety.
Eric Cheff reported that after four years of operating drone services across 4,500 acres, the lack of clear federal regulations for agricultural drone application forces him to decline work weekly, while U.S. farmers can use drones for products already licensed for aerial application. He urged the government and PMRA to expedite regulations, noting that drone use is safer and more efficient than traditional aerial application, and that industry could provide data to support the process.
Tom Barber explained that an ombudsman provides independent, impartial and confidential complaint resolution, acting as a bridge between the public and government organizations, and can identify systemic issues. He recommended creating an ombudsman office for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and its agencies, emphasizing it must be founded on principles of independence, legal mandate, investigative authority, accessibility, confidentiality, transparency and impartiality.
Nadine Mailloux stated that an ombudsman is a pillar of modern democracy, offering confidential, independent and impartial handling of complaints with the authority to recommend action and report publicly. She noted that most complaints are resolved informally, and that systemic investigations can identify deeper issues, adding that an ombudsman's non-binding recommendations are typically followed due to moral duty and public reporting.
Merril Bawden and Pamela MacDonald described CFIA's current complaint resolution process, which uses a tiered approach starting with local inspectors and escalating to supervisors and area executives, after the complaints and appeals office was dissolved in 2022 due to overlap with existing oversight. They noted that 89% of food businesses surveyed say CFIA does well in ensuring food safety, but acknowledged room for improvement in guidance and listening to industry priorities, and stated the agency remains open to stakeholder feedback.
During questions, CFIA representatives confirmed that the complaints and appeals office could not overturn decisions and that current mechanisms are internal, with no independent ombudsman. Tom Barber and Nadine Mailloux disagreed with the internal approach, arguing that organizations struggle with self-reflection and that an independent ombudsman provides a fresh perspective, with Barber noting about 80% of complaints are resolved internally and the ombudsman handles the rest. On labelling of cloned meat, CFIA deferred to Health Canada, while the ombudsmen indicated such consumer confusion could fall under an ombudsman's mandate depending on its scope. The committee requested CFIA table five years of internal complaint data, and a member noted a CFIB report showing 58% of businesses are unhappy with CFIA service standards.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.