The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to study the government’s regulatory reform initiative, focusing on reducing red tape in the agriculture and agri-food sector. Witnesses included officials from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food (AAFC), the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), and Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), as well as representatives from the Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec (APMQ), the Canadian Cattle Association (CCA), and the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada (FVGC).
Steven Jurgutis, Director General at AAFC, outlined 18 initiatives in the department’s progress report, including digitizing loan processes under the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act and continuing the Agile Regulations Table, a stakeholder collaboration model that has resolved about 35 of 150 identified regulatory irritants. He noted that the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy is on hold after some industry groups stepped back from its advisory committee due to misalignment with their interests.
Robert Ianiro, Vice-President at CFIA, detailed 26 actions in the agency’s report, including an omnibus regulatory package to remove prescriptive requirements, aligning feed product approvals with the U.S. and EU, and expanding digital tools like the My CFIA platform. He emphasized that stakeholder feedback, such as from the Fresh Produce Alliance and Animal Nutrition Association, informed the changes, and that the agency continuously reviews regulations based on evolving science and trade partner shifts.
Matt Jones and Frédéric Bissonnette from PMRA described efforts to improve efficiency, such as expanding joint reviews with trusted foreign regulators, introducing a digital portal for application tracking, and proposing regulatory changes to eliminate unnecessary renewals. Bissonnette acknowledged that PMRA is not meeting its 90% service standard for active ingredient approvals, currently at 79%, but said a plan is in place to clear backlogs within two years, excluding consultations.
Patrice Léger Bourgoin and Catherine Lessard of APMQ criticized excessive delays in product registration, re-evaluation, and emergency approvals, citing examples like a decade-long wait for minor-use label additions and a rejected emergency registration for a beet herbicide despite Quebec-specific data. They called for a more agile system that accounts for regional differences and climate change, and recommended expedited emergency approvals for 48-hour use and better transparency in tracking applications.
Dennis Laycraft of CCA argued for structural or cultural change at CFIA, noting that quality assessment and process verification require different expertise than enforcement, and that U.S. agencies like the Agricultural Marketing Service approve similar tasks in months versus years in Canada. He highlighted specific frustrations, including a 12-year wait for electronic certification, slow progress on specified risk material harmonization with the U.S., and the need for regulatory alignment to maintain competitiveness.
Chris Duyvelshoff of FVGC proposed five changes: using existing reviews from comparable regulators like the U.S. EPA, developing drone technology pathways with global partners, properly resourcing the minor-use pesticides program, allowing three-year emergency registrations with pre-consultations, and having CFIA recognize CanadaGAP certification to eliminate duplicate audits. He stressed that decisions should be made through a “food lens” to balance safety with food security and stable domestic supply.
During questioning, members pressed officials on consultation adequacy, service standard failures, and specific cases like gopher control with strychnine and potato wart soil sample permits. Bissonnette noted that no emergency registration for strychnine has been received, and a study did not fully address prior risks. Ianiro took a question on seasonal permits for soil samples under advisement. The committee adopted budgets for the tariff briefing and regulatory reform study without objection.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.