At the recent Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) agriculture leaders’ debate held April 17, one name kept coming up—and it wasn’t the prime minister’s.
It was the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).
Normally operating behind the scenes, CFIA found itself thrust into the spotlight as party leaders and agriculture critics across the political spectrum blamed it for everything from sluggish innovation to strangled trade. What emerged was a rare moment of unity—albeit for very different reasons: CFIA, they argued, is either the key to unlocking Canadian agriculture’s future, or the bureaucratic bottleneck holding it back.
Conservatives: A Paralyzed System
For Conservative agriculture critic John Barlow, the agency is a problematic one.
“CFIA needs more than a push,” he said. “It needs a complete retooling of its mandate, and to start being a partner to Canadian agriculture, not an adversary.”
Barlow painted a picture of what he said is a paralyzed system. Canadian crop protection products stuck in regulatory limbo while U.S. counterparts get greenlit. Innovations approved abroad but gathering dust in Ottawa. The problem? Delays, duplication, and what Barlow called a lack of “economic lens” in CFIA’s risk assessments.
His promise: a 60-day response time mandate for all applications, and membership in a new global regulatory alliance to reduce redundancy and get Canadian innovations moving again.
Liberals: CFIA Reform in Motion
Liberal Minister of Agriculture Kody Blois didn’t deny the CFIA needed reform—but argued that the work is already underway.
“We’ve already started to lay the groundwork,” he said. “We have nine concrete measures CFIA is committed to—non-cost, all about reducing red tape and driving competitiveness.”
Blois pledged to keep CFIA science-based, but also responsive. He wants a dual mandate: protect food safety and enable economic growth. He even cited a meeting with CFIA’s president—just days into his appointment—that produced a fast-tracked reform plan.
But that wasn’t enough to quiet critics like Barlow, who shot back: “Why should farmers trust a government that’s had nine years to fix this and done nothing until an election loomed?”
NDP: Regulate for People, Not Profit
NDP candidate Heather Ray took a different tack. For her, the real question is: Who is CFIA regulating for?
“Regulations are great when they’re used in the right way for the right purpose. Unnecessary regulations such as restrictions on seed saving further drive up costs for cash strapped farmers, where multinational corporations rake in the profits,” she said.
Ray slammed what she said are recent decisions allowing what she called corporate-friendly seed royalties and the delay of gene editing oversight as signs that CFIA has lost its way. She argued that under Liberal and Conservative governments alike, CFIA’s function has shifted from public protector to industry enabler—at the cost of small farms.
Bloc Québécois: Demand Reciprocity
Bloc agriculture critic Yves Perron framed CFIA not just as a domestic challenge but a trade issue.
“It’s nonsensical,” he said, “that we allow imported goods into Canada that wouldn’t meet the same CFIA standards we impose on our own producers.”
His call: regulatory reciprocity. If Canadian grains must meet CFIA standards to sell here, then imported products should face the same scrutiny.
He also demanded better staffing at the front lines. “It’s not about removing resources—it’s about directing them to where they actually speed things up.”
Greens: Beware ‘Agile’ as a Buzzword
The Green Party’s Maria Rodriguez urged caution in when it comes to modernization.
“Yes, we need to reduce administrative burden and leave room for innovation,” she said. “But regulation exists to protect the public interest—and if we cut corners, we risk breaking something vital: environmental health, food safety, or public trust.”
Rodriguez challenged the idea that faster is always better, especially when it comes to gene editing and biotech. She criticized what she said is CFIA’s close alignment with industry lobbyists and warned against what she called “agile regulation as a smokescreen for deregulation.”
