Agriculture Committee on Feb. 14th, 2022

[David Duval]

The repercussions started to emerge last year, when slaughterhouses closed, but especially when some slaughterhouses had to stop all operations for periods of time. So slaughterhouses that had the capacity to slaughter 40,000 hogs a week were managing to slaughter just 20,000 or 25,000.

All those impacts are directly related to the labour shortage in processing facilities.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

What can the government do to help you? We just increased the temporary foreign worker rate from 10% to 20%, but that seems to be insufficient. What more must be done?

[David Duval]

The argument we have been defending for some time now is that production cannot stop. We have met with various ministers on this. Following insemination, the rearing period takes 10 months before the animal ends up in the slaughter line. Problems begin as soon as slaughter capacity is reduced, as the rearing underway cannot be stopped. Nothing can be done aside from euthanizing the animals. So there is clearly a direct link between the labour shortage and production.

Had programs not been created to help producers work on their farm and harvest vegetables, for example, farm production would really be in big trouble across Canada.

Yet processing is a logical continuation of farm production. That must absolutely be taken into account, and the problems must be solved.

Announcements were made last year and early this year. We understand that computer and administrative problems are preventing the implementation of those programs. Despite everything, the intention is there. The only thing missing is a little help that will make it possible to move this file forward. Processors must be able to return to normal slaughter capacity and reinvest in their business. This is another current challenge.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

You mentioned that there was no cap for temporary foreign workers in the agricultural sector, but that there was one in the processing sector.

Are you suggesting that it would be good to completely remove that cap?

[David Duval]

I think that would be logical, as our sector is related to agricultural production.

Last year, the Government of Quebec created programs to pay a portion of wages for people who would work on farms. However, that program was a failure. Working in agriculture is very demanding. Quebec's inhabitants, and probably also those in the rest of Canada, find that work too demanding. The same goes for the processing sector: it is difficult work. We work in humid and cold conditions, and the tasks are pretty repetitive.

I would personally like for the cap to be removed for temporary foreign workers. That would be a solution to promote. The cap should be removed in processing plants first.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

In terms of administration, processign delays hurt you appallingly.

As a solution, trusted employers could be recognized more easily. A single labour market impact assessment could also be required per workplace, instead of one being required per group of workers.

Am I right in assuming that those measures would suit you?

[David Duval]

You are right.

Over the past seven years, I have only hired temporary foreign workers. I have had no choice. However, I must reapply every six months, even though the same people are returning to work for me every year. The administrative work is very difficult. There are now also administrative issues. Before, application processing took four months; now, it takes six months. Will it soon take eight months for workers to be able to come here?

The same goes for the processing sector. It is complicated.

Some relief could certainly be brought in cases involving temporary foreign workers who are returning and employers who are recognized for their good standards and their good track record. In those cases, the time frame should be more reasonable.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

My understanding is also that you would like immigration measures to be facilitated.

Mr. Duval, before I run out of time, I would like you to tell us about the concentration phenomenon in slaughtering and food processing in Quebec.

Can you tell us how the government could help develop new processing sites close by, which would help unburden the processing chain?

[David Duval]

I will give you a very concrete example. Last year, we had to export a lot of bone–in meat to Asia and Mexico. When I say a lot, I mean from 20% to 25% of our production. That is because we did not have the workers needed to debone the meat. Those types of decisions are made by the business itself.

Having more processors in Quebec and Canada would certainly help reduce the problems, as every processor would have a different way to manage their workforce.

In some large businesses, it is difficult to reverse a decision once it has been made. Let's use the example of a business deciding to sell from 20% to 50% of its meat production directly to Asia. If that proportion was reduced and processing could be done here, that would have added value.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Mr. Duval and Mr. Perron.

Mr. MacGregor, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to notify you that I'd like to move the motion that I gave notice of on Friday. All members should have a copy of it. I'm just going to read it into the record. The motion is as follows:

That the committee report the following to the House: The House of Commons' Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food calls for the immediate end of blockades at Canada's border crossings. At a time of severe strain to our supply chains, the blockades are interrupting millions of dollars of daily trade between Canada and the United States and are negatively impacting Canadian agriculture and agri-food industries, including producers, manufacturers, and processors. The federal government must play a leadership role in keeping these vital trade networks open for the thousands of agricultural businesses and workers who depend on them. That the Clerk of the Committee prepare and issue a press release following the presentation of the report in the House, and that the press release be published on the committee's website and posted on the committee's social media platforms.

Mr. Chair, I'm moving this motion because, as committee members may be aware, on Friday we had eight major agricultural organizations call for the same thing. They include the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Meat Council, the Canadian Horticultural Council, the Canadian Pork Council, the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, and the National Cattle Feeders' Association.

We have millions of dollars of trade being impacted by these blockades, and Mr. Chair, I think that our agricultural producers need to have an ally in the House of Commons. I think they could get some encouragement if they were to see the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food adopt this motion. Then they would know that Canada's parliamentarians stand in solidarity with them.

Mr. Chair, with that, I move the motion and I invite comments from my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

I recognize Mr. Barlow has raised his hand so we'll start with Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate Mr. MacGregor's bringing this motion forward.

I spent four hours in Coutts this weekend trying to get that blockade opened and I was certainly having discussions with many of the folks down there. I'm just wondering if we could propose two amendments, and I have spoken to Mr. MacGregor about this. The one amendment I would suggest is that before the word “blockades”—so where it says, “Agri-Food calls for the immediate end of”—we add the word “illegal”.

The reason I want to put that in there is that in the discussions with many of the folks down at the blockade in Coutts—and some are my constituents—they didn't really understand that what they were doing was illegal. They're protesting and certainly making a point, but the second they leave the side of the road and start blocking a critical piece of infrastructure and the trade corridor in Coutts, they've gone from a peaceful legal protest into an illegal blockade. So I think that word “illegal” is critical to highlight to those who are blocking the borders that what they're doing is an illegal activity.

The second amendment that I would like to propose is an addition. At the end, after “illegal blockades at Canada's border crossings”, I'd like to add this phrase: “and for the government to present a plan to Canadians for the lifting of COVID-19 federal mandates and restrictions.”

The reason I think we should add that in there, Mr. Chair, is that these blockades are happening in protest against the mandates. Again, from my the discussions with the folks down there, I know that all they are asking for is a clear path and some metrics on how and when those mandates are going to be lifted. I think all of us are getting the calls and emails from very frustrated constituents. We keep going back and forth on the mandates. They're on, they're off. They're on, they're off, and it's taking a toll, and these folks who are down there—and I'm assuming at many of these other blockades—what they want is a clear path to when these mandates are going to be removed. These mandates are the reason these blockades are there.

I think that should be an important part of that motion. Other than that, with those two additions, I think we would have no problems supporting this.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

Look, I just had a discussion with the clerk. You're moving amendments. It has been suggested by the clerk, and I support that discretion, that we would address each one of these amendments separately.

Okay. Comments?

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I would really appreciate or the following.

All of the amendments Mr. Barlow suggested sound reasonable, but I'd like to see them in writing, if possible. It's always easier to read them through and consider the language.

I certainly appreciate Mr. MacGregor's bringing forward this motion. I certainly see a need to ensure there are no blockades at any points of entry. Certainly, we know this is highly disruptive to our supply chains, which are already tested to their limits. I think we've heard that today from the various witnesses we've heard speak quite eloquently about that.

One thing to note, just in response to Mr. Barlow's comments, is that any protest that impedes the progress.... Impeding progress is not the same as peaceful assembly. In my understanding of the law, you're not allowed to impede progress of other people exercising their rights. Certainly on cross-border trade, we have a right for those supply chains to be opened. It serves the public interest to ensure they remain open.

I have a further point, Mr. MacGregor, that is really just as another reflection on your motion. You ask for leadership from the federal government, which I think is good to point out. I would also say that some of the blockades, I understand, were actually in areas that were not under federal jurisdiction. This sometimes creates a complication when there are police of jurisdiction who actually have to enforce the law in those areas. It's really within their jurisdiction to do that.

We realize that over time the federal government, of course, has a role to play, but there's a due process that has to be gone through, in which each level of government of jurisdiction is responsible for playing its role. I think that's important as well.

I know we have a vote coming up. I wonder if we could suspend until we finish the vote and then come back, if that's possible, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Turnbull, I will recognize Ms. Taylor Roy. I know there are conversations happening in the room. I also want to be equitable and fair to our witnesses as well.

I'm going to go to Ms. Taylor Roy and allow some of the conversations, which I know are being had between the different representatives of the parties, and perhaps we can sort this away.

Ms. Taylor Roy, over to you.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor, for putting forward this motion. I think it's a good one. Like my colleague Mr. Turnbull, I would like to see the proposed amendments in writing. I wasn't able to pull every part of it. There are two different things you were asking for in the amendments, which I think are separate issues.

On the motion you put forward, Mr. MacGregor, I was in the House last week when a Liberal member put forward a motion asking for unanimous consent to do just what you're asking and I believe it was blocked by the opposition. I'm in agreement. I think the Liberals are all in agreement. The government's in agreement with this. I think it's essential, especially given what we're hearing today from these trade industry representatives, that these illegal blockades be removed and that they not be allowed to continue.

I do agree that there are issues even with the Ambassador Bridge, where the bridge itself is under federal jurisdiction but the assembly on either side of it is under the municipality and province's jurisdiction. Asking the federal government to take leadership on that may require more than this motion.

Thank you for bringing it forward. I would like to see the amendments in writing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Ms. Taylor Roy.

Look, I'm going to try to use my discretion here. We'll see what committee members think.

I want to be equitable and fair to our witnesses, who have taken their time to be here, notwithstanding the beneficial intent of Mr. MacGregor's motion. If I could get unanimous consent, I would propose that we continue with our line of questioning until we get closer to the actual vote that is before us. We can suspend so that we can both vote and perhaps have dialogue amongst the members such that when we return we can move forward with that.

I would ask for unanimous consent on that. I would continue with the line of questioning with Mr. Lehoux if that is the wish of the committee.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Seeing nothing against that, we have about 16 minutes. I intend to get to about five or six minutes, and I'll call the meeting at that point.

Mr. Lehoux, go ahead for five minutes.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Duval.

You said that, in Quebec and Ontario, 1,250,000 hogs were currently awaiting slaughter. Could you specify where those hogs will end up, given the closures that will begin shortly, next week?

[David Duval]

The hogs will mainly have to be moved to western Canada and to the United States, provided we manage to find transportation. We have always refused to perform animal welfare slaughter, but there are limits. If we manage to find solutions, we will implement them.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Duval, you say that you will try to find a way to transport the hogs for slaughter to the United States, or perhaps all the way to western Canada. There are still deadlines to meet. What is the ultimate deadline for you? After all, those hogs won't be able to be transported over thousands of kilometres without any consequences.

[David Duval]

Our contacts for transportation and logistics are saying that a certain number of hogs could be transported in mid–April.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Concerning the workforce, we know that, since July, agreements have been concluded so that in Quebec—but not elsewhere in Canada—the rate of temporary foreign workers who can come work here would go from 10% to 20%, even though we understand that even more would be needed.

However, the implementation of that measure is currently inexplicably delayed. What is your opinion on this?

Agreements between the governments of Quebec and Canada have been on the table for a long time to increase the number of temporary foreign workers who can come work here. What is the problem? We can very well say that there is a computer problem, but is the federal government firm in its will to find solutions quickly?

Yes, we have adopted rules and we have come to an agreement between governments, but according to the discussions I had last week with people from Olymel, we will wait until April or May for those workers to arrive. That is not even close to what is needed for the waiting hogs to be slaughtered.

What is your view of this?