Agriculture Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2026

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

As a follow-up, Ms. Moudi, if there was pricing transparency.... I'm hearing in the testimony of all three of you that you're facing some things by processing in Canada that your American competitors are not. Would more transparent repricing around the basis address some of those additional costs that you face in Canada? Are there other solutions that need to come forward that address the costs you incur in Canada, costs that your U.S. competitors don't incur?

[Indira Moudi]

Yes, the price in question would be more transparent. We would know where we stand.

Indeed, we need to take other measures. The measures that need to be taken are what I proposed and referred to in my submission. The proposal takes into account two elements: having a safety net and having the necessary funding to thrive. If we have these elements, transparency and the [Technical difficulty—Editor].

Thank you.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to hear from the other two witnesses, as well.

Mr. Vaags.

[Calvin Vaags]

The big one there is regulation. Everybody here is probably familiar with the one regulation that stands out that really has put us behind. It's the SRM. We're now getting that rectified. It looks like we're going to have a pretty decent solution on that, probably in the next six to 12 months.

That's one example. If you look at regulation as a whole, we get stung a lot with extra costs on regulations that our U.S. counterparts do not have—

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I just want to be fair to Mr. Beretta, as well.

Thank you.

[Thomas Beretta]

I would say the same thing. Bottom line, there's a cattle shortage, which is leading to price increases. Let's not deviate from this.

That being said, all of us as small processors deal with different factors based on the regions we're in and how we run our operations. We're here to try to keep that alive.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Would you also be in favour of more transparency in the pricing?

[Thomas Beretta]

For sure. We need to tie ourselves off. Canada's economy is its own. Let's look at other ways to be more independent.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next, we'll go to the Liberals for six minutes.

MP Chatel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

This study comes at the right time, given the increasing discussion about food security, self-sufficiency and sovereignty. If I understand correctly, it's really a point that all three of you are making; in other words, the meat sector is very important for our food self-sufficiency, since meat is at the heart of our protein consumption. Furthermore, we need to be self-sufficient when it comes to our data and how we set prices for the Canadian market. If we want to grow the Canadian market, it starts with that.

We'll be hearing from department officials in the second hour. What message would you like to convey to them concerning transparency?

We have yet to hear from any witnesses opposing the establishment of a Canadian reference price.

In your opinion, how should we implement this transparency?

I'd like to hear Mr. Beretta's observations first.

[Thomas Beretta]

From what we've said, more transparent pricing on the sale and buying will help get the database and the actual numbers of what's happening in the Canadian beef production industry.

That would be my recommendation.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Should we do it based on the industry, in partnership with it?

Should we establish this transparency across Canada, based on the American model?

[Thomas Beretta]

It would have to be Canada-wide. It would have to look at all scopes of all the transactions happening within the economy.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Vaags, what do you think?

[Calvin Vaags]

Most of the mechanics are already there. If you wanted to implement it, it could be implemented relatively quickly. All of the federal packing plants would have the capability of reporting. There are many things that we have to report on already.

Essentially, you would have to say what entity is going to collect those prices. It has to be done by a third party and independently. “Independently” is not the right word, but you can't have competition issues coming out of it. It has to be put together carefully, so that you can't tell whose price is what. You could probably replicate USDA somehow.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Ms. Moudi, what do you say?

[Indira Moudi]

I would say that “replicate” may not be the right word. We should adapt. Currently, costs must include the structural, regulatory and financial costs specific to Canadian processing. In fact, the main obstacles are not technical, but structural: lower volume, high concentration and the absence of a harmonized federal framework.

The data we need to have the prices are the actual volumes, which we already have because producers are required to provide them, the transaction prices and some aggregated cost data, which we can obtain through our structures. There are not 1,000 federally inspected plants; there are eight or nine, so it's quite easy to coordinate. We just need to structure it. The various partners need to communicate and find a way to harmonize. A consensus will really be needed among the various stakeholders to achieve this, but we already have the data.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Thank you very much.

I'd now like to talk about slaughterhouses, because there are some in my riding. One had closed but will soon reopen. It's important to be able to process meat products locally. I've heard about temporary foreign workers, who are crucial in the slaughterhouse sector. We need them, given the widespread labour shortage in the sector. I thank Mr. Beretta for noting that.

Last Monday, specifically in the context of Canadian food security, we announced a strategic fund of $500 million to help businesses with supply chain disruptions. Of course, several sectors will benefit from this, but for me, slaughterhouses are a priority when it comes to the Canadian food supply chain.

In your opinion, could they meet the requirements?

I'll proceed in the same order. I'd like to have Mr. Beretta's comments first.

[Thomas Beretta]

Absolutely. In a time like the one we are in now, when we're seeing unprecedented shortages of supply, we need to keep the small processors in the rural areas out of reach, offering opportunities and increasing competition for the market and benefiting Canadian consumers. We would certainly tap in. Where do we sign up?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Mr. Vaags, what do you think?

[Calvin Vaags]

I totally agree as well. I firmly believe that the small beef processors across the country are a food security concern that should be protected, and we should make sure they're made whole. At the Canadian Meat Council, we have actually put together a proposal in front of the government—I believe there's a brief floating around—to do exactly that. It's to come up with a support-based program based on principles much like the AgriStability program. It doesn't have to be exactly the same, but something that takes historical margins and supports some of these entities when they really fall into a negative position, just so we can keep these industries whole, or these processors whole within the industry.

We feel it's very important. We're small—we're 15% of the industry—but look at the alternative. If you continue the course and they all get wiped out, you'll basically have a handful of foreign-owned companies that will control your food supply, and I just don't think that's wise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you so much.

We'll go to the Bloc Québécois for six minutes.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to my colleagues. Thank you to the three witnesses for being with us. I also want to thank them for their presentations and their answers.

My questions will be for Ms. Moudi first.

You concluded your presentation by asking us three questions. I'd like to revisit the proposal that you and your colleagues from the independent slaughterhouses put forward concerning the safety net and liquidity.

Could you elaborate on the three questions? What would you like us to know?

[Indira Moudi]

I thank the member for his question.

In its current state, the system is characterized by insufficient production. Production costs are high, and we can't make ends meet. The issue is economic and reflects the current climate, as I mentioned in my remarks. We've been experiencing this slowdown for three consecutive years. Without support, without a safety net, we can't bounce back. If we can't get animals to produce meat and we can't make a profit, we won't be in business next year. This safety net will allow us, once the threshold is met, to continue operating.

I'll come back to the example I gave you about being able to purchase a large volume to supply a major retailer. Without working capital, it's impossible. It's up to us to get by. Having this financial capacity would allow us to meet the needs of the plant and operate, not only five days a week, but also for more than one shift per day.

This is what's most important, and it applies to all other slaughterhouses. It's important to point out that several slaughterhouses have lost a second day of work, and that's a problem for us. This program will solve the problem, and it will allow us to continue operating and get through this crisis.