Agriculture Committee on April 30th, 2026

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We'll go to Mr. Gourde on the Conservative side for five minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for the three witnesses who own agricultural land.

Obviously, a risk management program is designed to reduce risks. We face climate risks, financial risks and political risks, which we're seeing more of this year. However, producers in Quebec will have to face a new risk: the risk associated with the Alto project.

Picture this situation on your farm: Your land is going to be cut in half, a train is going to run through it for the next 100 years, the track will be fenced off completely, and you'll have difficulty crossing it to get to the other side of your land.

Could this have a substantial impact on your profit margins?

[Catherine Lefebvre]

I'd say that, certainly, it could put a farming business at risk, since the routes announced so far really do cut land in half. So we're no longer even talking about profit margins; we're talking about businesses that will be destroyed, wiped out, as these businesses will no longer be solvent.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

What are your thoughts on this, Mr. Beauvais?

[David Beauvais]

In fact, a few weeks ago, I held my annual general meeting. There were people crying at the mike because their plans would come to an end if a rail line ran across their land. So, as Ms. Lefebvre mentioned, it's directly related.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

How about you, Ms. Lessard?

[Catherine Lessard]

I'm not a landowner.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

It seems all too easy for big developers to take a map, draw a line and call it a day. We're told it's only 60 feet wide. However, it's easy to overlook the point you raise: How are we going to be able to work this land? In fact, will we even be able to work it at all?

I think we really need to emphasize the problem this poses. In fact, it's worse than expropriation. You can expropriate someone and tell them you'll build them a nice new house, similar to the previous one, two kilometres away. However, you can't relocate a farmer's land.

Do you have anything else to add?

[Catherine Lefebvre]

If we go ahead, and the high-speed rail project goes ahead, it's absolutely certain that farms along the entire corridor will have to shut down.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

These lands are near the river, and they're among the best in Quebec. There isn't much arable land in Quebec; we're talking about less than 2% of the territory. This will affect around 2,000 parcels of land and 600 to 700 producers. So, 600 to 700 producers will see their profit margins shrink rapidly.

As for land values, do you think they will rise or fall?

[David Beauvais]

Land values will always be affected. In fact, the more we reduce the amount of available land, the more their value increases.

Furthermore, because there will be a sort of second river dividing Quebec, land prices will be higher on one side than the other. So, it will certainly be detrimental if the project goes ahead as proposed.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Do you think farmers will be happy to receive compensation, or would they have preferred to keep their land as it is?

[Catherine Lefebvre]

Compensation, however substantial, will never replace the joy of farming and cultivating. In any case, no amount of compensation will make up for the losses. No compensation will ever be equal to the losses.

[David Beauvais]

We can compensate the farmer who currently uses the land, but that will never make up for the loss this will represent for agriculture in 50, 100 or 200 years' time.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

The Alto group seems to be telling farmers that it's not a problem, that they'll be compensated for the next 100 years, that it's only 60 feet wide and that it's in the interests of all Canadians.

To what extent must farmers, once again, give in and accommodate everyone else? They have towers, pipelines and wind turbines on their land. It's inconvenient, but there's always a way to work around it. With Alto, however, I think it's a little more than just inconvenient. Is that true or false?

[Catherine Lefebvre]

You're certainly right. Agriculture also drives the vitality of our regions, along with our hardware stores and grocery stores. We're lucky to have the villages we do today largely because of agriculture.

So, as I was saying earlier, if the route doesn't change, regions like Laval, Lanaudière and Mauricie will be greatly affected. As you said, these are the most fertile lands in Quebec. They are also among the finest market-gardening lands in the province. It is absolutely certain that everyone will feel the effects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

We'll move to the final five minutes. It's for the Liberals and MP Harrison.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

I say this every time. Thank you for always coming here and showing up as witnesses to voice the concerns of producers so we can get this right and make sure we're supporting the people on the ground in the best way.

Ms. Lessard, in your opening statement, you talked a lot about greenhouses. In budget 2025, our government included an immediate 100% expensing deduction for greenhouses in order to help increase domestic supply. However, in your opening statement, you said there's no greenhouse protection in the BRM suite.

I was wondering if you could elaborate on what that would look like and what would be needed.

[Catherine Lessard]

To clarify, there is currently no crop protection anywhere in Canada for greenhouses, which means that if there is a disease or a decrease in production due to various reasons, there is no support for the grower other than AgriStability. It has been an ask from the greenhouse growers for a long time to have such crop protection for greenhouses as well.

We would like to see all vegetables and all fruits be covered, to at least have a program that can apply to them and that growers can apply to for crop protection.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

What fruits and vegetables are not protected? Are there specific ones that are covered? I was just wondering which ones are not.

[Catherine Lessard]

It depends on the province. There aren't the same protections offered throughout Canada.

If I can speak about Quebec, herbs, when you're talking about basil or garlic, are not covered. There is no crop protection for these products. There are various fruits grown on small acreages that are not covered either. Ground cherries are an example of something we produce that there is no crop protection for.

There has been some talk about having an overall program that could eventually cover all of these crops that are orphans for now, but it hasn't been implemented yet. We would like to see that happen.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

I'm going to share my time with my colleague Ms. Dandurand because she didn't get to finish her questioning.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Harrison.

I'd just like to come back to a comment Mr. Léger Bourgoin made regarding the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

The good news in the spring economic statement is that changes have been announced for both the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the new pesticide regulatory directorate. This is accompanied by an investment of $24 million over four years.

How do you think the market gardening sector can contribute to the discussion on these changes?

[Patrice Léger Bourgoin]

We've already begun contributing to the discussion by setting up a working group comprised of members from the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and our association. We meet every three months. We've been able to establish initial contact and hold an initial exchange on the various issues. Obviously, there is still a lot of work to be done. The last meeting scheduled is in June, and we very much hope that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency will quickly show a willingness to continue discussions later in 2026.