Agriculture Committee on June 16th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 42 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Before we continue, I'd like to ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including our interpreters. You'll also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

I'd like to take a moment to make some comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name or until you are asked a question directly by a member. For those participants on video conference, click the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you'll see a selection for the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I'd like to remind all witnesses that committee members may ask questions in either French or English. If you need interpretation, please take a moment now to prepare your earpiece and select the listening channel you need in advance in order to take full advantage of the time allocated.

This is a reminder that all comments should be made through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will try to manage the speaking order to the best of our ability.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, September 18, 2025, the committee is resuming its study on food security in the face of global instability.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses who are joining us today.

From the Montreal Economic Institute, we have Renaud Brossard and Gabriel Giguère. From the Grain Farmers of Ontario, we have Jeff Harrison. From Agri-Food Analytics Lab, we have Sylvain Charlebois and Olivia Romaniw.

Welcome.

We will start with Agri-Food Analytics Lab. You have five minutes.

[Sylvain Charlebois, Director and Professor, Dalhousie University, Agri-Food Analytics Lab]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear today.

I am joined today by Olivia Romaniw, a research associate at the lab who is attending in person in Ottawa.

I am appearing remotely today from Cork, Ireland, where I am speaking at an international agribusiness conference examining the state of the global food economy. The discussions taking place here reinforce how interconnected food systems have become and how geopolitical tensions, climate-related disruptions, supply chain shocks and economic uncertainty continue to challenge food security around the world.

Food security is often misunderstood. Canada does not have a food security problem. We have a competitiveness and productivity problem. We are one of the world's largest agricultural producers and exporters, yet millions of Canadians struggle to afford food. The challenge before us is not simply about producing more food, but producing, processing, distributing and marketing food more efficiently and competitively.

Last week's announcement of Canada's national food security strategy is an important acknowledgement that food matters. The strategy includes several promising investments in food processing, controlled environment agriculture, food hubs and support for independent grocers. These initiatives may strengthen parts of our domestic food system and improve resilience.

However, a strategy is more than a collection of investments. A strategy requires a clear vision, measurable objectives, and a framework for accountability. Food security cannot be purchased through government spending alone. It is earned through investment, innovation, productivity and competitiveness.

Today, we would like to offer three recommendations that would strengthen Canada's food security without requiring significant new spending by Ottawa.

First, make food affordability a formal lens for federal policy-making. Before introducing new regulations, taxes or programs affecting the food sector, government departments should be required to assess their impact on food affordability and food system competitiveness. Canadians deserve to know how public policy affects the cost of food before decisions are made.

Second, launch a national review of internal trade barriers affecting food. Canadians often speak about food sovereignty and local food systems, yet we continue to tolerate rules that make it unnecessarily difficult to move food, labour and products across provincial boundaries. Improving the flow of food within Canada would strengthen resilience, increase competition and lower costs without spending a dollar of additional public money.

Third, establish measurable national food security benchmarks and publish annual scorecards. We cannot manage what we do not measure. Canada should track indicators such as food affordability, domestic processing capacity, investment levels, productivity growth, food insecurity rates and supply chain resilience. The federal government has announced a 10-year strategy. Canadians deserve to know whether the country is actually becoming more food secure over time.

Food security in an unstable world will not be achieved through protectionism or self-sufficiency. No country can produce everything efficiently. Canada's strength has always been its ability to trade, innovate and compete. Our objective should be to build a food system that is resilient, productive, globally connected and affordable for Canadians.

We look forward to your questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next, we'll go to the Grain Farmers of Ontario.

You have five minutes.

[Jeff Harrison, Chair of the Board, Grain Farmers of Ontario]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Jeff Harrison. I farm in Quinte West, Ontario, and I serve as chair of the Grain Farmers of Ontario, representing Ontario's 28,000 corn, oat, soybean, barley and wheat farmers.

Today I want to talk about a simple reality. Canada cannot have food security if farmers cannot afford to farm. Grain farmers are doing everything they can to keep producing crops for food, feed and other products, but many of the challenges faced today cannot be solved at the farm gate. They will require government action.

Risk is not new to farmers. Weather and markets pose a significant enough challenge, but the rising costs for equipment, fuel, fertilizer and other farm inputs are on an upward trajectory that is not sustainable. Today the farm input price index sits at record levels. Meanwhile, the prices that farmers receive for their crops have not kept pace with the cost of producing them.

Fertilizer is a perfect example. Without fertilizer, production is threatened. It is not optional for the vast majority of farmers, and it is the food that crops need to grow. Retail fertilizer prices remain high, and farmers remain deeply concerned about both affordability and reliable access to supply as we prepare for 2027.

Supply at all cost is not a solution for our farmers, farmers who are expected to be globally competitive. Farmers in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada depend on imported fertilizer sourced from regions around the world. When supply chains are disrupted, these farmers feel the impact almost immediately.

Four years ago, Canada imposed tariffs and sanctions on fertilizer imported from Russia and Belarus, two countries that had historically supplied significant portions of the fertilizer used by farmers in eastern Canada. The cost of that decision was passed directly on to farmers, and it does not take much of an understanding of economics to know that these tariffs are negatively impacting our farmers.

The Canadian government has created exemptions for other products. My question is simply this: Why can't exemptions be made for a product such as fertilizer, a product that helps feed Canadians and supports our food system? Removing tariffs on fertilizer imports from Russia and Belarus would be a practical, immediate step that could help reduce costs and improve supply security for Canadian farmers.

Fertilizer is only one challenge. Business risk management programs are supposed to protect farmers from the things we cannot control: droughts, floods, trade disruptions, geopolitical instability and market shocks. That is exactly what these were designed to do.

Canada has invested in business risk management programs, but for grain farmers, AgriStability simply does not work well enough when we need it most. When crop prices fall below the cost of production, farmers need meaningful protection. Unfortunately, AgriStability fails to provide the support required to bridge that gap.

Grain farmers in eastern Canada have spent years telling governments this. We have participated in reviews, provided recommendations, built coalitions and commissioned research because we knew there would eventually be a tipping point. That tipping point has arrived.

At the same time, our competitors in the United States benefit from responsive risk management programs and billions of dollars in supplemental support payments. They have also taken steps to secure fertilizer supplies and protect farm profitability during periods of market disruption. As a result, American farmers are often better positioned to withstand the same challenges Canadian farmers face.

For Ontario grain farmers, the most effective long-term solution is clear. The federal government should partner with Ontario in supporting the Ontario risk management program. This program is straightforward. It calculates the cost of the production of crops, compares that cost to market returns and provides support when prices fall below the cost of production.

The Ontario government has made significant investments in this program. It helps farmers manage risk when margins are squeezed by high input costs and low commodity prices. Most importantly, it gives farmers confidence that they can continue producing food, doing what they do best for Canadians. If farmers cannot manage risk, they cannot continue farming. When farmers disappear, the consequences extend far beyond agriculture. When that happens, Canada loses food-producing capacity.

Business risk management programs are not simply farm programs. They are food security programs. A country that cannot support its farmers cannot guarantee its food security.

The issue of food affordability, food sovereignty or food independence—whatever term you want to use—is a very complex situation. Farmers are not the cause of this situation we find ourselves in as a nation, but they are an integral part of the solution. This will need to be a Canadian commitment—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Mr. Harrison, I'm going to have to stop you there. We're at five minutes. Thank you so much.

Next, I'll go to the Montreal Economic Institute for five minutes.

[Renaud Brossard, Vice-President, Communications, Montreal Economic Institute]

Thank you very much.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you very much for inviting my colleague Gabriel Giguère and me.

For those who may not be familiar with the MEI—the Montreal Economic Institute—we're an independent think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa and Calgary that has been actively contributing to the Canadian public debate through our research and media appearances since 1998.

When discussing the cost of living, food is an essential consideration. It is the fourth-largest expense for Canadian households, behind taxes, housing and transportation. Given the significance of this budget item, the rapid rise in food prices we've seen in recent years has taken a toll on family budgets, and families are feeling the pressure more and more. While the desire to take action to ease this pressure is commendable, Canadian households are looking for results rather than mere intentions. Unfortunately, several measures recently announced by the federal government miss the mark. In particular, one aspect that concerns us is the desire to see the government become more involved in food distribution.

Let's be clear: The federal government is no more competent as a food wholesaler than it would be as a grocer. The food hub initiative, funded at great expense by Canadian taxpayers, faces the same challenges of logistical complexity, information management and incentives as government-run grocery stores, such as those we hear about in Toronto and south of the border. The average Canadian grocery store sells between 15,000 and 18,000 distinct products. This represents both small local banners such as Fraîchement Bon in the Montreal borough of Ahuntsic, and large-surface stores such as Walmart and Costco.

Needless to say, managing such a logistics chain for perishable products, each with their own hygiene requirements, represents a colossal task. Our large grocery chains manage to run both distribution and retail nationwide, with a profit margin estimated between 3% and 5%. Even if we assumed the government could do it with the same level of efficiency as the private sector, the maximum theoretical savings one could get are between $11 and $18 per person per month—or about the cost of three bags of chips. It should therefore be noted that it is not by getting the state to wade into food retail—as some activists pretend—or into food distribution—as the government seems keen to do—that we will bring prices to levels that are affordable to Canadian families.

That's not to say that government has no role to play. Very often, this role is not to create new programs or structures, but rather to stop contributing to the high cost of living through its public policies, be they tariffs, production quota systems like supply management or regulations that burden all Canadian consumers, such as restrictions on interprovincial trade. Revising these aspects would have a far more desirable effect than establishing a new government structure.

Thank you for your time and attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to the Conservatives and Mr. Barlow now for six minutes.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much to our witnesses.

Mr. Harrison, I'll start with you.

We've heard from a lot of farmers across eastern and central Canada about specifically the fertilizer issue. The fertilizer suppliers are not only not committing to prices for next year; they're also not committing to even having supply available for farmers. Is that accurate?

[Jeff Harrison]

Yes, it is.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

As you mentioned, Canada is the only G7 country that has a 35% tariff on fertilizer imports from Russia and Belarus specifically, which is putting you at a competitive disadvantage. What has been the response from the Liberal government to the requests from GFO and other farm groups to remove the fertilizer tariff to make fertilizer more affordable for farmers? What has been the government response to your request?

[Jeff Harrison]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Barlow. We have been heard, and the situation has been acknowledged, but there has still been no meaningful action. Farmers are continuing to pay a high price as a result. I appreciate the government's understanding of the situation, but without action, it's meaningless.

We understand that it is a very sensitive issue. Farmers are compassionate people. We condemn the atrocities we saw in Ukraine. We never want to see that again. However, the reality is that those tariffs are penalizing Canadian farmers.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Harrison.

Would the reality of those tariffs be that the only ones being punished are Canadian farmers? This is in no way punishing the Russian regime or Belarus. Fertilizer is still being purchased. The United States is still purchasing fertilizer. The only victims of this tariff set by the Liberal government are Canadian farmers. Would that be accurate?

[Jeff Harrison]

Yes, that is fair to say. We have studies that document those statements. Farmers in Canada want to produce high-quality, abundant, affordable food. That's what they do, and they do it well in Canada, but they need to be able to work on a level playing field and be able to be globally competitive to be sustainable.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

I want to move to a different topic with you, Mr. Harrison.

This study is about food security and food affordability, but the Liberal government is also proposing the Alto high-speed rail, which will impact perhaps thousands of farms across Ontario and Quebec. I have seen a number of posts and announcements from Grain Farmers of Ontario but also other farm groups in Ontario and Quebec that are strongly opposed to this project.

What impact do you believe the Alto high-speed rail will have on grain farmers in Ontario and on your ability to be productive and competitive?

[Jeff Harrison]

We're very concerned. We have supported our general farm organizations in their position. We're very concerned about agriculture and the impact on farmland and the impact on farmers as well as our rural communities. We're concerned about emergency services and school buses. We can't afford to fix bridges and infrastructure in our province now. How can we afford to fix more? Of course, there are grave concerns over the inefficiencies created by triangular fields and just the uncertainty for family farms in planning for the future. We need these projects to operate on merit and to not jeopardize farmers as a result.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Harrison.

I want to switch to you, Mr. Charlebois.

You mentioned that we don't have a food security problem as much as we have a productivity and competitiveness challenge in Canada. In your op-ed last week, you talked about the Liberals' food strategy being not really a food security strategy, because it doesn't address the real core issues that we're facing. Do you feel that this was a missed opportunity, not addressing eliminating the industrial carbon tax, for example, deficit spending and really taking steps to harmonize regulations? Was this a missed opportunity?

[Sylvain Charlebois]

Absolutely. That points to our first recommendation today—to make food affordability a formal lens for federal policy-making. If that were the case, Mr. Barlow, I don't think the carbon pricing policy would affect food at all right now. Based on our research, the carbon pricing policy is impacting our sector's competitiveness right now, which is unfortunate. No studies were done before 2018 to assess that.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I have a really quick yes-or-no question for you, Mr. Charlebois, because I need to move on.

You are one of the pre-eminent experts in Canada on food pricing. You are one of the authors of the food price index on an annual basis. Were you consulted at all on the Liberals' food security strategy before it was released last week?

[Sylvain Charlebois]

I was not, no.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, I want to now take the opportunity to table the motion that I put on notice last week. This is the motion regarding the study on Alto. I'm happy to read that into the record, but I believe, certainly from the comments from Mr. Harrison that we heard today, that it is imperative that we invite farmers and people who are going to be impacted by this proposal of the Liberal government. We have a high-speed rail project that could negatively impact thousands of farms and put food productivity and food security in Canada at risk.

I know my colleagues across the way are going to argue that the route for Alto is not yet finalized and that they would prefer to wait until the route is cemented down, let's say, but I think that it is a disservice.

I believe it is imperative that we listen to farmers before the route is finalized, which I think could be months from now. If we don't listen to the farmers now and allow them to have some input into the impact this is going to have on their livelihoods—certainly we're already hearing about the mental health impact this is having on farmers—and if we wait until after the route is already finalized by the government, I think it would be a horrible disservice.

I think it would be much more beneficial if we listened to the farmers now and got their input. Certainly from our perspective, I don't see any benefit of Alto at all, let alone the cost of this project, and I'm concerned about the impact it's going to have on farmers.

I believe the time to do this study is as quickly as possible. I'm happy to read the motion, but I think everybody has it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I think everyone has it.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I would like to move that motion now, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

The motion has been moved.

Is there any debate?

Go ahead, Mr. Lemire.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, the Alto project is problematic because there are many factors that haven't been taken into account. The process was handled very carelessly by granting powers to a company that is using them against farmers.

In Quebec, the proposed route could affect more than 500 agricultural properties. To navigate a curve, a train will have to make an 11-kilometre detour. This makes it impossible to maintain flexibility in the use of farmland. Tunnels or bridges can't be built every time there's a need for them, especially not to allow farm machinery to pass through.

Given the way Alto is handling this project, we're likely to create a social crisis. I believe that as a committee, we have a responsibility to give a voice to those who currently do not have one. The consultations were botched. They were held outside of farming communities, where people could have had an impact. In addition, they were rushed through, essentially during the holiday season, before people had even heard about the project.

The Bloc Québécois had set four minimum conditions for supporting the project because, obviously, the idea of a high-speed train appeals to everyone. We're all captivated by the dream. In an ideal world, I'd even have one right at home in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue, but I think I'm getting a little carried away. What we're asking for is genuine social licence. That's far from guaranteed. No effort is being made in that direction.

We're also asking for an independent financial assessment. Again, there are no valid figures. All high-speed rail projects worldwide have exceeded their budget by at least 50%. So it is not far-fetched to think that $90 billion could rise to $150 billion or $200 billion. I believe it is also our committee's responsibility to learn more about these aspects of the project's financial assessment.

We're also calling for the removal of the violations of the Expropriation Act stemming from Bill C‑15, which makes it possible to force people to give up their farmland. Farmers were promised $1,500. If they refuse, a drone will fly over their land. Regardless, Alto will still get its way, because the law is on its side.

Finally, we're calling for real public consultations. Without them, I think it goes without saying that this project will not be viable. As a committee, we have a responsibility, because this is becoming a social crisis and creating significant distress among farmers.

Many of them made their voices heard on Parliament Hill last Wednesday, from both Quebec and Ontario. We have a responsibility to listen to them. There is psychological distress. This project will have a major impact on the mental health of these farmers. When you've been working the land for generations and, overnight, you're told that a train is going to cut right through it, you can't imagine ever having access to the other side of your land again. The train doesn't have the flexibility to yield the right of way. If there's a barn on the property, the barn will be gone.

For months, people and municipalities have been opposing the project. There are landowners who are affected and who are voicing their concerns. We have a responsibility to hear them as soon as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next we'll go to MP Chatel.