Agriculture Committee on June 18th, 2026

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'm not going to use the word “premature”, but from my perspective, I need to make sure that the communication from those groups is getting through to Alto via the Minister of Transport.

The route has not even been penned. There's been no conclusion relevant to that, so it's difficult to get to that next stage, but I understand the concerns of the farmers. If you lose an acre, it's a concern.

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

Consultation seems to be used as an excuse to justify a decision already made. Surely the government wouldn't commit $4 billion to a decision that has not been made.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The decision has been made on the project, but the route has not been chosen, as far as I know.

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

You have testified to us at committee that farmers' concerns about their farms being split will be addressed. They will get access. If that's going to be the case, can you define that? Is it catapults, tunnels, bridges? Is that every 50 acres, every 25 acres?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Those are exactly the discussions that are taking place until the route is in place. Those are the issues that I have raised.

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

How can there be a $90-billion price tag that we can have confidence in if the route hasn't been placed and we don't know how many catapults are going to be installed to transport farm equipment or livestock across the track?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That's a good question, but I think most projects are estimates, and they either go under budget or they go over budget.

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

I'll gladly do an over-under with you, Mr. Minister.

A report by HEC Montréal, Université Laval and the University of Waterloo on the high-speed rail project between Québec City and Toronto issued some recommendations and asked how many farms were being affected.

You say that the corridor hasn't even been picked. Has your department even looked at alternatives? Have you lobbied for far lower-cost—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

—alternatives that don't affect the cutting up of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We have a point of order.

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

Again, we invited the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, not the Minister of Transport. This is not relevant to the discussion we're having on food sovereignty and the food sovereignty strategy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Obviously, we lean on leniency in direction. However, we do try to maintain some relevancy, and the member is correct. We are talking about food security here.

I'll turn it back to the member.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Wayne Edinger has proposed, through the OFA, a number of different alternatives that are far cheaper and don't require a new corridor. Has that been discussed at all by the government?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

You would have to ask the Minister of Transport. I didn't receive anything relevant to that.

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

Okay.

Switching topics, the last time the PMRA, now the PRD, received a dollop of money—$81 million over about a four-year period—we ended up with a transformation project and a citizen science panel. That was supposed to speed things up. It did not. It slowed things down.

Where does the confidence from the agri-food sector come from with this last announcement of additional funds?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think you've seen it already. I think you've seen it in strychnine, point blank. It was a decision that was made by government. I think the expediency and the priority....

We're living in a different time. We don't have a choice. We need to make those decisions and we'll continue to make them, and if I'm in this position, I'll continue to push to make them.

I think you've seen that the Minister of Health is not quite like any other minister of health. She's participating in agriculture and agri-food sessions all the time, and I give her kudos for that. She's certainly paying attention to it.

I think we're going in the right direction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you.

We'll turn it over to the Liberals and MP Mingarelli for five minutes.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here with us today.

Since the government is committed to strengthening Canada's long-term food resilience, can you update the committee on the progress being made in developing the national food security strategy?

Specifically, how does the strategy recognize and support the critical role of rural agricultural regions, such as Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, in ensuring a stable domestic food supply at a time of global instability?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think the emphasis on the national food security strategy is creating more competition. Five conglomerates have 75% of the business in this country. Your farmers in Prescott are dependent on what they're going to be paid by those five corporations.

As a government, what we're trying to do is create more competition and, in so doing, give more opportunities for those farmers to sell closer to home with predictable pricing. We're going to do everything possible to ensure that we do that, but we'll also.... The Competition Bureau has been invested in. Again, it's for consumers, but it's also to ensure that the farmers are getting a fair price at the farm gate.

There are all kinds of entities in there that should help farmers, and it's a trickle-down effect, but farmers supply 75% of the food and beverages in this country. Whatever we can do as a whole is going to result in a better bottom line for our farmers.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Thank you.

In developing a national food security strategy, how will your department ensure that measures aimed at improving food security, such as increasing domestic production and supply chain resilience, are matched by concrete support for farmers facing rising input costs and ongoing market volatility?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Basically, what we're trying to do is control what we can control. It's difficult to control the Strait of Hormuz or the Ukrainian war. Climate change is another thing that farmers are certainly dealing with that we may not have seen for generations—whether it be droughts, floods or fires, in some instances.

I think what this strategy is trying to do is to control what we can control, help expand our processing and production within the farming community, become less dependent on imports and try to do as much as possible for our farmers at the farm gate to ensure that they get a fair price for their products.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Thank you so much, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We're going to do a final round here. I'm going to go to three minutes, three minutes and two minutes.

We'll start with the Conservatives and Mr. Bragdon for three minutes. I think you're going to split it.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

I just want to follow up in regard to the Nappan research facility and the research facilities across the country. We have heard multiple witnesses over various committees raise the alarm bell on the closures of these research facilities. This is detrimental to food security across this country. I cannot recall one witness who supported the government's decision to bring in these closures—not one scientist, farmer, community stakeholder or educator. If there is merit to revisiting this decision, the time is now.

Minister, have you reconsidered this decision and weighed the input that you've heard from committee testimony and from stakeholders across the country?