Agriculture Committee on June 18th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 43 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. I don't think we have anyone attending remotely.

Before I 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 will also notice a QR code, for your reference, on the table.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of our witnesses and members here today. Please wait until I recognize you by name or you're asked a question directly by a member before speaking.

I'd like to remind all witnesses and committee members that anyone may ask questions in French and English, so please have your earpieces prepared. This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair. The clerk and I will try to manage the list 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 Minister MacDonald. Thank you so much for being here today. I know you have your team with you today.

We have, from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lawrence Hanson, deputy minister, and Tom Rosser, assistant deputy minister; and from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Debbie Beresford-Green, who is a vice-president. Welcome to each of you.

Minister, you have five minutes.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Thank you, Chair.

It's great to see some new faces, obviously, at this committee. I sat on this committee for a number of years, and I certainly enjoyed every moment of it. Once again, I want to recognize the important work of the committee, and that includes your current study on food security.

As you have heard many times around this table, farmers and the whole sector are facing intense geopolitical pressures right now. Your study is also very timely because it was just a week ago that we launched the first ever national food security strategy.

Canadian farmers and food processors are central to the strategy. They are vital to the food security of our country and our world. The national food security strategy is about giving Canadians more choice, more control and more affordable, locally produced food on the shelf. It's about giving our farmers and food processors the tools they need to make it happen.

Last year, Canadian farmers and food processors exported more than $100 billion in high-quality food to almost 200 countries around the world. We're, hopefully, helping farmers diversify those markets even further. However, at the same time, we need to get more of our homegrown food into our kitchens and onto our tables right here at home—and that's what this strategy is about. Backed by a total investment of $3.2 billion, the strategy identifies key steps that will improve food access and food affordability for Canadians.

The farmers I meet across the country are primed and ready to grow their markets right here at home, but they need the tools to do that. That's why, under this strategy, we will speed up the time it takes for farmers to get their hands on new products, such as fertilizers and pest control technologies. This has been a long-standing competitive issue for our producers. Less red tape will help Canadian farmers to produce more food for Canadians while competing on an even playing field with producers in other countries.

To ensure food security for the long term, we will make it easier for young farmers to enter the sector and take over family operations. Every time I sit down with young producers across the country, I come away even more optimistic about the future of the sector. They are the innovative ones. They are ambitious and they are passionate about the sector, but their biggest challenge is daunting: the start-up costs of fulfilling their dreams for farming.

To help them get established in farming, we are doubling the guaranteed loan limit and extending terms of the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act. We have increased the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1.25 million for qualified farm property, which will be indexed to inflation starting in 2026. We are launching a task force to examine potential supports for intergenerational farm transfers, to better reflect the structure of modern farm operations, and we're including youth, who will be at the table.

To help our fruit and vegetable growers expand year-round Canadian production, we will invest $750 million in controlled environment agriculture.

We will help our food and beverage manufacturers have better access to targeted programs and new financing that support growth at all stages so that they can innovate, grow and scale. As well, Farm Credit Canada will establish a $1-billion agri-food project finance fund that backs food and farming projects that can transform the industry.

We will help provincially licensed food businesses get the help they need to meet the federal requirements. That way, a Canadian product made in one province can more easily reach a shelf in another.

Canada's first ever national food security strategy is a win for farmers and a win for Canadians. By keeping our farmers productive and competitive, we will drive new jobs, new economic opportunities and stronger food security for Canadians. As we said last week, it's more choice, more control, more Canada.

Lastly, I suspect that members of this committee will be pleased to hear that we successfully established an African swine fever zoning arrangement with Japan last week. This is an important step in protecting Canada's pork sector, which consists of more than 7,000 hog producers and 31,000 farm jobs, and supports 103,000 direct and indirect jobs across the country.

With that, Mr. Chair, I am now happy to take questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much, Minister.

I just wanted to mention that MP Joseph is here.

Welcome, Mr. Joseph, and thank you for filling in for MP Harrison.

We'll start with the Conservatives for six minutes.

Please go ahead, Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

You talked about the importance of food security. We had Jeff Harrison, the chair of the board of the Grain Farmers of Ontario, here last week, and he said that you can't have food affordability if farmers can't afford to farm.

One key thing that you could have done as part of your announcement last week was remove the 35% tariff on fertilizer imports. Canada is the only G7 country that has that tariff.

Have you asked the Prime Minister and the finance minister to remove that tariff, yes or no?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It's not a yes-or-no question because, to your first part of your question, there are tariffs from the EU on fertilizer coming out of Russia, so part of that question I can't answer because you're not directing it in the right sequence. By 2028, I believe the EU is going to charge 100% tariff, so they don't want Russian fertilizer either.

Back to the first part of your question, I've had this discussion many times with a lot of my colleagues and Jeff, of course, was one of them. We're watching this situation very closely. I met with the G7 ministers last—

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Minister. I know the answer to the question. The answer is that this is going to stay. You talk about the EU, but this isn't impossible. Your government exempted tariffs on other commodities like airplane parts and cobalt from Russia.

For some reason, your government is picking winners and losers and, once again, when it comes to decisions by your government, farmers are losing. You could have asked for that tariff on fertilizer to be removed, as you have exempted other commodities like cobalt and airplane parts.

Going on the same theme, you talk about food security. Ontario is losing about 320 acres of farmland every year, the equivalent of about nine farm families every week, as a result of development, urbanization and those types of things. We now know that the Alto high-speed rail will impact about 500 farms just between Montreal and Ottawa.

Do you know how many farms will be impacted by this high-speed rail for the entire length of the project?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We had a discussion the other day on Alto, and I've been in recent contact with UPA's Martin Caron. We had good discussions. I've been talking to the transport minister with concerns relevant to the agriculture sector in both Quebec and Ontario and will continue with that, and I think part of the issue here is the lack of communication from Alto. I think they need to do a better job of explaining the processes of what's transpired.

I've been a part of a plan, what they called a plan B at home, where we built highways through agricultural land, so I fully understand the impediments and the worry from farmers, but communication is key.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

It is very concerning. You can blame Alto, but this is your project, your government's project, so I don't think you can just put this on Alto.

To me, the fact that you do not know how many farms are potentially going to be impacted by this rail means that you have not been part of the consultation or part of the process within your cabinet, and it concerns me that you have not had some influence on this.

Can you or your department table with the committee exactly how many farms are going to be potentially impacted by this rail? It would be great if that could be tabled.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

There is a point of order.

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

I would just like to mention that, as we have already discussed at a committee meeting this week, we will be resuming a study on the Alto project this fall, as soon as we receive the information from Alto. The routes have not yet been finalized.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

That doesn't stop me from asking the minister. What's the point of order here?

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

I do not think it is appropriate today, when the meeting is about food security, to ask questions relating to the Alto project, which are still under discussion.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Okay.

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

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chair. I would like to point out that the motion concerning Alto has not been adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Just hold on for one second, folks.

Mr. Barlow, continue.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Just to rephrase the question then, how much food production will be removed as a result of the Alto high-speed rail? That certainly would impact Canada's food sovereignty and food security. How many acres in yield production will be removed from use as a result of the high-speed rail?

Do you know the answer to that?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The route has not even been chosen yet. It's very hard to analyze what the loss of acreage will be or how many farms will be affected until the actual final route is chosen by Alto and the government.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I'll move to another topic.

We had you here a few weeks ago, and we asked you about the closure of the research centres. Again, this certainly relates to food security and food sovereignty. In answer to a question from a colleague, you said that those closures were worthwhile. Do you still believe that the closure of seven experimental farms and research centres is a worthwhile decision?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No one likes change, but the closures' relevance to what we're doing is more on the operational side as opposed to the science side. The science side is the important aspect that people keep talking about, and we're not doing less science. From what I've heard across the country, even through my national policy frameworks, we've had 20 cases, and people are saying that we're not doing science appropriately, we're not doing it enough or we need to do a better job of doing science.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Minister.

That's an interesting answer, as 54% of the workforce cuts and 75% of the spending cuts in your department are coming from the science and innovation research branch. I think your answer to this committee is a little misleading.

My last question is about your conversations around the country. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities voted 98% in opposition to the closures of these research centres, so I think you're getting a different message.

When I was in Nappan at the research farm, I was told by the constituents there that your colleague the member of Parliament for Cumberland—Colchester asked if she could tour the Nappan experimental farm. She was told by Ag Canada that if she stepped foot on that farm, she would be arrested.

Is it a directive from your department that the experimental farms are telling elected officials that they cannot come on these farms or they'll be arrested?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I've let you go for almost seven minutes, so I'm going to stop there and turn it over to the Liberals for six minutes.

Mr. MacDonald, go ahead.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you, sir.

Good morning, Minister.

We know that Canada and the agriculture sector, in my mind, get overlooked sometimes. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has a goal of increasing our GDP. It's $150 billion now, and one in nine jobs are in agriculture. It has significantly contributed to the Canadian economy.

I think the goal of increasing that $100 billion over 10 years to $250 billion is going to need the co-operation and support of the federal government. With the national food security strategy that you released last week, what are the first concrete actions that are going to take place, and what deliverables will we see over, let's say, the next 12 months so that farmers and processors can measure the success of the strategy?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

To the first part of your question, the first thing we started working on when I became minister, which I had a concern about, was the regulatory impediments farmers face each and every day around seeds, feeds, fertilizers, innovation and technology, and how slow that process works and how it put us at a competitive disadvantage with other countries we trade with. That, first and foremost, is what I'm hearing from stakeholders across the country.

When you look back at the 2006-22 time period, you'll see that we've lost almost 2% of our GDP because of an accumulation of regulatory impediments, maybe, or the speed, and we've also lost about 10% of our investment over that period of time. That is certainly something we are going to do expeditiously.

We put it right in the food security strategy that within six months, my good friend to the left from the CFIA will have all of the backlog completed. I think that's extremely important.

We've already had discussions with departmental heads involved in the FSS. The Prime Minister is on the issue. He wants to see action and he wants to see results, so we're working very closely with different organizations, whether that be greenhouses, Food and Beverage Canada or the Federation of Agriculture. We're trying to do everything possible to expedite the process of the FSS. It's been a week, but we've already had several meetings on it.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

A lot of farmers are concerned with the price of fertilizer this spring, so can you update us on what type of role the federal government can play in an input strategy that will give us more self-reliance in fertilizer in Canada?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Based on my conversation with our counterparts at the G7, they're all concerned about fertilizer. With this new peace agreement—hopefully it holds—in the Strait of Hormuz, we've seen the price of fertilizer already start to drop on the markets, but we need to make sure that we isolate ourselves from some of the stuff that has happened on the geopolitical front over the past year.

I've had companies that sell fertilizer say to my department that if they didn't have to buy Russian fertilizer, they wouldn't. It's about a 5% cheaper cost, so to them it's not the end of the world, but we need to make sure that the farmers are seeing that at the farm gate as well to ensure that they're getting the best deal and getting the fertilizer when they need it.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I'll move on to my next question.

Is the African swine fever zoning that was announced this week a model that will be transferable? I lived through BSE and the total shutdown of beef exports from Canada, and it cost the industry millions and millions of dollars. Is zoning something that the federal government will be looking at in the future to alleviate animal diseases? We can't do that totally, and if we have an outbreak we have to deal with it, but zoning minimizes the risk to producers.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Certainly, in any trade negotiation, it should be a point of discussion. On the ASF zoning arrangements for the pork industry, I'm told by the Canadian Pork Council that it's been ongoing for eight years, so it's a massive win for them.

When you look at our exports, we export nearly 70% of pork production to countries that include Japan. It's extremely important in that regard, at $1.8 billion, if I'm remembering the numbers properly. It was a really important achievement. I give the pork producers and the Canadian Pork Council a lot of the credit, and even the Japanese embassy here was very helpful in this process, and our team was as well, so it was a good day.

To your point, every negotiation in trade should have an influence relevant to how we can isolate a situation that could destroy a commodity in this country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next we'll go to the Bloc for six minutes, with Mr. Lemire.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

A few weeks ago, we were at the Standing Committee on Finance together and you mentioned something to me that I found interesting. You said that you did not want to go down in history as the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food who made cuts to science and research. However, the figures do not lie, and the difference is striking: the budget of $750 million will be reduced to $300 million by 2028–2029.

How can you justify cuts to research in science and innovation? For example, in organic farming, crops are now being grown on sites where scientific research used to take place; however, because of the cuts, years of research are being lost, research contracts are being terminated and data are being lost forever.

What will history remember about you, Mr. MacDonald?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

As I've said many times before, I believe right now we're at.... Let me get these numbers right. Deputy, correct me if I'm wrong, but there are 23 scientists who are presently moving from one facility to another, and then there are the two going to Guelph, so 25 scientists out of the 52 who were going to be cut are actually moving.

The science is going to continue. There are going to be operational facilities that will be shut down, but the science is going to continue.

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

More than six months after these cuts were announced, will you be able to present a staffing plan to this committee? You say that staff are being transferred and that there will be no loss of data, expertise or researchers. How will this be achieved?

[Lawrence Hanson, Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

We can certainly provide the numbers. Regarding the individual scientists and their decisions, their names and so forth, we'd like to respect the personal privacy of individual employees, but I can confirm that we offered 26 RES scientists or research leads the opportunity to relocate, and 23 of the 26 have.

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

I would like to talk to you about Alto, because this week, in this committee, your Liberal colleagues refused to adopt a motion that could have reassured the producers, who would have had an opportunity to have their say before being presented with a fait accompli, namely a final route.

Indeed, we know that the project you have—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We have a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify something. During the debate, it was mentioned that we would resume discussion of the motion concerning Alto this fall. Members of our party were keen to continue this—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

That is not a point of order.

Continue, Mr. Lemire.

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

I think there may have been a problem with interpretation. What I said was that the Liberals had refused to pass the motion. I believe that is entirely correct, Mr. Chair.

In the current context, producers had the opportunity to voice their concerns. However, those concerns were not taken into account, because Bill C‑15 introduced disproportionate measures allowing Alto to negotiate with producers, impose conditions on them or crush them, which is causing a great deal of concern. The committee had the opportunity to hear them out and possibly influence the route. Now, the Liberal strategy is to hear them once the decision is final.

Have you raised this matter with your colleague, the Minister for Transport, to ensure that farmers' concerns are heard? We are talking about more than 500 pieces of farmland in Quebec alone.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Most certainly, and again, making sure that I'm in regular contact with UPA as well is important.

Yes, I've spoken to the transport minister several times on the issue relevant to agriculture and agricultural land to ensure.... Like I said, I think we need to do a better job at communication, because there's a lot of misinformation out there. I think there are opportunities to rectify some of that.

I think it certainly is important. We heard from our previous speaker about the loss of farmland in this country, so I think that has to be taken into consideration. Also, I've recently raised the issue of crop rotation among several farmers. One farmer may be interrupted by Alto and two other farmers may not, but it may be three farmers at the end of the day. That has to be included in some of those discussions.

There are things like that I've raised and I'll continue to raise.

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

Thank you for raising that issue, but when we're talking about a train that runs through farmland and cuts it in two, it's hard to call that misinformation.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the strategy regarding an agreement with Mercosur.

Clearly, this is an international treaty that is greatly feared by producers here. It could lead to a form of unfair competition, given that standards in those countries are not the same as ours. We want to be greener and more productive, and we want to respect animal welfare. However, we do not apply the principle of reciprocity in standards at an international level, which inevitably comes at a cost. This undermines the high-quality meat we produce here, and even our ability to access our own markets, both in Quebec and across Canada.

Will you take action to help producers and ensure that they are not put at a disadvantage by an agreement with Mercosur?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We've had open discussions with the Canadian Cattle Association, for example, and specifically with certain ranchers as well. Many of the discussions are moving forward in a way so that everybody, including the Minister of Trade, is starting to recognize and understand the concerns of the Canadian Cattle Association and farmers and ranchers in this country.

I had a couple of questions for Debbie this morning relevant to the inspection side of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'm sorry, Minister, but we've run out of time.

We'll go to the Conservatives now for five minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Gourde.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I would like to believe that your government cares about agriculture and considers it as a priority.

You have announced a $1 billion strategy which simply amounts to allowing Farm Credit Canada to lend more money to farmers and processors. I did say “lend”, not “give”. So they will have to pay the money back. They will bear the burden of that loan.

I'm going to draw a parallel with Alto. Alto currently has a $3.9 billion credit facility from the government to fund research. The money hasn't been lent to Alto; it's been given to them, subject to certain conditions. Incidentally, the Alto group has more executives than employees. That's quite something. I haven't seen that very often in my life. That's for a project which, according to the announcements, will cost between $60 billion and $90 billion, but all the independent experts say it will cost $150 billion. That's fresh money.

As for agriculture, $1 billion is being announced with great fanfare. However, this is $1 billion that farmers and processors will have to borrow. It's not fresh money coming from the government. The burden falls on those who will be borrowing this money.

Minister, I do not know if you are aware, but Farm Credit Canada does not lend money for free. It does not offer preferential rates. It charges a mortgage rate, plus an additional 2% to 4%.

Have you ever tried to secure an agricultural loan from Farm Credit Canada yourself?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I believe, Jacques, that your question was relevant to compensation, possibly, if I understood the translation appropriately.

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

I shall continue, Minister. It will be simpler that way.

You said that you were working very closely with the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, and with Mr. Martin Caron. You spoke about this before the Standing Committee on Finance on June 1. However, Quebec's UPA is opposed to Alto. It announced this with great fanfare. Yet your government is in favour of Alto.

Where is this great co-operation on your part? Is it with the producers or with your government? Where do you stand on this issue? Are you somewhere in between?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think the situation becomes the communication aspect of it that I mentioned several times. It is to make sure that everybody fully understands the concerns of the farmers. That's where I come in, making sure that.... Martin and UPA have certainly voiced many concerns. I want to make sure that they get to the table of Alto and the executives who are making some of these decisions. I think that's what you're asking.

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

Minister, will you be monitoring the process closely?

When the time comes for expropriations, will your name and signature appear at the bottom of the expropriation letters?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I don't believe so. I think there's a whole legal process that the government follows in that regard.

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

There is a great responsibility at stake right now, Minister. This is 2026. We are not in the 1800s. Back then, the territory was less densely populated than it is today. We live in a democracy. Bill C‑15 has been introduced, which strips producers of any right of redress in the event of expropriation. They can do nothing about it. The government can send them a three-month eviction notice, effectively telling them “bye-bye”, and then they have to leave.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We have a point of order.

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

I have been patient, but we are still in the middle of the food safety study. We have a plan. Right now, we are talking about matters that have not even been referred to the committee and are not even being discussed. I think there is a problem with—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

It's not a point of order.

Mr. Gourde, continue.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Food security means respecting those who produce our food, and there aren't that many of them left in Canada. The number of people who want to enter this profession in the future is still falling.

Being a landowner entails enormous responsibilities. However, we never imagine that our land might be taken away from us or split in two. Having your land split in two or having it taken away—in the end, it's pretty much the same thing.

There is currently a system in place that acts as a long-term deterrent for producers. What are you going to do, Minister, to put a stop to this?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We're going to work with the farmers to the best of my ability and communication. It's going to be key.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you.

We'll go to the Liberals now for five minutes.

MP Dandurand, go ahead.

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

I'll let my colleague Mr. Connors start, and then I'll follow.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, for coming out today to answer some questions.

Just a few months ago we were in my riding of Avalon in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we visited some local producers from the area. As we heard from them, food security in our province is somewhat unique because we depend so much on bringing produce and other things to our island. We produce only roughly 20% of what we consume. Can you tell us how the food security strategy will support the agricultural industry and food security in my province?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Newfoundland is unique in some ways, as a distinct province, but northern communities are very similar to Newfoundland. It's something we're focused on.

I visited your riding, which has the egg hatchery and the new dairy co-op. Those are the types of things that may allow these individuals or those businesses to scale up with financing through the FSS to ensure that they can provide even more product to Newfoundland. It would also ensure that if there's a local hub that needs to be built somewhere in the northern part of the country, that could stabilize some of the products being moved to those areas and maintained there longer.... I think one of those food hubs would be most appropriate in the northern part of Newfoundland. There's also funding available for that.

It'll be interesting to see who takes advantage of that in your province, because it is a unique situation. It's also something that needs to be or is identified in the northern communities in places such as Saskatchewan, Yukon and Northwest Territories.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Over the past couple of meetings, we did have some people at committee from Newfoundland and Labrador who are very supportive of food hubs and are quite willing to take those challenges on to develop food hubs in our province. I'm really glad there's support for those.

I'm going to pass it over to my colleague now.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Minister, for being with us.

I've been talking a lot in my riding about the new national food security strategy, which has been welcomed very well.

The question that always comes back to me, and I think you can answer it, is this. How will it help in our area with direct money? In rural areas, we are not used to getting money every time the government has programs such as that. I think this one is really relevant. For example, with food processing or food hubs, is it possible that in a riding such as mine, we will get money if people have projects we can support?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, certainly.

The whole emphasis is on being less dependent on imports. Seventy-two per cent of vegetables are imported in this country. I think it's 89% of fruits and vegetables. Anytime we have an opportunity to provide hydroponics, greenhouses or something else, or increase capacity for an existing business, and then have the storage capabilities as well, whether it's freezers or cold storage...I think that's the whole emphasis. I think that all projects are on the table, and I certainly hope that communities that have some opportunities will put forth some very interesting projects.

Going back to your colleague, I'll say that creating those food hubs is extremely important and that we do as much as we can here at home. A good example of that is Lufa Farms. They grow 90% to 95% of the product. They put together 42,000 baskets a week in Montreal. They sell at a rate lower than Costco and Walmart. The other 5% to 10% comes from the farm gate. The protein, bread or what have you comes from the farm gate. Farmers are taking advantage of that as well. These types of companies are starting to expand. If we can help them expand faster, then that's what government should be doing.

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

I have a few seconds left, so I have two really rapid things. First of all, abattoirs, slaughterhouses, are such an important issue. Do you have something to say about them? As well, with respect to African swine fever, and there are a lot of pork producers in my riding, where are we with that?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We're doing everything possible to ensure that abattoirs meet, first of all, CFIA regulations, and CFIA is willing to give them the gold glove service or the white glove service, whatever you want to call it, to ensure that they can scale up to that and then move their product from province to province, or export.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you.

We'll go to Monsieur Lemire for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, one of the aspects that Quebeckers are very concerned about regarding the long-delayed negotiations with the Americans to renew the agreement is obviously the protection of supply management.

Can you assure us that this is still a priority for your government and for you?

What are the recent developments on protecting supply management?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The negotiations, obviously, are ongoing, and it's a priority. The U.S. is our biggest trading partner. We depend on them. They depend on us. We're integrated. I can't say much more about it, but it's a priority for us, and we'll continue to seek out the best possible deal for Canadians. Sometimes the rhetoric you hear in the media is not necessarily what's taking place behind closed doors, but I think we have a pretty good trade team in place to deal with some of these issues, so we'll go from there.

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

Through Bill C‑30, the government is giving itself huge emergency powers for pesticides. Even the CropLife association pointed out that these were extraordinary powers and that it was very happy about that.

Are we playing with people's health by reintroducing pesticides that had been banned?

Above all, isn't there a serious risk of shutting out export markets in Europe, where countries impose reciprocal standards?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I look at it as a minister of one year, I guess. I talked a little bit about the issues and what the expedience of processes has done to Canada as a whole. You don't have to look too far. It's seeds, feeds, fertilizers and innovation technology. On the innovation side, we can look at how long the U.S. has been using drones, which are climate-friendly; precision farming and less spray. We implemented them just in the last year, but the U.S. has been using them for, I don't know, eight years, 10 years or something to that effect.

People get concerned about pesticides, and I get it, but the bottom line is that we're not going to jeopardize the health of Canadians with any legislation. It's not going to happen. I think we need to make sure that we have our farmers on a level playing field with farmers in other countries.

We're importing food. We all eat apples. Apples are coming from Mexico. Apples have pesticides on them. Nobody's talking about it. We need to keep it in perspective. I think there are some groups out there that like to raise the red flag, but those are likely the same people who are eating from a bag of McIntosh apples this morning. That's what annoys me. We're not doing anything that no other country is doing. Some of these products have been approved in other countries for five years, six years, seven years or longer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you so much.

We'll go to Mr. Epp for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, vital to food security is, of course, a continued investment in research. Fifty-four per cent of the cuts are to the workforce of the science and innovation branch, 75% of the spending that's already been tabled here. However, you did state that the scientists are being offered relocation. Can you tell us how many are staying within the branch? We have had direct testimony and conversations with some who are transferring to another branch.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The deputy has been hands-on in this. We've had discussions with provinces and academia. We've been moving forward with Saskatchewan. We've had discussions with Alberta.

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

Just a number.

[Lawrence Hanson]

There are people who work in the science branch who are not necessarily our research scientists. Again, with respect to the research scientists, the people we're talking about who are leading scientific research, of the 26 who were offered relocation, 23 have moved to other research facilities in the department and therefore inside the STB.

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

Thank you.

Also vital to food security is, of course, efficient access to good farmland. Farm groups are asking for more meaningful consultation, yet the government is saying that they have already been consulted. Why do they keep coming to us? Why have UPA, the OFA, the NFU, the CFFO and the UCFO penned a letter asking for a pause on the Alto project?

[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?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, because basically the operational side is something that I separate out from the science side. On the Nappan front, I think it's fair enough that there was a question asked by your colleague earlier, and I think I never got a chance to answer it, or the deputy didn't, because the time ran out.

My answer is no on the operational side, but the science side will continue.

Deputy, do you want to answer that question?

[Lawrence Hanson]

Thank you, Chair. I'll be very brief because this is a serious—

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

We only have three minutes, so I'm going to ask a question about Mercosur—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'll pause your time here for a second.

We do try, if we do ask a question, to afford the same amount of time to the witnesses. Keep that in mind, Mr. Bonk.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'm just going to ask a question about Mercosur. We've had a lot of witnesses here. All the major associations representing producers in Canada have come out very strongly against further access for Mercosur countries into our beef market in Canada. They're citing concerns of lower slaughter standards in South American countries, as well as concerns about labour standards and disease. We've had no inspections in those countries for 10 years.

Will you today commit that the concerns of the cattle producers in Canada will be taken very seriously and that your main job here is to protect Canadians?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Certainly. It's the health of Canadians and the health of our food supply, yes, but I'll let the CFIA talk about the inspection process.

[Debbie Beresford-Green, Vice-President, Food Safety and Science, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you very much for the question.

It is obviously a priority for the CFIA to make sure that we are in close collaboration with any deliberation as to new markets. We do go in and do system audits, as we call them, to make sure that the system is equivalent to that of Canada—

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

When was the last time you did an audit?

[Debbie Beresford-Green]

It depends on the country. The most recent were in Paraguay in 2022, and in Brazil in 2018. Again, it depends on the triggers as to whether there is new product coming in.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

We know that in Brazil, for example, they've taken over a year to report BSE in their food system. We've had animals that could potentially have been in the food system and, if Mercosur goes through, could end up in the Canadian food system.

What would you do to protect Canadians from this?

[Debbie Beresford-Green]

With respect to any disease in animals, we make sure that the zoning is actually reciprocal with those countries, and we have strong standards to make sure those are not imported into Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next we'll go to Mr. MacDonald.

You have three minutes, please.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you.

Minister, in Atlantic Canada, the new food strategy is well received; I've had a lot of positive comments. The ability to have regional hubs again was the case decades ago, but the big grocers went to national distribution.

To complement those regional hubs, we're going to need investments in transportation and infrastructure. In particular, my pet peeve is that Atlantic Canadian farmers will have continuing access to that Halifax grain elevator system so that we can export grains around the world.

Do you have any update on that today for me?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Discussions have been ongoing, but I think we're in a pretty good space with the grain elevator in the Halifax port. There have been massive investments, too, in the Saint John port as well. Then you have the ports of Montague and Montreal, which have received major investments. To get our products to market, I think it's imperative to invest in transportation modes.

Back to part of your original question on the food hubs, when you look at the Ontario terminal, I think two billion pounds of food pass through there on an annual basis. If you multiply that by 99¢ or $1.99, it tells you the extent. There are products coming from your home province, which I saw the other day. It's extremely important that we ensure that transportation modes are accessible and reliable and not a cost constraint to our producers.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

You spoke earlier about the contribution to the Competition Bureau. I worked for many years trying to bring in the Grocery Code of Conduct with the Dairy Farmers of Canada. The big grocers came into that program, I will say, kicking and screaming. They certainly weren't receptive to it at first.

This money that's going into the Competition Bureau is better placed so that consumers will get fair prices. As I think you mentioned earlier, farmers at the farm gate should get fairer prices too.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I had the opportunity to sit on this committee when we brought the CEOs of some of these grocers before us, and I think we all know how that turned out.

There are certain things that they can do relatively quickly and be more forceful on. Algorithm collusion among big grocers is certainly something that needs to be addressed. There's also something in the AI strategy that will relate to agriculture on analyzing price evaluations in grocers as well. Then we have situations where big grocers are—and this has been in the news recently—putting covenants on surrounding areas that smaller grocers can't build in proximity to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemire, you have two minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for that discussion.

Last week, you introduced the national food security strategy, which includes the creation of food hubs. That's something I want to commend, because I've been advocating for this initiative for quite some time, particularly since studies in my riding and region show that it could have a very positive impact.

Obviously, I am concerned about whether real money will come out of the initiative and go to the more remote regions. Often, the details are harder to implement in remote regions. My main concern is that this is a program that provides loans, particularly through Farm Credit Canada, an organization whose mandate is essentially to provide loans.

When we talk about food affordability, we obviously have to recognize that the cost of food gets passed on to consumers.

If the investment costs are repayable loans and not subsidies, are you not concerned that consumers may end up paying more to access food in remote areas?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think part of the purpose of all of this and the food hubs.... Your area is actually well-suited for something relevant to that. When you take into consideration transportation modes, the grocery stores in your riding are likely paying Loblaws, Sobeys or Metro to move their product to your community, so you're buying your product from them; they're transporting the product to that convenience store; the convenience store owner then has to mark it up for the consumer, to make sure that he's getting his 2% to 4% increase on it.

I think there's certainly an opportunity there to lessen the price. Affordability is a big part of this, driving competition, but putting the infrastructure in place that's going to allow us to be able to do that is certainly important.

Remote areas, whether in Newfoundland or Quebec, I think, are extremely important. I say to you that if there's a project that we can entertain, I would love to see it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

On behalf of the committee, Minister, thank you for being here, and thank you to your team for being here.

Go ahead, MP Chatel.

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

I just have a question about the deadline we have for submitting our recommendations for the study on business risk management. June 26 is a bit quick. Could we continue in the fall, so in September, and have a longer deadline to submit our recommendations?

[Daniel Farrelly, Committee Researcher]

Yes, but if you wait until September to submit recommendations, we won't be able to write a report before work resumes. It's up to you. It's your choice.

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

Since a lot of things are going to happen this summer, the recommendations will be important in the fall. Therefore, I think it's worth waiting.

That doesn't prevent you from writing the report and extracting certain recommendations made by witnesses, as you usually do. As for our recommendations specifically, I propose that we wait until the fall.

[Daniel Farrelly]

You are still allowed to submit recommendations at any time until the final adoption of the report. Therefore, we can continue. The other parties can submit their recommendations by June 26.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We actually agreed that June 26 was the deadline for recommendations. Are you suggesting that we move it to a later date at the end? The only outcome of that is that the report will come later.

[Daniel Farrelly]

The report will still be written in order to be ready, but parties can submit recommendations at any moment during the consideration process. If a party wants to wait, other parties can submit them as normal.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

We have agreed to a deadline. We're going to stick to the deadline of June. If they want to miss the deadline and not submit recommendations, I think that's up to them. I don't see any reason why we need to delay this to the fall.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Okay, I'll turn it back to MP Chatel.

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

I just want to say that it shouldn't be a deadline. If the parties want to submit their recommendations by June 26, they are welcome to do so. However, there should be no deadline for submitting them. That means that, if they are submitted later, even into September, there will be no problem and the recommendations will be included in the first version of the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

What would you like us to do, MP Chatel?

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

I propose September 30 as a deadline for submitting recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Are you moving a motion?

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

I will move a motion then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

The motion is that the deadline would shift from June 26 to September 30.

Is there any debate?

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

Mr. Chair, I want to point out a few interesting facts from the Liberals. I was concerned that the motions to allow us to table items would now be retroactive, and that the Liberals would know in advance when they had to table them in order to do so. However, I get the feeling that, in this case, it's more or less the opposite.

In terms of principle, the Bloc Québécois has already submitted its recommendations, so I'm going to vote against the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Go ahead, Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

We've heard all the witness testimony. We're not going to be talking to other witnesses through the summer, as part of this study.

I'm sorry, Ms. Chatel. You were the one who, this winter, said that this was so important and that we had to finish this before we rose this spring because of the BRM discussions as part of the FTP meetings. Now you're saying that we should put this off until later in the fall. I don't understand your change in attitude on this.

We've listened to the witnesses. We have the testimony. We are fine submitting our recommendations at the originally agreed-upon deadline. Then, hopefully, we will have a report prepared with recommendations when we return in the fall, and we can move on to more pressing issues that I think all of us have discussed here today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Ms. Chatel, go ahead.

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

I agree with my colleague. There was, in fact, some urgency, and that's why the committee decided to send a letter. I would also like to thank all the committee members, because we did very good work, given the urgency, since discussions were supposed to take place this summer.

It's just that we Liberals would prefer to have a longer timeline and be able to present our recommendations in the fall. We don't want there to be a set deadline. We want to wait until the end of September to finalize the recommendations to be made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We have a motion on the floor to move the deadline from June 26 to September 30. I'm going to call the vote. This is a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to)

The date has been changed to September 30.

Is there any more business?

Go ahead, Mr. Lemire.

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

Mr. Chair, the last time the motion on Alto was discussed, since we wanted to respect the witnesses, the debate was simply adjourned. It might be a good time to resume debate on the motion. That would be my suggestion. We've had conversations that indicate that this is absolutely relevant, because producers need to know what's going on and to be able to have a say before the final route is chosen. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food would be a good place to resume debate on the motion. That would be my suggestion.

I know that some of my colleagues wanted to speak, but the debate was adjourned by the Liberal majority. It would be a good opportunity to listen to my colleagues, since we have a bit of time ahead of us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Are you asking the committee to vote on the same motion we voted on at, I think, the last meeting? Was it Mr. Barlow's motion?

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

No, I would like us to resume the debate that was adjourned, quite simply.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'm sorry. We're scheduled for one hour. That was our agreement here today, unless we want to go into a full meeting. We were scheduled for the minister to be here. Do you want to go into a debate now about a motion?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'm saying we can, but....

What would you like to do? Let's hear the motion.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Let's hear the motion.

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

Yes, exactly. I can turn it back to my colleague Mr. Barlow.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Hold on for a second.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Hang on for a second, folks.

If we are going to go into a longer discussion, we have to request additional time.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

Next, I have MP Chatel.

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

My request is simple and straightforward, Mr. Chair. I would like the committee to resume the debate that was adjourned at the last meeting, so that we can hear from all committee members who want to talk about the motion concerning Alto.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We have a motion on the floor to reopen the debate. We can deal with that right now while you're asking if there are additional resources.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We have a new motion on the floor. Is there any debate?

MP Chatel, go ahead.

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

We already voted on that motion, but now people want to come back to it. We had voted on adjourning debate and resuming—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Hold on for a second, folks.

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

It's the same thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Let's not debate across the table.

If it's the will of the committee to open up the debate and there's a majority, we can have that discussion today, but there's a motion on the floor by Mr. Lemire to reopen the debate, and that's what's on the floor right now.

While we're checking for resources, that's on the floor right now. Are there any speakers to it?

Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

As Mr. Lemire said, we're going to have a motion to reopen the debate on the Alto motion, which we will vote on, and I will request a recorded vote on that motion. Before that, though, I think it's very clear from the questions that were asked today that this is a question of food security and food sovereignty, and I'm actually really quite concerned that the minister, in his—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

There's a point of order.

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

I think it's a dilatory motion and there's no debate on a dilatory motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We'll go right to the vote then.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I'd like a recorded vote, please.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

On a point of order, I voted “nay”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Okay.

Folks, are you satisfied? What do we do in this situation?

The clerk—

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Anyway, Mr. Chair, if it was heard incorrectly, I said “nay”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Okay. That's on the record. That vote is defeated, then.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

His conscience is getting the best of him. I understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Is there any more business? No.

I need a motion to adjourn. Okay. All in favour?

Have a nice summer.