Agriculture Committee on June 18th, 2026

[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.