TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-04-23 Sitting 109 Showing 1–4 of 4

An adjournment proceeding debate where the Conservative member criticized the government's closure of agricultural research stations and their overall handling of the agriculture sector, while the Liberal member defended the government's decisions and engagement with the industry. Rather than discuss specific proposed legislation or spend, the debate centered on the Conservative member sharing his concerns and the Liberal member offering general reassurances about the government's commitment to the agriculture sector.

Official Hansard ↗

Dave Epp

Conservative 6:40 p.m.

“I don't like that the government is closing agricultural research stations. Farmers told us they want more research funding, not less. The minister even admitted research funding is down. But Liberal governments have been in charge while it happened. The federal government keeps growing but they're cutting agriculture. This is bad. We should support science and find savings somewhere else.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber, and this evening I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow up on a question to the Minister of Agriculture from March 13, when I probed why the government is closing ag research stations. Over 20 ag organizations have written in to the AGRI committee in response to our study examining these closures. “Why?” is the question. We are coming up on one year since the last general election. As part of the preparation for our policy platforms for that election, meetings were held with all ag organizations, and there are an awful lot of ag organizations. We were after the priorities that were on the minds of those in the sector. Those ag organizations do not always agree, but they did agree on five priorities. The primary focus was to maintain, enhance and support funding for research and innovation. Time will not allow me this evening to expand into the other priorities, but I just want to list them: the harmonization of regulations and elimination of red tape; the elimination of the carbon tax; realigning the mandates of the CFIA and PMRA to include an economic lens to decision-making; and finally, ensuring continued access to labour. However, the primary ask was to keep a focus on research and innovation, on science. What did the government do? It just announced three agricultural research station closures and four site-specific field station closures. When I asked the minister why the government would do this when the sector has identified research as foundational to the food sector, I, surprisingly, did not get a defence. I got a confession. When those in the sector told us about their five priorities, we assumed they had also told the Liberal Party those same five priorities. The minister acknowledged the following in his response to me. He said public investment in ag R and D is down 15%. He acknowledged that private sector research at universities has plummeted 77% and that the number of enterprises doing research has shrunk by 30%. He is right about one thing. He concluded by saying we cannot keep going down this path, and he is absolutely right, but what he forgot to say is that it has been Liberal governments driving the ship for the last 11 years. He also acknowledged that academia and the private sector are not in the position, as is sometimes misstated at committee, to take over the shortfall on research. We need to put these cuts to agriculture research in some context. Over the past decade, the size of the federal bureaucracy has grown by 40%, but Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada by only 11%. The Prime Minister has charged many departments to cut their spending by 15% over the next three years, and we absolutely agree that the size of the federal government needs to shrink, but 15% cuts across all departments cut differently when a department has only grown by 11%. The reality is that with the previous cuts to ag, that sector is going to shrink by 27% while all other departments have gone up 40% and will then go down 15%. The minister was right that we should not go down the path that the government is contemplating with these closures. Science should be supported. There are certainly other areas in the ag portfolio where we could help them identify savings. We would be only too happy to help with that. We are talking about the renewal of the five-year ag policy framework right now. I will go back to those ag station closures. The witnesses at committee were critical of both the process and the outcome of the decisions. This needs to be reversed.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Anthony Housefather

Liberal 6:45 p.m.

“I want Canadians to know our government is working hard and spending a lot of money to make life more affordable. We cut some taxes and gave people some money for groceries.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from my colleague. The agricultural sector is an incredibly important sector in Canada. I think the minister had explained in that answer why that decision was made. I am pleased to hear, in terms of the five priorities he outlined, that the consumer carbon tax was eliminated as one of the very first acts of this government. As we know, the global economy is more than a year into a profound rupture, with economic security, industrial policy and geopolitical competition increasingly shaping economic, financial and supply chain decisions. In addition, heightened geopolitical tensions, including recent events in the Middle East that disrupted global energy markets and shipping routes, have further underscored the fragility of global supply chains and are now contributing to elevated uncertainty. We, as a government, have been relentlessly focused on bringing down costs for Canadians, because when Canadians keep more of the money they earn, they can better support their families, invest in their communities and build the future they want. Of course, that includes Canadians in all industries, including the agricultural one. Since July 1, 2025, Canadians have been paying less tax, after the government announced lowering the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. We, as a House and Senate, adopted that as our very first law. The rate reduction applies to taxable incomes of up to $58,523 in 2026. This change ensures that nearly 22 million Canadians benefit from tax relief of up to $420 per person, saving two-income families up to $840 this year. Notably, most of the tax relief will go to Canadians with incomes in the two lowest tax brackets. Canada's new government is also using the improvement in the fiscal outlook associated with higher oil prices to provide targeted relief to households and businesses. Specifically, we are reducing pressure on fuel prices at the pump by suspending the application of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, effective April 20, until August 31, 2026, delivering over $2.2 billion in relief. The temporary suspension of the excise tax for gasoline and diesel is expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 on regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel when filling up a typical 50-litre tank of fuel. To make everyday essentials like groceries more affordable, we introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which builds on the GST credit and will provide additional support for more than 12 million Canadians. We are providing a one-time payment equivalent to a 50% increase in the 2025-26 value of the GST credit, which will be delivered on June 5, and we are increasing the benefit by 25% for five years, beginning in July 2026. We are also setting aside $500 million from the strategic response fund to help businesses address the cost of supply chain disruptions without passing those costs on to Canadians at the checkout line. We are creating a $150-million food security fund under the existing regional tariff response initiative for small and medium-sized enterprises and the organizations that support them.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Dave Epp

Conservative 6:45 p.m.

“I'm frustrated that the government doesn't spend more money on agriculture. Agriculture is a very important industry. I want the government to spend a larger share of its budget on agriculture programs.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, at least the minister addressed my question. The response we just heard, actually, is typical and it exemplifies the government's approach to agriculture. I recently participated in a poll from a national polling firm, answering the question of how I felt the government values agriculture and the agri-food sector. Here is how I responded. The sector provides $150 billion in GDP. It is the largest manufacturing sector in Canada, larger than auto and mining combined, and it provides for one in nine jobs in Canada. Let us look at the federal budget, $498 billion. Call it $500 billion. Strip away those nine zeros and just think about the number 500. The federal budget investment in AAFC is $3.6 billion. If we get rid of the nine zeros, that's 3.6. That is less than 2%. That is how much the government values agriculture, less than 2% investment in the largest manufacturing sector in this country.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Anthony Housefather

Liberal 6:45 p.m.

“Farmers are very important. We should spend money on them. We'll work with you and think about your ideas.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates