Agriculture Committee on Feb. 10th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Mr. Hanson—

[Lawrence Hanson]

—on where to make those reductions came from us and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Order. I'm sorry. Can you stop for a second?

We're going to go to Mr. Connors. Someone will ask you the question after this, but the time was over by 15 seconds.

Go ahead, Mr. Connors.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I'm going to go back to Mr. Hanson.

The spending review that was undertaken by Agriculture Canada was part of a review that had taken place across all of government. Can you elaborate on that a bit more? I'll allow you to answer what you were trying to state at the beginning.

[Lawrence Hanson]

Thank you.

The concept of the CER itself was a government policy to find savings. Each individual department and minister were asked to propose reductions associated with their department. We gave advice to our minister in terms of where we thought those reductions could come in a manner that was the least disruptive possible. I continue to emphasize that more than half of our cuts came in the form of operational reductions and spending.

I would just draw members' attention to budget 2025. There is an annex that goes through each department and its individual reductions associated with CER, including those of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Hanson, does the department think, or know, that the way agricultural research is done is changing and we may have to change our approach to agricultural research?

[Lawrence Hanson]

Absolutely. There are new fields of endeavour starting all the time.

This was just mentioned so I will mention it: AI actually holds enormous promise for the agriculture sector. If you look at some of the advancements the Dutch have made in controlled agriculture environments, there's huge opportunity. The answer is yes.

The other thing I'll note is that this is why so much of our research is project based. Projects begin and projects end and new ones launch. It gives us the opportunity to reflect those changes that are ongoing. If you look at the issue of precision agriculture, the technological landscape is changing dramatically, and agriculture has to be part of that change.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

You mentioned what's being done in other countries. I know that Australia is taking a different approach too. It's based more on an industry-led research approach. How is that happening in Canada?

[Lawrence Hanson]

Thank you. It's a very good question.

A lot of this has to do with issues, and I think you might be referring to plant breeding, among other things. What we are trying to do and continuing to work toward is a way to have incentivization for private sector investment in things like crop breeding and so forth, but also to ensure that producers are feeling they are getting the maximum value from the research that we do through check-offs and other kinds of expenditures that they themselves make.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Just going back, I think you mentioned in previous statements the assets—the buildings and that—on the farms. What is the go-forward plan for that? Could any of that be transferred to universities or other research institutes in order to maintain their benefits?

[Lawrence Hanson]

I will turn it over to my colleague, Alain, who can speak a bit about what a reasonably standardized process is for the disposal of land and other assets in this kind of instance.

[Alain Lagacé]

First and foremost, the winding down of scientific activities is going to be our primary activity over the next 12 months. After that, we're going to be following a prescribed Treasury Board process of divestiture of real property assets. Basically, we're going to be looking at gathering the assessment of property details, such as land survey and environmental condition.

Then, we're going to be engaging in a priority circulation process whereby we are going to be offering the assets, first and foremost, to other government departments. Then, moving down that list, we go to provincial and territorial governments. If that doesn't reap success, we go down to municipalities and the process for land claims or aboriginal or territorial requirements.

The process is going to be a lengthy one, then. It's over a matter of years that we do this, and until we divest of the assets, we are still the custodians of the land and the buildings.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Is there any way to confirm that they will stay in agricultural use?

[Lawrence Hanson]

They won't, necessarily. Once we declare land surplus to our needs, it goes through this process and could potentially be used in other capacities. We can't really speculate on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you, sir.

We're going to do four minutes, four minutes and two minutes.

We go now to the Conservatives for four minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll just go back to what my colleague mentioned earlier about the on-farm climate action fund—OFCAF. You said that there is $300 million of research. There was just another $300 million announced on top of what existed already, which is $700 million for a program that no one asked for, that nobody wants and that doesn't work. That money could be much better spent on other programs that we have quantifiable data for.

I'll give you a good example of that. We have the Indian Head research centre, which was established in 1887. This is the home of zero till. Zero till has done arguably more for the climate than any other thing in agriculture that's ever been invented. That's not only in Canada. It was developed in western Canada in Indian Head, where the main research was done, and it was exported all over the world. It is the main agricultural practice now in Australia, Russia, Kazakhstan and eastern Europe. This is the kind of research we need.

How on earth can you justify closing down research centres that provide this kind of research, when you're giving $22 million to beans for women's empowerment and $8.5 million to a cricket factory? I have a whole list of absolute Liberal silliness right here. I can go through this one by one, the millions of dollars that no producer in Canada would be interested in funding.

How on earth can you justify closing a research centre that's done more for agriculture than probably anything else in Canada and that's costing $3.8 million?

[Lawrence Hanson]

I'll maybe note a couple of number points, because OFCAF has come up. I'm just making the obvious point that the $700 million and $300 million is a bit.... It's important to remember that the $300 million is an annual spend. The $700 million for OFCAF, I believe, takes place over eight years, so it's not a similar annual quantum.

I honestly cannot speak to some of this. At least some of the programs you mentioned are not AAFC programs. I will speak on the issue of Aspire—

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Hanson, it's again our time, and time is brief, so I'll get straight to the point. I would like to specifically ask for you to table the net savings, which includes ongoing maintenance costs until land and facilities are disposed of. The net savings are what really matter, and I'm not sure we fully appreciate how trivial the savings are going to be for the magnitude of the negative impact on the research opportunity.

To go further, you mentioned the minor use pesticide program. It's been difficult, if not impossible, for minor use pesticide products to get certified in Canada because of arbitrary requirements for duplicative testing. Also, these products, typically developed outside of Canada, have such a small market that the foreign producers that produce the products can't justify the additional expense. Farmers don't get access to these programs. They don't get access to these products, and they likely, usually and traditionally, have had an outsized impact.

Can you please explain how this capacity is going to be saved? With the closing of the Scott Research Farm, this is on the block. What are farmers going to do?

[Andrew Goldstein]

Yes, the minor use program is something that is highly important to the agriculture sector, particularly in the horticulture sector. We have maintained all of our personnel related to the minor use program. Yes, there are some testing sites at the location. We will be shifting them to another location to maintain that capacity, and we won't be reducing our capacity on the minor use program.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you. We'll go to the Liberals for four minutes.

MP Chatel, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here.

One thing that the Prime Minister has said is that a country that cannot feed its people has few options, and top of mind is food security and food autonomy.

As we embark on the next phase of the partnership with provinces, central to that is the importance of science and technology. The “Food Price Report” by Dalhousie University pointed out that many researchers say that structural and long-term drivers of food inflation include extreme weather events, geopolitical conflicts and energy and productivity trends. These are things that science, innovation and technology can really change.

As this committee is studying science and technology in this study, how can Agriculture Canada be a key partner with universities, producers and farmers to embark upon the challenges that this report notes in order to give Canadians food security?

[Lawrence Hanson]

Thank you for the question.

I think one of the key things that we need to be thinking about in the next policy framework are the resilience and the adaptability of the sector. So many of the expenses in the agriculture sector come in the form of extreme weather events over which producers obviously have no control, so one of the areas of emphasis in the next framework ought to be on this very issue of climate resilience to help protect the investments and the activities of producers and for these food security concerns.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, there's a lot of chatter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Yes, I've noticed that.

Folks, people obviously have to have conversations, but please keep your voices down because it's hard to hear the speaker.

Please continue.

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

I would also like to know what discussions have begun as part of the next consultation. I had the pleasure of meeting a number of stakeholders in a first round. What I'm hearing from producers, producer associations and processors, is really, as you noted, about climate resilience and resilience to the challenges caused by geopolitical conflicts.

Let's go back to the consultations. What are you starting to hear from stakeholders?