Agriculture Committee on Feb. 10th, 2026

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

I would like to ask you two questions that I would like you to answer in writing if possible.

Have you done an analysis of the impact of closing the research centres? If so, can you provide the impact analysis, in writing, to the committee?

Can you provide in writing the amounts invested in each of the research centres that were closed, and break them down between the amounts invested in research and innovation and those invested to pay administrative staff and researchers?

It would be helpful for the committee to have those distinctions to see how much is actually invested in research.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next, I'll go to Mr. Calkins.

You have five minutes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I am the member of Parliament for the riding of Ponoka—Didsbury, in which the Lacombe Research and Development Centre is located. It has been in operation for over a century—118 years of trials. Years ago, it was responsible for developing the first meat strain, the Lacombe hog, and it has done yeoman's work. It is one of the more noteworthy research and development centres Canada has under the agriculture umbrella. It's situated in Lacombe, right next to the provincial crop research station and the headquarters of the Agriculture Financial Services Corporation, which serves all the agricultural financing needs for Alberta producers in the entirety of the province. It is a hub of agriculture, for sure. Land values in that area are north of $1.5 million to $2 million per quarter section because it is some of the most productive land Canada has to offer.

The decision by the government to close that facility looks to be anything but a good idea. I can't find a single producer group—Western Crop Innovations or any producer group—that thinks shutting down the Lacombe Research and Development Centre is an intelligent idea, or that the work can somehow continue on in Lethbridge or some other place, because Lethbridge is prairie. This is parkland soil type—two and a half feet of some of the richest black soil Canada has to offer.

Your department has had less than a 10% increase in budget since 2015, and now you're being asked to make consequential cuts at the expense of producers and agribusiness. I'm supposed to believe you're going to.... What are you going to say to the producers and everybody else in central Alberta who relies on the research and development at that centre?

Should they just accept this and lie down? Is this decision reversible, or is it set in stone?

[Lawrence Hanson]

We are not reconsidering this decision. I want to emphasize that the work that's done in Lacombe, we're looking at moving some of that—and I know you're going to talk about the region and I understand that—south to Lethbridge and to Swift Current. Swine research is being consolidated in Sherbrooke. There is, of course, the abattoir that's also in Lacombe. We do believe there are other people we can partner with at other universities to move some of this work elsewhere.

I will say that we will also recognize—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Hanson, this time is mine. I'm going to continue to ask you a question.

Lakeland College is partnering with the Lacombe Research and Development Centre. Were they consulted about losing their trials?

[Lawrence Hanson]

I cannot speak specifically to Lakeland.

I don't know, Andrew, if you can, or if we'd have to come back.

We'd have to come back.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Did you talk to the provincial agriculture minister in Alberta about the trials and the shared research going on between the provincial research station and the federal research station on cereals?

[Lawrence Hanson]

What I will say about the process done under CER, all elements of it, is that it was advice conducted under the process of cabinet confidences. We were not actively consulting in advance.

I will also say, though, that as we go forward, we'll be working with the industry, the province and all of these. There are other options going forward that don't necessarily involve keeping a physical plant and presence in one place. There are still partnership routes and funding routes available beyond that.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

You just upgraded the meat slab in Lacombe to biosecurity level two. Now you're closing it down. This looks like sloppy budget cutting to me, with no forward thinking about what the actual impacts will be.

How are you going to replace biosecurity level two in Lacombe?

[Lawrence Hanson]

Some of what we need to be doing here is partnering with actual research institutions that may be in a position to do some of these activities. I know that Guelph is one, but we'll look at others.

Again, I want to emphasize that our owned physical plant and operations are distinct from our ability to find other ways to fund things, where we are helping to do science but are not necessarily the custodians of the equipment and land.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Are you suggesting, then, that you're just going to dispose of the buildings because you can't afford to operate the buildings? Are you suggesting that the Government of Canada should get rid of them all, including the one you're sitting in right now? This seems like a poor excuse to me, Mr. Hanson. Money is being spent right now to upgrade facilities for their scientific capability, not just general maintenance, and they're shut down. I don't understand the decision.

Am I out of time, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

You have 10 seconds left.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Goldstein, did you fly out to Lacombe, fire the 112 workers who were there in a 20-minute speech, refuse to take questions and then leave? That's what I heard happened.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We'll stop there. You can follow up afterwards.

We'll go to MP Harrison.

Thank you.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to say it's a good day when everyone around the table agrees that we need to fight for research and innovation. As we know, we've heard from expert witnesses. We know that the number one cause of rising food costs is climate change, and we know how critical data is for our producers to be able to combat climate change and still produce the high-quality food that Canadians have come to depend on.

In that vein, do you believe the remaining research centres and farms will be able to provide the research needed for our producers when it comes to combatting climate change, given how diverse our growing regions are in Canada?

[Lawrence Hanson]

Yes, I do believe that is the case. I will also note that independent of the research and science done that is related to the environment and sustainability at our research centres, the funding that is provided through the on-farm climate action fund, OFCAF, is helping farmers and producers defray the costs of various kinds of activities that are good for the environment and good for their own operations, such as cover cropping and rotational grazing. All these things are being funded and contribute to the department's commitment to working with producers and others to promote environmental sustainability.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

I have to say that in my riding office in Peterborough, I receive many emails from producers and farmers not just within my riding but also across Canada with concerns about these cuts. You spoke a little bit about the $90 million in expenditures for maintenance. Is this the main reason for closing certain facilities? If not, what was the main driver in choosing the facilities that would be closed?

[Lawrence Hanson]

I would say that when asked to find savings, you do want to try to do it in such a way that you limit the impact on science and research. If you want to be able to spend a higher percentage of available funding on science and research and less on overhead costs, that drives you towards consolidation in fewer sites.

The decisions we made in terms of which R and D centres and which farms were made with careful consideration. We recognize that.... I don't think we had any illusions that there would not be concern about some of these, and that comes with any kind of reduction. However, it was done rationally, with care and with the recognition that we want to maximize our science spend and try to find ways in which we can partner with others so that we're not always just the doers but sometimes the funders of science.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Would you be able to speak further to whether certain aspects of this research will be done within the private sector or within our colleges and universities in Canada?

[Lawrence Hanson]

I'll see if Andrew wants to add something. I think some of it will.... Already we do a lot of partnered research with the private sector and with universities. I think that would be continued.

However, Andrew, you can add anything, if you'd like.

[Andrew Goldstein]

Partnerships are a key part of our work. We've already had discussions—and have ongoing discussions—with both our industry partners and the universities to see what interest they have in continuing the work we do.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

What are the benefits of streamlining and focusing agricultural research? What have you heard from stakeholders about what they want the future of agricultural research to look like?

[Lawrence Hanson]

I will say that in the lead-up to this exercise, one of the things we did consistently hear from stakeholders was a concern that more money was being spent on overhead and not enough on researchers. Now, please do not take that to mean I'm saying that our stakeholders asked us to close down these centres or anything like that. They obviously did not. What they did say was that they hoped to see us maximizing the science spend and trying to reduce overhead costs.

Admittedly, this is a vehicle to do this and it is why we think—even though we know the concern that's out there regarding these reductions—that ultimately it's about asking, out of every given dollar, how much are you going to spend of that money to do science and research and how much of it are you going to spend to do things that allow you to maintain the physical presence to do science and research? By consolidating, we think we get that split better.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

There's no time to answer this, but could you give the committee more specifics on the on-farm climate action fund at some point?

[Lawrence Hanson]

Absolutely.