Agriculture Committee on Feb. 24th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 24 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 and remotely using the Zoom application.

As usual, 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 the QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, the committee is resuming its study of science in Canadian agriculture and the closure of research centres.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses joining us here today.

In person, we have Lori Oatway from Western Crop Innovations. Thank you for being here.

We also have, online, Serge Buy, from the Agri-Food Innovation Council, and Sophie Martel, general manager, Centre d'expertise et de transfert en agriculture biologique et de proximité. Thank you so much.

We'll start with Ms. Oatway.

You have five minutes, and then we'll go to the other witnesses. Then we'll open it up for questions.

Welcome to the agriculture committee.

[Lori Oatway, Research Scientist, Western Crop Innovations]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this committee.

Today, I will speak from my experience as both a seed grower and a research scientist, which gives me a broad perspective on the importance of research and our research network in Canada.

As a seed grower, agricultural research supports and shapes our businesses through the development of better crop varieties, resilient production systems and long-term farm profitability. Research also provides evidence-based responses to emerging threats, including new diseases, pests and climate extremes, ensuring we have proven tools and strategies when needed.

As a research scientist with Western Crop Innovations in Lacombe, Alberta, I work on developing new cereal crop varieties adapted to western Canadian conditions. Our team collaborates with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, producer groups and private industry partners to enhance yield stability, forage quality, grain quality and disease resistance in crops that support both the livestock and grain sectors. This research ensures Canadian farmers have access to varieties that meet evolving market demands, climate challenges and sustainability goals, while maintaining the high quality that defines Canadian agriculture.

I proudly serve as a board member of the Canadian Seed Growers' Association and as a member of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's advisory committee on plant breeders' rights, further connecting my work as a scientist and a producer.

Our community, producer networks and research collaborators are all deeply concerned by the announcement of the closure of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research stations across Canada. For our community, this is not an abstract policy change; it is deeply personal and profoundly consequential.

The Lacombe Research and Development Centre has been a cornerstone of agriculture innovation and community identity for 119 years. It is approximately the fourth-largest employer in the city of Lacombe and is considered the highest-impact employer because of the professional nature of the jobs it provides: roles that have anchored families, supported local services and contributed to community stability for generations. The announced closure represents the loss of over 100 jobs and will create an economic shock that Lacombe is not equipped to deal with.

The Lacombe centre has long been recognized as a hub of innovation for the beef, forage and cereal industries. It has played a central role in variety development, feed efficiency research and the integration of crop and livestock systems—work that is uniquely situated to our agriculture industry in Alberta.

With long-standing relationships with post-secondary institutions and research partners, including Lakeland College, Olds College and the University of Alberta, it is a central element of a broader research network. Moreover, the Lacombe Research and Development Centre provides critical infrastructure used by external partners, including Western Crop Innovations and Lakeland College. My own research has supported many of the projects there. The centre is not a legacy facility, but an active and relevant research institution with multiple long-term projects in progress.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada stations in Lacombe, Scott and Indian Head produce important agronomic and pathology information for crop variety registration trials in western Canada. Because of their unique environments, these locations will be extremely difficult—if not impossible—to replace. The closures will also lead to the dissolution of research teams that have taken decades to build. For the seed sector, this disrupts the continuity between plant breeding, pre-commercial variety testing, variety registration trials, seed multiplication and ultimate grower adoption.

More broadly, the closure of research facilities weakens our national research network. Historically, Canada's strength in agriculture development has come from regionally distributed centres that understand local environments. These sites do not operate in isolation. They function as an integrated network. When centres are removed, we lose not just the scientists but also the research, connectivity and trust that sustain innovation across agriculture value chains.

Breeding a new crop variety can take eight to 12 years, and long-term planning and investment are required. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research centres have provided a stable and critical backbone for this research, and closures will be disruptive and have far-reaching implications for Canadian farmers and the resilience of our agriculture industry.

We respectfully ask that the federal government carefully evaluate the full impact these closures will have on Canada's agricultural system. We continue to urge the federal government to reconsider this decision. If the decision cannot be reversed, we ask that a clear, extended transition plan be developed with our communities and the agriculture industry. That plan must safeguard long-term data, genetic resources and scientific expertise, ensuring that facilities, programs and collaborations are intentionally transitioned.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide my perspective. I'll be pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

We'll next go to Mr. Buy for five minutes.

[Serge Buy, Chief Executive Officer, Agri-Food Innovation Council]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to present virtually.

I am the CEO of the Agri-Food Innovation Council. It's an organization that has advocated for agricultural research for more than 100 years, including research conducted by the federal government. In fact, the importance of public research was highlighted at our first conference in 1920, and it remains essential today.

We are here because the government has announced the closure of several Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research centres and satellite farms. I recognize that those decisions were not taken lightly. Our thoughts are with the affected employees and their colleagues. I also want to acknowledge that the senior officials responsible for making those decisions were placed in a challenging position, and we understand the weight of that responsibility.

While the government was transparent in the signalling that cuts were coming, we remain concerned about the lack of consultation. Departments were given only a few months to identify [Technical difficulty—Editor] which were not meaningfully engaged.

I will focus on two specific areas: what should have been done and what must be done now.

First, more consultation with industry should have occurred, both to identify where cuts could have been made and to assess the impact of proposed reductions. Stakeholders could have shared critical knowledge on how those decisions would affect the sector and suggested alternatives.

The closure of these centres means the loss of long-term research infrastructure and sensitive, decades-long datasets essential for climate modelling, soil health, crop variability and livestock and regenerative agricultural research. We are losing scientific continuity that cannot be rebuilt elsewhere.

These closures will affect innovation in key areas such as crop breeding, cold-climate agriculture, livestock production and meat science. The impact on current research projects was clearly underestimated. We risk losing irreplaceable expertise. While AAFC may hire new scientists, decades of accumulated knowledge cannot be replaced by new graduates or early-career researchers.

A more effective approach would have been a government-wide review of all science and research programs, identifying duplication, improving efficiency and streamlining funding. This was recommended by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research in 2024, but it was not implemented. Because of this, we still have roughly 30 departments and agencies funding agriculture and food innovation, with each funding program having its own overhead.

While consolidating everything into one department is unrealistic, combining or aligning some programs is both possible and overdue. In 2016, the advisory council on economic growth identified agriculture and food as a pillar of Canada's economic future and recommended an interdepartmental task force chaired by the Minister of Agriculture. That recommendation was not pursued by the government.

Our organization also proposed a national strategy for agriculture and food research and innovation. Although former ministers expressed support, the department responded that it already had a strategy, later acknowledging that it applied only to AAFC's internal responsibilities, not the broader federal landscape.

Looking ahead, the federal government must operate differently. It must reduce silos, improve interdepartmental collaboration and eliminate duplication while increasing efficiency. Canada needs a national strategy that provides clear direction, measurable outcomes and coordinated implementation. Most peer countries already have one. It is time for Canada to do the same.

Finally, we must support the communities affected by the research centre closures. This includes funding community-led initiatives to continue research and retain expertise. We cannot afford to lose the capacity we spent decades and decades building.

What you are doing in this study is critical for the sector, and we hope that in your recommendations, you will not only address the current situation but provide guidance for the future. We also hope that you will revisit this issue on an annual basis in order to evaluate the situation and see if things have improved. If Canada is to strengthen its position as a world leader in agriculture and food production, and if we are to view agriculture and food as a national security issue, we must be serious about them and take strong actions.

I thank you for your time and look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next we'll go to Sophie Martel for five minutes.

[Sophie Martel, General Manager, Centre d'expertise et de transfert en agriculture biologique et de proximité]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and members of Parliament on the committee. Thank you for having me here today.

Canadian agriculture is not just going through a rough patch; it is facing unprecedented structural challenges. We're talking about the climate crisis, pesticide resistance and the demand for greener global markets. Our producers are on the front lines, and the facts speak for themselves.

In Quebec, the climate paradox is complete. In 2023, while the Outaouais region was dealing with its seventh major flood in 60 years, Abitibi-Témiscamingue was suffering a historic drought, forcing producers to sell off their livestock due to a lack of hay.

On the Prairies, from 2021 to 2024, Saskatchewan saw its wheat production drop by 48% drop and its canola production drop by 35%.

In Alberta, cycles of hail and drought have cost hundreds of millions of dollars in emergency compensation.

In the Maritimes, chemicals are no longer enough. The Colorado potato beetle has developed resistance to over 50 active ingredients.

In Ontario, even high-tech greenhouses are threatened by new pests, such as the brown marmorated stink bug, putting billions of dollars in investments at risk.

The pillars of our food security and trade balance are crumbling. In this context, science is not a luxury, it's an insurance policy.

As Mark Carney reminded us, “a country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options.”

However, the announced closure of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's three research centres sends a contradictory signal. If physical structures must change and this decision can't be reversed, then the mission of fundamental public research must be protected.

The Sainte‑Foy centre is a striking example. Research scientists like Marie‑Noëlle Thivierge, Martin Chantigny and Franck Stefani are working on issues that the private sector will never fund on its own. For example, we're talking about economic sovereignty, of integrating perennial plants that reduce nitrogen leaching by 50%. This is a direct response to our reliance on imported fertilizers, which cost Canada $2.6 billion in 2024.

We're also talking about climate resilience, as well as work on mycorrhizae, which create a natural shield that helps crops to better absorb water during droughts.

We're even talking about Nordic adaptation. Sainte‑Foy is the centre of excellence for forage crop survival in the face of the freeze-thaw cycles we experience in Quebec, among other things. It should be noted that over 50% of cultivated areas in Quebec grow forage crops, which are the basis of our livestock and dairy production.

Without this public science, how could Quebec achieve the objective of its sustainable agriculture plan, funded in part by the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership, which aims to cover 75% of annual crop areas in winter?

Public research is irreplaceable because sustainable agriculture requires systemic research on soil health, alternative pest management or adapted variety trials.

The private sector is neglecting these areas, as they often aim to reduce the use of commercial inputs or produce non-patentable outcomes.

Without this strong public science, we are creating an imbalance between short-term commercial interests and the interests of the community.

In addition, another threat looms over science in this country: The college and community innovation program, or CCI, which funds applied research in centres like mine, is set to end on March 31, 2026, unless the government reverses its decision.

Mr. Chair, we cannot accept a withdrawal of government support. The Centre d'expertise et de transfert en agriculture biologique et de proximité, or CETAB+, therefore recommends implementing a national agricultural science strategy aimed at ensuring stable, predictable public funding geared toward agroecological transition.

We also want the government to recognize agricultural research as strategic infrastructure, on par with energy and digital technology. Agricultural science is the backbone of our sovereignty.

Finally, if these closures cannot be averted, we ask that every dollar saved as a result of these closures be reinvested in fundamental research with no intellectual property, as well as applied research and knowledge transfer.

Let's not weaken science at a time when the ground is slipping away from under our farmers' feet.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all of our witnesses. Each one of you was well under five minutes. Thank you so much for being so precise with your time.

We'll go to the Conservatives now for six minutes. We'll start with Mr. Epp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

Let me state right at the outset that the size of government does need to shrink. That's not what this is about today.

For the record and for the report, I have a few stats to roll in. From 2012 to 2025, the public service increased by 30%. In that same time period, AAFC declined by 14%. In a narrower time frame, from 2015 to 2024, the federal public service increased by 40%, while the AAFC employees grew by 11% and the economy grew by 3%. Agriculture and agri-food is our largest manufacturing sector. It's bigger than auto, and it's bigger than mining.

The focus of my questioning is on process and priority-setting.

I'll begin with you, Mr. Buy. You talked about how there was a lack of consultation. Can you elaborate? From your bio, I see that you have been through different restructuring processes. With your experience, do you want to disregard the recent history of the changes within the organization, and is across-the-board cutting the most effective...for the best interests of the country?

[Serge Buy]

I would say that across-the-board cutting is not a good idea, sir. It is very counterproductive. There should have been a little more thought put into the process. I understand things were rushed, but the lack of consultation is resulting in what we're seeing today, and that's too bad. We approached this in a way that's not very conducive to keeping our economy growing and our country strong in the way we are saying we want it to be.

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

My understanding is that there is a return on investment in research—obviously in the private sector, and also in the public sector. In your opening comments, you alluded to the fact that there are other areas that should have been addressed. Can you comment further, please?

[Serge Buy]

Absolutely.

First, based on what an economist at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada says, the return on investment in agricultural research is the best versus that of any other sector, so we should be investing more in it.

In terms of where we should have cut more, that was in my opening statement. I think we have too many programs and too much overhead on a number of things. I would agree with you that cuts are necessary in the federal government, but we looked in the wrong direction. It is easy for Ottawa to look, on occasion, at regional centres that are a bit farther away, rather than right beside it. That's part of the concern we're seeing today.

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

My understanding is that there can be up to a $63 return for every dollar invested.

I'm going to switch to Ms. Oatway.

I'm most familiar with minor use settings, being born in Ontario, and the horticulture sector. However, from the background on these closures, there are impacts on western Canada and on your work. I'm familiar with the sharp sands of Tillsonburg. I'm familiar with the muck soils of those areas.

Can you comment on the loss? Particularly in our pest management registration process, what happens when we lose these various locations in western Canada, more so for some of the larger crops?

[Lori Oatway]

Research is based on having lots of locations to make sure that what we're developing is suited for all of Canada. Lacombe is a unique site in that it has a deep black soil zone. It is also a hub of pathology research for the registration trials, as well as across Canada. That program is uniquely situated in Alberta because we have higher levels of disease. It is different in Ontario, or even in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Losing this network across Canada is going to restrict us in how the diseases we can get in our new varieties are available. We have to make sure the diseases we're looking at are adequately shown in the disease nurseries across Canada. You can't do them all in one location or one province, so the network is critical to what we do.

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

This round of cuts seems to be AAFC moving away from applied research to focus more on fundamental research. I know the private sector and different parts of the country have moved into applied research.

I'll stay with Ms. Oatway for now.

Can you comment on the need for public sector involvement in applied research, particularly in both your seed business and the research you do?

[Lori Oatway]

Public sector research is critical for what we do. The private sector does a very good job of producing new products for our businesses, but sometimes the initial research is not adequately covered.

Sometimes, return on investment is more about new discovery than it is about developing new varieties. Without that, even the private sector doesn't have an opportunity to move forward in new, innovative techniques.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Buy, can you comment on the impact of publicly funded fundamental research on innovation, which is what your present occupation works toward?

[Serge Buy]

I don't think we'd have canola today if the government had been [Technical difficulty—Editor] fundamental research. I don't think we'd have today such a fantastic industry and sector. It is essential [Technical difficulty—Editor] fundamental research and applied research. Public research sets us up for the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to MP Dandurand for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for being here and for their testimony in support of research. I'm grateful to them for taking a solutions-oriented approach.

What should be done in the future to support research?

In that regard, Mr. Buy, your organization seems to have had considerable expertise for over a hundred years. You talked a bit about the impact of the consultation that could have taken place before. You, along with the other speakers, talked about a national strategy.

How do you see research in the future and collaboration between the private sector, the public sector and academia?

[Serge Buy]

I think we're going to have to increasingly find innovative and decisive models of collaboration to move forward. I think that's important.

Obviously, we never want cutbacks. When we experience them, our initial reaction is to ask that they not be made. However, certain decisions have to be made, and we understand that.

The problem is the lack of consultation, the lack of impact assessment and the lack of solutions for the future. If the federal government had announced that it was going to make budget cuts, but that it was going to support private partnerships, including universities, to try to maintain some of this research, that would have been excellent. I think that was a missed opportunity.

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

In your opinion, how could we foster this coordination between the various parties?

We talked about duplication of research. We talked about research that isn't necessarily aligned with the needs of industry.

What could we create to manage this research?

[Serge Buy]

I think Dominic Barton's idea in 2016 was excellent. [Technical difficulty—Editor] for the agri-food industry that would allow for that verification and coordination at the government level, but also at the industry level.

I think it would be absolutely essential to have this overall coordination. It's feasible. It all comes down to will. If the government continued to consider agriculture and agri-food as a pillar of economic development, we would be there. Unfortunately, despite the Barton report, we're not there yet.

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

Do you have examples of other countries where this form of collaboration between the public, private and academic sectors is being implemented?

[Serge Buy]

Absolutely.

You can look at Australia, which is a federal model. You can look at Germany. You can look at the Netherlands, where there are some excellent examples.

We're not here to say that the government has to do everything. We're here to say that the government has to provide support. That's the important thing. I think there are models everywhere. I also think that Canada is a unique country. We need to create our own model, drawing inspiration from others and taking the good wherever we can find it.

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

Thank you very much.

I will now turn to you, Ms. Martel.

You mentioned perennial plants and forage crops, which are a strength in Quebec.

In your opinion, what impact will the closure of the Sainte‑Foy research centre have on this research?