Agriculture Committee on Feb. 24th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. Thank you so much for being here. We appreciate your time.

We're going to suspend and go into our next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I call this meeting back to order.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of our witnesses.

Please wait until you're recognized by name before speaking or asked a question directly by a member.

For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of the screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

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

We have three witnesses with us here and online.

There is one witness who cannot connect, Heather Bruce, who is the dean of the faculty of agriculture and the campus principal at Dalhousie. If we have the ability to connect with Ms. Bruce, we will, but at this point, there's no connection.

I'd like to welcome MP Calkins. He needs no introduction. Welcome, sir.

We also have a special guest, Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin, from the legislature in Nova Scotia. Thank you for joining us here today. We appreciate you travelling so far to be with us.

Of course, from the Deans Council - Agriculture, Food and Veterinary Medicine, we have Mr. Rickey Yada, dean, faculty of agricultural, life and environmental sciences, University of Alberta.

We'll start with you, our special guest, Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin. We'll give you five minutes.

[Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin, Member, Nova Scotia House of Assembly, Cumberland North, As an Individual]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

As you mentioned, my name is Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin. I'm the MLA representing Cumberland North in Nova Scotia, home of the Nappan research farm. I'm here to bring the voices of Cumberland and industry groups from across the maritime region who are raising the alarm about what this closure means for Atlantic Canada agriculture research.

I've been following this decision closely and how it will affect not only Cumberland but also all Atlantic Canadians. At the February 12 meeting of this committee, the minister and the department said they planned to keep the current amount of research but that this work will be consolidated and continued elsewhere. Respectfully, the core issue is not quantity. It's quality, relevance and location.

Nova Scotia produces less than 10% of the beef we consume. Losing Atlantic applied research capacity makes that gap harder to close, not easier.

Canada is a vast nation. Where you farm matters. Soil, climate, water management, and production systems are not interchangeable. Applied research delivers value when it is tested in the real conditions that farmers face so that they can adopt practices with confidence.

Nappan is not a generic site. It is a working applied research and extension asset tied to Atlantic Canadian conditions, including the Bay of Fundy dykelands. Dykelands are an engineered landscape with unique drainage and soil dynamics that cannot be replicated by simply relocating work to Swift Current or Lethbridge. If you remove the Atlantic site, you may still count research activity somewhere, but you lose Atlantic-relevant outcomes.

The sector here already faces higher cost pressures, including higher feed costs and a reliance on imported grains. Applied forage and pasture research is one of the few levers we have for improving the cost of gain and resilience in Atlantic Canada.

In correspondence to this committee dated February 3, the deputy minister emphasized that they are consolidating the footprint to reduce overhead and fixed costs. He also asserted that there is no reduction in scientific capacity and that regional relevance will be preserved. Those are strong claims, and they deserve proof that Atlantic outcomes will be maintained.

The minister has also said that much of the work at the closing farms involves soil health. Soil health is site-specific. You cannot maintain dykeland-relevant soil and forage research by moving it to prairie soils and climates.

Agriculture research is also long-term. Nappan projects are multi-year efforts. When you close a site, you disrupt trials and datasets. You lose staff expertise, and you weaken producer-facing knowledge transfer that turns research into adoption. Farmers do not benefit from research that is technically continuing if it is no longer tested where they farm.

Industry across the Maritimes, representing more than 4,000 farms, is sounding the alarm. In a joint statement, they warn that regionally relevant research is essential for productivity, risk management, climate adaptation and on-farm adoption. They also point out that some of the work at Nappan is partly paid for by producers already, not just taxpayers. Closing the site mid-project disrupts that work and wastes the investments that producers have already made.

The same study notes that maritime beef is dominated by cow-calf farms with high input costs and a reliance on out-of-province feedlots and processors. That structure is exactly why Atlantic-relevant research and extension capacity matter.

They also raise a practical operational point that this government should not ignore: Nappan is co-located with and operationally connected to the Maritime Beef Test Station through feed production and shared equipment. If the Liberal government shuts down Nappan, it risks shifting real costs and operational disruption onto the test station and the producers who rely on it. Because the test station is industry-run, not an AAFC unit, these costs do not disappear. They get downloaded to breeders and the regional beef sector.

The deputy minister said that closures cannot occur immediately, that it is too soon to know the ultimate workforce effects and that the wind-down could take up to 12 months. That is exactly why this committee should insist on transparency and continuity now before capacity is dismantled.

Before this committee, the minister has said that the work will continue. I am here to ensure that this statement is not about a quantity on a national spreadsheet, but about quality and relevance for farmers who actually need the results. If we lose the Nappan research farm, this is not consolidation. It is abandoning region-specific research that Atlantic Canadian producers and farmers rely on.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Calkins.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Blaine Calkins. I'm the member of Parliament for the riding Ponoka—Didsbury, even though this is its third iteration. The Lacombe Research and Development Centre has been in my riding the entire 20 years I've been a member of Parliament.

I'm here today to discuss the Mark Carney government's decision to close seven agriculture science and research stations across the country and specifically AAFC Lacombe, the storied research and development centre that has served my community for approximately 120 years. The research and development centre in Lacombe has been a staple in our community and has made substantial contributions to agriculture and agribusiness across the Prairies and, indeed, Canada as a whole since its establishment in 1907.

Here are a few of the accomplishments in agri-research at that station.

Lacombe is responsible for developing the Lacombe hog, which is the first livestock breed ever developed in Canada. The centre has also pioneered integrated meat science work on the factors that influence red meat yield, quality, safety and preservation. The centre's research has helped develop and improve meat carcass grading systems, post-mortem influences on meat quality and leaner animals with stronger carcass traits.

The centre has made huge advancements in plant breeding for prairie and parkland conditions. It breeds vegetation with improved disease resistance and short season adaptation. The centre's improved forage resource quality, pasture yield and beef production efficiency have contributed greatly to Alberta's beef farmers throughout the years. Many barley disease nurseries, which are required and crucial for the selection of new varieties protected from various pathogens, are centred out of Lacombe.

There's not only that. AAFC Lacombe doesn't support just agriculture in its relation to the federal government; the centre also works very closely with and supports Western Crop Innovations—you heard from Lori Oatway earlier—the provincial station, which is directly across the road.

The centre also works closely with Lakeland College and other commodity groups. For example, the winter triticale and fall rye breeding programs at Lethbridge have an ergot nursery in Lacombe to screen for new varieties with improved resistance and flag those that are particularly susceptible. This speaks to disease management.

In the mid-1990s, the oat breeding program at Lacombe was discontinued and combined with the oat breeding program at Brandon. Because they are distinctly different environments, specific crosses and selection are done at Lacombe to meet the needs of western prairie and parkland producers. With the shutdown of the Lacombe Research and Development Centre, this activity will also be discontinued, to the detriment of producers, particularly in Alberta. This speaks to a reduction in sector competitiveness, agricultural productivity, regional relevance and climate resilience.

AAFC Lacombe isn't only a national necessity for agriculture science and research; it's also a local treasure and a pillar in our community that employs over 120 people. There are currently 19 projects on the go that are due for completion between 2026 and 2030, despite AAFC moving several scientists to Lethbridge. I'm told the ministry has made an assurance that most if not all of these projects will be completed, although I'm not sure how that's possible, because the centre is to be shuttered later on this year.

We need to understand the context of the time in which these cuts are taking place. Right now, 2.2 million Canadians visit a food bank on a monthly basis. Canada leads the G7 in food inflation, sitting at 7.3%. In the last calendar year, the consumer price index has risen 2.3%. We have an increasingly unreliable partner south of the border and an unpredictable international political landscape. The Government of Canada has a duty to take care of Canadians, and shutting down seven agricultural centres across the country at a time when many Canadians can't afford to eat isn't just tone-deaf and irresponsible; it's wrong-headed.

A month ago at Davos, the Prime Minister said, “A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options.” The decision to close these agriculture research centres does not help the country feed itself at all. The government says this decision is about saving money, but this is the same government that spent $19 billion on consultants last year and that funds ideological and foreign projects, like $8 million for “gender-just, low-carbon” rice in Vietnam and $22 million for Beans for Women for Empowerment in the Congo. Each of those projects would fund these research stations for several years.

The government is currently operating a $742-million gun-grab program that everybody—virtually every police station in every province and territory—has said is not going to do anything. That program alone would fund AAFC Lacombe for well over 40 years. We also know that investments in research yield a 32:1 return on investment for every dollar spent.

You can't fund these projects and then turn around and say there's no more funding available for domestic agricultural research. It just doesn't make sense. To quote Ron DePauw, a senior science adviser at SeCan, “These closures will significantly reduce Canada’s capacity to develop adapted, resilient crop varieties and agronomic innovations—capabilities that have historically delivered some of the highest returns on public investment in Canadian agriculture.”

Cost savings can be found, but doing so by dismantling research that helps put food on the table is just a dumb idea.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next we'll go to Mr. Yada for five minutes.

[Rickey Yada, Dean, Faculty of Agricultural, Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Alberta, Deans Council - Agriculture, Food and Veterinary Medicine]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Rickey Yada. I previously served as the president of the Deans Council of Agriculture, Food and Veterinary Medicine. I'm hoping to be joined by my colleague Heather Bruce, who serves as the vice-president.

The Deans Council is composed of deans of 13 faculties in 11 universities across Canada. Our faculties have been teaching and researching agriculture and agri-food for over 125 years, and we have worked together as a pan-Canadian, non-profit association since 1991. The Deans Council engages in dialogue with industry and government to find solutions to national and global issues in sustainable agriculture, food, health and the environment. We felt it was critical to speak today to inform your examination of the importance of science, technology and innovation in the agriculture and agri-food sector.

As you know, the agriculture and agri-food sector is an economic powerhouse. In 2024, it generated nearly $150 billion, or approximately 7% of Canada's total GDP. This industry supports 2.3 million jobs, meaning that one in every nine Canadians goes to work every day because of our food system. We are not just feeding ourselves. We are also a global leader, exporting over $100.3 billion in products to more than 200 countries. The agriculture and agri-food sector's success is built on an innovation chain whose links include our hard-working farmers and ranchers, industry partners, and government and post-secondary institutions.

In addition to providing critical research funding, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has historically provided the specialized infrastructure and long-term scientific expertise needed to solve complex challenges. This network of federal facilities has been critical to examining nationwide and cross-commodity issues, including longitudinal studies on soil health—the literal foundation of agriculture.

Our academic institutions prepare students to be the scientists, industry leaders and solvers of today's and tomorrow's trickiest problems. We also work hand in hand with industry, translating basic scientific discovery into the tangible tools—like new seed varieties and digital ag tech—that farmers use on the ground. Working in collaboration with universities, AAFC facilities and scientists connect knowledge beyond individual institutions or provinces, enabling solutions to shared challenges that cross borders and sectors. It’s estimated that every dollar invested in agricultural R and D yields a long-term return of $10.

What does that really mean? I’ll give you an example. You are all aware of the importance of canola to the Canadian export market. In 2024, Canada exported 14.5 billion dollars' worth of canola products. Did you know that the word “canola” means “Canadian oil, low acid”? That’s right. It’s a Canadian-made wonder created by university researchers in an AAFC lab.

Since its introduction to the global market in the 1970s, canola has continued to be improved through university research, with innovations in the 1990s introducing new cultivars with better resistance to blackleg, a crop disease that was ravaging the industry worldwide. Canadian academic and government researchers first created, then saved, a global industry that now represents nearly 15% of our agricultural exports.

Scientists have continued to innovate, creating drought-resistant, higher-yielding varieties, and omega-3 canola. Our humble crop is now used around the world as a premium cooking oil and high-quality animal feed, and increasingly in emissions-reducing biofuels. That’s a concrete example of the invisible lab coats at work in your kitchen, your barn and your car.

We'd also like to talk about Spartan apples, Yukon Gold potatoes, Alberta beef, Ontario and B.C. wineries, and a host of other agricultural products we’re all familiar with and that Canada is famous for. Agricultural science is more than wheat and meat. It’s innovation and value-added production in not only raw commodities but also fortified foods, the new products consumers demand and other innovations that lead to safer, more secure food chains. It’s climate change, nutrition and health research. It’s biodiversity, animal welfare, water management, textiles and building materials. While it’s still pitchforks and plows, it is now also AI and drones.

This is why we felt it was important to come and speak to you today. We must continue to invest in the science and scientists who have made Canada an agricultural leader.

Universities understand all too well—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I apologize, but I have to stop you there. You've exceeded five minutes, but thank you so much. We do appreciate that.

I see that Heather Bruce has joined us.

What we'll do is open it up for questions.

Ms. Bruce, you haven't been tested, but we'll give you a chance. If a question is directed to you and there's an issue, we'll stop. We'll assume that you're good for now.

I'll turn it over to the Conservatives for six minutes.

It's over to the vice-chair, John Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here.

Mr. Calkins, I know from conversations with you that you've had extensive meetings with the agriculture stakeholders in your riding and the staff and scientists at the Lacombe facility. Can you tell me about the feedback you're getting from some of the 100-plus employees at the Lacombe facility? What is their reaction, and what impact is this going to have on them?

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

That's an interesting question, Mr. Barlow.

I can tell you that many of the presidents and board members of the commodity groups and producer organizations come from the constituency, because Ponoka—Didsbury is one of the breadbaskets of Alberta, as your riding is, Mr. Barlow.

I've had a 20-year relationship with the staff and members of that research station in Lacombe, and as of recently, they're not returning or taking my calls. I'm assuming that has something to do with the email that looks like it was sent out by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's leadership, probably at the direction, I'm guessing, of the minister.

I'm happy to give you this document, Mr. Barlow, in which they've basically told staff they're not to talk to anybody during this closure. They've been muzzled. For the first time in 20 years, I can't talk to the people in that research station. They won't take my calls and they won't return my calls.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

The scientists and researchers at the Lacombe facility have been told they've been basically muzzled by the Liberal government and are not allowed to talk about this. Is that correct?

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

I live in Lacombe. I was born in Lacombe. I grew up on a farm 15 minutes from that research facility. I know many of the people who work at that research centre. They're my friends and they're my neighbours, and they're not returning my calls at a professional level. I have a screenshot that looks like an email that was distributed to the staff at AAFC Lacombe telling them not to talk to anybody.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I would appreciate it if that could be tabled with the committee as a submission as part of this report. It's extremely disappointing that the government would be muzzling your constituents, the people who are going to be impacted most by this decision. If that's the situation in Lacombe, I'm guessing it's a similar situation at all the other research stations within Canada that the government is shuttering.

Mr. Calkins, from these meetings you had with many of the stakeholders, what is the economic impact of the closure of Lacombe? As you mentioned, it's not just that station. It's partnerships with Lakeland College and Olds College, as Ms. Oatway was talking about. Her own operation is also part of that. Can you talk about the economic impact this will have?

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

I've talked about the number of programs. I wouldn't have time in a six-minute round of questions to list all of them. I'm happy to provide you with a list of all the partnering organizations, as well as the funding models and research projects that are going on there right now.

I will give you an example, Mr. Barlow: the check-off fees. Everybody at this committee ought to be aware that producers pay a check-off fee, and that money pays for various projects and programs in various commodity organizations. One of them is research.

If you're paying for wheat research in a black soil area like central Alberta, and the only black soil research centre in Canada is being closed down, as a wheat producer in that area, what confidence will you have that the money you're now contributing to research is going to be of any benefit when you have no trials to prove that any new varieties or any new commodities coming onto the market will be successful in the area of the country you're growing in?

For the edification of everybody here in the committee, land values in my constituency for agricultural land are north of $1.5 million per quarter section. It is some of the most highly valued and expensive land used in agriculture in Canada, because you can grow varieties and crops where you get yields in excess of 100 bushels per acre because that land is so valuable.

Furthermore, regarding shutting down Lacombe, if you're running trials as a researcher, you're running trials at a variety of different places because it's a redundancy. At any point in time you could get hail on your trials or you could have issues where you have a loss of these trials. If you're going to centralize everything and just do a handful of research facilities, if something does go wrong, you're going to lose entire years of research because you don't have redundancy.

I can't find anybody from any producer organization or anybody involved in agriculture at all who is praising this decision.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks for that, Mr. Calkins. I appreciate you talking about the research that's lost.

Rickey, it's great to see you, by the way.

Heather, it's good to see you as well. Thanks for being here.

Ms. Oatway from Western Crop Innovations was talking about the loss of research capability. Mr. Yada, you talked about canola as an example, which took more than 20 years to develop in Canada. It was a partnership, if I recall, between the University of Manitoba and AAFC. More than 50% of the wheat varieties that Canadian farmers use were developed by AAFC. We're hearing that the government is hoping the provinces and universities will take over this research that is now going to be lost as a result of these cuts.

Mr. Yada and Ms. Bruce, do universities have the resources—the budgets—to take on the lost research that the current government is now ridding itself of?

[Rickey Yada]

Heather, do you want to take that first and then I'll chime in?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We have about 30 seconds for the answer.

[Heather L. Bruce, Dean and Campus Principal, Faculty of Agriculture, Dalhousie University, Deans Council - Agriculture, Food and Veterinary Medicine]

Yes, that would be great.

In a word, no. We are currently facing our own fiscal realities and challenges. We are rapidly rightsizing and restructuring based upon those. We are also facing some challenges with research infrastructure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

We'll go next to the Liberals for six minutes.

Mr. MacDonald.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you to the witnesses.

I think we're all aware that research and critical, publicly funded science are really important to ag producers. Whether we're talking about crop resilience, soil health, livestock disease resistance, food safety or value-added innovation, these things are all extremely important to the agricultural sector.

From the discussions we've had at previous meetings and at this meeting, we all recognize that research must continue regardless of the physical location of the research. The deputy minister pointed out last week that 17 locations for research are still open across the country—at least one in every province. The transition decisions that are going to take place in the next 12 months or longer are being done in consultation with the ag sector. The industry partnerships that we're going to form, whether it's with private producer organizations, provinces or academia, are going to be the driving force of research and sustainability into the future.

I say all that because, as a producer for over 40 years, I perceive problems in the way research was conducted. There was duplication and there was research done in silos. The sharing of information has gotten better in recent years, but we have to really do a comprehensive review of what research is getting done and how we can do it most effectively. I think one of the speakers earlier spoke to that. It should be a driving force of this committee to make sure this happens.

I just want to question Mr. Calkins briefly.

I fully understand your passion about the Lacombe station in your riding. I actually visited Lakeland. My son is a graduate of the ag science program there, so I fully understand your passion about the closure.

This week we've been hearing about this made-in-Canada, Liberal problem. I think for the integrity of this committee's work, it's important we distinguish between reallocating these research functions and erasing scientific work, which happened under your previous Harper government. The Fifth Estate even did a documentary called “Silence of the Labs”. You gentlemen who have been around here a lot longer than me would remember that. I'm just pointing that out.

Your party's criticism here today is rather disingenuous considering you were a member of the Harper government. I'm just going to list the things that were closed. There was the cereal research centre in Manitoba in 2012, and the dismantling of the rural secretariat in 2013, which was an advocacy group for rural issues and rural research within government. There was the closure of the Kamloops, B.C., station. This was all during that term when you were a sitting member here—an MP.

Do you agree that there's a significant difference between restructuring and dismantling? I'm just looking for a yes or no answer.

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

Of course, you're looking for a yes or no answer.

The agriculture research station in Lacombe survived the Harper government. As a matter of fact, it's thriving and has continued to do so.

If you want to go through the list, here it is. Budget 2006 gave $1.5 billion for agriculture in 2006 and 2007 to help address gaps in production and insurance, including a disaster relief framework. In 2007, the farm made package had $1 billion for improvements to national farm made income programs.

Budget 2009—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'm sorry, Mr. Calkins.

I just want to remind the witness that we have to capture the conversation, so when you go really quickly, the interpreters can't capture it.

Go ahead.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

In the interest of time, can I ask another question?

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

I have lots more, Mr. MacDonald. As a matter of fact, I even chaired the legislative committee—

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Maybe you could share—