Agriculture Committee on Feb. 26th, 2026

[Alison Sunstrum]

All of us should, everyone along the chain, but commercialization is really ignited by government support. We could spend the same kind of money we do today and crowd in private capital. We could use our policy levers or our tax structure. We've invented on a dime where other countries have invented on a dollar.

We're very capital-efficient. Let's keep that capital efficiency, but let's also become much more agile. Let's understand that we must attract capital. We must attract partners. The government sits in the ignition chair. If we want that rocket to take off, we must bring in new capital, and we must always understand what we have. This isn't about closing buildings. This is about, as I said, losing our biological capital.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

I have a question for Ms. Brocklebank now.

I don't have a whole lot of time, but you mentioned that university and private research cannot fill the gap. Can you elaborate on that a bit for me?

[Andrea Brocklebank]

They absolutely can if they're properly resourced. We know they're facing significant financial pressure right now, and it's not like overnight they can fill the gaps we see without adequate government funding to assume some of these programs. That's very important.

Short-term funding to absorb some researchers is very different from long-term program funding. We know our universities are fiscally challenged right now. They can be an outlet if properly resourced to assume some of these programs. That's the key.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Next we'll go to the Bloc Québécois for two and a half minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Lemire.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for the representatives of the Beef Cattle Research Council.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the reputation of the beef industry. Many people, particularly those involved in vegan movements, claim that the beef industry is one of the most polluting industries. I therefore believe that research is essential not only to improve production and reduce environmental impacts, but also to provide more scientific data in these debates, which are often emotional and, let’s face it, not necessarily constructive.

How can research address the industry’s concerns about the reputation of a sector that is crucial to our economy, but also to people who enjoy eating beef?

[Andrea Brocklebank]

That's a great question. Meatless Mondays became an issue for our industry, and for a long time, there was great concern that we needed to reduce beef consumption. It was about science, industry and government in partnership generating science to evaluate our environmental footprint, but also identifying where we could reduce it moving forward and have science to quantify when we have reduced it. That makes the public feel better about eating our product, but also lets us understand where we can continue.

It allows us to measure things that are less visible to the public. Grasslands can be replaced by crops in some areas, but that impacts biodiversity and carbon sequestration negatively. If we can assign values to those things that we can communicate to the public and the government, there's a better understanding of why it's important to preserve grasslands. It's not just about greenhouse gases but also about other trade-offs.

Lastly, with public trust and those types of questions, animal welfare becomes another one. It's really important for us to have independent science. That's what we've seen with the benefits of working with Ag Canada on those spaces, but we have seen a shift in public trust, with an understanding that there are other reasons for eating beef, like maintaining grasslands and preserving ecosystems beyond beef production. In many cases, there's a lot of agricultural land in Canada that can't be used for crop production. If we can use it to produce beef and maintain healthy landscapes, that's our focus, and that's where science really helps us.

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

Thank you very much.

Unfortunately, my speaking time is up.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you so much.

We'll go to two four-minute rounds.

For the Conservatives, Mr. Barlow, you have four minutes.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair, for the time.

I find it interesting that the Liberals' line of questioning is that universities should pick up this lost research. We heard from the dean of Dalhousie last week, and the University of Alberta as well. They don't have the resources. Their budgets are being cut as well. I would have hoped this consultation would have happened before these research centres were cut. To just cut them and think universities will pick up this research and nothing will be lost is clearly not the case.

Ms. Sunstrum, I want to give you an opportunity to finish answering the question you were asked earlier. I just want to preface this with an example.

In the fall, the Liberal government came out with new regulations around methane emissions reductions. My understanding is that the Nappan research centre was doing extensive research and innovation on new feed and forage, including seaweed for cattle, to reduce methane emissions. Wouldn't it make sense to encourage that kind of development and not shut it down?

You were talking about the economic impact these closures would have. You were talking about cattle feed as one example. I would like you to have an opportunity to finish the answer to that question.

[Alison Sunstrum]

Thank you.

What we learned through research.... Nappan was one of the centres where my technology was installed. I want to give you a little idea of that. The producers in three maritime provinces gathered together to install this technology and then to work with scientists across the country. I think we have examples of public-private partnerships everywhere. Feed efficiency research is probably one of our most stellar. The Beef Cattle Research Council was very involved. It's one of our stellar responses.

I'll give you simple reductions, not scientific reductions—a reduction in feed intake. We found that feed-efficient cattle were in the conversion of turning around efficiency. They reduce manure, reduce methane and seem to be healthier. These are not necessarily research assumptions, but through the process of research that was conducted in Canada, these efficient cattle and this method of selection have gone across herds. We're into multi-generation. This has a resulting compounding effect. Researchers from across universities were involved in this. It's a great Canadian success story.

We also developed the first carbon offset protocols. One thing I would say is that fundamental research did the very hard work, and then we saw it multiplying throughout the country.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to relinquish my time to Mr. Epp.

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

I'm going to start my questions with Mr. McCann.

I was intrigued by your comment that you often feel there's an ecosystem in Canada where all players are involved. How would you envision that ecosystem fleshing out the research angles of esoteric or fundamental—whatever term you want to use—versus applied? How would the different responsibilities from the different players apply differently to those two lines of research?

[Tyler McCann]

The first thing you do, which we often struggle with in Canada, is get everybody in the same room. You put them in the same room, you make them act together and you ask how we find the right balance.

I think most people, especially those who understand the innovation continuum, understand the role and the need to have this work go from one end to the other—to find the right balance between foundational science and applied research at the other end, and commercialization. First and foremost, it's about creating a space and creating conditions to spend more and invest more.

Very briefly, I want to go back to the comment Andrea made earlier.

The problem with the science clusters today is that they're underinvested in. If you do a comparison, on the grain side, I talked about the billion-dollar investment from the grain industry in Australia. The Canadian wheat research cluster is investing $20 million over five years. It's a bit apples and oranges, but the scale is absolutely different between the two.

If you put money on the table and you get people in the same room, they'll figure it out.

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

I'll go back to those points in the next hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you so much.

We'll now go to MP Dandurand for four minutes.

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

I extend our sincere thanks to all of the witnesses for their very relevant testimony.

I'm going to start with Madame Brocklebank.

Thank you for being here and talking about the importance of forage for the cattle and dairy industries. I know your organization is really involved in that.

I'd like you to expand a bit more on how it currently works between the government and your organization when it comes to research. What's the balance? What types of programs currently exist? Most importantly, how can we improve what already exists?

[Andrea Brocklebank]

I'm going to use the opportunity to talk about the cluster. It's been mentioned a few times.

Previous to the cluster, we would fund a project, or Agriculture Canada or a province would. It would be small. It would have a few researchers and limited collaboration. The cluster allowed us to create networks. We did it around antimicrobial surveillance. We did it around forage production, where we had researchers from across the country working together on forage breeding and collaborating. It created a model wherein we could work with Agriculture Canada and universities together. Industry could invest, and so could Agriculture Canada. Yes, there were hurdles with the cluster—we could talk about them for days—but overall it built that network.

The model was attractive because industry could invest and government could too. We increased our investment as a result of that. We saw the value. We were also able to do extensions. However, it's underfunded and maxed out. Government started to be very prescriptive about what priorities could be funded under the model as a way to reduce applications. They started to put in restrictions, not necessarily always recognizing industry priorities. That's where the challenge came in.

I'll be honest with you. The program could work, but right now the restrictions are limiting it. We have numerous examples of moving from very isolated, siloed research to having collaborations that not only reduce duplication but also improve efficiency and mobilize things more quickly because you have a team, with industry engaged. Our role, in many cases, is for when the private sector won't jump in—new grazing management practices are an example. It's BCRC putting out those extension resources now and making sure they're getting to the sector. That was also helped through those models.

To the points made previously, whether it's clusters or not, there is a strong basis we could build on.

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

Thank you so much. That was very relevant.

I'd like to turn to Madame Sunstrum.

In your opening remarks, you referenced talent and the preservation of talent. I understand that AI is going to be very interesting in the future, but I don't think it can replace people.

What role should federal policy play in strengthening agritech talent?

[Alison Sunstrum]

I think AAFC and others have a great role to play.

You made a point about AI. AI is built-in infrastructure right now. It moves the frontier faster by identifying promising directions earlier. The time compression in scientific discovery is now two to 10 times in many workflows.

What we have to understand is that we already are a very skilled and talented population. We have scientific depth. We could have more. We need to attract more. Agriculture is now becoming a very scientific and technical field, more so than ever before. There's a real need to skill up at the farm level and the processing level, with new, innovative foods we could be releasing that bring more value to our crops.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you so much. That was four and a half minutes.

I want to thank witnesses for being here today. Your testimony was very insightful. Thank you for lending us your expertise. It was quite good.

We're going to suspend for five minutes while we set up for the next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I call the meeting back to order.

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

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking, or when asked a question directly by a member. For those participating by teleconference, please click the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, please use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

As a quick reminder for all members, please place your earpiece on the table away from any electronic devices when not in use. This helps prevent interference and reduces the risk of acoustic shock, for the safety of our interpreters.

I will 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.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses.

We have Mayor Hibbs. Thank you, Your Worship, for being here with us today. We appreciate it.

We also have John Ireland here. From the Public Service Alliance of Canada, we have Patrick St-Georges and Sébastien Paquette.

We'll start with you, Your Worship, for five minutes.

[Thalia Hibbs, Mayor, City of Lacombe]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity today to speak to you as mayor of Lacombe.

I'm not here to repeat previous testimony, but to further contextualize it and ultimately ask for a measured, responsible and proportionate response.

The closure of the Lacombe Research and Development Centre will create an economic and social shock to my community of 15,000. The RDC is one of our largest employers. Lacombe will lose families that bring worth to the community, scientists will leave, tech teams and operational and seasonal field positions will cease, and critical science-based employment opportunities for local students will evaporate. Gone, too, will be the international visiting scientists, industry collaborators and trade missions to our world-class facility and our community. This loss of training and collaboration will cascade negatively throughout national research networks.

Furthermore, there is a domino effect on local business. The combination of the elimination of the centre's significant local purchasing and the reduction of former staff's economic contributions will result in declines. There will be a downturn in the housing market and out-migration, both of which are harder for a small urban centre to absorb. The closure announcement has also sparked fears of the site becoming a greyfield, and I've heard no plan for this.

It goes beyond our community. It goes beyond our province. This is a national concern. For 119 years, Canadians have invested in building one of the country's most integrated agricultural research ecosystems. The Lacombe site is not simply any laboratory; it's a full-cycle federal research asset, from soil and forage development to livestock genetics to federally inspected processing and carcass analysis—all on one site.

Few facilities in Canada combine this level of integration across an entire agricultural value chain. That integration matters. Once disrupted, it cannot be restarted. Multi-generational livestock genetics cannot be reconstructed in a budget cycle. Long-term soil and crop trials cannot be recreated once broken. Research teams built over decades cannot be reassembled once dispersed. If this centre is dismantled, the loss will be permanent.

This research centre occupies approximately 2,000 acres woven directly into our community. It borders residential neighbourhoods. This is not a remote facility on the outskirts of Canada. It is physically and economically embedded in the city of Lacombe. The centre itself supports 112 direct positions—22 of them research scientists—and anchors a constellation of partnerships with Western Crop Innovations, Lakeland College, the University of Alberta and producer groups across western Canada.

This intellectual ecosystem cannot be relocated without consequence. Centres on the Prairies are not interchangeable. Our environmental conditions are unique compared with other sites.

The research at Lacombe has resulted in impactful advancements, through its integrated farm-to-fork facilities, in meat quality, safety, sustainability and innovative processing, while also being able to respond to industry crisis—all in the heart of Canada's cattle production. Closing Lacombe will eliminate the primary player in keeping Canadian beef, pork and lamb globally competitive. There will be a halt in advances in meat science, including AI, robotics and advanced imaging. Most critically, there will be an increased vulnerability to future threats.

We do not oppose the government's fiscal objectives. We understand that difficult decisions need to be made. What we are asking for is fiscal due diligence. We are asking that these federal assets undergo full life-cycle assessments prior to their disposition.

Specifically, we are requesting a structured 12- to 18-month validation period within the existing wind-down timeline—requiring no new funding—in order to inventory active research assets, genetic materials and long-term trials; to assess sequencing and protection measures to prevent irreversible loss; and to publish a transparent, site-specific cost-benefit analysis comparing near-term savings to the long-term national impact. A pause costs very little; a mistake costs over a century of public investment.

This committee has heard testimony that the agricultural research in Canada delivers among the highest returns on public investment and is a significant portion of our GDP. If even a fraction of that value is placed at risk, the savings projected from the closure must be examined carefully and transparently.

Are the short-term savings coming at the cost of a significant risk of loss over time? Canada's agricultural competitiveness, disease resilience and export reputation are national concerns, not municipal ones. If we are wrong, a validation period will confirm that. If we are right, it will prevent irreversible loss.

Members of this committee, you are currently studying the impact of these closures. We respectfully ask that irreversible actions not be finalized before your work is complete. Pause, validate and then decide.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

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

[John Ireland, Reeve, Lacombe County]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

First off, I would like to thank you for your invitation to speak here today. My name is John Ireland. I am a farmer, but I am also the reeve of Lacombe County, a municipality spanning 3,000 square kilometres, where 98% of the land is zoned agricultural.

In Lacombe, agriculture isn't just an industry; it is our identity. At the heart of that identity sits the Lacombe Research and Development Centre. For over 119 years, this station has been an engine of innovation. It manages 17 quarter sections of land, with critical soil and crop data that simply cannot be replicated or moved. However, I'm not here today to talk about this history. I'm here to talk about the future.

The challenges facing central Alberta farmers today are more complex than at any point in the last century. We are operating in climate extremes. Thirty years ago, one of our biggest fears was an August frost. Today, we have gained nearly 23 frost-free days to our growing season. While this allows for higher-yield and longer-season crops, it also brings new weeds, new pathogens and a desperate need for drought-tolerant varieties. As rainfall becomes more unpredictable, we have moved almost universally to minimum tillage to conserve every drop of moisture.

These shifts require real-time, region-specific research. You cannot manage a farm in Lacombe using data gathered anywhere else in the country, even from southern Alberta. Despite being in the same province, our climates, soil profiles and moisture levels are vastly different. Relying on a single southern station to serve the entire province is like asking a doctor to diagnose a patient he has never met based on a chart from someone four hours away.

To remain world-class, we must address three critical realities.

First is the economic reality. We know that every dollar invested in agriculture research returns up to $63. In what other sector would you consider cutting a program with a 6,000% return on investment? To forgo research and development in a sector that contributes so significantly to Canada's GDP is not finding efficiencies; it is being short-sighted.

Second is the geopolitical reality. As a farmer, I can manage the weather, but I cannot manage global politics. We have seen our primary producers used as pawns in trade disputes, such as the recent canola embargo. When tariffs and sanctions hit, our only defence is the superior quality and efficiency of our product. That edge is sharpened exclusively through robust public research and development.

Third is the reality of unbiased science. There is a role for the private sector, but AAFC research is unique because it is empirical and unbiased. It is not tied to a corporate marketing plan or a specific seed-and-chemical package. Public research gives farmers the confidence to adopt new practices, because the data is focused on the producer's success, not a shareholder's dividend.

In closing, agriculture will still be here in 10 years regardless of these budget decisions. The question for this committee is, what will that industry look like? Will it be a robust and innovative leader that feeds the world, or will it be an industry limping along at the mercy of our global competitors?

Agriculture research requires a 20-year vision. It should not be subjected to a four-year political mandate. I urge this committee to recognize that the Lacombe research centre is not just a collection of buildings. It is an essential piece of Canada's economic and food security infrastructure, putting us on the global stage.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you, sir.

Next we'll go to the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

I believe you're splitting your time. Welcome.