Agriculture Committee on Feb. 26th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 25 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 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 feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including our interpreters. You will also notice a 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 on science in Canadian agriculture and the closure of research centres.

I'd like to now welcome our witnesses for today.

As an individual, we have Alison Sunstrum.

From the Beef Cattle Research Council, we have Andrea Brocklebank and Reynold Bergen.

From the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, we have Tyler McCann.

Thank you so much for being here.

We will start with Mr. McCann for five minutes. Then we'll go to the rest of our witnesses, and then open it up for questions.

Welcome, Mr. McCann.

[Tyler McCann, Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting me here today.

Research, development and innovation are critical elements in the agri-food sector. Your review can highlight the essential role of the system and the pressures it faces, and you can make recommendations to strengthen it.

CAPI's work is increasingly focused on agriculture and food innovation in Canada. For the last 18 months, I have been asking people whether or not they think the innovation system is in a crisis. The broad consensus has been this: If we are not in a crisis already, we are certainly heading towards one. That is why I think it is important to look at the decision to close research sites as part of a longer-term trend in which research, development and innovation have been less of a priority despite their critical role in the sector's long-term success.

While the November budget unveiled the value of the cuts, the apparent depth of the cuts to research caught many off guard. While the cuts to people, labs and decades-long collaborations will be felt across the sector, it still appears to be too early to know what the impacts of the cuts will be.

The reality is that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's R and D activities have been under pressure for years. For many, the work being done within the science and technology branch has become increasingly disconnected from the sector's success. AAFC has been able to shrink its investment over decades with little push-back or concern. The department faced a choice: spread scarce dollars thinly or consolidate and renew. It appears the department has chosen the second option. At least they have chosen to consolidate. Hopefully, they also choose to renew.

While the department appears to be taking a site-by-site approach in order to focus on what's next, there is a real need for a real dialogue on the future of the department's role in science. That dialogue should not just be internal.

The closures highlight the fragility of Canadian agriculture research. The system depends heavily on government as a funder and performer of R and D. As the private sector pulled back, public funding remained flat or declined. Tight budgets have meant there is no resilience and an inevitable push towards contraction. Consolidating research centres does not solve the problem of fragility. It simply brings it into clearer focus.

Those in the agriculture innovation system are keenly aware of the pressure it faces. They know that it cannot deliver the outcomes the sector needs without reform. They want to eliminate the duplication, break down silos and barriers to co-operation, and drive more focus on outcomes. Many have been waiting for the government to talk change.

It is too early to tell whether these department changes are part of the change the system needs. There are too many unanswered questions. What will AAFC's role be in the future? How does it want to fund and perform research? How will it partner with others in the system? What is the future of the research AAFC will no longer do?

These are not questions the department should answer on its own, but it developed its strategic plan for science largely in isolation. It made decisions about what to cut on its own. It should make decisions about its future with others.

I offer three recommendations to the committee.

The first is the need for more transparency and accountability. What drove the decisions and what is the department's plan for the future? What else is AAFC willing to change, and what needs to change? What else is being cut to meet the reductions announced last November? While the focus has been on these sites, the department has committed to cutting millions of dollars more. Where will those savings come from?

The second is for AAFC to embrace meaningful partnerships in science. There are too many who have too many stories about how hard it is to work with scientists inside the department. Some of those are logistical issues, some of those are cultural issues and some of those are practical issues. Too many are unsure of how the department sets its priorities. Partnerships are critical to a future with more impactful federal science. The department needs to change its culture and approach in order to put partnerships first.

Finally, there is a need to focus on the future and the changes necessary to get more out of the department's investments in R and D and innovation. A plan is needed for how AAFC can contribute to building the 21st-century agriculture innovation system that Canada and Canadian agriculture and food need. Announcing that innovation will be a real priority for the next policy framework, and it should be an important early step.

The impact of these cuts will be worse if they are not a starting point for more meaningful change. AAFC needs to renew its approach to science. It needs to consolidate its footprint. It is unfortunate that public investments have been cut, but governments, like farmers, can do more with less. AAFC should not be making these changes in isolation. It is a leader and a partner. The future of Canadian agriculture R and D and science needs it to embrace its role as one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next we'll go to the Beef Cattle Research Council for five minutes.

[Andrea Brocklebank, Executive Director, Beef Cattle Research Council]

Thank you for the opportunity to present today.

I'm Andrea Brocklebank. I'm currently the executive director of the Beef Cattle Research Council and the incoming CEO of the Canadian Cattle Association. I'm joined by Dr. Reynold Bergen, our science director. The BCRC funds research and knowledge mobilization on behalf of Canada's beef producers through the producer-led Canadian beef cattle check-off.

I will make three points and offer a recommendation.

First, recent cuts limiting research facilities, programs and expertise at Nappan, Quebec City and Lacombe will impair the beef industry's ability to remain resilient, innovative and competitive over the coming decades. We value efficiency and recognize the current fiscal pressures, but efficiency means aligning Ag Canada's research with the priorities of the agriculture sectors they're meant to support. These cuts will have far-reaching and negative long-term impacts for cattle producers, food security and Canada's efforts to grow the economy. The expertise, long-term datasets and specialized infrastructure lost in these cuts can't be rebuilt quickly or cheaply.

Second, innovation is a critical investment, not discretionary spending, and is essential for our sector's competitiveness. Over the past decade, Canada's beef producers have recognized that research is significantly underfunded and increased investments through the national check-off by more than 600%. The most recent independent analysis found that every check-off dollar invested in research produced a return of $63 for beef producers. We need Ag Canada to be a stable partner in that effort.

Third, universities and private industry cannot fill the gaps these cuts have created. Public-good research is essential where market incentives are limited and where independent, unbiased expertise is required to support regulatory decisions, market access and consumer trust. Furthermore, universities are facing significant fiscal pressures themselves and cannot mobilize the capacity to fill those gaps right now.

To remain internationally competitive, Canada's beef sector needs productive forages, hay, and pasture crops. Canada faces different environmental challenges than other countries do. We've spent decades bringing together an effective national forage research network. Closing Lacombe, Nappan and Quebec City severely undermines this.

Researchers at Lacombe and Quebec are developing higher-yielding, winter-hardy alfalfa varieties. Nappan's researchers develop pasture and grazing management programs suited to Atlantic Canada and breed improved trefoil, red clover and alfalfa varieties that have been adopted across Canada. This is what a functioning national network looks like and is only one example of that—regional strengths connected to national outcomes. It aligns well with a one Canadian economy approach.

Impartial beef grading ensures producers are paid fairly and is key to export competitiveness. Lacombe's work has allowed Canada's grading system to keep pace with the U.S.'s. Closing Lacombe eliminates Canada's only functioning meat science program. It eliminates the scientific expertise needed to demonstrate how Canadian beef quality standards are equivalent or superior to standards in importing countries at a time when Canada is working to diversify its international trade.

Lacombe's researchers also developed food safety interventions that significantly reduce the risk of E. coli O157:H7 in Canada. Food safety research and the exploration of new technologies must occur in research facilities that replicate but are removed from commercial processing environments. Closing Lacombe impairs our ability to move food safety strategies from the lab into commercial practice. Canada's international reputation as a supplier of safe, high-quality beef will stagnate. Canada has unique challenges and opportunities, and we can't rely on U.S.-based research to solve them.

Therefore, we recommend that if closures proceed, critical programs and expertise should be transferred in a way that preserves their function, continuity, access to essential infrastructure, breeding lines and data. Emphasis is placed on the programs mentioned: forage breeding, food safety and carcass quality and data. Emphasis is also placed on ensuring that adequate funding supports are provided for the long-term longevity of those programs.

The beef sector is committed to constructive engagement with government to preserve key research capacity, manage transition well and ensure Canada maintains its global reputation as a producer and supplier of safe, high-quality beef.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. I look forward to questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Alison Sunstrum for five minutes.

[Alison Sunstrum, Entrepreneur, NYA Ventures Inc., As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear today.

My name is Alison Sunstrum. I have built and scaled agricultural technology companies from an Alberta garage to global markets. I've worked alongside producers and researchers across this country and internationally, some of whom are from the closing sites. Today, I invest in deep science and technology in food, climate and agricultural systems.

From this vantage point, I want to make one crucial observation. These AAFC closures are not simply cost savings. They are either a signal of erosion or one of renewal. If we treat this as a narrow fiscal adjustment, we risk weakening the system that underpins Canada's long-term competitiveness. If we treat this as renewal, we strengthen food security, climate resilience and economic growth.

Let us frame the conversation by answering three questions.

First, why is this happening?

These closures reflect decades of underinvestment in infrastructure and people, aging labs, deferred maintenance and constrained hiring. Over time, this has weakened our ability to retain and attract top talent and respond to climate extremes, emerging diseases, pests and shifting markets.

At the same time, funding has shifted towards short-cycle programs. These programs matter. They are valuable, but they cannot replace long-horizon breeding, multidecade soil research or foundational infrastructure. When fiscal pressure meets accumulated underinvestment, consolidation becomes inevitable.

Second, what is at risk?

Research capacity is not a budget line item; it is continuity. Long-term field trials, breeding populations, regionally adapted datasets and expertise have been built over decades. This is Canada's precious biological capital. It's living infrastructure built over generations that cannot be built quickly once broken. When continuity breaks, breeding gains stall, datasets fragment, expertise disperses and productivity slows. We can build capacity later, but we cannot regain the years of progress and competitive advantage that were lost.

Consider canola. It began as publicly supported breeding research. Today, it contributes more than $40 billion annually to Canada's economy. This Canadian agricultural success story required sustained infrastructure and alignment between public science and private capital.

Third, what does renewal really require?

Renewal does not mean preserving the past. It means building the infrastructure required for the next era of agriculture. We are in the midst of an unprecedented biological and digital transformation that will redefine how food is bred, grown, processed and brought to market. Artificial intelligence is accelerating discovery. Genomics is compressing breeding cycles. Advanced phenotyping and robotics are increasing precision and productivity. Precision fermentation and biomanufacturing are creating entirely new industrial categories in proteins, materials, enzymes and low-carbon inputs.

This is structural change. Canada has real advantages—land, water, feedstock, scientific depth and industrial capacity—but these assets and technologies deliver only when built on strong foundations. AI depends on deep, validated data. Genomics depends on stable germplasm and modern laboratories. Biomanufacturing depends on demonstration, processing at scale and regulatory clarity.

Without modern infrastructure, opportunity becomes aspiration. Public research builds the foundation. Private capital scales it. If public investment weakens, private capital moves elsewhere, and it rarely returns.

In a world of weaponized trade, agricultural resilience is economic defence. Food is strategic infrastructure. A nation that cannot feed itself is vulnerable. A nation that can feed others has strategic leverage.

A global race to build biological and food systems capacity is already under way. The decision before us is straightforward: Will we invest in the infrastructure that strengthens Canada's agricultural productivity and export growth, or accept slower growth in one of our core economic engines? Canada has the assets. The only question is whether we will choose to invest to lead.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much to all of our witnesses. We appreciate your testimony here today.

We're going to allow six minutes for each of the parties. We'll start with the Conservatives.

Mr. Barlow, you have six minutes.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you to our witnesses for being here.

I want to start with the Beef Cattle Research Council.

Ms. Brocklebank, thank you for your comments. I just want to ask you a question on the impact the research closures are going to have on this industry.

I find it interesting that when beef prices are finally at a level where ranchers are making a profit, we see that Canada, after the CFIA missed the deadline by a year, now has a negligible risk status for BSE. We're opening markets in South Korea, and we're trying to get back into China. It just seems like it is ill timing to close three research centres—Lacombe, Quebec City and Nappan—that are focused on beef research.

Does it seem like it is—I don't want to say targeting—not good timing to close three critical beef research centres in Canada?

[Andrea Brocklebank]

For the industry, the timing would never be good, to be honest, because research is a long-term investment. It results in incremental change over time. The things we're realizing out of research now are because of historical investment over decades.

Really, when it comes down to it, I think it's about the expertise. You don't bring in expertise when you have a fire. A fire could be a drought, when we're talking about forage production, or a fire could be food safety. It could be questions around grading comparisons when we're navigating trade agreements. In all three of those cases, we need independent expertise. In the case of the Lacombe closure, we are losing that expertise, and we don't have a replacement. We don't have a meat science program that can speak to carcass quality and grading.

Absolutely, when we talk about ensuring that producers have support for the coming decade, because prices may not remain this high, we need to ensure that space is there. Also, if we want to continue to grow the economy, we need to navigate the technicalities of things like trade agreements and when we have issues like food safety, recalls and those types of things. That's where we're very concerned. You don't hire a researcher when you have an issue, because you're already behind the eight ball at that point in time.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Right. You're trying to be proactive and have the research and science done beforehand. That makes sense.

You mentioned in your comments that Lacombe is Canada's only functioning meat quality and grading program. We've heard from previous witnesses, including some of the deans of the agricultural universities in Canada and some research experts, that this research can't be transferred. This is not as easy as moving A to B, especially if they're talking about moving or transferring this research to somewhere else. They've also included closing two other beef research centres.

Can you comment on the impact that losing this specific research centre in Lacombe will have on the beef industry? Is it correct to say that this research and innovation is not easily transferred from one location to another?

[Andrea Brocklebank]

Absolutely. We're not even talking about the forage research that's being shut down in Lacombe. With regard to the Lacombe facility, it is the only federally inspected abattoir in western Canada that we can do research in. Our processing facilities are great partners, but they can't accomplish doing research within their facilities, especially when it's about things related to food safety. We need that independent, federally inspected abattoir.

The only other federally inspected research abattoir at this point is in Guelph, and there's no capacity around it. If we cannot see Lacombe remain open, we are strongly encouraging that Canada support the development of the Guelph program to use that abattoir. Without an abattoir, research around carcass quality and grading is not going to be easy to accomplish.

Likewise is food safety research. Again, you won't want that to go into your processing plants as you're investigating and mitigating pathogens. You need those independent facilities.

This is about the expertise, but it's also about having the facilities to do the work. We know those facilities and infrastructure are not inexpensive, but they are important from an industry perspective. It's not just for beef. Pork and other livestock species also use them.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Ms. Brocklebank.

Ms. Sunstrum commented about the importance of infrastructure and having modern infrastructure to ensure that agricultural research or research can move forward. My frustration here is that AAFC just invested almost $4 million into the Lacombe facility to make a biosecure cold storage. From my understanding, almost $6 million was invested in Scott for additional infrastructure and development at that research centre, which is also slated to close.

We have a report that came out just today from the Canadian Wheat Research Coalition. It's talking about how 80% of all wheat fields in Canada are planted with AAFC varieties each and every year. Their concern with these budget cuts is about the future of Canadian research.

Ms. Sunstrum, I have about 30 seconds. Comment quickly on that comment you had about the importance of infrastructure and the signal that closing seven research centres in Canada is sending. What impact is this is going to have on Canadian producers?

[Alison Sunstrum]

As an investor, I look at this more from the standpoint that we're not looking at the return on investment of our agriculture. Your statement, Mr. Barlow, is absolutely correct. Producers are growing what we have bred. We are seeing our economic engine decline because we are not continuing that investment in research.

This is really about competitiveness. It's not about the loss of something that we can rebuild overnight. We're losing generational investment in research, and that will hit us economically.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next we'll go to MP Chatel for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome the witnesses here today.

This study on the future of science and innovation in the agriculture and agri-food sector is very important because, as the Prime Minister said in Davos, a country that does not feed its people has few options.

We will use this study as a starting point and incorporate this discussion on science, technology and innovation into the study of the next strategic partnership between the provinces, territories and the federal government. Based on what we have heard in committee, we would like that partnership to be anchored by a clear vision of science and its importance for the sector, as well as for our food security and sovereignty.

Mr. McCann, I really liked your three recommendations. I read your report carefully. I would like to address your second recommendation. We need to improve our partnership not only between governments, but between all players in the chain and all sectors. Research is certainly very regional and local at the moment. It should be expanded from coast to coast.

Can you give us more details on this? Among other things, you mention the Australian model in your report. I would like to hear your comments on this.

[Tyler McCann]

Thank you very much for your question.

We often talk about the role of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, but the department is far from being the only player when it comes to innovation and the research and development system.

We should encourage the existing ecosystem and reflect on this system. It is an ecosystem that includes the private sector, universities and producers from coast to coast. The problem we have today is that, although all these players work together, there is a lack of real collaboration. The system is built in a way that does not really encourage this collaboration. We conducted a survey of the players in the system, and they told us in that survey that there were existing rules that did not encourage collaboration and that worked against it. I believe that this is a culture that should change. I believe that Australia is an example of this collaboration.

If you look at the grain sector in Australia and the way their model works, you'll see that the sector invests check-off dollars and royalty dollars that are matched by government. In the grain sector in Australia, several years ago they unveiled a 2023-28 research plan that will invest $1 billion in grains research. That's not just government money. That's government money, producer money and the ecosystem working together to deliver better results. We don't have that model of collaboration in Canada. For too long, we've kind of made efforts at it. We take the time to say we're working together.

The beef industry is, to be honest, a bit of an example, but it's the exception, not the rule. It's seen 600% increases in private sector and producer investment. We don't see that in other sectors, and that's partly because I don't think that government has been a very good partner in encouraging greater investment in the sector.

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

In the Canadian system, where we have provinces, territories and the federal level, how would this model look—and we have it, to a certain extent, with the beef science cluster—if we wanted to recommend it in a report for the next strategic partnership with provinces?

[Tyler McCann]

There are some examples that exist around how you can take this national approach, and it does exist to a certain extent in the science clusters today.

If you go back to the beef industry, there is a promotion and research agency that collects some of the levies, looks at the continuum from research and development to market development, and has a more coherent plan. I think Andrea can speak more to the strategy the beef industry has and where research and development fits into the bigger picture.

One of the problems is this. We often talk about the need for one Canadian economy. That's as much a cultural issue in agriculture as it is in other things. We live in a world where producers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba all want the same research done in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, rather than asking how we can lean into a more national approach, recognizing that, yes, there are some differences, but often similarities are there.

We need to do a better job of thinking about our research investment not from a provincial perspective but rather from a national perspective. There are too many examples where we haven't had provincial producer groups willing to invest in national initiatives either.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

You have 30 seconds.

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

I'll turn to our witness from the cattle association for the beef model.

What would a good example be for us to study more generally? If you don't have time, please feel free to submit your answer in writing.

[Andrea Brocklebank]

The science clusters do work. The biggest challenge with the science clusters right now is that they're underfunded—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'm sorry. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

We'll go to the Bloc now, with six minutes for Mr. Lemire.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Sunstrum, I will start with you.

In your testimony, you stated that public research builds the foundation and that the private sector scales it and further develops certain elements.

You work in the private research sector. There is a tendency to think that the private sector focuses first and foremost on creating products with commercial value. Do you believe that the benefits of basic research….

Can you hear me?

[Alison Sunstrum]

Yes, I can.

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

Okay.

What do you think are the benefits of basic research in the agricultural sector?

In your opinion, why should the government continue to invest in areas such as soil health? Can the private sector play a role in this?