Agriculture Committee on March 10th, 2026

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

You say that you're operating at a slow pace, but on the other hand—and correct me if I'm wrong—the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue has particularly interesting expertise in making a return on investments, especially when they're public. When governments, particularly the federal government, invest in the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, or UQAT, we see benefits in partnerships. Can you tell us more about that?

[Vincent Poirier]

It's in UQAT's DNA to work with the community. We create very many partnerships. We're the second-largest university in the country in terms of the volume of research per professor. In our field, we often work on a co‑creation basis, which means that we develop projects in co-operation with businesses to directly address their needs on the ground.

Every dollar invested is enhanced through various grant programs that we can participate in. We're really enhancing those investments, and the work isn't done in a vacuum. Our work takes place with people in the sector, and we work with agricultural businesses to determine the issues that we study. In that way, we want to make sure that our research results will have a real impact on the ground.

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

Right now, we're talking about potential or current cuts to agriculture across Canada.

The nearest station that provided us with data was the Kapuskasing demonstration farm. However, that had to close its doors about 15 years ago. UQAT is taking over that expertise. Under the circumstances, the theory being put forward is that, at worst, the data analysis will have to be redone elsewhere, in greenhouses or in a somewhat haphazard way.

Why do you think there are limitations to greenhouse studies and the impact they can have in a given region? It's important to remember that Abitibi-Témiscamingue and northeastern Ontario have clay soil, which isn't found elsewhere in Canada. Why do you think there are limitations to greenhouse studies?

[Vincent Poirier]

It's because you can't move land. The land is where it is.

It's possible to use greenhouse experiments to isolate variables, measure certain things, adjust models and set parameters, but it will never be possible to recreate specific land within a laboratory or a greenhouse.

Soil can't be moved. It's unthinkable to do that. It's also impossible to move climate conditions. We can try our very best, but there's so much complexity involved in the natural environment that I would say it's unrealistic to think that we can recreate everything under controlled conditions.

However, it's necessary if we want to see what's going to happen in 50 years, because we don't have the luxury of waiting. We need modelling tools and artificial intelligence to help us refine our models, set better parameters and better understand the mechanisms. Ultimately, all of this has to translate into the field to validate these models.

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

According to studies conducted around a decade ago, such as those conducted as part of the Agriclimat project, it's realistic to think that within 20 or at most 30 years, Abitibi-Témiscamingue should have a climate similar to Montérégie or the northeastern United States. For that reason, it's important to know the climate impact and soils of a region like Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

I'd like us to talk about your work and that of Professor Simon Lafontaine, and the expertise developed at Écobœuf, in particular, which has an impact on cattle production. How do you think agroforestry adds value to agriculture today?

[Vincent Poirier]

In my opinion, agroforestry is the agriculture of the future.

I would say that what we did with the system at the Lafontaine-Noël farm in Abitibi‑Ouest was create an experiment that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world, on 20 hectares and with livestock, with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions produced by livestock.

Since the soil there is clayey, and good-quality perennial plants grow there, the bar was high, so tree hedgerows had to be planted. We conducted a big experiment to try to manage grazing livestock and sequester carbon in the soil, in the trees and in the plants to create a new farming model. It's also important to mention that we did this under real-world farming conditions.

Farmers come to visit the farm and can see how things are run, how the livestock moves and where they have access to water to get a sense of what it could represent—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

That's six minutes and 30 seconds. I have to stop you.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'm sorry. Thank you very much.

Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think we're victims of our own success in this study. We still have a huge number of witnesses to meet. We haven't seen my witnesses, for that matter. I'm going to put forward a motion that we have one or two extra meetings. That would be really important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

MP Chatel.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with my colleague that the discussion on science and technology is important. I would remind this committee that we agreed to continue the discussion on science and technology as part of our next study, which we'll be starting soon, and which will focus on the partnership between the federal, provincial and territorial governments. I encourage my colleague to submit his list of witnesses to continue the discussion, perhaps even at the first meeting of this study on science, technology and the role of vision. I think there has been a lot of discussion about the issues. We now have to discuss the vision, the solutions. There are a number of potential solutions that would be important to explore. I invite my colleague to use the time we have left to invite his witnesses. I think we have one hour left for this study. However, we would then have to continue the discussion as part of our next study.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I have a question, Mr. Chair. When it comes to witnesses participating in two different studies, can you swap witnesses from one study to another if they're similar?

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

Mr. Chair, regarding my colleague's question, this committee had already concluded that this study would focus on science and innovation and that it would inform the discussion on science and technology in the next study. This committee was already in favour of that approach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

This is the last meeting. There's no “one hour” left.

We'll go to Mr. Bonk.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

One thing I'd like to point out is that this is imminent. The research will be lost this year on these existing research farms. It's very well within this committee's purview to have a few more meetings on this very important topic because we're talking about programs that are five, six and 10 years in the making, and all of that research will be lost. I think it would be prudent of us to hear from all of the witnesses.

We've had a very rushed meeting today, for example. We can spare the time on something as important as this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We'll go to Mr. Epp.

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

I'll just echo his comment and add one other small point. It came up in testimony today. The Alberta Minister of Agriculture listed three countries that are pulling away from us. One of the questions I didn't get time to ask today is whether those countries that are racing ahead of us got there by pulling back on public research. I highly doubt it, so I see the need for more study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We'll go to Monsieur Lemire.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It might be interesting to ask them the question and send it in writing because I would indeed like to have that answer.

In this context, I would like to ask the Conservatives this question. John Barlow isn't here right now, but what was agreed was that the testimony could be used in both studies and that we could draft a report on science and research and make recommendations. What I'm interested in is how this government will respond to our recommendations and how it justifies these cuts.

If we extended our study over the parliamentary sitting weeks and breaks, we would delay the adoption of a report, as well as the adoption of the recommendations and the government's responses, knowing full well that we could include witnesses in the other study on the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership, which will cover science and research.

Do you want us to continue with one meeting or move on to the other topic, and have a report on science and research to, in my opinion, denounce these cuts?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

We're always open, including holding additional meetings if we have a deadline for June or if we don't have to finish more quickly. That's also possible. It's up to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We have a motion on the floor to add one or two meetings.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

It's for two meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Are we good to take the vote?