AGASSIZ – The federal government should reconsider its decision to close seven research centres and experimental farms and take a closer look at the potential national impacts of cuts to agriculture research, a federal agriculture committee says.
Dozens of industry experts say the planned closures could undermine agricultural research across Canada as a whole, even in places that have largely escaped the budget crunch.
In May, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food released a report outlining the concerns of dozens of individuals and organizations regarding Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)’s decision to close several research centres and reduce staff across the board. Closures and layoffs were set to begin on May 23, according to the Agricultural Union, which represents staff, but an AAFC spokesperson would not confirm the date, saying that “timelines of winding down science operations will vary from one site to another.”
The cuts aimed to shrink maintenance costs and streamline science activities, AAFC deputy minister Lawrence Hanson told the committee. The cuts could save government save AAFC nearly $400 million over four 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,” Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute managing director Tyler McCann told the committee in late February.
“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.”
BC’s two research centres in Agassiz and Summerland are not on the chopping block, but both will lose support staff. Other research centres in Saskatchewan, Quebec, and Nova Scotia will be shuttered, with potential ripple effects throughout the industry as a whole. According to Lori Oatway, a research scientist with Western Crop Innovation who spoke before the committee, significant collaboration takes place between scientists in the private sector, academia and government.
“The closure of research facilities weakens our national research network,” she explained. “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.”
The closure of the Swift Current Research and Development Centre’s organic and regenerative program is one particular cut that could have significant ripple effects throughout Canada. The program is the only dedicated organic research program within AAFC, with experiments going back 20 years.
“Eliminating testing under organic conditions will deprive organic farmers of data needed to choose the best variety for their farms and will likely result in less breeding for organic production,” the National Farmers Union wrote in a brief.
The standing committee’s report included 19 other recommendations to the federal government, including a call for Ottawa to conduct site-specific cost-benefit analyses for the closure of each federal research centre and experimental farm. It also requested government explore other measures that do not affect front-line scientists.
Notably, the committee recommended that government consider science and innovation a central priority of the next agricultural policy framework. Consultation for the next policy framework began in January of this year, with the first phase of engagement open until the end of June.
The policy framework determines how federal, provincial and territorial governments will invest in agriculture between 2028 and 2033, after the $3.5 billion Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership ends in March 2028. Science and innovation form one of the five central pillars of the current framework, but AAFC director of policy, planning and integration Stephen Jurgutis noted that Canada hasn’t been “as advanced as we need to be.”
“That’s part of the reason why we’re having conversations more actively with the private sector as well, to try to figure out where the places are that AAFC, in particular, and provinces and territories should come into play,” Jurgutis told the committee in March.
“Science and innovation is emerging as a big theme in the early conversations that we’re having about this next framework. I think a more coordinated approach that includes how we work with provinces and territories, as well as the private sector, is going to be key to that.”
A policy statement will be released by federal, provincial and territorial ministers in July. The statement will outline government’s intentions for the next policy framework ahead of a second round of consultations.
Among the standing committee’s recommendations was that the federal government recognize agriculture as a “strategic sector on par with energy in terms of national security.”
“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,” Serge Buy, chief executive officer of the Agri-Food Innovation Council, told the committee.
“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.”
The standing committee requested the government provide a “comprehensive response” to the report and its recommendations. The House of Commons has 120 days to respond to the committee’s recommendations, which would be early September in this case.
No response was tabled before Country Life in BC’s press deadline.
All content on this website is copyrighted, and cannot be republished or reproduced without permission.
Vernon growers address drought