The committee met at 1000 in Royal Canadian Legion Branch 95, Smiths Falls.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Stefan Uguen-Csenge): Good morning, honourable members. It is my duty to call upon you to elect an Acting Chair. Are there any nominations? MPP Cuzzetto.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I nominate Andrew Dowie to be Chair.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Stefan Uguen-Csenge): Does the member accept the nomination?

Mr. Andrew Dowie: Yes.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Stefan Uguen-Csenge): Are there any further nominations? There being no further nominations, I declare the nominations closed and MPP Dowie electing Acting Chair of the committee.

Protecting Ontario’s Food Independence Act, 2026 Loi de 2026 visant à protéger l’autonomie alimentaire de l’Ontario

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill 109, An Act to enact the Farmland Security Act, 2026 and to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 109, Loi édictant la Loi de 2026 visant à protéger l’autonomie alimentaire de l’Ontario et modifiant diverses lois.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Good morning, members, and welcome to Smiths Falls. The Standing Committee on the Interior will now come to order. We are meeting today to continue public hearings on Bill 109, An Act to enact the Farmland Security Act, 2026 and to amend various Acts.

Please wait until you are recognized by the Chair before speaking, and as always, all comments should go through the Chair.

As a reminder, each presenter will have seven minutes for their presentation. After we have heard from all three presenters, the remaining 39 minutes in this time slot will be divided in two rounds of 6.5 minutes of questions from each recognized party. I’ll provide a verbal reminder to notify you when you have one minute left for your presentation or allotted speaking time.

Mr. Michael MacGillivray Lanark County Beef Farmers Leeds County Dairy Producer Committee

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): I will now call on Michael MacGillivray. You’ll have seven minutes for your presentation. Please state your name for Hansard and you may begin.

Mr. Michael MacGillivray: Good morning, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Michael MacGillivray. My wife, Cora, and I own and operate Kirkview Farms in beautiful North Glengarry. We are the eighth generation to steward this land, and hopefully not the last.

We manage it under a regenerative organic system, producing grass-fed beef, grass-fed lamb, pasture-raised chicken under the artisanal program, pasture-raised turkey under the small flock program, and heritage pork—because everybody loves bacon. Every day, we make decisions of balanced food production, environmental stewardship and the economic stability of our farm.

I appreciate the chance to speak about Bill 109. We believe this legislation moves Ontario in the right direction. Protecting farmland, strengthening food production and modernizing agriculture legislation are all important objectives, and they’re reflected throughout the bill.

But I would like to begin with one thought. Food independence is not something we achieve all at once. It is something we build, generation after generation. Protecting Ontario’s food independence means protecting Ontario’s ability to produce food, not just today but for tomorrow as well.

This leads me to a simple question: Who will produce Ontario’s food 20 years from now? Because, Mr. Chair, my greatest concern is not that Ontario will run out of farmland; my greatest concern is that Ontario will run out of farmers. If we fail to bring a new generation into agriculture, no amount of protected land or regulatory modernization will deliver true food independence.

I therefore encourage the committee to consider Bill 109 through what I call the five foundations of Ontario’s food independence.

Foundation 1: Protect the farmland. The Farmland Security Act in schedule 3 is the most important part of this bill. Restricting foreign and other designated person acquisition of farmland is a necessary step and I support the framework the government has put forward, including the ministerial permission pathway. But protecting farmland must mean more than restricting certain forms of ownership. It must also mean protecting farmland from speculation.

Across Ontario, productive land is increasingly behind treated as an investment vehicle rather than as a working agricultural resource. We first saw this in southern Ontario and it’s now arriving in eastern Ontario. As prices disconnect from what a farm can realistically earn, young farmers and regenerative operations—such as ours—focused on long-term stewardship are priced out. Marginal land as well-suited for pasture-based systems is bought by foreign entities or people working on their behalf. The farm buildings and houses are severed off, the forests are clear cut, and the land systematically tile drained. The opportunity for it to be a stand-alone, independent farm is lost. They have a model that is currently supported by legislation that needs to change.

The National Farmers Union, which we’re members of, has advocated that secure access to farmland and limiting speculative pressures are essential to Canadian agriculture and ensuring long-term food security. They have several position papers and policy statements that I would encourage the committee to review.

I urge the committee to ensure that the regulations look through corporate structures to the actual beneficial owners. Many family farms use corporations for succession liability reasons. If the ultimate owners are Canadian citizens or permanent residents, those farms should be treated as domestic. Clear rules here will protect legitimate local transactions while achieving the act’s purpose. Protecting farmland must also mean protecting the opportunity to farm.

Foundation 2: Grow the farmers. Food independence depends on people. If Ontario wants to become more food independent, we need to become the best place in Canada to start a farm. That means lowering barriers to entry; creating learning opportunities, especially in regenerative management practice; improving access to land; supporting succession planning; and encouraging mentorship so first-generation farmers can succeed.

Every policy considered under Bill 109 should be viewed through one simple question: Will this make it easier or harder for the next generation to become farmers?

Foundation 3: Build value, not just volume. Ontario has built one of the strongest supply-managed dairy systems in the world; that success deserves recognition. At the same time, smaller-scale, value-added and specialty producers compete through innovation, craftsmanship and regional markets rather than volume alone.

One potential way to create new farmers and improve food resilience is to explore a dedicated pathway. Specialty dairy in the form of artisan cheeses, fermented and cultured products, sheep milk, goat milk, buffalo milk, typically operate with smaller herds, do on-farm processing and are focused on premium markets. There are several examples of this already in our region, but these businesses have struggled under the current system. A dedicated pathway for first-generation farmers to enter the industry through innovative and diversified business would be beneficial.

Ontario doesn’t necessarily need bigger farms; Ontario needs more diversified and successive farms. Creating structured pathways for special and value-added production, no matter what industry, is one practical way to grow the next generation of producers and strengthen the regional food resilience.

Foundation 4: Strengthen the resource. Healthy soil is our most important agricultural infrastructure. Healthy soils improve productivity, reduce input costs, increase water infiltration, build drought resilience and support biodiversity.

The same principle applies to water. Historically, policies focused on removing excess water. Tomorrow’s agriculture must also focus on retaining it. Changes to the Drainage Act are needed for that reason. Investing in regenerative practice and soil health strengthens long-term food security while improving farm profitability.

As Franklin D. Roosevelt said, a nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.

Foundation 5: Grow profitable farms. Food security ultimately depends on profitable farms. If farms cannot earn a sustainable return, they cannot invest, they cannot innovate and they can’t transition to the next generation. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the Protecting Famers from Non-Payment Act. Updates that support custom processing under the beef marketing act and improvements to the veterinary profession are also practical measures that help pasture-base livestock operations like ours remain viable.

Every regulation introduced in the bill should be evaluated against a simple question: Does it improve the long-term profitability and viability of Ontario Farms?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute.

Mr. Michael MacGillivray: I have one other, additional recommendation: Bill 109 recognizes that protecting food independence requires protecting farmland. That same principle should apply to major infrastructure projects.

In eastern Ontario, the proposed federal Alto high-speed rail project has the potential to negatively affect productive farmland and established farm businesses. Farmers in the potential corridor are voicing their concerns but feel they’re not being heard because, honestly, they are not.

I respectfully recommend that the province establish an agriculture and food security impact committee to evaluate the cumulative effects of major infrastructure projects on agriculture, food production, capacity, farm viability, fragmentation, drainage and biosecurity to ensure that reasonable alternatives are fully considered before productive farmland is permanently converted. We must exhaust all options before losing prime agricultural farmland to development. Once productive farmland is fragmented, we simply cannot create more.

Mr. Chair, in closing, Bill 109 represents an important opportunity: It protects farmland, modernizes legislation and strengthens Ontario’s food system. But I encourage this committee to think even bigger. Food independence is not simply about protecting—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Thank you, Mr. MacGillivray.

I will now call on the Lanark County Beef Farmers, represented by Don Badour.

You will have seven minutes for your presentation. Please state your name for Hansard, and you may begin.

Mr. Don Badour: Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Don Badour, a beef farmer from Perth, director for Lanark County Beef Farmers and the current vice-president of Beef Farmers of Ontario. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of Ontario’s 19,000 beef farmers.

At the outset, I want to say that both Lanark County Beef Farmers and the Beef Farmers of Ontario are pleased to support Bill 109. We appreciate the government’s continued focus on agriculture through legislation that recognizes the importance of food production, food security and reducing unnecessary barriers for farmers.

Bill 109 addresses a number of practical issues that our members have raised over many years, and we commend the government for listening.

I’ll touch briefly on the three components of the bill. First, the proposed amendments to the Beef Cattle Marketing Act: BFO supports these amendments. They reflect resolutions passed by our members several years ago and create a more equitable system by ensuring producers contribute fairly regardless of how they market or process their cattle. We also appreciate the inclusion of the “personal use” exemption, which strikes an appropriate balance for farm families. These are practical, common-sense changes that improve fairness while reducing regulatory gaps.

1010

Second, the proposed amendments to the Veterinary Professionals Act: Access to large-animal veterinarian care continues to be one of the greatest challenges facing livestock producers, particularly in northern Ontario and many rural communities. We support expanding the role of registered veterinary technicians and creating new pathways of better utilizing the entire veterinarian team. As regulations are developed, we simply encourage government to continue consulting with livestock producers so that rules reflect the realities of on-farm care and mobile veterinary services, not just traditional companion animal practice.

Finally, I’d like to spend a moment on what we believe is the most significant opportunity within Bill 109: protecting Ontario farmland while expanding responsible access to crown land. Ontario continues to lose productive farmland every year, and once that land is converted to non-agricultural uses, it is effectively gone forever. Protecting farmland ownership and ensuring it remains in agricultural production are fundamental to Ontario’s long-term food security and economic resilience. We strongly support measures that restrict foreign acquisition of Ontario farmland and reinforce its continued agricultural use.

At the same time, we believe Ontario has an incredible opportunity to reasonably expand agriculture through improved access to crown land, particularly in the great northern Clay Belt. Ontario has millions of acres with agricultural potential. Even bringing a small portion of that land in sustainable beef production would strengthen our provincial food system, support rural communities, increase processing capacity and create economic opportunity across northern Ontario.

To realize that opportunity, we encourage the province to go one step farther by identifying suitable agricultural parcels in advance, completing environmental and Indigenous consultation work upfront and streamlining the application process for farmers. We would also encourage reinstating the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp.’s land clearing grant, which previously played an important role in helping establish new farms in the north. These practical measures would significantly accelerate agricultural development while reducing risk for producers willing to invest.

In closing, Beef Farmers of Ontario strongly supports Bill 109. We believe it strengthens Ontario agriculture by improving fairness, modernizing regulation, protecting our farmland and creating opportunities for future growth.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Thank you very much, Mr. Badour.

Next, we have the dairy producer committee, Leeds and Grenville: John Wynands, vice-chair, and Kristin Benke, virtually. Welcome. You’ll have seven minutes for your presentation. Please state your name for Hansard and you may begin.

Mr. John Wynands: Thanks for the opportunity to appear before the committee today as you consider Bill 109 and the measures that are being proposed to protect and strengthen Ontario’s ag and food sector.

I am John Wynands, a second-generation dairy farmer from Cardinal. I operate Gerann Holsteins with my family. We milk 250 cows and crop 2,000 acres of farmland. I currently serve as vice-chair on the board of Dairy Farmers of Ontario and represent producers in the counties of Frontenac, Grenville, Lanark, Leeds and Renfrew.

With me today is Kristin Benke, chief business supply chain officer for DFO. She joins virtually.

When we look from the east, Glengarry–Prescott–Russell to the Ottawa Valley, the seaway region to Northumberland, the Kawarthas and up to York region, abutting the GTA, we see rich agricultural history and a thriving dairy sector in communities that dot all parts of eastern Ontario. Together, the region is home to 950 dairy farms, shipping over 860 million litres of milk annually to 34 local processing plants, a combined GDP contribution of roughly $2.4 billion. Dairy farms sustain over 8,000 direct jobs in the region while supporting many indirect jobs and local businesses in our communities.

My comments today will be focused on two areas of the proposed legislative changes that relate directly to Ontario dairy. As dairy farmers, we are pleased to see the bill move forward with the amendments to the Milk Act, the first step in bringing Ontario’s milk pricing policies into alignment with national standards. These changes and the complementary regulatory amendments will create a level playing field and enable continued stability in the delivery of high-quality milk from Ontario farms for processing in Ontario.

We need to have consistently applied end-use pricing obligations that ensure all dairy processors are billed equitably for their milk products. The current structure requires refinement to ensure compliance with the federal policy for all processors making dairy products. As a province that has over one third of Canada’s dairy processing, it is vital that Ontario is able to enforce the national policy.

We look forward to the passage of the bill and the introduction of the regulatory changes to complete Ontario’s implementation of the national industry policy that was adopted several years ago. Dairy farmers share the government’s commitment to ensuring a stronger and trusted domestic food system, with a regulatory framework that supports continuous improvement and compliance of world-class, high-quality food safety standards for cows’ milk in Ontario. Through DFO, we will work with OMAFA on enabling legislation and related regulatory amendments to ensure we continue to uphold the high-quality standards for cows’ milk in Ontario.

A viable and growing dairy and ag sector is important to maintain our local communities, where we are raising our families while contributing to the local and provincial economy. It is vitally important that we recognize the importance of farmland in all regions of the province and have in place policies that support farm families. Farmland is a precious resource, and we need to be mindful of both the potential impacts and unintended consequences that other nation-building projects may have on local farmland—the families that live and steward these lands, and the food security that is so important to our country.

Now, more than ever, we need to protect and grow our farming and food sector. By working together, we can secure a more competitive, resilient and self-reliant agri-food sector, starting with our farmers delivering every day for Ontario families. For dairy, that means dynamic-growing dairy farms and more processing capacity that drives economic growth and serves the Canadian market, while protecting our Ontario advantage.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Thank you very much.

The round of questions will now begin. We will start with the government’s side. I’ll invite MPP Jordan to start this round of questions.

Mr. John Jordan: I’m going to direct my questions to Mr. MacGillivray. I do want to say that I appreciate your family-farming history, particularly the mixed farming, which is becoming less common in eastern Ontario, at any rate. When we’re looking at this bill—and you’ve spoken well to the bill itself—what do you think the government, going forward in the future, should prioritize, relative to farming in eastern Ontario in particular?

Mr. Michael MacGillivray: It goes back to, definitely, the protection of farmland, which is in the bill. But I think generating more farmers is the big thing. The educational aspect: We’ve lost all of our educational opportunities in eastern Ontario—Kemptville is closed, Alfred is closed—so now, the farming folks who want to get an education either go to Quebec or they go to Guelph. So we’ve lost that opportunity.

And it is a benefit to have education close to home, especially today, especially with farm families not being able to access labour. So the ability for kids to come home on weekends, that’s a benefit to the farm. So I think having educational opportunities in eastern Ontario would be a benefit.

1020

I also think, like has been mentioned by a couple of people here, that the protection of farmland from infrastructure development is going to be key, because we need to have farmland for new farmers to farm. That’s one of the key things.

Mr. John Jordan: Thanks, Michael.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Next question from the government side? MPP Clark, the floor is yours.

Hon. Steve Clark: I just want to thank the three of you for coming today. It’s great. I know MPP Jordan is a little shy, but he’s certainly very proud that we’re in Smiths Falls in his riding. I think this is a first for a parliamentary committee to come to a community like Smiths Falls, and it’s great to have you here.

Mr. MacGillivray, I’m not going to ask you a question; I’m just going to thank you for your comments about Alto and the process, the fact that farmers’ voices aren’t being heard, or you don’t feel like they’re being heard. I know there are 11 Tory MPPs in eastern Ontario that feel the same way, so I appreciate your comments.

Just because he’s my—no offence, Don. John is my home farmer, and we were at a Holstein event the other day, the Twilight. We had dinner together, and I told a story about, when you’re first a politician in Leeds–Grenville, you’ve got to swear allegiance to supply management if you wanted to get elected. So, my question is going to go back to end-use pricing, which you mentioned and I know from Kristin’s perspective is a high priority for the dairy farmers. Can you talk about the reason why we need to align end-use pricing and why it’s so important to protect supply management, especially in eastern Ontario?

Mr. John Wynands: Yes. It’s to level the playing field with milk-buyers, with processors, small and large. Currently, that isn’t the case with the current structure, and to have it all come under the regulations—Kristin, if you would like to fill in there a bit?

Ms. Kristin Benke: Sure. Just maybe to add to John’s comments, I think the big thing for us on the end-use pricing is really that it’s been a long time since the Milk Act has been updated, and the dairy industry has continued to modernize. There’s more and more technology available to processors, to producers, and there’s been lots of investment around that, which has been wonderful.

But I think the piece for us going forward is that we need to make sure that all of those milk components now—which is really what we’re dealing with, as opposed to just milk—are being priced equitably. One, in terms of that level playing field that John described for processors—but also so that we continue to have that predictability for dairy producers around their pricing or their revenue going forward and making sure that we have something that’s predictable where we continue to have producers who are able to rely on that and to invest and continue to grow within the Ontario industry, for those contributions that John described at the beginning.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Ms. Kristin Benke: Okay.

It’s a great opportunity, I will say, in terms of that modernization piece to capture some of the new technologies. It’s something, again, that we’ve been working on at the national level, so it’s really that coordination across the country in terms of making sure that we have that level playing field.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Okay, thank you very much.

MPP Vickers, you have 40 seconds for question and answer.

MPP Paul Vickers: Through the Chair: It may not be so much of a question, but I just wanted to say we were up in Timmins last week and we got to hear the perspective of the north. I live kind of in the north of the southwest, but it’s always great to come and listen to the comments from eastern Ontario also, because we all live in the same province, but I feel like we somehow farm in very different ways. I just want to say thank you. Since we don’t have a lot of time, I just wanted to at least start out by saying thank you for coming and giving the perspective from eastern Ontario, which is very important to the province. I’ll wait till the next round to ask my questions.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): That concludes the government’s time.

We will now move to the official opposition. MPP Vanthof, the floor is yours.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to thank the committee for being here and I would also like to beg your indulgence. I would like to apologize for being late. My wife and I are camping at the Lions Campground in Merrickville and at 9:30 this morning, she put her head out and said, “There’s no hot water.” I had to make the decision whether to be here on time or make sure my wife had hot water.

Hon. Steve Clark: Good choice.

Mr. John Vanthof: I think we’ve all been there.

It’s incredible that the committee is travelling around, because I’ve never actually had the opportunity to drive through this area and it’s a beautiful part of the province. You should all be very proud.

I listened intently to your comments. I would first like to go to Mr. MacGillivray. It has come through in everyone’s comments regarding the Alto and you mentioned that there should be a committee to look at the impact on agricultural major projects. I don’t think that’s a bad idea at all, but my question is, should that be all projects? Because I’m a farmer too and we all farm in different parts of the province.

There have been huge outcries from areas like St. Thomas, like Waterloo, some farmers in Brampton, about the impact of huge provincial projects or industrial projects. A committee like that: Should it cover all projects of a major scale or just be limited to one federal project?

Mr. Michael MacGillivray: No, it should be expanded to a certain size, obviously. The campground expanding next door, no—but it should be major projects. And if the province is serious about food security, you have to protect farmland. There’s no other way of looking at it, right? It has to be first and foremost, so everything needs to be done through that lens and anything that’s being done needs to go through that first.

Yes, there will be trade-offs. We know that. Historically, there have been “nation-building projects” that were truly nation-building, but there are some that just don’t quite meet that criteria and have a negative impact on too many people.

Mr. John Vanthof: I think we’re in full agreement on the official opposition that for all projects—regardless of whether they’re federal, provincial or private sector—if they’re of a massive enough scale that they truly could impact the area’s agriculture, there should be an agricultural lens put forward to them.

Mr. Michael MacGillivray: Yes, sir.

Mister—may I call you Don?

Mr. Don Badour: Yes.

Mr. John Vanthof: Okay, thanks. You talked about crown land, and my farm is in the Little Clay Belt, not in the Greater Clay Belt. There is an awful lot of potential in the Greater Clay Belt. There is no denying that.

There are some issues that I think people aren’t really looking at. Much of that land is being used now in forestry. And actually, a lot of the places where you’ve particularly—where you grow the best poplar is also where you grow the best crops, so that’s one thing.

But my question would be—and I know the beef farmers have been working on this for longer than anybody. I know that and I respect that. I actually think that the beef farmers have a better story to tell probably than some in the strict cash-crop market because there are more jobs, just more economic activity on the beef side. In your opinion, if there was crown land made available, does it have to be sold, or could it be long-term leased, like grazing rights in the west?

1030

Mr. Don Badour: Thanks for the question. Yes, we would be happy with long-term leases as well, as long as they were long enough for the investment that the producer has to put in, like infrastructure, fencing, drainage—all that type of thing, that they have time to recoup their investment. But yes, we are certainly open to long-term leases as well.

Mr. John Vanthof: Okay, yes. Because I’m not saying that’s the way you would have to go, but it is the way that is done in some other jurisdictions. In the forestry sector, the land isn’t transferred to the forestry companies. The control is, but the ownership of the land is provincial.

And also, when we’re talking with this—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Mr. John Vanthof: Part of this bill is keeping land in Canadian hands. If you kept the land in the government’s hands and gave long-term leases of 25 years with 25-year extensions, you would ensure that you would control that crown land, which is now completely publicly owned. It’s not owned by individuals.

Would you agree?

Mr. Don Badour: Yes, 100%. I think leasing is the reality not just in northern Ontario. Our own operation, we own like 450 acres, but we lease another 600, so we actually lease more than what we own. So it’s certainly a viable option.

Mr. John Vanthof: And next, to Mr. Wynands: As a former dairy farmer, as a former member of the board of Dairy Farmers of Ontario, we fully support the changes in this bill. Actually, we fully support the bill. That’s one of the reasons why it sailed through the House so quickly, the government House leader and myself—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): That concludes the time for the official opposition.

We will move on to the third party. MPP Hsu, the floor is yours.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Thank you to our witnesses for coming here today, and remotely. My first question is for Mr. Wynands and Ms. Benke—she’s there? Okay, great.

I just was wondering if you could briefly help me understand the importance of consistent end-use pricing by using an example from my riding. In my riding, we have a potentially very large consumer of Ontario milk, the royal Canadian milk infant formula plant. About a year ago, they started growing their Canadian market share—in fact, it’s the only producer of infant formula in Canada. Their market share is in the single digits, percentage-wise, but it’s growing. And I’m just wondering, does consistent end-use pricing affect the future market share of my producer of infant formula in Kingston and the Islands and how it competes against imported infant formula?

Mr. John Wynands: Thanks for the question. It’s detailed enough that I’m going to pass it off right away and see if Kristin will give some insights.

Ms. Kristin Benke: Sure. The idea around end-use pricing is really that we apply our milk-class system so that the components of milk and how they are used complies with, basically, a price system that we have around how a product is used. So the price for milk that’s used for yogourt is slightly different than the price if it’s used for cheese. In the case of somebody who today is buying milk from Dairy Farmers of Ontario—the infant formula plant in Kingston would be a good example of that—that end-use pricing is already applying to them.

So, the idea of this change is really that, if somebody else started a plant where they didn’t purchase from DFO, where they were buying basically different ingredients or different combinations of ingredients on the secondary market, in that case, the end-use pricing doesn’t apply to them. This would create, basically, that equitable playing field, let’s say, for a company that’s already established and purchasing from DFO. So really, in the case of people operating today and buying milk from dairy farmers—which are using raw milk, like that company—there’s really no impact other than to create something that’s more predictable, maybe I will say, and more equitable to them in the case that there’s a competitor doing something else.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Okay. And does it affect the competition at all? Because all the competition would be imported. I guess that’s federal, any effect on imports.

Ms. Kristin Benke: Sorry, the audio just cut out there a little bit, I think.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Oh, okay. Don’t worry. I think I know the answer to that, sorry. It’s okay.

I have another question, for Mr. Badour. It’s about the shortage of large-animal vets, which is across Ontario. I noticed that the Ontario Veterinary College had a partner in Thunder Bay, so now they’re training students in Thunder Bay, because if you come from a certain area, you tend to go back there to practise. I’m just wondering if you could comment on whether the OVC and Guelph should be encouraged—and this relates to a comment from Mr. MacGillivray—to extend some kind of large-animal vet training to eastern Ontario so that we could recruit more young people in eastern Ontario to get into large-animal veterinary practice as a career.

Mr. Don Badour: Yes, it certainly wouldn’t hurt. I specifically mentioned northern Ontario, but large-animal vet shortage is a problem across the province, even in eastern Ontario. I know our own local vet clinic—we’re lucky that we have a really good vet clinic, but they still have difficulties getting new large-animal vets. So anything that would encourage more large-animal vets in the province would be a good thing.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Great, thanks.

I don’t know if you want to add anything about that. It’s kind of in line with what you were talking about.

Mr. Michael MacGillivray: Yes, so we’ve actually had an intern from Quebec—a student that was actually going to vet school in Quebec. But again, just creating those opportunities for folks to be in the community and educate themselves within their community, or at least close by, I think, is beneficial, as Don mentioned.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Okay, great.

I wanted to take advantage of this committee hearing to just get on the record some comments—and this relates to what you were talking about, Mr. MacGillivray, about profitable farms—about the shortage of abattoirs in eastern Ontario. I was just wondering if you could take a minute and get on the record what we need here in eastern Ontario.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Mr. Michael MacGillivray: Certainly. Yes, we need more abattoirs, but we also need secondary processing. We need primary processing and secondary processing, because if we can increase the capacity, the next bottleneck becomes the secondary processing. So, yes, you can get an animal slaughtered, but then getting it broken down and butchered becomes the next bottleneck. There are some local educational aspects with respect to that, but again, we need to train more butchers.

We also need to be respectful of the fact that we are now serving a new demographic. We have a lot of folks coming from different parts of the world. They have different tastes, they have different cuts that they’re looking for, so that is coming into play as well—as well as abattoirs that meet religious requirements. There is quite a bit of opportunity for that because there is definitely a need for it.

Processing capacity is limited in eastern Ontario. We currently drive about an hour and a half to get our chickens processed. We’re lucky enough that we have a very good relationship with our beef—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): And that concludes the time of the third party. We will have a second round.

We’ll move next to the government. MPP Cuzzetto, the floor is yours.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Thank you for being here today, all of you. Being someone that lives in Mississauga–Lakeshore—we don’t have farms down there, but I did volunteer on my brother-in-law’s farm up in Arthur during the summer, baling hay and all that. It was exciting at that time.

This question is for Michael. Michael—this is on Hansard—you just said in your statement that you’re not worried about running out of farmland, but you are worried about running out of farmers. What did you mean by that? Because I hear something different down south from what I heard from you right now.

Mr. Michael MacGillivray: Well, obviously, farmland is important. But the thing is we need to create opportunities for new farmers to get into the market. There’s a significant capital barrier; there’s an educational barrier—there are a lot of different barriers that are coming into play. We actually have interned 12 aspiring farmers, four of which now have actually started their own farms. But the challenge is getting an education and creating diversified farms, as Mr. Jordan had mentioned. You need to have a diversified farm for multiple reasons. You talk about the food independence aspect, resiliency; having a diversified farm actually helps with that, because if there’s one sector that is down or you have an issue, it actually creates a more resilient farm.

1040

It also lends itself to—a lot of the folks who are looking at farming now don’t want to do just one thing; they would like to have a variety of things. It seems that they really like that diversified aspect. So I think creating opportunities within that is important.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Thank you. This way, when people ask me that question about farmland, I can always pivot to what you just said: that we need more farmers than we do farmland.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): MPP Vickers, the floor is yours.

MPP Paul Vickers: My question is to Don, and it has to do with the check-off system. This is something that BFO has been working on with the government for quite a few years to get it to this point. Why is it so important to have this changing of the check-off? It’s $7 a head. Is it just a few head? Because, you know, even if there were like 100 head that are getting around the system, that’s only $700. So, help me understand why it’s such a big issue.

Mr. Don Badour: It came from our membership at our AGM. I think it was 2018 and 2019 it came as a resolution, and a very high percentage of the membership voted in favour of it, so it’s up to us as a board to investigate on doing the will of the membership.

It’s to make it more equitable and fair, because most of the other provinces, particularly in beef cattle, do collect check-off at processing at small abattoirs in Ontario. Sheep, veal and pigs also already do it at the local level too, so we’re just kind of playing catch-up to the other commodities.

MPP Paul Vickers: So, do you feel there are a lot of cattle getting around the system—like, missing the check-off?

Mr. Don Badour: We don’t really know. There are definitely some. How many? We really don’t know, but we’re not anticipating it to be a big source of income by any means, because there are going to be additional administration costs as well for us to be able to collect that check-off.

MPP Paul Vickers: If there were some increased funds, what would you use those funds for?

Mr. Don Badour: A lot of our budget goes into producer education, consumer engagement. A high percentage of our budget goes on to marketing, like marketing of Ontario beef. So it would go into that.

MPP Paul Vickers: So it would make it more equitable for everybody to pay for marketing, instead of some people maybe not paying their fair share.

Mr. Don Badour: Exactly—for research, advocacy, marketing. Yes, it makes it fair across the board for the ones who aren’t paying the check-off who are getting the same benefits as the ones who are paying the check-off.

MPP Paul Vickers: Okay. Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): A minute and 40 seconds left for the government—MPP Jordan, the floor is yours.

Mr. John Jordan: Just quickly, I want to thank Don Badour for stepping up with BFO and having our eastern voice. You’re well known in this area for your participation with the Lanark County Beef Farmers and now the Beef Farmers of Ontario—so, much appreciated.

Relative to the Farmland Security Act—and I’ve heard from my constituents the lack of even pasture land as the beef industry starts to increase and grow again—how do you think this bill will help? And what do you think would be a recommended change going forward?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Mr. Don Badour: Definitely, if we were able to access more crown land in northern Ontario, that’s where we feel the potential for beef expansion is. It would certainly open up a lot more pasture and hay acres, and that part of the province grows hay and pasture very well.

Mr. John Jordan: Okay. Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Thirty seconds left—okay. That concludes the government’s time.

We’ll move on to the official opposition. MPP Vanthof, the floor is yours.

Mr. John Vanthof: Part of this bill focuses on the dangers of foreign landownership, and I think we can all agree that that’s an issue—or could be an issue. I don’t think that we’ve really got accurate numbers.

This is happening in my area, and so I’d like comments from all three if it’s happening in your areas. One of the dangers—and it might not be foreign—is institutional landownership. In our area, investment funds are the ones who are driving up land prices and who are the ones who are gobbling up the land. Then they turn around and rent it back to farmers, or if a young farmer wants to start, they can’t compete. Maybe they can’t compete against their established neighbour, but they certainly can’t compete against a hedge fund, and that’s what’s happening. So should this bill also be not just looking at foreign ownership, which could be hedge funds, but institutional ownership?

I can give you an example. In my part of the world, I have one township that is owned by two hedge funds. They used to have 500 people in that township, and now they have 100, because the first thing a hedge fund does is bulldoze the buildings because they don’t want to pay taxes. I keep telling the township that they should just go and give the keys to the Minister of Municipal Affairs because their tax base is dying.

Could I have comments from all three? Is institutional investment an issue in agriculture, and should it also be looked at along with foreign ownership? We’ll start at your end and work that way.

Mr. Michael MacGillivray: As I mentioned in my testimony, yes, absolutely. I think it is one of the major drivers.

There are some of those funds now that are in the hundreds of thousands. Everybody’s worried about Bill Gates. There are funds in Ontario that are upwards of 200,000-plus acres being held, and they are pushing out small farms because of the fact that a farm like ours will not be paying $300-an-acre land rent. It’s just not feasible; the economics don’t work. It does restrict the type of farming that can be done on that land, so that—again, from a resiliency point of view—does affect Ontario.

I think we need to look at that as well and try to find out who actually owns land, because that’s the other thing. A lot of people make conjecture with respect to ownership. People say, “Well, no, no, it’s not foreign,” but there are a lot of people that are acting on behalf of foreign entities.

Mr. John Vanthof: Mr. Badour?

Mr. Don Badour: I would agree with pretty well everything that Mike said. It’s kind of the same situation.

We look at foreign ownership concerns that you have fewer people actually owning the land, so there’s fewer people to rent from, fewer people owning more acres. Institutionalized, it’s exactly the same thing. You’ve got more land owned by fewer entities, so it’s more difficult to rent or lease that land as a farmer.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you.

Mr. Wynands?

Mr. John Wynands: From the big scale, it’s really the food security and food sovereignty that we have that land in the farmers’ hands. On the local level, if farmers own that land, that’s the most efficient use of that land. They’ll get the most return, productive benefit out of it, and it’ll be in that community where those benefits stay.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you very much.

Also, on the foreign ownership side—I mentioned this in the House. I’d like to mention it at committee too. As the government goes forward with the regulations, they’ll have to be very careful on how they do it. Because if you go up and down the mailboxes of many parts of rural Ontario—and I’m going to be prejudiced—there’s a lot of Dutch names, and a lot of those people who bought those farms weren’t Canadian when they bought them.

I would hate that if someone actually comes and wants to buy a farm and wants to farm and wants to—“Oh, wait a second. You have to wait this long.” So the government needs to be judicious in how they do this because there are issues.

But also, we attract. This is a great place to farm, and we attract. We have attracted and will attract the best and the brightest farmers from around the world, because we do need new farmers. Some of those farmers might not come from the places where we think.

1050

Would you agree with what I have just said? I need more than a nod.

Mr. Don Badour: Yes. That is a really good point. So yes, our government would have to be careful on defining the rules, because, exactly, you wouldn’t want to disqualify—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Mr. Don Badour: —legitimate farmers who are looking to increase land, to buy land.

Mr. John Vanthof: Okay.

And I’ve got a few seconds?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): You’ve got 45 seconds.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’m going to tell a little story. I was in the back of the Legislature and I was reading the Ontario Farmer. You know how, lots of times, when people get married, they have a couple of nice John Deeres—or Cases; some people like Cases—in the background? Jagmeet Singh, when he was serving with us, walked by and he says, “You guys do that too?” I said, “What are you talking about?” And he whipped out his phone, and in India they do the same, only they’re like the little rebuilt Masseys and the Ford 3600s and stuff. But they’re exactly the same type of people, and those people are our new farmers as well.

I was surprised; I never would have—but just the way he said it: “You guys do that too?” So it was a learning experience for me.

Thank you for listening.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): That concludes the time for the opposition.

The floor is now yours, MPP Hsu, for the third party.

Mr. Ted Hsu: I wanted to continue with Mr. Vanthof’s first question about protecting farmland from institutional investors and speculators. Just a really simple question: Do you think that this committee should be considering amendments to Bill 109 to cover that case a little bit more explicitly?

We’ll start with you, Mr. MacGillivray.

Mr. Michael MacGillivray: I do think that there should be some amendments with respect to that. I do believe it’s a bigger problem than people recognize, and if you get out in the communities and start talking with folks—again, I do want to say thank you to the committee for coming here. It is great to see. Ontario doesn’t end at Kingston, you know? There is a whole other region down here.

But I do think that that is something that does need to be addressed. It has to be cautiously addressed, but it does need to be addressed.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Thanks.

Do you want to add any more?

Mr. Don Badour: Yes, I would say—I’m not knowledgeable enough to know if it needs to be amended or not, but certainly it should be looked at and given some consideration.

Mr. John Wynands: To earlier comments, I mean the primary producers need to be considered in legislation and in the path forward. I think the federation has done a bit more work on this than DFO so they’ve led on this.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Right. Thanks very much.

I wanted to get to Mr. MacGillivray’s point number 3 for food independence in the long term, which is—and you talked about premium markets. I wanted to ask about the distribution of food from local farms to local people. I’m wondering if you might want to comment about the need for a regional food hub—like the Food Terminal in Toronto but in eastern Ontario—and how that might help get the specialty products, the premium products, of smaller farms in eastern Ontario in front of consumers.

There’s this great supermarket in Kemptville, as a good example, but it’s just one little thing. It’s not a system. I was wondering if any of you might want to comment on that.

Mr. Michael MacGillivray: We’re a direct-to-consumer farm. We do a lot of our marketing ourselves. Would there be some advantage to having regional systems? Absolutely. There are other producers that don’t want to go down the road that we’ve gone down with the direct-to-consumer aspect, so having regional food hubs would assist them. It could also incorporate processing, or secondary processing at least.

It is something that has been explored. There are a lot of challenges with respect to that. Some of it, from a secondary processing or value-added processing—there are some limitations with respect to regulations around the health units as well as some of the challenges with respect to creating free-standing meat plants and those sorts of things. But yes, there is a demand and there is a need for more regionalized food systems. Again, from a resiliency point of view, it’s something that’s critical.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Okay.

I don’t know if either of you wanted to answer anything or add anything; otherwise I’ll comment.

Mr. Don Badour: I really don’t have much to add. I agree with Mike; I certainly think there is a place for them, but there are definitely challenges associated with that, of getting local food hubs up and running and getting everybody on board and on the same page.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Okay. Mr. Badour, I was wondering if you could take a minute—when I visited your farm, you told me about how beef farmers in eastern Ontario actually might even take advantage of pasture land in northeastern Ontario. So I was wondering if you could just—because that might come as a surprise to some people in eastern Ontario, that you would bring your cattle up there.

Mr. Don Badour: Oh, with our collars?

Mr. Ted Hsu: Well, just generally that some farmers might be shipping their cattle to northeastern Ontario, to the pasture land there.

Mr. Don Badour: Yes. There is, like John mentioned, a shortage of pasture in eastern Ontario. I just live outside the town of Perth, and we’re finding there has been a shortage the last 15 years or so. And really noticeably, since COVID, what we have found is a lot of people that lived in downtown Ottawa—we’re 45 minutes from Kanata—during COVID, sold their house in Kanata, moved out, bought a 100-acre farm and let it go back to nature—no cattle, no crops on it. So pasture is definitely an issue in our area, and yes, talking with different producers, if they would be willing to ship cattle to northern Ontario to pasture if there was land there available—because basically—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Mr. Don Badour: —once cattle are on a truck, it doesn’t matter where they go. So it’s easier to take the cattle to grass than try to turn expensive land around home, around eastern Ontario, into pasture.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Okay, great.

How much time do I have, Chair?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): You have 40 seconds.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Forty seconds—quick, to Mr. MacGillivray: You have a mixed farm and you do regenerative organic. When you talk about growing farmers, what’s needed to grow more farmers like you?

Mr. Michael MacGillivray: A lot of the educational aspect, we’ve done it basically learning as you go, and that has been fairly expensive sometimes. Creating educational opportunities within regenerative organic is definitely—Quebec has done a better job of this. They actually have programs that are specific to organic, but regenerative is something that is fairly new. You’ll see our neighbours to the south are paying a lot more attention to regenerative agriculture than we are in Canada. It’s starting to gain some momentum here, but—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): And that concludes this round. Thank you to the presenters for being here.

Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Zone 11 Ms. Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow Mr. Ian Porteous

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): We’ll call up our next round of presenters. That’s Clint Cameron of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Zone 11; Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow; and Ian Porteous. Come on up front. We’re glad to have you here.

1100

I will now call on Clint Cameron of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Zone 11, Frontenac, Leeds, Grenville and Dundas. You’ll have seven minutes for your presentation. Please state your name for Hansard and you may begin.

Mr. Clint Cameron: Good morning, everyone. Good morning to your Chair and committee members around the table—lots of familiar faces. It’s a privilege and an honour to be invited here today and to participate—I’d like to kick off by saying that.

My name is Clint Cameron. I come from Edwardsburgh/Cardinal township, where Mr. Wynands is from—neighbours, so to speak. We farm down there. My family has been there for many generations. I’m currently a zone director with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, today speaking on behalf of Bill 109, and we’ll kick it off with that.

My zone, by the way, goes from Ted Hsu’s area up in Frontenac. I do Leeds, I do Grenville, and I go all the way east to Dundas and take in a little bit of John Jordan’s territory as well.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill 109, in particular the proposed Farmland Security Act. My focus today will be on schedule 3 of that, predominately. I’ll kick off with saying Ontario farmers agree with the objective behind this legislation. Protecting our farmland is fundamental to the protection of our food system. Every acre that remains available for agriculture strengthens our ability to produce food here, provides food sovereignty and supports the long-term future of our rural communities.

We did a submission to the province back on May 22 that supports that. I have it for reference later.

At the same time, protecting farmland should not come at the expense of farmers who need to buy-in, finance or pass it on to the next generation. The legislation needs to distinguish between speculative investment and the legitimate investment that keeps Ontario agriculture producing and competitive.

One of the biggest challenges facing our sector today is the affordability of farmland. For many young farmers, new entrants and existing farms that look to expand, land prices have reached a point where they no longer reflect what land can be earned or paid back during a short or reasonable period of time.

OFA’s own survey found that more than four out of five respondents believe farmland prices are too high relative to farm income. Among farmers under 35 years of age in particular, every respondent shared that concern. Bill 109 has the potential to address part of that challenge by discouraging speculative foreign landownership or investment before it becomes a bigger issue, which I heard earlier. However, we also know that foreign ownership has represented only a very small percentage of the farmland transactions in Ontario, and that tells us that legislation should be viewed as a preventative measure, not a reaction.

As the government develops regulations, the focus should remain on preventing speculation while ensuring that productive agricultural investment continues to flow to Ontario’s agriculture and farm sector.

Agriculture requires long-term, significant investments in land, equipment, buildings, technology and environmental improvements. Those investments create jobs, strengthen our economy and improve our competitiveness both here and abroad. This legislation should continue to support that type of investment.

For that reason, OFA supports the proposed approval process that allows restricted purchases to seek ministerial permission instead of imposing an outright prohibition. Similar approaches have been used elsewhere to screen investments while allowing projects that provide a clear agricultural benefit to move forward. Quebec and New Zealand would be a couple of examples that were included in our previous submission.

Another important consideration is recognizing who today’s farmers actually are. Ontario agriculture has been strengthened by generations of newcomers—many Dutch, as it was noted earlier—who have built successful farm businesses, contributing to rural economies in-country and our country as a whole, and helped address labour shortages across our sector.

As this legislation is implemented, it will be important that permanent residents and immigrants who are establishing their lives and businesses in Ontario are not unintentionally captured by rules that are intended to address speculative foreign investment. The objective should also encourage young people in Ontario who want to farm, not discourage them.

Bill 109 must also recognize the way a modern farm business is structured. Many of our farm families now operate through corporations for legitimate business reasons, including succession planning, financing and liability management. In many cases, one corporation of the farm holds the farm itself—maybe assets—while the other holds title to the farmland. Those structures do not change who owns or controls the farm.

For that reason, OFA believes the regulations should recognize beneficial ownership, rather than relying solely on the registered name or structure. If individuals who ultimately own and control the farming operation are Canadian citizens or permanent residents, they should be treated accordingly, regardless of how their business is organized. Ontario farmers have already experienced situations where corporate structures have unintentionally affected our eligibility for agricultural programs. We should avoid creating similar unintended consequences through this legislation.

Closely related to succession planning, farm transfers often involve corporations, trusts, partnerships and other legal arrangements that help families transition their operations from one generation to the next. Those are normal farm practices and business practices, not attempts to avoid any taxation or legislation. The regulations should provide certainty that legitimate succession planning and farm restructuring can proceed without unnecessary barriers or delays or red tape.

Finally, I would like to comment on implementation. We understand that the government will require information to administer the new framework. That said, compliance requirements should be straightforward and practical. Farmers should not face additional administrative burdens when transferring land within a family or between a Canadian family-farm-owned business. Clear guidance, simple reporting requirements and predictable approval-process timelines will help the legislation achieve the objectives without creating unnecessary costs for producers.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Mr. Clint Cameron: One minute; thank you. I got it. We’ll be there.

Whatever the administrative structure, farmers must continue to have access to timely, affordable processes and recognize the legitimacy of agricultural practices that resolve disputes efficiently.

In closing, OFA supports the intended Bill 109. As regulations are developed, we encourage the government to focus on four priorities:

—clearly distinguishing speculative investment from productive agricultural investment;

—recognizing beneficial ownership in modern farm businesses;

—protecting legitimate succession planning and Canadian farm operations;

—and finally, keeping compliance requirements simple, transparent and practical.

If we get those elements right, Bill 109 can strengthen Ontario’s food independence and support the farmers who will make our food independence and our food sovereignty possible well into the future. Thank you very much.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Thank you very, very much.

Just a note to presenters and members: We have some ambient noise, so, if you can, speak into the mike as much as you can.

We will now move on to Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow. You will have seven minutes for your presentation. Please state your name for Hansard, and you may begin.

Ms. Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow: My friend right here, we are both doing the same concerns in farmland safety. Hopefully it’s a little different. You don’t have to hear the same thing over again.

But good morning, Chair and members. I want to thank you for letting me, Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow, a farmer from Beckwith township in Lanark county, where my husband and I operate a beef and crop farm and a horse-boarding facility. I am also a professor in the Algonquin College agricultural business diploma course, and I am a director of Lanark, Renfrew, Ottawa and Arnprior with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. But I assure you, I am speaking today solely on my own.

I want to thank you again to speak on Bill 109, Protecting Ontario’s Food Independence Act. My comments focus on schedule 3, the proposed Farmland Security Act, with supporting context from other schedules.

There is a need for balance. Ontario farmers support the goal of protecting Ontario food systems and preserving farmland. We want productive farmland to stay in production, farm access to markets and capital, strong protection against non-payments, and a viable future for the next generation. I feel the challenge before this committee is finding the right balance: Prevent speculative investment in farmland without making it harder for legitimate farmers to buy, operate, expand or transfer a farm.

Farm affordability and investment: farmland prices are a serious concern. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture found that over 80% of their members surveyed believe farm prices are too high relative to farm income. Among farmers under 35, the number was 100%.

Foreign ownership is not currently a major driver of farmland prices. As the OFA has noted, there were 147 foreign-involved transactions in 2018 and 138 in 2019 compared to 5,035 and 16,230 total transactions for the same years.

1110

But Bill 109 is forward-looking; it aims to prevent future speculative pressure. Agriculture is capital-intensive. Farmers need access to land, infrastructure, equipment and technology. The legislation must target speculation, not productive agricultural investment.

Key features of schedule 3 include a ban on designated foreign persons acquiring farmland; mandatory disclosure of farmland transfers; authority for registrars to refuse registration without the required information; a permission pathway for exemptions; compliance tools, including inspectors, warrants and offences. I support the goal, but the design detail will determine whether this protects farmland without harming legitimate farm operations.

OFA’s submission did highlight several essential points: Track provincial ownership and look through corporate layers, protect foreign-born individuals who intend to reside in Ontario and actively farm, avoid new red tape for domestic farm transfers and provide clear guidelines and fast timelines for exemption. These recommendations reinforce the need for clarity, fairness and practicality.

New Canadians and modern farm structures: New Canadians have helped build Ontario agriculture. They bring skills, innovation, entrepreneurship at a time when the sector faces labour shortages. The legislation must distinguish speculative investment from legitimate participation by immigrants and permanent residents who want to farm.

Modern farm families also rely on complex structures—corporations, companies, partnerships and trusts—for financing, liability management and succession. Approximately 25% of Ontario farmers are incorporated. These structures do not imply foreign control, but Bill 109 must recognize beneficial ownership and avoid repeating the rigid definitions that have already caused problems under the Farm Property Class Tax Rate Program.

Succession planning is essential in keeping farms operating across generations. Bill 109 must provide clear expectations for domestic succession and avoid unintentionally complicating ordinary farm transfers. Farm families need certainty, and they can transfer their land and businesses without triggering foreign ownership restrictions.

If Ontario is going to screen farmland purchases, compliance must be simple, transparent and predictable. Farmers need to clearly understand what information is required, who must provide it, when it must be provided, how long approval will take and how corporate structures will be assessed. Farmland protection should not create unnecessary administrative burdens.

Beyond ownership, food independence is not only about who owns the land, it’s about whether farmers can afford to remain on it. Ontario must support access to capital, young and new farmers, expanding farmers, new Canadians entering agriculture and stable succession. Protecting farmland is essential, but protecting farmers is equally important.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Ms. Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow: Briefly, I want to acknowledge several other schedules.

Schedule 2: Dissolving the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board raises concerns about loss of agricultural expertise. Any panel hearing these disputes must include adjudication with farm experience.

Schedules 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9: These modernize making rules, food safety oversight, tribunal structure, nonpayment protection and veterinary practice flexibility. Changes generally align with producer recommendations.

In conclusion, Ontario farmers support the objectives of protecting farm food systems and farmland, but legislation must strike the right balance. It should prevent speculative foreign investment, maintain access to legitimate agricultural capital, recognize modern farm structures and benefit ownership.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Thank you very, very much.

We will now move to Ian Porteous. You’ll have seven minutes for your presentation. Please state your name for Hansard, and you may begin.

Mr. Ian Porteous: Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak regarding Bill 109 and the proposed progressive penalty program, or PPP.

My name is Ian Porteous. I’m a fifth-generation dairy producer at Ayrporte Farms in Winchester, Ontario, where, along with my wife, we are raising the sixth generation on our 140-year-old family farm. Beyond daily milking, I have served five years on our local milk committee, including three years as chair. I’m also a past president of Ayrshire Ontario, a 4-H leader, and all three of our children are pursuing university degrees connected directly to agriculture.

We do not oppose high standards. We have survived for over a century by adapting to them. Every producer must be accountable; however, my concern is whether this new penalty program DFO is proposing actually improves milk quality, or is it simply adding significant costs, administration and unviable penalties, without demonstrating any measurable benefit?

History demonstrates clearly that primary producers utilize information, not punitive penalty systems, to achieve elite milk quality. When Ontario transitioned to mandatory every pickup testing in 2018, dairy boards provided producers with highly detailed, uninterrupted stream of farm gate data. Armed with that daily information, producers immediately went to work without top-down financial coercion. Producers voluntarily restructured herd issues, overhauled wash systems and isolated health flare-ups dynamically. The steepest, most sustained improvement in milk quality in our province’s history occurred immediately following that 2018 data rollout, as per my graph, appendix A. Fines did not drive that historic progress; data did. The current system is already working.

If Dairy Farmers of Ontario want to tweak it, they’d simply need to change the rolling track time frame from three months to six months. Instead, the proposal pushes this tracking window to 12 months. A 12-month window is fundamentally unfair and creates a way too long penalty situation for a family farm to survive. Ontario is rushing blindly into this multi-million-dollar trap, while other provinces have looked at the program itself and actively put the brakes on.

The British Columbia Milk Marketing Board has officially held off implementing this program. BC refused to adopt it because they recognize that compounding 12-month progressive strike structure is fundamentally flawed and inherently unfair to primary producers. Yet, Ontario is ready to bleed over $2 million per year from our sector on a penalty structure that the province of BC has openly rejected as unviable risk to farm survival.

Let me be clear: We do oppose licence suspensions for chronic bad producers. What we oppose and what the current issue is on the ground is having no definite date or protocol for reinstatement. When a producer is suspended from shipping milk, the consequences are immediate and severe. The producer continues to care for living animals, maintain facilities, the heavy financial responsibilities of operating a farm, but lose 100% of their income. For a family dairy farm, a prolonged suspension is an immediate threat to long-term viability of the operation.

If stronger enforcement measures are introduced, producers must have a clear, defined process for returning to compliance. We need clear timelines for reinstatement decisions, but we also need strict DFO accountability if those timelines are not met by the board. A producer should not be left in regulatory limbo, losing thousands of dollars a day, while administrative wheels turn slowly without any consequences for the regulator. We need transparency regarding required corrective actions and a fast independent appeal process.

Family farms already operate in a highly regulated, complex environment. Modern dairy infrastructure depends heavily on automated milking and wash systems. Cows are living animals managed by living human beings, not factory components. A sudden weather shift or a temporary mechanical glitch can cause a short-term sampling variance, as has been identified by the every-pickup-testing program.

1120

Furthermore, we must acknowledge the technical limits of the science itself. These milk tests are only 95% accurate, yet the penalty program treats the 5% margin of error of basic livestock realities like an intentional manufacturing defect. When equipment fails or an inaccurate test occurs, the operator faces an unfair dual financial burden. The producer carries 100% of the financial risk for variables completely beyond their control, facing immediate financial penalties on their milk check, while simultaneously paying premium rates for expert technical services that are frequently incorrect on the first visit.

To fix this regulatory imbalance, I respectfully request the committee adopt five specific changes:

—establish clear timelines and procedures for producer reinstatement following suspension;

—enforce strict DFO accountability if the board misses its decision-making milestones;

—create an independent and transparent appeal process that accounts for natural livestock fluctuations, equipment-sampling variances and the 5% margin of test inaccuracy;

—shorten the tracking time frame, limiting any rolling penalty structures to a maximum of six months, rather than an unviable 12-month penalty situation;

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Mr. Ian Porteous: —provide total transparency regarding the program’s operational costs, fines collected and measurable benefits to justify its multi-million-dollar drain;

—account for equipment failure margins, ensuring that short-term sampling variances caused by technical glitches do not trigger immediate penalties or suspensions while producers await high-cost diagnostic services.

If Bill 109 aims to protect Ontario’s food independence, it must protect our family farms first. True food independence requires viable surviving operations. Our agricultural success cannot be measured by how many strict regulations we write, but whether family farms can actually survive under them.

I want to ensure that the sixth generation and beyond at Ayrporte Farms has the same opportunity to continue producing safe, high-quality food in Ontario. Strong standards are important, but they must include fairness, transparency and common sense.

Thank you for your time.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Thank you very much.

We will now start our questions with the official opposition. MPP Vanthof, the floor is yours.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you very much to all three presenters for taking the time to come and for offering your views. If I may call you by your first names, it’s much easier for me. Thank you.

I’d like to start with Clint. You focused on the part of the bill regarding foreign investment. The foreign investment has been described as a danger to food sovereignty, but in your opinion, is it just foreign investment or is it also domestic institutional investment? Because there’s a difference between farmers buying land, expanding their holdings, bringing people into the farm, or a hedge fund buying land strictly for speculative purposes. That hedge fund may or may not be foreign. This is happening now.

This would be for Andrea as well. Do you think that domestic speculative investment is as dangerous for food security as foreign investment would be? Clint first.

Mr. Clint Cameron: Thank you, John, and you’re welcome to call me by my first name any time.

You asked me to give you my personal opinion and my personal opinion is not really what I’m here to represent today. I’m here to represent the OFA, so I’m going to speak on behalf of the OFA.

I will say that capitalism determines the market price for land. Even though we may have objections or restrictions on capitalism in certain places, it’s the most perfect imperfect system I think we have. The ownership issue is always better when it’s owned locally by individuals who have skin in the game or who want to turn it into something productive. If it’s foreign ownership but it’s a naturalized Canadian or if it’s a local farm owner, that’s obviously a preferable situation.

However, in situations where there has been speculative land, I can say—in my area as well—that land, even though it’s owned by institutions, is often farmed by local farmers. I think the greatest risk would be to have agricultural land taken out of agricultural purposes by individuals who are not buying it for that purpose. I think that’s the biggest risk to food sovereignty in our province and to agriculture across the board.

The ownership that I’ve experienced is land that was sold for profit by farmers to individuals who were—Ontario teachers’ pension fund, for one example. But that land has all been rented back to farmers who are using it for productive purposes, and I would say that that’s probably the best outcome that we could hope for, given the system that we work within.

Foreign ownership is not an extremely large percentage of what we understand to be our ownership stake or who is buying land in our country.

Ms. Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow: I agree wholeheartedly with Clint, but what I’ll add is that it’s not necessarily foreign investment that is currently a major driver of farmland prices; it is the real pressure of domestic competition, development pressure and the gap between land prices and farm income. I set the example of friends who talk to me in northern Ontario where there is a lot of uncleared land that speculators will buy, will clear and then hold on to it until they can raise the prices again. So to me, it’s affordability; that foreign investors, if they’re investing in farms—like new immigrants, new Canadians—in a sense they are foreign investors coming to Canada to settle in and to farm. I think it’s the purpose of what they’re going to use that land for and I think it’s that domestic pressure that really will affect how farmland prices go up, why we have to turn good agricultural farmland into a subdivision, why a village or community—the city of Ottawa is talking about moving its urban boundaries. Well, that’s going to affect farmland. It’s going to affect farmland because 80% of Ottawa is rural farming land and only 20% is urban. So, on those speculations, that’s where I put my emphasis on.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you for both those questions. I’m going to ask something on both of your answers.

Andrea, you mentioned in northern Ontario speculators buy land and clear it. Actually, in some cases, one hedge fund will sell to another hedge fund to recoup, right? Now, at this very moment, the government, rightfully so, is contemplating how to disperse crown land for agriculture. In your opinion, and yours too—in the OFA’s opinion, and if they don’t have an opinion, that’s fine—should speculators have access to crown land before farmers?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Ms. Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow: That’s a good question because again, speculation—if it has nothing to do with agriculture, no. If it’s looking at improving—actually speculating farmland—I don’t know if this will ever happen—but for farmers to actually farm, like a community property of something like that, fine. But I really think you have to pay attention to Canadian farmers first, and that does involve, as I said here, a lot a foreign immigration. A lot of new immigrant Canadians want to farm. A pie-in-the-sky idea is when speculators want to buy farmland, look at those new Canadians, or look at young farmers who can’t afford—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): That concludes the time of the official opposition.

We’ll move on to the third party. MPP Hsu, the floor is yours.

Mr. Ted Hsu: I would like to continue this line of questioning. It just seems like—and I want to thank you for coming here today to articulate some of the details of ownership limits of farmland.

I’m just wondering, based on what you said today, do you think that this committee should be considering some amendments to Bill 109 in order to just clarify and provide some of the details that you mentioned today? Do you think the bill needs amendments or can we do everything in regulation outside of Parliament? Either of you—

Ms. Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow: I believe that Bill 109, schedule 3, is addressing some of that, so I’d like to see how it’s implemented before answering something specific. Personally, of course I’d like to see amendments that say, “Farmland for farmers,” but that’s not realistic—lots of land out there for lots of use and opportunities. I just feel it should more take into consideration agriculture as a whole.

1130

Mr. Ted Hsu: And the OFA?

Mr. Clint Cameron: Yes. Thank you, Ted.

I’m just going to jump back a quick minute to what John said earlier. Not to be disrespectful, but I’d like to commend the province of Ontario for opening up farmland in the north, first and foremost. The ownership question is a very good question, but to have some of that resource land opened up and available to agriculture—however it transitions into agricultural land—I think is a real win for the province. The OFA recognizes that the large growth potential for agriculture in this province lies to our north because of land prices and land availability. We’re not getting any more of it, but we can utilize better some of the land that’s sitting up there.

With regards to the amendments, Ted: We haven’t called for any amendments officially at this point in time. Respectfully, we support Bill 109 as it currently sits, so I have no further comment on that question.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Okay. That’s fine. Thank you very much.

Mr. Clint Cameron: Thank you.

Mr. Ted Hsu: We’ll go to Mr. Porteous—about your remarks. Based on the recommendations—and thank you for giving us a written submission as well—do you have any recommendations or amendments that you think the committee should consider when it comes to Bill 109? And just keep in mind that, once this bill is passed, that’s it; the legislators can’t do anything, and it’s all up to regulations, so you can’t affect the implementation at all—at least, we can’t as legislators. But are there any particular amendments that you’d like to see brought forward by this committee, after these hearings are over, to be debated? Or would you just want to leave it all to regulations?

Mr. Ian Porteous: My biggest concern is there are no ramifications for DFO policy. Currently, there are four producers in the province. One was suspended in January and still hasn’t been reinstated for milk production. The other one—they’re pushing over two years. They’ve been fighting.

The latest one—that was in January. Everything is ready for approval. They have to come in and inspect the place and let them do it, but they went to the tribunal at the end of January. It got readdressed to April, and they’re having another hearing this week. So the DFO can drag their feet, because it doesn’t cost them any money.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Okay, thanks. We’ll certainly look at that and see if the bill itself could mention that or not, without specifying what the regulation is.

I’d like to ask, Mr. Cameron, if the OFA, based on its own experience with its members—whether you think that our system of tracing beneficial ownership is good enough to figure out who exactly is the beneficial owner? Because in Canada, we have a history—a very poor history—in that respect, and it’s only gotten better in recent years. Some of these structures can be very complicated. Some are legitimate; others are just set up to hide things. I’m just wondering if the OFA—looking at farms belonging to its members or, in the past, belonged to its members—feels confident. Because when I got a technical briefing on this bill, they couldn’t guarantee 100% that they could really trace the beneficial ownership. Do you have any thoughts on that?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Mr. Clint Cameron: With regards to the ownership, I think it’s a very difficult thing to prove chain of ownership. We spoke in my brief as well about corporate ownership.

I think there needs to be some due diligence done there in all fairness, Ted, with regards to the ownership. I think, when the review is up, when there is a call for ministerial permission or a pathway for ownership, it needs to have individuals involved in the decision-making that have grounded experience and have not just a litigation background or an administrative background. I’m not familiar with any evidence that that is a significant issue at the present time, to answer your question as well, but I do think there needs to be due diligence done in that area and I think that anything going forward needs to have that. As I referenced earlier, there are institutions or systems in place such as the one in Quebec, such as the one in New Zealand—which we’ve highlighted in our brief submission as well—that could be put in place to track and monitor that more closely. Hopefully, that has addressed your question.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Thank you. And again, thank you for the—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): That concludes the time for the third party. I’ll move now to the government’s side. MPP Clark, the floor is yours.

Hon. Steve Clark: Thanks, Chair, through you to our three presenters.

Ian, thanks for your presentation. It’s always good to get different perspectives from different producers in the province.

Andrea, thanks for your efforts both in Beckwith and Lanark county, in zone 8, with OFA.

I’m going to talk to the home team. Clint is my OFA rep for zone 11 and I know he is very active in the riding, in Edwardsburgh/Cardinal. I’m going to talk to you in your capacity as being on the Port of Johnstown board and your experience with that. The Port of Johnstown, when it was expanded under Canada’s action plan, got tremendous support all over eastern Ontario and I think that was the strength in improving that infrastructure. It took sort of a field of dreams—if they build it, they will come, and I think you’ve proven as a board member that that’s going to happen.

My question is, given your experience with the Port of Johnstown, how important is it that we protect farmland and support infrastructure—whether it be big infrastructure like the port or other pieces of infrastructure—to really give an opportunity for the eastern Ontario agriculture sector to grow? So, I would really be interested in your perspective on that.

Mr. Clint Cameron: Thank you, Steve; I appreciate that. A bit of a changeup with the Port of Johnstown spend—so, full disclosure, I stood on the Port of Johnstown advisory management committee as well, so thank you.

With regard to the Port of Johnstown, it was originally built 137 years ago for grain distribution as a head point for the St. Lawrence Seaway, mitigating around rapids. Right now, it is very well used for grain and storage and is critical to the local agricultural commodities and community. We would not survive without having that in our area. It is not only a storage and breakpoint for international shipping and North American shipping, it is also a critical storage facility for two significant employers in our area, being Greenfield ethanol and Ingredion. For those who won’t know, Greenfield makes ethanol fuel and Ingredion is a fructose, starch, corn oil producer in Cardinal—been around since 1858 or 1853, I believe.

The Port of Johnstown also provides a stevedore facility, not just for agriculture but for other commodities as well. It’s massively underutilized, it has a tremendous amount of upside potential, and if we could ever get the federal government to work with us a little bit more to clear customs at the Port of Johnstown on a regular basis, we could also eliminate a lot of carbon and a lot of transportation requirements on the 401.

It’s a bit of a side spin, but we recently did that—I recommended that as an amendment to food competitiveness in the province of Ontario. So, if you want to reduce costs, it would be really nice to be able to not just have everything that comes in internationally come through the port of Montreal, but if it’s containerized, if it can be offloaded to the Port of Johnstown—maybe Hamilton, Oakville—there are other ports along Highway H₂O as well—that would be a huge benefit, not just to agriculture but to food sustainability and the price of food across the province. And it would take a heck of a load off 401. Most of the trucks running up and down are containers coming out or going back to the east.

Hon. Steve Clark: Thanks.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): MPP Jordan, the floor is yours.

Mr. John Jordan: I’m going to direct my question to Andrea. I want to start by thanking Andrea for coming and for your work with the OFA. I don’t think I’ve been in an agricultural event in Lanark county that you haven’t been there, so thanks for that work; I appreciate it.

A lot of the conversation of Bill 109 is about protecting our farming and growing our farming industry and our Grow Ontario Strategy. In the previous panel, the question about education came up and having farmers. Farmland is one thing, but the farmers themselves is another thing, so I’m going to diverge a bit to that.

Given your experience with Algonquin College and their agricultural program, what changes do you think we should make here in eastern Ontario relative to preparing young farmers for the future?

1140

Ms. Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow: Well, thank you, John, for your kind comments and question. Education is exceptionally important to me. And yes, I do teach in the business agricultural program at Algonquin, where I can honestly say that our student population and the cohorts that graduate for that program—and I’m a little biased about eastern Ontario, but we have no issue with people being educated as to what to do with farming. Most of them are—I learn from them every day. I think of when I was 20 years old, what I knew, and what they know.

For the younger generation, I think Ontario offers a lot of education right across the province. For those new Canadians who join our programs or for older farmers who have joined programs, there needs to be what I would call side seminars, a possibility where—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Ms. Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow: I’m sorry?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Just one minute left.

Ms. Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow: Oh.

Education should be open to everyone, and if you’re a farmer, OFA does webinars on different things; other organizations do webinars and other things—if it could be free and if it could be done at time when you’re not out in the field or if it could be done so that you’re in the fields, you’re learning as you go.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): You’ve got 30 seconds, MPP Jordan, if you want to use them.

Mr. John Jordan: Okay. Yes. Thanks very much.

Going back to farming itself and the young people that you encounter, I’m going to assume—I’m not in your role, of course, but I’m going to assume that a lot of them are working within the farming community at the same time as they’re pursuing their education. Is there anything specific that Algonquin or other institutions—Guelph, in particular—do you think could expand or include to help us achieve our goals of growing Ontario—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): With that, we’ll have to save it for the next round.

We’ll now move to the official opposition. MPP Vanthof, the floor is yours.

Mr. John Vanthof: Chair, through you, I’d like to go back to Clint—and Andrea, but first Clint—to commend the OFA, because I don’t think there has been a general farm organization, agricultural organization, that has been as vocal on protecting farmland as the OFA has been, through history.

In your previous answers regarding who owns the farmland: Regardless of who owns the farmland, should more emphasis be put on that the farmland be protected itself? Because in some cases, whether I own it or the teachers’ pension fund owns it or someone else owns it, it depends how it’s protected. Would you care to comment on that?

Mr. Clint Cameron: Thank you for that, John. I think there are a number of people around the table who understand the lengths that the OFA has gone to to preserve and protect farmland across our province. It is one of our key priorities and our coveted mission statement items. We only have roughly 4% of the province of Ontario that’s usable or suitable for agricultural purposes, and if we continue to lose it, we’re not going to get that back. It is always best to see it go for agricultural purposes, to somebody with an agricultural background; I think that’s an unquestionable goal and objective. But we know that we’re going to lose farmland, as well. We recognize that there will be elements of transmission lines, for example, coming through within the next period of time. You look at the IESO projections—we work with them on hydro. We know that we’re going to give up some farmland, so the best that we can hope for in those situations is that we have an open ear and a receptive participant wanting to sit down at the table with us to mitigate the amount of farmland that we lose—(1) mitigate and (2) diminish the amount of prime or most valuable farmland that we lose in any case.

As I said earlier, the opportunity for some livestock producers or crop producers to expand north into your area is a fantastic opportunity. We’ve done that through crop science. We’ve done that through, maybe, a little bit of climate change; I’m not going to say that with absolute certainty. But things are moving a little bit further north. We continue to preserve and support any initiative that increases the amount of workable farmland in our province and to support, as you said, our farm organization: the largest general farm organization in the province with approximately 38,000—almost 39,000—members now. We respect what goes on and we adamantly wish to preserve and protect as much as we can, for the best value.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s not said publicly, but sometimes you wonder if the focus on opening up land in northern Ontario is because we’re losing it so quickly in other parts of the province. I farm in northern Ontario; it’s a great place to farm. But my family comes from Oxford county. It is not Oxford county, okay? It’s not a one-for-one exchange, and I think that that’s something that—and you said it: We need to protect our most valuable production capacity, and that is not all in northern Ontario. Would you agree with that?

Mr. Clint Cameron: Yes, absolutely. When you look at farmland across the province of Ontario, Oxford county is not my soil in Edwardsburgh/Cardinal. We have land classifications. Within the OFA, we have a number of different organizations that are represented as well. We have Christmas tree farmers. We have maple syrup producers. They’re part of agriculture; they’re part of the backbone that drives this province with $51 billion in GDP contribution, 871,000 people employed in food and beverage and ag. So it depends on where you are, you’re right.

When you look at agricultural land on Manitoulin Island and what they’re going to give up—we want to work with organizations to minimize the amount of valuable land or agriculturally significant land that is being lost wherever it’s being lost or wherever it’s going to be given up for some other purpose. You’re right, it’s not a one-for-one, but we are happy to see that the north provides opportunities for many people in livestock and crops now that was not there when I was a boy.

My mom taught at New Liskeard College back in the day—the equine program—and I remember driving up there, and I was shocked at the Clay Belt. I had no idea. It has expanded a lot up there, for many different reasons, and I hope that we continue to expand. Whatever drives agriculture in the province, wherever people can find a viable economic benefit, I hope they continue to do that.

Mr. John Vanthof: Andrea?

Ms. Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow: I believe—and I agree with Clint—that we have to protect farmland. At the same time, there has to be consideration for infrastructure, for roads. There has to be consideration for housing. Rural villages, when they expand, expand onto farmland.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Ms. Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow: Can they expand upwards?

At the same time, agriculture is exceptionally innovative, and the different ways of farming—greenhouse, vertical, whatever you want to call it. What we do is also there. There has to be a balance—there really does—because people need a place to live, and they need inexpensive ones, they do, so we have to balance it.

I am for saving farmland. I look at where I live in Beckwith, and within a four-kilometre radius, there are six subdivisions. The land isn’t pristine, class 1, but we still farmed it, and it’s going. The town of Carleton Place—look at it and how Beckwith and Carleton Place have taken land for their expansion. That was farmland.

It’s a very hard task for politicians to do, but there has to be that balance as well. I’ve never been to northern Ontario—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): That concludes the official oppositions time.

We’ll move on to the third party. MPP Hsu, go ahead.

Mr. Ted Hsu: I’d like to go to one of the remarks—I believe it was you, Andrea—about schedule 2. Schedule 2 takes the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board and then transfers whatever it does into this new Agriculture and Agri-Food Protection Tribunal.

During my technical briefing, I asked the ministry officials, and they told me that all the cases that are currently in process shouldn’t be affected and that all the adjudicator positions were currently filled, so it shouldn’t affect the current cases.

But you mentioned that we might, in the future, risk losing farm experience on the tribunal. I was wondering if you could elaborate on what could go wrong, and how do we monitor your concerns going forward?

Ms. Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow: I think that goes for every board of every agriculture, environmental, climate change organization. I think of conservation authorities. It’s the idea of just having someone on the board who specifically has agricultural experience—not one; maybe two.

1150

I look at the city of Ottawa’s councillors; they have five country councillors to look at the concerns of the constituents. When you look at a board like Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, members should actually be more farm-related, because it’s actually called “farm practices protection board.” It’s up to the government to ensure that that representation is there.

I mean, I look around this table. We have people around this table who have farm experience, but we also have people around this table who are more—rural experience. It’s a great combination. Why is it that this committee is able to do that, but on some boards, they aren’t? I think it’s a question that goes to our members of Parliament and our politicians.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Okay. When the tribunal hears cases, is it just one adjudicator, or is there a group of adjudicators?

Ms. Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow: Honestly, I don’t know the answer to that.

Mr. Ted Hsu: I haven’t looked that up either.

Ms. Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow: Neither did I.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Because if you have single adjudicators, you never know who you’re going to get.

Ms. Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow: That’s right.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Whereas if you have a group of three or so, you could say, “Make sure that one of them has some on-farm experience.”

Ms. Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow: That’s perfect. I like that idea. We could run with that.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Okay, great. Thank you very much.

Let’s see. I wanted to ask about the loss of farmland, and there was a note. I forget who said that, post-COVID, a lot of people in the cities bought small farms and then decided to live on them and let them kind of go back to nature. It just strikes me that we’re probably going to see that in the 2026 census next May, when StatsCan releases its information on agriculture from the 2026 census. It’s scheduled to come out in May, and we’re probably going to see a new number for land that has come out of farming.

I was just wondering if you might want to comment on that, because there’s an oft-quoted figure that we’re losing 300-some acres of farmland every day, but that’s two data points from StatsCan and you don’t know what happened to the land. It could have just become a wooded area or something like that. I’m just wondering if you could comment a bit, just taking advantage—it’s not really directed related to Bill 109, but it’s directly related to this idea of preserving farmland. When that new StatsCan number comes out, what are some of the caveats? I mentioned one, which is: StatsCan is looking at how much land is farmed, not what happened to the land. I’m wondering if you could elaborate on that, anybody.

Mr. Ian Porteous: I could just say, our local village is Ormond, so we’re outside of Winchester. In the last three years, 150 acres—one was a 100-acre farm; one was a 50-acre farm. Both properties we’ve been renting for 45 years. A developer bought the 100-acre farm the year our farm burned, under the caveat of a producer. The other, 50-acre property was bought by a developer, with the proposed subdivision in five years. The 100-acre farm is—well, they can’t find water right now to support the subdivision, so there’s 150 acres in a village of—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Thank you.

I want to re-ask a question that I asked in Timmins. Suppose that crown land were freed up for farming. What would the OFA’s position be on that farmland coming with a farmland trust kind of easement so that it could only ever be farmed? If crown land were sold to a farmer—because many farmers want to be able to buy the land—if that came with a farm easement so it could only be farmed in the future, would the OFA be okay with that, or does it see any problems?

Mr. Clint Cameron: Well, it’s a very interesting question, and I don’t believe that we’ve ever actually broached that question around the table, around the board. I’m not familiar with any specific policies on that one, Ted—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): That concludes the time for the third party.

We’ll move on to the government. MPP Vickers, the floor is yours.

MPP Paul Vickers: My question is to Clint and Andrea. OFA did make a lot of recommendations about exemptions and streamlining the ministerial approval pathways under the Farmland Security Act. So why do you think these practical details matter so much to keep the legislation working for the farmers?

Ms. Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow: I can’t speak for OFA; I’m here speaking on my own. So, specifically for OFA, it would be Clint who answers that.

All I can think of are the words “co-operation,” “transparency,” “clarity,” “make it simple,” “no red tape.” And I get that from Bill 109, that there is actually an attempt to make things simpler and to make things work. So if what is in Bill 109 the way it is now from schedule 1 to schedule 9—then I can see it working. It’s up to our present government to make that happen. Where agriculture is concerned, of course, it’s our minister and his deputy ministers who would also be supporting that. We’re pretty lucky with who we have, really. So that’s how I personally see it.

Clint can answer about OFA.

Mr. Clint Cameron: Thank you for that question. Paul, I’ll just go back to point number 4, when I was saying it earlier, I mean. We want to keep compliance requirements as simple, as transparent and as practical as possible. What you highlighted earlier—I met with Minister Khanjin recently at Queen’s Park—red tape reduction—and that’s really what we’re hoping for. We’re hoping to keep something that’s practical, that’s functional, that is streamlined enough that it doesn’t get bogged down and that has practical applications and representation of agriculture or individuals with agricultural experience involved in the decisions going forward.

I hope that has addressed your question.

MPP Paul Vickers: Yes, and I think I can talk about our side of the table here. I think it’s very important for us to make sure we realize that it needs to keep simple and make sure that it reaches the point very quickly instead of trying to take a long road around, like sometimes governments do. But I think this government has a real focus on keeping it pointed. Thank you for the comments.

Mr. Clint Cameron: Yes, I would concur with that statement. I think there’s a lot of good progress that has been made in the last couple of years, and I think there’s more good progress to be made. Bill 109 is one of the steps positive moving forward. Thank you.

MPP Paul Vickers: Yes, and we agree.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): For the government side, we have three minutes and 40 seconds. MPP Cuzzetto, go ahead.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Thank you to the presenters here today.

My question is for Clint here. You brought up the teachers’ fund buying up farmland. Why do you think they’re doing that, and are you against that?

Mr. Clint Cameron: Well, I guess I have a little bit of skin in the game on that question, because the farmland that was bought up, I have a custom agricultural business and I used to do the land, and when it was sold, it’s no longer under my purview. My business no longer does it.

However, why did they buy it? I think they bought it because they recognized that it was an investment opportunity that was stable, it was solid and it was relatively fluid. There seems to be an appetite for agricultural land, and it seems to be easy to invest in, easy to liquidate if you want to at some point in time in the future. I can’t speak entirely to their aspirations, but I do believe that that’s probably one of the things.

Farmland is coveted as a good investment for whatever purpose. I can say, however, the land that was sold to the teachers’ pension fund down the road from me is still in agricultural purposing, and it’s still being farmed on a regular basis. That’s a fantastic outcome as opposed to what Ian mentioned, where you get a speculator coming and buying up large tracts of land that your family had farmed for many, many years and rented. And then, all of a sudden, it may be gone to residential. I think that’s a much more egregious outcome on the ownership spectrum or the ownership scale.

Hopefully I’ve answered your question. Anything we can do to keep agricultural land in agriculture is a win.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Any further questions from the government side? MPP Vickers, the floor is yours. You have just under two minutes.

MPP Paul Vickers: Oh, lots of time.

You talked about the teachers’ pension funds or families buying the agriculture land. Who do you feel has the best long-term outlook for that land? Do you think it’s more private individuals, or do you think it’s people who either speculate on the market or are part of teachers’ pension funds or foreign ownership?

Mr. Clint Cameron: Well, I think that’s a very easy question to answer. That’s a bit of a chip shot. I think it’s always best when agricultural land is owned by individuals with agricultural interests at their heart, and that’s farmers. That’s farmers, farm families or farm corporations. It doesn’t matter who owns it or what structure they own it under; if it’s within an arm’s-length transaction of being in agriculture, that is the best outcome. Those are the people that have the best interests at heart for that land—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Mr. Clint Cameron: —and also the individuals who are likely to preserve it well into, as Ian mentioned, the sixth generation, hopefully, for their farm, and that’s a win.

MPP Paul Vickers: Okay, thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Thank you very much. That is the conclusion of the morning portion of public hearings. The committee is now recessed until 1 p.m.

The committee recessed from 1201 to 1300.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Good afternoon, everyone. The committee will resume public hearings on Bill 109. The panel presenters will each have seven minutes for their presentation, with the remaining 39 minutes for questions from members of the committee.

Lactalis Canada Mr. Craig McLaughlin Mr. Mel Foster

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): I will now call on Lactalis Canada, represented by Gilles Froment. Please state your name for Hansard, and you may begin.

Mr. Gilles Froment: My name is Gilles Froment. I’m senior vice-president with Lactalis Canada. I want to thank the committee for allowing us to appear before you today regarding Bill 109.

At the outset, I would say that Lactalis Canada supports the objectives of Bill 109. It is clear at that Ontario’s food independence depends on protecting agricultural land, and also—and that’s going to be my message—supporting a very strong domestic food processing sector. In other words, strong farms need strong processors. It’s especially true for dairy, where, as you know, milk is highly perishable. It’s a product that’s produced 24/7 on the farm. I’ll talk more about Lactalis, but we have a very close partnership with Ontario dairy farmers in that sense.

Regarding Lactalis, some of you probably know more of our products than the company most of the time. We are present in more than 90% of the fridges across the country with several iconic brands. It’s a global company headquartered in France. Canada is number three of the group by sales, and we are present, like I said, in more than 50 countries.

In Canada, we employ 4,500 employees. More than half of those employees are in Ontario—more than 2,800 in Ontario. It’s interesting we’re in Smiths Falls because we have a very strong presence in eastern Ontario. Some of the largest cheese plants in the country are found in this region. We have 11 operating sites in Ontario and about 30 across the country when we include R&D, when we include corporate offices, distribution centres and so on.

Our head office is in Toronto, and we have, as I mentioned, a strong presence in eastern Ontario. We have a plant in Mitchell; we have a fluid plant in Brampton, Ontario; we have yogourt plants in Toronto, Niagara-on-the-Lake; and also, importantly, two very important distribution centres, one in Mississauga and one state-of-the-art distribution centre that we just opened about a year and a half ago in Oshawa. It’s the largest in Canada for dairy and it’s the largest of the group in more than 50 countries—so very important.

What I want to talk about is investment. For me, it’s very simple: it’s local milk, local jobs, local value-added processing. That’s what we want.

Our story in Canada—as I mentioned, brands—goes back to 1881 in Balderson Corners, which is about 30 kilometres from here, with Balderson cheese that you probably all know.

We invest majorly, and one of my roles is to make Canada succeed for investment at the group level and attract investment, attract growth, growing our business. When we look at the last number of years, we invested several hundred millions of dollars in capital projects in Ontario in pretty much all our facilities.

One of the latest ones you might have seen in the media was the opening of a new receiving bay in Winchester, Ontario, which is the largest cheese plant in the country. We invested $16.4 million, and that’s going to allow us, at term, to receive probably a little more than two million litres a day more of milk in that facility that already processes about five or six million a day. And I mentioned the brands: Balderson, Black Diamond, Cracker Barrel, Lactantia, Président, Galbani, Iögo and Astro in yogourt and so on.

So these investments, along with the distribution centre I mentioned earlier, truly demonstrate the long-term confidence of our company in Canada, but mostly in Ontario, because that’s where we have most of our footprint. And we do that to modernize our facility, to expand capacity, to expand distribution, but also to support local jobs and increase value added. We’re not alone, but dairy is often a rural activity—certainly at the farm level, but at the processing level as well—and it’s important that we stay close to where the milk is produced.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Mr. Gilles Froment: So I’ll turn to Bill 109 more specifically. As I mentioned at the outset, we support the objectives: protecting farmland, strengthening food security and food systems. We want to make sure that not only do we protect farmland, but we also ensure that locally produced milk can be processed here in Ontario into products that the consumer is looking for and needs every day. For us, processing capacity is a strategic food system asset and continues to require investment to create a stable, transparent and coordinated environment.

On the Milk Act regulation on end-use pricing, my advice would be that you remain transparent, clear, equitable and enforceable. I think that’s very important. We would also like to make sure that, when there’s a regulation put at some point in Ontario, it be coordinated with the other provinces so that we don’t put processors in Ontario at a disadvantage.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Thank you very much.

We’ll move on to Craig McLaughlin. Please state your name for Hansard, and you may begin.

Mr. Craig McLaughlin: Good afternoon. My name is Craig McLaughlin. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to allow me to appear before you today.

As mentioned, my name is Craig McLaughlin. I am a beef farmer from Foresters Falls—population: 125—and due to a recent expansion at our library, we have gone from 10 to 20 books.

I must mention that I am the past president of the Beef Farmers of Ontario, and I am here today to share my perspective as a livestock farmer. Overall, I support Bill 109 and its focus on strengthening Ontario agriculture.

I would like to concentrate my remarks on veterinary capacity, an issue that directly affects the health and welfare of livestock, the well-being of farmers and the long-term viability of farm businesses across rural Ontario.

Access to timely large-animal veterinary care is a growing challenge for beef farmers in eastern Ontario, as in many rural, northern communities. Producers may face long travel distance, limited after-hours coverage and difficulty securing timely assistance during emergencies. When an animal is sick, injured or experiencing a difficult birth, waiting many hours for veterinary care can have a serious outcome.

The shortage also places significant pressures on the veterinarians who are now serving our communities. Many cover large geographic areas, work long and unpredictable hours and are expected to respond to emergencies while maintaining their regular practices. We need to strengthen the entire veterinary system so these professionals can continue providing essential services without becoming overwhelmed.

The proposed changes to the Veterinary Professionals Act can help by allowing registered veterinarian technicians to contribute more fully to animal care. With appropriate training, oversight and clear, defined responsibility, registered veterinarian technicians can support veterinarians and help improve the availability of services in rural communities. Making better use of their skills will allow veterinarians to focus on the cases and procedures that require their specific expertise.

However, the legislation will only be as effective as the regulations that will follow. Large-animal medicine is very different from companion-animal practice. Veterinarian care on beef farms often takes place in barns, pastures or handling facilities, sometimes in difficult weather and far from a clinic. The regulatory framework needs to reflect these realities and provide the flexibility required to deliver safe, practical and timely care.

1310

I encourage the government to continue consulting directly with livestock farmers, large-animal veterinarians and registered veterinary technicians as these regulations are developed. The goal should be a team-based approach that expands access to care while maintaining strong standards for animal health and welfare.

Expanding the role of registered veterinary technicians is an important step, but it cannot be the only step. Ontario also needs to continue building its large-animal veterinarian workforce by recruiting and training more students from rural communities, creating opportunities for them to learn and practise in underserved regions, and supporting the veterinarians who are already working there. We need both immediate solutions and a long-term plan for veterinary capacity.

I would also, at this time, like to briefly address the other components of Bill 109. As a beef farmer, I support a fair and consistent approach to license fee collection under the Beef Cattle Marketing Act. The proposed amendments recognize that cattle are marketed in different ways while preserving an appropriate exemption for animal processing for personal use. A clear and equitable system benefits producers and the broader industry.

I also support the efforts to protect Ontario farmland and keep it in agricultural production. Farmland, as we know, is limited—an irreplaceable resource. Measures that can help prevent this loss and limit inappropriate foreign acquisition will support domestic food production and Ontario’s long-term food security.

Improving agricultural access to crown land is also important. Yes, I do farm in eastern Ontario, but I recognize, as past president of Beef Farmers of Ontario, the opportunity northern Ontario offers for responsible agriculture development. Streamlining approvals and reducing unnecessary administrative barriers could help farmers invest, expand food production and contribute to the economies of rural and northern communities.

In closing, I support Bill 109 and believe its provisions can help address several practical challenges facing Ontario farmers. Most importantly, the changes related to the veterinary professionals offer an opportunity to improve access to essential animal care. I encourage the committee and the government to move forward with this legislation and to ensure the regulations are shaped by the realities of livestock farming in rural Ontario.

Thank you, everyone, for your time, and I’m available to answer questions later.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Thank you very much for your presentation.

We’ll now call on Mel Foster. Please state your name for Hansard, and you may begin.

Mr. Mel Foster: Good afternoon. My name is Mel Foster. With my family, we farm in North Gower, which is part of the city of Ottawa. We grow vegetables. I’m a seventh-generation farmer in the Ottawa area, and my son, sitting behind me, may be the eighth. We’ll see.

I want to say that I support Bill 109 and the idea of protecting farmland. We all know that we’re losing a lot of farmland to development, the cities and that sort of thing as well, so it is important to protect it. It’s got to be a balance, because people need to live somewhere as well.

I just wanted to also let you know—and maybe some of you know this already, but some farmers would count on that sale of their farm as a retirement as well. So we don’t want the bottom to fall out if we say no one other than agriculture can buy the farmland.

I also just wanted to mention that it seems like I’m in the office more and more, and not out in the fields. There’s more and more red tape, and honestly, if there’s something that you can do to streamline that so we’re in the fields growing food for other Ontarians and Canadians, that would be a big help.

We’re CanadaGAP food safety certified, so that means that we can sell to Loblaws, Farm Boy, Sobeys—those types of grocery stores—which we do within the city of Ottawa. And we go direct to customers; we have a stand right here in Smiths Falls, as well as in our village, North Gower, and then many across Ottawa.

We’re trying to be diversified. We’re trying to follow good farming practices. But it seems to be getting harder and harder. This year, especially in the Ottawa area, we broke a record in July for rainfall. I just did an interview for CTV this morning about the record rainfall and just told them how we manage. Like, we’re doing our best to manage these things. But you know, it is a reality in farming. It’s different. Last year, in the Ottawa area and most of Ontario it was fairly dry. This year, it’s the opposite. We can’t seem to get away from the rain clouds.

So I just want to reiterate that I think as a group, as a province, we need to look at our farmland and think of it as a major resource and also that we need to feed ourselves.

I think of the story when were in COVID and we wanted to buy some 3M masks from the States, and Trump said, “No, no,” but where did the resources come from? I think most of them came from Canada. They go down; they’re manufactured there. Any time we can manufacture here, process vegetables or dairy here, I think, is better for our food security and feeding our citizens.

In closing, again, I support Bill 109 and protecting farmland. Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Thank you very much for your presentation.

This round of questions will start with the third party. MPP Hsu, go ahead.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Thanks to all three witnesses for coming here this afternoon.

I wanted to start with Mr. McLaughlin, to talk about the shortage of large-animal vets. I wanted to ask if you had some ideas about how, in eastern Ontario, to recruit more students. The Ontario Veterinary College recently began a partnership with Thunder Bay to train more vets in the northwest, but I think it’s obvious that if we recruited more from eastern Ontario—people tend to practise where they grew up. Do you have any specific ideas about what the role of the provincial government might be in encouraging that kind of expansion in eastern Ontario?

Mr. Craig McLaughlin: Well, it’s a start in the north with the cohorts going up to Lakehead. It’s with University of Guelph Ontario vet college and starting there. That’s a start. How do you recruit from eastern Ontario? I think the very bright, intelligent students, do they want to become a veterinarian and work in large-animal practice as a sole practitioner? No. But I think one of the starts is if you allow registered veterinary technicians to be part of a clinic team to relieve the overburdens of practising vets. I’ll use my vet: She’s 69; she’s close to retirement. The vet next to her in my area I think is 72. They just can’t sell their practices now, because no one will take them over. So how do you recruit them? If you can set up a team approach like you do for public health care, with clinics that you have social workers, nutritionists, nurse practitioners etc.—use that model going forward. I think that will open the door, that people will want to be veterinarians, from eastern Ontario.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Okay. Thank you very much. That sounds like a good idea. Maybe we could even pilot it in eastern Ontario, like we did it for human primary care, which was piloted in eastern Ontario.

I’d like to ask Mr. Foster about the regulatory burden. Do you have any ideas about how administrative burdens might be—if not eliminated but shifted so that it’s a different time of year and maybe a little bit more convenient? Do you have any examples of that, the changes that you think might be helpful?

Mr. Mel Foster: I think you hit the nail on the head. It seems like whenever there’s anything to be done, it seems like it’s always in season. If things could be shifted to the winter—like, we’re in vegetables, so we have the winter off. We’re doing other things in the winter, but we have more time. So we’re ordering our seeds, we clear snow as well to make ends meet, but we have more time to do some of these regulatory things, whether it be meetings—sometimes it’s Stats Canada. They’re always calling to do these studies and stuff.

There are certain things I guess we can’t really get away from, especially when it comes to CanadaGAP and having your audits; they have to be done during the season, but it just seems like it’s at the worst time. It’s always just “go, go, go.”

We were up, started at 5:30 this morning. I went to clean up and then drove here for the meeting and then will go back to the field and finish picking for some of our customers this afternoon after the committee meeting is over for me. I know you guys have been here all day.

1320

Mr. Ted Hsu: Is there a particular example that maybe you could bring to the attention of the Legislature? Sorry to put you on the spot; I just wanted to give you a chance if there was something. If not, that’s fine.

Mr. Mel Foster: I don’t have a solution to it. I’d have to give it more thought. I could follow up if I had some more thoughts, if the committee was open to that.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Okay.

Mr. Mel Foster: Sorry.

Mr. Ted Hsu: No problem.

Mr. Froment, you didn’t get to Bill 109 until the last minute, so I wanted to give you a chance to expand a bit. But you did mention that you wanted the regulations accompanying Bill 109 to be consistent with other provinces. Can you give an example of a certain regulation where you’re worried that there will be a difference with other provinces, which will then increase your costs—or increase the costs of anybody doing business in multiple provinces?

Mr. Gilles Froment: Yes. Here, I’m talking for Lactalis, but I’m talking about the dairy processing sector as a whole. I’m also a member of the Ontario Dairy Council. Why I say that is because the intent of bringing this change to the Milk Act under Bill 109 is to be able to regulate not only milk but dairy products. We want to make sure that it’s fine—I’m perfectly fine with it, but I’m thinking that if Ontario goes ahead and the other provinces don’t go ahead at the same speed, that may create an unfair advantage to processors that are located in other provinces.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Is there a particular example that you could leave us with?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Forty seconds left.

Mr. Gilles Froment: Well, it’s really on the end-use pricing and ensuring that wherever you use those ingredients, those dairy products, to make Canadian dairy products—whether they are domestic or imported, you’re treated the same. That’s essentially, in my understanding, the intent of the ensuing regulation that would come at some point.

Mr. Ted Hsu: All right, thanks. That’s it.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Thank you. That concludes the third party’s time.

We’ll move to the government. MPP Vickers, the floor is yours.

MPP Paul Vickers: I just want to say thank you to all of you for coming to talk before the committee and giving us your insights.

Mel, I think it’s really important, a person living inside the urban boundary of Ottawa and having your son—you said you’re the sixth generation, or is your son the sixth generation?

Mr. Mel Foster: I’m seventh.

MPP Paul Vickers: You’re seventh. Oh, so he’s eighth?

Mr. Mel Foster: He would be eighth if he decides to farm.

MPP Paul Vickers: If he decides, that’s right.

You being a farm that supplies fresh vegetables for local consumption, plus also for the grocery store, how important is legislation focused on food independence for keeping local food on Ontario’s tables?

Mr. Mel Foster: I think it’s key. We don’t want the shelves to be empty like they were for toilet paper and other paper products during COVID, and it could happen. We are growing our industry. There are more greenhouses producing year-round, and there’s more produce being produced year-round. Southern Ontario is a large greenhouse area.

It’s very important to be able to—and it’s something that people are getting away from, because you’re used to going to the grocery store and buying strawberries year-round, but thinking about buying seasonally and eating seasonally. We grow rutabaga, potatoes and all kinds of early carrots and good storage items and stuff like that too, and they’re fairly inexpensive. So right now, we have—not a food shortage, but there are people who are maybe short on money to buy food, and the food banks are just busting at the seams not being able to give enough, let’s say.

I deal with the Ottawa Food Bank when they come. I’ve called them two days and I haven’t had a call back to donate food. There’s another group in Ottawa that are very active, and you call and they are there that day to get the produce to distribute to their end-users, their customers, and help other Canadians to eat.

But I think we’ve got to look at the food banks. To me, there is some issue there with the food banks. They can’t seem to absorb—or they don’t know how to use—the extra vegetables we have during the spring, summer and fall, during our harvest time. Sometimes they tell us, “No, I’m sorry, we can’t take it,” even though there are so many Canadians right now that are hungry. I think that has to be looked at.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but one time, I was talking to them and they said, “If we can’t give broccoli to all of them, then maybe we can’t.” I go, “Why don’t you give them some corn and give them some broccoli? They’re hungry people. They don’t care if they all get broccoli.”

It seems like it’s just much too political. Let’s feed these people, you know? I don’t know if that was on track of your question, but I thought it was important.

MPP Paul Vickers: No, it is. It’s a good example. From what I’m getting from what your answer is, it is as much the education of the consumer as it is the seasonal production. I think that’s a good example and one we should listen to. So, thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Next up from the government: MPP Jordan. Go ahead.

Mr. John Jordan: I’m going to direct my question to Mr. McLaughlin. Craig, you’ve been talking about the vet, and this shortage of veterinarians has been an issue certainly since I got elected. There has been work done on that. Some of the work around the vet techs was in expanding their scope so that they could do things without direct supervision from the veterinarians.

I’m wondering, first of all, if that has helped in your area with the vet techs’ higher degree of participation, and what changes in the vet tech scope—because we’re always looking for priorities to take back—would you be recommending or think would help in this situation where we’re still facing the shortage of large animal vets?

Mr. Craig McLaughlin: Yes, John, thanks for the question. There are a lot of things the vet techs can do that, previously, they weren’t allowed. I think for the beef industry and for my neighbours, we think the vet techs could really help on herd health. If we improve the education and the outreach for producers and they’re there for just mundane procedures like vaccinations etc., or even doing blood work for those that want to, let’s say, exhibit livestock or export livestock etc., they could do those jobs. It takes the strain off the practising veterinarians. It just reduces their windshield time.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Mr. Craig McLaughlin: In my area, the vet techs actually haven’t been integrated in yet, as far as I know. So I think if we encourage them to expand their role, we can make for a better industry.

Mr. John Jordan: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): You still have 40 seconds.

Mr. John Jordan: Just quickly, to Mr. Foster: You’ve got a very labour-intensive industry. You’ve got a great stand here in Smiths Falls, so thanks for that. This is my riding, so I appreciate it.

How are you for human resources for labour? How is that working out in your industry and in your business?

Mr. Mel Foster: As far as harvesters, we bring in foreign workers to do 99% of the harvesting. We wouldn’t be growing vegetables and produce for Canadians if it wasn’t for them, so that’s a very important program. If you ever have a chance to fight for that, fight for it, because without it, we wouldn’t be harvesting our sweet corn or onions or broccoli, all the produce that we grow and sell to—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): That concludes the government’s time.

We’ll move on to the official opposition. MPP Vanthof, the floor is yours.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you very much to the presenters.

If I could use your first names—it’s much easier for me—I’d like to go to Gilles. On the end-use pricing, we had DFO here this morning very much in favour. I’m understanding you’re in favour. But your comment that all provinces should go the same—I’m interested in that. So this is something that should be looked at provincially but hasn’t nationally. Am I thinking this correctly?

Mr. Gilles Froment: Thank you for the question. Yes, like I said before, I think it’s important, because I don’t think it’s going to change much for Lactalis if Ontario says, “I’m going ahead. We don’t care about the rest, because we’re bound by those rules already as a milk buyer and so on, so we will not suffer from that.” But if I think about the wider dairy processing sector, I think it’s important that we don’t put those businesses in Ontario at a disadvantage or at a competitive disadvantage if we regulate in Ontario and the regulations in, I’m going to say, Alberta or Quebec goes in a year or two later.

1330

Mr. John Vanthof: Okay. You did say, as the regulations would be developed, that their processing sector should be consulted.

Mr. Gilles Froment: Yes, absolutely. Farmers should be consulted and definitely dairy processors should be consulted. We would appreciate it.

Mr. John Vanthof: Mr. Foster, I’d like if you could just continue on the importance of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program in the province, because a lot of people, I don’t think, understand the role they play and how important it is.

For a lot of people, the first time that they heard about a temporary foreign worker was during COVID, and it was a bad experience. I was a dairy farmer. If your first taste of milk is sour, you don’t like milk anymore, right? So if you could just elaborate on how important that program is—and also for the workers.

Mr. Mel Foster: Whenever I talk about the program, I express how important they are to our farm. I try drive the point home and say that we hire about 30 to 35 Canadians in sales positions for our stands or farmer’s markets, that sort of thing, and without them, they wouldn’t have jobs. There are four of us involved in our farm as owners: my parents who started the vegetables business—my grandfather was a dairy farmer, then mom and dad went into vegetables, and then my wife and I are involved now. So there are four of us involved. Those 30-plus sales people—plus we have truck drivers that drive and deliver to our wholesale business as well. So all of them, without the foreign workers, wouldn’t have jobs on our farm—maybe elsewhere, but not on our farm.

I like to use that example, because people just don’t understand. They put down the foreign workers. Those people have been coming to Canada since the 1960s, when they started on an apple farm or two, picking apples. They’re working hard, they’re sending money home to their families and they’re buying products here in Canada. I see some of the stuff they send home—fridges and food and all that kind of stuff. So they are definitely helping Ontario and our country as well. It’s very important, and I hope that drives it home and makes the point.

Mr. John Vanthof: Okay, thank you.

Craig, I get the shortage of vets, but—I don’t know how to word this—I agree that vet techs should be doing more, and they’re perfectly capable. But in the case of vets who want to retire, how do we actually get more vets to apply to become vets? I get the thing in Thunder Bay, but I know people who would be great vets, but quite frankly—and I don’t want to dumb them down—who will never meet the cut and who would be great vets. For large-animal vets, are the requirements too high?

Mr. Craig McLaughlin: For those that don’t get accepted, yes, they would say it’s too high to get accepted. There are certain states within the United States that have two-tier system: If you’re going back to ranches and farms, work on large animals, there is a separate stream. That’s within their state regulation and agriculture colleges that offer veterinarian school. We need to look at that, and they are very limited in what they can practise. So once they have graduated, I would use—not to dumb it down, but—the lower stream. They cannot be working on companion animals, etc. There are a lot of farm kids who get their hearts broken when they miss out by a couple of percentage points to get into an Ontario vet college, though.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Mr. John Vanthof: Quite frankly, veterinarians love animals, but a small-animal practice is a totally different practice than, in my area, calving a cow if it’s minus 20, and it’s a different type of person sometimes that will do that. Would you agree that Ontario should perhaps just look at what other jurisdictions are doing in the program?

Mr. Craig McLaughlin: Yes, definitely. I think the farm kids that grew up in rural Ontario, they will become the large-animal practitioners in the future. If you grow up in GTA and have never been near a farm, yes, you’re going to work on companion animals etc. Definitely, the province has to look at other jurisdictions, what is working well for them and also learn from their mistakes going forward.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Thank you very much.

We’ll move to the third party. MPP Hsu, go ahead.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Going back to Mr. Foster: I wanted to ask you, as a vegetable farmer in eastern Ontario, whether you think the province should be moving to establish something like a regional food hub; it’s like a food terminal for eastern Ontario. Would that make distribution of your produce better?

Mr. Mel Foster: It could help. There was a food hub here right in Smiths Falls that we were part of, and we were optimistic that it would help get local food into more restaurants and institutions and schools even, perhaps, type thing—because when you have a large group of producers coming together, then you can usually supply some of those larger customers as well. Because in eastern Ontario, there are not a lot of extremely large farms; there’s a lot of smaller farms that sell at the gate or go to farmers’ markets or have stands, but there’s not a lot of farms that go to the grocery stores and have large production capabilities. So hubs, I think, especially for small and medium, to help them grow and maybe get to the point where they could go to grocery stores and supply larger institutes on their own, I think that’s definitely a stepping stone to help them.

Mr. Ted Hsu: I’m not familiar with the history of what happened in Smiths Falls, but is there something to be learned from that? Did something go right? Something went wrong?

Mr. Mel Foster: I think it was more administration, I believe. I don’t know exactly all the reasons, so I better not even speculate, because I might be misspeaking.

Mr. Ted Hsu: All right, no problem. Maybe I’ll try to find out.

I wanted to ask about—sorry, I’m just very curious about Lactalis. Are you allowed to tell me what are all the sources of fruit for your yogourt products?

Mr. Gilles Froment: The sources of fruit?

Mr. Ted Hsu: Yes. Where do you buy your fruit from for the yogourt products?

Mr. Gilles Froment: I wouldn’t be able to give you an exact answer by SKU, of course, or by product, but our motto and our driving force is trying to secure Canadian fruit as much as possible. Unfortunately, some of the fruits are not available in Canada and not necessarily available at certain periods of the year. But I could get back to you with more detail on the proportion, for example, that is sourced from Canada.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Okay, that’s great.

Last question, back to Mr. Foster: You’re in the city of Ottawa, and one of the issues that cities like Ottawa, Hamilton and Kingston—we have a lot of farms that are inside the city limits. Those rural areas are not eligible for certain rural economic development programs, because they’re part of cities with a population over 100,000. Does that affect you, or has that affected any of your neighbours? Do you think such a program would be helpful? The context I’m thinking of is, if you have profitable farms, then they’re in a much better position to resist development pressures to sell off their farm and to build the next housing development. This kind of market solution to get farms profitable seems to me to be much better than a rule which says you can’t sell your land.

Do you have any thoughts about rural economic development inside the city limits of large cities and whether it’s worth expanding that program to include the rural areas of large cities?

1340

Mr. Mel Foster: I think most farmers would rather stand on their own two feet and be profitable on their own two feet, there. I think we all could agree to that. There’s always, probably, a way to help less-profitable farmers and farms out. You’re right. We’re in the city of Ottawa so we have access to the city of Ottawa, which is a million-plus, so that’s a benefit to us because we can sell a lot of vegetables close to home. We don’t send anything to Toronto. We don’t send anything outside of province at all. It’s all sold within eastern Ontario. So I think that’s a benefit to us.

It does make it difficult—as an example, right now we just started our sweet corn and at the beginning of the season, there’s always a very big bird pressure. Red-winged blackbirds can devastate a field of sweet corn. Just yesterday, we sold some to another local farmer. He was ready to harvest it, and the birds came in a day or two before it was ready to harvest for people and decimated it. So he had to come and buy corn from us.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): One minute left.

Mr. Mel Foster: The reason I bring that up is because we use bangers, tweeters and people on four-wheelers with shotguns to scare and remove the birds. Because we’re so close to the city of Ottawa, there are problems with discharging firearms, there are noise by-laws, but we have to be able to protect our crop or else—as this farmer that I just mentioned, he was decimated. He couldn’t harvest it; the birds just destroyed his crop. You feel bad for the guy, and we’ve experienced it ourselves, so this is something that’s very important. We need to be able to protect our crops.

So, I don’t know if that answers your economic question, but—

Mr. Ted Hsu: Well, I think it’s a good answer, in that you just want to make sure that normal farm practices are allowed even if the farm is close to an urban area—because probably the farm was there first anyway.

Mr. Mel Foster: Yes. And once we finish that sweet corn—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): That will conclude the time for the third party.

We’ll move on to the government side. MPP Jordan, the floor is yours.

Mr. John Jordan: I’m going to go back to Mr. Foster, and I’ll stay on the human resources side of it.

There are farms around here as well that do use international workers. One of the issues that the government has been working with is the housing program and the housing inspection system. I’m wondering if you can comment on how that works for you and if you have any recommendations for that housing inspection system.

Mr. Mel Foster: We want to treat these people fairly and equitably, so I think it’s a good thing. We have to have some regulations because—I know, years ago, when we first looked at the program, we looked at some housing and you wouldn’t want to live there; it was bad. It’s important, but it has got to be a balance.

Right now, I don’t really have a complaint, to be honest—at least, not in the city of Ottawa. The inspectors come every year. They’re checking over everything: square footage, fire extinguishers, fire alarms. They’re doing a good job. I don’t have a complaint.

I hear of other areas that their inspectors, the health inspectors, are—I don’t know what term to use, but more stringent, I guess. And I’m not—I don’t think they’re letting me get away with anything, because they say, “You’ve got to address this.” We’re doing water tests, all these health regulations, and an area for the men—and we have some ladies on our farm—to live in. So I don’t have a problem with it, at all. That’s important, because they need to have a good sleep. We’re not giving these old, ratty mattresses to sleep on, because if they don’t have a good sleep, they can’t work and harvest the vegetables, so that affects their work and the amount they can harvest. You’ve got to think about their well-being too, absolutely.

Mr. John Jordan: So you’re supplying housing on site, is that right?

Mr. Mel Foster: Yes, we have housing on our farm. We have bunkhouses, as we call them, on our farm for all of our workers, yes.

Mr. John Jordan: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): Next from the government side: MPP Clark, go ahead.

Hon. Steve Clark: Thanks, Craig, Gilles and Mel, for presenting. Thanks for bringing your young lad, Mel—the next generation.

I want to ask Gilles a question. You’re a big company; 4,500 employees, I think you said, multiple locations. You’re regarded as one of Canada’s best.

You used a different term. I normally use “stable and predictable” when I talk about the regulatory system. You used “transparent, predictable and enforceable,” so you used something that I don’t tend to use.

But for you, when you’re looking at such a big company, can you talk about how important that regulatory system is for your future business opportunities? I’m assuming that the company is always looking for expanding markets and increasing your business profile, so tell the committee how important that regulatory framework is to support your growth.

Mr. Gilles Froment: Thank you for the question. I use the term “transparent, clear, equitable and enforceable.” It’s because there are possibly different players that are treated in different ways right now.

To me, Bill 109 in Ontario will bring equity amongst all players, and we need to make sure that it’s enforceable as well. But that’s not going to be my role; that’s going to be the role of DFO or whoever is charged with enforcing the eventual regulation.

I think, from a broader perspective—and I touched on that. I mean, I’m not an expert on Bill 109, but from what I can gather in this omnibus bill, reinforcing farmland—we talk about vets and we talk about many areas. In my view, it really sets the stage for Ontario to continue developing.

For my company, as I mentioned, the purpose is not to be the biggest; the purpose is to serve the consumer, serve the farmer, be at the place where you need to be. And as I mentioned, we are a global company, but we like to say that we are multi-local. So, we act locally. They use a horrible term in France called “glocal,” which I don’t really like. But you know, we’re really multi-local. That’s what we’re doing in Canada and in Ontario: developing and growing and investing for the future.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): There’s a minute and 24 seconds left.

Hon. Steve Clark: I just want to make a final comment—something Mel said about 3M masks. I think we need to ensure that we’ve got local food on Ontario tables as much as we can. Eating seasonally is great. I’m glad that Premier Ford helped me get that 3M mask plant in Brockville so we don’t have to be beholden to the United States anymore. So, thanks for that comment.

Mr. Mel Foster: Good. I’m glad to hear that.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): All right, thank you very much.

We’ll move to the official opposition. MPP Vanthof, go ahead.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to go to Mel. So, you’re within the city of Ottawa, and you’re using bird bangers and shotguns. I get all that; I have an orchard.

In Bill 109, it’s got a section where it amalgamates or changes the structure for the boards and tribunals that regulate that. Would you feel that it’s really important to have someone on that board or tribunal who has experience with what you deal with?

Mr. Mel Foster: I think so. I think it’s important for most of the boards to have somebody who is maybe on the ground there that actually has lived it.

You guys do a good job, and you work hard for our citizens. Thank you very much. Look at you guys coming from—well, you’re not far, but many of you are probably from a distance all over, so we appreciate that. But there’s something to be learned from somebody who is in the industry who is living it. It’s fine to read about it and talk to people about it and stuff, but yes, I would agree that it’s definitely important to have someone who lives it.

Mr. John Vanthof: Okay. Just from personal experience, we lived two klicks from the nearest town. And whenever we started spreading liquid manure, people knew my name and knew my number. Even when one of my neighbours spread liquid manure, I still got the call. But that’s also a normal farm practice, and you need someone who’s willing to understand that.

Everyone is busy, but I’d specifically like to thank you for coming and bringing your perspective and bringing your son along, because I think we really needed to hear what you had to say. I’d really like to thank you.

Mr. Mel Foster: Thanks a lot. Well, thanks for coming to Smiths Falls, everyone.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to go to Gilles. I don’t think you will find anyone in the Ontario Legislature who doesn’t support supply management. If there is something we could do to make supply management work better, what would it be—without getting yourself in trouble?

Mr. Gilles Froment: I didn’t expect that question. But I would say make it flexible, being prepared to evolve to where we need to go rather than saying, “We’ve done it 50 years that way and we’re not going to change anything.” So keep the roots and the basis of the system which we support but make sure that we can continue supporting it to evolve.

Mr. John Vanthof: Okay. Thank you.

Craig, you mentioned something about northern Ontario crown land. In your opinion, as past president of Beef Farmers of Ontario, but as a beef farmer, is it absolutely necessary that, if the crown land is used for agriculture, the ownership of the land has to be transferred to the farmer? Could it be done with a long-term lease—25 years, extendable?

Mr. Craig McLaughlin: Good point, John. Yes, we’ve said that many, many times. If you look at camps and cabins and cottages in the north, they’re probably on crown land beside a lake or a river and a lot of them are 99-year leases.

We’re fully supportive. Keep crown land. The crown won’t own it, but let’s make it productive. There are great opportunities, and we’re all for that.

Mr. John Vanthof: And just for a point: It’s not just camps and cottages. In my riding, Georgia-Pacific—they make oriented strand board. They’re investing $200 million into their plant. Where does their fibre come from? All crown land—and they don’t own any of it. So they’re willing to put long-term investments into crown land without the speculative part of ownership. It should be looked at for agriculture as well.

I’d like to thank all of you for taking the time—and for all presenters. We all learned something today. That’s a big part of our jobs, and you did a big part of your job too. Thank you very much.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie): All right. Well, thank you to all the presenters. This will conclude today’s public hearings on Bill 109.

Members of the committee, is there any further business? Seeing none, the committee is now adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday, August 10, 2026, in Chatham. Have a great day.

The committee adjourned at 1353.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR

Chair / Président

Mr. Aris Babikian (Scarborough–Agincourt PC)

First Vice-Chair / Premier Vice-Président

Mr. Sol Mamakwa (Kiiwetinoong ND)

Second Vice-Chair / Deuxième Vice-Président

Mr. Jonathan Tsao (Don Valley North / Don Valley-Nord L)

Mr. Aris Babikian (Scarborough–Agincourt PC)

Mr. Guy Bourgouin (Mushkegowuk–James Bay / Mushkegowuk–Baie James ND)

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto (Mississauga–Lakeshore PC)

Mr. Andrew Dowie (Windsor–Tecumseh PC)

M^me Dawn Gallagher Murphy (Newmarket–Aurora PC)

Mr. Sol Mamakwa (Kiiwetinoong ND)

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault (Lambton–Kent–Middlesex PC)

Mr. Jonathan Tsao (Don Valley North / Don Valley-Nord L)

MPP Paul Vickers (Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Hon. Steve Clark (Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes / Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands et Rideau Lakes PC)

Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les Îles L)

Mr. John Jordan (Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston PC)

Mr. John Vanthof (Timiskaming–Cochrane ND)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr. Stefan Uguen-Csenge

Staff / Personnel

Mr. Michael Vidoni, research officer,
Research Services