Monday, August 10, 2026

The committee met at 1003 in Retro Suites Hotel, Chatham-Kent.

Official source

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.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

I would like to nominate Andrew Dowie for Chair.

Official source

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Stefan Uguen-Csenge)

Does the member accept the nomination?

Official source

Mr. Andrew Dowie

Yes.

Official source

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 elected Acting Chair of the committee.

Official source

Consideration of the following bill:

Official source

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.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Good morning, members. Welcome to Chatham. The Standing Committee on the Interior will now come to order. We’re meeting today to continue public hearings on Bill 109, An Act to enact the Farmland Security Act, 2026 and to amend various Acts.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

I will now call on the Honourable Trevor Jones, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness, to make his opening statement. He will have 20 minutes to make an opening statement, followed by 39 minutes of questions from the members of the committee. Minister Jones, the floor is yours.

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

Good morning, Chair, and thank you, committee members. Welcome home to Chatham-Kent. I really appreciate the opportunity to work with you today and address you, and to work with our communities in our communities. It’s an honour to be here before the Standing Committee on the Interior. Thank you to the Chair and all our members of the committee for the opportunity to speak today on Bill 109, the proposed Protecting Ontario’s Food Independence Act. Over the last year or more, I have had the privilege of travelling across Ontario to spend time with the people who know agriculture best: our farmers and food producers. We’ve had conversations on farms, at kitchen tables, in barns, fields and state-of-the-art production facilities. Those conversations have been invaluable. They’ve helped shape the legislation and they’ve reinforced something I’ve believed from day one: The best ideas come from the people doing the work every day. I want to sincerely thank the many farmers and commodity organizations, agribusinesses and partners from across the sector for being our trusted advisers. Because of their input, our government is taking meaningful action to increase the competitiveness and resilience of our farms and food businesses, increase Ontario’s self-reliance and help unlock even more economic potential across our sector. Bill 109 reflects that very collaboration. The final result, if passed, would be a meaningful impact on an important piece of legislation. I’m very proud of the work we’ve done and we’re continuing to do together. More importantly, I am proud that this legislation responds directly to what we’ve been hearing from the people who grow, raise and process our food. At a time of great global uncertainty and ongoing trade challenges, there has never been a more important time to protect Ontario’s food independence, because food security truly is national security. We want Ontario’s farmers and food businesses to have every opportunity to compete, expand and go into new markets and sell more of Ontario-grown-and-raised food around the world. Our government’s goal is straightforward: We want to protect Ontario’s food independence. Simply put, it’s our ability to raise and grow the food for Ontario to consume and for the world to enjoy. That starts with ensuring Ontario’s farmland remains locally owned. Taking proactive measures to ensure Ontario’s farmland is not treated like some line item on overseas company’s balance sheet, but actively producing food every day for the benefit of the people of Ontario and the benefit of communities around the world, is critical. Currently, five other provinces have legislation in place that restricts foreign ownership of farmland, including Manitoba, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta and PEI. Several states—I believe 29 states—have similar protections in place as well. As part of this bill, we’re proposing the Farmland Security Act, to establish a framework—a foundation, if you will—that would allow Ontario to do the same. The proposed Farmland Security Act would be enabling in nature. If passed, it would establish the legal framework, while the detailed rules would be developed in future regulations. This is a thoughtful, forward-looking approach. It would take effect once the regulatory framework is complete, and would apply to farmland acquisitions from that time onward. This means that once the regulation is in place and the act is in force, anyone buying or acquiring farmland in this province, either directly or indirectly, would need to comply with the act. Without confirmation, the land transfer registration would not be able to proceed. For clarity, the restrictions would not apply to Canadian citizens or our permanent residents. Regulations would clarify how this applies to corporations, partnerships and other entities. And most importantly, we’re hearing from communities that might be impacted from this. That’s why we’re here in Chatham and communities across the province in this committee. I want to be clear: The proposed act would not impact existing farmland owners. Our ministry recognizes there would be many situations where allowing the acquisition of farmland may be in Ontario’s best interest; that’s why the proposed act would provide a process to request approval where there is clear benefit to the province. The proposed act also sets out a framework needed to support administration and enforcement. This includes provisions related to the collection and use of information, as well as inspections, investigations and compliance. Like any piece of legislation of this nature, it sets out offences under the act and associated penalties. If passed, the proposed act would allow the province to issue orders to prevent unlawful acquisition of farmland or require farmland to be sold or divested if it was obtained in contravention of the act. We’ve taken a thoughtful approach to developing this proposed legislation and hearing directly from farmers, stakeholders and people across Ontario, who have had an important part of this process. We’ve invited public feedback on proposed legislation and implementation for considerations to help inform the development of future regulations. We proposed the Farmland Security Act on the Ontario Regulatory Registry from April 22 to May 22. During this time, we received 30 submissions from the public across Ontario. As we move forward, we’ll continue listening and considering different perspectives from you, our trusted advisers, as we understand the importance of getting it right. Another way our province is strengthening Ontario’s agri-food sector is through the Grow Ontario Strategy, first launched when I was parliamentary assistant to that minister in 2022. As the strategy approaches its midway point in 2027, this is the right time to take stock for progress, build on what’s working, and make sure we’re responding to the challenges and opportunities faced by our sector presently. As we continue to face global economic uncertainty in the ongoing threat of US tariffs, it’s more important than ever that we strengthen Ontario’s food supply chains, increase domestic food production and help our farmers and food businesses remain globally competitive. This spring, we brought together more than 200 farmers, processors, industry leaders and agri-food partners at the Grow Ontario Food Summit in Guelph to hear directly from the people who know the sector best and help shape the next chapter of this strategy. A refreshed strategy will help build on the vision of protecting Ontario’s food independence and support our government’s plan to protect Ontario by strengthening the resilience, competitiveness and long-term success of the sector. It will further our commitment to strengthen the entire agri-food value chain from inputs and food production to processing and exports, helping Ontario’s businesses respond to global uncertainty, expand into new markets, reducing our reliance on unpredictable international trade while continuing to remove barriers to food growth, supporting value-added processing, creating good jobs and producing more food right here in Ontario. It’s a real privilege and honour to showcase Ontario’s food-production strength to communities and businesses around the world in places like I’ve been to in Dubai, at the Gulfood show, probably the world’s foremost and largest food-production, food-producer and food exposition. People from all around the world want what Ontario grows and makes. They see me walking the floor, talking to food producers, to importers and exporters. They see that trillium on my vest, and they say, “We want what Ontario grows.” Because it’s safe; it’s trusted. It’s part of that food security benefit we can offer the world. We’ll also focus on expanding trade, driving innovation, improving productivity and attracting a skilled workforce needed to help Ontario remain a global leader. By updating our Grow Ontario Strategy, we’ll have a guide for future success where our government remains committed to helping protect Ontario’s economy, strengthen food security and ensure farmers from around Ontario have the tools they need to succeed in a very uncertain world. In addition to updating the Grow Ontario Strategy, our government is unlocking new opportunities for agriculture in the north by making it easier to access crown land in the Great Clay Belt and beyond. This initiative and a partnership with the Ministry of Northern Economic Development and Growth and the Ministry of Natural Resources will help unlock the agriculture potential in northern communities across Ontario, creating new opportunities for farmers, attracting key investment to support long-term growth across the sector. We’ll simplify the rules, establish guidance and create—it’s my dream—a one-window approach for contact to help applicants navigate the complex world of permits and processes across communities to strengthen the agricultural sector. There’s nothing that people want to hear more than something funny the lawmakers may say: “We’re the government. We’re here to help.” If you’re a farmer looking to clear land in Timmins or in Timiskaming or communities across Ontario, you’re saying, “We need help.” Ontario’s Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness truly wants to be that one window that says, “Start here. Look for permits, applications and processes. We will guide you, in partnership with partner ministries, to get you the results you need to clear the land, drain the land, add mineral value to it, and start producing the food in communities where maybe we’ve not produced food historically.” We seek to simplify the rules, establish guidance and, again, that one-window approach to help people produce food everywhere in Ontario. By responsibly expanding opportunities for agriculture in the north, we’re helping protect Ontario’s food supply, strengthen our economy and build a more self-reliant province for generations to come. One of the proposals in Bill 109 comes directly from the Beef Farmers of Ontario, who asked our government to update how licence fees are collected under the Beef Cattle Marketing Act. The fees support promotional marketing, food safety, research development and that global reach to help beef farmers who sell live animals to processors operate every day. It’s complex work. It’s filled with risk and these are families that are putting their money and their investment on the line to feed the world. Some beef farmers process some or all of their own cattle. In those cases, the licence fees aren’t currently collected. This creates a gap and unfair advantages within a system. It’s already complex enough. This bill levels the playing field. That advice has been sought out through producers across Ontario and there is strong support across Ontario. If passed, the proposed changes here in this component will help close this gap by ensuring licensing fees are collected more consistently and fairly across the sector. We will create a personal use exemption, of course, so farmers can continue to process up to two heads of cattle for their personal immediate family’s use. We are also proposing to remove outdated requirements, including the requirement for processors to register within the ministry when purchasing cattle based on carcass weight. Together, these proposed changes would improve fairness, reduce unnecessary red tape and make legislation work better for all of Ontario’s beef sector. Some of these proposals may seem more technical in nature. This is why we want the voices of the people that have the technical expertise in our communities to be here, to our committee of the interior, to provide their input. Another proposal of the bill would bring together two adjudicative bodies—quasi-judicial bodies—to basically hear and resolve complaints from communities to the sector.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left, Minister.

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

If passed, the proposed changes would make the rules clearer, strengthen how the profession is regulated and provide greater flexibility in how veterinary services are delivered. I’ll try to sum up 13 or 14 very highly technical components and one food and farm-use component of the bill this way: Food security is national security. We’ve heard this in a very non-partisan way in the Legislature and in communities across Ontario. This legislation reflects exactly that: things we’ve been hearing in communities from farmers, from food producers and processors, and people who work in those supply chains saying, “Make it clear. Make it fair. Embed innovation, and make it attainable.” So, Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to summarize a few very highly technical components in a bundle that makes food security front and centre.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you, Minister. We will now begin the round of questions, which will be divided into two rounds of 6.5 minutes each for the government, the official opposition and the third party. The next round of questions will start with the government. MPP Pinsonneault, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault

Thank you, Minister, for being here. I must say, it is an honour to share this beautiful community of Chatham-Kent with you. Given the makeup of our two ridings which butt up to each other, how agricultural it is, and agri-food, you’re in the right role. I think this is right in your wheelhouse. My question is, we’ve heard a lot about global economic uncertainty and tariff pressure on Ontario’s agricultural sector. Could you speak on why this legislation is needed now and how it fits into the government’s broader plan to build a more competitive and self-reliant economy?

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

They perform similar functions currently, and now our proposed legislation would have them streamlined into one single organization called the Agriculture and Agri-Food Protection Tribunal. If passed, this change would transfer the responsibilities of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board to the new tribunal by amending the Farming and Food Production Protection Act. For farmers and property owners, that means a simpler, more streamlined process with more consistent service, improved digital tools and easier navigation in a single set of rules. It also supports our government’s commitment to modernize all public services, reduce duplication and make it easier for communities across Ontario to access the services they demand and they rely on. In the bill, another proposal would update the definition of a regulated product under the Milk Act to reflect today’s dairy industry, including products made with ingredients such as milk protein concentrates—again, highly technical language that the industry knows very well, that communities may want more awareness of. In sum, it creates a level playing field across the sector and modernizes the act, bringing it back into modern terms for global competitiveness. It means no matter how a dairy product is made, whether it’s with milk, dairy ingredients or a combination of both, the same pricing rules will apply. This helps, again, create a level playing field for processers and supports the supply management system. The proposed changes would also provide the bill authority, through the future regulations, for the Dairy Farmers of Ontario to help those pricing rules to make sure they’re applied consistently and fairly across the sector. We’re also proposing to modernize Ontario’s dairy regulatory framework by moving food safety requirements for milk and milk products under the Food Safety and Quality Act. If you’re a dairy farmer, you know what that means. There may be members of this committee who know exactly what that means. To the public, we want to bring that sense of trust, sense of fairness so everyone understands that we have a level playing field to produce the very best milk and very best dairy products for Ontario and the world to enjoy. Today, some of those responsibilities sit with the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission, whose primary role is marketing, not really food safety. Bringing dairy food safety under one legislative framework will align it with other food sectors and create a more consistent approach across the industry. It would also bring milk from cows, goats, sheep and even water buffalo under the same regulatory framework, ensuring consistent requirements for dairy producers and processors across Ontario. At the end of the day, these proposed changes are about protecting the high standards that we expect, supporting confidence in our dairy sector and ensuring Ontario continues to produce the safest, highest-quality dairy products in the world. Another important part of our work is proposed amendments to the Veterinary Professionals Act. The last couple of years, we’ve been working with the College of Veterinarians of Ontario to identify opportunities to modernize legislation and ensure it continues to meet the needs of a growing, modern and evolving profession.

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

Thank you for the question. It truly is a privilege to share this committee with you because this is the heartbeat of Ontario agriculture. This past weekend, you know that I shared in community festivities at the Chatham-Kent plowing match. This brought together people that have traditions in common. But the conversations here at the plowing match, throughout Chatham and throughout Ontario, is about our economy. We heard that at the doors of 2025. We came to our communities and asked for their support and what I heard was one in nine jobs in Ontario relies on agriculture and agribusiness. We’re at $53 billion of our GDP. That’s the biggest component of our economy. If we can support agriculture, we can support diversification, we can support innovation, research and trade while protecting our economy. We’re keeping good-paying jobs in Chatham-Kent, in Timiskaming–Cochrane, throughout Ottawa, eastern Ontario, northwestern Ontario and in the GTHA because agribusiness knows no bounds. We may have dairy farms that produce the best milk in Timiskaming–Cochrane but that milk might be produced at a facility in eastern Ontario or might be in the GTHA, and that goes to communities around Ontario. With uncertainty, business craves certainty. Business craves investment. Our government’s approach, and collectively, every lawmaker in Ontario has to come together in a non-partisan way to say, “Let’s protect Ontario with commons sense, real approaches to innovation, attract real investments from the private sector and beyond to shore up and make us stronger, make our products more competitive, safer, better, more nutritious, more delicious for the world and Ontario to enjoy.” Thank you.

Official source

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault

That’s awesome, Minister. Thanks for being here, again. I appreciate it.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

MPP Vickers, the floor is yours.

Official source

MPP Paul Vickers

I also want to thank the minister. This is our third stop in the tour. We’ve been up to Timmins and over to Smiths Falls and now into Chatham. Chatham really is a food belt down here. Between the great looking crops that I’ve seen as I drove in yesterday, with the soybeans and the seed corn, and also the greenhouses. It’s really fitting that we’re taking time to spend some time with the people here in Chatham. My question, Minister, is about foreign ownership. Foreign ownership is an issue that’s very near and dear to the agricultural community’s heart. A lot of the primary producers feel that ownership of the land is very important to them and should remain in the ownership of Canadians and of people of Ontario. Can you explain why these measures are necessary and what it means to the local farmers and the young people who want to get into farming, hoping that this is their toehold in?

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

Thank you, MPP Vickers. One of the privileges and honours of serving as Ontario’s Minister of Agriculture is I get to advocate around Ontario—again, on farms, in greenhouses, in state-of-the-art processing facilities—and I hear perspectives from average people. The other component is I get to hear perspectives from lawmakers around Ontario and around the world. One thing I was asked as minister—it’s humbling and it’s daunting, because as the leader for growing Ontario’s capacity to build our economy, to build a food processing and production network, I have the choice to take action or not to take action. When farming communities talk at kitchen tables and in communities across Ontario about a thousand-acre farm over the coffee shop talk—I’m sure members across the province have heard this—“Who bought that farm?” Well, no one knew. If you find out that it’s a foreign investment company from abroad that’s looking to improve their ledger—maybe hold their bank land and value it over time and maybe sell it, maybe produce food on it, maybe rent it back to a farmer, maybe not. So, I started asking questions. I said, what do we have as far as a—do we have a tool?

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

Do we have a clear number of who owns all of Ontario’s farmland? What I found was we have a patchwork of information. Some of that information is held locally, some of it, we don’t know. Our opportunity is to take action now to make sure that we have the infrastructure built, the foundation to know who owns Ontario’s farmland and make sure it stays in production so the next generation of farmers can afford it, can access it and grow and raise food on it.

Official source

MPP Paul Vickers

Thank you, Minister Jones, for that answer. I think it is important, and that’s what I hear that it is, that other people think that it’s important that we make sure that we help protect and make sure that the future farmers are able to grab hold of that land and to make good decisions with. Thank you for your leadership.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

That will conclude the government’s time. We will move to the official opposition: MPP Vanthof, go ahead.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Thank you for being here, Minister, and thank you for holding a meeting—whoever organized it—in Chatham. It truly is humbling—I drove yesterday from Timiskaming and took the bus from Toronto—to see that much agriculture. It truly is. I would like to start by also thanking you for making this an independent piece of agriculture legislation because there’s no poison pills in this and as a result, we’re going to have a much more fulsome discussion of what we should be talking about, and that’s why this bill sailed through the House on second reading and that’s why we’re going to have a really good discussion because it’s on one of the most important issues in the province and that’s why we fully support it in second reading and see no reason why we won’t fully support it on third. I’d like to start on the foreign ownership piece. Actually, I listened intently to your opening remarks and you said something that twinged me a bit. You said that it should be—and I’m paraphrasing—but that land should be controlled in Ontario and not just be a line on a balance sheet of a foreign company, and I fully agree. My question is: Is there any difference between being a line on a balance sheet in a foreign company or being a line on a balance sheet of a hedge fund or pension fund regardless of who it’s controlled by? Because in my part of the world, it’s hedge funds and pension funds that are gobbling up the land, not always foreign companies. So why the focus on foreign? Is the ministry looking at the other part or just using foreign as the—because it’s not just foreign companies, and I would contest that a hedge fund, regardless of who controls it, would have no closer ties to the land whether it’s foreign or domestic.

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

Thank you, MPP Vanthof. I was also impressed when I travelled through your community. I met with you and I met with farmers and food producers and I heard this. I think we have to first take stock in what we have, and that’s what we’ve heard because we didn’t have the infrastructure built to know who owns what. We have to first understand that food and our ability to produce and raise food is also tied to influence. We want to hope that our lawmakers at the municipal level, provincial and federal levels have their constituents’ or residents’ interests first-hand—they’ve heard from them and that’s democracy. We have to first trust in ourselves. I would argue that if Ontario and Canadians owned our food production land, it will have the best interests. The first line of defence really is local municipally elected politicians and lawmakers because we have agriculture impact assessments in place and that’s the line of first defence. I think MPP Vanthof knows my first foray into any sort of elected or appointed office was the committee of adjustment. It might, in some regards, be the most boring committee ever because it looks at land use, minor variances, zoning bylaw amendments, but essentially it’s land use. What is land used for? We have to first keep those decisions locally—keep those decisions based in companies and individuals that are rooted in Canadian and Ontario interests. I know that land use is still measured and it’s evaluated locally, provincially and of course there’s some federal input as well. But you can’t help but be influenced when you drive through places like Chatham-Kent and Leamington. You can’t help but be influenced by the corn, the beans, the tomatoes and the greenhouses—

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

If I could now, sir—and I agree with everything you said, except that this bill is not actually local, talking about foreign ownership. But again, the crux of my question is, is there really a difference between institutional ownership of the land, regardless of whether it’s foreign or domestic, or actual ownership of the land of the people who farm the land? I’m not anti-big farm. I have farmers with 10,000 to 20,000 acres. It’s no problem with me, but when a hedge fund controls that land and when a hedge fund decides to dump that land—which has, you know, in Saskatchewan, the farm went broke with 257,000 acres, right? So is the question whether it’s institutional ownership? Is that a bigger question than whether it’s foreign or not? Because I think people who want to get around those rules will.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

My biggest concern was that decisions and ownership are Canadian, and we don’t know—we’re hearing now from communities and through this committee whether it’s the size of the land, the value of the land or the type of activity. As long as it stays in the hands of food production. I would say that if you’re an institutional investor, you’re Canadian content, you know that food production is paramount. Food production is central. I think if we have that controllership in Canadian hands, we safeguard that against foreign interests that might be against our own.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

You’ve got 25 seconds.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

All right. Thank you, Minister.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

The next round of questions will go to the third party. MPP McCrimmon, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

I, too, would like to say my thanks to the minister and his team and my colleagues all for being here, and all of our colleagues who organized this wonderful stop in Chatham. I went for a nice, long walk, and there’s so much potential here. I’m really glad that Chatham has decided to do this. It takes a lot of courage, and I really want to congratulate them for finding that courage to do what they’ve done here in their downtown. It’s wonderful. I’m going to carry on with my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane’s question about foreign ownership. I think the idea of identifying beneficial ownership is really important, and it’s something that I don’t think Canada has always done very well. There have been gaps in that. So, how do we fill those gaps, and how do we make sure that the people who want to come to Canada and want to farm actually have that opportunity?

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

Thank you, MPP McCrimmon. That’s a brilliant question; I appreciate that. I also appreciated your attention to detail in your debate in the Legislature about Bill 109 and your contributions, because I know that parts of your communities are affected by this. We have a rich farming tradition in the Ottawa Valley and Ottawa area, so thank you. Ontario and Canada always want to attract people that fill a need for what we need. If you look back at our history, a number of families came and settled in Ontario from the Netherlands—either post-World War II or afterward, they came here with a vision. Most of the land is actually under sea level—a very small, arable portion of the land that produces a lot of food for Europe, and those farming families brought that tradition here. We want to continue that tradition. This bill proposes nothing against permanent residents or Canadians. So, if you’re from anywhere in Canada or you want to come here with a vision to invest—become a permanent resident, from the Netherlands or from anywhere else in the world. You want to be a food producer or a farmer, you want to invest here—take those necessary steps. We’ll embrace you. We want to be that one window of opportunity to help you navigate that complex process of permitting and processes, and say, “Come here. Invest. Produce the best food, the most safe and trusted food for the world. Come here from around the world and do that.” Just like we want foreign-trained engineers and doctors and nurses to come here and to apply their trade here, we’ll invite the best of the world to come here to produce the best food.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

Awesome. Thank you. Question: In my riding, I have quite a few dairy farms. Now, changes to the Milk Act, they’re always a bit controversial— Interjection.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

I know—and there are always pros and cons. We all know that to meet the demands of our time, of our day, changes are required. I know there was some opposition to this. Can you explain how you made sure that you got the information from everyone, pro and con, to come up with the best changes for the Milk Act?

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

Thank you, again. This delves into the more technical components of the act, and so we want to hear from the producers, from the processors big and small to make sure we get this right. I would argue that this committee process is part of that refinement, because we haven’t landed on the final regulation yet, or the final component; we’re still improving that. But what it takes into consideration is the whey, the protein, and all those milk ingredients that can be separated and used for further value-added cheeses, cottage cheeses, different products that we enjoy every day. It takes those into consideration, because a processor, big or small, could play the market a little bit and buy and sell different components and really skirt some of those regulations that lock in what the minimum pricing should be. So, to have a level playing field, it says processors big and small pay the same amount across Ontario for those components and those proteins and those ingredients that go into the making the value-added products. We won’t make everyone happy, but we want a fair and equitable and modern system that says, “Take this highly competitive world; make no loopholes, no grey areas.” We’ve heard the fact that the farms are bigger. A dairy farmer may choose to sell his or her quota; another farmer pulls in that quota, purchases that quota and makes a bigger farm. Maybe my officials and my colleagues would correct me; I think there are somewhere around 48,000 farms in Ontario.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left, Minister.

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

But only a few years ago, there were more, and the same is with dairy farms. Dairy farmers want the very best; we want those fair processes, fair ingredient composition to come out of those dairy farms as milk producers, to say that those components have the same way of application as a further-on to our value-added products.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

I’m fine, Chair. Thank you.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you. We will move back to the government side. MPP Rosenberg, the floor is yours.

Official source

MPP Bill Rosenberg

Thank you, Minister. I want to thank you for being here today, also. Being from the north, I don’t get a chance to come down here much, but I always see the twinkle in your eye when you talk about Chatham-Kent. Like MPP Vickers, driving in and seeing the crops and seeing the bean crops—they’re great crops, so I can see why you like this area. As we continue to protect Ontario’s food supply, there are new pressures facing the agricultural sector, both globally and here. Can you speak on the Grow Ontario Strategy and how it helps ensure our agriculture sector stays strong and competitive for years to come?

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

Thank you, MPP Rosenberg. I had the chance—as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs at the time—to launch this strategy. As a newly elected MPP and a new parliamentary assistant, it was my job to ask those questions, and the team got together and said, we need one overarching strategy, one vision that’s laser-focused on bringing us up, and realizing that now, a $53-billion component of our GDP is realized. Because the world is competitive, and I’ve heard from farmers across Ontario and greenhouse growers and livestock producers that one golden rule always applies: The low-cost, high-efficient producer will always win. We’re up against challenges across the world where there are low-cost, efficient jurisdictions around the world that are kind of eating away at that competitive advantage. So we have to now laser-focus and bring our best and brightest from our lawmakers, our producers, academics and researchers, inventors and investors, to come together and say, “How do we grow Ontario? What is our winning proposition?” One of the questions we have to ask ourselves—primarily farmers, farming business; as you know, my long career in public service, my foray into agriculture, and now as an elected member and advocate—it’s people business. The business is about people. And so, Grow Ontario talks about growing great crops and making great foods and raising great animals, but it also involves investments in those people. If we don’t grow the people—if we don’t train and attract and retain the best people—we’re going to lose that edge to other jurisdictions, and we’ll get people who don’t think about, when they’re young and in school, looking at a job in agribusiness. So it’s our job to market that, to invest in it, to make sure the curriculum across especially post-secondary institutions is laser-focused to allow those people to realize those opportunities, to want to question themselves and question their communities: “What jobs are here?” How can a young person born and raised and living in Chatham-Kent say, “I’m going to get educated. I’m going to take a diploma program or an apprenticeship or a degree program, and I have a job waiting for me to raise my family in Chatham-Kent”? The families I’ve talked to in Timiskaming–Cochrane—you think it’s the other side of the map; their communities and young people are just like ours. Their families have the same questions: What jobs are there for young people to, first of all, get trained in, and then realize a good income and a good life and a long horizon in their communities? I’d argue those jobs are in agribusiness. The Grow Ontario strategy is very people-focused, but also realizes that trade is very competitive. In 2022, we weren’t talking about tariffs and very protectionist measures. We kind of had an open world. You look at the map of Ontario and you notice two things, very interestingly: that area of northeastern Ontario, across that imaginary border of Quebec and Ontario—the Quebec side has very green, vibrant agribusinesses, farms, livestock, production facilities right across that imaginary line. In Ontario, it’s kind of like mixed-use, forestry, scrubland. All the potential is still in that land, so we’re investing in that land. And then you look at those networks of trade. The networks of trade in Ontario, almost all of them, go north and south. Those beautiful interstate highways that take Ontario-made-and-produced food go north and south because—like, Europe has that ability to move food east and west, north and south to 300 million people. In Ontario, our 16 million people have the opportunity to trade with 200 million people this side of the Mississippi along the eastern seaboard, and cities as far as New York all the way down to Florida. So our agribusinesses and our producers are used to and are very efficient at trading north and south.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute, Minister.

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

All of a sudden, 2022 isn’t 2026. That network is potentially disrupted. Our food producers are disrupted, and they’re saying, “What if there are tariffs applied to my products? Where do they go?” So now we have to concurrently look at north and south, maintaining those relationships with our allies, our customers, our family and friends north and south, and saying, “How can we get our stuff across the Atlantic to markets in Europe and Asia and beyond?” That’s part of our job, and that’s one of many things Grow Ontario looks at.

Official source

MPP Bill Rosenberg

Thank you, Minister.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

How much time?

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

We’ve got 20 seconds.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

Just real quick—thank you, Chair, and thank you, Minister. I was listening to John when he was saying that when we were driving from Toronto, all that farmland—and it’s true: As soon as we get out of Mississauga, I see thousands of acres of farmland. It’s great that we have so much farmland in Ontario, that we can produce our vegetables and whatever we have to produce—

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

That concludes the government side. We’ll move on to MPP Vanthof. Go ahead.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Thank you, Minister, for bringing up that picture, the line between Ontario and Quebec, northern Ontario and northern Quebec. If you really want to know the history for that—why there’s so much farmland in northern Quebec to be developed—it’s because there was a subsidy of $400 per calf for beef cows. So that’s why they cleared the land up there. That’s why individuals cleared it. And why our side is more forestry. A lot of fibre from our side goes to the Quebec side, because they cleared the Quebec side. There is lots of potential for agriculture in northern Ontario—lots of it. But that’s kind of the history. So if it pays to do it, it will be done. You brought it up, Minister: We’re as far as we can be from northern Ontario. I agree that the process to access crown land should be modernized, simplified, one-stop. I get that. There are farmers who have applied for a crown lot next to them for years and years and years and it doesn’t happen—100%. But we have to decide as we do this, again, who has access to this crown land, because if crown land is bought up by institutional investors, it’s a public resource going to, basically, a speculator. There is a difference. So again, in your process to look over simplifying, modernizing, how farmland is sold, is there any thought given on who is going to end up with that land long-term?

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

Thank you. It’s an important question, and there is. That’s why the first conversations have to happen interministerially. We’ve looked at that history, like you described. You painted the perfect picture of why, on one side of an imaginary line, the land looks like this: deep government investment, cultural and community investment, to make that land. To bring three things I learned in the north: C, L and D. It’s “confidence” to attract that investment; the confidence for someone—a smaller or larger farm—to say, “I can do something. I can raise cattle. I can have a dairy farm. I can grow crops. I have the ability to do that, and to balance that balance sheet at the end of the year and actually make money for our family.” L stands for “lime,” or the minerals, because there’s a mineral content that needs to be added to that land in that deep Clay Belt because it is very productive. It needs some help to move it along. And of course, “drainage.” You drain that land and make sure it’s profitable and it’s productive. More than that though, who owns what? So if we have that confidence, we have that development, you can start with my Ministry of Agriculture and say, “How do we begin?” Ask those questions; we’ve sorted that out. We’ve worked with our stakeholders internally to say that other ministries may have different visions. The Ministry of Natural Resources may have thought—and it’s probably a very good point—to say there’s a future of forestry harvest there. But if that’s not realized, and that’s now a competing priority, what is our greatest opportunity for success? It’s probably agriculture.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

I fully agree. I would put the D for “drainage” at the top. Without drainage in northern Ontario, we’re lost. But yes, there is a fine balancing act and there is lots of opportunity in northern Ontario. As long as we don’t make the idea that for a paved-over acre in Chatham, we have to clear two acres for northern Ontario and that will equate, because it won’t. In eastern Ontario right now, 11 of your colleagues wrote a letter or statement regarding—I saw, when we went to Smiths Falls, lots of anti-Alto signs. Their contention—I kind of agree—is that there isn’t a good enough consultation process for rural areas on farmland protection. Would you agree that the consultation process right now isn’t—I know we have agriculture impact assessments. It’s mandatory to do them, but not mandatory to live by them. So do we have a process strong enough in this province, when big projects are proposed, to take the voice of agriculture into account?

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

This is a huge project; it’s a huge proposal. It’s a federal proposal to bring high-speed passenger traffic between very important parts of our central urban communities and move people quicker. We don’t have that. You look at the difference between jurisdictions like Japan or Europe. You jump on a train, and it’s reliable. It’s fast. It gets you there. It also gets products there fast.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

I think the consultations are critical, and right now is probably the best moment in time to say, “Push back a little bit. Take a pause.” Let our local elected officials and local communities weigh in.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

I agree, but is the process—and not just for Alto, but for big, provincially oriented projects—strong enough in Ontario to protect farmland? Because in the end, this bill is trying to protect security of agriculture, but the security of agriculture is security of farmland. Is the process strong enough? Your colleagues obviously don’t think it is for Alto. Is it for the 413? Is it for the project in St. Thomas? Is it for what’s happening in Waterloo? Do we really have a process in place to protect farmland?

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

We have a great process in place. It’s my aspirational goal to give it more teeth. I think we’ve talked about this in the Legislature. Agriculture impact assessments are that first line of defence so that democratically elected municipal representatives, provincial representatives take that mandate to the public.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

That concludes the time of the official opposition. MPP McCrimmon, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

Minister, you’ve used the language “level the playing field” quite a few times in your presentation. How are we going to level the playing field to make sure that small independent farmers actually realize the advantages of this legislation rather than the large corporate or industrial farms?

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

That’s a great point. I want to be very careful with the language. If you look at the language, I was very careful and very deliberate in saying this bill will protect Ontario’s food independence. “Independence” means farms large and small. I think earlier, I also said we want to level the playing field and make sure that processes are in place, especially for dairy end-use components—things like that. That’s levelling the playing field. Farms are getting bigger because equipment is getting bigger. Equipment is getting more efficient, and we’re investing in innovation technology to make sure we can compete globally. So when equipment on a farm one generation ago had no real artificial intelligence component, very little GPS or GIS inclusion, now it’s almost standard operating procedure that every farm, big and small, has some adaptation of technology. That’s part about getting big and getting bigger. But farms also have to realize that sustainable component. A farm—and it’s maybe 100 acres in southwest Ontario—and its very well-drained, very nutrient-rich soil can grow broccoli, tomatoes, field peppers, a variety of different things that you can’t do up north. You look at farms across the prairies; a small family farm might be 1,000 acres. I’ve seen farms that are 25,000 acres, where I asked the farmer, “When was the last time you saw all of your farm?” It’s over the course of the season that that farming family sees their farm. So scale is important because scale is efficiency. That’s also equipment and innovation, but we’re looking at long-term sustainability and at that access point to farms. If a farmer wants to sell their farm, a 100-acre farm at any point in Ontario might not sustain, because of the investments required, the input costs and the price point of the finished good—what that might realize—so farms will get bigger. I think at a moment in time, if we say we have about 48,000 farms in Ontario right now, I’d argue that in four or five years, we’ll have less than that. Farming input is important. I think me and MPP Vanthof often look around the Legislature. We see 124 seats, and 50 years ago, we may have seen 50% of those seats come from farming families and people that have a direct impact on food production. Now, I think we’ve argued it might be 12 or 13 people that have a direct access point to farm experience, farm production. As farms change, composition technology changes. Again, our greenhouses here in southwestern Ontario start at about 100 acres of renewed build. Only one generation ago, 10 or 15 acres could support a family farm.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

Yes. But, Minister, that’s exactly my point. I’m afraid that this will lead to a reduction. We want more people exposed to agriculture and the farming life. Look at the small communities that support our farmers. If we’re corporatizing and industrializing our farms, we’re going to lose that. So that’s just my point. I can’t argue with what you have to say, but you need to find a balance and I’m not sure I see it here. There are some good ideas—but here’s the point: I know all my colleagues, like I did, met with the Beef Farmers of Ontario when they came to the Legislature. Their number one ask was the breeder loan program. I can’t see the risk. I mean, I’m a risk assessment kind of person. I look at what they’re suggesting as a program—it’s not expensive—and actually, the potential is significant. Why can’t we move that breeder loan program along and get it in legislation?

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

That’s something we’re working toward. That’s a goal we’re working toward. We want to make sure we do capture all the voices across the sector. Just as you mentioned, why is the composition and size of food and food production changing? Because of the world we live in—it’s a highly competitive, efficient world. But I would say that the words “institution” and “corporatization” are not synonymous with something that’s bad or evil.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute.

Official source

Hon. Trevor Jones

Because public money and public investments—whether it’s a pension plan, an investment bank that says, “I want to invest in agriculture”—as long as they’re investing in sustainable agriculture, I would say that’s a good reward and a good return on that investment, because it preserves our ability to raise and grow our own food. The beef loan programs and the livestock programs—again, that’s one component, but it goes back to education. Let’s educate people on opportunities, on awareness of where food comes from, how food is grown and raised. If we start at a young age and go further ahead, people have more understanding; beef farms get bigger. The value of land in Ontario is far different than that in, say, our Prairie provinces. I heard, while I was recently in Alberta, that there’s a record sale of land. I think it reached $3,000 an acre. Land in Ontario, southwestern Ontario especially, is easily $30,000 an acre, $50,000 an acre, so you’re less able to graze and raise cattle. So again—

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

And that concludes our time. Thank you so much, Minister.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

We will now move on to the next group of panel presenters. I will call on Kristine Hayes, and Scott Helps of the Egg Farmers of Ontario. First, we’ll start with Kristine Hayes. You’ll have seven minutes for your presentation. Please state your name for Hansard, and you may begin. Just so you know, I will have a verbal reminder to notify you when you have one minute left for your presentation or your allotted speaking time—and that goes for Mr. Helps as well, once you are giving your presentation following Ms. Hayes.

Official source

Ms. Kristine Hayes

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee. My name is Kristine Hayes and I’m one of the owners at Shaw’s Ice Cream, an Ontario dairy processor located in Tillsonburg. I’m here today to speak specifically about schedule 5 of Bill 109 and the proposed amendments to the Milk Act. My perspective is that of a business owner who has spent more than two decades building and growing a food manufacturing company in Ontario. I understand and respect the need for regulation, strong standards and the necessity to protect consumers, employees, farmers and the integrity of our food system. My concern is with the cumulative burden of regulation and the unintended consequences that can occur when regulatory authority is expanded without considering the total burden already carried by businesses. An inspection, licence, registration or reporting requirement may seem reasonable on its own, but businesses don’t experience these requirements individually; we experience them all at once. When my sisters and I purchased Shaw’s Ice Cream in 2001, we were buying a shuttered ice cream company, although in its past it had been a pillar of the community. We weren’t regulatory experts; we were entrepreneurs trying to make a good product, find customers, pay our bills and grow. We quickly learned that dairy is an exceptionally complex industry, with supply management, milk classes, pricing structures, and licensing and reporting requirements. All these take considerable time and expertise to understand. Twenty-five years later, we manufacture millions of units of ice cream annually and employ approximately 100 people. Having lived through the growth and breathing life into the company, I can tell you that scaling a manufacturing company is extraordinarily difficult. As you grow, you need increasingly sophisticated systems for food safety, occupational health and safety, human resources, employment standards, taxation, licensing and financial reporting. Many of these requirements are entirely reasonable, but according to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and their key small-business statistics from 2025, approximately 98% of Canadian employer businesses are small businesses. Only about 1.5% are medium-sized. Among goods-producing small businesses, only about half are still operating after 10 years. We spend a considerable amount of effort encouraging people to start businesses, and I believe we need to spend just as much time asking what it takes for that Ontario company to grow from a $1-million-revenue business to one that can earn $10 million in revenue, because these are the companies that eventually build the factories, buy the equipment and employ the people around us. Statistics Canada has studied what it calls “regulatory accumulation,” recognizing that the issue is not necessarily one regulation, but accumulated costs of paperwork, navigating the rules and complying with requirements across governments over time. That brings me to schedule 5. What caught my attention was the potential expansion of the regulatory perimeter. Under the existing Milk Act, a regulated product is essentially milk, cream or cheese where a plan is enforced. Schedule 5 proposes to change that definition to “milk or milk products, or any class of milk or milk products, in respect of which a plan is enforced.” The definition of “milk product” is broad and includes products such as butter, cheese, milk powder, ice cream, ice cream mix and milk protein concentrate. At the same time, the Milk Act defines “marketing” not only to selling and distributing, but also to buying, processing, storing and transporting. The Milk Act already provides significant inspection and record-production powers. Bill 109 does not create those powers for the first time; we have to recognize that. But my concern is that schedule 5 potentially expands the products—and, therefore, potentially the businesses, specifically smaller businesses—to which these existing powers could apply. If milk class products are brought under the plan, how far downstream could that authority potentially extend? Could it extend to a manufacturer that doesn’t purchase raw milk, but purchases milk powder or milk protein concentrate from a distributor? Could it extend to a bakery purchasing butter or a confectionary manufacturer purchasing dairy ingredients? What about the small, independent ice cream shops that are lining the streets these days, purchasing relatively small quantities of cream, probably in bags, and other dairy ingredients to make ice cream for their local community? Could that entrepreneur become subject to additional regulation, reporting or inspect requirements? Perhaps that is not the intention, but if it isn’t the intention, I believe that boundary should be clear. Shaw’s is established, and if another regulatory obligation is created, I’m going to deal with it. My greater concern is the small company trying to grow. Imagine an Ontario food manufacturer doing that $1 million in sales with 10 employees. The owner may still be involved in production, purchasing—really, all of it. How are they going to become that $10-million company or the $50-million company? Every additional regulatory relationship adds cost and complexity. At some point, the entrepreneur will ask—and I’ve asked this to myself many times—“Do I really want to get bigger?” It’s not a question that we want successful Ontario entrepreneurs asking. What I’m asking the committee to consider are three things: First, clearly define the regulatory boundary. Businesses should be able to determine whether they are inside or outside the regulated system. Second, require meaningful consultation before additional milk products or classes of businesses are brought into that system.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One more minute.

Official source

Ms. Kristine Hayes

Affected businesses should understand why the change is necessary and what obligations will cost. And third, consider cumulative regulatory burden. Don’t simply ask, “Is this requirement reasonable?” Ask, “What else are we already asking these businesses to do?” Shaw’s began as a small business, and there was nothing inevitable about our growth. It required investment, risk and persistence. Somewhere in Ontario today is another manufacturer starting from humble beginnings. We should be asking ourselves, “What can we do to help them make it to be a medium-sized company?” Strong regulation and economic growth do not have to be opposing objectives. Good regulation should be necessary, proportionate, understandable and predictable. So my request is simple: Clearly define who needs to be regulated, demonstrate why the expansion is necessary, consult the businesses that will be affected and consider the cumulative burden of adding another layer in an already complex business environment. Ontario has many programs designed to help start businesses—

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you very much. That concludes your time. We’ll move on to Scott Helps, chair of Egg Farmers of Ontario. Go ahead, the floor is yours. You have seven minutes for your presentation. Please state your name for Hansard, and you may begin.

Official source

Mr. Scott Helps

Hi. My name is Scott Helps. I’m the chair of Egg Farmers of Ontario. I actually farm just a little bit north of here, about half an hour, in Wyoming with my wife and my four children. A couple of them are full time and a couple of them have other jobs as well. EFO represents more than 500 egg farmers and pullet growers across the province, accounting for about 40% of Canada’s total egg production. Together, Ontario egg farmers produce about 300 million dozen each year and support more than 7,000 good-paying jobs in the province. Our annual egg production includes $900-million farm-sales value and contributes over $2 billion into the economy. Thank you for the opportunity to present before the standing committee on behalf of our egg and pullet farm families in support of Bill 109, Protecting Ontario’s Food Independence Act. Ontario egg farmers support the direction the government is taking with Bill 109. Protecting farmland and strengthening local food production are priorities we share. One of the most important factors for farming—and especially for egg farmers—is stability. Food security is not just about today’s supply; it is about ensuring future generations have the land, tools and certainty they need to farm in Ontario. The Farmland Security Act, 2026, is an important part of that work. Farmland is one of agriculture’s most important assets and is the first part of an independent food system. At a time when jurisdictions around the world are facing rising costs, supply chain disruptions and growing pressure on domestic production, Ontario is taking practical steps to support local agriculture and strengthening the province’s ability to produce food here at home. A stable agricultural land base gives farm families the confidence to keep investing in their operations and producing high-quality, locally grown food for Ontario families. In a supply-managed sector like eggs, that stability helps Ontario match local production with local demand without relying on taxpayer support, while supporting rural communities and farm families. Legislation like this sends a clear indication to our farmers that government is prepared to stand with farmers and provide that stability. This provides a stable operating environment that allows us to invest, grow and continue producing food in Ontario for decades to come by passing our operations to our families while also giving new entrants the confidence to invest into a farm. Egg Farmers of Ontario also supports the government’s desire to modernize the Grow Ontario Strategy. As previously mentioned, there is economic instability, rising costs, volatile supply chains across the globe. We need to be nimble with these changes, and updating the strategy to reflect our new realities is both a prudent decision and a practical one. We cannot be on our heels in solving these problems. By setting realistic goals and taking practical, measured steps, we can ensure that Ontario’s agri-food sector remains strong despite these challenges. Updating the strategy is an opportunity to strengthen Ontario’s food sovereignty, support investment in local processing and supply chains, and ensure Ontario farmers can continue competing and growing for the long-term. Protecting Ontario’s agriculture is increasingly tied to protecting Ontario’s broader economic security and resilience. Our message today is straightforward. EFO supports practical steps to protect Ontario farmland, maintain local food production and give farmers confidence in the future of agriculture in this province. It helps our farmers and Ontarians across the province have confidence with food that is on their tables. Ontario has some of the best egg farmers and food processors in the world. Supporting sectors like egg farming through proposed legislation like this helps ensure the province remains competitive, resilient and capable of feeding itself in the years ahead. Measures that help protect farmland, support domestic production and create greater certainty for farmers are essential to maintaining a strong agricultural sector for future generations. EFO appreciates the government’s continued engagement with the agricultural community and looks forward to working with the ministry and elected officials as Bill 109 and the related regulations move forward. Thank you for your commitment to seek consultation on this proposed legislation and for the opportunity to speak today. Thank you.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you very much. We will start the next round of questions with the official opposition. MPP Vanthof, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Thank you to both for coming. I’d like to start with—do you mind if I use your first name, Kristine? Interjection.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

That is one of the best presentations we have ever had. It was to the point. You had an issue—you don’t have an issue with the whole bill; you have an issue, and it’s a voice we needed to hear. I’ve been in supply management dairy farm my whole life. From my perspective, the changes in the Milk Act are meant to reflect the changes in how milk is sold, right? It’s broken down into components and so that’s what they’re trying to fix. We had a presentation from Lactalis in Smith Falls about issues that if one province goes ahead of the other ones, that could cause issues, and what you’re bringing forward is this could cause issues depending on how it’s enforced or—your presentation is the difference—I know this government purports to be—I’m not going to be too political—and red tape. The difference is regulation that works as opposed to red tape, and that’s going to be really important as this bill goes forward to make sure that that is addressed. Like, if anything, I think almost all of us here have had Shaw’s Ice Cream. You’re doing a great job. My commentary is over. Just to confirm, your issue isn’t with the Milk Act, your issue is that processors like you know what the rules are going in, that you’re not left wondering am I or am I not covered by this?

Official source

Ms. Kristine Hayes

I think two of my main points with it is, overall, you’re right. I don’t have a problem with the food safety parts. That’s in everyone’s best interest. So there are changes that are coming to the Milk Act that I definitely support. It’s this piece because in dairy processing, there are the producers who are the farmers and then there are the companies that are processing that dairy product. It’s very consolidated. You’ve spoken with Lactalis who’s a billion-dollar company, and we need them. But underneath that, the difference between where we’re at, as a medium-sized company, and where they’re at is an incredible distance. And what matters to them is different and the amount of people that they have to solve their problems within is incredible. We don’t have that luxury. So when I see this coming down—I’m also not representing the Ontario Dairy Council—but the Ontario Dairy Council is the group that represents all the processors. I’m the only what is considered a “non-milk buyer” on that council, and as a “non-milk buyer” that means I don’t directly purchase ingredients from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario. I have to buy them in the secondary market because I just need the cream, I do not need the milk and I do not separate it. This is where the concern is, because people who are already established in the dairy industry, and the ones that have the billion-dollar companies have entire teams working on regulation. We need the competition to continue and so we need more life brought into the smaller businesses. We need an avenue for them to grow and, to be frank, there haven’t been a lot of businesses that cracked through from very small to that medium-sized business. I’m not here to say it’s because of all of the dairy regulation; it’s because of everything as I was outlining. Dairy regulation, in and of itself, is so convoluted if you don’t understand it. To be frank, not a lot of people understand the system from stem to stern, whether that’s farmers—I’m from Oxford county, so many of my friends are in the dairy industry. When I talk to them about what my struggles are, they’re dumbfounded because they think, “Well, we should just make that all work because when you do well, we do well.” Also, to be clear, there is a good relationship between the dairy farmers and the processors. The crux of what I’m saying today is this regulation opens up the opportunity—it doesn’t specifically say that would happen but it opens up an opportunity for the classification, reporting and being audited and potentially having to invest in systems like the systems that are in place today, like MUV, a system that processors need to put all their information in so that the dairy farmers of Ontario can understand where everything went and be charged accordingly. But how do smaller organizations and smaller processors keep up with something like that—invest possibly in more software, even stay up on the day-to-day of what goes on, the changes and what’s expected of them? Having been through that and seeing an opportunity to have distributors of dry products—possibly need to be tracking where those dry products went—why that is their responsibility? Is it going to be done properly? You’ve just opened up another layer of regulation and chasing what ends up becoming small numbers for a big amount of dollar, and what is the value in that? What I’m asking is to say if it wasn’t your intention, just let’s make sure it can’t get to that. Let’s make sure that they’re past this threshold.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

I thank you for that. I think your voice hopefully is heard because it’s an important—when I was on the board of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, we were always very concerned where the milk was going and now that they’ve divided up in much—I think that’s what they’re after. They’re not after and they shouldn’t be after the reseller. That’s where the issue is. I would really like to thank you. I will get to you in my second round, Scott, don’t worry. Thank you.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Okay, thank you. We will move to the third party. MPP McCrimmon, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

Thank you for your presentation. I’m going to do the same thing. I’m going to concentrate on Kristine and then you’ll be next. I understand that I’m not the farmer he is. Breaking down milk into its individual components so you can sell it easier because I know that when we talk about whey, that’s something—people want protein but you’re after the fat part of it. How are we going to make sure that there doesn’t end up being a run on protein and, if there are changes which make your life more difficult, that you can’t do that, that we don’t end up with this uneven market that individual components can end up with shortages or there’s too much on the market? How do we do that?

Official source

Ms. Kristine Hayes

Overall, there’s the mechanism of supply management so everything should be stable. That’s their job, to manage supply. I’m not here saying that that would happen, what you’re describing. I think it’s just really the burden that’s going to be put on others. There’s a whole other conversation we can have afterwords about supply management because that has been happening, just as an aside, that not everybody is getting the ingredients they require because of the event of protein. The two aren’t necessarily totally correlated. Definitely making sure that the smallest processors always have what they need, there’s that, but the ability just to do business within that framework and fully understand it without having to seek third-party support or hire someone that’s going to step you through the process, that’s really where I’m coming from. We shouldn’t have a system that would require anything close to that, and if we don’t put parameters on what that regulation could end up being, then we will absolutely end up there, because there’s no stopping point to it.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

Okay, exactly. So do you have any specific recommendations—wording—that could be included in the bill that would actually preclude what you’re so afraid of, that you’re worried would happen?

Official source

Ms. Kristine Hayes

I think the biggest thing is the consultation piece of making sure everyone knows. I will say that I was at one of the consultation meetings. It was held a few days after Canada Day last year. It was not well attended, but I think that goes to my exact point where people that are smaller don’t even see this coming and so they don’t understand the implication that’s going to have. To some degree we all have to be responsible for ourselves and our business and what happens next. I fully support that notion. But also, it’s the exact reason why they weren’t there, because they’re doing everything themselves and they don’t see it coming. Like I said, this has no benefit to me. I’m already part of the system. But I’ve been through the system, and it was frustratingly hard. Everything’s hard, and then there was this, I feel, because of all of the regulations that you need to understand and the costs that are involved with just making sure that you adhere to all of them.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

Okay, so the administrative burden and the possible regulatory burden—do you think that will frighten away small business owners so that they won’t want to get involved, or would it—

Official source

Ms. Kristine Hayes

It could be two-fold. I think that they won’t understand it coming in and have to learn it as they go. That’s what we’re doing today. That’s what I did. And I think that once they get in there and realize it—and that’s where I say I’m not here to say this is the breaking point. I’m not. My other point is there’s so much expectation on a business in Ontario from all facets that even adding any more, we have to really think, are we getting what we need here? The point of all of you guys being here, and me as well, is to create the best province that’s able to support itself, that’s respected nationally and internationally. But we need a good system of support for businesses and helping them grow and being cognizant of the things we’re adding to their plate every time, not just in agriculture.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

Okay. Following my question, exactly what could we do to support small business and its expansion?

Official source

Ms. Kristine Hayes

I think consultation is important, getting everyone together. If I’m saying from a personal perspective, there’s got to be consultation with all of the groups involved—that’s from the farmers to the Ontario Dairy Council and other non-milk buyers—so that they understand what’s coming and then put together and carve out a spot of, really, just being frank, who does this apply to so that the government knows and it isn’t a creeping regulation that can keep moving. As I said, you’ve seen them in your communities—there’s these ice cream shops popping up that are making their own ice cream on the street out of that store, and we’re asking them to be a part of the Milk Act. Where do we carve out for smaller businesses that are starting and could become something more? It’s really about collaboration but, in the regulation, having some sort of line. I think it needs all the parties to figure out what that looks like. And I don’t know what it looks like. I’m just saying there’s potential for this, and I’m concerned—

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

Thank you, Chair. I’m good.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

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

Official source

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault

First of all, thanks to both of you for being here; great presentations, very detailed. My question is going to be for Scott. First of all, congratulations on being inducted into the Lambton Agricultural Hall of Fame—well-deserved recognition. The Egg Farmers of Ontario have voiced support for the Farmland Security Act’s goal of protecting farmland and strengthening food security. As chair, why does that matter for Ontario’s more than 600 egg and pullet growers. I know you touched on it in your opening presentation, but I’d like you to go a little bit more into detail.

Official source

Mr. Scott Helps

We support this direction. We have been part of some of the consultation in the past, so we’ve felt like we’ve been able to voice our opinions around this. We feel that, for family farms, we want to have the ability to farm, basically, at the end of the day. John mentioned the red tape side of it. We don’t want any part of it being complicated. We understand totally that there’s got to be criteria around these things, that you have to hold it together with those criteria, and we support those ideas and we support the consultation that goes in behind those types of things. But for us, as long as we’re able to farm on our farms and produce the foods that we’re doing, doing the job that we’re able to do, we believe and support Bill 109 because of those reasons that we’re able to do that, and we don’t see that complication. Now, I know all other business—there are lots of other industries that will have different opinions and stuff. I’m speaking directly from a pullet-and-egg position as well. But, no, we feel this is a great direction because we’re able to just farm and carry on doing our business. With the land act and everything around this, we’re totally in favour of where we’re headed on this.

Official source

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault

That’s awesome. That’s what we want to do. We want to hear from the actual producers and people who are on the ground and understand what’s going on—and you farm in the beautiful Lambton county, so that’s good. Thanks, Scott.

Official source

Mr. Scott Helps

Thanks.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Next up, we have MPP Leardi. Go ahead.

Official source

Mr. Anthony Leardi

Scott, thank you for being here today. I have a question. I’m from Essex county. Essex county is in zone 1 and you are in zone 1, so we have an interest here that is a mutual interest. With regard to egg farmers in Essex county, or zone 1, I would like to know, with regard specifically to the provisions of this act, which have the intention of placing certain restrictions on foreign acquisition and foreign ownership—give us your views, or the views of your organization, on that. And if you can touch specifically on any examples that you know of, this committee would appreciate it—if you have any examples to give us. You don’t have to mention specific names or people, but if you could give us specific examples, that would be very helpful to us. Thank you.

Official source

Mr. Scott Helps

I’ll even add another part of that, Mr. Leardi, because I want to recognize that we were in a point at one point where it was recognized that—look, the province is different, from Essex to the north and all in between that. What’s good for one and what’s good for another might not be the same thing. What we’ve recognized is that, if we can somehow have consultation—like has been suggested a couple of times here—to work through those types of barriers, that’s all we ask for. We think that’s good. We’re a diversified province with a lot of opportunities. When it comes to the land side of it, I do have some experiences because we do farm land as well; 1,000 acres is what we do with our operation. And in our community, or in my area, from all parts of Lambton county, we’ve already had those situations where buyers are coming and buying land for different reasons—foreign buyers, for example—and different things. So what we’re concerned about is what I mentioned in my words about production for Ontario and beyond. That’s different in all sectors. If we’re going to have foreign buyers, we think that those complications that get brought into it—maybe not right now, but into the future—that’s where our concerns are as farmers. We want to make sure that our people are fed. That’s the main priority for us. Beyond that, that’s a whole other story. But having foreign buyers come in and take up the land without having things in place to put barriers up to stop that, which this does—we support that.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Scott Helps

I support that as a farmer myself that does land as well, so that’s where I’d premise that around there.

Official source