Monday, August 10, 2026

Mr. Mike Chromczak

[Inaudible] and I’m also an asparagus and watermelon farmer near Tillsonburg, Ontario. The Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association, or OFVGA represents approximately 3,500 growers across the province. Together our members farm approximately 225,000 acres of highly productive farmland and generate about $4.2 billion in farm cash receipts. I’d like to begin by providing some context on the current environment facing Ontario’s fruit and vegetable growers. Our sector is facing unprecedented and increasing pressures. The cost of producing food has risen dramatically. For example, compared to 2025 levels, diesel costs are more than 50% higher and fertilizer costs have increased by approximatively 30%. At the same time, growers are facing significant marketplace pressures. Competition continues to increase, returns remain stagnant and farm margins continue to shrink. Ontario growers are also competing in a global marketplace where the playing field is not always level. Especially crop growers in the United States have received significant government support, including ad hoc cash upfront subsidy programs in 2025 and 2026 totalling more than C$5 billion. If a similar acreage-based payment program were applied in Ontario, it would represent an estimated investment of more than $55 million for Ontario fruit and vegetable growers alone. Consumers are understandably frustrated when they see food prices increase and may assume that farmers are benefiting from those higher prices. However, the reality is that in a global marketplace with significant cost pressures and uneven competition, Ontario growers are not seeing those increased grocery prices flow back to the farm gate in a way that covers rising production costs. I share this context because it is important to understand the challenges facing our sector as we discuss the importance of protecting Ontario’s food independence. The OFVGA appreciates and supports the efforts of Minister Jones, the Premier and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness in recognizing the need to protect Ontario’s ability to produce food. A key part of that discussion is access to productive farmland. Fruit and vegetable growers are especially aware of the pressure around land availability, especially for crops that depend on farmland with unique characteristics including specific soil types, topography, climate conditions and reliable access to water for irrigation. Competition for farmland comes from many sources. It includes other, more profitable agricultural sectors, development pressures and purchases by third parties, including foreign and domestic investment firms and pension funds. These pressures have increased land values and, in some cases, make it more difficult to maintain farmland in its most productive agricultural use. It is important that Ontario farmland remains available for the production of fruits and vegetables and other agricultural products. Bill 109 represents a proactive step by the government to consider how best to protect this valuable resource. At the same time, it is equally important that any legislation, including the proposed Farmland Security Act, be implemented carefully to avoid unintended consequences. Today’s farms are complex businesses. Many fruits and vegetables operations have become highly capital-intensive enterprises with sophisticated ownership and investment structures. This is particularly true in greenhouse production, which my colleague Steve Peters will speak about in greater detail, but it also applies to some fruit and vegetable farms as well. OFVGA wants to ensure this legislation does not unintentionally restrict a farm’s ability to access investment needed to expand operations, create value-added opportunities, improve efficiency or support effective succession planning. A key consideration will be how foreign land ownership is defined within the broader context of a modern agricultural business. It will be important to consider not only the physical land base but also the other assets that are essential to a farm operation including buildings, equipment, brands and other intangible assets. As the government moves forward with developing regulations under this proposed legislation, we believe it will be important for the agricultural sector to remain closely engaged. OFVGA would welcome the opportunity to continue working with the government to ensure the final approach protects Ontario farmland while supporting the strength and competitiveness of Ontario farms. I would also like to comment on another important aspect of Bill 109: the proposed amendments related to the Ontario Food Terminal. OFVGA appreciates the continued recognition by the province of the importance of this critical piece of agricultural infrastructure. While the Ontario Food Terminal is only one part of the supply chain that moves fruits and vegetables and other horticulture products across the province and into the greater Toronto area, it remains a significant marketplace for Ontario growers. More than two billion pounds of produce is moved through the facility each year. Allowing the terminal to establish a capital fund to support future improvements will help ensure its long-term sustainability and maintain its role as an important market for Ontario growers, particularly in a time where grocery supply chains are becoming increasingly concentrated. To conclude, the sector appreciates the government’s efforts to strengthen and protect Ontario’s agricultural sector through the measures outlined in Bill 109. As I mentioned at the beginning, Ontario’s fruit and vegetable growers are facing growing competitiveness challenges. We know the province is aware of these issues and remains engaged in addressing them. OFVGA continues to work with both provincial and federal governments on improving business risk management programs, including through the Next Policy Framework. These programs will require continued commitment and collaboration from governments to ensure they reflect the reality and challenges facing today’s growers. I thank you again for your time and the committee’s work in reviewing this important legislation. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our perspective, and we look forward to continuing this discussion. Thank you.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you very much. We’ll move to the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers. Please state your name for Hansard, and you may begin.

Official source

Hon. Steve Peters

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. Steve Peters, chairman, Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers. Online as well is Richard Lee, our executive director. Thanks very much for the opportunity to speak to Bill 109 and offer the perspective of Ontario’s greenhouse vegetable sector, a sector that plays a critical role in food security, economic growth, employment and exports. Our sector has invested billions of dollars in modern food production infrastructure and continues to expand our capacity to supply fresh vegetables to Ontario, Canada and other markets. We support the overall objective of Bill 109. Protecting Ontario’s agricultural land base and strengthening domestic food production are important goals that align with the greenhouse industry’s to long-term food security. However, though, we encourage the government to ensure that the implementation of the legislation supports growth and investment in the greenhouse sector, while avoiding unintended consequences. (1) The greenhouse agricultural sector is different than traditional farmland. It’s simply not land-based farming. Our operations require significant investments in the greenhouses, energy systems, water management infrastructure, parking facilities, logistics networks and advanced technology. As regulations are developed, we ask the government to clearly define how greenhouse properties, greenhouse expansions and controlled-environment agriculture facilities will be treated. Investors and growers need regulatory certainty before making long-term capital commitments. (2) Protect the access to investment capital. The sector has been one of the fastest-growing segments in Canadian agriculture, but our continued growth depends on access to financing, investment partnerships and capital from a variety of sources. We support measures that protect agricultural land from speculation and preserve it for food production; however, any restrictions on ownership or investment must be carefully designed so they do not discourage legitimate agriculture investment or slow greenhouse expansion projects that will help to increase our food capacity. We ask the government to consider that any restrictions or reporting requirements include practical exemptions and clear approval processes. (3) Please do not increase regulatory burden. The sector already operates under vigorous food safety traceability, environmental labour and export requirements. We participate in food safety certification programs. As the legislation is modernized, please avoid trying to duplicate inspections and additional reporting requirements. Modernization should create efficiencies, not new layers of regulation. (4) Competitiveness must remain a priority. Ontario’s greenhouse growers compete every day with producers in the United States and Mexico. Food independence requires more than just protecting farmland; it requires maintaining a business environment that allows Ontario growers to compete successfully. Before implementing new regulations, the government should assess the impacts on competitiveness. Regulatory burden can affect our ability to compete in North American markets. (5) Food independence requires more than land protection. While protecting farmland is important, access to labour, affordable energy and infrastructure remain some of the most significant challenges facing greenhouse vegetable growers. If Ontario’s objective is food independence, policy must support that. We require access to reliable labour; competitive and predictable energy costs; infrastructure that supports expansion and transportation; innovation and technology adoption; and efficient and timely regulatory approvals. These factors are important to ensuring our long-term food capacity. Finally, consultation must continue through the regulation development. Many of the details that will ultimately determine the impact of legislation will be established through regulations. Continued, meaningful discussion with the greenhouse sector through that process is essential. In closing, the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers support the government’s objective of strengthening food independence and protecting agricultural production. Our message is simple: Protect farmland, but also protect the ability of growers to invest, expand, compete and produce food. Bill 109 has the potential to strengthen our food system, but that success is going to depend on recognizing the unique nature of greenhouse agriculture; protecting access to investment and capital; minimizing regulatory burden; supporting international competitiveness; addressing labour, energy and infrastructure needs; and maintaining ongoing consultation with the sector. By taking this balanced approach, Ontario can protect its agricultural land while continuing to grow one of the most innovative and productive greenhouse sectors in the world. Mr. Chair, where you are right now, you are in the greenhouse capital of Canada, as you well know. Ontario is home to 170 growers, 4,500 acres of greenhouse glass. Our focus is cucumbers, tomatoes and peppers, but we’re seeing extreme growth in the strawberry side, the lettuce side—including 16 acres of eggplant not far from here. The potential is there, and we want to continue to work with the government to make sure that that potential exists, because we are the second-largest concentration of greenhouses in the world, and that’s something Ontario can be really proud of.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you very much for your presentation today, Mr. Peters, and Mr. Lee in the background. We’ll move on to Mr. Brackett. Please state your name for Hansard, and you may begin.

Official source

Mr. Jim Brackett

Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about Bill 109 and the proposed restrictions on foreign interest in Ontario farmland. My name is Jim Brackett. I am the president of the Kent Federation of Agriculture; we didn’t change our name from Chatham-Kent, because it’s Kent county and part of the agriculture. We represent approximately 1,850 farm families and agriculture members in Chatham-Kent, one of the most productive and diverse agricultural areas in Ontario. Let me start by saying this clearly: We support the objective of protecting Ontario farmland from harmful foreign control and speculative acquisition. Farmland is a limited resource. Once we lose control of it, it can be very difficult to get that control back. Farmland is the foundation of our food system, our rural economy and our long-term food security. Ontario should not allow foreign governments, state-controlled companies, offshore investment funds or hidden beneficial owners to accumulate large amounts of farmland in a way that pushes Ontario farmers out of the market. But there is an important distinction that I believe this committee needs to keep in mind: Protecting farmland from harmful foreign control is not the same thing as blocking legitimate investment in Ontario agriculture. Bill 109 establishes the framework, but many of the most important details will be determined later, through regulations. Who will be considered a restricted person? What exactly will qualify as farmland? What does an interest in farmland mean? What transactions will be exempt? And under what circumstances will permission be granted? These details are extremely important to farmers. The argument for restricting foreign ownership is understandable. A foreign investor with very deep pockets may be prepared to pay more for farmland than its productive value can justify. That can drive prices higher. It can make it harder for an existing farmer to expand and also make it almost impossible for a young farmer to buy their first farm. There’s also the issue of transparency. Ownership can be hidden through corporations, partnerships, trusts and numbered companies. A properly designed law can help Ontario understand who actually owns and controls its farmland. That is a good objective. But they also need to recognize the risk of making the legislation too broad. Agriculture today is an extremely capital-intensive business. Farmers need financing to buy land, install drainage, build barns and greenhouses, purchase equipment, expand livestock operations and transfer farms from one generation to the next. Canada banks and farm credit are extremely important sources of finance, but they may not always provide all of the capital required. They may also require levels of equity that a young or expanding farmer simply does not have. Sometimes outside capital can come into an operation as a loan, minority investment or a partnership while the Ontario farmer continues to control and operate the farm. If Bill 109 treats every foreign financial interest the same as foreign ownership, we could eliminate legitimate financing without making one more acre of farmland available to a young farmer. There is another side of this issue that should not be forgotten. For many farm families, their farm is their greatest asset. It is also their retirement fund. When that farmer is ready to retire, restricting the number of potential purchasers could affect the value of that farm and the family’s succession plan. And restricting foreign ownership alone will not suddenly make farmland affordable. Canadian investors, corporations, pension funds and large domestic farm operations can also compete for farmland. Interest rates, developmental pressure, farm profitability and the limited supply of good agricultural land all influence farmland prices. So foreign ownership restrictions may be part of that solution, but they are not by themselves a complete farmland policy. The Kent Federation of Agriculture would suggest six principles as Bill 109 moves forward. (1) Target control, not normal financing. There needs to be a clear distinction between somebody who controls farmland and the lender, who simply holds a mortgage or other security. A legitimate loan should not suddenly be considered foreign ownership. (2) Require full disclosure of beneficial ownership. Ontario needs to know who ultimately owns and controls farmland, not just the name of the corporation on the deed. We believe Ontario should establish a reliable baseline showing how much farmland is actually held by foreign individuals, foreign-controlled companies, investment funds and institutional investors. You cannot develop good policy unless you have good information. (3) Recognize genuine farmers who are building their lives in Ontario. Someone who lives here, works here, farms here and is working toward permanent residency should not automatically be treated the same as absentee foreign investors. In this area, we have a tremendous part of our agriculture that is Dutch, that immigrated here in the last 50 years or further—hard workers, and they’ve grown dramatically. There needs to be a practical way of recognizing people who have made that genuine long-term commitment to Ontario agriculture. (4) Protect normal farms and farm transactions. Family succession, estate settlements and corporate reorganizations that do not change the actual control of the farm should not become caught up unnecessarily in this legislation. The same applies to normal lending arrangements, leases, partnerships and joint ventures.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Jim Brackett

(5) Make the approval process clear and timely. (6) If Ontario limits some sources of agricultural capital, we need to strengthen access to Canadian capital. So ask questions: Where did the money come from? Who controls the land? Do we know who the real owner is? Is that land being actively farmed? Does the arrangement strengthen Ontario agriculture or simply turn farmland into another financial asset? Our recommendation is to proceed with Bill 109, but proceed carefully. Restrict harmful foreign control, close the loopholes, require transparency, preserve legitimate farm financing, protect succession planning and improve opportunities for young and expanding Ontario farmers. Farmland security and farm financial security have to be designed together. Ontario needs both. Thank you.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Okay. Thank you very, very much. This round of questions will start with the third party. MPP McCrimmon, floor is yours.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

Thank you. I really appreciated your presentations. I think they’re amazing, and I think this is exactly the kind of information that we need to hear. Mr. Peters, when you were talking about business risk programs—how do we make them better and easier for farmers to actually take advantage of?

Official source

Hon. Steve Peters

Mr. Chair, to the honourable member: That’s a challenging answer that I think farmers have been struggling with for a long time, trying to find the right mix of business-risk-management programs that are going to meet individual needs. The needs of a greenhouse sector are not necessarily the same as someone who is a cash-crop operator, and what we would be encouraging is that, as the new agricultural policy framework works its way through the system and gets implemented in 2027, the government engage with all of the sectors to ensure that a one-size-fits-all approach isn’t going to meet all of our needs. I know Minister Jones—I saw him in Nova Scotia at the federal-provincial meeting—was certainly raising the issues and the diversity within agriculture. So, there are challenges, but it’s got to be looked at, commodity by commodity.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

Thank you for that answer. I’m glad. I totally agree: Food independence is important, and that’s a solid aim for this legislation. But how are we going to support farmers? You had a few ideas about access to labour and infrastructure and energy, but I was really interested in the adoption of innovation and technology. What can the government do to actually encourage and reward that adoption of that technology?

Official source

Hon. Steve Peters

Well, the technology adoption—there’s some amazing technology that’s going on. If I looked at the energy file, that is looking at cogeneration and how we can take advantage of that. But we also need to then work very closely with the Ministry of Energy to make that. So I think, with any innovation that’s going to move forward—you can look at technological innovations even within a greenhouse. I toured a greenhouse three weeks ago and saw a machine, a robot that looked like an anteater that was harvesting cherry tomatoes, and that harvester can work 20 hours a day without a break. There is a lot of technology and a lot of innovation that is out there, but again, much like the question you asked on the business risk management, what we require is an all-of-government approach to a lot of the issues that we are dealing with. We know that OMAFA is there for us, but so many other ministries touch on all of our lives. So we need to ensure that if we’re going to see innovation happen within agriculture, we’re going to need the support of other ministries, and we need the champion from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

Thank you for that. I think you’re right, and I think some of our government structures aren’t designed to actually enhance or encourage cross-ministerial co-operation. But do you have any ideas for us? Do we need to change the forum so that instead of just one committee, it’s two committees? How do we make sure that we’re talking to every single ministry that we need to talk to?

Official source

Hon. Steve Peters

Thanks, Mr. Chair, for the question. To the honourable member: It’s individuals like yourself that we need, urban politicians who are going to be delivering messages to your colleagues sitting across the floor. A lot of this work doesn’t need to be done in an adversarial manner. We all require food, whether it’s urban or rural. And I would encourage you to enter into discussions with your colleagues across the floor. Having spent 12 years at Queen’s Park myself, I know where the agenda is set. The agenda is set from the Premier’s office, and the Premier’s office on down. We’ve seen Premier Ford; he’s been very supportive of Minister Jones and agricultural initiatives, but if that tone is going to be set, it needs to come from the top down, looking at agriculture and agri-food production as something not so much political but as something that benefits all of us.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

Okay. Thank you.

Official source

Mr. Richard Lee

May I add to that? Richard Lee from the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Richard Lee

This has been an issue that we’ve asked government for support on these cross-ministry meetings: to support ideas, to ensure that we have the environment to succeed and to ensure the investments remain here in Ontario. We need to identify opportunities that elevate agriculture and sustain it long-term so that we can address some of these issues as well as modernize to the speed of business to implement policies that support agriculture broadly.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

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

Official source

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault

Thanks to all the presenters for being here today and taking time to be part of our consultation process. My question is for Jim from the KFA. Thank you for your dedication to ag. Through all the committees you’re on and knowing you for a lot of years, you definitely wear your heart on your sleeve. Chatham-Kent is one of Ontario’s most productive agricultural regions. As a municipal councillor here in Chatham-Kent for 17 years and with the province for two years, I totally understand the importance of agriculture, not only here in Chatham-Kent but right across the province. Jim, through to you: How do you see this legislation supporting the continuity of family farms here in future generations?

Official source

Mr. Jim Brackett

Well, I think it depends on, as I said before, how all of the parameters affecting it are made and designed so that we don’t restrict it rather than allow it to happen. Hopefully the bottom line is that it encourages more succession, more investment; but we need capital for that and help to secure capital for those things to go forward. It is becoming more and more expensive. Land in this area is ranging between $30,000 and $45,000 an acre. And when I say $30,000, there are parts of Chatham-Kent that are less than that, but in the most productive parts, that’s not uncommon. And I think when you get into the greenhouse business, it goes much higher than that. So it’s a valuable asset that’s very difficult to expand in because of financing. All the help that we can get in terms of providing financing—and there is a lot already available through farm credit and banks and other investment opportunities or other capital opportunities—the more we can protect that and protect our farmland. We also need to be careful of protecting farmland as a whole. Some of the largest acreage we lost has been to foreign investment: 1,500 acres in St. Thomas; more acreage in Windsor, Ontario, although that was in the heart of the city so you wouldn’t consider that completely farmland. But we need to be careful of the whole picture in terms of that.

Official source

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault

Yes, we do definitely want to protect family farms moving forward. Sometimes it’s a bit of a juggling act. But thank you for your input today.

Official source

Mr. Jim Brackett

Can I make one other comment?

Official source

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault

Yes.

Official source

Mr. Jim Brackett

You mentioned family farms. We need to be careful, in today’s climate, how we define family farms. I have some very good friends and neighbours that are running in different parts. A lot of the area considers them one cell, but they’re not; they’re multiple cells that started three generations ago from one man. We need to be careful of how we define family farms today. Thanks.

Official source

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault

Thank you.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

MPP Rosenberg, the floor is yours.

Official source

MPP Bill Rosenberg

I want to thank all the presenters here today for helping share your knowledge. We’re all here to learn from all of you. My question is to Steve and Richard. With close to 50,000 jobs tied to the greenhouse vegetable value chain, why does a clear, practical regulation matter for an industry operating at that large scale? The second part is, as Bill 109 moves through our committee, what would you like to see prioritized in the Ontario growth strategy that will continue our growth in the Ontario greenhouse vegetable sector?

Official source

Hon. Steve Peters

I’ll start, and then I will turn it over to Richard. There are a number of factors there. Trade is extremely important; 85% of what we grow in Ontario goes to the United States, so the trade is extremely important. The infrastructure requirements that are needed for greenhouse investment, you are looking at anywhere from $1.5 million to $2 million an acre. For scale, to make it profitable, you’re going to be looking at probably a 25-acre investment. So it’s a significant financial outlay that’s going to take place, but that outlay requires that infrastructure. It requires sewer, water, gas and electricity. It requires that transportation network. I think, if we’re going to grow and go forward, that’s where we need to partner with government, because those investments also in turn can help a municipality. Those very investments that are made to help support the greenhouse sector can help to support residential growth and communities like Chatham-Kent or Kingsville or Leamington. Those are a couple of areas that come to mind to me and where, if moving forward with Bill 109, we’ve got all the right ingredients to look towards food security, food sovereignty. But it has to be that partnership—working with government. Richard may have some other comment.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Richard Lee

Thank you, Mr. Rosenberg. Just real quick: Those jobs that are contributing to the agricultural sector only create more jobs. Ultimately, you’ve seen a shift from auto, EV—that was high-tech, good-paying jobs, which could ultimately complement agriculture as we adopt research, innovation, robotics, logistics. I think it’s an excellent opportunity to upskill some of our labour force as well. But more importantly, not just infrastructure: good policies—policies from all levels of government, including municipal, including the federal. The feds have now recognized that greenhouse is in an ideal position to help reduce our dependence on imported product. But we can’t do it without the infrastructure and without the policies to support greenhouses across Canada, including Ontario.

Official source

MPP Bill Rosenberg

Thanks very much, guys. Keep up the great work. It’s definitely eye-opening, what greenhouses are doing for our communities.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

That concludes the government’s time. We will move to the official opposition. MPP Vanthof, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Thanks to all the presenters. I think the one thing that all three presentations share—not opposition to the proposed regulations and foreign investment, but the message that we need to be careful because modern agriculture requires big investments and perhaps, sometimes, bigger investments than what the traditional lending institutions can provide. I think we need to be careful not to overregulate. I think when people think of foreign, they think of foreign entities, countries controlling large plots of farmland. I think we’re all in agreement: We don’t want that. My first question would go to—if you don’t mind me using your first name—Jim. You mentioned something that we should look at regulating: control and who actually controls the entity. Because when I look at foreign investment—a foreign investment company or a domestic hedge fund—to me, it doesn’t make much difference. It’s who controls the outcome; is that the balance sheet of a multinational corporation, a hedge fund, or is it the farm entity itself? Could you expand on that?

Official source

Mr. Jim Brackett

I think what I was getting to with that answer was who controls the land, who farms the land, who works the land, who ultimately makes the investments to improve the land? The financing may be coming from foreign. I know one company in this area that runs about 2,000 acres; they then have a local man that manages that for them and a number of farmers that farm it. One of their goals is to improve the land with sharecrop agreements between their company that has the investors wanting to buy—and mostly that’s European investment—and who’s farming it. When I was talking about control, I was talking about who’s farming it. Who’s in control of the farm? Is that what you’re looking for, John?

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Yes. You also mentioned and used St. Thomas as an example. Is it important not just to have regulations about who owns the land but actually have really strong regulations on whether that land stays in agriculture, or whether it’s moved to some—there is going to be development. We’re not going to stop development. But does agriculture have a big enough voice right now in provincial structure to say, “Is there a better use than growing food for this land? If there isn’t, it’s staying agriculture”?

Official source

Mr. Jim Brackett

Thank you for that question. It’s a very good question. I used the 1,500 acres because, if I’m not mistaken, that was bought up by Volkswagen which, unless I’m mistaken, is a foreign company. Just before that, there was a lot of controversy in the press and in the news over the greenbelt, where Doug had wanted to do some development along there, and people rallied against it. But the 1,500 acres happened within six months afterwards and there was no cry in terms of Canadian-wide press or Ontario-wide press. It just disappeared. There was no real legitimate cry over the 750 acres at Wilmot. There was, certainly, from the farmers, but not in the press as much as there was over that greenbelt. So, we need balance. We need development and we need housing, and we’re going to need land for development for sure, whether it’s in Chatham or whether it’s in Toronto or wherever. I would encourage us to look at areas even within Chatham that can be developed—that are already designed for that—rather than taking additional land. But I’m not against development, that’s for sure. I hope that answers that.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Yes. Both for Steve and, if there’s time, Mike: You also talked about the need for regulation or the possibility of regulation in foreign investment, but to be careful that we’re not restricting development with these regulations.

Official source

Hon. Steve Peters

No. Mr. Chair, through you to the honourable member: That’s extremely important. Hence why, as the details come out beyond the legislation and into the regulatory environment, the need for good consultation on how that—because, again, similar to the answer I gave the honourable member from the third party, a one-size-fits-all approach isn’t necessarily going to be the right answer. Some of the regulatory requirements or changes that are going to be done to ensure the needs of greenhouses are met may not necessarily be the same as what somebody in Mike Chromczak’s spheres are, as well. That’s where, in our mind, it’s just incumbent that we see that consultation on the regs. I’ll let Mike jump in.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Forty seconds left.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Go ahead, Mike.

Official source

Mr. Mike Chromczak

Thank you, MPP Vanthof. I appreciate that. It’s not just at the primary production level. There are certainly opportunities, as well as risks, at primary production for investment in control. Those investment opportunities also move up through the value chain and there may be different parts of agribusiness that we need to consider when it comes to foreign investment, domestic investment, that can help or can hinder our food security here in Ontario. So, just that broader scope and that wider consideration—

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

That concludes the time for the official opposition. We’ll move on to the third party. MPP McCrimmon, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

I’ll stick with Mr. Chromczak, if that’s okay. I think that all development isn’t equal, right? There are some developments that are designed to turn a quick profit, maybe through speculation, and then some are designed for longer purposes, benefits. One size won’t fit all, but how does the government design programs to support your industry that would actually support longer-term investments?

Official source

Mr. Mike Chromczak

I think that there’s certainly an opportunity, through consultation, to make sure that all risks and opportunities are assessed, especially when it comes to development and the impact on long-term agricultural sustainability. In the short term, however, competitiveness is our biggest opportunity and our biggest struggle right now at the primary level, and I think that we need to take those factors into account to ensure that we’re protecting the entire value chain—the entire supply chain—making sure that we have sustainable and profitable, safe domestic food production.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

Okay, thank you. One further question, then: I think the world is looking to Canada because we are a trusted partner, and people look at us and say, “They look after their people. They look after the environment. They do it right.” How do we continue to grow businesses as we scale up and, yet, not lose that, not lose that touch Canadians have with being considered that trusted partner?

Official source

Mr. Mike Chromczak

And that’s certainly something we never want to take for granted, and we want to maintain and expand on that goodwill and that reputation that we have. So, not to harp again on competitiveness, but that is our biggest threat right now. We have consumers who are rightfully concerned with the rising costs of food, and we have growers who are facing diminishing margins, historically high cost of production and risk to their operations that are unprecedented. It is imperative that we step back, that we acknowledge and we look at the competitive disadvantages that we face, we place a value on domestic food production and food supply, versus those imported substitutes, and we assign the burden equally and fairly. Right now, as a primary producer, a lot of us are sharing a disproportionate burden on those increased costs of production and the pressure on retail prices. So between primary producers like us, government, retailers and consumers, we need to come to a solution together that we share that burden and that cost so that we can maintain a domestic food supply and protect Ontario’s food independence.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

Okay, that’s awesome. How much time? Do I have another minute?

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

You have two minutes and 40 seconds.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

Okay. Mr. Brackett, you’re next. Now, I totally agree with you about establishing a baseline, but what are the challenges, what are the risks and what things are we likely to miss? That’s what I’m concerned about, is that when government creates a baseline, maybe they only capture 80% of it; they don’t capture all the different ways that agriculture can be influenced. So if you were going to talk to the government and say, “This is the information I think you really need to collect,” what would that include?

Official source

Mr. Jim Brackett

Well, that’s a multi-faceted question, and I’ll try to see if I can touch on it.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

Give us a few ideas.

Official source

Mr. Jim Brackett

You’ve got to look at the whole business, I guess is what first comes to mind. We’re facing input costs—so high right now. Part of that is to do with things happening around the world, whether it’s embargoes, that only we in Canada are facing in terms of our input costs; whether it’s the price of fuel that is skyrocketing. So we’ve got to look at the whole chain, from inputs to the end. We recognize that we have to—as the greenhouse people have been talking about—add value to our products. The more we can build value in—and that might be the newer dairy barns, the pork—loose housing, trying to keep up with what the world wants; we have a number of barns being built around this area that we’re converting to loose housing. So we’ve got to look at the whole picture.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Jim Brackett

Number one: inputs. For example, the taxes on fuel, which is a major input for farming, are one thing you could look at. That may not be a provincial jurisdiction, but it’s certainly of importance—so many areas.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

Quick question: The chaos around the world right now that’s making your life very difficult to predict, the stability—what can the government do to actually enhance whatever things we can control, whatever stability we could help create?

Official source

Mr. Jim Brackett

Well, I think the thing to look at is what we do have control over as a government and try to minimize the effect that that has on farms. There are people out there saying that their input cost this year, their cost of production, is 50% higher than last year. They’re not likely going to—we are very resilient—

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

That concludes the time for the third party. We’ll move on to the government side. MPP Vickers, the floor is yours.

Official source

MPP Paul Vickers

My question is for Steve or Richard. The Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers represents close to 170 growers across 4,500 acres of glass, from Windsor all the way up to Ottawa, and it accounts for 69% of Canada’s greenhouse vegetable farm cash receipts. This sector exported over $2.3 billion in fresh vegetables in 2024. How important is it that farmland protection legislation, like the Farmland Security Act, considers the needs of capital-intensive land-based operations like the greenhouses? And how would this legislation help keep Ontario’s greenhouse sector globally competitive?

Official source

Hon. Steve Peters

I’ll start quickly, but I want to turn it over to Richard, because Richard has far more experience in the greenhouse sector than I have had in my last two years as chairman. What I have seen is, if Ontario growers have the right tools, they’re prepared to make those investments and grow. It’s just the resiliency of the sector and the innovative nature of that sector. They realize what they can do and what they can contribute to our food security. But I’m going to turn it over to Richard to just let him go into a little more detail. Richard?

Official source

Mr. Richard Lee

Yes, thank you. Ultimately, we also see a lot of the investment needs to stay here—as we alluded to earlier, almost 50,000 jobs that are contributed to, that sector. But we can’t forget that this is a high-capital-intensive sector. So that’s where we’re asking for that consideration, because when you look at a parcel of land, whether it be 50 acres at a $2-million investment per acre to erect a greenhouse, and then you look at the multiplier effect when that family looks to exit the agricultural sector, it’s not a whole lot of people who are able to cut that cheque to take over that operation. So, we need to understand whether the limitations are on acreage or the definition of ownership as previously prescribed. We want to make sure that that investment stays in Ontario. We’ve lost over 500 acres to the US, and that was based on poor policies. We need those policies to evolve here in Canada—here in Ontario—and to be reviewed in a timely manner, not when we have situations like cost of production rising through the roof and farms no longer profitable. We need those checkpoints sooner than later to ensure that the policies implemented continue to support that agriculture and investment here in Ontario.

Official source

MPP Paul Vickers

Thank you, Steve and Richard. The more we get into this Farmland Security Act and the issues about protecting the ownership of farmland and the investment in farmland, you guys aren’t making it any easier for us to come up with any one policy to fit. There’s no one size for all, that’s for sure. So, I do thank you for your input and your time here today.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you. MPP Pinsonneault, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault

My question is for Jim again. As Bill 109 moves forward, what would you like to see prioritized in the Grow Ontario Strategy to support the Kent Federation of Agriculture members, going forward?

Official source

Mr. Jim Brackett

I think the number one thing is to consider that we are a segment; Kent is partnered with every other county across Ontario—southwestern Ontario as well as all of Ontario. So what can you prioritize? I think being very careful with this bill, so that it enhances the ability to grow or start a business, so that it protects the young farmers and the expanding farmers. It also protects against ourselves, which I alluded to before. We do need, to John’s question, protection of the land itself, not just who buys it. Right now, if you look at the land that has disappeared within our own province, as I’ve mentioned before, to other uses, we need to really look hard at that. An agricultural assessment seems like a great thing, but it never seems to mean anything. They do the assessment and the development moves on. So the way this is designed, the thought put into it, reaching back out to people like who are in this room talking to you, so that the consultation is there and we can try to help—

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Jim Brackett

I don’t have the answers right now, Steve, but that’s—

Official source

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault

Thanks for that. Honestly, that’s why we are going right across the province: to make sure we do get input from everybody. I think, at the end of the day, we’re going to come to some conclusion that’s going to be beneficial to everybody across the board. Thank you for that.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

We’ve got about 40 seconds left. Anyone want to take it? Okay, we’ll conclude the government’s time. We’ll move to the official opposition. MPP Vanthof, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

So Bill 109, the protecting agricultural security act to farmlands, or whatever you want to call it—we’re all in favour. We voted for it on second. We’re pretty agreeable on this committee; we’ll vote for it on third. But given that agriculture is the number one or number two industry in this province, both economic numbers, jobs, and given we all support this bill—and I’m not asking anyone to lambaste the government, but are we actually putting enough focus on this sector? And what would be your number one issue to that the government of Ontario could do to solidify the agriculture? And this bill is fine. We need to be careful with the foreign investment. But is this really the number one issue that we need to be looking at right now in agriculture?

Official source

Hon. Steve Peters

I’ll start, Mr. Chair, and I’m sure my other colleagues will have something to say. It is an important issue. Everybody needs to eat, and I think governments of all stripes over the years have struggled with how to deal with agriculture. I know I saw that in my own time. And this is where I come back to the need of a whole-of-government approach. The Grow Ontario Strategy has so much potential. If we can get it ingrained all across, in every sector—that school food nutrition programs are going to focus on buying Ontario product; that Ontario facilities such as long-term-care homes and educational institutions are going to focus on Ontario products—those are all indirect ways that we can help to support the agricultural sector here in Ontario. But it is one that, in many ways, we need to just take the political stripes off and just, much like this committee is doing right now—and you just pointed out that you’re going to be supporting it. This is what we need more of to happen. And collectively saying, “Look, if Grow Ontario is going to succeed, we can grow that right here in Ontario, we can add value to that right here in Ontario, but we need all those other institutions to make that a priority as well too.” Jim?

Official source

Mr. Jim Brackett

I would agree with everything that has been said. I think the thing that makes it the hardest in the farms is, if I go to Chatham-Kent alone, we have a municipal election going on right now. The hardest thing for us in agriculture, which we’re trying to influence, is to influence the minds of our voters. We are three and four generations removed across the province in terms of from the farm. People don’t realize where their food comes from. They think it just magically appears in the grocery store. So education is so important. We have combined with Richard and the vegetable growers and the home realtors here in Chatham, as well as the home builders, and with four farm groups, and we hope to put on an educational meeting for our 70 to 80 candidates that are running in this municipal election, and I think that’s important across the whole province: education. People don’t believe we’re the largest industry. They don’t believe that we’re not responsible for the high prices they’re paying in the grocery store. They see our pickup trucks, they see our combines: “Everybody on the farm’s rich, why should I care about them?” We need education, badly.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Is Mike still on?

Official source

Mr. Mike Chromczak

Again, I can echo all of the comments made. But right now I see an unprecedented opportunity at the federal level as well for pressure and co-operation from Ontario to modernize and update a fairer set of programs—BRM programs in particular—for Ontario. Ontario has gone above and beyond, implementing its own programs to compensate for shortfalls at the federal program—self-directed risk management being one of them. But I think that, right now, for the first time in my generation as a farmer, the federal government is signalling that there’s a priority on food and to see things through an economic and a food lens, and we would encourage continued co-operation at the FPT level in the next policy framework to help ensure that Ontario gets a fairer share of that federal support and those federal dollars in a lot of the existing BRM programs. I think that the sky’s the limit for what Ontario can produce—again, coming back to competitiveness—as long as we are competitive, as long as we are viable and sustainable, I think that growing Ontario’s food economy has nowhere to go but up.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

In my final few seconds, I’d like to thank you. I thank you all. I think one of our—and I’ve noticed this in my 15 years already in the Legislature—common, of all parties, issues we face is we are such a small segment of the population to convince people in an electoral business that operates on numbers, and that’s something—to the education—we need to do a better job at. Again, I’d like to thank the government—I often don’t—that we’re actually having an agricultural discussion about an agricultural bill in an agricultural area. Thank you.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you very much to all the presenters for your presentation and for all the time you put into preparing.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

We will now move to the next round of presenters. We have Bonnefield Financial, with Mitchell King, principal; Keystone Farmland, with Sean Dobbelaar, CEO; and Chatham-Kent Chamber of Commerce, Rory Ring, president and CEO. Thank you to all the presenters for being here. Just a note to all of you: The microphones will turn on on their own. You don’t have to touch them or go near them; that will be taken care of for you. You’ll have seven minutes for your presentation. Please state your name for Hansard right when you begin and I will provide you with a verbal reminder to notify you when you have one minute left for your presentation or your allotted speaking time. I will start with Mr. King. Go ahead.

Official source

Mr. Mitch King

Mitch King. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to speak on Bill 109. My name is Mitch King. I’m a principal at Bonnefield. I’m here today not only in my capacity as a professional but also from a personal perspective. I grew up on a cash crop farm in Uxbridge, Ontario, that my family continues to operate today. Like many farm families, we faced the reality that there wasn’t enough land or capital to support multiple families with the same operation. That led me to study ag business and economics at the University of Guelph and eventually to my role here at Bonnefield. For those who may not be familiar of Bonnefield, we raise money from investors and provide it to Canadian farmers. We are 100% Canadian-owned and Canadian-managed and we exist to support Canadian agriculture. We don’t farm land ourselves and we don’t compete with farmers. We work with farm families who want to access equity that they have tied up in some of their land holdings so they can grow their operations, reduce debt or transition farms to the next operation. We do this by purchasing some of their acres and leasing it back to them on a long-term basis, all while providing them options to purchase that land back again in the future. In doing so, we provide farmers with an affordable alternative to additional bank debt. We also work with farmers to acquire new acres, often land that they have already been leasing from another party that’s put up for sale at a time when their economics may not allow them to purchase that land today. In this, they retain access to those acres they need and have time to build up the equity to potentially purchase that again in the future. Since 2010, we provided over $700 million to 80 farm families across Ontario. Just as importantly, we have already sold 32 farms valued at more than $160 million back to those same Ontario farmers. This is a core part of our model: helping farmers grow today with a goal of transitioning ownership back to them over time. Let me start with a point that I think is important: Bonnefield supports the objectives of Bill 109. Ontario farmland is a strategic asset. It is critical to our food supply, our rural communities and our economy. We agree that farmland should remain under Canadian control and we support measures that prevent direct ownership or control of Ontario farmland by foreign entities. Our concern with the bill as currently drafted is it may unintentionally capture something very different: passive investment capital that is directed and controlled by Canadians. The key issue for us is control. If a foreign company is deciding what happens to farmland, who farms it or where the commodities go, that’s a legitimate concern. But that’s not how the Bonnefield model works. Bonnefield makes all investment decisions in Canada, through the lens of supporting our Canadian farm partners. Our funds are structured as limited partnerships. Our investors are passive. They do not direct investment decisions, they do not manage farmland and they do not control our business. All control remains with a Canadian-owned and Canadian-managed organization that exists to support Canadian agriculture. In this way we are not much different than a Canadian bank providing a mortgage to a farmer. The shareholders of the bank do not direct the lending decisions, just as our investors do not direct our investment decisions. Why does this distinction matter? Because farming and modern agriculture is a capital-intensive business, and access to capital remains the biggest challenge facing Ontario farmers today. It’s especially difficult for younger and mid-sized operators looking to expand their operations, grow their land base or finance a transition from one generation to the next. Farmers have far fewer financing options than other industries, and the demand for capital we see from Ontario farmers continues to exceed the supply available from Canadian sources alone. That’s why Bonnefield has raised capital from some non-Canadian, US and European investors, in addition to our usual Canadian sources. Let me give you a concrete example. In 2013, Bonnefield purchased 6,500 acres of prime farmland in Dufferin county valued at over $65 million at the time, an amount much larger than local farmers could absorb at that time. It was purchased from a large hedge fund that had the plan to develop this farmland into a mega gravel quarry. Instead of that land being developed for industrial use, Bonnefield preserved that farmland and supported six local farm families to operate it. Today, 13 years later, nearly all of that land, along with 24 houses and numerous agricultural buildings, have been sold back to those same farmers, remain in agricultural production and support a vibrant local community. As currently written, the act would prevent Bonnefield from repeating this success story. That’s because the act’s language would prohibit foreign entities from directly or indirectly acquiring interest in farmland. Our concern is that the word “indirectly” may be interpreted broadly enough to capture Canadian-controlled entities like Bonnefield that access passive investment capital from outside of Canada. The uncertainty around Bill 109 is already having real-world consequences. We’ve had to pause capital-raising activities from non-Canadian sources, and we have also had an existing European investor withdraw from Ontario agriculture partly because they view the proposed bill as creating an unfriendly investment climate—this at a time when we have approximately $200 million of demand from Ontario farmers that we are unable to satisfy. For these reasons, our request is very narrow. We are asking for two targeted amendments in this bill. First: To clarify that Canadian-controlled entities are not considered designated persons under the act using the same concept that already exists under the federal Investment Canada Act.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Mitch King

Second: To clarify that the prohibition is intended to target direct or controlling foreign ownership, not indirect, non-controlling, passive investment that is directed by Canadians to support the ag industry. In our view, those amendments would preserve the core purpose of the legislation while ensuring Ontario farmers continue to have access to capital they need to grow, reduce debt and transition their farms to the next generation. Chair and members of the committee, we believe Ontario can protect farmland from foreign control while maintaining farmers’ access to capital they need. We do not believe these goals are in conflict. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I look forward to addressing your questions.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you very much for your presentation. We’ll move to Keystone Farmland. The floor is yours. Please state your name for Hansard and go ahead.

Official source

Mr. Sean Dobbelaar

Thank you, committee, for inviting us to participate in this process. My name is Sean Dobbelaar. Similar to Mitch—I’m probably going to repeat a lot of the similarities: young farmer; processing fresh market vegetables; cash-crop family farm located shortly from here in Wallaceburg, Ontario. My background is in ag finance. I started my career at Farm Credit Canada and moved on to the Bank of Montreal. I financed greenhouses all the way to simple farm purchases, so I think I know the lending side quite well. From there, I moved into buying farmland and managing farmland on behalf of Canada’s top insurance company. And a short time ago—approximately three years ago—I started and co-founded Keystone Farmland Management as a young farmer understanding the need of capital in this space. There’s a reason why I work off-farm. The reason is because we can’t afford to have multiple people drawing a wage off a farm. There just simply isn’t enough cash flow. It’s a very low-cash-yielding industry, and from an asset standpoint, it’s relatively low-cash-yielding. Keystone Farmland’s ultimate goal is to support young farmers like myself. If you look at the average age of a farmer here in Ontario, it’s 58 years old. The average age of our portfolio farmer or tenant partner is somewhere around 42 years old. Again, we’re doing what we say we want to do. We want to support. I don’t want to go into too much overlap with Mitch because he’s done an excellent job in, really, presenting a model that’s quite similar. We do not take any sort of ownership or direction over the crop. We work with farmers on long-term leases. And just like Bonnefield’s model, we look to sell our farmland back to those very same farmers as they continue to build up their portfolio of farmland and ultimately execute their own family’s succession. Speaking about succession, I think Canadian farmland in general, let alone Ontario farmland, has a major crisis coming, and it’s coming fast. It’s going to be a farmland succession crisis. Firms like us are there to help family farms. We just acquired 400 acres this spring to facilitate an exit of a partner in a business. They could not raise the traditional debt from Farm Credit Canada or one of the top five banks or a credit union, or they weren’t comfortable at that debt level. Often, transactions were acquiring land that families have farmed for 10, 20, 30 years, and they either cannot get the bank financing or are not comfortable with the debt level. We come in and we provide that financing through land-lease partnership. Again, similar to Bonnefield’s model, we focus on long-term leases. We do not look to rotate tenants. We try to negotiate in good faith as we renew. And ultimately, our exit plan is to 98-plus per cent of the market—the farmers themselves. We want to sell back to farmers if and when we want to dispose capital. I want to make something very clear in our model today: We are not conflicted. Keystone Farmland has zero foreign capital in our singular fund today, which is an evergreen LP fund. This is why I started this business—because I’ve seen a huge need for capital. I’m a young farmer. I’ve lived the side of debt financing. I know how debt financing works, and I know that farmers cannot expand, specifically young farmers, with traditional debt. We need partnership. For the brief minute of us sitting in here, I heard about—we have a story to tell as farmers, as partners to farms, which is that there is a rapid decline in the amount of farmers in this province. There’s this thing called human intelligence, corporate intelligence. You don’t get back into vegetable farming, per se—John, you would know that well from your previous area. Vegetable farming is very, very intense—years and years of intelligence of how to grow these crops. We have a huge opportunity in our vegetable processing sector to not only help support family farms but to provide additional capital through crops that are not commodity-based—corn, soybeans and wheat, I’ll pick on. We have the land to do it. We have the fertility to do it. We have the growing season to do it. And who are going to be the farmers that are going step up and do it? It’s going to be our young farmers in this province. Our young farmers cannot continue to operate in the models that worked in previous years. There have been significant changes in our tax treatment of family farms and how these family farms are handed off to the next generations—again, another barrier. My family farm—and I’ll speak about mine specifically. I’ve got two sisters, I’ve got a brother, myself—all of us work off-farm. We all pitch in in one way or another. What will happen to our family farm if we can’t have partnership capital, if we cannot work with the same landlords that—really, the relationship is just like the neighbouring farm that we’ve rented for 30 years? Eventually they’re going to want liquidity, and the farmers themselves—specifically young farmers—can only take on so much traditional debt financing. If we don’t have creative forms of capital like ourselves, we will see those young farmers eventually exit the industry. And it will be a slow, painful exit, because eventually they will realize that off-farm jobs are the only hope they have, and they’re not going to be able to go to the farm. They’re not going to be able to return.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Sean Dobbelaar

There’s going to be some significant life event that’s going to happen, and they will exit the industry, so now, we’ve lost that intelligence. We have a great processing tomato industry here in Ontario. Who are going to be the farmers that support that industry, the agri-food, the value we create, the GDP? We need to support young farmers, and responsible capital investment, responsible farmland management, is the solution, whether it’s domestic, whether it’s foreign. We have a federal Prime Minister who speaks about foreign capital, attracting foreign capital. We have an opportunity of not only the decades—of the century. People want to invest capital in Ontario and in Canada. They want to invest that capital specifically into farmland on 30, 50-year-plus horizons. Why would we turn away that capital? It’s responsible capital, it’s long-term committed, and when properly managed by domestic management companies—

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

That concludes your time. Thank you so much. We will move to the Chatham-Kent Chamber of Commerce. Please state your name for Hansard and the floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. Rory Ring

I’m Rory Ring, president and CEO of the Chatham-Kent Chamber of Commerce. Thank you, Chair, Vice-Chair and members of the Standing Committee on the Interior for giving me this opportunity to appear today. One of the core messages I’d like to bring to you is that at the chamber of commerce, we support Bill 109, and in particular, the farmland protection through schedule 3, Farmland Security Act, 2026. We’re asking the committee to make Bill 109, schedule 3, stronger by making it clearer, more targeted, more practical and better aligned with how modern farms are financed, transferred, kept in production and supported by carefully defined economic development pathways. Chatham-Kent is a key agriculture-driven community in Ontario’s economic landscape. Our economy is built on the connection between farmland, family farms, food processing, greenhouse vegetable production, transportation, rural services and our many Main Street businesses that thrive because of this sector. For that reason, we support Bill 109. Ontario farmland is not just a strategic producing asset; it supports food independence, domestic production, rural employment, processors, farms, families and public confidence in the province’s agricultural future. Farmland is also a farm retirement asset, collateral base, succession instrument and operating foundation. If the rules are too broad, too slow or too uncertain, they could unintentionally harm the farmers and the rural communities that the bill is intended to protect. That is why we recommend conditional support for proceeding with the farmland protection objective, but require clear safeguards before the acquisition restrictions begin affecting the real farm transactions. (1) Define those rules before restrictions affect the market. Schedule 3 creates a framework to restrict acquisition of farmland or interest in farmland by designated persons. It also provides conveyance disclosures, registration refusal, ministerial permissions, review regulations provided for it, inspections, investigations, orders, offences, fines and broad regulation-making powers. The challenge is that many of those most important business questions are left to regulation. Farmers, lenders, lawyers, accountants, municipalities and buyers need to know how the terms “designated person,” “foreign control,” “beneficial ownership,” “indirect acquisition,” “interest in farmland,” “active farming” and “Canadian-controlled active farm businesses” will operate. Clear definitions do not weaken Bill 109; they will strengthen it. They make the bill enforceable, predictable and targeted at the actual risk: harmful foreign-controlled speculative or non-productive acquisitions. (2) Protect succession and retirement. Farm succession is one of the largest economic transitions, and we hear the oncoming challenges facing agriculture. Canadian research shows that succession planning transfers controls and ownership before retirement, yet most farmers do not have a formal written plan, and nearly 60% of Canadian farm operators are projected to be over the age of 65 by 2033. That matters because a retiring farmer may not have a child ready to take over. Their best buyer may be a neighbouring incorporated farm, a Canadian-controlled farm business, a processor, a greenhouse operator, a livestock operation or another active agricultural business. If Bill 109 narrows that buyer pool without clear exceptions or fast-track approvals, it may reduce liquidity, delay retirement, lower negotiating power or force more complex and costly transaction structures. That outcome would not protect farmland; it would make farm transition harder. The committee should require explicit exemptions for bona fide operating farmers, family farm corporations, partnerships, trusts, estate and intergenerational transfers, succession-related reorganizations and Canadian-controlled active farm businesses. It should also recommend an explicit process for retirement, estate and transition sales where active farming will continue. (3) Preserve financing certainty and productive agricultural investment. Modern farming is capital intensive. Southwestern Ontario farmland values remain high, and that means farmland is not only land; it is collateral. It supports refinancing, succession plan financing, expansion, drainage, storage, livestock infrastructure, greenhouse development and transition planning. If lenders are uncertain about the resale rules, security enforcement, receivership, refinancing or who can acquire farmland in the future, they may price that risk into their loans or become more cautious. That would affect young farmers, expanding farms and, again, succession planning. Bill 109 therefore should be protecting mortgages, refinancing, vendor take-back financing, sale-leaseback, joint ventures, farm debt restructuring, structured enforcement, receiverships, solvency processes and the use of farmland as collateral. The committee should also recommend that the regulations distinguish productive agricultural investment from speculative landholding. Investment tied to active production, processing, employment, supply chain resilience, greenhouse, livestock development, Indigenous food sovereignty and agri-food innovation should not be treated the same as passive land banking or foreign-controlled speculation. (4) Avoid making acreage the main test. If a 50-acre or similar threshold is considered, it should be treated as a consultation issue and tested against buyer risk, beneficial ownership, active use, commodity, region and transaction purpose. A single province-wide acreage number control reflects the differences between greenhouse production, livestock operations, field vegetables, grains or oilseeds and the risks should be measured by controlled purpose and use.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Rory Ring

Finally: Protect farmland conversion as well as harmful acquisition. It should be understood that a farmland protection bill is not only a farmland ownership bill. Acquisition restrictions address one risk, but farmland might be lost to housing, employment lands and community growth that cannot be accommodated within existing settlement areas. In a rural, smaller-city market, brownfield rural development is often difficult because land values, density and tax increment potential are not high enough to absorb environmental assessment, clean-up and risk management costs. That creates a practical market failure, and it may be easier to develop productive farmland than to remediate serviced land inside an existing community. A rural and rural, small city, brownfield remediation stream would help agriculturally driven communities reuse existing serviced land for housing, affordable community revitalization and employment-supportive growth while reducing avoidable pressure on productive farmland—

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

All right, that concludes our time. We will start with the government side. MPP Cuzzetto, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

I want to thank all the presenters here today. This question is more for Mitch here. With over a billion dollars of assets under management supporting Canadian farmland, how do you see Bill 109’s overall goal of strengthening food independence aligning with Bonnefield’s mission to help farmers and families plan for the long-term future in the farming industry?

Official source

Mr. Mitch King

Thank you for that. As I said earlier, we’re aligned. Bonnefield exists to support Canadian agriculture. We believe in Canadian ag. We talk with individuals all around the world about all the unique aspects we have here in Ontario and Canada about—Sean mentioned them: the fertile soil, the access to water, the great operators. And so we believe in creating a secure environment, but investment-friendly environment, so that we can enable those farmers to do what they do best, which is grow great crops and great commodities and continue to contribute—have this sector contribute to our economy.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

MPP Leardi, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. Anthony Leardi

Okay, my questions are going to be for Sean and Mitchell. I’m going to ask a few questions, because I want to make sure I understand what your presentation was all about. So your investors don’t want to run farms, correct?

Official source

Mr. Mitch King

Correct.

Official source

Mr. Anthony Leardi

Your investors don’t want to own farms, correct?

Official source

Mr. Mitch King

Directly, correct. They—

Official source

Mr. Sean Dobbelaar

And I’m sure—maybe I’ll talk through yours. I don’t know if mine’s lit up. They want to own farmland. I mean, each investor has their own reasons why they want to invest in farmland. Some are very passionate about farmland and are older and understand that farmers do need help. Some are simply looking to impart generational wealth. I would look at our investors; they’re very passionate about soil health.

Official source

Mr. Anthony Leardi

Sean, your investors are all Canadians?

Official source

Mr. Sean Dobbelaar

My investors, today, are all Canadian. We are not conflicted, yes. Correct.

Official source