Wednesday, August 5, 2026

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

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 nominate Andrew Dowie to be 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 electing 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, and welcome to Smiths Falls. The Standing Committee on the Interior will now come to order. We are meeting today to continue public hearings on Bill 109, An Act to enact the Farmland Security Act, 2026 and to amend various Acts. Please wait until you are recognized by the Chair before speaking, and as always, all comments should go through the Chair. As a reminder, each presenter will have seven minutes for their presentation. After we have heard from all three presenters, the remaining 39 minutes in this time slot will be divided in two rounds of 6.5 minutes of questions from each recognized party. I’ll provide a verbal reminder to notify you when you have one minute left for your presentation or allotted speaking time.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

I will now call on Michael MacGillivray. You’ll have seven minutes for your presentation. Please state your name for Hansard and you may begin.

Official source

Mr. Michael MacGillivray

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Michael MacGillivray. My wife, Cora, and I own and operate Kirkview Farms in beautiful North Glengarry. We are the eighth generation to steward this land, and hopefully not the last. We manage it under a regenerative organic system, producing grass-fed beef, grass-fed lamb, pasture-raised chicken under the artisanal program, pasture-raised turkey under the small flock program, and heritage pork—because everybody loves bacon. Every day, we make decisions of balanced food production, environmental stewardship and the economic stability of our farm. I appreciate the chance to speak about Bill 109. We believe this legislation moves Ontario in the right direction. Protecting farmland, strengthening food production and modernizing agriculture legislation are all important objectives, and they’re reflected throughout the bill. But I would like to begin with one thought. Food independence is not something we achieve all at once. It is something we build, generation after generation. Protecting Ontario’s food independence means protecting Ontario’s ability to produce food, not just today but for tomorrow as well. This leads me to a simple question: Who will produce Ontario’s food 20 years from now? Because, Mr. Chair, my greatest concern is not that Ontario will run out of farmland; my greatest concern is that Ontario will run out of farmers. If we fail to bring a new generation into agriculture, no amount of protected land or regulatory modernization will deliver true food independence. I therefore encourage the committee to consider Bill 109 through what I call the five foundations of Ontario’s food independence. Foundation 1: Protect the farmland. The Farmland Security Act in schedule 3 is the most important part of this bill. Restricting foreign and other designated person acquisition of farmland is a necessary step and I support the framework the government has put forward, including the ministerial permission pathway. But protecting farmland must mean more than restricting certain forms of ownership. It must also mean protecting farmland from speculation. Across Ontario, productive land is increasingly behind treated as an investment vehicle rather than as a working agricultural resource. We first saw this in southern Ontario and it’s now arriving in eastern Ontario. As prices disconnect from what a farm can realistically earn, young farmers and regenerative operations—such as ours—focused on long-term stewardship are priced out. Marginal land as well-suited for pasture-based systems is bought by foreign entities or people working on their behalf. The farm buildings and houses are severed off, the forests are clear cut, and the land systematically tile drained. The opportunity for it to be a stand-alone, independent farm is lost. They have a model that is currently supported by legislation that needs to change. The National Farmers Union, which we’re members of, has advocated that secure access to farmland and limiting speculative pressures are essential to Canadian agriculture and ensuring long-term food security. They have several position papers and policy statements that I would encourage the committee to review. I urge the committee to ensure that the regulations look through corporate structures to the actual beneficial owners. Many family farms use corporations for succession liability reasons. If the ultimate owners are Canadian citizens or permanent residents, those farms should be treated as domestic. Clear rules here will protect legitimate local transactions while achieving the act’s purpose. Protecting farmland must also mean protecting the opportunity to farm. Foundation 2: Grow the farmers. Food independence depends on people. If Ontario wants to become more food independent, we need to become the best place in Canada to start a farm. That means lowering barriers to entry; creating learning opportunities, especially in regenerative management practice; improving access to land; supporting succession planning; and encouraging mentorship so first-generation farmers can succeed. Every policy considered under Bill 109 should be viewed through one simple question: Will this make it easier or harder for the next generation to become farmers? Foundation 3: Build value, not just volume. Ontario has built one of the strongest supply-managed dairy systems in the world; that success deserves recognition. At the same time, smaller-scale, value-added and specialty producers compete through innovation, craftsmanship and regional markets rather than volume alone. One potential way to create new farmers and improve food resilience is to explore a dedicated pathway. Specialty dairy in the form of artisan cheeses, fermented and cultured products, sheep milk, goat milk, buffalo milk, typically operate with smaller herds, do on-farm processing and are focused on premium markets. There are several examples of this already in our region, but these businesses have struggled under the current system. A dedicated pathway for first-generation farmers to enter the industry through innovative and diversified business would be beneficial. Ontario doesn’t necessarily need bigger farms; Ontario needs more diversified and successive farms. Creating structured pathways for special and value-added production, no matter what industry, is one practical way to grow the next generation of producers and strengthen the regional food resilience. Foundation 4: Strengthen the resource. Healthy soil is our most important agricultural infrastructure. Healthy soils improve productivity, reduce input costs, increase water infiltration, build drought resilience and support biodiversity. The same principle applies to water. Historically, policies focused on removing excess water. Tomorrow’s agriculture must also focus on retaining it. Changes to the Drainage Act are needed for that reason. Investing in regenerative practice and soil health strengthens long-term food security while improving farm profitability. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said, a nation that destroys its soil destroys itself. Foundation 5: Grow profitable farms. Food security ultimately depends on profitable farms. If farms cannot earn a sustainable return, they cannot invest, they cannot innovate and they can’t transition to the next generation. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the Protecting Famers from Non-Payment Act. Updates that support custom processing under the beef marketing act and improvements to the veterinary profession are also practical measures that help pasture-base livestock operations like ours remain viable. Every regulation introduced in the bill should be evaluated against a simple question: Does it improve the long-term profitability and viability of Ontario Farms?

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Michael MacGillivray

I have one other, additional recommendation: Bill 109 recognizes that protecting food independence requires protecting farmland. That same principle should apply to major infrastructure projects. In eastern Ontario, the proposed federal Alto high-speed rail project has the potential to negatively affect productive farmland and established farm businesses. Farmers in the potential corridor are voicing their concerns but feel they’re not being heard because, honestly, they are not. I respectfully recommend that the province establish an agriculture and food security impact committee to evaluate the cumulative effects of major infrastructure projects on agriculture, food production, capacity, farm viability, fragmentation, drainage and biosecurity to ensure that reasonable alternatives are fully considered before productive farmland is permanently converted. We must exhaust all options before losing prime agricultural farmland to development. Once productive farmland is fragmented, we simply cannot create more. Mr. Chair, in closing, Bill 109 represents an important opportunity: It protects farmland, modernizes legislation and strengthens Ontario’s food system. But I encourage this committee to think even bigger. Food independence is not simply about protecting—

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you, Mr. MacGillivray. I will now call on the Lanark County Beef Farmers, represented by Don Badour. You will have seven minutes for your presentation. Please state your name for Hansard, and you may begin.

Official source

Mr. Don Badour

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Don Badour, a beef farmer from Perth, director for Lanark County Beef Farmers and the current vice-president of Beef Farmers of Ontario. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of Ontario’s 19,000 beef farmers. At the outset, I want to say that both Lanark County Beef Farmers and the Beef Farmers of Ontario are pleased to support Bill 109. We appreciate the government’s continued focus on agriculture through legislation that recognizes the importance of food production, food security and reducing unnecessary barriers for farmers. Bill 109 addresses a number of practical issues that our members have raised over many years, and we commend the government for listening. I’ll touch briefly on the three components of the bill. First, the proposed amendments to the Beef Cattle Marketing Act: BFO supports these amendments. They reflect resolutions passed by our members several years ago and create a more equitable system by ensuring producers contribute fairly regardless of how they market or process their cattle. We also appreciate the inclusion of the “personal use” exemption, which strikes an appropriate balance for farm families. These are practical, common-sense changes that improve fairness while reducing regulatory gaps. Second, the proposed amendments to the Veterinary Professionals Act: Access to large-animal veterinarian care continues to be one of the greatest challenges facing livestock producers, particularly in northern Ontario and many rural communities. We support expanding the role of registered veterinary technicians and creating new pathways of better utilizing the entire veterinarian team. As regulations are developed, we simply encourage government to continue consulting with livestock producers so that rules reflect the realities of on-farm care and mobile veterinary services, not just traditional companion animal practice. Finally, I’d like to spend a moment on what we believe is the most significant opportunity within Bill 109: protecting Ontario farmland while expanding responsible access to crown land. Ontario continues to lose productive farmland every year, and once that land is converted to non-agricultural uses, it is effectively gone forever. Protecting farmland ownership and ensuring it remains in agricultural production are fundamental to Ontario’s long-term food security and economic resilience. We strongly support measures that restrict foreign acquisition of Ontario farmland and reinforce its continued agricultural use. At the same time, we believe Ontario has an incredible opportunity to reasonably expand agriculture through improved access to crown land, particularly in the great northern Clay Belt. Ontario has millions of acres with agricultural potential. Even bringing a small portion of that land in sustainable beef production would strengthen our provincial food system, support rural communities, increase processing capacity and create economic opportunity across northern Ontario. To realize that opportunity, we encourage the province to go one step farther by identifying suitable agricultural parcels in advance, completing environmental and Indigenous consultation work upfront and streamlining the application process for farmers. We would also encourage reinstating the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp.’s land clearing grant, which previously played an important role in helping establish new farms in the north. These practical measures would significantly accelerate agricultural development while reducing risk for producers willing to invest. In closing, Beef Farmers of Ontario strongly supports Bill 109. We believe it strengthens Ontario agriculture by improving fairness, modernizing regulation, protecting our farmland and creating opportunities for future growth.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

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

Official source

Mr. John Wynands

Thanks for the opportunity to appear before the committee today as you consider Bill 109 and the measures that are being proposed to protect and strengthen Ontario’s ag and food sector. I am John Wynands, a second-generation dairy farmer from Cardinal. I operate Gerann Holsteins with my family. We milk 250 cows and crop 2,000 acres of farmland. I currently serve as vice-chair on the board of Dairy Farmers of Ontario and represent producers in the counties of Frontenac, Grenville, Lanark, Leeds and Renfrew. With me today is Kristin Benke, chief business supply chain officer for DFO. She joins virtually. When we look from the east, Glengarry–Prescott–Russell to the Ottawa Valley, the seaway region to Northumberland, the Kawarthas and up to York region, abutting the GTA, we see rich agricultural history and a thriving dairy sector in communities that dot all parts of eastern Ontario. Together, the region is home to 950 dairy farms, shipping over 860 million litres of milk annually to 34 local processing plants, a combined GDP contribution of roughly $2.4 billion. Dairy farms sustain over 8,000 direct jobs in the region while supporting many indirect jobs and local businesses in our communities. My comments today will be focused on two areas of the proposed legislative changes that relate directly to Ontario dairy. As dairy farmers, we are pleased to see the bill move forward with the amendments to the Milk Act, the first step in bringing Ontario’s milk pricing policies into alignment with national standards. These changes and the complementary regulatory amendments will create a level playing field and enable continued stability in the delivery of high-quality milk from Ontario farms for processing in Ontario. We need to have consistently applied end-use pricing obligations that ensure all dairy processors are billed equitably for their milk products. The current structure requires refinement to ensure compliance with the federal policy for all processors making dairy products. As a province that has over one third of Canada’s dairy processing, it is vital that Ontario is able to enforce the national policy. We look forward to the passage of the bill and the introduction of the regulatory changes to complete Ontario’s implementation of the national industry policy that was adopted several years ago. Dairy farmers share the government’s commitment to ensuring a stronger and trusted domestic food system, with a regulatory framework that supports continuous improvement and compliance of world-class, high-quality food safety standards for cows’ milk in Ontario. Through DFO, we will work with OMAFA on enabling legislation and related regulatory amendments to ensure we continue to uphold the high-quality standards for cows’ milk in Ontario. A viable and growing dairy and ag sector is important to maintain our local communities, where we are raising our families while contributing to the local and provincial economy. It is vitally important that we recognize the importance of farmland in all regions of the province and have in place policies that support farm families. Farmland is a precious resource, and we need to be mindful of both the potential impacts and unintended consequences that other nation-building projects may have on local farmland—the families that live and steward these lands, and the food security that is so important to our country. Now, more than ever, we need to protect and grow our farming and food sector. By working together, we can secure a more competitive, resilient and self-reliant agri-food sector, starting with our farmers delivering every day for Ontario families. For dairy, that means dynamic-growing dairy farms and more processing capacity that drives economic growth and serves the Canadian market, while protecting our Ontario advantage. Thank you.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

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

Official source

Mr. John Jordan

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

Official source

Mr. Michael MacGillivray

It goes back to, definitely, the protection of farmland, which is in the bill. But I think generating more farmers is the big thing. The educational aspect: We’ve lost all of our educational opportunities in eastern Ontario—Kemptville is closed, Alfred is closed—so now, the farming folks who want to get an education either go to Quebec or they go to Guelph. So we’ve lost that opportunity. And it is a benefit to have education close to home, especially today, especially with farm families not being able to access labour. So the ability for kids to come home on weekends, that’s a benefit to the farm. So I think having educational opportunities in eastern Ontario would be a benefit. I also think, like has been mentioned by a couple of people here, that the protection of farmland from infrastructure development is going to be key, because we need to have farmland for new farmers to farm. That’s one of the key things.

Official source

Mr. John Jordan

Thanks, Michael.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Next question from the government side? MPP Clark, the floor is yours.

Official source

Hon. Steve Clark

I just want to thank the three of you for coming today. It’s great. I know MPP Jordan is a little shy, but he’s certainly very proud that we’re in Smiths Falls in his riding. I think this is a first for a parliamentary committee to come to a community like Smiths Falls, and it’s great to have you here. Mr. MacGillivray, I’m not going to ask you a question; I’m just going to thank you for your comments about Alto and the process, the fact that farmers’ voices aren’t being heard, or you don’t feel like they’re being heard. I know there are 11 Tory MPPs in eastern Ontario that feel the same way, so I appreciate your comments. Just because he’s my—no offence, Don. John is my home farmer, and we were at a Holstein event the other day, the Twilight. We had dinner together, and I told a story about, when you’re first a politician in Leeds–Grenville, you’ve got to swear allegiance to supply management if you wanted to get elected. So, my question is going to go back to end-use pricing, which you mentioned and I know from Kristin’s perspective is a high priority for the dairy farmers. Can you talk about the reason why we need to align end-use pricing and why it’s so important to protect supply management, especially in eastern Ontario?

Official source

Mr. John Wynands

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

Official source

Ms. Kristin Benke

Sure. Just maybe to add to John’s comments, I think the big thing for us on the end-use pricing is really that it’s been a long time since the Milk Act has been updated, and the dairy industry has continued to modernize. There’s more and more technology available to processors, to producers, and there’s been lots of investment around that, which has been wonderful. But I think the piece for us going forward is that we need to make sure that all of those milk components now—which is really what we’re dealing with, as opposed to just milk—are being priced equitably. One, in terms of that level playing field that John described for processors—but also so that we continue to have that predictability for dairy producers around their pricing or their revenue going forward and making sure that we have something that’s predictable where we continue to have producers who are able to rely on that and to invest and continue to grow within the Ontario industry, for those contributions that John described at the beginning.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Ms. Kristin Benke

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

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Okay, thank you very much. MPP Vickers, you have 40 seconds for question and answer.

Official source

MPP Paul Vickers

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

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

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

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

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

Official source

Hon. Steve Clark

Good choice.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

I think we’ve all been there. It’s incredible that the committee is travelling around, because I’ve never actually had the opportunity to drive through this area and it’s a beautiful part of the province. You should all be very proud. I listened intently to your comments. I would first like to go to Mr. MacGillivray. It has come through in everyone’s comments regarding the Alto and you mentioned that there should be a committee to look at the impact on agricultural major projects. I don’t think that’s a bad idea at all, but my question is, should that be all projects? Because I’m a farmer too and we all farm in different parts of the province. There have been huge outcries from areas like St. Thomas, like Waterloo, some farmers in Brampton, about the impact of huge provincial projects or industrial projects. A committee like that: Should it cover all projects of a major scale or just be limited to one federal project?

Official source

Mr. Michael MacGillivray

No, it should be expanded to a certain size, obviously. The campground expanding next door, no—but it should be major projects. And if the province is serious about food security, you have to protect farmland. There’s no other way of looking at it, right? It has to be first and foremost, so everything needs to be done through that lens and anything that’s being done needs to go through that first. Yes, there will be trade-offs. We know that. Historically, there have been “nation-building projects” that were truly nation-building, but there are some that just don’t quite meet that criteria and have a negative impact on too many people.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

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

Official source

Mr. Michael MacGillivray

Yes, sir. Mister—may I call you Don?

Official source

Mr. Don Badour

Yes.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Okay, thanks. You talked about crown land, and my farm is in the Little Clay Belt, not in the Greater Clay Belt. There is an awful lot of potential in the Greater Clay Belt. There is no denying that. There are some issues that I think people aren’t really looking at. Much of that land is being used now in forestry. And actually, a lot of the places where you’ve particularly—where you grow the best poplar is also where you grow the best crops, so that’s one thing. But my question would be—and I know the beef farmers have been working on this for longer than anybody. I know that and I respect that. I actually think that the beef farmers have a better story to tell probably than some in the strict cash-crop market because there are more jobs, just more economic activity on the beef side. In your opinion, if there was crown land made available, does it have to be sold, or could it be long-term leased, like grazing rights in the west?

Official source

Mr. Don Badour

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

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Okay, yes. Because I’m not saying that’s the way you would have to go, but it is the way that is done in some other jurisdictions. In the forestry sector, the land isn’t transferred to the forestry companies. The control is, but the ownership of the land is provincial. And also, when we’re talking with this—

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

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

Official source

Mr. Don Badour

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

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

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

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

That concludes the time for the official opposition. We will move on to the third party. MPP Hsu, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

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

Official source

Mr. John Wynands

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

Official source

Ms. Kristin Benke

Sure. The idea around end-use pricing is really that we apply our milk-class system so that the components of milk and how they are used complies with, basically, a price system that we have around how a product is used. So the price for milk that’s used for yogourt is slightly different than the price if it’s used for cheese. In the case of somebody who today is buying milk from Dairy Farmers of Ontario—the infant formula plant in Kingston would be a good example of that—that end-use pricing is already applying to them. So, the idea of this change is really that, if somebody else started a plant where they didn’t purchase from DFO, where they were buying basically different ingredients or different combinations of ingredients on the secondary market, in that case, the end-use pricing doesn’t apply to them. This would create, basically, that equitable playing field, let’s say, for a company that’s already established and purchasing from DFO. So really, in the case of people operating today and buying milk from dairy farmers—which are using raw milk, like that company—there’s really no impact other than to create something that’s more predictable, maybe I will say, and more equitable to them in the case that there’s a competitor doing something else.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

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

Official source

Ms. Kristin Benke

Sorry, the audio just cut out there a little bit, I think.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Oh, okay. Don’t worry. I think I know the answer to that, sorry. It’s okay. I have another question, for Mr. Badour. It’s about the shortage of large-animal vets, which is across Ontario. I noticed that the Ontario Veterinary College had a partner in Thunder Bay, so now they’re training students in Thunder Bay, because if you come from a certain area, you tend to go back there to practise. I’m just wondering if you could comment on whether the OVC and Guelph should be encouraged—and this relates to a comment from Mr. MacGillivray—to extend some kind of large-animal vet training to eastern Ontario so that we could recruit more young people in eastern Ontario to get into large-animal veterinary practice as a career.

Official source

Mr. Don Badour

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

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

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

Official source

Mr. Michael MacGillivray

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

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

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

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Michael MacGillivray

Certainly. Yes, we need more abattoirs, but we also need secondary processing. We need primary processing and secondary processing, because if we can increase the capacity, the next bottleneck becomes the secondary processing. So, yes, you can get an animal slaughtered, but then getting it broken down and butchered becomes the next bottleneck. There are some local educational aspects with respect to that, but again, we need to train more butchers. We also need to be respectful of the fact that we are now serving a new demographic. We have a lot of folks coming from different parts of the world. They have different tastes, they have different cuts that they’re looking for, so that is coming into play as well—as well as abattoirs that meet religious requirements. There is quite a bit of opportunity for that because there is definitely a need for it. Processing capacity is limited in eastern Ontario. We currently drive about an hour and a half to get our chickens processed. We’re lucky enough that we have a very good relationship with our beef—

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

And that concludes the time of the third party. We will have a second round. We’ll move next to the government. MPP Cuzzetto, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

Thank you for being here today, all of you. Being someone that lives in Mississauga–Lakeshore—we don’t have farms down there, but I did volunteer on my brother-in-law’s farm up in Arthur during the summer, baling hay and all that. It was exciting at that time. This question is for Michael. Michael—this is on Hansard—you just said in your statement that you’re not worried about running out of farmland, but you are worried about running out of farmers. What did you mean by that? Because I hear something different down south from what I heard from you right now.

Official source

Mr. Michael MacGillivray

Well, obviously, farmland is important. But the thing is we need to create opportunities for new farmers to get into the market. There’s a significant capital barrier; there’s an educational barrier—there are a lot of different barriers that are coming into play. We actually have interned 12 aspiring farmers, four of which now have actually started their own farms. But the challenge is getting an education and creating diversified farms, as Mr. Jordan had mentioned. You need to have a diversified farm for multiple reasons. You talk about the food independence aspect, resiliency; having a diversified farm actually helps with that, because if there’s one sector that is down or you have an issue, it actually creates a more resilient farm. It also lends itself to—a lot of the folks who are looking at farming now don’t want to do just one thing; they would like to have a variety of things. It seems that they really like that diversified aspect. So I think creating opportunities within that is important.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

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

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

MPP Vickers, the floor is yours.

Official source

MPP Paul Vickers

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

Official source

Mr. Don Badour

It came from our membership at our AGM. I think it was 2018 and 2019 it came as a resolution, and a very high percentage of the membership voted in favour of it, so it’s up to us as a board to investigate on doing the will of the membership. It’s to make it more equitable and fair, because most of the other provinces, particularly in beef cattle, do collect check-off at processing at small abattoirs in Ontario. Sheep, veal and pigs also already do it at the local level too, so we’re just kind of playing catch-up to the other commodities.

Official source

MPP Paul Vickers

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

Official source

Mr. Don Badour

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

Official source

MPP Paul Vickers

If there were some increased funds, what would you use those funds for?

Official source

Mr. Don Badour

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

Official source

MPP Paul Vickers

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

Official source

Mr. Don Badour

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

Official source

MPP Paul Vickers

Okay. Thank you.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

A minute and 40 seconds left for the government—MPP Jordan, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. John Jordan

Just quickly, I want to thank Don Badour for stepping up with BFO and having our eastern voice. You’re well known in this area for your participation with the Lanark County Beef Farmers and now the Beef Farmers of Ontario—so, much appreciated. Relative to the Farmland Security Act—and I’ve heard from my constituents the lack of even pasture land as the beef industry starts to increase and grow again—how do you think this bill will help? And what do you think would be a recommended change going forward?

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Don Badour

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

Official source

Mr. John Jordan

Okay. Thank you.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thirty seconds left—okay. That concludes the government’s time. We’ll move on to the official opposition. MPP Vanthof, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Part of this bill focuses on the dangers of foreign landownership, and I think we can all agree that that’s an issue—or could be an issue. I don’t think that we’ve really got accurate numbers. This is happening in my area, and so I’d like comments from all three if it’s happening in your areas. One of the dangers—and it might not be foreign—is institutional landownership. In our area, investment funds are the ones who are driving up land prices and who are the ones who are gobbling up the land. Then they turn around and rent it back to farmers, or if a young farmer wants to start, they can’t compete. Maybe they can’t compete against their established neighbour, but they certainly can’t compete against a hedge fund, and that’s what’s happening. So should this bill also be not just looking at foreign ownership, which could be hedge funds, but institutional ownership? I can give you an example. In my part of the world, I have one township that is owned by two hedge funds. They used to have 500 people in that township, and now they have 100, because the first thing a hedge fund does is bulldoze the buildings because they don’t want to pay taxes. I keep telling the township that they should just go and give the keys to the Minister of Municipal Affairs because their tax base is dying. Could I have comments from all three? Is institutional investment an issue in agriculture, and should it also be looked at along with foreign ownership? We’ll start at your end and work that way.

Official source

Mr. Michael MacGillivray

As I mentioned in my testimony, yes, absolutely. I think it is one of the major drivers. There are some of those funds now that are in the hundreds of thousands. Everybody’s worried about Bill Gates. There are funds in Ontario that are upwards of 200,000-plus acres being held, and they are pushing out small farms because of the fact that a farm like ours will not be paying $300-an-acre land rent. It’s just not feasible; the economics don’t work. It does restrict the type of farming that can be done on that land, so that—again, from a resiliency point of view—does affect Ontario. I think we need to look at that as well and try to find out who actually owns land, because that’s the other thing. A lot of people make conjecture with respect to ownership. People say, “Well, no, no, it’s not foreign,” but there are a lot of people that are acting on behalf of foreign entities.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Mr. Badour?

Official source

Mr. Don Badour

I would agree with pretty well everything that Mike said. It’s kind of the same situation. We look at foreign ownership concerns that you have fewer people actually owning the land, so there’s fewer people to rent from, fewer people owning more acres. Institutionalized, it’s exactly the same thing. You’ve got more land owned by fewer entities, so it’s more difficult to rent or lease that land as a farmer.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Thank you. Mr. Wynands?

Official source

Mr. John Wynands

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

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Thank you very much. Also, on the foreign ownership side—I mentioned this in the House. I’d like to mention it at committee too. As the government goes forward with the regulations, they’ll have to be very careful on how they do it. Because if you go up and down the mailboxes of many parts of rural Ontario—and I’m going to be prejudiced—there’s a lot of Dutch names, and a lot of those people who bought those farms weren’t Canadian when they bought them. I would hate that if someone actually comes and wants to buy a farm and wants to farm and wants to—“Oh, wait a second. You have to wait this long.” So the government needs to be judicious in how they do this because there are issues. But also, we attract. This is a great place to farm, and we attract. We have attracted and will attract the best and the brightest farmers from around the world, because we do need new farmers. Some of those farmers might not come from the places where we think. Would you agree with what I have just said? I need more than a nod.

Official source

Mr. Don Badour

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

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Don Badour

—legitimate farmers who are looking to increase land, to buy land.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Okay. And I’ve got a few seconds?

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

You’ve got 45 seconds.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

I’m going to tell a little story. I was in the back of the Legislature and I was reading the Ontario Farmer. You know how, lots of times, when people get married, they have a couple of nice John Deeres—or Cases; some people like Cases—in the background? Jagmeet Singh, when he was serving with us, walked by and he says, “You guys do that too?” I said, “What are you talking about?” And he whipped out his phone, and in India they do the same, only they’re like the little rebuilt Masseys and the Ford 3600s and stuff. But they’re exactly the same type of people, and those people are our new farmers as well. I was surprised; I never would have—but just the way he said it: “You guys do that too?” So it was a learning experience for me. Thank you for listening.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

That concludes the time for the opposition. The floor is now yours, MPP Hsu, for the third party.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

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

Official source

Mr. Michael MacGillivray

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

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Thanks. Do you want to add any more?

Official source

Mr. Don Badour

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

Official source

Mr. John Wynands

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

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Right. Thanks very much. I wanted to get to Mr. MacGillivray’s point number 3 for food independence in the long term, which is—and you talked about premium markets. I wanted to ask about the distribution of food from local farms to local people. I’m wondering if you might want to comment about the need for a regional food hub—like the Food Terminal in Toronto but in eastern Ontario—and how that might help get the specialty products, the premium products, of smaller farms in eastern Ontario in front of consumers. There’s this great supermarket in Kemptville, as a good example, but it’s just one little thing. It’s not a system. I was wondering if any of you might want to comment on that.

Official source

Mr. Michael MacGillivray

We’re a direct-to-consumer farm. We do a lot of our marketing ourselves. Would there be some advantage to having regional systems? Absolutely. There are other producers that don’t want to go down the road that we’ve gone down with the direct-to-consumer aspect, so having regional food hubs would assist them. It could also incorporate processing, or secondary processing at least. It is something that has been explored. There are a lot of challenges with respect to that. Some of it, from a secondary processing or value-added processing—there are some limitations with respect to regulations around the health units as well as some of the challenges with respect to creating free-standing meat plants and those sorts of things. But yes, there is a demand and there is a need for more regionalized food systems. Again, from a resiliency point of view, it’s something that’s critical.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

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

Official source

Mr. Don Badour

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

Official source