Wednesday, July 29, 2026

The committee met at 1000 in Cedar Meadows Resort and Spa, Timmins.

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 Ciriello.

Official source

MPP Monica Ciriello

I nominate MPP Dowie.

Official source

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

Does the member accept the nomination?

Official source

Mr. Andrew Dowie

Yes.

Official source

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

Are there any further nominations? There being no further nominations, I declare the nominations closed and MPP Dowie elected Acting Chair of the committee.

Official source

Consideration of the following bill:

Official source

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

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Good morning, members. Welcome to Timmins. The Standing Committee on the Interior will now come to order. We’re meeting today to commence 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—to all members. 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 into two rounds of 6.5 minutes of questions from each recognized party. I will 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 Steve Runnalls. You will have seven minutes for your presentation. Please state your name for the Hansard and you may begin.

Official source

Mr. Steve Runnalls

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today as you consider Bill 109 and the measures that are being proposed that will protect and strengthen Ontario’s food sector. I’m Steve Runnalls, a second-generation dairy farmer and fourth-generation owner of farmland in Thornloe, Ontario. With my family, I milk with 65 cows. We grow a variety of crops to feed the cows—and for sale on approximately 1,000 acres. We also have a flock of about 250 ewes, sheep. We sell mostly breeding stock and a small herd of beef cows. As well, we do some custom work and sell some replacement cattle. I’ve also had the privilege to serve on the board of directors of Dairy Farmers of Ontario since 2012, representing dairy producers in Algoma, Cochrane, East Nipissing-Parry Sound, West Nipissing-Sudbury East, Manitoulin-Sudbury West, Rainy River, Timiskaming and Thunder Bay—basically all across northern Ontario, representing a broad rural region. I want to thank you for bringing the committee to our region as part of your study of this important piece of legislation. Together, the hundred dairy farmers operating in northern Ontario supply milk to six dairy plants in the region, with an annual milk production of a little over 81 million litres and a GDP contribution of about $233 million. 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 the 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 to processing in Ontario. It is necessary to ensure we have consistently applied end-use pricing obligations that ensure all processers are billed equitably for their milk products. 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 approved in 2020. Dairy farmers share the government’s commitment to ensuring a stronger, trusted domestic food system, with a regulatory framework that supports continuous improvement and compliance of world-class, high-quality food safety standards for cow’s milk in Ontario. Through DFO, we will continue to work with OMAFA on enabling legislation and related regulatory amendments to ensure we continue to uphold the high quality standard for cow’s milk in Ontario. Sustaining a viable and growing dairy agriculture sector in northern Ontario is important to maintaining our local communities where we raise 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. In addition to provisions in the bill, I also want to acknowledge the government’s support for business in our region through the work of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. As was noted in the announcement last week, this ongoing support is vital to driving rural economic growth, strengthening our northern Ontario agriculture by directly supporting farmers and businesses who live, work and invest right here. To that end, I’d also add that finding a way to work with the federal and local governments on infrastructure needed to safely and efficiently move goods is of great importance to our region and critical to securing Ontario’s food independence. Highways 11 and 17 are vital Trans-Canada routes that serve as the backbone of Ontario’s east-west agricultural supply chain, moving approximately 8,400 trucks and 87,000 tons of goods worth over $200 million every single day, including grain, livestock, dairy, produce, feed, fertilizer and farm equipment that sustain agricultural operations across the province. They are critical for getting Ontario-grown food to processors, markets and export hubs, and for ensuring farms have timely access to inputs. Now more than ever, we need to protect and grow our farming and food sector. Modernizing the Milk Act is one way we’re working with the government to secure continued growth and investment in Ontario dairy. 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 farms and more processing capacity that drives economic growth and serves the Canadian market while protecting Ontario’s advantage. Thank you.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you, Mr. Runnalls. I’ll now call on the Ontario Sheep Farmers, represented by Helen McRae, director. You will have seven minutes for your presentation, and please state your name for Hansard. You may begin. Go ahead, Ms. McRae.

Official source

Ms. Helen McRae

Hi. My name is Helen McRae. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I’m on the board of the Ontario Sheep Farmers organization, representing all of northern Ontario. For some background before I share thoughts on Bill 109: Canada’s sheep farmers currently fulfill only 35% of our domestic demand for lamb. Due to increased immigration, domestic consumption of lamb and mutton per capita is increasing at a rate of 3% annually. The market opportunity for halal lamb and goat meat is projected to grow from $214 million to over $300 million in the next five years. Our board has set an exciting direction for our industry: to fulfill 50% of domestic market demand by 2040. This target will more than double our production of lamb within the next 15 years. This will have significant benefits to the province, including a doubling of sheep farmers’ economic contribution from $200 million to $400 million. This growth will also displace imports from Australia and New Zealand, and increase the amount of lamb processed at provincial abattoirs and value-added processors. To do this, we will be focusing our resources on ways to improve market efficiencies and market information, improve the genetics of our flocks, address production challenges that are limiting growth, and support new and expanding flocks with education and programs. The changes to the Protecting Farmers from Non-Payment Act are important to our sector. In particular, the additional language within this field related to the governing requirements of the financial protection program will improve the financial security of the program and reduce risks for producers. Once this bill passes, our organization would like to be first in line for a financial protection program for sheep farmers. Our preliminary calculations, based on the cattle program, indicate we require a fund size under half a million dollars to support the financial risk within our industry. Without a financial protection fund and program, our sheep producers are nervous about exploring new markets and sales channels, due to the financial risk. Improving this program and opening it to sheep farmers will build an underpinning of financial security to help us achieve our growth objectives. The changes to the Beef Cattle Marketing Act to collect licence fees on cattle that are custom-processed will also benefit our organization. OSF has collected licence fees on custom slaughter for many years. These changes will standardize the approach to licence fee collection, and reduce confusion and administration costs for our organization. OSF is also very supportive of the process of updating the Veterinary Professionals Act and implementing regulation. The availability of small-ruminant veterinary care in Ontario has reached a crisis point. This deficit is continuously growing as large-animal veterinarians retire without replacement. Many of our members have vets further than 100 kilometres away from their farm, and in northern Ontario, it can be hundreds of kilometres further. It is important to finalize the Veterinary Professionals Act and focus our attention on increasing the number of veterinarians and supporting current veterinarians that practise in rural and northern Ontario. We also require more health service providers like pregnancy ultrasound technicians in our province, though we appreciate the act allowing for confirmation of pregnancy through ultrasound for sheep and goats by technicians to be exempted from the oversight of a veterinarian. On behalf of Ontario Sheep Farmers, thank you for the opportunity to share our support for Bill 109. Our organization looks forward to these changes being implemented and the resulting benefits that will come for our industry.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you very much. I will now call on Norman R. Koch. You will have seven minutes for your presentation. Please state your name for Hansard, and you may begin. Mr. Norman Koch: Norman Koch. I’m from Earlton, Ontario, born and raised down in southern Ontario in Waterloo county. Now, with my family, we crop farm, about 12,500 acres in Timiskaming. As well, we are licensed grain elevators in Ontario and Quebec. We have a trucking company and various other things. I have been on many boards over the last years in agriculture, the federation of agriculture and NOFIA, which is for developing stuff in northern Ontario, always promoting northern Ontario. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I read through parts of Bill 109. It kind of got overwhelming as I got looking into it more, but we would like to support the agriculture components. We also need to be aware of food security. I have some stats from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and I want to just share a few of them. I don’t always agree with everything that they publish, especially the fact about the farmland we lose each year, but I get shut down when I say that I don’t agree with it. But, anyway, in Ontario agri-food counts for $51.4 billion in economic activity; 10% of the workforce—867,000 jobs; $28 billion in agri-food exports; in northern Ontario, $290 million in farm cash receipts; $575 million in economic activity; 4,220 agri-food businesses; 27,800 jobs. I have these if people want them afterwards. Also, they’re saying that food processing is Ontario’s second-largest manufacturing industry, just behind automotive. We don’t think of that as much up here in northern Ontario, we don’t see as much food processing as what there is, of course, in southern Ontario. All these are very important in light of our southern neighbours’ leader—not necessary the southern neighbours, but the leader. Having all that processing, we would like to see processing more in northern Ontario, but there’s always all kind of things that make it necessary in the south. So that’s the OFA stats. Crown land is one thing I would like to talk about as we have been working for many years to be able to utilize more of the land that was actually farmed at one time through northern Ontario and other land that could be farmed. The Timiskaming area where I’m at is known as a small Clay Belt, the large Clay Belt or the Great Clay Belt is north, which is kind of from Cochrane out past Hearst to Calstock. There’s lot of land there that could be farmed, could be cleared—re-cleared and farmed. Crown land is a necessary option to be available to sustain food production in Ontario. Climate change, plant breeding, tiling land—all of that has tremendously helped the yields that we get for growing feed and food to feed the province, but as land gets taken away for various reasons in southern Ontario, and in northern Ontario somewhat but not to the same extent, we need to get more land cleared and working. The urban development or—I hate to use the word “urban sprawl,” but coming from southern Ontario, you do drive down and you see it kind of sprawling a little bit sometimes, but for commercial, industrial housing, highways and other transportation—but all of those things are also necessary for Ontario’s strength and Ontario’s growth. So we just can’t stand on our pulpit and chirp about farming to be better for Ontario because everything is necessary for Ontario’s strength. In 2016, the census reported that we were losing 175 acres of farmland per day; that’s 63,875 acres a year. The 2021 census said we’re losing 309 acres of farmland per day; that’s 160,435 acres per year—582,175 acres over a five-year period. If this is true, and if, per acre we can feed—one acre could feed 15 people, on average of whatever is grown. I know an acre of potatoes could feed 400 people, enough potatoes for 400 people, but you need other stuff. So if one acre can feed 15 people, whether it’s crops or pasture for cattle or whatever, in five years, we have lost the ability to feed about 8.73 million people. That’s according to the stats. These are some of the reasons that some crown land needs to be opened up, sold or leased or in some way made available for agricultural production, whether it’s pasture, whether it’s farms for cattle, whether it’s growing grain, whatever it might be. A lot of land could be used and would be made available, especially with the fact of tiling land. That has sure helped the climate and the farming in northern Ontario.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left, sir.

Official source

Mr. Norman Koch

Okay. If you’ve driven across the north, you can see, from Cochrane over toward Hearst, many old farm barns that were built years ago. So this shows that there was farming through the north, further north, at some time. My understanding is a lot of that land has gone back to the crown. Approximately 52,000 hectares was privately deeded at one time, has gone back to the crown. So my thinking is that that should be able to get reverted back to agriculture quickly. Just quickly: If we look at the Matheson area, Val Gagné, we look at Algoma, we look at Charlton—where the Mennonites and Amish have moved in and cleared tens of thousands of acres and made livings for themselves and helping the local. Thanks for the opportunity.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Perfect timing. Thank you so much. The first round of questions will start with the government. So go ahead, if there’s a government member who wishes to start. MPP Vickers.

Official source

MPP Paul Vickers

This question is for Norm. You were talking about the lack of processing and further marketing up here in the north, as compared to southern Ontario. Do you think by opening up these acres that that would allow more potential to invite processors and marketers up into the area by opening up these lands?

Official source

Mr. Norman Koch

Well, I think it would be. We have to look at several things. If we’re processing—let’s say we’re crushing canola for oil. It’s no problem to move the oil into biofuel. But the feed, the meal by-product, is—we need more animals to use that. We’ve looked at it ourselves a few times, but of course, the oil has to get moved south or blended up here. But there’s not enough animals in the north to feed the meal, the protein. So opening up to more farmers, especially animal farmers, would greatly help that. Another thing that would be nice to have in northern Ontario would be chicken processing. There are a lot of backyard chickens, and a lot of people—they can go up to 3,000 now per year. But we don’t have a processing—we just have a couple of small abattoirs that are processing now that are slowly getting going. But I think it would help. How much it would help, I’m not sure. Of course, I think about growing grains a lot, most of the time, not so much about animals, but they are both hand in hand. I see somewhat of a help. I don’t say it would be—we wouldn’t order—make a plant. Flour, for instance: We should have a flour processing. Back in the day, when we were first in the north here, New-Life Mills out at Hanover had two tractor-trailer loads of flour a day going to Rouyn to the bakery, one tractor-trailer load a day going to Timmins. The bakeries are gone now. So if flour processing wasn’t done up here, can that be revived? Probably not, you know. The big bakeries that can truck the finished product—probably simpler.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

MPP Rosenberg.

Official source

MPP Bill Rosenberg

My question is for Norm, too. You have a large grain farm and stuff, so what opportunities—it’s a two-part question. What’s the biggest opportunity you see this bill has in unlocking for yourself, people like yourself, for grain production? And the second one is, we’ve seen how tile drainage has really expanded our opportunity to farm some of these lands that were never farmable before for grain production, and as we move forward, the Bill 109 for the farmland security, the farmland bill—protecting Ontario farmland from foreign acquisition—how important is that to you and the area farmers also?

Official source

Mr. Norman Koch

So, first of all, I think by having ourselves—we not only ship grain by truck; we ship it by rail. Actually, we’re in the process right now of getting a transloading facility built at our operation in Earlton, which will help the north tremendously. We also load rail cars in Kapuskasing, at the old government research farm. There’s a site in there. So that is necessary. We want to expand agriculture and grain production. Like I say, up until 1992, we were a grain-importing area, and since then, we are exporting way more than—we’re importing corn and dairy feed, mainly. Now, we probably ship about 225,000 tonnes out of northern Ontario each year. So enhancing rail traffic—I mean, we can’t do all this by truck. The highways are plenty busy enough, so rail is an important thing for the north. What is the protecting question again, mainly? Oh, for the tiling.

Official source

MPP Bill Rosenberg

For the foreign acquisition.

Official source

Mr. Norman Koch

Yes. So, tiling, of course, has been a very, very great help to northern Ontario. Back in the day, we have a couple farms that people, when we bought it, they said their tile—how close to the tile? Two hundred feet. I said, “Oh, okay.” I mean, now, tiling is at 40 and 50 feet some places. The vegetable guys are at 20, 25 feet. Foreign acquisition might be okay, but foreign takeover would not be okay, and I think they come hand in hand. Having said that, who backs some of the large companies that are buying land now? Like, if people slamming us—I mean, we farm 12 and a half thousand acres, you know—

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Norman Koch

Pardon?

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

For the government’s time, there’s only one minute remaining.

Official source

Mr. Norman Koch

Oh, sorry.

Official source

MPP Bill Rosenberg

So you can take it up, or—

Official source

Mr. Norman Koch

Yes. Anyway, who backs us? I mean, a big farmer used to be 200 acres. Now and then, a big farmer is 500 acres. Now, what is a big farmer? Is it 20,000? Is it 30,000? It goes up the same as animal production farmers. Thank you.

Official source

MPP Bill Rosenberg

Thanks.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

You have 30 seconds left.

Official source

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault

I’m probably not going to do you justice to the question, but I can ask it.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

That’s your choice. Twenty seconds left.

Official source

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault

I won’t bother. He won’t get the time to answer it.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

All right. Thank you. That concludes government’s side. We will move to the official opposition.

Official source

Mr. Guy Bourgouin

My question is to Mr. Koch also. My colleague John Vanthof was supposed to be here, but he cancelled—a farmer expert to a forest worker. But I just want to ask you: You mentioned that for farming, foreign—and I want to continue on the foreign acquisitions. You said there’s good and bad, but in Timiskaming, you lived that, because when they hire—they pay taxes on the building. So they bulldoze the buildings, but then municipalities are having a hard time surviving or facing close to bankruptcy. So any input—we could do better to avoid this particular scenario—since you’re from the Timiskaming area, you must be aware of that situation. If not—but that is happening, so I would just like to hear you on that particular point.

Official source

Mr. Norman Koch

I am very aware of that, and I get reminded by several townships. It is an issue. But, like I have said to these townships that are bellyaching because we take down buildings, if the laws would have allowed us to sever off the building—sever off the house, sever off the barn—and sell it, then there would still be the taxes. But whatever loss took place that—that wasn’t allowed. So then if buildings got a little bit decrepit, they just got taken out, taken away. But I have told these townships—and maybe it’s legislation, I don’t know; nobody has ever given me a straight answer—increase our tax from 25%. There is no reason that we have to only pay 25% taxes for our farmland. I get very much shot down by other farmers when I say that, but if it was 30% or 32% or 33%—we know the townships need money. We know their costs keep going up. Ourselves and our situation and a couple of other larger farmers in our—we work with the townships. We don’t work against them. We’ll do some ditching for them with our high hoes. We’ll do stuff to help the townships. Dairy farmers—not to blame anybody in particular; we have big equipment too, and we have heavy equipment. But when people start hauling their liquid manure tankers and start busting up side roads and then the answer is, “We pay taxes”—but that’s not what your taxes are for, to break up side roads. Anyways, townships do need help, but I think if we could sever off lots, sever off buildings—maybe not just the lots; buildings that are there already—it would help the tax.

Official source

Mr. Guy Bourgouin

You mentioned the Clay Belt, of course, and that’s in my riding of Mushkegowuk–James Bay. You talked about Hearst and Calstock and all the way down to Smooth Rock Falls. We’re seeing some development happening for farming, which is great. But in my riding, there’s a huge forestry industry, and forestry—right now, we’re struggling. So how do you see this working out when we talk about crown land? Forestry is concerned because all these are wood allocations that they have on crown land, which is close to the roads, close to low-cost for them to reach volume. How do you see that working with forestry? Because it’s not covered in the bill, as we speak, but we hear the minister speak about the potential of crown land. You mentioned crown land also, so how do you see forestry and agriculture working to find solutions so that forestry is not losing its volume? And if there is, how do you see them moving towards that when it comes to crown land and affecting the forestry industry?

Official source

Mr. Norman Koch

I’ve always talked about, before we—when we want to get crown land released for agriculture, there are five components that have to come together: We have to get agriculture, mining, forestry, First Nations and tourism; all have to sit down and talk. And if all five can’t sit down and talk, then there is no point in talking about it because, five years down the road, one of the five will block it. So we have to negotiate. But also, keep in mind, agriculture gets rejuvenated every year. Every year, there are plants planted and there is a harvest done. Forestry gets rejuvenated in perhaps—I’m not sure—70, 80, 90 years. Mining gets rejuvenated in zero. An ounce is taken out of the ground; there’s nothing put back. So having said that, I’m touting a little bit for agriculture because we can possibly do more regenerative than what other things can do. But my understanding from the minister in Thunder Bay at a previous meeting somewhere that Ontario is only using, I think the number was 47%—

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Norman Koch

—47% of the allotment of trees to cut. And I know, because of the tariffs etc., we’re not cutting the wood that we should, but unfortunately the forest fires are doing it for us, so—

Official source

Mr. Guy Bourgouin

I know your business must be impacted by highway closures, and I’d like to hear it from you. We’re talking about agriculture, but it does affect agriculture when we see road closure after road closure after road closure, especially in the winter. Can you elaborate on how we can do better to make your agriculture better in northern Ontario regarding highways?

Official source

Mr. Norman Koch

Yes: Ship it by rail. But that is one of the reasons I used to get lambasted at meetings, when I would hear people talking in the background about, “What’s Mr. Koch doing, talking about working with a railway when he owns a trucking company?” We do own a trucking company of 20 trucks.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you, Mr. Koch. We appreciate that. We will now move to the third party.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

One of the things that one hears all across the province is the shortage of large-animal vets, and so I have a question for Ms. McRae from the Ontario Sheep Farmers. Schedule 9 of this bill, Bill 109, modifies the Veterinary Professionals Act, which was passed only two years ago in 2024. I was wondering if you could explain what was missing from the act that was passed only two years ago that requires a change now. I guess I’m asking this from the point of view of sheep farmers. Why wasn’t legislation from only two years ago exactly what we needed?

Official source

Ms. Helen McRae

So the main act was passed, and I think there was a minor update to the language in it. We were just happy that the act didn’t change the ultrasound exemptions for small ruminants. We feel that it’s time to stop working on legislation and regulation, and to begin implementation so we can focus on our work growing the number of food-animal veterinarians in our province.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

So just to be clear, you just want to get on with the implementation.

Official source

Ms. Helen McRae

Yes.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

So you’re happy that whatever changes didn’t affect small ruminants, so these changes—

Official source

Ms. Helen McRae

Yes. We’re supportive of the fact that it did not affect the small-ruminant ultrasounds.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Okay. And then with these changes, it will open the door to implementation of the things that you need.

Official source

Ms. Helen McRae

Yes.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Okay. Thank you very much. My other question is about schedule 8, again to the sheep farmers. Ms. McRae, you mentioned that schedule 8, the financial protection fund, was needed to reduce risks, to help producers explore new markets or new channels. Can you just help educate me? What’s an example of something that could go wrong, that you would need that financial protection for? Could you just give an example to help us understand?

Official source

Ms. Helen McRae

Yes. I have a little bit of a write-up on this one. We’re seeking financial protection for our members for two reasons: to protect our members from nonpayment when selling direct or through a broker-dealer, and to protect our middle players—like auctions and broker dealers—from nonpayment by processors. The two issues are: There are a few auctions and broker-dealers with large receivables who are concerned that they are holding the risk of the industry to help sheep farmers access the end market. The other one is, some auctions give terms that extend their debt by millions of dollars, and this is paid by farmers in commissions that can continue to rise. Today, our organization has a small handful of processors that owe us licence fee money that they have collected and not remitted. If we have the financial protection program, we will be able to withhold their licence until they pay us.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Okay. Thank you very much. So there’s a whole chain from the farmer to whoever the consumer is, where there could be nonpayment. In fact, you’re saying that currently, there are nonpayment balances that you’re dealing with.

Official source

Ms. Helen McRae

Correct. We’re going into hearings shortly with certain people, yes.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Okay. Thank you very much. My third question is for Mr. Runnalls, and it’s about the changes to the Milk Act in Bill 109. I understand you’re coming from the producer side—you’re on the board of the DFO—but I was wondering if you could just comment broadly, amongst all the stakeholders, just to maybe give us a little warning. Are all stakeholders happy with changes to the Milk Act, or are there some that might—

Official source

Mr. Steve Runnalls

I’d be—

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Not you, but there might be others that have some concerns. Is there anything we should look out for?

Official source

Mr. Steve Runnalls

I think some stakeholders may not be happy if they’re getting opportunities to buy product at a discounted price, if we’re referring to the end-use billing. If you’re able to get a product at a lower price, you’re not going to be happy with this change—you might be paying a higher price—but the end-use billing will make sure that every buyer of milk, whether they’re a first processor or further processor, pays the same price. It’s about fairness.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Okay. Thank you. Then the next question—if I could just write down some notes here. I was wondering if you could just comment about schedule 4 and how this bill affects supply management.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Unfortunately, the Americans are making it a big topic of discussion. How will Bill 109 affect supply management?

Official source

Mr. Steve Runnalls

Are we just talking about the end-use billing, or other—

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

I guess I just want to open it up to speak more broadly, if you wanted to.

Official source

Mr. Steve Runnalls

I think that the end-use billing is the main thing for us. Because of negotiations with the United States, they had to change the national policy, so Ontario was not able to enforce a policy the same as the rest of the country. So it will bring us in line with the rest of Canada there in the pricing policy. And I think that there are changes in here on adjudication, and we don’t see any issues for supply management there.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Okay. How much time do I have? Only a few seconds?

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

You have eight seconds.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

I’ll give up the eight seconds.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Okay. Thanks so much. That concludes the first round. We’ll return to the government side with MPP Pinsonneault.

Official source

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault

This is for Steve Runnalls, as well. The Food Safety and Quality Act changes in this bill would allow delegated authorities like DFO to take on more responsibility. How would maintaining DFO’s regulatory authority over milk quality under this new structure benefit consumers?

Official source

Mr. Steve Runnalls

One of the things we’re looking to do is changing the penalty program to make the food safer and better-quality all the way along. That’s what currently is administered under OMAF, and it will be under the Food Safety and Quality Act. But it will also ensure that our regulations are under the same body of food safety and quality as every other food product in the province. It sets those standards there, and then it’d be administered through DFO, through our quality people and the director of regulatory compliance. It kind of aligns us with everybody else in Ontario.

Official source

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault

Thank you.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

MPP Cuzzetto.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

My question is going to be for Helen here. As the province works to advance Bill 109 alongside its broader Grow Ontario strategy, what would you like to see prioritized in strengthening and supporting the sheep farmers of Ontario? And how could this protection in this bill, such as farmland security and stronger payment protection, help lay the groundwork for their growth?

Official source

Ms. Helen McRae

Like I said, we are trying to increase production. The demand, we just cannot reach at the moment. We’re nowhere near meeting demand. For sheep farmers, because we are not a large industry, to be able to buy farmland would be very beneficial, and the protection would be very nice for our board, so that we can support our sheep farmers in growth with education etc.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

So you agree with Bill 109. Is that what you’re saying here today?

Official source

Ms. Helen McRae

Yes, we support Bill 109.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

Thank you for that.

Official source

Ms. Helen McRae

Thank you.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

MPP Ciriello.

Official source

MPP Monica Ciriello

My question is for Steve. Steve, thanks so much for appearing here today. I think you bring a really interesting perspective from northern Ontario. I know you mentioned Haliburton too. As someone who represents dairy producers, both across northern Ontario, in Haliburton and the like, what would you like to see from the government to ensure that this legislation that’s being proposed continues to serve the needs of northern dairy farmers specifically?

Official source

Mr. Steve Runnalls

Specifically, it’s difficult because I think all of the dairy farmers in the province follow the same regulations. I guess one thing would be the opening up of the farmland. If there’s more farmland available, it might entice farmers who have trouble accessing more land in southern Ontario to move dairy farmers up here like we had seen in Matheson. So that ability to get crown land could benefit the dairy industry in the north. The specific changes, like going to food safety and quality, I don’t think really affects northern Ontario farmers, and the end-use billing doesn’t affect us either. I’m not sure if that answers your question.

Official source

MPP Monica Ciriello

No, that’s very helpful. Thank you so much. I really appreciate the insight.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

MPP Vickers.

Official source

MPP Paul Vickers

With this question, I’ll go back to Norm here again. The Grow Ontario Strategy is developing and has the ability to change with the times. Is there anything that you would like to see get prioritized in this strategy to help northern Ontario to grow more efficiently?

Official source

Mr. Norman Koch

I guess that comes back to crown land again—available land. Like Steve mentioned, when we think grain farming—but with animal farming, you just look at the massive scenario. I believe either nine or 10 new dairy farmers have started in the last five or six years. I think there would be quite a bit more of that further north as well. We’ve lost so many dairy farmers in the north. When I first came up here in the 1980s, there was something like 128 dairy farmers in Timiskaming, something like 16 in Cochrane, something like seven in Matheson, three in Kap and nine in Hearst—something like that. Almost all of the northern ones are gone, but now it’s coming back. The “grow north” strategy, making more land available to farm—these families that are moving up from the south mostly are Mennonites and most of them are large families as well.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Norman Koch

It’s not necessarily that a whole bunch more families might move up, but the families that are up here already will be expanding just as they did in southern Ontario. If there are three or four children who want to farm, making more land available would definitely help.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

So, 40 seconds left, MPP Vickers.

Official source

MPP Paul Vickers

That’s fine. You talked a little bit about the dairy farms. What about the beef farms? Do you think they would prosper with the opening up of the Clay Belt and more available land?

Official source

Mr. Norman Koch

Beef farms could prosper for sure, and cow-calf especially, but also finishing. Up in northern Quebec, over in Val-d’Or or the La Sarre area, there are two large beef farms that feed lots—3,000 head—and we have none of that in northern Ontario for some reason. If we had more access, more availability—of course, we have to be able to grow the hay and we have to grow the feed for them. But that would save shipping some of the feed out of the area in southern Ontario.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

That concludes the government’s time. We’ll move to the official opposition. MPP Bourgouin.

Official source

Mr. Guy Bourgouin

When I was driving, I was listening to French Radio-Canada and they were saying that in Canada, over 80% of farmers don’t have a successorship plan. They were also saying that usually it’s from family to family, but some family members, just like other industries, are not interested—because let’s face it, it’s hard work and it’s very demanding. There’s also the labour shortage that becomes involved with that because there’s a shortage of labour also. I’d like to hear from all of you, if you don’t mind. What are your thoughts on that? Because this is throughout Canada, yes, but Ontario is probably facing a similar or the same thing—that there is a shortage of labour; not every family member is—and I know in Quebec—I was listening to a show about that—that they have a hard time passing down to the family. What are your thoughts, all of you, on the successor? How do we move forward as a province on these subjects that our farmers are facing?

Official source

Mr. Norman Koch

I’ll quickly just say, we have to have foreign labour. It has to be an option. People say, “Well, Tim Hortons and wherever—there’s not very many local people working there.” It’s probably because they don’t want to work. We have a lot of people that come out of university, and they think they should start at the second-top rung of the ladder, not the second-bottom rung of the ladder. When we have temporary foreign workers or foreign workers that come in, they’re happy to do the job. Just a quick note: We were down in Costa Rica years ago. We went on a tour up in the mountains with a guide. Way down in the valley, we had seen a bunch of little tin shacks, and I said, “What’s that all about?” He said, “Well, that’s the Nicaraguans.” I said, “Oh.” He said, “They come here, they pick the melons and then they take the money home.” And I said, “Well, why don’t you go pick melons?” He said, “Well, I wouldn’t do a job like that.” So, I mean, we have that same thing here in Ontario—the same thing in Canada. We need to have—we have said—people that are willing and happy to come to work, and that doesn’t always happen with our own people.

Official source

Mr. Guy Bourgouin

Anybody else?

Official source

Mr. Steve Runnalls

I’ll speak to it, if I could. I agree with Norm on that requirement of foreign labour, but I also think the infrastructure—especially on the highways—is a really big thing. The highway needs to be four-laned. I understand in the United States, when they four-laned across to the western side of the country, then, everything developed. And when you get people from southern Ontario, they come up here and you have a congested highway that’s actually dangerous—they don’t want to move up here; that commute back to their family is difficult. By four-laning that highway, it’s going to speed up the movement of freight and make it cheaper to move cattle—all those things that we need. It would also allow more people to live here, knowing that they could commute and get back and forth safely. I think it would be tremendous for the north to improve that highway.

Official source

Mr. Guy Bourgouin

Go ahead, Helen.

Official source

Ms. Helen McRae

I will echo the thoughts on foreign workers, especially with the sheep industry. The access to skilled foreign workers, especially from New Zealand, Australia and the UK, assisting during lambing is vital to the sheep farmers, especially with large flocks. People that are already skilled and know how to lamb out a flock really reduces the mortality rate during lambing.

Official source