Wednesday, August 12, 2026

The committee met at 1000 in the Listowel Golf Club, Listowel.

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 the Chair.

Official source

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

Does the member accept the nomination?

Official source

Mr. Andrew Dowie

Yes.

Official source

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

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

Official source

Consideration of the following bill:

Official source

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

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Good morning, members, and welcome to Listowel. The Standing Committee on the Interior will now come to order. We’re meeting today to continue public hearings on Bill 109, An Act to enact the Farmland Security Act, 2026 and to amend various Acts. Please wait until you are recognized by the Chair before speaking. As always, all comments should go through the Chair. As a reminder, every presenter will have seven minutes for their presentation. After we’ve 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. Just so you know, it will be an interruption or speaking over to keep our clock going.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

I will now call on the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association, John Stevens, CEO; Triple A Cheese Ltd., Jay Kirktown; and Perth county beef producers, Joost van der Heiden. Come on up to the front. We will start with John Stevens of the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association. You will have seven minutes for your presentation. Please state your name for Hansard and you may begin.

Official source

Mr. John Stevens

Good morning. I’m John Stevens, chief executive officer of the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association, also known as OVMA. Thank you for having me here today. I am very pleased to be here today to speak to Bill 109, specifically schedule 9, which relates to the Veterinary Professionals Act. I would first like to take this opportunity to thank Minister Jones and the ministry team for their continued work on the Veterinary Professionals Act. We appreciate the collaborative approach and ongoing stakeholder engagement to ensure that the act reflects the needs of the profession, pet owners, farmers and Ontario’s animals. This act has been more than a decade in the making but is still not in force. Bill 109 is an important step towards implementation, and OVMA and its members want to see it move forward. Through the development of the act over these past 13-plus years, OVMA has highlighted the challenges that veterinarians face under an antiquated regulatory framework that no longer reflects modern veterinary practice. The Veterinary Professionals Act is a significant step forward, supporting coordinated, team-based care while protecting animal and public health, food safety and Ontario’s agricultural sector. Bill 109 is necessary to advance the implementation of the Veterinary Professionals Act. We’ve proposed amendments to strengthen the act, enhance its effectiveness and its longevity. These recommendations are outlined in our submission to the committee. One proposed change to section 21, regarding accredited facilities, concerns us. This section has been the subject of ongoing discussion and misunderstanding. Given that, OVMA recommends that the government strengthen the proposed language to clarify the intent surrounding the accreditation exemptions. Section 21 specifically addressed the circumstances in which members may practise outside an accredited veterinary facility, and OVMA supports the specific exemption concepts that were developed through the College of Veterinarians of Ontario transition council. Specifically, we believe that exemptions should be limited to those working for the crown, those practising under federal or provincial legislation, and veterinary technicians carrying out a treatment plan developed by a veterinarian. These concepts were extensively researched and refined, including through public consultation. Our concern is that the wording in Bill 109 goes significantly beyond those circumstances. As drafted, it would create a much broader regulation-making authority that could later be used to permit independent, stand-alone models without clear oversight from the veterinarian. This would represent a significant change in the delivery of veterinary care in Ontario, and that model has not been the subject of the same consultation, research or impact assessment that has informed this entire process to date. OVMA is recommending clearer language that limits exemption authority to circumstances that have been properly consulted on. One of the clear themes that we have heard through these committee hearings is the need to improve access to veterinary care. We agree; access is an important issue, and we believe that Bill 109 is an important part of the solution. Improving access doesn’t mean simply creating more points at which an animal can receive service. It means that animals can receive the right care at the right time from the appropriate professionals within a system where there is continuity, communication and accountability. Veterinary medicine is strongest when veterinarians and RVTs work together as an integrated team. An integrated, team-based approach allows veterinary professionals to contribute their skills on maintaining continuity of care and appropriate oversight. That model can support access while also protecting animal welfare and public safety. When care becomes fragmented, animals may only receive part of the care that they require, and they need to be referred elsewhere for diagnosis or for treatment. This can create additional costs for pet owners, delays in care and poorer outcomes, particularly when animals require timely or urgent attention. That is not improved access to care. It’s important to remember that veterinarians are the only professionals authorized to perform the full range of activities under the act. That’s including making a diagnosis and providing high-risk medical treatment. These safeguards protect both animal and public safety to help prevent fragmented care and confusion about professional accountability. Many jurisdictions allow varying degrees of delegation and autonomy, as will this act, but veterinarian-led diagnosis, treatment planning and accountability remain important safeguards in veterinary care. A fundamental change to the delivery of veterinary care should be supported by evidence, research, consultation and clear assessment of the impacts before it’s enabled through legislation. The new framework can and should provide greater flexibility in how veterinary professionals contribute to care while maintaining professional collaboration, continuity of care and clear authority. This framework has been designed to protect the public by ensuring veterinary medicine is delivered within an integrated, team-based model of care. So let’s be sure to maintain that. OVMA supports the Veterinary Professionals Act and would like to see Bill 109 passed so the new framework can finally take effect. We are asking the committee to adopt the amendments outlined in our submission that will preserve the safeguards around coordinated veterinary care and allow Bill 109 to move forward without unnecessary delay. These recommendations will protect animals and their owners while ensuring that the new legislation sets a clear benchmark for other jurisdictions to follow. Again, I’d like to thank the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness and its work related to the Veterinary Professionals Act. I thank the committee for its time and consideration.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you very much for your presentation. We’ll move to Jay Kirktown of Triple A Cheese. You’ll have seven minutes for your presentation. Please state your name for Hansard and you may begin.

Official source

Mr. Jay Kirktown

Good morning. Jay Kirktown, acting on behalf of Triple A Cheese. I would like to thank the committee members for taking the time to listen to our presentation and obviously provide some feedback to the ministry on the proposed bill. It should be understood that we don’t oppose the introduction of Bill 109, Protecting Ontario’s Food Independence Act, but oppose the proposed changes to the Milk Act. We believe the proposed changes to the Milk Act would provide additional authority to the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, DFO, which could limit choices for dairy products and weakens the consumer’s choice for competitively priced dairy products. Our understanding is, if DFO receives this additional authority, they plan to utilize end-use definitions on products that are considered finished products in many jurisdictions. With this assumption, they plan to upcharge dairy processors who utilize these finished products in their operations to manufacture other dairy products. This planned upcharge increases the operating costs of certain dairy processors who do not have the ability to recover this new cost of operating their business. Maybe you’re just wondering who Triple A Cheese is. I’ll give you a bit of an outline here. Triple A Cheese Ltd. is a small-to-medium-sized privately owned dairy company that resides in Mississauga, Ontario. They have been in business for over 30 years. Current owners of Triple A Cheese have been operating the business for about eight years now, growing the business and continuing to invest in the business, trying to strengthen their ties to the consumers, to the industry and the community. Triple A Cheese manufactures a range of cheese products as well as some yogourt, sour creams and dips. Triple A Cheese would be considered an outlier by DFO standards in the dairy industry. They do not buy milk from the DFO but rather buy dairy ingredients—cream, skim milk powder, MPC, butter, UF milk—from their competitors in the marketplace to manufacture their dairy products. Triple A Cheese is exactly the type of company that DFO is targeting with these proposed changes to the Milk Act—by DFO definition, a non-milk buyer that manufactures dairy products. Why targeted by DFO? Because DFO believes Triple A Cheese has a competitive advantage by utilizing dairy ingredients that they buy from the marketplace. Most of these ingredients are purchased from their competitors. Does that sound like Triple A Cheese has a competitive advantage? Currently, DFO has no authority to audit or review the dairy processing operation of a non-milk buyer with no association with DFO. Triple A Cheese is a registered dairy processor with OMAFA, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness; and CFIA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and is audited regularly to meet industry standards. Triple A Cheese Ltd. is also an approved plant by USDA grade A standards and is required to meet dairy products standards for products sent to the US. Triple A Cheese is in a precarious position. They would like to buy milk to support DFO and the business and be a cheaper source of ingredients for their product mix. If Triple A Cheese went down this avenue, they would be required to spend millions of dollars to potentially receive milk from DFO, acquiring quota, a requirement in Ontario, revised processing equipment to manufacture, and constructing a new milk receiving date to meet the DFO requirements for receiving milk. Even though the growth of Triple A Cheese business continues to increase the consumption of dairy products, which increases the milk production in Ontario, Triple A Cheese is not entitled. DFO is trying to force the smaller, medium-sized non-milk buyer into a position that is not workable or upcharge their current business, which is not sustainable in the future. Changes to the Milk Act: The proposed changes to the Milk Act would appear to be small, but they change enough in definition of “regulated products,” currently defined as milk, cream, skim milk, and butter—basically, all liquid products traded between companies or plants that are not required or considered finished products. The proposed changes to “regulated products” would cover all milk products—powdered products, anything of that nature. This proposed change along with the regulation change in Ontario that’s required would provide DFO the authority to audit and review all non-milk buyers’ production, with the intent to upcharge these companies for any ingredients used in the manufacturers that classify dairy products. Even more concerning, DFO’s intent to upcharge these ingredients, utilized based on end product utilization—cheese, for example, in class 3, versus a DFO class 4 price from the skim milk powder USA competitive price based on their public class price, fully penalizing a manufacturer for not buying milk from DFO. DFO has no intent to consider the market price paid for these ingredients or reflecting the non-milk buyer’s real cost of producing these dairy products. DFO’s rationale for their potential upcharge: create a uniform marketing condition for all processors, being defined as fair for all processors. How does that equate to fair, if you do not have the ability to secure milk from DFO and they use this class pricing model to upcharge a non-milk buyer? The class pricing system was revamped as part of the customer trade agreement. Producers agreed to an ingredient class, class 4, for all components except for the butterfat, which remains at a domestic price, that is competitive to US dairy market price converted to Canadian dollars, adjusting for Canadian cost of conversion for these products. Producers believe they are losing revenue based on these finished products being utilized in dairy product manufacturing.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Jay Kirktown

These products’ acceptable utilized jurisdiction—and certainly no upcharge is considered or required. A reasonable question: Why aren’t other processors objecting to the Milk Act? Most processors remain quiet on this proposed upcharge to receive milk from DFO, and charges that have no impact on them. As you might be aware, four large dairy processors control about 75% of the milk nationally, and even a higher percentage in Ontario. They’re already the benefactors of the lowest ingredient costs for their dairy products. It remains a battle for these small, medium-sized processors to compete in the marketplace with the large processors, with the scale of their operations and the range of dairy products they can offer in the marketplace. With the proposed changes to the Milk Act, some of these small and medium-sized non-milk buyers will fail to exist, should this proceed. Providing DFO more authority in the supply-managed system that we operate in today will do nothing to increase the consumption of dairy products and will only increase the cost of manufacture for some dairy products for the non-milk buyers, with the need to pass on increased costs to consumers.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you very much. Next, we’ll move to Joost van der Heiden, Perth county beef producers. You have seven minutes for your presentation. Please state your name for Hansard, and you may begin.

Official source

Mr. Joost van der Heiden

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Joost van der Heiden. I’m a director for Perth County Beef Farmers as well as a director for Beef Farmers of Ontario and a local cow-calf-to-finished producer just outside of Listowel. I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I’m pleased to provide our perspective on Bill 109. I want to begin by clearly stating that we support Bill 109, and we appreciate the government bringing forward legislation with such a strong agricultural focus. Ontario agriculture is diverse, and the challenges facing a beef farm in one part of the province can look very different from those facing a producer somewhere else. Bill 109 addresses several of these challenges, and we appreciate the government listening to the producers and bringing forward practical measures intended to strengthen Ontario’s ability to produce food. I’ll address the three areas in the bill in turn. First, the proposed changes to the Beef Cattle Marketing Act: We support these amendments and particularly appreciate the province listening to our members. These changes reflect resolutions debated and strongly supported by BFO members, going back to 2018 and 2019. Fundamentally, this is about fairness. The beef-cattle market has changed, and not every animal destined for beef moves through the traditional sales transactions. The amendments would provide greater consistency across marketing channels, while maintaining a reasonable personal-use exemption of up to two animals per year. The second area is access to veterinary professionals. I recognize this issue may not resonate as strongly with producers here in Perth county as it does, clearly, in other areas of the province. But BFO represents producers from every region of Ontario, and access to large-animal veterinary care is a serious concern for many of our producers, particularly in northern Ontario as well as some areas in eastern and southern Ontario. For that reason, we support making better use of the entire veterinary team. The proposed changes would create regulatory pathways for registered veterinary technicians-owned businesses and allow authorized activities to take place outside traditional accredited veterinary facilities. That additional flexibility could be particularly valuable in areas where veterinary resources are scarce and producers may be travelling significant distances to obtain services or have to wait for veterinary services to be provided. As to how regulations are developed, we encourage the government to recognize that livestock veterinary care often looks very different from companion animal practices. Care happens at farms and barns and handling facilities, and sometimes out in the pasture. Regulations governing mobile and on-farm service need to reflect these practical realities. We also encourage continued consultation with farmers and agricultural organizations to ensure the final rules work for livestock producers and the regions where improved veterinary care and access is most needed. The third area is farmland security and agricultural access to crown land. We strongly support the intent of protecting Ontario farmland from foreign acquisition. Farmland is the foundation of our ability to produce food, and protecting both its ownership and its continued agricultural use is important to Ontario’s long-term food security. Ontario continues to lose farmland to non-agricultural development. And once land leaves production, it’s effectively gone; once paved over, it will never be a pasture. Strong safeguards that help keep agricultural land in the hands of farmers and available for food production are therefore important to our sector. The crown land provides another area where the regional differences in Ontario are worth recognizing. For a beef producer here in Perth county, access to crown land is understandably not a significant day-to-day concern, but for the broader Ontario beef sector, particularly for producers and communities in northern Ontario, it represents a real opportunity. The great northern Clay Belt has significant potential for agricultural expansion. Bringing even a relatively small portion of suitable land into sustainable agricultural production could support new farms, strengthen northern communities, help maintain processing and infrastructure, and increase Ontario’s overall food-producing capacity. The key is making access practical. We support both the sale and long-term lease of suitable crown land for agricultural production. We believe the province can help by identifying appropriate parcels and addressing some of the significant preliminary requirements associated with accessing land, including environmental and archaeological assessments and Indigenous consultations. We would also encourage the government to expedite crown land applications and consider reinstating the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp.’s former land clearing grant, which previously helped support the growth of northern beef production. I think that regional perspective is important when considering Bill 109 as a whole. Not every provision in an agriculture bill will have the same significance to every farmer in every part of Ontario. Veterinary access and crown land may be less pressing concerns for producers in Perth county, but they can be major barriers or major opportunities for beef farmers elsewhere in the province. As a representative of both the local association and the provincial Beef Farmers of Ontario, we see value in policies that recognize those regional differences and strengthen the sector as a whole. In closing, we support Bill 109, and we appreciate the government’s focus on agriculture. The bill improves fairness within our sector, creates opportunities to improve access to veterinary care, strengthens farmland protection and opens the door to responsible agriculture expansion in northern Ontario. I’d like to thank you, and I’m pleased to answer any questions from the committee.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you very much. The first round of questions will begin with the government side. MPP Rae, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. Matthew Rae

Thank you to all the presenters, and welcome to Perth–Wellington, to my colleagues who may have not visited our beautiful part of the province. I want to apologize to everyone for the construction that we had getting to the beautiful Listowel golf course today. But as you know, we’re talking about building Ontario as a government, and it’s a prime example of a $10-million investment in the north end of Listowel, part of our $235-billion plan to build infrastructure across Ontario. So we did have to take a dirt road to get into the golf course, but half my riding is a dirt road, so you now understand my daily struggle in some instances as well but also, as some of the local presenters—and I know John Stevens has connections to this part of the world as well. Talking about the importance of agriculture locally, Perth–Wellington has the most commodity groups, family farms—not total, but the most production in the entire country—well, total as a value of farm cash receipts, even more than some Quebec ridings. I’m very proud of that fact. It’s a billion-dollar industry locally. I know some of my colleagues were commenting on how beautiful it was today, and lots of investments here locally. So it’s great to be here and have the committee here to talk about Bill 109 and our government’s proposals under this: obviously, modernization across a couple of acts, also supporting our beef farmers, as Joost was mentioning. Joost, you were talking about the proposal to ban foreign ownership of farmland in the proposed government bill. I was just wondering if you could share with the committee, roughly, what is the cost per acre in Perth county right now for a piece of farmland?

Official source

Mr. Joost van der Heiden

Right now, prime land will sell for as high as $50,000 an acre.

Official source

Mr. Matthew Rae

So $50,000 an acre, for my colleagues who may be watching online—and just demonstrating a lot of potentially nefarious foreign actors looking to land-bank just based off the value of that land, and then that is not then, potentially, in production. Obviously, I don’t want to speak for Joost, but locally ensuring that remains within a lot of family farms—there are over 4,000 family farms just in my riding alone—and ensuring that we have that protection there, Chair, to ensure that it’s there for the next generation and it’s not a foreign conglomerate or a foreign government, in some instances, coming in and purchasing that land. Sticking with the beef farmers: I know you were talking about some issues locally for Perth county but also at a larger level as well around crown land from—some of my colleagues in—northern Ontario as well as in the Clay Belt. I was just wondering if you could expand a little bit on that, Joost, why that’s so important for the province to look at how we can continue to work with the Beef Farmers of Ontario around expanding some of that land in the Clay Belt and other areas to really provide that opportunity for the next generation of family farms.

Official source

Mr. Joost van der Heiden

Any opportunity for cheaper land for the next generation—because as we talked about, the cost here of land in Perth county starting off, for a young producer, that’s one of the biggest barriers. If he can access crown land in northern Ontario, it’s at a lot cheaper cost. Another thing that we can do to help young farmers start up, and you are well aware of this, is the access to community pastures anywhere in the province and hopefully forming alliances with some of our conservation authorities to make the land accessible. That would be a great opportunity for young producers to actually carry on the torch.

Official source

Mr. Matthew Rae

Yes, that’s great. I know I hear it from people my age and younger in the agriculture sector, the need to unlock some of that land in community pastures. Even in southern Ontario—I know, down in my colleague’s part of the world, in Lambton, the St. Clair conservation authority does some great work with the local beef producers around community pastures there as well. Switching a little bit to Jay, another great constituent of Perth–Wellington, I just want to say, here this morning representing his employer: I know Triple A Cheese has grown a lot over the years. I know you weren’t with them the entire time of your career but working with them recently. I was just wondering, in your opinion—I know you’ve worked for a variety of milk processors or producers—what can the provincial government do more to support that industry, especially the processors or the cheese manufacturers? We have some locally too, smaller ones. What do you think the province could do to support those individuals?

Official source

Mr. Jay Kirktown

Thanks, Matthew, for the question. In reality, Triple A Cheese, even though we’re not a milk buyer, are supporters of the supply/manage system. It has worked well for all processors and has worked well for producers. Our concern is, where do you draw the line to giving the producers, the DFO, the authority to start managing every component of the milk? You sort of have to step back. Where is the finished product, and where does it start that—you know what?—DFO is now controlling the total marketplace, not just the milk supply? That’s what they were assigned to do, control milk. They’re now in a situation where they want to control all the components, how it’s used and how much they can charge for that.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. Jay Kirktown

That becomes concerning for small or medium-sized operations. It just does not line up well to keeping all processors in the same environment as we try to move forward.

Official source

Mr. Matthew Rae

I appreciate that, Jay. It’s, I think, important for all of us to hear that and how we can support some of those smaller cheese processors and others. I think of Stonetown cheese in St. Marys in my riding as well—not the same size as Triple A Cheese in Mississauga, but obviously, we support there. How can we continue to support those food processors? I think I’m out of time, right, Chair?

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Twenty seconds.

Official source

Mr. Matthew Rae

That’s fine. I’ll give you back the 20 seconds, Chair.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

All right, thank you. We’ll move to the official opposition. MPP Vanthof, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Thank you to the presenters. It is an honour to be in Perth–Wellington. We’ve travelled a lot in the last couple of days. I farmed my whole life in the northern Clay Belt, and I farmed in the Clay Belt before it was sexy. There is no comparison; it’s a great place to farm, but it is not here. This is a fantastic place to farm. I just want to put on the record that there should be more access to crown land. We should fix this, but we are losing so much land in southern Ontario, where it’s the best land, probably, in North America, and it’s not an even trade. If you’re going to clear 400 acres a day in northern Ontario and say we’re gaining farmland, that is not the actual truth. Anyway, what we’re really here for is to listen to your opinion. I would like to start with Jay. We’ve worked in the same circles for a long time, and I respect your opinion. On the processing side, part of the issue, I think, is that how milk was sold used to be much simpler. Now it’s broken down into much more—I’m not trying to defend. We’re in support of this act, but when you mentioned upselling, is it—what I’m trying to understand is: DFO is going to given the power to look at components when they’re sold the first time, but are you concerned that they’re going to be able to recharge on the same component again?

Official source

Mr. Jay Kirktown

That’s exactly it, John. With the proposed changes, they will get the revenue when they make a finished product. That finished product—and we’ll pick an example: either skim milk powder or MPC. If it is sold to another processor that utilizes those components—because it’s really just protein and lactose—in a manufacturing of another product, DFO’s intent with this authority change would be to upcharge them; that is, increase the price of those components back to the original class. It would be a class 4 component that they originally got paid for. They would want to upcharge that company that is using the components to whatever class they used in—in most cases, cheese—therefore costing the current manufacturer even more money than we’re buying from the marketplace. Our concern is, DFO is not interested in what you paid for or how you secured those. They’re going back to their class-pricing system and upcharging you right from the base. We’re saying, “Guys, that is not fair to any operation and in any business environment.”

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Okay. You’re indicating that they could, but are you sure they’re going to?

Official source

Mr. Jay Kirktown

John, again, fair question. Again, in our conversations—and I’ve got some examples from work the DFO has done with their thinking on the system—the intent would be exactly that. They would be going back to the class-pricing system and upcharging the processor based on those components.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Is there a side to this to try and stop components coming in from other markets?

Official source

Mr. Jay Kirktown

Again, valid question, John. It’s one of these situations where our understanding is from the DFO’s perspective. They would upcharge imported ingredients, the same as they would if they were produced domestically. To us, that becomes even a grave concern. Our international companies that export product to Canada would not see this as a fair trade by any stretch.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

I would really like to thank you for coming because it adds a perspective that I think that we need to look at going forward. I’d like next to go to Mr. Stevens. Thank you for your presentation. I know during my farming career, when I started—I’m old enough—the only time you called the vet was for a big problem. Later on, actually, the most important role of the vet was herd health. If we’re consultative—you obviously called the vet when you had a big problem, but the biggest role was to prevent the big problems from happening. The changes that are being proposed here will allow veterinary techs to help with vaccinations and things that are more—I don’t want to use the word “easy”—more mechanical than the actual consultative part. You’re in favour of that, in principle?

Official source

Mr. John Stevens

That’s been the foundation of this entire legislative reform project, is determining that we would use with the utilization of RVTs so there are functions that they’re able to provide that are items that the veterinarian wouldn’t have to do with.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

Mr. John Stevens

The concern that we’ve shared is the amendment as it’s written is really too broad and the pathway to creating a fragmented system of care that really could make access more difficult—because as you’ve referenced, a herd health approach, you have a veterinarian who arrives on site, does the herd health check and the little problems become big problems if they’re not caught. The veterinarian’s presence in many of these cases continues to be vital, so the concerns that we’ve expressed is the legislation as written could create fragmented care where the appropriate health professional is not on site when they need to be, and that’s a concern to us.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Just—and I’ll do it in my next section—that doesn’t address areas where there’s actually just no longer veterinarians, where they’re retiring. In my next section, I’m going to ask what your advice would be on that.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you very much, MPP Vanthof. We will move to the third party. MPP Smyth, the floor is yours.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

Hi, everybody. It’s lovely to be here today, despite the construction—I know it’s not under your control—but we’re used to that wherever we go anyway. Anyway, I’m really happy to be here on this committee. I’ve never sat on this before so it’s really great to hear concerns in agri-business in this province and learn more and more about it. I think with my question, I wanted to start with you, Joost, Mr. van der Heiden, about the beef producers and when it comes to veterinary care. You were talking about access to large-animal vet care being a real concern, especially in northern Ontario. You support making better use of the entire veterinary team. Could you just explain to me again what that looks like? You were talking about the mobile teams and what you’re hoping for that would help producers in the region.

Official source

Mr. Joost van der Heiden

Some of the vets that are available in northern Ontario already work for the government in the form of the animal welfare services or inspections in livestock areas. If we can access and make use of their services on a part-time basis and provide more care in the north—because we are so limited in the number of vets that can actually practise in the north. The challenges of the north are, too, that because of distance, the veterinarian can maybe make five calls a day in the north, compared to veterinary down in this area can make 20 or 30 calls in a day and actually make a decent living.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

And that’s the mobile part of being able to take it on the road. Typically, you don’t take to a facility, do you? Is most large-animal vet care on premises? You can educate me on that.

Official source

Mr. Joost van der Heiden

In most cases, especially if the clinic is not set up for it, the veterinarian will visit the animal in question on the farm. Here in southwestern Ontario, sometimes we can bring animals to a clinic and they can be treated there. But most practically, and to reduce the stress on the animal, it’s normally better to do it on the farm than it would be to load an animal and transport them when they need care.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

Okay. And then, I guess I wanted to take your comments to John Stevens. Hello. Hi there. What are your thoughts on what we just heard with dealing with vet care in the north and that proposal?

Official source

Mr. John Stevens

I mean, we’re all here to discuss access to care, and I think one of the items to highlight at the beginning is the changing nature of access-to-care challenges. We’re talking both the large-animal and, of course, on our side, the small-animal world. We’re all familiar with pandemic pets and access-to-care issues during the pandemic. That has seen a significant change since the end of the pandemic. So, again, in the pandemic, you had long wait times at emerg clinics and veterinary practices not accepting new patients and that sort of thing. Really, what we’re seeing in the data, broadly speaking, is a slowdown. We do track veterinary practices that are hiring, who are looking for veterinarians, and we’re looking at a roughly 10-year low in terms of practices that are hiring. So what we’re really moving into is less of a broad access-to-care issue and not enough veterinarians. What we’re running into is not enough veterinarians in specific locations. OVMA has been very, very busy advocating with the various ministries and with this government on programs. We have seen the Veterinary Incentive Program that incentivizes new graduates to work in northern and remote communities. We’ve been very, very active on the Veterinary Assistance Program. That’s a program that provides support for veterinarians in northern and remote communities for travel costs, mileage. That will help increase access. We would like to see much, much more happening with that program. It has a significant level of potential. In terms of broad access issues, there is slower traffic within practices. We just need efforts to get more veterinarians in the places where they’re needed in remote and northern communities.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

Kind of reflects human care, too, in this province. You talked about that team-based approach to veterinary care. What exactly does that look like? You were talking about the fact that the vets are the ones that do everything, from diagnoses etc. How does that team-based care model look in your eyes, on the ground?

Official source

Mr. John Stevens

Well, it’s integrated, team-based care. The notion that we’ve been talking about through this whole project is, “one profession, two professionals.” So you have integrated team-based care working as a team within a practice. You have the veterinarian attending to duties that are appropriate for them and registered veterinary technicians attending to duties that are appropriate to them. When it’s in a singular practice or an integrated care environment, you have medical records that are consistent, you have communication and the animal owner has that proper expectation of what to expect. When you’re dealing with fragmented care, you would have the public with the perception that they’re going to one care provider that maybe actually can’t provide the level of care that they’re thinking about. You then end up in a situation where the animal owner perhaps has an acute problem, they’re going to seek that care from someone and that care is actually not available. So the best solution would be to have that integrated care facility, which is the veterinary practice.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

One minute left.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

Right. You mentioned some amendments that you’ve put forward. Can you just quickly highlight, for those who don’t know and don’t have access to those, in bullets—less than a minute—the key amendments?

Official source

Mr. John Stevens

Yes. With an accredited veterinary facility, we already have that level of delegation. But within the act’s regulations, in our recommendations, we’re looking for concepts related to the exemptions for being able to work in an accredited practice, including veterinarians working under the crown—that’s federal and provincial legislation—and veterinary technicians working under a treatment plan developed by a veterinarian. So again, integrated care. And that’s in our package, of course.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

Right. Thank you very much.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you, MPP Smyth. We’ll turn back to the government side. MPP Cuzzetto, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

I would like to thank all three presenters here, but I’d like to speak to Jay on this. Jay, it’s great to hear that your factory is set up in Mississauga. I know it’s north, not south where I live, but thank you for setting up there. Now, how large is your facility? I heard it’s 100,000 square feet, but compared to Santa Lucia, Salerno? I know Saputo is much bigger, but compared to Santa Lucia?

Official source

Mr. Jay Kirktown

Actually, Santa Lucia would be larger than they are.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

Larger than Triple A?

Official source

Mr. Jay Kirktown

Yes.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

Okay. Well, I’ve known Domenic for many years. I used to—

Official source

Mr. Jay Kirktown

Actually, the other way around: Triple A Cheese would be larger than International Cheese.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

Okay, which is Santa Lucia, correct?

Official source

Mr. Jay Kirktown

Yes.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

You were talking about the DFO affecting imported and domestic cheese. Can you elaborate on that a little bit more?

Official source

Mr. Jay Kirktown

No, impacting domestic and imported ingredients such as skim milk powder and/or MPC or UF milk sort of thing—that’s where they would be targeting: the potential upcharge to get it back to the class pricing that they expect to receive for the product.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

And what would you like to see in this bill to avert that issue?

Official source

Mr. Jay Kirktown

The simple answer is, I would like to see the Milk Act stay the way it is. I’m not a supporter of seeing DFO secure more authority around—again, DFO’s authority is exactly that: marketing milk, controlling the finished product—or, let’s call it semi-finished, which is cream and/or skim milk or even liquid MPCs that move a lot today. That should still be in their control because it’s not a finished product. Once you move to a finished product such as butter, skim milk powder or MPC, their authority should not continue. You’re now interfering with the marketplace and the value of various products.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

And do you support supply management?

Official source

Mr. Jay Kirktown

Absolutely. As Matthew indicated, I’ve worked for a number of companies—a multinational, a very large co-op—and I’m very supportive of supply management. It has done wonders for both producers and processors in this country. But you just need to decide, where do we draw the line to say, “We need control of this system”?

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

Thank you.

Official source

Mr. Jay Kirktown

You’re more than welcome.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

MPP Gallagher Murphy, the floor is yours.

Official source

Mme Dawn Gallagher Murphy

Thank you to the presenters today for being here. I have to admit, being a suburban gal, it’s wonderful to be out here in this great riding of Perth–Wellington, so thank you to everybody who lives in this wonderful riding for hosting us here today. My question is to John Stevens for the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association. Thank you very much for your presentation. There’s something I picked up on that I wanted to ask you a question about to make sure we’re on the same playing field here. We all know that the Veterinary Professionals Act was created in 2024. It has not yet been enacted because we are working out the regulatory items. That being said, I noted something you mentioned when you were answering a question to MPP Smyth. You talked about the concepts of exemptions. In the proposal that we have forward in Bill 109, we are specifically looking to get exemptions that would clarify, really, both the individuals and businesses who are providing the care services to animals outside of the accredited facility. So, that could be the veterinary technician. It could be, as you spoke about, the mobile care providers, which I think is great and something that I’ve been hearing just yesterday and so far today is necessary, to go and visit the farm. The team approach sounds like the perfect one. That being the case, when I think about OVMA, you truly have a long history—150 years, and that was in 2024. When you go back to how you originated, it was with surgeons who met up in Toronto in 1874. I think that’s an interesting history, so I’m glad you’re here at the table today because we are creating history here too. So, my question to you, John, is, how do you see Bill 109’s modernization of veterinary legislation building on the long history of the OVMA?

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

There’s one minute left.

Official source

Mr. John Stevens

Great. Well, thank you for the question and thank you for the research. We’re very proud of this profession and the role OVMA has played in promoting it through the decades. Bill 109, in terms of the Veterinary Professionals Act—yes, so, it’s not been enacted, and we would like to see it move forward. This has been a long-standing project that we and other organizations would like to see finished with the official proclamation and enactment of the act. Bill 109 largely—perhaps I shouldn’t use the word—is housekeeping. There are a few minor amendments that were required to finalize the Veterinary Professionals Act. The bulk of the work through the VPA has already been completed, and we’re just looking forward to official enactment. We need the passage of Bill 109 to see that forward. The challenge that we’ve expressed is that there is language in there that’s creating unintentional results, where it’s too broad. So, we’re looking for very narrow amendments for concepts that have been approved by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario’s transition council. These are concepts that have been very well researched—

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

That concludes the government’s time. We will move on to MPP Vanthof. The floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

I’d like to go to Joost, and I’m following up: Bill 109 is one of the few bills where there’s no poison pill in it, and we all support it. I would like to follow up to Mr. Rae’s comment: We all are concerned about farmland being controlled by being a line item in a foreign corporation. My question to you: Is there much difference in being a line item in a foreign corporation than being a line item in a Bay Street hedge fund? Because that’s what’s happening in our area. We support this bill, but I’m wondering, should we also be looking at land speculation by not just foreign actors but other people who have no interest in agriculture other than the speculative value of farmland?

Official source

Mr. Joost van der Heiden

I do believe that’s a great concern. I do believe we need to make sure that the farmland stays in the control of the farmers and that we prevent speculation, which could drive, ultimately, prices up and it make it inaccessible to farmers. So, yes—leave the farmland with the farmers and make sure there are rules in place so we know that what it’s going to be used for is going to be agriculture.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Okay. Thank you. My next question is to you too: Beef Farmers of Ontario have been talking about expansion into northern Ontario long before other groups. You were talking about the Clay Belt before the Clay Belt was sexy. But, having said that—and we’re fully in support of developing the Clay Belt; I’ve made my living in the Clay Belt—would you agree with me that, if crown land is opened in the Clay Belt, it should be made available to farmers and not to investment funds and land speculators? To actual farmers—would you agree? Because what we’re afraid of is that the land, if it’s opened up, will be gobbled up and farmers will end up having to rent it, but the land’s speculative value will never go to them.

Official source

Mr. Joost van der Heiden

Yes, this kind of builds on my answer to your previous question as well. Leave the land with the farmers so we avoid speculation and driving the land prices up, putting it out of reach of farmers, basically. Land owned by farmers will be maintained better than land rented by farmers. If it’s yours, it’s a lot easier and it makes more sense to take care of it as well. We are very willing to take care of the land, especially when it’s owned by the farmers.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Yes. You mentioned community pastures and, obviously, crown land. Would your organization also be—would you be okay with long-term leases of crown land?

Official source

Mr. Joost van der Heiden

I think long-term leases would be an excellent way to get young farmers started—it would be at a lower cost—as long as we make sure that the leases don’t get extended to such a length that it becomes almost an ownership position. That could create other problems, which means we would support leases, preferably less than 49 years but longer than five or 10 years, so it’s actually part of long-term planning for the farmer.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

I hear you, because a lease for pasture—you need to be sure that when you make the investments needed, you can recoup those investments.

Official source

Mr. Joost van der Heiden

Correct.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

But possibly a long-term lease with a buyout provision that you have proven that what you’re using the land for is what it was intended for: That would be a viable solution?

Official source

Mr. Joost van der Heiden

That would be a very viable solution. The other thing I do like to mention, too, is that when this would be put in place, the amount of area, the acreage, would be large enough for families to sustain. In southwestern Ontario, like you mentioned before, 100 acres can produce a fair bit. In the north, you probably need five times the acres to have the same production. So when we open this up for young farmers, make sure there’s enough land available so they can actually make a go at it and don’t have to supply their farming income with a part-time or full-time income off the farm, because it doesn’t work well.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

Coming from northern Ontario, as much as it pains me to admit that, yes, maybe 500 acres in northern Ontario is equivalent to 100 acres in Perth, I kind of agree with you—as much as it pains me. How much time do I have left?

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

You have a minute and 30 seconds.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

A minute? Back to Mr. Stevens: I know we’ve got more seats in Thunder Bay for vets, but is there anything else that we can do to ensure that there are going to be adequate veterinarians across the province, including northern Ontario? Is there anything else that we’re missing?

Official source

Mr. John Stevens

I would suggest passage of this act with the amendments that we have put forward to tighten those exemptions, and that would ensure speedy passage of this. The work that the Ontario Veterinary College is doing to increase more seats, following the Northern Ontario School of Medicine model, is very, very strong, and we’ve seen data that shows NOSM having results in the north on the human health care side of things. The veterinary assistance program that I mentioned earlier is under a different ministry than this one. That one, as I’ve shared—we’ve been very, very busy working with that ministry and would like to see some significant changes to that program. And then, the continuation of the veterinary incentive program for new grads would be a very strong option as well.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andrew Dowie)

Thank you very much. We’ll move to MPP Smyth. The floor is yours.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

I want to go back to Mr. van der Heiden and talk about farming and farmland, and regarding the purchase of crown land for farming. Would you support the idea of selling crown land with a farmland easement, so that it can never be developed and only used for farming?

Official source

Mr. Joost van der Heiden

I would be highly in favour of that.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

And when it comes to clearing crown land for farming, especially in, say, northern Ontario, how should we draw the line between agriculture and forestry and natural spaces?

Official source

Mr. Joost van der Heiden

Some of the land that’s available in northern Ontario, to my understanding, has already been cleared, and it would be very easy to access for further development as farmland. When it comes to primary lands that haven’t been touched, I do think we need to preserve the land for what it is. It’s a very fine line, and it’s going to be an interesting challenge for the people who want to expand there.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

We’ve talked a lot about—you’ve mentioned hedge funds and foreign ownership, and that is a real concern. That’s happening because there’s a speculative side of it but there’s also the side—and you said a few times here, “Leave the farming to the farmers.” How do we get the farmers? How do we maintain the farming industry domestically in Ontario, in our regions here? Being someone from the city, it’s not often you hear, “Let’s go start some farming. Let’s be a farmer.” It’s intergenerational, right? How does this sector get preserved so that it is passed on? Because we were talking about the cost of farming equipment, the cost of land. Farms can be passed down, but then my colleague here—he’s got children, he’s a farmer, but they’re not farming. So what’s the magic answer here?

Official source

Mr. Joost van der Heiden

I don’t think I have the magic answer to the question—but making it attractive for young people. I immigrated myself. I came here to look for greener pastures—it might be fitting—and opportunities that weren’t available in Europe. And yes, I’ve seen them. I was able to build a farm enterprise that has been successful. My sons are not part of it full-time—they work part-time off the farm—but they’ve definitely seen the benefits of it as well. We need to make it attractive. I think in the last number of years, instead of people looking down at a farmer, we’ve actually gained respect. We need to do a better job in educating the consumer where their food comes from and appreciate what we’re doing, and I think that’s going to be one of the ways to get more people back into farming and interested in farming. We see more first-generation people farming than we have ever seen in the past. That’s an indication that there’s people willing and trying and want to choose, because farming is not just a job; it’s a way of life.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

It sounds like a really good PR campaign for farming. Get the marketing going on there.

Official source

Mr. Joost van der Heiden

I’m passionate.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

You mentioned you’re an immigrant. What are your thoughts on immigrants who want to come to this beautiful country, and access to farmland and how that should be handled?

Official source