The committee met at 1602 in committee room 1.

LOCAL FOOD ACT, 2013
LOI DE 2013 SUR
LES ALIMENTS LOCAUX

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill 36, An Act to enact the Local Food Act, 2013 and to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to provide for a tax credit to farmers for donating certain agricultural products that they have produced / Projet de loi 36, Loi édictant la Loi de 2013 sur les aliments locaux et modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts pour prévoir un crédit d’impôt pour les agriculteurs qui font don de certains produits agricoles qu’ils ont produits.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Okay, we’ll call the committee to order. We’re here for Bill 36, An Act to enact the Local Food Act, 2013. We’re here for clause-by-clause consideration.

Are there any general comments before we start? Seeing none, we will—apparently, it’s procedure that we skip the first two, which deal with the preamble. We’ll deal with those later. Like accountants, you deal with the first page last.

We’ll go to section 1. Are there any amendments to section1? Seeing none, shall section 1 carry? Carried. All in favour? Agreed.

Moving to section 2, are there any amendments to section 2?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I move that clause (a) of the definition of “local food” in section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“(a) food processed or harvested in Ontario, including forest or freshwater food, and”.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Sorry, Mr. Hardeman, you read the wrong word. Could you reread the amendment, please?

Mr. Robert Bailey: You said “processed.”

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Produced—“food produced or harvested in Ontario, including forest or freshwater food, and”.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): That will suffice. Thank you.

Mr. Hardeman has moved the amendment. Is there any debate?

Mr. Grant Crack: I would just say that we would be in favour of this. It does provide more clarity with regards to the actual wording, but in essence, we felt that the original wording had encompassed the intent as well. But we’ll be supporting this.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Thank you. Any other debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Just to add to that, I thank the government side for supporting. I would just point out that we had some presentations that were not actually verbally received here, but were written presentations, that had concern that without putting in the “forest or freshwater food” somehow that may not be included in the local food definition. That’s why we put it in for clarification.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Any further debate? Mr. Vanthof.

Mr. John Vanthof: On behalf of the third party, we would also be in favour. It provides more clarity.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): We’re getting along very well today, aren’t we? Any other debate?

All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Agreed.

We’ll move to section 3.

Any amendments to section 3? Mr. Hardeman.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I move that section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Local Food Week

“3. The week beginning on the first Monday in June in each year is proclaimed as Local Food Week.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Is there any debate to Mr. Hardman’s amendment?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I would just point out and explain, Mr. Chairman, that this will satisfy the requests that were made by people that we separate Agriculture Week from food week. Again, we appreciate the support of the committee.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): All those in favour? Carried.

Any further amendments to section 3?

Mr. John Vanthof: I would like to withdraw amendment 5.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Thank you very much.

Any further amendments to section 3? No further amendments?

All in favour of section 3, as amended? Carried.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): We’ll move to section 3.1 of the bill. Amendments? Mr. Vanthof.

Mr. John Vanthof: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

“Duty to buy local food

“3.1(1) When a public sector organization buys food, it shall buy local food except if the cost of doing so is more than 10 per cent higher than the cost of buying food that is not local.

“Same

“(2) For the purposes of complying with subsection (1), a public sector organization shall assess the cost of food in accordance with the regulations.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Chair, I have some concerns with this, with the broadness of the motion. When we look at setting 10%, it doesn’t then define any different purchases. If one of those organizations goes to buy a package of cookies, they would have to shop around to see whether, in fact, local baked cookies were going to be less than 10% more, and they’d have to buy that. I think that section is too broad.

I also believe that we would be better served if somehow we said that preference should be given for local buying but not necessarily a percentage. It should be done by regulation where the minister could set a local buying standard that would give preference to local purchases.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further debate? Mr. Crack.

Mr. Grant Crack: Mr. Chair, we won’t be supporting this. We feel that prescriptive measures would create an unnecessary regulatory burden. We heard from stakeholders that they were favourable to the aspirational aspect of the bill, so we will be voting against.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further debate? Mr. Bartolucci.

Mr. Rick Bartolucci: Listen, I don’t think anyone is against the intent of this particular amendment. I think the intent is very, very good. The prescriptive 10% is sort of contrary to what we already have in place. The threshold we have in place is $25,000 for other purchasing in other ministries. I’m just wondering, by way of regulation—at some point in time, we may want to look at that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Mr. Hardeman?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m not sure this is appropriate to have the debate, but I don’t believe that this would actually infringe on the $25,000; it would just expand that. The other one has $25,000; this one doesn’t. So I believe it would be in order if it was right.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further debate? Mr. Vanthof.

Mr. John Vanthof: It may be a moot point at this time; I see we’re going to lose this motion. It’s just that what this motion is trying to get at is we strongly feel that when you’re passing a law, it should be more than aspirational. That’s what we’re trying to get at. Thank you.

1610

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Okay. No further debate?

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amendment is lost.

Moving on to section 4 of the bill. PC amendment, Mr. Hardeman.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I move that subsection 4(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Goals and targets

“4(1) Within 12 months after the day this subsection comes into force, the minister shall establish goals or targets in respect of local food.”

In speaking to it, I would just point out that as was just mentioned by the third party, we need more than aspiration in the bill. I think this is suggesting and trying to accomplish both what the minister wanted to accomplish and what we believe needs to be accomplished in setting goals. We think it’s very important that even though we are going to build a bill around aspirations, we need something to aspire to; and recognizing that it shouldn’t be arbitrarily just put in this bill, we believe that the minister “should” and not only “may” do these aspirational things, that they “shall” over time actually set the standard. There’s nothing in here that says what that standard should be, but there should be something put in place in the first 12 months of the bill being put in place.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further debate? Mr. Vanthof.

Mr. John Vanthof: We are not in favour of this. Kind of a reverse argument from the last amendment, if we’re going to set targets and establish goals, we should do it in debate here as opposed to leaving it off to the minister in 12 months. So we’re not in favour.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further debate? Ready for the vote?

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amendment is lost.

Moving on, Mr. Vanthof.

Mr. John Vanthof: I move that subsection 4(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Goals and targets

“4(1) The minister shall, to further the purposes of this act, establish goals or targets to aspire to in respect of local food, including goals or targets to,

“(a) improve food literacy in schools;

“(b) increase access to student nutrition programs across Ontario and increase their local food content;

“(c) increase local food content in school cafeterias;

“(d) increase experiential learning opportunities for Ontario students by developing school garden programs and increasing the number and use of teaching kitchens in schools; and

“(e) reduce or streamline regulatory requirements governing the production and processing of local food with a view to encouraging increased availability of local food without significantly affecting food safety.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Could you repeat the last line again?

Mr. John Vanthof: Sure: “(e) reduce or streamline regulatory requirements governing the production and processing of local food with a view to encouraging increased availability of local food without negatively affecting food safety.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Thank you very much. Debate? Do you have an opening statement on this?

Mr. John Vanthof: An opening statement? Like a—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Any debate?

Mr. John Vanthof: Sure, sure. Basically what we’re trying to do here is, we’re not trying to restrict—because the minister could set more goals than this. We’re not restricting it to these goals, but we’re trying to set a direction of what we think should be—if it’s going to be aspirational, here’s a few things we think you could start with. We’re not trying to limit it to these five. It could be more, it could be different ones, but here’s some direction where we could go.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Thank you. Further debate?

Mr. Grant Crack: We won’t be supporting this particular amendment. We feel that it’s far too prescriptive and limits our options in the future. As such, we’ll be introducing the next amendment, which I think deals with food literacy. We have recognized the need to deal with that important issue as we move forward.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Thank you. Further debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Chairman, I have concerns with this motion somewhat, as it encompasses more than I believe it should as to what avenues the minister should be obligated to go to. Having said that, I also think that there is—we heard the comments on the last motion, on the timeline to set standards. It seems to me that this one doesn’t include any of that, so in fact she “shall” do it, but it doesn’t say whether it should be this generation or the next generation. I don’t believe it necessarily accomplishes what’s intended.

Having said that, I’d go for the one word: the minister “shall.” I think that, if there’s one thing this bill lacks a lot of, it’s what we shall do. It’s a lot of aspiration and getting very little done. If it wasn’t for the fact that we were locked into voting on what’s before us as opposed to changing motions, I would think a slight amendment to reduce some of the restriction of the directive approach of this one and this would likely be a very supportable motion.

I’m going to support it anyway, because I do believe we need to have more things to do, but I am concerned about the amount of red tape it will create. I would hope that, if it passes and is implemented, they could avoid forcing things upon people.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further debate? Mr. Vanthof?

Mr. John Vanthof: One thing: We’re trying to reduce red tape with some of this motion. Also, we tried to pick out some of the things that really resonated during the hearings, what the people who came to these hearings thought had an impact on this process, and we were trying to give them an impact on this process. Thank you, Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further debate? All in favour of the motion? Opposed?

It being a tie vote, I will cast my lot to preserving the status quo and vote against the bill.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): The motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): I vote against the motion. The bill, I like.

Further motions? Further amendments? The government motion? Mr. Crack?

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that subsection 4(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Goals and targets

“4(1) The minister shall, to further the purposes of the act, establish goals or targets to aspire to in the following areas:

“1. Improving food literacy in respect of local food.

“2. Encouraging increased use of local food by public sector organizations.

“3. Increasing access to local food.

“Timing

“(1.1) Each goal or target shall be established within one year after the day the relevant paragraph in subsection (1) comes into force.

“Additional goals

“(1.2) The minister may, to further the purposes of the act, establish additional goals or targets to aspire to in respect of local food.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Any debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I will be supporting this motion. Just a couple of comments on it: As I said in the earlier motion, the one thing that I liked about the motion was that it included the word “shall.” This one does include the word “shall,” so I commend the government for putting that in.

Also, “improving food literacy in respect of local food” and encouraging the use of—they “shall” do that. The other thing is, in “Timing,” it actually puts in what we had in our previous motion, which was that we establish a time frame of when the minister shall come out with these goals and directions, so I support that.

1620

The only thing I could say on it is that I wish the last one, the additional goals, also included the word “shall.” I think that would, again, make the motion stronger and better. It still wouldn’t necessarily mandate which ones it would be but that we would see more progress as time went on, so I think we would have been better off with that. But, having said that, we will be supporting this motion, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Mr. Vanthof.

Mr. John Vanthof: We will also be supporting this motion, but I would like to put it on the record that the people would be much better served—we’ve seen three motions that each had very good parts to them, but because we’re under a programming motion, we as a committee are unable to actually do what a committee is supposed to be doing, and that’s putting our heads together and making this better legislation. That is a bit of a travesty to democracy. I’d just like to put that on the record, that under normal circumstances this committee could have combined the best and made this better legislation. We will be supporting this, but we could have made it much better.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further debate? Mr. Crack.

Mr. Grant Crack: I think, to echo my colleague from the PCs, the word “shall” does strengthen this up, as opposed to the word “may,” and we think that setting clear time frames and goals for implementation indicates that we listened to all the stakeholders, and our colleagues as well, in moving this forward. It was a theme that we had heard through the two days of public hearings, that we strengthen that up a little bit—a little bit more prescriptive, I guess.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Thank you. There being no further debate, shall this—oh, there is some debate? Oh, you’re going to vote.

All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 5 carry? Carried.

Section 6: NDP motion.

Mr. John Vanthof: I move that subsection 6(1) of the bill be amended by striking out “At least once every three years, the minister shall prepare a report that, in respect of the reporting period” in the portion before clause (a) and substituting “The minister shall prepare an annual report that”.

A short opener: I think three years is too long a period. Most government business and most of the organizations we’ll be dealing with run on an annual calendar, and I think it puts more responsibility on the minister to also report annually. In three years, a lot of people will have forgotten what the original intent was.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further debate? Mr. Bartolucci.

Mr. Rick Bartolucci: We’ll be supporting this. We agree that there is an accountability factor in all of this, and it can be a valuable tool in evaluation and as we move forward, so we see this as being a very, very good motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further debate? Mr. Hardeman?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: No.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Thank you, Mr. Hardeman.

All in favour of the amendment? Carried.

Shall section 6, as amended, carry? Carried.

Further amendments? Section 7: Mr. Vanthof.

Interjection.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Motion number 6 did not carry; therefore, this one is out of order.

Mr. John Vanthof: I was about to withdraw it, Mr. Chair, to save you some trouble.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): It would have been easier if I had kept my mouth shut, wouldn’t it?

Mr. John Vanthof: We would have been done by now.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Shall section 7 carry? All those in favour? Carried. Section 7 carries.

Now we’re moving to amendment number 12. It requires unanimous consent. It’s a PC motion. Mr. Hardeman.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I ask for unanimous consent to present this motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Is there unanimous consent for this motion?

Mr. Grant Crack: No.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): No, there is not.

Amendment 13—and I believe, Mr. Hardeman, you want to move amendment 14 first?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Chairman, I would just ask that—in the list of amendments, they put the inappropriate one first—we do the 14 before we do the 13. I would ask my colleague Mr. Bailey to—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): That’s fine. We need unanimous consent to move this amendment. Agreed? Agreed.

Number 14.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

“Taxation Act, 2007

“7.3(1) Subsection 16(2) of the Taxation Act, 2007 is amended by striking out ‘sections 17 to 22’ at the end and substituting ‘sections 17 to 22 and 103.1.2’.

“(2) The act is amended by adding the following part:

“‘Part IV.0.1

“‘Non-refundable tax credits

“‘Community food program donation tax credit for farmers

“‘103.1.2(1) In this section,

“‘“agricultural product” has the meaning prescribed by the regulations; (“produit agricole”)

“‘“eligible community food program” means a person or entity that,

“‘(a) is engaged in the distribution of food to the public without charge in Ontario, including as a food bank,

“‘(b) is registered as a charity under the Federal Act, and

“‘(c) satisfies the other conditions that are prescribed by the regulations; (“programme alimentaire communautaire admissible”)

“‘“eligible person” means,

“‘(a) an individual who carries on the business of farming in Ontario or his or her spouse or common-law partner, or

“‘(b) a corporation that carries on the business of farming in Ontario. (“personne admissible”)

“‘Qualifying donation

“‘(2) A donation is a qualifying donation for a taxation year if both of the following criteria are met:

“‘1. The donation is a donation of one or more agricultural products produced in Ontario by an eligible person and is donated by an eligible person to an eligible community food program in Ontario.

“‘2. The donation is made on or after January 1, 2014.

“‘Amount of the tax credit, individuals

“‘(3) An eligible person who is an individual and who was resident in Ontario on the last day of a taxation year ending after the date prescribed by the Minister of Finance may deduct from the amount of tax otherwise payable for the year under division B of part II a community food program donation tax credit not exceeding the amount calculated using the formula,

“‘A x B

“‘in which,

“‘“A” is the sum of the fair market value of each qualifying donation, the fair market value of which was used in calculating the amount deducted by the individual under subsection 9(21) in computing the amount of his or her tax payable for the year under division B of part II, and

“‘“B” is 25 per cent.

“‘Amount of the tax credit, corporations

“‘(4) An eligible person that is a corporation may deduct from the amount of tax otherwise payable for the year under division B of part III, for a taxation year ending after the date prescribed by the Minister of Finance, a community food program donation tax credit not exceeding the amount calculated using the formula,

“‘C x D

“‘in which,

“‘“C” is that part of the person’s qualifying donations for the year that was deducted by the person under subsection 110.1(1) of the Federal Act in computing the person’s taxable income for the year, and

“‘“D” is 25 per cent.

“‘Trusts

“‘(5) A trust is not entitled to a tax credit under this section.

“‘Regulations

“‘(6) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing any rules the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable for the purposes of the proper administration of the credit under this section.’”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Thank you very much. Debate? Mr. Bailey?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’ll let Mr. Hardeman speak to the bill.

1630

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Mr. Hardeman?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m just going to say this is what was the private member’s bill that Mr. Bailey put forward in the Legislature, that was supported unanimously by the Legislature. It has been worked over both with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in Ontario and also with the federal department, to make sure it complies with the taxation rules.

First of all, I want to thank Bob for putting this motion forward in the first place. I think it makes a very strong contribution to this act.

I just wanted to quickly touch on the 14 and 13. The original one was the 13 one, which was just that the title was a food bank tax credit and we changed it in number 14 to make sure. If you look at the description of a food bank in the definitions, it includes other forms, but it really doesn’t say so.

We had presentations to our committee that said we had to make sure it applied to school food programs or local soup kitchens and so forth, so that donating it there, you could get the same tax credit. So we just changed the title in number 4, and the one we’re debating now was to the other one.

The reason that we wanted to do this one first: If all else fails with this one, we want to make sure we don’t lose sight of the fact that what we’re looking for is a food tax credit for people who donate to the food banks and to other organizations.

With that, I think if there are any questions, we’d be most happy to answer them.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further debate? Mr. Schein.

Mr. Jonah Schein: Thank you. We’ll be supporting this amendment. I am happy that it has expanded beyond merely food banks. I do think, overall, it’s a good intention.

However, I think it’s very problematic that, as a province, we’ve steered away from actually delivering adequate income security programs, adequate welfare benefits, adequate ODSP benefits, adequate wages in this province, adequate childcare, and that we’re falling back on the tax, on this kind of band-aid solution.

So the intent is good, and I hope it provides some relief to people in this province, but it’s a sorry state of affairs that we’re in this position.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further debate? Mr. Crack.

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I’d like to thank Mr. Bailey for reading that very long motion and giving Mr. Hardeman a break. That was very well done.

I can say that we will be supportive of this motion, this amendment, just to confirm our commitment to supporting our agricultural community, our farmers, and recognizing the good work that they do and have been doing in the past. If this could be of help to them in the future, we’ll certainly support that.

I can say that the Ministry of Finance also was very pleased to be able to work and fine-tune this particular amendment to make it workable. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further debate?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to comment, just to thank the members for their consideration. I know that the food banks and the farm community out there are going to thank all the members of all three parties who support this. So thank you again for your support today.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Just for the sake of consistency, or non-consistency, I’d like to ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Bailey, Balkissoon, Bartolucci, Crack, Fraser, Hardeman, Schein, Vanthof.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): All those opposed? Seeing none, the amendment passes.

Would someone like to withdraw amendment 13?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Yes, we withdraw 13.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Thank you.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: We withdraw, Mr. Chairman, the other one, since we renumbered them.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): We know the one you mean.

We’re at amendment 15. Mr. Vanthof.

Mr. John Vanthof: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): This requires unanimous consent to be introduced.

Mr. John Vanthof: Okay. Do we have to ask for unanimous consent before—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Do we have unanimous consent?

Mr. Grant Crack: No.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Section 7—

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Shall section 8 carry? All those in favour? Carried.

Section 9: Should section 9 carry? Carried.

Now we’re going back to the preamble. Number 1 is out of order because the motion that it depended on failed. We’ll move to amendment number 2, which needs unanimous consent to be introduced.

Mr. John Vanthof: We would like to withdraw number 2.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Withdraw number 2. Thank you very much.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Just a moment. We’ll get our paperwork caught up. Number 16 is out of order. It will be withdrawn.

Amendment 17: Mr. Hardeman, would you move it?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Yes, it’s the long title. I move that the long title of the bill be amended by adding “and to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to provide for a tax credit to farmers for donating certain agricultural products that they have produced” at the end.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: The reason for the need of it is, because of the tax credit motion that opens the finance bill, we need to put that in the long title to make sure that we recognize it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further debate? Seeing none, will the amendment carry? Carried.

Number 18 is out of order. Number 19 is also out of order.

Shall the title of the bill, as amended, carry? All in favour? Carried.

Shall Bill 36, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House on Wednesday? Carried.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Yes, as quickly as possible.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Will Thursday do?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Tomorrow.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Tomorrow. Okay, I’ll do that. For this committee, I’ll do that.

I’m sad to say that we’re done here today. I was having such a good time. The committee is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1638.

CONTENTS

Tuesday 29 October 2013

Local Food Act, 2013, Bill 36, Ms. Wynne / Loi de 2013 sur les aliments locaux, projet de loi 36, Mme Wynne SP-349

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL POLICY

Chair / Président

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarborough–Rouge River L)

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)

Mr. Mike Colle (Eglinton–Lawrence L)

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West / Brampton-Ouest L)

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale–High Park ND)

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)

Mr. Rod Jackson (Barrie PC)

Ms. Helena Jaczek (Oak Ridges–Markham L)

Mr. Paul Miller (Hamilton East–Stoney Creek / Hamilton-Est–Stoney Creek ND)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr. Robert Bailey (Sarnia–Lambton PC)

Mr. Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)

Mr. Grant Crack (Glengarry–Prescott–Russell L)

Mr. John Fraser (Ottawa South L)

Mr. Jonah Schein (Davenport ND)

Mr. John Vanthof (Timiskaming–Cochrane ND)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr. William Short

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Pauline Rosenbaum, legislative counsel