It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Ottawa Centre to talk about the government’s budget bill, Bill 180, this morning. As I do, I was hoping that you and the House would permit me a little latitude as I get started, because it’s been an interesting week for me. I had my family here for the first time in six years on Monday; that was lovely. But I also had an opportunity to eulogize in a member’s statement a great Ottawan, Voula Sardelis, who we lost, whose celebration of life I missed on Monday, but I had the opportunity to eulogize Voula, and I just wanted to talk a little bit more about her if you and the House will permit me to do that.

I also wanted to talk about another great Ontarian we lost, a journalist, John Bell, who used to actually be in the press gallery in this building. So I’m just wondering if you and the House will permit me a few minutes to do that before I get into the substance of comments I have about Bill 180—just full disclosure.

Voula Sardelis, as I mentioned on Monday, was a truly remarkable woman. What I didn’t have a chance to talk about is her story in arriving to Canada. I focused instead on the collaborative work that I had done with her and her daughter in putting forward a motion on the floor of this House, motion 129, which confirmed that we all believe that seniors and persons with disabilities who live in retirement homes, long-term-care homes and congregate care homes—group homes—have a right to see their powers of attorney, their caregivers, their families and friends. They have a right to receive visitors.

This has been a hotly debated topic, certainly during the COVID-19 pandemic but since, when there have been disagreements over the conditions of life and the conditions of care. There have been a minority—and I want to stress that for the record, a minority—of care home operators for vulnerable persons who have decided to, instead of negotiating disputes with powers of attorney and family caregivers, issue trespass act notices to keep those wanted visitors out of homes.

For all of us who have family members in congregate care facilities—I do; I’m sure most of us here do—the presentation of a visitor on any given day is the highlight of our family member’s day, week, month—maybe, if it’s a great visit, the year. So I just want to, again, for the record, congratulate Voula and her daughter, Maria, on that victory, but I also want to talk a little bit about Voula’s story because I think it tells a little bit about Canada as a country and the kind of province and country we want to build through the government’s budget bill.

Voula Sardelis arrived to Canada in 1954. She arrived at Pier 21 in Halifax. I’m sure many of our families have these stories. She was immediately head-counted, assessed by immigration officials and sent on a bus to Montreal, where, because of her training in her homeland of Greece, she became a seamstress. She worked for a tailor in the city of Montreal. She later moved to my city in Ottawa, where she was both a seamstress and a nanny. And her husband, who she knew from the old village, came to join her in Ottawa.

What is remarkable for me, Speaker, about Voula is that this is a woman who came to Canada without any family connections, without the capacity to speak either of our two official languages, who simply took a risk on herself at 33 years of age because, as she told Maria, she was tired of not having shoes. She was tired of not having shoes and tending to animals in the field and, in some cases, she talked to Maria, and related the story to me through Maria, about having her feet hurt because of walking on ice in the small amounts of frozen time in the year in that country, Greece.

It’s the immigrant story; it’s the striving immigrant story that so many of our families have, Speaker. I think those—they could be genetic; they could be learned tendencies passed from mother to daughter. When I had the opportunity to work with Maria, I just remember meeting someone with such an indomitable spirit because—think about this for a moment: If you were separated from the person who is most important to you for 316 days, if you miss Christmas, you miss her birthday, you miss Easter, you miss Thanksgiving, you miss all the important things, you’re hurting. But at the end of that 316-day period, Maria decided to defy the trespass act. She decided to defy it. She called the Ottawa police ahead of time and she said, “I will be compliant with your officers if they’re deployed to the scene, but I believe this care home operator is abusing their power under the Retirement Homes Act. I’ve contacted the regulator. I’ve had no progress.” I had worked with her, and she had had no progress.

So think about the courage it took Voula Sardelis to come to Canada without any capacity in English or French, without any family connections, to start a life in 1954, and think about how those skills were passed on to her daughter who had that same courage to take personal risk and to test the law. Let’s be gratified that we as a House agreed to support the right for Voula and every other person in a congregate care facility to receive their loved ones as guests. God bless you, Voula; God bless you, Maria. Thank you, House, for the opportunity to talk a little bit more about that.

I also want to talk about John Bell, who has got a funny story too. I don’t see any London, Ontario, members of the House here, I don’t think—oh, pardon me. My goodness, the friend from London North Centre is here, sorry. So, John comes from your city, my friend, and he’s the son of a nurse; he’s the son of a high school teacher. I met John when I was a graduate student in the city, Speaker, because he was part of the press gallery in this building, but part of the press gallery from a source that I don’t think many Ontarians know about. He wrote for a socialist newspaper called the Socialist Worker, and it was something that I had seen around York University when I was a campus member, and I thought it was a pretty outspoken publication. When I met John, he was somebody who I thought was an interesting person. He had a mind of his own.

What I remember from the celebration of life—John passed away on March 28—is that he was one of those people on the left in the early 1980s that was changed by the Polish ship workers strike of 1981, because at that time the people who called themselves the left, the Stalinist regime, was putting down the shipyard workers strike, and if you were to advocate for those Polish shipyard workers in this city or any other Canadian city, you were accused by the so-called left of being agents for the United States or some other surrogate that is supposed to be anti-left. But John had the courage, as a student in the early 1980s to say the following words, and I will repeat them for the record of this House: “Either you backed the workers or you backed the generals and their tanks trying to smash the strike. Shamefully, most of the left backed the tanks, characterizing rebellious Polish workers as agents of the CIA or the Vatican.”

John had a mind of his own. He was raised by a teacher and a nurse. He was raised also by an aunt who was a librarian. He thought for himself. He thought deeply. And he, like many Canadians, decided to back the shipyard workers in the early 1980s, despite the names he was called. I saw that same independence of spirit. He decided to devote decades of his life afterwards to writing a column—I encourage any member of this House to look up—called Left Jab. In Left Jab, he wrote about fascinating topics that were political, cultural. One of my favourite columns John wrote was about the great Charlie Sifford, who is often referred to as golf’s Jackie Robinson. He passed away in 2015. He was the apparent mentor for the great Tiger Woods, the golfer Tiger Woods.

Through John’s column, I learned a lot more about my country, I learned a lot more about major figures in history, but always from a very independent streak. This is what I want to mention about John. He was somebody who thought for himself and he wasn’t afraid to ruffle the feathers of others if it was called for. This is a guy I truly believe could have had a great career as a mainstream journalist or as a professor, but he decided to devote his life to writing for a socialist publication and working on contract.

In 2018, after a debilitating lung illness that John had lived through, he got a double lung transplant, and his productivity as a columnist went through the roof. I remember that. I remember him publishing once a week to publishing twice a week, commenting on social media frequently, and very much enjoying his work. But in November 2023, unfortunately, he had a fall, he broke his hip, he was admitted to hospital. That was the moment I remember of John’s columns when he talked about the risks persons with disabilities faced in the COVID-19 pandemic, being immunocompromised, and how getting sick could often mean the end of his life. Unfortunately, John lived out that example himself. He passed away on the 28th of this year, but he lived a remarkable life, and I’m glad that I’ve had a few moments to talk about him and what he contributed to debate in this country.

I also want to thank the Ottawa Festival Network. This is my substantive contribution for the debate—surprise, I only have 25 seconds left. I thought I had more. I do want to put a nod, because my friend the minister responsible is here. The Ottawa Festival Network has a great pitch in front of him and his ministry for the tulip festival that’s happening on the 10th to the 20th of this month, which is our opportunity to celebrate veterans’ history and the important sacrifice that 7,600 Canadians made to liberate the Netherlands, and the gift that the country of the Netherlands gives us. My pitch to the government in the budget bill: Don’t forget our festivals.

On behalf of both Hamilton members here, we want to welcome to our House members from the Woman Abuse Working Group, Erin Griver, and from the YWCA, Daniela Giulietti. I want to thank all of the agencies in Hamilton working around intimate partner violence. It’s an important issue, and we really appreciate you coming here today to stand up—thank you.

It’s always an honour to be able to speak in the House on behalf of the residents of Timiskaming–Cochrane and on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP, and today on the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act. Before I get into the remarks too far, I’d like to congratulate the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston and the member from Essex on their new roles as parliamentary assistants.

I’d like recognize the minister and her remarks, and I’d like to extend our heartfelt appreciation for her talking about the challenges in her personal life. It’s never easy. We all know what it takes to give up what you give up. I felt it too, the pain. What I was thinking about as the minister was speaking was the last time I drove out the driveway of my dairy farm, the last time I milked the cows. I know that feeling.

We wish your husband well. We certainly hope that your herd comes back. Goats—are they are herd or a flock?

Anyway, in your personal endeavours, we wish you well.

Actually, politically, agriculturally, we usually work together very well. There are issues that we disagree on vehemently, but there’s a way to work in the country, and I think we exemplify that in the House as well. We can agree to disagree vehemently, but still, at the end of the day, we can also agree to work together where we can work together.

I heard a couple of mentions of the Earlton Farm Show. I’m glad that the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston is coming.

I have to relay a personal story. As most of us are aware, the one event that the Legislature stops for is the International Plowing Match. We all have history with the International Plowing Match; I know the minister does. The minister and I have some shared history with the International Plowing Match. One day, I was in the cafeteria—I love the cafeteria in this place, by the way; everybody knows that it’s my favourite spot—and one of the cafeteria staff members asked me, “Mr. Vanthof, I know you go to this International Plowing Match every year and the Legislature stops, but what exactly happens there? Should I be interested in going there?” He had worked here a long time, and he didn’t have a clue. My explanation for the International Plowing Match is that it’s a plowing competition, something that has historical and current importance to agriculture, but it’s also a celebration of the rural lifestyle—and that’s what it has become. I said, “Do you live in a city?” He said, “No, I’ve got a couple of acres.” I said, “You will love the International Plowing Match.”

The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston and I know exactly what a farm show is, but a lot of other people might not—millions of people in Ontario. They’re open farm shows—the one I know the best. There are 60 exhibitors, and they exhibit their wares, so, basically, their tools or seed or—the tools of the trade for agriculture, and always the most advanced ones, because as we all know, agriculture is advancing rapidly. Just as an example, there will be a booth with guidance systems. When I started farming, you would start your tractor and you would drive the tractor. Now, tractors—they’re not autonomous yet, but you’re sitting there as a troubleshooter, not necessarily as an operator. Soon, they will be autonomous. It’s things like that that you see at farm shows.

What makes the Earlton Farm Show incredible is—it’s not the biggest farm show in the province. It’s a long way away from here, and a lot of people—I see the Minister of Northern Development and Mines is here too. He’s very interested in agriculture, as well. A lot of people don’t realize how advanced agriculture is in the north. Their own farm show is an eye-opener. To anyone who is thinking about maybe looking at agriculture in northern Ontario, maybe expanding into northern Ontario: I couldn’t think of a better time to come than this weekend, this Friday and Saturday, to the Earlton Farm Show.

Not everyone may know how to get to the Earlton Farm Show, so I’ll give you a few directions. I’m hoping that everyone across Ontario, whoever is watching, can find their way to Highway 400. Ontario is a big province, but you take 400 and you go as far as 400 goes, and you take 11 and you keep going, and in the city in North Bay you take a right and you keep going up 11. That’s where 11 goes to two lanes, but you keep going. You will go through—before you get to North Bay and for about an hour, hour and a half after, you will go through Canadian Shield: old growth white pine, beautiful lakes and a lot of rock. If you’re an agri-farmer, anyone in agriculture, you are going to wonder what you are doing there. You really are.

Then you will crest a hill by the town of New Liskeard and you will see a couple of hundred thousand acres of farmland open before you. If you know where to look, you’ll see the Sollio feed mill; on the other side, you’ll see Pederson Construction. You keep going, you’ll go to the little town of Earlton, and Koch Farms is on one side, Earlton is on the other side, and there’s kind of a competition which one’s bigger. I think on certain days, Koch Farms looks a little bigger than the town of Earlton. Norm and his kids will have a big sign pointing to the farm show. It’s in the arena. The arena was recently dedicated to Wilfred and Rosaire Paiement, two very famous hockey players who were born and raised in Earlton and played in northern Ontario. That’s where the farm show will be.

Please, if you’re thinking about—that’s why I’m so glad that members from the government side come, because if you’re thinking about farming in northern Ontario or wondering what it’s like to farm in northern Ontario, and if you’ve got the itch and if you’re not quite ready to seed your own fields yet, we’ve got a couple of weeks yet in northern Ontario. Please come to the Earlton Farm Show. We will welcome you with open arms. We’re there for the whole time. We will welcome you with open arms. Thank you very much for saying you’re going to come. Thank you very much.

The Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act, I don’t think this act has been changed for years and years and years—60 years. Basically, the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario controls 14 sites. There are about 200 buildings, in a partnership with the University of Guelph, in most cases, and the Ontario government, where research is critical to keeping agriculture current and keeping Ontario as a leader. That’s where it’s conducted.

This is one of the few acts—it has sailed through the Legislature. For good reason. I give credit where credit’s due. I said this at the second reading, but it’s worth saying again: This act is singularly focused. There’s no poison pill in that, there’s no wedge issue in it. It’s focused. It’s well consulted. I think that showed at the committee hearings. It was well consulted. As a result, we’re having good debates. We’re actually talking about—I will bring up a couple of issues that came up in the committee. I’m not opposed to rancorous debate, but I think the debate here is constructive. We’re talking together to move an industry forward.

I would like to quote the minister, and I agree, “Consultation equals results.” This act is an example. I hope that the government uses this as a template, because I’ve got to say that not all of the government’s legislation, even regarding agriculture, has been like that. I don’t think that during the greenbelt fiasco—that bill had to be rescinded—I don’t think that anyone in agriculture is going to say that they were consulted. When it was proposed to subdivide agricultural properties into three, that never made it to the House, but no one is going to—that was not consulted well at all. As a result, I think everybody paid a price. So this is an example of: The government of the day knows how to do it, but sometimes whoever’s running the show chooses not to do it.

I commend the minister on this act. I do. I give credit where credit is due, and the Minister of Agriculture—you know how to do it. On this one, you did it, and as a result, we’re having a good conversation about it.

So, in Ontario, there are 14 sites, and I remember in my second reading debate, I did a whole tour of Ontario, where all these sites were. I don’t think I’m going to make people suffer through that again, but there’s a few sites that are special to us all.

I’ll get it yet without having to read, but the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston mentioned one that was close to his riding, and I’m going to mention one that’s very close to my riding—not close to my riding; it’s in the centre of my riding. The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston—I’m going to get it yet—is actually going to go visit that site and specifically the SPUD unit at that site, right? And I commend him for that.

The SPUD unit is—we just say it’s the SPUD unit and then people go, “What is the SPUD unit?” It’s a tissue—and I have no science background—a tissue propagation facility. Basically, they take in seeds of plants, not just potatoes, but strawberries, garlic, asparagus. They actually create a very prolific and very popular type of asparagus at the SPUD unit, and it’s grown in many places.

An example is—so there’s something called a—and anyone scientific is going to think, “Oh, man, Vanthof, what are you talking about?” but I try to explain things in lay terms, the way I understand them. So, you take a potato and there are—in Prince Edward Island, they recently had something called potato scab, a disease on potatoes. You don’t want to grow potatoes that have potato scab. The SPUD unit can take those potatoes and somehow go down to the genetic material and the resulting seed will be virus-free, so you’re starting with pure, clean stock. That’s really important—incredibly important.

Now, the SPUD unit has been operating for 40 years in New Liskeard, and New Liskeard is very close to where—I just told you where the farm show is. I forgot to tell you that the farm show, from here, if Toronto traffic is good, is about seven hours. The SPUD unit is about six and a half hours, right? And the reason it’s so far away: Because of prevailing winds and because of—the area itself is relatively clean as well, like, the air. There’s not a lot of other things being grown around it. It’s easier to keep it sterile when the outside air isn’t full of virus, full of disease. It’s not without challenge, but it’s easier. It’s really important.

So what happened to the SPUD unit—I’m going to have to back up for a second. At one point, the research farm in New Liskeard, which is an ARIO site—it was about 10 years ago, when I was first elected. I guess it was maybe my first or second year. There was a very strong direction from the University of Guelph to close the site in northern Ontario. They were hoping to focus everything closer to Guelph, and we fought back because—and I talked about this at the committee—conditions are different in different parts of the province, and so it’s relevant to do research in an area that, in northern Ontario, is growing in importance and in size in agriculture. It’s relevant to do research there.

So we fought back, and we cut a deal with the then Minister of Agriculture—at the time, it was Ted McMeekin—to hold on that decision and give us some breathing room to come up with a solution. As a result, we cut a deal to sell half of the research stations and build new research facilities on the other side of the road.

The problem is, the SPUD unit is on the half that was sold. That’s, quite frankly, what happened. The SPUD unit is a rented facility, and it’s worn out. Quite frankly, it’s worn out. It needs to be rebuilt, and we’ve been pushing to have it rebuilt for quite a while.

Last year, at the estimates for agriculture, it came up. I brought it up to the minister, and to her credit, the minister, I believe last year, toured the SPUD unit when she came to the farm show. Everyone’s welcome at the farm show. We would love it if you came to the farm show, Speaker. We’d give you the royal treatment.

So this year at the hearings, the berry growers came to hearings on the ARIO bill. The SPUD unit is an ARIO facility. I’m going to quote directly from the representative from the Ontario berry growers. His name is Mr. Tom Heeman. I’m going to talk about what he said about the SPUD unit:

“It breaks my heart that this past fall we had to stop shipments of genetic material from New Liskeard because the HEPA filter was not replaced and there wasn’t a budget to do so.” Like, they didn’t have the budget to change the HEPA filter. “So our samples got contaminated with mould. I know that sounds like a small thing—a couple of plants had to be thrown out and started over again”—that’s what people on the outside world think—“but it takes over three years to replace those dozens of plants into millions and millions of plants. Those plants go throughout the country. They go throughout the United States. You may not buy Ontario berries all the time, but the technology in New Liskeard helps create those Florida berries that get imported during the winter as well.

“I just want you to” know “about these changes. Adding intellectual property I think would be a benefit so that you can work with the university and have a clear guideline on intellectual property.”

But the main problem here is that this facility is worn out. I’m very proud of agriculture in Ontario—extremely proud. I made my living at it most of my life. I am much more qualified as a farmer than I ever will be as a parliamentarian, I guarantee you that. But this facility is worn out. Everyone knows it, and we waited until nothing—now we’re having to import that genetic material. We can’t say we’re leaders and we can’t say we’re research leaders when facilities are breaking down.

So I asked Mr. Heeman about the challenges that we’ve had trying to get the SPUD unit rebuilt. We have a perfect site for it on the ARIO research land across the road, where the provincial government helped build a brand new research station for field crops. That is the perfect spot for it. Everyone agrees that that’s a perfect spot.

I’m not going to read my whole question; it’s not about me. So to Mr. Heeman: “You mentioned some frustration, but just how important is the tissue culture centre and where are you in the process?” And I’m going to quote exactly what he said:

“Thank you. I don’t think anything has changed. I was at this 10 years ago because we had a hard time getting contracts renewed. We’d call and call because we’re a client and we didn’t know who to talk to, and we’ve been able to expand that process up to the minister’s level.

“Again, these facilities are good but we need to have stakeholder dialogue. That whole mandate on technology transfer and expansion—OMAFRA does a tremendous job”—give credit where credit is due, “but they need to have the people in place. It all started when we lost the faculty member”—so when Guelph kind of didn’t pay attention to the SPUD unit. “The faculty member retired and was never replaced. Now we just have a technician with an overseer in Guelph, so there’s not active research being advanced at that facility” today.

“I brought an example today of what it means. I don’t know if you’ve all heard about the Ontario hazelnut story,”—so we’re going to talk about the hazelnut story, a direct quote—“but this is something that is a homegrown success story. It required the tissue culture in the New Liskeard plant in order to make sure that the varieties they were breeding and bringing into nurseries were clean of virus. Now we have delicious Ontario hazelnuts ... something we never had before.” Something we wouldn’t have had without the SPUD unit in New Liskeard.

He goes on to say, “What has been communicated to me is that the challenge is the funding for the joint partnership agreement.” And that is a challenge for this act. This act is good. We have supported this act from day one. But you also have to have funding to actually replace some of these facilities, have the funding to manage these facilities. And it was identified in there that that is not the case—so now I lost my place—“where you can have funding for the facilities, but if you don’t have the funding for the faculty to operate the facilities, then you get a shortfall. Again, you don’t have a lab director for that facility. They’re under another individual out of Guelph who doesn’t physically visit that spot, and you have a technician who is very skilled but close to retirement. She communicates with us, because she’s very exasperated at times for not being listened to. I think it’s a very difficult position, where she has all these plants to keep alive and she knows that growers are counting on her, but I don’t think that—because it’s basically an orphaned facility.”

That’s why I’m bringing it up today: because this is an ARIO facility, and someone who depends on it. We’ve all been talking about research, and someone, a group who depends on this facility is basically saying, “It’s orphaned.” And that came up at committee.

There was also, at the same committee, a representative from the University of Guelph. In response to the same question—and it’s the first time I’ve been at committee that someone answered a question that I didn’t ask—he was obviously very impacted. I give credit where credit is due. I respect, by Mr. Heeman’s comments, when he said that that facility was orphaned. It was Dr. Shayan Sharif—he was the representative from the University of Guelph. He said, “If I may just to diverge here and just point out one big important thing in regard to the SPUD unit, because it has been discussed quite significantly and very extensively: I just wanted to tell MPP Vanthof that I don’t really think that that SPUD is orphaned.... We hope to lease out to industry to have a sustainable plan for the operations of SPUD. SPUD is not forgotten; it will never be forgotten. It is really critical for the industry and for the north. We recognize that, but we need to have a sustainable plan that would ensure its viability for the future.”

I couldn’t agree more. We’re just getting frustrated. And the member from Essex—where are you from, then?

Interjection: Kent.