Submission to the Government of Ontario - Bill 81: Nutrient Management Act
September 17, 2001

The sheep industry in Ontario, represented by the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency (OSMA), consists of over 4200 family farms including market lamb, dairy, and wool operations. Our industry currently demonstrates a sincere concern for environmental and social issues through support of the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition and the Ontario Farm Animal Council. Sheep producers support new initiatives to protect the environment. We believe that no individual or corporation has the right to pollute. We also recognise that agricultural producers benefit through the efficient and safe use of nutrient resources. In order for the proposed legislation to become an effective means of protecting the environment, however, several conditions must be met. First, compliance with the Act must be economically feasible for producers. There must be substantial financial aid and government extension programs in place to help producers adapt to the changes. Second, the regulations must be appropriate for individual livestock species and production systems. Third, a gradual phase in period of five years or more will be necessary to meet all aspects of the Act. Finally, compliance with this legislation must extend beyond agricultural industries to all members of society responsible for the management of nutrients.

The food we produce and the actions we take to protect the environment are of concern to all residents of Ontario. Considerable financial help has been made available to farmers in other provinces and in the United States to upgrade facilities to meet environmental standards. Without substantial assistance many of the requirements brought forward in the proposed Act will simply be beyond the financial abilities of farmers. The government must provide financial aid or accept responsibility for an increase in production costs of agricultural commodities in Ontario. In today's global marketplace, this increase in cost could lead to the elimination of a significant number of producers and, potentially, entire sectors of the agricultural community.

The sheep industry in Ontario is growing. Great potential exists for expansion into domestic and international markets. The proposed legislation must not create insurmountable and unnecessary hindrances to the growth of individual farms or to the industry as a whole. Standards must be developed through careful and scientific scrutiny of the characteristics of individual livestock species and production systems. Failing to use relevant guidelines will place unrealistic restrictions on producers and ultimately leave environmental concerns unresolved.

Specific concerns are summarized below in order of importance to the sheep industry. Details and OSMA's position relating to these concerns are given on pages 2-6, in the order they arise within the proposed legislation.

Part II: Management of Materials Containing Nutrients and Regulations Respecting Farm Animals:

Construction and excavations of structures (Section 5 (2)(a)):

Concern:

• Will only new structures be affected by this clause?
• Will unnecessary caps be placed on the size of farms?
• Will the unique characteristic of livestock species and production systems to taken into account?

OSMA Position:

• Existing structures not posing an immediate and serious danger to the environment must be made exempt from this clause or adequate compensation must be provided for upgrades.
• Manure storage and livestock housing requirements must be determined based on characteristics of species (eg liquid versus solid manure) and type of production system (eg. confinement versus pasture based systems).
• Farm size should be consistent with manure handling capabilities.

Training courses for management of materials containing nutrients (Section 5 (2)(b)):

Concern:

• Will courses be provided through the government? How often will they be required?
• Will all farmers be required to take training courses?

OSMA Position

• If courses are required for farmers, all training should be provided through the government
• It is suggested that only custom applicators require certification.

Nutrient Management Plans (Section 5 (2)(f-x)):

Concern:

• Will producers be required to pay a fee for developing a management plan, testing of manure and soil samples, and maintaining the registry?
• Who will have access to information contained in the plan?
• How does the clause respecting minimum distances affect existing buildings?

OSMA Position:

• Government should pay or heavily subsidise the cost of completing plans and sample testing.
• Existing structures not posing a serious danger to the environment must be made exempt from this clause oradequate compensation provided for changes.
• A summary of the plans may be filed as public documents, however, detailed information contained within plans must remain confidential.

Keeping of records and Nutrient Management Plans

Concern:

• Keeping of all records in an electronic format would be very difficult and expensive for many producers.
• Would the government supply computers to producers?

OSMA Position

• It is suggested that this clause be removed or that a long phase-in period for this requirement would be accepted.
• Any files required to be kept in an electronic format must be entered by the municipality.

Local Committee (Section 5 (2)(z)):

Concerns:

• Will committee members be appointed or elected? By whom? There must be an assurance that producers will be well represented on the committee.
• Will there be financial compensation to committee members? If so, who will provide funding?
• What is the protocol for processing complaints? Do all complaints go to the committee? When are the Provincial Officers and Director consulted? What powers does the committee possess?
• What role does the Committee play in mediating disputes among government, producers, provincial officers and/or delegated parties?

OSMA position:

• Although this committee will be a pivotal organisation in the day-to-day functioning of this legislation, little is mentioned in the Act about how it will operate. The role of this committee needs to be clarified. Adequate representation from various agriculture industries must be present on the Committee.

Director's Powers (Section 5-3):

Concern:

• If the responsibility of managing certificates is delegated from the government, will the director have control of the issuance, amendments, and revocations of certificates?

OSMA Position:

• The Directors must maintain ultimate responsibility for managing certification and licensing.

Regulations for farm animals (Section 6):
Location, operation of feedlots and other cases where animals are housed outside

Concern:

• The proposed Act does not currently have any stipulations on how different species and production systems will be handled. There are large differences in the environmental impact of various classes of farms.

OSMA Position:

• The concentration (animals/acre) and housing conditions must be taken into consideration.
• Regulations must be based on manure volumes and nutrient composition, including dry matter values, for individual species.
• Existing structures must be exempt or compensation granted for adjustments.

Restricting access of livestock to watercourses

Concern:

• Implementing a general requirement in this area would be extremely costly, impractical, and of uncertain environmental benefit.

OSMA Position:

• Means of assessing individual circumstances must be employed before enforcing this restriction (Environmental reviews or Best Management Practices for Buffer Strips for Farms).
• To address farm-to-farm variation, the issue of livestock access to watercourses should be assessed in the nutrient management plans rather than as a regulation that would require the same actions on all farms.
• Behavioural differences between species must be taken into account when deciding on fencing watercourses.
  

Dead Stock

OSMA Position:

• Producers must have several affordable options available to them for dealing with dead stock.

Part III: Hearing by Tribunal

OSMA Position:

• The tribunal must include substantial representation from various agriculture industries.

Part IV: Inspections and Orders

Inspections: Bio-security:

Concern:

• Disease transmission among farms is a possible side effect of inspections. The recent Foot and Mouth crisis in Britain has underlined the importance of strict on-farm bio-security.
  

OSMA Position:

• Provincial Officers must be properly trained concerning the importance of bio-security when entering farms.
• Veterinary approved protocols must followed by the inspectors between and during farm visits to ensure bio-security.

Inspections: Privacy:

Concern:

• The province has proposed wide-sweeping powers of inspection and seizure on private land. The privacy and rights of landowners during these inspections is of real concern to the agriculture community.

OSMA Position:

• Clarification is required regarding when inspections without warrants are acceptable. The right of entry without a warrant should be limited to situations where there is immediate danger of serious damage to the environment, or the safety of livestock or humans is in danger. In particular Section 12(4)(d) and 12(5) are unjustified infringements of civil liberties.
• The role that the local committee plays in recommending inspections must be established.

Prohibiting entry without a warrant and securing a place or thing:

OSMA Position:

• Stipulations concerning the care of livestock and access to dwellings must be included if these actions are taken. Prohibiting a producer from accessing livestock would jeopardise animal welfare.

Orders:

Concerns 31(8), 31(9)(b):

• Seven days is not a long enough period to respond, particularly if the notice is mailed and expected to arrive on the 3rd day after mailing. The actual period for producers to respond may be considerably less than 7 days.
• Confusion may occur if the confirmation of an order is triggered by the lack of a response from a Director to stay the order.

OSMA Position:

• Response period should be lengthened to at least 14 days, and only be served in person or by registered mail.
• The lack of a response by a Director must not constitute a confirmation of an order. Written notice must be given.

Part V: Remedial work by Ministry

OSMA Position:

• If the cost for the work done by a third party, which has been contracted by the government, is to be paid by the producer, some form of assurance must be obtained to ensure the work is done as professionally and economically as possible.

Part VI: Enforcement:

OSMA Position:

• The need for adequate enforcement is recognised as necessary to ensure compliance with the legislation.

Part VII: General

Delegation of Powers:

Concerns:

• Apart from appointing board members, how much control will the Ministry have over the delegated agencies?
• Will the Director and/or local committee be consulted regarding changes (revocations, amendments) of individual certificates?
• How consistent will the services of the delegated agencies be across the province?

OSMA Position:

• Registry should be maintained and administered by OMAFRA. If this is not possible, the Directors must be held personally accountable for the decisions and relevant actions of the delegated agencies.

Service:

Concerns: Section 53(1) & (2)

• Uncertainty of delivery of very important documents.

OSMA Position:

• Delivery must always be made in person with a signed receipt or by registered mail.

Payment of Fees:

OSMA Position:

• The majority of the cost for Management Plans, management courses, testing of samples, inspections and audits must be borne by society as a whole.

Regulations:

OSMA Position:

• Extensive consultation with individual commodity groups will be required for developing regulations to provide optimal balance between environmental protection and the well-being of the agricultural community.
• Determining the distinctions between livestock operations must be based on scientific evidence regarding the characteristics of individual species and production system.

Municipal By-laws:

Concerns:

• The province wide consistency of the Act will be decreased if municipalities are allowed to impose local restrictions based on other by-laws or Acts.

OSMA Position:

• Local restrictions concerning the management of materials containing nutrients or the operation of farms must not be allowed to be imposed based on any other by-laws or Acts (eg. Municipal Planning Act).

Conclusion:

The effectiveness and acceptability of the proposed Act will be largely based on the regulations that have yet to be developed. It will be necessary for OSMA to be consulted during the development of these regulations regarding the unique characteristics and types of production systems that relate directly to the sheep industry. If managed properly this Act will benefit society as a whole. The brunt of the cost for compliance with this legislation therefore should be undertaken by society, and not cause an unnecessary rise in the cost of producing agricultural commodities in Ontario.