The Rural Voice, 1988-12, Page 7FEEDBACK
RIGHT -TO -FARM
The article on Right -to -Farm
which appeared in the August issue of
The Rural Voice presents a scenario of
the impact of Bill 83 which I feel is
too optimistic. Right -to -farm legisla-
tion in Canada and the U.S. has one
primary concern. That is, to prevent
or limit the possibility of a private
lawsuit against a farmer because of a
problem of nuisance. To my knowl-
edge, we have had no private nuisance
actions in Ontario in the past 10 years,
and fewer than 10 in the whole of
Canada. The implication is that
adoption of Bill 83 in Ontario will
have little direct effect on the problem
situations that Dee Kramer outlines.
The Act is very specific that the
requirements of all other Acts and
regulations must be met. Manure
spills causing damage and noise in
excess of the regulatory standards will
still be dealt with by the Ministry of
the Environment. Application of pest-
icides and herbicides is not included in
the Act and damages resulting from
misapplication will continue to be
prosecuted. Local zoning by-laws and
other municipal by-laws are still
applicable and compliance with them
will be necessary before a building
permit will be issued, and protection
under the proposed Act given.
The Farm Practices Protection
Board appears to be a new innovation.
However, we have had a Farm Pol-
lution Advisory Committee in place in
Ontario since the mid-1970s. This is a
group of four farmers, appointed by
the province, who have the responsi-
bility of reviewing "problem" situ-
ations and making recommendations
to the ministries of Environment and
Agriculture and Food. In a situation
that is not a straightforward infringe-
ment of the regulations, the Ministry
of the Environment uses the recom-
mendations of this committee as a
basis for issuing orders, or proceeding
with court action. This committee has
acted as a sort of ombudsman for
farmers with the Ministry.
Ironically, the Act and the Report
of the Right -to -Farm Advisory Com-
mittee do not address the future role of
this group. It would be a great loss if
this committee were dropped in favour
of the Farm Practices Protection
Board. Actions taken against farmers
in Ontario are usually public actions
(i.e., initiated by a provincial minis-
ter). Both the Farm Practices Protec-
tion Board, to deal with potential
private actions, and the Farm Pollution
Advisory Committee, to deal with
public actions, are needed.
The Terry Sullivan case has be-
come the example in Canada around
which the right -to -farm issue has
revolved. However, details of the case
are rarely made clear. Sullivan started
in 1978 with a 40 -sow farrowing op-
eration. By 1983, he had a 140 -sow
farrow to finish operation. If the
Ontario Agricultural Code of Practice
(coned)
THE BEST
LEATHER AND
WOOLLEN
STORE IN
THE WORLD ...
WE KNOW,
WE'VE
LOOKED
AND
LOOKED!
DISCOVER OUR
SECRET
DISCOVER OUR SECRET!
Major cards accepted
1 mile soth of Blyth on Hwy. 4 • Open 7 days • (519) 523-4595
DECEMBER 1988 5