New legislation should be introduced to clearly define the term
"intensive" based on capacity and density for different types of operation. For
hogs, the line should be drawn at the levels recommended by the Ontario Farm
Environmental Coalition for triggering the requirement for a Nutrient Management
Plan (see OFEC's sample Nutrient Management Plan by-law.) Those levels
are: 150 livestock units (i.e. an operation with more than 600 feeder hogs or
750 sows), or 50 livestock units in cases where the density exceeds 5 livestock
units per tillable acre.

Legislation should reclassify these intensive
operations as industrial enterprises, not farms. They would thus be excluded
from the criterion of "normal farm practice", and treated as industries in
regard to zoning by-laws, building codes, environmental assessment requirements,
etc.

Rights granted by society must be balanced by
responsibilities to that society; this applies to farmers and owners of
agribusinesses just as it does to everyone else. The "right to farm" as
enshrined in the Farming and Food Production Protection Act of 1998 (Bill 146)
has been interpreted by the Normal Farm Practices Board as essentially absolving
large livestock businesses of any such responsibility and exempting them from
restrictions that might be imposed by a municipality or the province. For
example, in a November 1998 case in Middlesex County, the Board prevented
Biddulph Township from capping the number of pigs per barn and per
acre.

This special treatment for large intensive
operations leads directly to environmental problems with water and air quality,
as documented by numerous studies and reports (see, for example, "Animal Waste
Pollution in America, an Emerging National Problem", a report prepared for US
Senator Tom Harkin, available at
<http://www.senate.gov/~agriculture/animalw.htm >)

"Voluntary" codes of practice cannot be
counted on to work, especially where corporate agribusiness anticipates an
effect on its bottom line. Corporations in many jurisdictions in Canada and
elsewhere have been found in flagrant violation of accepted environmental
standards (see, for example, the website of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources < http://www.ehnr.state.nc.us.EHNR/
>)

The NFU asks the government to legislate strong
mandatory province-wide regulatory controls on "intensive agricultural
operations", with severe penalties for infractions. It should amend the Farming
and Food Production Protection Act of 1998 (Bill 146) to change the criterion of
"normal farm practice" to "reasonable farm practice", and define the latter term
so as to exclude operations classified as "intensive" according to the criteria
proposed above.

In the meantime, the Minister should instruct
the Farm Practices Protection Board to exclude intensive operations from the
working definition of "normal farm practice". This will focus the law's
protective intent on small and medium-sized farms, while giving due weight to
environmental and social considerations.

These industrial-model production units create
serious divisions and social problems within the rural community, as smaller
farmers and other residents suffer the environmental and economic consequences.
As one Ontario farmer put it, nobody should want legislation to give them the
right to negatively affect their neighbours.

Amendments to Bill 146 should reinstate the
right of municipalities to place additional restrictions on intensive
agricultural operations. For example, municipalities should have the option of
setting the kinds of limits that Biddulph Township sought and was prevented from
implementing.

Enforcement of environmental regulations has been
drastically reduced over the past few years by the cuts to various provincial
ministries, notably Environment and Agriculture. Thus, even where restrictions
apply, it is very difficult to enforce them.

The NFU recommends that the government provide
adequate resources for monitoring and enforcement of regulations relating to
intensive agricultural operations, before and during construction and throughout
the entire period of operation.

There are many actual and potential problems with
large intensive agricultural operations, of which manure is a major one. Calling
it a "nutrient" and laying out a "management plan" for it does not change the
fact that it is still manure, with all the positive and all the problematic
aspects that entails. Nor does renaming sewage sludge "biosolids" remove the
potential problems associated with spreading that material on farm land. Such
euphemisms have no place in agricultural policy, where they serve only to
obscure the realities we need to deal with.

The National Farmers Union recommends that
there be consistent provision made for monitoring and regulation not only of
manure but of sewage sludge and pesticides, whether they are being used by
intensive agricultural operations or by anyone else, whenever such use can
reasonably be expected to have a significant effect on the environment or the
community.

Most farm families want to farm as sustainably as
possible. However, many systems and regulations which apply to livestock put
small and medium-sized operations at a disadvantage compared to the large
intensive ones. For example, if you can spread the cost of herd certification or
of a "nutrient management plan" over a large number of animals, it represents a
smaller proportion of total income than it would for a more modest operation.
Similarly, a lump sum fine for a manure spill could be seen as just a "cost of
doing business" for a large intensive operation, whereas it might be the final
straw for a smaller farm. These are only a couple of examples of the numerous
aspects of the current system which act, directly or indirectly, as incentives
for the intensification of agriculture.

The NFU recommends that the government review its
systems and regulations in consultation with representatives of the NFU and
other family farm organizations, to identify and eliminate those aspects which
put small and medium sized operations at a comparative
disadvantage.

The expansion of these industrial models of
production is proceeding fast in Ontario, and each new instance brings with it
problems, conflict and controversy over the issues outlined in the consultation
discussion paper. Yet to date, there has been no comprehensive environmental
assessment of this unprecedented shift in rural land use. Until that assessment
has been done and the permanent measures we recommend above put in place, the
problems will continue to multiply and become even more severe. The need for
immediate action is clear.

The NFU asks that the government impose an
immediate moratorium on further construction of facilities for intensive
agricultural operations, and undertake a comprehensive environmental assessment
of the actual and potential effects of such operations. The moratorium should
not be lifted until the environmental assessment has been concluded and its
recommendations, as well as those listed above, are in place.

Finally, we challenge the argument that
"intensive agricultural operations" represent a positive economic option and
hope for rural areas. Studies in the United States have shown that family farm
hog producers contribute more to local rural economies than large corporate
producers (see summary in Nebraska's Centre for Rural Affairs Special Report,
June 1995.) Bigger is not the same as better. Family farms employ more people
per pig, inputs are bought locally and profits remain in the community.
Corporate mega-barns, in contrast, and the vertical integration that is often
part of the package, lower prices to independent producers, deny them market
access, and impede fair and open price discovery. It is these intrusions, not a
lack of "efficiency", which drives small and medium-sized producers out of
business.

In conclusion, the National Farmers Union
asks the provincial government to abandon the preferential treatment it
currently accords to large intensive agricultural operations, and to choose
instead policies which support family farms and rural communities as the best
hope for a sustainable future for Ontario.

Respectfully submitted,

National Farmers Union (Ontario)

***************