As our members continue to manage farm businesses through the pandemic, OFA is seeking input on your experiences with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The purpose of the survey is to assess the farm sector’s need for PPE for normal, ongoing farm requirements as well as for COVID-19 health and safety protocols.

PPE is considered to be protective clothing, helmets, goggles, or other garments or equipment designed to protect the wearer’s body from injury or infection.

Your feedback regarding on-farm PPE requirements, information and availability, including any shortages, will help inform our advocacy efforts on your behalf.

This survey should take approximately 5-10 minutes to complete. Your responses will be kept confidential and will only be reported in aggregate form.

The deadline to provide your feedback is March 5, 2021.

Click here to complete the survey.
​
We appreciate your time and effort in completing this survey.

Posted on 16 February 2021 in OFA Viewpoint
​By Crispin Colvin, Executive Member, Ontario Federation of Agriculture

Ontario and Quebec are currently facing a tremendous challenge that could impact the supply of vital fuels into our provinces. In January, the Lambton Federation of Agriculture brought forth a resolution at their annual meeting that was passed on to the provincial board of directors, asking for support on advocating for the continual operation of Enbridge Line 5.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) believes the Line 5 pipeline is critical, not only for the agriculture industry, but for employment, cost of living, the economy, and ensuring the continued production of thousands of Canadian products that we rely on daily. It’s a vital piece of energy infrastructure, whose importance extends beyond the borders of our country and into Michigan.

Earlier this year, the President of Lambton Federation was informed that Michigan had filed a legal action to force the shutdown of Line 5. Enbridge Line 5 currently operates through Michigan under the Straits of Mackinac and has been a critical fuel source for Canada. Enbridge has since filed a lawsuit challenging this order and has brought forward a solution to keep the pipeline running.

Line 5 delivers 53% of Ontario’s crude oil and is a critical source of supply for approximately two-thirds of Quebec’s crude consumption. Additionally, the fuel line feeds Canadian refineries, ensuring a safe, affordable and reliable supply of gasoline, propane, diesel, jet fuel and other products. Operating the line supports the employment of thousands of skilled trades across Canada, and supplies over 50% of Michigan’s propane needs.

Line 5 is an integral piece of North American infrastructure. The closure of this pipeline will have detrimental effects on the agri-food supply chain in southern Ontario. Without access to these fuels, livestock farmers and commercial greenhouse growers will be unable to supply heat to their facilities. Grain and oilseed farmers also rely on fuel to dry their harvested crops. Line 5 closing would negatively impact grain and crop drying capabilities, which would have a domino effect on Ontario’s feedstock exports.

The implications of closing Line 5 will impact our entire nation. Adding cost to Ontario’s food producers, laying off thousands of skilled workers and increasing grocery bills for consumers. The closure of Line 5 will not just affect the agriculture industry; this is a national issue that could have large implications for our economy as a whole.

Along with Canada, the closure of Line 5 would also have adverse effects on Michigan’s economy. Refineries served by Enbridge in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Ontario and Quebec would receive approximately 45% less crude from Enbridge than their current demand. Michigan would face a 756,000-US-gallons-per-day propane supply shortage since there are no short-term alternatives for transporting NGL to market. The regions affected in Canada and the U.S. would see a 14.7-million-US-gallons-per-day supply shortage of gas, diesel and jet fuel (about 45% of current supply).

Enbridge Inc. is working on a long-term solution to invest $500 million U.S. in a tunnel to house Line 5 deep under the Straits of Mackinac. While Line 5 has operated safely and reliably in the Straits for more than 65 years, this new tunnel will add further protection and absolve any fears towards the pipeline leaking into their water system. However, the state of Michigan still has yet to comment on this solution and is proceeding with their lawsuit to close Line 5.

In response to the ongoing concerns, a joint letter on behalf of OFA, Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, Beef Farmers of Ontario, Chicken Farmers of Ontario, Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chick Commission, Ontario Pork and Turkey Farmers of Ontario was sent to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau explaining the implications the pipeline closure could have on the agriculture community and national economy.

OFA has asked for the federal government to work alongside the American State and Federal administrations to maintain the operation of Line 5. OFA believes this is a resolvable issue and that with constructive dialogue between Prime Minister Trudeau and the Biden-Harris Administration, both countries can come to a viable resolution.

OFA will continue to work with the government, Enbridge and industry stakeholders to ensure that Line 5 remains open and operational throughout any construction that may proceed. It is a critical piece of North American energy infrastructure that benefits both Canada and the U.S.
​
For more information, contact:
Tyler Brooks
Director of Communications and Stakeholder Relations
Ontario Federation of Agriculture
519-821-8883 ext. 218
tyler.brooks@ofa.on.ca

THE ISSUE
The Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 protects Ontario farm animals, farms, farmers and their families, agri-food employees, and the safety of the entire food supply by addressing the ongoing threat of unwanted trespassing and from unauthorized interactions with farm animals. The Act strikes an important balance, respecting the right to peaceful public protest, while giving the justice system the tools it needs to help protect farmers, agri-food workers and businesses, and the food supply from trespassing and harassment.

ANIMAL PROTECTION ZONES:
The Act establishes animal protection zones:
​
Animal protection zone: with respect to a farm, animal processing facility or prescribed premises, means an area on the farm, facility or premises on which farm animals may be kept or located and that is,

1. An enclosure for farm animals, whether or not it is marked as an animal protection zone,
2. An area that meets prescribed requirements and is marked as an animal protection zone by the owner or occupier using signs in accordance with the regulations,
3. An area prescribed by the regulations as an animal protection zone for the purposes of this Act.

Persons are also prohibited from stopping, hindering, obstructing or otherwise interfering with a motor vehicle transporting farm animals.

NO IMPLIED CONSENT
Persons are prohibited from interfering or interacting with farm animals in or on the animal protection zones or from carrying out prescribed activities in or on the animal protection zones without the prior consent of the owner or occupier of the farm, facility or premises. Persons are also prohibited from interfering with a motor vehicle that is transporting farm animals and from interfering or interacting with the farm animals in the motor vehicle without the prior consent of the driver. This applies even if the trespasser has not been told orally, or in writing, to keep out or if no signs have been posted which restrict or prohibit entry.

FALSE PRETENCES
Consent to entry in or on an animal protection zone, or other prescribed activities which has been given to a person is considered invalid if it is obtained using duress or under false pretences. If consent was obtained under these conditions, the consent will be deemed to not have been given.

OFFENCES & PENALTIES
Offences under the Act carry higher penalties; up to $15,000 for the first offence, and up to $25,000 for subsequent offences. Higher penalties are introduced to serve as a deterrent from trespassing and breaching biosecurity protocols. Persons found guilty of an offence can be held responsible, and may receive a restitution order for any injury, losses or damages occurred as a result of the contravention.

LIMITATION PERIOD
The Act introduces a two-year limitation period for the commencement of proceeding for an offence under the Act. The two-year period begins on the later of the day the offence was committed, or the day on which evidence of the offence first came to the attention of a police officer.

REGULATIONS

1. Reg. 701/20: General, under the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act includes definitions and provisions which support the Act.

SIGNAGE
Animal protection zones that require signage can only be marked if they meet the requirements listed in the regulations. The sign serves as a warning to any person that is about to enter the animal protection zone that entry is prohibited unless the person has consent, is exercising treaty rights, or enforcement powers, or meets exemption requirements.

Signs must be a minimum of 30cm x 30cm, and be orange in colour. Signs must be erected at each ordinary point of access to the animal protection zone being signed, and must be clearly visible in daylight. The area marked will only be considered an animal protection zone when farm animals are present.

PRESCRIBED PREMISES
The Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act allows for the regulations to prescribe certain premises as animal protection zones. Currently, the following are considered prescribed premises:

1. Premises at which farm animals are ordinarily bought or sold and in respect of which a licence has been issued under the Livestock Community Sales Act.
2. Premises at which farm animals are displayed for public viewing.
3. Premises at which fam animals lawfully compete against one another.

INTERFERENCE – INTERACTION
Acts which are considered prohibited interferences and interactions with farm animals are listed in the regulations.  They include:

1. Directly or indirectly having physical contact with a farm animal, whether the farm animal is dead or alive,
2. Providing any substance to a farm animal, including spraying or throwing any substance on or at a farm animal,
3. Releasing a farm animal from an animal protection zone or transport motor vehicle,
4. Creating conditions in which a farm animal could escape from an animal protection zone or transport motor vehicle,
5. Any activity that causes or is likely to cause harm to a farm animal or harm with respect to food safety.

FALSE PRETENCES – DURESS
The regulations outline the situations where false statements result in contravention of the Act, including false statements regarding employment qualifications.  Certain exemptions exist for journalists and whistleblowers. Similar conditions exist for when consent is obtained under duress.

INCREASED PENALTIES
The regulations list certain circumstances that increase the gravity of an offence, including whether any farm animals were harmed, killed, or whether any human harm occurred. Penalties can be increased for a person who is found guilty of committing an offence under these listed circumstances.
​
For more information, please visit:
www.AboutBill156.com

Download 'The Security From Trepass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020' One Pager