by PATRICIA GROTENHUIS
Ontario’s Tory agriculture critic says he’s concerned the wording on proposed updated livestock protection legislation gives the provincial Liberal government wiggle room to slash compensation for predator kills. But the provincial agriculture minister’s press secretary says the intent is to increase funding.
“The old one (Act) hasn’t been updated for 20 years, so we’re hopeful we’re going to be able to achieve an increase” in funding, says Sarah Petrevan.
Ernie Hardeman, MPP for Oxford, first raised the issue in a May 31 news release.
He says the wording of updated livestock protection legislation does not show a clear commitment to funding for predator kills.
Petrevan says the current Livestock and Honeybee Protection Act includes the amount of compensation for predator kills and hive destruction. That amount is the lesser of either fair market value or the maximum allowable amount for each species of animal. To change the maximum allowable amount, a new bill would have to be passed, which is a very lengthy process, she says.
“I see no reason why they need to remove the mandatory paying in one section in order for them in the other section to set they amount they pay,” says Hardeman.
The change is being proposed through the Open for Business bill, introduced to provincial legislature on May 17. The intent of the omnibus bill is to remove redundant legislation. If passed, it will not only affect livestock and hive protection legislation but also many other acts.
Petrevan says the province will meet with stakeholders to determine new amounts of compensation. Groundwork for stakeholder meetings has started.
She says the proposed changes will allow for more frequent updates to funding levels. The process for making claims is expected to remain the same. Currently, producers file claims with their local municipalities who reimburse them. The municipalities in turn obtain reimbursement from the province.
“Farmers and farm organizations were asking that compensation be based on up-to-date market values, not that it be removed from the legislation completely,” said Hardeman during debate on the bill on May 31. The bill has passed second reading, and has been sent to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs for further review.
Hardeman says there has not been enough information about the new bill available. He claims the word “must” has been replaced by “may” for compensation. “If this bill was to be passed in its current form it would hurt farmers and livestock producers,” he says.
“In regards to Hardeman’s claims that the legislation now says must and is changing to may is completely incorrect. Both current legislation and proposed legislation say may,” says Petrevan.
Petrevan claims Hardeman was invited to a technical briefing on May 17 to hear about the changes but did not attend.
“I’ve been bringing this out for the better part of a week and I’ve had no comment from the minister that what I was saying wasn’t right, so I’m going to have to assume that this is what they’re doing,” says Hardeman.
Petrevan says current legislation will be in effect until the new model is in place, giving farmers continuous protection. She says it is too early to predict when changes could take effect. BF
