O

Link to Exemption Regulations to download.

Link to Exemption Regulations

• You have to Apply Annually to get permission to grow 300 meat chicks for sale.



• There will be fees to be determined by the board.



• It says licences will be given first come first served. It sounds like there will be a Limit to the number of people allowed to get a licence( no indication of what that number might be).



• All exempt growers must fill in a form 300 ( No indication of what Information this form will ask for , or restrictions it may contain .



• Worst of all you will not be allowed to sell to any one but private individuals, for their own use.No resales ( selling at farmers Markets; to stores , resteraunts etc).even though the birds are inspected.



• You will not be able to deliver any bird, customer must come to your door to buy.



• You must have slaughered , and sold all birds on or before Dec. 31 of that year.



• Every grower shall obtain a copy and produce chicken in accordance with the minimum standards set out by the CFIA in its Pub. Bird Health Basics:


This all sounds so restrictive that I can't see many people jumping through all the hoops to be legal. What do you all think?

#12 - CFIA's document can be found [here]. The first thing in that document is prevent contact with wild birds and other animals. Does that mean that I can't graze my laying hens with my sheep or cattle? I would assume so - This is ridiculous if they plan on enforcing to the word - or on refusing exemptions for anyone who doesn't do this or keep feed in a "sealed container"

#14 (iii) "marketed at the premises and to purchasers who attend the premise" - WAY too restrictive. It eliminates farmers' markets as we had feared/suspected, but strictly following that means that one customer can't pick up chickens for another customer, or you can't even drop some off at your customers if you are going by! I guess that CFO doesn't feel they need to do anything to protect the environment and reduce greenhouse gases.

Related Links: CFIA's document of new regulations from The Chicken Farmers Of Ontario Marketing Board.

OSFPA has recently discovered that, as per usual, the government is receiving lots of input from business, service sector organizations and from agribusinesses – and, once again – there appears to be no small farm representation.

The small farm producers and small Family Farms are an important aspect of Ontario’s rural life and economy and it appears that the regulatory framework of agricultural policy in Ontario is crippling this important sector of Ontario. The small scale farmers should have a voice and a place at the table in the management of affairs relevant to their business and livelihood.

• An Animal Health Strategy for Ontario - Ontario beef Magazine ~Site
• OnTrace Agri-food Traceability ~Site
• PROVINCE KICKS OFF COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT ANIMAL HEALTH STRATEGY ~Site


When reading “An Animal Health Strategy for Ontario”, it becomes apparent that the government is committed to enforcing “Biosecurity” measures and if you read the definition of a “premise” on the ONTRACE website, these measures will encompass every backyard garden, rabbit hutch, chicken coop, beehive, compost heap etc etc etc….

• - Do they have nothing better to do?
• - Why can our children and grandchildren no longer raise a few chickens?
• - This will be the end of life as we know it…

Please also see:
1. Information reguarding bio-security ~Site
   Wed Aug 8, 2007
2. Bio-Insecurity posting by Steve Wardman
3. Ontario Farmer
   Tuesday July 31, 2007 issue article under Poultry entitled Biosecurity push targets backyard flocks.

There is a very strong movement in the world of Industrial Agriculture to promote Bio-security. This is a term used in reference to livestock raised in a controlled environment. The animals are bred and raised under very strict and secure conditions. Livestock are bred, raised and housed in secure buildings. The people working within this environment have to shower before entering the premises and put on a change of clothing, the process being repeated upon leaving the premises. This is to ensure that no outside diseases can gain access to the livestock within the buildings, thus threatening the food supply.

Small farms or back yard producers are seen as a threat to this system of farming in that chickens, pigs, sheep and cows are usually raised out in the open with access to fresh clean air. Livestock on such farms do come into contact with bacteria and viruses that could be quite harmful to them. While they do occasionally succumb to illness because of this exposure, the majority of the time they survive and in doing so build up an immunity to many bacterial and viral infections that would be lethal to livestock with little or no immunity.

Moreover, livestock raised in Bio-secure environments are not living in such ideal conditions as the public are led to believe. Chickens raised in such buildings are running around on their own droppings with no access to really fresh air. The foul air levels in these buildings can cause irritation to the eyes and breathing can be difficult at times. While the buildings are ventilated, when there are warnings about air quality outside such buildings the inside can actually be intolerable. Pigs raised under similar housing conditions can suffer in the same way.

The Bio-secure farm is at greater risk than the small farm, the reason being that the so-called secure farm has little or no immunity to outside disease. The greatest threat can come from someone walking across a driveway or yard on the farm within the secure area, treading accidentally where a wild bird has defecated, picking up the faeces on a boot and carrying it inside, therefore inadvertently passing on an infection.

Small farms or so-called backyard producers are just as concerned about the health of their poultry and other livestock as are the large industrial producers. The small producer has a closer more intimate relationship with his or her livestock than the large scale, industrial, all in, all out producer.

The wild bird populations of South East Asia and Eastern Europe seem to be surviving quite well, or is the landscape blanketed with millions of dead birds that no one is reporting ???

Bio-security to me is clean hands, clean boots along with clean water and food, with lots and lots of fresh clean air.


Steve Wardman

Property Tax Assessment Classification of On-Farm Value-Adding Activities

Key Messages

1.  Rural Farm activities are different from Urban activities.

2.  Resolutions to this issue must not impair the industry's economic viability as well as provide consistent fair taxation treatment.

3.  The activity of adding value to farm commodity products by farmers on the farm has been viewed for many years by both federal and provincial governments as a way to support farm family incomes in face of low farm commodity prices. 

     Example:  Premier's Award Of Excellence, recognizing innovation on the farm.  "An investment in innovation is an investment in Ontario," said Premier and Minister of Research and Innovation, Dalton McGuinty.  "One idea can generate new products, new jobs and new opportunities.  That's why we're recogniaing and honouring the spirit of innovation that thrives on our farms."

     "By fostering innovation that starts on the farm, the mcGuinty government is helping Ontario's farmers prosper through new products and new markets," said Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

4.  Primary producers - rural farm families trying to exist in a global economy must take their primary product to a more marketable level -- value-add, to sustain their farm and keep it viable for the next generation. 

5.  Currently farm buildings used to conduct value-added activities are assessed as industrial or commercial.  IF ANY PROCESSING OF ANY TYPE IS CARRIED OUT IN A BUILDING THE PROPERTY TAX CLASSIFICATION WILL BECOME INDUSTRIAL 

6.  Value-adding has been described as an extension of the farming operation.  Value-adding should therefore be assessed agriculture.

7.  With property assessment valuation method applied to farm buildings used to conduct value-added activities as stated in Section 44 of Ontario Regulation 282/98, the taxes associated with these on-farm activities is punitive.  It will destroy innovation on the farm.The Industrial and/or Commercial tax amounts are more than the costs associated with the municipal services consumed by these on-farm activities.  500% and greater increases have been re-corded.

SETTING A PRECEDENCE

In 2005, Minister of Finance, Greg Sorbara, formally announced his decision to direct the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to adopt and implement the recommendations put forward in their report on appropriate criteria for assessing equestrian facilities.  The Ministry of Finance passed O.Reg. 100/05 that amends the property classification regulation (O.Reg. 282/98) to change the way equestrian operations are assessed and classified.  The regulation comes in to effect for the 2004 and subsequent taxation years.

"The new criteria for assessing horse farms represents an appropriate balance between fair treatment for horse farm owners and consistency with other types of properties, "said Greg Sorbara, Minister of Finance.  "We remain committed to continuing to work with MPAC to find further ways to improve the quality and consistency of property assessments in Ontario."

On August 18, 2004, the Association of Riding Establishments of Ontario (ARE-ONT.), in partnership with the Ontario Equestrian Federation (OEF), formed a Committee to address the property tax issues surrounding horse farms and riding establishments.

Since August, volunteer co-chairs of the Committee, Jim Waechter and Leslie Brooks, diligently researched and organized the steps needed to make the necessary changes to ensure fair and equitable property assessment of equestrian facilities.  In addition to meeting with politicians, agricultural groups and members of MPAC, Jim and Leslie spearheaded a letter writing campaign in order to draw attention to the disastrous consequences of the recent property assessments by MPAC on equine establishments.  Working closely with Marcia Barrett and Al Patterson of the OEF, the Committee strived to have a single strategy in order to implement the changes that were required.

In response to the letter writing campaign, Sorbara asked MPAC ito meet with representatives from equestrian associations to develop the appropriate criteria.  The OEF, ARE-ONT., OMAF, MPAC and Ministry of Finance participated in the discussions.  The OFA and Christian Farmers Federation of Ont. were consulted to provide insight into the views of the farm community on this issue.

During the discussions, the OEF made it clear that any resolution must not impair horse industry's economic viability as well as provide consistent taxation treatment across the horse-racing and equestrian industries.

To this end, MPAC recommended to Sorbara that:

only activities that occur on equestrian facilities that are commercial in nature be treated commercial property (tack shops, premises used to sell equestrian supplies or clothing, restaurants, snack bars, cafeterias, commercial race tracks and slots, grandstands, band halls, and areas used to provide blacksmith, farrier or other retail services to the public)

1. activities that are agricultural in nature be assessed at their current use value and classified as residential or as farm.  These uses include:  maintaining, raising and selling horses, breeding horses boarding horses, and training horses, excluding the training that naturally occurs during riding lessons offered to the public.  Under this regulation the boarding of horses regardless of who owns the horses, now qualifies for the farm valuation treatment rate.  If the owner qualifies, the property will be classified as farm.  If the owner does not qualify, the property will be classified as residential.  It is important to note, however, that these activities are not considered to be farm activities when they are conducted for recreational or hobby purposes.
2. some activities be considered as rural recreational in nature, similar to other land intense rural recreational activities, such as golf courses and ski hills.  Where land is used exclusively to provide riding lessons, trail rides, or riding camps to the public and not in conjunction with any other farming activities; bunk houses or camping facilities, or where horses are kept for recreational or hobby purposes, would be classified in the residential class.

The revised assessment criteria was retroactive to January 1, 2004.

"Ontario farmers provide unique and valuable services that contribute to our quality of life and we must be sensitive to their requirements," said Steve Peters, Minister of Agriculture and Food.  "It is important that we recognize the different types of activities which are part of our agricultural community and treat them fairly."

Having a precedence set with recommendations accepted, recognizing rural properties as different from urban and that value-adding must be accepted as an extension of the farm process and taxed as agricultural to keep the industry economically viable we feel we can adopt the same recommendations.  In the equestrian scenario, the value adding is the breeding of horses, boarding horses, and training horses in all other farm ventures it is the process necessary to value-add and therefore, the buildings where these activities take place remain agricultural.  Commercial activities are commercial in nature involving retail services to the public and viewed as such for all agricultural farm properties.  Dual purpose would fall under the residential or commercial rate depending on the activity.

I hope this is somewhat clear.  Just remember we need a single strategy in order to implement the changes.  Not a lot of complications and we must agree.

Also, if you and any of your members would like to address this situation to the Finance Minister directly you may do so and remain anonymous at www.fin.gov.on.ca.  Click on english and go to the pre-budget consultations.  You will find questions to answer and can express your concerns.

Jason Bent, Farm Policy Reseacher OFA is meeting with Perth-Middlesex MPP, John Wilkinson also Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Research and Innovation, Premier Dalton McGuinty on January 29, 2007.  The purpose of this meeting is to set the process in motion.  Please inform your members acknowledge and reply.

Subject: Industrial Property Classification on Farms 
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:48:09 -0500

Hi, it's Karen - I am contacting you all again because I want you to know how important it is to send letters or emails to the following


Hon. Greg Sorbara, Minister of Finance, 7Queen's Park Cres., 7thFloor, Frost Bldg. S., Toronto, Ont. M7A 1Y7 mail to gsorbara.mpp@liberal.ola.org


Hon. Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of Agriuclutre Food and Rural Affairs, Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs, 77 Grenville St., 11th Floor, Toronto, Ont. M5S 1B3 mail to ldombrowsky.mpp@liberal.ola.org


Mr. Carl Isenburg, President and Chief Administrative Officer, Municipal Property Assessment Ciorporation, 1305 Pickering Parkway, Pickering, Ont., L1V 3P2 mail toisenbuca@mpac.ca


Hon. Dalton McGuinty, Minister Research and Innovation, Legislative Building, Queens Park, Toronto, Ont. M7A 1A1 (416) 325-3745 fax or visit mri.gov.on.ca and go to contact us; No email was given but you can address your concerns on line there


Paul Nairn, Ontario Federation of Agriculture Member Service Representative, Huron/Perth, P. O. Box 429, Clinton, Ont. N0M 1L0

Mail to paul.nairn@ofa.on.ca

Suggestion for wording might be as follows

I am sending this message as a farmer concerned at the implications of Ont. Reg. 282/98 and 282/98 section 44 as it applies to farm property; I may not be affected by this regulation currently however, the next farming generation on my farm might be; Industrial taxes at the farm level is not viable; I would like to see the entire farm sector receive the same consideration as the equestrian sector; Please make amendments to the above mentioned regulations so that value-adding on farm remains agricultural;  
That's basically all you have to say, the activities that are commercial in nature will be treated commercial property; MPAC noted that urban and rural are not the same when making recommendations for the equestrians; It was shown in how they treated rural recreational  
All we want is to show that we farmers do care how we are assessed and to protect are farms and our farm future; No letters - not change you and your farm will be at risk of re-classification to industrial and believe me, it is more than farms can endure

OFA March Meeting To Discuss Policy For On Farm Value-Adding Activities

Well, it is time to speak to your OFA reps.  March OFA meeting is to prepare a policy with regards to Value Adding As An Extension OF The Farm Operation.  Stake holders will be there - farm commodity groups, representatives from municipalities - Amo?, Roma? and Regional OFA Directors. 

The suggestion from what I'm hearing is to have a value-added tax much lower but conducive to the farm industry.  My concern as the alarm bells go off is - it makes it too easy for municipalities to raise the tax at a whim to cover short comings.  The recommendations adopted for the Equestrian Sector by Finance were simple, concise and fit well into all farm sectors.  We do not need new classifications.

Hans Feldman from OMAFRA called Feb. 12th and said he has no position from OFA on Value-Adding Activities On Farm with regards to reclassification to industrial property tax classification. 

We want OMAFRA, OFA, MPAC to form a consensus or at least agree.  The Equestrian body were able to represent themselves with OMAF.  We need OFA to go to bat for us.  Please work together with your OFA reps. so your concerns are brought to the table.

We do not yet have Sorbara's attention because he has not asked MPAC to meet with anyone. 

The March meeting is to prepare for that action, or to make a presentation.

It should be noted that Value-Adding as an extension of the farm operation is exactly that - pork to pork on the fork, soybeans to soynuts, corn to alternative fuel, storing grain, cleaning grain, what ever your farm primary - you add value to it to make it more valuable and you more viable. 

Value-Adding as an extension of the farm process is not having a wedding facility, building equipment, a welding shop, etc.  These dual purpose would fall under commercial or residential depending on the actual activity as was done in the equestrian recommendations. 

We all know that an Industrial Property Tax Classification on Farm Property Tax Classification is punitive.  

For your information I have listed the recommendations MPAC gave Finance for the Equestrians below:

The recommendations were adopted, O. Reg. 100/05 was made amending the property classification regulation 282/98 to change the way equestrian operations were assessed and classified and the regulation came into effect for the 2004 year. 

Dear Fellow Farmers:

On March 21^st, OFA will be discussing property taxes as it relates to farms that have on farm value-added operations.  Our family farm operation adds value to the soybeans we grow.  Our building has been re-classified industrial property tax where we do the value-adding.  Industrial is many times greater than farm property tax.  So much so that the will to continue remains questionable.  It would be the end of a family farm operation that provides work for a father, daughter and three sons.  It fosters 5 rural families and homes.  It employs one office worker and some after school work for two rural neighbour school students. 

We are only one of many small family farms in Ontario who are on farm value-adding currently, or who may want to value-add in the future.  Small farms can and do make a difference to the economy of rural Ontario most notably rural communities.  On farm value-adding farm operators are being innovative and flexible in their approach to their farming activities in order to succeed.  Value-adding activities as an extension of the farm operation is one way to sustain farm families in rural Ontario.  We feel very strongly that farms who value-add, should remain in the farm classification for tax purposes.

Please read the following information.  It won't take long but it will make a big difference on your understanding of value-adding and it's impact on farm sustainability.  We encourage you to be as fully informed as possible for the discussion at the OFA meeting in March.  It has been put together by farm families affected by re-classification of their on farm value-added farm operations to the industrial tax class.

Note:  If there is anything you don't understand or questions you may have please don't hesitate to contact myself at karen_mahon@hotmail.com or 519-345-2582 or Paul Nairn, OFA Member Service Rep. Huron/Perth at paul.nairn@ofa.on.ca or 1-800-511-1135 and we will be happy to assist you.

Thank you,

Karen Mahon

Subject: 

 

Farm Property Tax Classification vs. Industrial Classification on Value-Adding Activities As An Extension Of The Farm Operation

 

Problem:

 

• On farm value-adding activities are not defined as farming activities by Ministry of Finance Regulations enforced by Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).  Instead, farm buildings used to conduct value-added activities are currently classified as Industrial under the Ontario Assessment Act and its regulations - even something as minor as running grains or beans over a cleaner for sale to a processor.
• The taxes associated with these on farm value-added activities in the industrial classification are punitive.  Any increased value you may have added to your farm product is eaten up by this major increase in taxes.
• The industrial tax amounts are more than the costs associated with the municipal services consumed by these on farm activities.

 

Reasons Why Farms Value-Adding As An Extension Of The Farm Operation Should Remain Farm Property Tax Classification

 

• The activity of adding value to farm commodity products by farmers on the farm has been viewed for many years by both federal and provincial governments as a way to support farm family incomes in the face of low farm commodity prices.   Here we have one branch of government encouraging farmers to move in the direction of value-adding, and another branch of government curtailing that innovation by regressive tax policy.
• On farm value-added activities do not produce commodities to be sold on a commercial basis.  They produce specialized products for niche markets.
• We are not talking about a factory that brings raw materials in from anywhere in the world.  These are on farm facilities that use wholly or overwhelmingly self-grown/local raw farm production.
• Viable as defined in New Webster's Dictionary is:  possessing the ability to grow and develop.  Farmers must be able to remain independently viable to be able to contribute to the well being of the rural community and ultimately the province itself.
• Farmers generally do not have municipal services such as fire hydrants, sidewalks, sewers, streetlights, in some cases adequate hydro and high-speed internet service.
• Farm innovation can generate new products, new jobs, new opportunities, and new markets.  Farm innovation is an investment for the Province of Ontario.  That innovation will be destroyed by punitive taxes.
• Value-adding on farm provides a future for the next generation of farmers.
• The definition of farming has never been static, it has evolved over time and needs to be flexible to reflect the realities of today's farm economy and opportunities.

 

The following is how we, one many small farms in Ontario who have value-added as an extension of our farm operation for sustainabilty, see what has and should happen.

 

 

Agriculture Sustainability Through Value-Adding

As rural Ontario depopulates, due to flat commodity prices and ever-rising costs, the rural population head to the larger towns and cities.  Stores and businesses shut down in small town Ontario as lack of customers force consolidation to larger centers. 

Older farmsteads that were built by our forefathers are not given the repairs or rebuilding needed to keep them there.  Property tax rates must rise to the remaining rural population and businesses as the tax base disappears.  In order to reverse this trend, one option is to encourage new businesses in the agriculture food industry. 

The logical way would be to expand in the niche market.  Niche markets tend to be small and specialized but in the new global economy could end up being quite extensive.  Value-adding on farm could alleviate problems developing when large commercial processors pull out - an example being Maple Leaf Foods with pork processing.

The competition for primary agricultural products is now between virtually every country in the world.  With the change in philosophies of Russia and China, the so-called sleeping giants, have awakened and instead of being our customer are now our competition for primary agricultural products.  This now means that farmers must take their primary products and value-add to them to recover the lost value.

Webster's Dictionary defines entrepreneur as "a person who organizes and manages a business undertaking, assuming the risk for the sake of profit".  Large commercial food companies tend not to make new food products - the main reason being their high cost of labour for development and market access.  They rely solely on entrepreneurs to do the initial product development, market awareness building, and then either copy or outright buy the new products rights.  Entrepreneurs have the determination and are willing to spend the extra time needed to do the work necessary for product development.  Farmers generally fit this category, as they tend to be independent and willing to take on new endeavors.

 

At the present time the property tax laws state that if a farmer processes any primary agricultural product then the building in which this processing takes place is reclassified from farm to industrial.  This will result in a tax hike many times higher than the farm rate.  In the initial product development and marketing stages the tax hike will take out far too much capital.  This principle goes against the entrepreneurial spirit of value-adding to primary agricultural products.   Value-adding should be an extension of the farming operation.  In the general scheme of things, if the value-added venture becomes successful, then tax can be collected in the form of income tax.

One of the concerns surrounding farm value-adding is the possibility of overlap with current industrial businesses.  Webster's dictionary defines industry as "any large scale business activity".  Webster also defines Industrial as "having the nature of industries".  A farmer value-adding to a primary agriculture product on farm does not fit the industrial definition. 

However, at some point in the growth of this value-adding activity, success may reach the point where the product has the potential to go mainstream.  At this point outside investors, management teams, labour force and manufacturing capacity will take this family farm out of the farm classification and into the industrial classification.

 

Usually this also means that manufacturing facilities have to relocate to urban areas where there are more labour and municipal services such as sewage treatment, hydro, natural gas.  We need to be able to incubate these value added ventures on farm, before we call them an industry - in other words, let the boy turn into a man before you call him a man.