OFA's Trails Policy & Farmer Relations - Insights from Trailhead Ontario 2016

1. Trailhead Ontario 2016 Trails& Farmer Relations Calabogie, June 20, 2016

2. Trailhead Ontario 2016 • Who/what is OFA? • OFA’s trails policy position • OFA’s perspective - Bill 100 • OFA’s trails-related concerns/asks • Farmer relations • Final thoughts • Questions

3. Ontario Federation of Agriculture OFA is Canada’s largest voluntary general farm organization, representing more than 36,000 farm family businesses across Ontario. These farm businesses form the backbone of a robust food system and rural communities with the potential to drive the Ontario economy forward

4. OFA • “general farm organization” – we represent the interests and concerns of all farmers; regardless of commodity grown, livestock raised, or farm size • primary focus on provincial issues affecting farmers • 52 County & Regional Federations of Agriculture • from Essex County to Ottawa Valley • and across Northern Ontario too

5. OFA • 42 staff; 21 in our Guelph offices • 21 “fieldstaff” across Ontario with specific county responsibilities • 18 member Board of Directors • staggered 3-year terms • President and 2 VPs elected annually at AGM

6. Farm Cash Receipts; 2014

7. Ontario Agriculture; 2011 Census

8. Ontario Agriculture; 2011 Census

9. Ontario Agriculture • 51,950 farms • 12,668,235 acres • 2014 farm cash receipts; $12.7 Billion • $36 Billion from Ontario farmers & food processors • 770,000 jobs; in farming & food processing • 12% (1 in 8) jobs in Ontario from agriculture and food processing

10. OFA’s Trails Policy • accept the retention of abandoned railway rights-of-way by the province as an integral part of a rural redevelopment and revitalization strategy • if provincially owned, adjacent farmers should have the first right to lease these lands • oppose the sale of abandoned railway rights-of-way for non-agricultural purposes, where the abutting lands are predominately “agricultural”

11. OFA’s Trails Policy • if ARROWs deemed “surplus”, adjacent farmers should have the first option to buy them • 2005 letter to Tim Peterson, Parliamentary Assistant to Minister of Tourism & Recreation – concerned with belief the Line Fences Act is a “barrier” to trails development???

12. OFA on Trails 2008 EBR Review of Legislation Affecting Trails • concerned with phrases like “scenic elements” and “cultural features” applied to farm buildings and farm landscapes • opposed any actions that could see trails imposed on farmers and other private property owners

13. OFA on Trails • farmer’s do not see a benefit to themselves (or their farm businesses) from trails through or adjacent to their farm • rail trails often pass close to the farm house and/or buildings – viewed as a intrusion • snowmobile trails close to the farm house – a noisy intrusion

14. OFA on Trails 2013 Strengthening Ontario’s Trails Strategy • not in favour of formal, long-term or perpetual trail easements on agricultural land • Strategy overlooked the rights of farmers and other rural property owners to continue to use farm crossings on former railway rights-of-way • Strategy overlooked agricultural biosecurity too

15. OFA on Bill 100 • recommended our 13 Adjacent Property Owner Concerns paper form part of any trails BMP • voluntary easements (S12) positive; but no early termination provisions for the property owner • Bill 100 overlooked status of farm crossings • confused by “merged title” provisions in 12(15); why are “eligible bodies” protected, but property owners are not?

16. more OFA on Bill 100 • made adherence to best management practices voluntary – OFA recommended funding be tied to compliance with BMPs • noted trail easements are voluntary – but perhaps Act needed a clearer statement to that effect • add early termination provisions that can be triggered by the property owner • Bill didn’t address the liability concerns of adjacent property owners – farmers and other rural property owners deserve protection from lawsuits

17. and more OFA on Bill 100 • Trespass to Property Act amendments go only half way • we support the higher damage award provisions • see no value in increasing the maximum fine - no one has ever been assessed the current maximum • wanted a minimum $500 fine • Bill 100 didn’t address farm crossings on former railway rights-of-way – they’re there; they’ll stay there and the farmer’s use can’t be restricted

18. OFA’s Trail-related Concerns:Farmer Relations Biosecurity Dogs Drain maintenance Farm crossings Fences Liability Litter Parking Policing Predator control Trespass/vandalism Weed control

19. Fences & ARROWS • development of rail lines in Ontario came after settlement • rail network imposed on the landscape • old Railway Act assigned full responsibility for railway fencing to the railways • after abandonment; Line Fences Act transfers that responsibility to non-abutting property owners who acquire these rights of way

20. Fences & ARROWS • 2002: Bayham & Tillsonburgrefused to pay for ARROW fencing - farmers took them to court • ruling, s20 was “precise and unambiguous” • “municipality liable for entire cost of fencing when fencing is sought by abutting land-owners”

21. Fences & ARROWS • more recently, City of Ottawa leased a former VIA line for a trail; refused to fence it; made all manner of excuses • frustrated farmer finally built the fence herself • fencing ARROWs is a statutory right for farmers; needs to be respected – not challenged

22. Farm Crossings • required under old Railway Act for lands cut in two by a rail line • for access; otherwise, a portion of the farm would have been inaccessible • some rails-to-trails proponents don’t support the continuance of farm crossings, “we don’t have to maintain those crossings” • no a farmer-friendly viewpoint; respect farmers’ needs

23. Farm Crossings • from Kissing Bridge Advisory Board meeting notes • farm crossing agreements signed by property owners • property owners to pay for stop signs and caution signs • NO! crossings an inherent part of the former rail line; an obligation taken on with operating the line as a trail • OFA recommended amendments in the proposed Ontario Trails Act, 2015 that would ensure the continuance of “farm crossings”; we would welcome your support on this

24. Biosecurity • farmers restrict access to their properties to minimize the risk of disease transmission to livestock, poultry and crops • those dealing directly with livestock and poultry shower and change clothes before entering a barn, and again before leaving • reduces medication requirements, mortalities, etc.

25. Biosecurity • diseases, blights, etc. can also be transferred from field to field on footwear, vehicle tires, etc. • need more effective trespass enforcement, supported by on-trail signage • speaks to respect for farmers, and their choices about entry into their property

26. Dogs • unleashed dogs can pose a threat to livestock and poultry • other trail uses too • known to harass or even kill livestock and poultry • frightened livestock can stampede into fences; onto roads

27. Dogs

28. Its different in rural Ontario • province needs to clearly communicate its various Acts that apply to trails, and their provisions • Drainage Act • Highway Traffic Act (farm equipment on roads) • Line Fences Act • Off-Road Vehicles Act • Protection of Livestock & Poultry from Dogs Act • Weed Control Act

29. Final Thoughts - RESPECT • farmer’s job #1 – producing world’s safest food • farmland is dedicated to achieving job #1 • crops adjacent to trails are not free for the taking • farmers may permit access to their land • that January snowmobile trail is dedicated to job #1 in July – producing world’s safest food • cultivate relationships with farmers, County Federations

30. Final Thoughts

31. Final Thoughts

32. Final Thoughts RESPECT

33. Questions? Peter Jeffery Sr. Farm Policy Researcher Ontario Federation of Agriculture 519-821-8883; ex 206 peter.jeffery@ofa.on.ca