Nothing is more annoying…

Nothing is more annoying than when we receive a "new, revised terms and conditions" agreement from a bank or credit card company in which they have consciously decided not to explain what's changed from the old one.

I prefer not to have to go through all 15,000 words of the original and the proposed NFPPB Rules, word by word by word trying to spot the differences. (It's almost as though the level of inconvenience is designed to cause most people to ignore the details)

The syrupy, 180 word "soundbite" summary of the proposed changes does nothing to instill confidence in the motivation of the proposal, especially when it is claimed to have "enhanced public participation" in the same breath as the goal of being more "efficient" by "dismissing applications without a hearing".

Speaking of which, I noticed that the words "accountability" and "governance" have both suspiciously disappeared from page one of the new version.

The current hearing process is already opaque, what with farmers and their lawyers appointed as both "judge and jury" in procedures ostensibly designed to determine "right from wrong" in a farmer vs non-farmer appeal. Outcomes are easily predicted when farmers make rulings for farmers. (Isn't it true that, already, only about 1 in a 100 of these appeals are decided in favour of the non-farming parties?)

Aren't those who sit in judgement supposed to be transparent, unbiased, impartial and objective? The entire Normal Farm Practice Protection process is figuratively (and almost literally) a case of the "foxes guarding the henhouse".

I think it's time the entire process be handed over to a disinterested, 3rd party broker who has no obvious bias or favouritism, the way the current system is constructed.

Social justice and democracy are at stake here and farmers should not be the only ones to have a say in it. Farmers and their families represent only about 1% of Ontario's population yet they enjoy the legal ability to disturb the other 99% under cover of an outdated law that literally allows them to generate as much noise, smoke, smell, vibration, light, dust and flies as they chose. This doesn't even give the appearance of democracy, much less the reality!

The guise of "normal farm practice", (which really just means that if any two farmers do it, it must be "OK") is an affront to the rights of non-farming residents who, in many cases, have inhabited their rural or near-rural settings since long before farms, farmers, crops, bird cannons, poisonous sprays et al encroached upon their idyllic, countryside locations.

If grape growers, for example, can't produce a viable crop without deafening their neighbours with propane-powered cannons exploding every minute or two from before sun-up until after sunset, seven days a week from July until January (in the case of icewine grapes), then maybe they should find another vocation or a different crop. The lure of pursuing the world's most lucrative harvest is no justification for making all their neighbours' lives unbearable.

Far from the ministry being allowed to update its own Rule book, this entire FFPPB process should be taken out of the Ministry of Agriculture's hands altogether. What other industry in Ontario, or all of Canada for that matter, grants its members the privilege of deciding for themselves how they'll run roughshod over the surrounding populace? Timber mills don't decide how much sulphur they'll emit. Mines and refineries can't decide they'll dump mountains of slag just anywhere; fishermen aren't allowed to set their own quotas; the film industry can't broadcast anything they want. Why should farmers be the only industry who gets to write their own rules...and arbitrarily "dismiss" anyone who complains?

The entire process is a shame and a sham. It should be totally revamped and put in the hands of the Law Faculty of one of our outstanding Universities for research and revision. (NOTE: Not Guelph)