2022 Resolutions & Background Information

#BFOAGM

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Resolutions & Background Information

Taking Care of Business

VIRTUAL

2022 AGM RESOLUTIONS & BACKGROUND INFORMATION 22-01 MEAT TRAINING BURSARY PERTH MOVED BY: Spencer Dunsmore

SECONDED BY: Amanda Brodhagen

WHEREAS, there is a limited amount of kill capacity in Ontario, and WHEREAS, kill capacity goes along with manpower to cut what has been killed, and WHEREAS, our average age of butchers in Ontario is high, and WHEREAS, there is very little interest in the younger generation to become a butcher, and WHEREAS, there is a very limited number of schools in Ontario that offer an adequate course for potential butchers to take and WHEREAS, we will soon have a very limited number of qualified butchers to cut our product in Ontario, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO create a bursary to help cover the cost of going to a meat training institution.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lack of sufficient processing capacity at both the local and provincial/regional level is a major limiting factor to a healthy competitive market in Ontario and across eastern Canada. Labour shortages and access to skilled labour are contributing factors to processing capacity issues.

There is a lack of high-skilled workers to fill the current volume of infrastructure across the province, which prevents many processing facilities from taking advantage of current market demands.

In 2020 and 2021, both the federal and provincial governments provided funding to processing facilities through the Meat Processors Improvement Initiative Program and the Emergency Processing Fund. These programs focused on activities related to increasing processing capacity through infrastructure and equipment improvements, and facility improvements and health and safety improvements related to COVID-19. BFO continues to request the provincial government provide funding opportunities that also include a labour and skills and development component, such as a wage subsidy for processors to hire and train meat-cutters and butchers.

For employers looking to support their employees with training opportunities, the Ontario Ministry of Colleges and Universities through the Canada-Ontario Job Grant provides direct financial support to individual employers or employer consortia who wish to purchase training for their employees. It is available to small, medium and large businesses with a plan to deliver short-term training to existing and new employees. BFO recognizes that more opportunities and funding for training is necessary.

Page 1 of 22

To date, BFO has not provided any direct funding for meat cutter training. However, BFO has supported Meat and Poultry Ontario (formerly the Ontario Independent Meat Processors) for many years through membership and sponsorship funding, which provides support programs and lobbying efforts aimed at increasing labour capacity and skills training within the butchery field.

22-02 BUTCHERY AS A SKILLED TRADE PERTH MOVED BY: Spencer Dunsmore

SECONDED BY: Andrew Dunsmore

WHEREAS, butchery is not recognized as a skilled trade in Ontario, and WHEREAS, there is a need for more trained butchers, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO lobby the province to have butchery included in the list of skilled trades as defined by Skilled Trades Ontario.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION The province of Ontario recently established Skilled Trades Ontario. A new Crown agency which replaced the Ontario College of Trades. It is responsible for skilled trades certification in Ontario including establishing new apprenticeship programs and associated training standards, curriculum standards and certification exams. The Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development has oversight of trades legislation and regulation, including prescribing/deprescribing trades, scopes of practice, and trade classifications.

Butchery is not listed as a skilled trade in Ontario. However, “Retail Meat Cutter” is currently listed as a trade in Ontario. Skilled Trades Ontario outlines the role of a Retail Meat Cutter as someone who prepares meat and poultry for the retail market by: demonstrating safe working practices and techniques; applying general work practices and merchandising; setting up and operating machinery; performing business practices / customer relations; and preparing beef, pork, lamb, veal and poultry cuts, and meat for sausage making. Retail Meat Cutter is classified as a non-compulsory trade, which means there is no requirement for someone to be certified as a Retail Meat Cutter to legally practice in Ontario. Skilled Trades Ontario also lists Process Operator – Food Manufacturing as a non-compulsory trade in Ontario, this would include meat processing plant workers.

Meat and Poultry Ontario (MPO) continues to push to have Retail Meat Cutter classified as a Red Seal trade in Canada. Red Seal trades have common standards to assess the skills of tradespeople across Canada and facilitates labour mobility in Canada.

Page 2 of 22

22-03 ABATTOIR FUNDING ASSISTANCE AND APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS GRENVILLE MOVED BY: B. Jelly

SECONDED BY: C. Renkema

WHEREAS, staffing levels continue to hinder operating capacity, expansion and access to abattoir facilities for Farmers throughout Ontario.

WHEREAS, small scale beef producers are losing a valuable income source as they are not able to meet the demands of their consumers during large scale “shop local” and “farm to table” movements.

WHEREAS, apprenticeship training is a big cost expenditure for small facilities and in some cases prevents them from taking on able bodied individuals who have a genuine interest in the trade.

WHEREAS, current data reports that Ontario has 115 provincially licensed abattoirs with only 87 of them processing beef for the more than 19,000 reported beef farmers in Ontario.

WHEREAS, various pieces of previous provincial legislation would have put enough financial pressure on well-functioning, small abattoirs, without funding assistance opportunities to help bridge the cost of compliance, many of them went out of business.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT Beef Farmers of Ontario, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, Ontario Farmers Association and The Christian Farmers Association work together to lobby the Ontario Government to provide large scale cost share funding and incentive programs to small and medium scale abattoir facilities who are actively looking to increase staffing levels through apprenticeship training programs. As well as funding initiatives for facilities who are looking to meet or expand capacity limits if their staffing needs can be adequately met.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO work alongside the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities in order to promote apprenticeship programs and career opportunities in the abattoir industry.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lack of sufficient processing capacity at both the local and provincial/regional level is a major limiting factor to a healthy competitive market in Ontario and across eastern Canada. Labour shortages and access to skilled labour are contributing factors to processing capacity issues.

There is a lack of high-skilled workers to fill the current volume of infrastructure across the province, which prevents many processing facilities from taking advantage of current market demands.

In 2020 and 2021, both the federal and provincial governments provided funding to processing facilities through the Meat Processors Improvement Initiative Program and the Emergency Processing Fund. These programs focused on activities related to increasing processing capacity through infrastructure and equipment improvements, and facility improvements and health and safety improvements related to COVID-19. BFO continues to request the provincial Page 3 of 22

government provide funding opportunities that also include a labour and skills and development component, such as a wage subsidy for processors to hire and train meat-cutters and butchers.

Training opportunities are limited in Ontario. To BFO’s knowledge, current meat cutting/butchery programs or dedicated courses in Ontario include: •

• • •

Seaway Valley Meat Cutting Institute in Cornwall, which offers a pre-apprenticeship program for students or employees looking to gain “Retail Meat Cutter” apprenticeship hours; Professional Butchery Techniques program at Fanshawe College in London, which is a 30-week Ontario College Certificate program; Mohawk College offers a meat cutting training course specifically for women and; Food Processing Skills Canada offers an online industrial butcher course.

The province of Ontario recently established Skilled Trades Ontario. A new Crown agency which replaced the Ontario College of Trades. It is responsible for skilled trades certification in Ontario, this includes establishing new apprenticeship programs and associated training standards, curriculum standards and certification exams. The Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development has oversight of trades legislation and regulation, including prescribing/deprescribing trades, scopes of practice, and trade classifications.

Butchery is not listed as a skilled trade in Ontario. However, “Retail Meat Cutter” is currently listed as a trade in Ontario. Skilled Trades Ontario outlines the role of a Retail Meat Cutter as someone who prepares meat and poultry for the retail market by: demonstrating safe working practices and techniques; applying general work practices and merchandising; setting up and operating machinery; performing business practices / customer relations; and preparing beef, pork, lamb, veal and poultry cuts, and meat for sausage making. Retail Meat Cutter is classified as a non-compulsory trade, which means there is no requirement for someone to be certified as a Retail Meat Cutter to legally practice in Ontario. Skilled Trades Ontario also lists Process Operator – Food Manufacturing as a non-compulsory trade in Ontario, this would include meat processing plant workers.

22-04 ABATTOIR FUNDING OTTAWA MOVED BY: Dwight Foster

SECONDED BY: Joey Wilson

WHEREAS, the us government announced 1 billion to support the expansion of small to medium packing facilities THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO lobby our governments to support the same, to help our industry if there was more competition.

Page 4 of 22

BACKGROUND INFORMATION In November of 2021, the Government of Ontario invested $7 million in the Meat Processors Capacity Improvement Initiative. Eligible businesses could receive 60 percent cost-share funding, up to a maximum of $150,000 per business. Eligible projects must be completed with equipment delivered and claims submitted by March 1, 2022, with the equipment installed by June 30, 2022. This program added to the $4 million allocated through a similar program run in December of 2020.

Through the 2021 fall economic statement, the Ontario Government released a plan to invest $25 million in the Food Processing Sector over the next three years. More information will be made available on the structure of this program early this spring but what has been released is that it will be a 30/70 cost share split between government and business and that 40 percent of the funds will be earmarked for Northern and Eastern Ontario.

The demand through COVID-19 for abattoir services in Ontario has been significant. Increasing processing capacity in Ontario remains one of BFO's highest lobbying priorities, both federally and provincially.

22-05 COMPROMISED CATTLE GREY MOVED BY: Garry Smart

SECONDED BY: Diane Booker

WHEREAS, there are not enough processing facilities that will take compromised cattle in a timely manner.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO investigate or identify additional options for processing compromised cattle.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Emergency slaughter outside of processing plants in Ontario is allowed on-farm in certain circumstances. Those circumstances include escaped, injured or dangerous animals. Emergency Slaughter (ES) provisions in Ontario Regulation 31/05 (Meat) made under the Food Safety and Quality Act, 2001 allow for the ante mortem inspection, slaughter and bleeding of a food animal outside of a slaughter plant and the transport of the carcass to a licensed abattoir for dressing and post mortem inspection. If approved, the carcass can be processed into an inspected meat product. Meat from food animals slaughtered under the ES provisions is fully inspected and eligible to be sold, shared, donated, or distributed to the public.

All emergency slaughter must be approved by the Veterinary Scientist or a Regional Veterinarian. A food animal authorized for ES must still undergo an ante mortem inspection by Page 5 of 22

either an OMAFRA inspector or an appointed veterinarian, depending on the circumstances.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency permits are required by any person transporting a bovine carcass and by any meat plant receiving an ES bovine carcass.

There are currently twenty-one Provincially Licensed Abattoirs with CFIA Permits to Receive Emergency Slaughter Cattle. The CFIA permits are issued for over thirty-month (OTM) cattle, under thirty-month (UTM) cattle, or for both OTM and UTM. These permits are good for one year. CFIA Animal Health Inspectors may perform plant visits to permit holders. For plants to obtain a CFIA permit, a plant operator must fill out the CFIA permit application form, which is available from a CFIA district office or online (CFIA Permit Application Form), and submit it to the nearest CFIA district office. In order to receive ES cattle, a permit application must be submitted to the local CFIA district office for approval along with a Standard Operating Procedure for handling ES carcasses in your plant.

22-06 FEEDER FINANCE EAR NOTCHING BRUCE MOVED BY: Ken Schaus

SCONDED BY: Jarrett Johnson

WHEREAS, the Ontario Feeder Finance Co-ops require an identifying ear notch along with a numbered tag.

WHEREAS, the notching causes unneeded pain and suffering with this process.

WHEREAS, there is no inspection when moving and identifying cattle in Ontario.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the requirement for notching be dropped for the Ontario Feeder Finance Co-op for humanitarian and animal welfare reasons.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Ontario Feeder Cattle Loan Guarantee Program supports the operation of 15 feeder cattle co-operatives across the province. A requirement of the program is that cattle purchased by a member in the name of the co-operative are tagged and notched by the member and inspected by the co-operative supervisor.

In 1990 branding was the only acceptable identification of cattle in the Co-op program. In 1994, it was proposed to ear notch and do a tag unique to each Co-op. The arrow head notch currently used is made especially for our program, and can only be purchased by Feeder Coops. The notch cannot be cut out like a tag, and is a means of ensuring which cattle below to the Co-op.

Cattle Identification under the program is referenced in the OIC Part V, 2 (h) (ii) “identified in a reasonable manner in which both the Co-operative and the Lender has previously agreed Page 6 of 22

upon.” To date the only agreed method is the tagging and notching, and the very odd member does still brand.

There have been several discussions over the past year about utilizing the RFID tags as a means of identification to replace the need for notching. Lenders and Co-ops agree that not all members have the ability to read RFID tags, and Co-ops in turn would have to supply supervisors with scanners to read at a distance in order to perform inventory checks. This option maybe cost prohibitive for some Co-ops.

22-07 WILD PARSNIP LANARK MOVED BY: Gordan Patterson

SECONDED BY: Don Badour

WHEREAS, Wild Parsnip is designated as a noxious weed that is harmful to humans and livestock, and outcompetes native plant species; and WHEREAS, the Province and municipalities put in place protocols that supported spray and cutting programs along highways, Municipal roads, and ditches to reduce the effects of Wild Parsnip on landowners and the public at large; and WHEREAS, recently the Province and many municipalities have discontinued these programs and have resulted in a significant increase of the Wild Parsnip population in these areas, which have spread into farmland and private properties; and WHEREAS, appointed Weed Inspectors are not fully utilizing their authority under the Weed Control Act to facilitate the control of Wild Parsnip, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO lobby the Ontario Government, Regional Warden’s Councils, ROMA, and other groups to take a more proactive approach with their protocols to control wild parsnip and other noxious weeds on public lands, and along Provincial and Municipal roadsides and ditches, and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO encourage appointed weed inspectors to facilitate the control of Wild Parsnip and other noxious weeds along Provincial and Municipal roadways, and on private properties.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION In Ontario, wild parsnip is an invasive species and is classified as a noxious weed under Regulation 1096 of the Weed Control Act. It is a perennial weed commonly found in eastern and southern Ontario, and has been reported in all provinces and territories of Canada except Nunavut.

Impacts of wild parsnip include: the plant can form dense stands that outcompete native plants, reducing biodiversity; stem, leaves, and flowers contain chemicals that can increase skin Page 7 of 22

sensitivity to sunlight and cause severe dermatitis; wild parsnip reduces the quality and saleability of agricultural forage crops such as hay, oats, and alfalfa; and chemical compounds in the plant are known to reduce weight gain and fertility in livestock that eat it.

The Weed Control Act facilitates the control of noxious weeds on lands in close proximity to lands used for agricultural or horticultural purposes. Under the Act, landowners are responsible for destroying noxious weeds on their property, while municipalities have the responsibility of controlling it on publicly owned lands. The Act requires every upper tier and single tier municipality to appoint one or more people as weed inspectors, and allows the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to appoint a chief inspector and district weed inspectors.

Exceptions are given within the Act around requirements to destroy noxious weeds if they are far enough away from any land used for agricultural or horticultural purposes that do not interfere with the use of such land.

22-08 STANDARDIZED ENFORCEMENT PROCESS AT AUCTION FACILITIES GREY MOVED BY: Garry Smart

SECONDED BY: Dean Cober

WHEREAS, beef producers have concerns about the lack of fair and consistent criteria being used for inspecting general and physical condition of cattle at auction barns THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO work with government agencies to determine or develop a consistent or standardized enforcement process for inspections of cattle at auction facilities.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has the mandate to mitigate risks to food safety and protect the health and safety of Canadians by following several regulations including Safe Food for Canadians Regulations and Health of Animals Regulations (Part XII: Humane Transportation) in an effort to provide a mix of outcome and prescriptive-based approaches. The regulations, in many cases, specify the outcome that regulated parties must meet without prescribing the way it should be achieved. According to the CFIA, prescriptive requirements are used for situations that have a greater risk factor, such as animal slaughter.

Inspectors will use a combination of onsite inspection and evaluation techniques for assessing compliance and determining the impact of non-compliance.

CFIA inspectors follow the Standard Inspection Procedure (SIP). This procedure applies a consistent method of inspection. Verification activities can include making visual observations, evaluating documentation, interviewing personnel, sampling, measuring, testing, and Page 8 of 22

commodity inspection. The SIP provides inspectors with the flexibility to adapt to different situations that may arise during an inspection. In addition to the SIP, there are also procedure documents in place to cover standard permissions and standard regulatory responses CFIA has created comprehensive guidance documents for inspectors, which may be publicly accessed online. Specifically, Operations Guidance provides information on how inspectors perform their inspection activities and must be used in conjunction with Industry Guidance that provides information on how industry can comply with the regulations.

Inspections at auction facilities are done by staff receiving animals, veterinarians contracted by the facility and by CFIA and OMAFRA appointed inspectors. CFIA inspectors will consult with the on-site veterinarian but it is the CFIA inspectors that makes the final decision whether an animal is safe to transport.

BFO works closely with the other livestock organizations, and Meat and Poultry Ontario on issues involving meat and livestock inspection. BFO is also a part of an Ontario-based working group with OMAFRA and CFIA meat and livestock inspection enforcement staff that meets to discuss and raise issues regarding inspection processes and inspector consistency.

22-09 GOVERNMENT INSPECTOR PROCESS SIMCOE MOVED BY: Jamie Sedore

SECONDED BY: Doug Shelswell

WHEREAS, It has been brought to the attention of SCBF members that there have been producers who are having difficulty navigating the inspection processes and in dealing with what was referred to as "over-zealous inspectors"; WHEREAS, the inconsistency that seems to be present in dealing with different inspectors in different locations. Discussion resulted in the following Resolution being put forth.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO designate an advocate to help beef producers navigate the government inspection process and how to best deal with provincial and federal inspectors and regulations.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION OMAFRA has a Complaint Resolution Process for Meat Plant Operators already in place for their meat inspectors as outlined in the Food Safety and Quality Act, 2001, and regulations. An operator may request a hearing regarding any regulatory issue. The complaint process is on the OMAFRA website in scenarios where concerns are directly the result of an inspector's approach or that the individual does not understand why the inspector has asked for specific changes to be made. The first step is to contact the Area Manager, and if the result is unsatisfactory, the Page 9 of 22

next step would be to reach out to the Regional Manager in writing. All contacts are on the OMAFRA website.

CFIA has a very similar system that is in place for people to follow in the case of a grievance due to a CFIA inspector's approach or decision. CFIA's policy is to raise concerns to the CFIA employee in which the grievance is with, or their manager. Then if the producer is not satisfied, they can file a formal complaint through the CFIA website. Complaints should be filed within 12 months of the incident/decision.

BFO works closely with the other livestock organizations, and Meat and Poultry Ontario on issues involving meat and livestock inspection. BFO is also a part of an Ontario-based working group with OMAFRA and CFIA meat and livestock inspection enforcement staff that meets to discuss and raise issues regarding inspection processes and inspector consistency.

22-10 NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ACT LAMBTON MOVED BY: Chad Anderson

SECONDED BY: Joe Dickenson

WHEREAS, the construction of a new manure storage and facilities to house livestock for operations greater than 5 nutrient units requires the provincial approval of a Nutrient Management Strategy under the Nutrient Management Act. WHEREAS, livestock operations in Ontario are diverse in size and complexity of operations.

WHEREAS, some smaller livestock construction projects have little regulatory restrictions in regards to such things as engineering, runoff control, and land application standards.

WHEREAS, the cost for an approved strategy done by a certified nutrient management developer is usually the same regardless of the size and complexity of a livestock operation which can be particularly burdensome for smaller operations which don’t have the economies of scale to account for this cost THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO work with other Ontario livestock organizations and OMAFRA to develop possible amendments to the Nutrient Management Act that would simplify and streamline the approval process that identifies lower environmental risk production units to reduce the cost for smaller livestock operations.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Ontario’s Nutrient Management Act (NMA) requires any building project relating to livestock housing or manure storage facility to have an approved Nutrient Management Strategy (NMS) before a building permit will be issued. This applies to all farms that generate more than five nutrient units and less than 300 nutrient units, and are proposing to build, expand or renovate manure storage or buildings housing animals.

Page 10 of 22

Specifically, OMAFRA approval of a NMS is required to obtain a building permit associated with manure storage or animal housing construction; prior to beginning construction or expansion of a manure lagoon; for farms located within 100m of a municipal well; for farms receiving offfarm material for treatment through an anaerobic digester; and when a change in ownership or control of a farm operation with a previously approved NMS adversely affects the capacity to implement the existing NMS. A NMS takes into account: types and numbers of livestock; type of housing and manure management; manure volumes produced; manure storage requirements; management of runoff; available land and/or agreements to utilize the manure; location of sensitive features (wells, wetlands, surface water and inlets, floodplains) on the farm unit in relation to livestock housing and manure storages; and location of nearest municipal well.

Once a Nutrient Management Strategy (NMS) is prepared, the document is submitted to OMAFRA for approval. A legal document called a Record of Approval is issued when approved.

The Record of Approval is required by building officials as one of the requirements for obtaining a building permit.

Section 18 of the NMA outlined the provisions related to short-form strategy. This section applied to agricultural operations that required a NMS or Nutrient Management Plan (NMP), but generated less than 150 nutrient units and only applied solid manure. For operations that fit the criteria for a short-form strategy, they could complete the short-form checklist instead of completing the full NMS or NMP. This section of the NMA was not implemented and revoked in 2019.

22-11 DEADSTOCK SERVICE DISRUPTION DURHAM MOVED BY: Arthur Schickedanz

SECONDED BY: Stan Found

WHEREAS, Independent dead stock removal companies are disappearing from the business for various reasons; and WHEREAS, dead stock by their very nature are a serious bio-security issue both on the farm and during transportation; and WHEREAS, in the wrong context publicly, dead stock could become a serious public relations issue; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BEEF FARMERS OF ONTARIO CONSIDER: Aggressively pursuing, along with other affected sectors and any University or Government Ministry necessary, a viable logistical and financial solution to this issue.

Page 11 of 22

BACKGROUND INFORMATION In early August 2021, it was brought to the attention of Ontario’s livestock organizations that a number of our members were being impacted by a loss of deadstock collection services across a number of regions in the province. The reduction in critical services is a result of a couple of licensed deadstock operators who have reduced their service area radius or have eliminated services altogether.

On November 19, 2021, the Increasing Deadstock Capacity Initiative was announced under the Canadian Agricultural Partnership to support livestock producers, waste management facilities, municipalities and other agri-businesses such as livestock auction barns, assembly yards, deadstock transporters, collectors, renderers, and veterinary clinics in increasing capacity for deadstock management. To reflect demand, the initial budget of $700,000 was increased to $1.5 million. While this initiative (50% cost-share rate, up to a maximum of $25,000 per applicant) is a step in the right direction, more needs to be done to ensure producers have access to resources and services to handle the disposal or collection of deadstock quickly and efficiently. BFO continues to lobby government for funding and to explore landfill/transfer station-based solutions including the possibility of a centralized drop off site or a centralized composting site that affected producers would be able to utilize.

22-12 DEADSTOCK END PRODUCT USE Norfolk MOVED BY: Percy McNabb

SECONDED BY: Anissa Krakar

WHEREAS, deadstock removal and usage has become less available and whereas when it is available it is more costly, WHEREAS, there seems to be limited market for the stock removed and whereas if there were profitable markets for this product it would become an industry which would attract more to take care of the deadstock removal THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BFO work with industry and, academia to develop profitable products that could be sold (e.g., fertilizers) to strengthen the deadstock/rendering sector.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION When the Dead Animal Disposal Act (DADA) was enacted in 1968, the deadstock disposal industry was dependent on the salvage and rendering of deadstock into secondary materials.

Deadstock and meat plant materials were transformed at rendering plants into fats and protein, both of which were traditionally used in animal feeds and other industrial by-products.

Deadstock collectors and renderers marketed these materials in Canada and abroad. The discovery of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE or Mad Cow Disease) has had a drastic impact on cattle farmers, deadstock collectors and renderers as the traditional markets for Page 12 of 22

cattle by-products were lost. Meat and bone meal became waste management issue for the industry, leading to additional costs of doing business in the livestock sector. Also, the nature and scale of livestock management in Ontario had changed, and additional environmental standards for on-farm management of deadstock were required.

In early August 2021, it was brought to the attention of Ontario’s livestock organizations that a number of our members were being impacted by a loss of deadstock collection services across a number of regions in the province. The reduction in critical services is a result of a couple of licensed deadstock operators who have reduced their service area radius or have eliminated services altogether.

On November 19, 2021, the Increasing Deadstock Capacity Initiative was announced under the Canadian Agricultural Partnership to support livestock producers, waste management facilities, municipalities and other agri-businesses such as livestock auction barns, assembly yards, deadstock transporters, collectors, renderers, and veterinary clinics in increasing capacity for deadstock management. To reflect demand, the initial budget of $700,000 was increased to $1.5 million. While this initiative (50% cost-share rate, up to a maximum of $25,000 per applicant) is a step in the right direction, more needs to be done to ensure producers have access to resources and services to handle the disposal or collection of deadstock quickly and efficiently.

22-13 TRANSPARENCY AND HONESTY IN BEEF LABELLING AND MARKETING CLAIMS BRUCE MOVD BY: Ken Schaus

SECONDED BY: Steve Eby

WHEREAS, commodity beef requires no added claims and is sold as presented to the consumer.

WHEREAS, beef has become labelled with many names such as grass-fed, organic, hormone free, humanely raised and more.

WHEREAS, if beef has added claims, it should be transparent and honestly presented at purchase.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BEEF FARMERS OF ONTARIO lobby the government to put in place an audit process for label and marketing claims made on beef sold in Ontario.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION All beef products in Ontario must meet federal labeling requirements. Any labeling claims on these products must not be perceived as false, misleading or deceptive. Enforcement is currently complaint-based.

Page 13 of 22

Although some marketing claims used in beef production do not have any associated government or industry standard or definition companies must be able to substantiate any claims they make. Acceptable ways to substantiate claims are third-party audits, valid documentation, and/or non-government certification programs. Upon request, all documents around production claims must be made available to a CFIA inspector. This also applies to any other claims that the provincial or federal government does not regulate.

22-14 MEAT RESOURCES FOR RETAILERS ELGIN MOVED BY: Grant McMillian

SECONDED BY: Dave McKillop

WHEREAS, the beef industry is becoming more complex for consumers to navigate possible misleading or contradictory advertising (i.e., grass fed, grass finished, forage fed, grain fed, grain finished, corn fed).

Further, consumers are relying heavily on a limited understanding of these feeding methods rather than understanding all beef is produced sustainability with benefits for all.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BEEF FARMERS OF ONTARIO CONSIDER an educational non-biased pamphlet and/or hard copy poster or digital graphic that butcher shops, freezer beef retailers, farm fresh/farm gate stores owners/suppliers, restaurants/chefs, can hand out to consumers to educate them on what Ontario cattle eat (e.g. grass, alfalfa, silage, haylage, corn, ration mix, distillers grains etc.) not only so that consumers better understand, but also so the consumers can more easily repeat the information and promote the consumption of Ontario beef.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION BFO, through the Ontario Market Development Program, assists companies by developing and distributing point-of-sale materials featuring an Ontario Beef brand logo in retail stores to help promote Ontario beef to consumers. There are additional BFO resources available on the Ontario Beef website, and in print form, that address topics such as "What Beef Cattle Eat," "Antibiotic and Hormone Use," and "Animal Welfare." BFO’s Consumer Engagement Program also has a mandate to create, distribute, and/or promote marketing materials that help educate consumers about beef and beef production.

The Canada Beef website also has various infographic materials and fact sheets covering a wide range of topics such as "Understanding Grass-fed and Grain Fed" and "Understanding the Difference in Organic and Other Beef" that can be utilized at point of sale or through broader consumer/producer engagement efforts.

Page 14 of 22

22-15 PLANT-BASED PROTEIN COMPANIES USING MEAT AND BEEF TERMINOLOGY ON PACKAGING AND IN ADVERTISING GRENVILLE MOVED BY: A. Brown

SECONDED BY: G. French

WHEREAS, plant-based protein companies are making an extraordinary effort to displace the market share of beef and brainwash consumers into believing that livestock are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

WHEREAS, plant-based protein companies are using meat and beef terminology such as "burger", "beef", "roast", steak" and "patty" and meat grading scales, labeling their products as AAA-grade in an effort to make consumers believe their products are similar to 100% meat products.

WHEREAS, plant-based protein companies are utilizing loopholes in food labeling legislation to market their products and potentially confused consumers at a retail level.

WHEREAS, plant-based protein has been allowed to be placed in meat counters and meat departments of grocery stores, thus creating further confusion for retail level consumers.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO work alongside CCA, OFA, Christian Farmers of Ontario, National Farmers Union, Ontario Pork and Chicken Farmers of Ontario to put pressure on the CFIA to create clear legislation that will separate meat and beef terminology from that of plant-based protein in order to preserve the Ontario Meat Market and protect retail level consumers from misguided information.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO and the CCA continue to study and release up to date data on the low impact that raising livestock has on greenhouse gas emissions and negative climate change effects in order to educate the public on the important role that livestock plays in the world.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO and the Ontario Government work with the CFIA in order to mandate that animal carcass and meat grading scales be used for meat only, will help create clear lines between what real meat offers versus what plant-based protein is claiming to offer.

Background Information: Various processed plant-based protein products are being produced to mimic meat products such as ground beef, burgers, nuggets and sausage. Common labeling claims include "Beyond Burger – plant-based patties", "Beyond Beef – plant-based ground", "plant-based smart dogs", "vegetable/plant-based burger", "plant-based meatballs", and "meatless meatballs". Such products are available in major Ontario grocery chains and can also be purchased at participating restaurants such as A&W, Subway, McDonald's, and Freshii. Processed plantbased protein brands found in Ontario include, but are not limited to, Beyond Meat, Lightlife, Sol Cuisine, Field Roast and Very Good Butcher.

Page 15 of 22

The CFIA regulates false, misleading and deceptive labeling in regards to "any expression, word, figure, depiction or symbol that may reasonably be considered to imply that a consumer prepackaged food contains any matter that it does not in fact contain or that it does not contain any matter that it does in fact contain". Enforcement is typically complaint-based.

According to the CFIA, a meat product is defined as "the carcass of a food animal, the blood of a food animal, or a product or by-product of its carcass". CFIA does not regulate the term "burger", but it refers to the serving of food in a round and flat shape, typically on a bun, and has various synonyms including patty, hamburger and sandwich.

BFO and CCA along with various other meat organizations took part in a consultation in late 2020 regarding the new guidelines for Simulated Meat and Simulated Poultry products and due to the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a delay in implementation of those regulations.

However, CFIA did release a "What We Heard" Report from the consultation. Recently, CCA and other national animal protein organizations outlined via a letter to the President of CFIA that reliable 3rd party research data shows that certain traditional animal protein words used by planted based protein products leads to higher instantizes of consumer confusion.

22-16 PAWS INSPECTOR TRAINING NORTHUMBERLAND MOVED BY: Dave DeNure

SECONDED BY: Kirby Hakkesteegt

WHEREAS, PAWS failed in its inaugural case handling livestock on a farm in Peterborough County through gross ignorance of the proper handling of livestock, which led to at least one animal injured and euthanized and one man hospitalized.

WHEREAS, PAWS feed and yardage cost structure is far greater than the Ontario standard for livestock.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BEEF FARMERS OF ONTARIO Engage government to ensure PAWS staff are trained and certified in the general knowledge of livestock and the safe handling and transportation of livestock and government ensure all costs associated with moving and impounding of livestock are within Ontario standards.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 (PAWS Act) came into effect on January 1, 2020, and replaced the Ontario Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1990 (OSPCA Act). The PAWS Act implements a provincially-funded animal welfare enforcement model, designed to protect animals from abuse and neglect across the province.

Page 16 of 22

After reviewing the PAWS Act and prior to it coming into effect, there were several areas in the act that BFO submitted comments on which included that there be a definition of farm animals and that training of inspectors include specific training on agricultural operations and species to be developed and conducted in collaboration with industry.

After receiving a report of an animal in distress, being abused or neglected, a provincial inspector may investigate on-site or involve other authorities as needed. To ensure animals remain protected, provincial inspectors work, as appropriate, with local police, veterinarians, livestock stakeholders and/or local humane societies. Provincial inspectors follow a standard code of conduct and if they visit on-site, they will introduce themselves, explain why they are attending on-site, such as for an inspection or for an investigation and follow a standard code of conduct. Provincial animal welfare inspectors are directly accountable to the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, who is accountable to the Solicitor General. A complaint form can be completed should there be concerns about an inspector’s conduct.

Prior to the enactment of the PAWS Act under the Solicitor General’s Office, BFO and groups like Farm and Food Care Ontario would conduct regular training and information sharing sessions with OSPCA inspectors regarding beef and livestock care, husbandry, etc., many of these inspectors transferred over to PAWS inspection when the new Act came into force. BFO is not privy to the training the new PAWS inspectors receive. BFO has offered our services to train inspectors around current beef management practices utilizing The Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Beef Cattle and would like to see the training of inspectors enhanced going forward.

22-17 COMMUNICATION WITH LOCAL BOARDS REGARDING PAWS INVESTIGATIONS PETERBOROUGH MOVED BY: Mike Fallis

SECONDED BY: John Lunn

WHEREAS, A recent case in a county involving animal welfare, BFO Animal Advisory Council neglected to carry out due diligence by communicating to the county membership that there was an issue before officers of PAWS enforced their actions on the producer, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO Animal Advisory Council’s responsibilities be reviewed and revised so that it has direct communication with county board members especially the President and the Advisory Councillor in all livestock welfare cases before the involvement of PAWS. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 (PAWS Act) came into effect on January 1, 2020, and replaced the Ontario Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1990 (OSPCA Page 17 of 22

Act). The PAWS Act implements a provincially-funded animal welfare enforcement model, designed to protect animals from abuse and neglect across the province.

After receiving a report of an animal in distress, being abused or neglected, a provincial inspector may investigate on-site or involve other authorities as needed. To ensure animals remain protected, provincial inspectors will work, as appropriate, with local police, veterinarians, livestock stakeholders and/or local humane societies. Should a provincial inspector reach out to BFO to attend with them on-site regarding a complaint, BFO will assign an Animal Care Advisor (ACA) to assist in their investigation. ACAs are spread out across the province and sign a Confidentiality Agreement to ensure they do not disclose confidential information or make it known under any circumstance, except with the prior written permission of an authorized representative of PAWS. The Confidentiality Agreement also serves to protect the producer to ensure no one else is made aware that there was a complaint made against them.

22-18 REVIEW OF PAWS ACT PETERBOROUGH MOVED BY: Mike Fallis

SECONDED BY: Karen Paszternak

WHEREAS, the first time that the PAWS act was put into use only negative results have been had thus far, and WHEREAS, the communication with a producer in question should have started with a board appointed peer assistance group and not with a PAWS officer, and WHEREAS, Suggestions from the group may eliminate the need for enforcement if a logical solution is reached, saving money and unnecessary use of resources at an expense to the producer, and WHEREAS, The PAWS act was not written with livestock producers in mind but appears mainly to refer to domesticated house pets, and WHEREAS, the costs of a seizure needs to have fair costs attached as those expenses are the responsibility of the producer to pay, WHEREAS, that during such seizure, that the appropriate staff and the type of equipment be used for the livestock being handled for the safety of the livestock and the staff.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO unite with other livestock commodity groups to review the PAWS act for incidents where livestock is involved during enforcement.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 (PAWS Act) came into effect on January 1, 2020, and replaced the Ontario Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1990 (OSPCA Page 18 of 22

Act). The PAWS Act implements a provincially-funded animal welfare enforcement model, designed to protect animals from abuse and neglect across the province.

Provincial agriculture, livestock and poultry organizations worked with the government to develop the new animal protection model. Agricultural and government representatives collaborated together to create the PAWS Act, to keep farmers and our entire industry accountable and responsible for the care and protection of animals in Ontario.

After reviewing the PAWS Act and prior to it coming into effect, there were several areas in the act that BFO submitted comments on which included that there be a definition of farm animals, that training of inspectors include specific training on agricultural operations and species to be developed and conducted in collaboration with industry, that there be a requirement for statements of accounts to be itemized and reasonable, that the National Farm Animal Care Council’s Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Beef Cattle be referenced in Ontario’s legislation and/or regulation and that there be a review of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act within the first five years after it comes into force to ensure that it is operating appropriately.

Recently, BFO began discussions with the OFA and Minister Thompson’s office regarding the need to review the PAWS Act and processes surrounding livestock inspections, enforcement actions, and removals/seizures.

22-19 VET APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM NORFOLK MOVED BY: Percy McNabb

SECONDED BY: Larry Chanda

WHEREAS, large animal veterinarians are increasingly difficult to get, WHEREAS, the vet relationship is vital, whereas the cost and such associated with becoming a vet is high, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO work with CCA and accredited Vet colleges to develop an apprenticeship type program for students interested in becoming large animal vets.

Background Information Access to large animal veterinarians in Ontario is a critically important issue for livestock agriculture and for the welfare of livestock. Issues accessing a large animal veterinarian is a longstanding issue in various parts of Ontario, primarily in northern Ontario as well as in parts of eastern and southwestern Ontario. It has been driven by a variety of factors, including more Page 19 of 22

students choosing to study and work with small animals, issues with recruiting and retaining veterinarians to work in rural and remote areas, etc.

The Ontario Veterinary College (OVC) admits a class of 120 students to its four-year DVM program each year with almost the same amount reaching graduation. Based on OVC survey results of veterinarians who graduated from OVC between 2013-2019 and went to work in a private veterinary practice, approximately 24% were working at a food animal or mixed animal practice.

In the third year of the program, students select a stream from four options, which comes into effect in their fourth year: small animal, equine, food animal, and rural community practice. All students are required to do an externship in a mixed animal veterinary practice in the summer between third and fourth year. Students aiming to work with beef cattle have the opportunity to take part in the Beef Rotation program, which is a two-week program where students spend one week visiting various beef operations in Ontario and one week in Alberta at feedlot operations. Students can also find their own placements at veterinary clinics during the summer.

BFO recently dedicated funds for two OVC scholarships, specifically to support veterinary students interested in working with beef cattle: •

•

$4,000 entrance scholarship for an OVC DVM student with work and/or volunteer experience with beef cattle and who have selected food animal practice as their career goal in the OVC entrance survey. $5,000 graduation scholarship for an OVC DVM student who have successfully completed Phase 4 of the DVM program in the Food Animal or the Rural Community Practice stream, who have completed the beef rotation with OVC, or equivalent external rotation, and who have interest in, and involvement with, beef cattle are eligible.

In addition to the new BFO scholarships, BFO and OVC are exploring further outreach and mentorship opportunities for OVC students interested in working with beef cattle.

22-20 TRANSFER OF CARE DOCUMENTATION OTTAWA MOVED BY: Colleen Acres

SECONDED BY: Joey Wilson

WHEREAS, The livestock manifest being signed off at local auctions and abattoirs. Many abattoirs are not familiar with and do not have a dedicated person to sign or place to safely leave these documents when unloading animals. We can't afford to lose move provincial plants and the record keeping is becoming increasingly onerous.

Page 20 of 22

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO work with CFIA, meat and Poultry Ont. and producers to provide information and assist in setting up a workable system to obtain signatures and leave copies of these documents or find a work around to eliminate the need to bother employees who are busy on the kill floor when animals are being unloaded at abattoirs.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION The amended humane transport regulations came into force February 20, 2020, and introduced a balance of prescriptive and outcome-based requirements that emphasize and improve the health and wellbeing of the animals during the entire transportation process, including a requirement that they arrive at their destination suitably hydrated, fed and rested.

Part of the updated regulations includes a new transfer of care requirement designed to fill in the gaps when it comes to who has responsibility of the livestock being transported.

A transfer of care document It is the responsibility of regulated parties (industry) to ensure they follow the transfer of care requirements. The provision of the transfer of care notice and document may be done electronically as it does not require the consignee to be present. While it is best practice for the consignee to be present, the regulation was written this way to offer flexibility in situations such as these. However, there should always be someone responsible for the care of the animals, and this is the intent of this requirement.

22-21 BEEF CATTLE MARKETING ACT - EMAIL COLLECTION LEEDS MOVED BY: Kim Sytsma

SCONDED BY: Blair McDonald

WHEREAS, more and more information is being disseminated via email, WHEREAS, mailing county newsletters via Canada Post has become cost prohibitive and emailing

is fast and cheap, WHEREAS, although BFO has many producers email addresses, the addresses are not files under county lists, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BEEF FARMERS OF ONTARIO CONSIDER When BFO next opens the Beef Cattle Marketing Act, BFO asks that Email addresses be included in the information collected by Sales barns, Abattoir and Cattle Dealers on behalf of BFO. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The BFO membership list is intended to include all individuals who have paid a license fee (check-off) in the previous 24 months or who have paid a BFO membership fee, if applicable.

Page 21 of 22

In the vast majority of cattle transactions, it is the responsibility of the buyer to deduct the check-off from the proceeds payable to the cattle seller. As outlined in the Beef Cattle Marketing Act, firms which deduct check-off are required to remit the fees to BFO, as well as a statement showing the person’s full name, address, postal code and telephone number by the 15th day of the following month. For sales by private treaty, the seller must remit the check-off accruing from transaction directly to BFO by the 15th day of the following month with a statement showing their name and complete address, and the number of head sold.

BFO staff receive membership information in multiple forms (electronic and hard copy) and from multiple sources (auction markets, packing plants, licensed dealers and producers).

Information is submitted to varying levels of completeness, accuracy, and legibility, with similar but not identical submissions often failing to indicate whether discrepancies are the result of names being shared generationally rather than being the products of mistakes or omissions.

Other than sales by private treaty, producer information is submitted by third parties to whom producers have sold cattle, and are not verified as accurate by the producers to whom they refer.

Membership lists for other organizations are not compiled based on the criterion of having paid a license fee in the previous 24 months or paid a BFO membership fee, and are therefore not applicable to the BFO membership list.

Due to the inconsistent quality of the data submitted, BFO allocates significant staff time to compiling these submissions into a single database, and seeks clarification from county/district associations regarding the accuracy of membership information on a yearly basis.

Page 22 of 22