Prince Edward Island farmers are feeling more than a little defensive these days. The agricultural community feels it’s under siege - battered by weather, climate change, trade deals and now the court system.
Dairy farmers just saw another 3.6 per cent of their protected market opened up to U.S. producers. And our chicken and egg farmers also lost out in this new deal to replace NAFTA.
Weather has impacted farmers throughout the year. A cold, wet spring delayed planting, a summer drought reduced yields and a rainy fall delayed the harvest. Thousands of acres of potatoes are still in the ground.
And now the courts seem determined to make an example of a Brookfield farmer convicted of not exercising due diligence – resulting in a fish kill. The case has dragged through the system in three different courtrooms for more than four years.
So, it should come as no surprise that farmers feel they must take a public stand. Last month, more than 100 dairy farmers showed up to give federal agriculture minister Lawrence MacAulay a surprisingly stern message in Pooles Corner.
This week, more than 40 farmers arrived at the provincial courthouse in Charlottetown for the sentencing hearing of the Brookfield vegetable grower. It was an impressive show of support for Eddie Dykerman who had argued that no conservation measure could have stopped the run-off after three to four inches of rain fell in a sudden cloudburst.
After a not guilty verdict in 2015, the federal Crown prosecutor appealed and the case was sent back to another provincial court judge. The Crown is seeking an oppressive fine of $175,00 to $200,000, while the defence argues for $5,000.
Some might argue that the 40 farmers were there in an attempt to influence the judge and Crown. But as speaker after speaker noted, they were there to support a fellow farmer whom they feel is a persecuted victim. Farmers feel it’s time to take a stand, and if there is a problem with current laws and regulations, all sides should come together and address the issue.
The P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture says Brookfield Gardens was convicted because farmers “need to guarantee no harm will ever come to the environment” – an impossibility. It is unrealistic and unfair.
The first judge found that Brookfield Gardens took reasonable precautions to prevent run-off getting into the river. The second judge found the company failed to follow regulations or use due diligence. With such mixed signals from the bench, how can the federal Crown argue that Brookfield Gardens had a very high degree of culpability in this case?
Brookfield Gardens has a good reputation for environmental stewardship, including receiving an award for it in 2012. Is it fair to suggest the company showed reckless disregard for the environment? There is nothing wrong with the government or the courts taking action on fish kills when there is blatant disregard for regulations or obvious lack of due diligence.
The federation wants the public and government to see that farmers aren’t criminals. It is proposing a task force involving the industry and the federal and provincial governments to look at how to protect both the land and environment, and farming and farmers. It is a reasonable request -- perhaps the only good thing to come out of this Brookfield Gardens case.
We live in an agricultural province where the family farm is under siege. What farmers don't need are unwarranted prosecutions and what taxpayers don’t want is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a questionable four-year court battle over the unfortunate demise of 1,100 fish.
