More than two years after Ontario Farmer asked under
Freedom of Information legislation, documents have finally been released
showing how the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission dealt with
allegations of widespread cheating in the egg industry.
The commission finally hired an investigator, but limited
his investigation to governance issues at the Egg Farmers of Ontario marketing
board.
That falls far short of what whistleblower Norman Bourdeau
outlined in a long and detailed list of allegations filed with the commission
in April, 2012.
It also falls far short of the public inquiry requested by
lawyer Donald Good on Jan. 5, 2011, acting on behalf of Verified Eggs Canada Inc.
which is owned by Svante Lind of Blackstock.
The commission responded, asking Good to provide evidence.
Good declined, saying it would be improper to provide evidence before a public
inquiry takes place in a setting where what’s said can be challenged by lawyers.
He also notes that the commission acted improperly by
consulting the egg board prior to any public inquiry, alleges that it appears that commission staff
even helped the egg board to craft its reaction to the complaints and notes
that the commission failed to let him know that it had rejected Lind’s request
for an inquiry.
“It was only through Freedom of Information that this prior
decision came to light,” Good wrote more than three years ago.
Good also noted that “the major impediment raised by the
commission appears to be the court proceedings in Toronto (where Lind filed a
lawsuit against the egg board, Burnbrae Farms Ltd. and L.H. Gray and Son Ltd.
The two companies grade 88 per cent of the eggs produced in Ontario.
“At the present time, there are no court proceedings between
Verified Eggs Canada Inc. and Egg Farmers of Ontario,” Good responded, so that excuse doesn't hold water.
And “Bourdeau is not a party to the Toronto proceedings,” he
added, knocking out another commission excuse.
The court “proceedings are not a bar to the commission
exercising its authority and obligations under Section 3 of the Farm Products
Marketing Act with respect to its oversight authority of the Egg Farmers of
Ontario,” Good wrote.
He adds that the court has no oversight authority over the
egg marketing board. That is the responsibility of the commission.
Good also complains that the egg board, through then-chair
Carolynne Griffiths, attacked the character of Bourdeau.
“I understand that section 425 of the Criminal Code provides
protection for whistleblowers in Canada,” Good responds, yet the egg board “is
asking the commission to make a negative inference on Mrs. Bourdeau’s character
based on unsubstantiated opinion.”
Good also notes that the commission chairman, Geri Kamenz,
wrote that issues related to egg grading fall under the jurisdiction of the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency and that’s where allegations of cheating on egg
grading should be taken.
Good responds that the commission has “specific and
exclusive jurisdiction” over the egg marketing board, so “there can be no interference
with other authorities (such as the food inspection agency) in the exercise of
their respective but different jurisdictions.”
Bourdea’s detailed allegations include claims that L.H. Gray
and Sons Ltd. cheated the egg board, farmers and the egg-buying public. Gray
has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing.
Among Bourdeau’s specific allegations are:
·
- Gray set automatic grading equipment to
include five to seven per cent of unqualified eggs into Grade A retail-ready
cartons. Some were cracks, some were dirty and some the wrong size.
·
The percentage of Ontario eggs graded A is
consistently higher than in other provinces.
·
The egg board has not collected grading summary
reports from Gray, so is unable to calculate the percentage that are Graded A.
Nor are farmers provided copies of the grading summary reports.
- The egg board
has failed to require Gray to provide farmers with printouts of the actual
grading for their eggs. If farmers had both sets of information, they could
discover whether Gray is cheating. So could the egg board.
·
Egg producers are intentionally over-paid for
bad eggs, the egg board is collecting levies on these bad eggs and the public
is cheated. He calculated the over-payment to Gray’s producers at a minimum of
$1,773,250 for 2010.
·
Gray could be manipulating grading to move large eggs into the lower-priced medium category, thereby making up for any
over-payments to farmers and the egg board.
·
Gray cheated the salmonella enteriditis fund by
claiming birds were pullets when they were actually 60 weeks old and
nearing the end of their lifetime in the barn. The compensation fund pays
according to the number of weeks remaining in the normal egg-laying life of the
birds.
·
Gray cheats on the eggs-for-processing business
by picking and choosing which producers will be enrolled, picks old-age flocks
with a higher percentage of poor-quality eggs yet charges the egg board as if
the eggs were average quality, mixes in returns from stores “and other
under-grade eggs” and often includes Grade B eggs.
·
“The grading summaries for these eggs are always
manipulated,” alleges Bourdeau, and further distorts the percentage of
undergrades Gray reports to the egg board for its Nest Run program.
·
Gray finds it easy to cheat on the Nest Run
program because the eggs go to its own egg-processing plants.
·
There are so many bad eggs mixed in that the
yields at the processing plants are relatively low, so Gray asks for more
(lower priced) industrial eggs and that is “further cheating (of) the system.”
Bourdeau was Gray’s information technology officer and, as such, had access
to all of the company’s electronic records.
He has made a copy of Gray’s
hard-drive data. It is currently under court protection, held by a Kitchener
lawyer, pending the outcome of legal wrangling between Good and Alison Webster,
lawyer for Gray.
She has consistently tried to
block the release of any information about Gray and to keep the electronic
records from being used to determine the accuracy of allegations Lind and his
Best Choice Eggs Ltd. have made against the egg board, Burnbrae Farms Ltd. and
Gray.
In those allegations, Good claims Burnbrae also cheated just as Gray did. Owner Joe Hudson is on court record claiming the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has a tolerance of five to seven per cent for undergrades. There is no regulation or information from the CFIA to back that claim. The CFIA regulation has zero tolerance for under grades at the egg-grading station.
There is currently an appeal by
Good against a court decision earlier this year to remove Burnbrae from the
lawsuit.
