“While we regret producers didn’t get 100 per cent (of what they were owed) we worked diligently to maximize the amount they were paid for their deliveries,” Remi Gosselin, the CGC’s head of communications and corporate information services said in an interview Wednesday.

While most of the money comes from security W.A. Grain posted to cover farmer liabilities as required under the Canada Grain Act, some came through CGC efforts during the bankruptcy process.

Why it matters: While the Canadian Grain Commission tries to ensure grain companies post enough security to cover what they owe farmers for grain, sometimes, as in this case, it falls short. That’s why the CGC urges farmers to get paid upon delivery and cash their cheques immediately.

The CGC suspended W.A. Grain’s grain dealer licence and five primary elevator licences on April 20 last year; the company entered receivership April 26. Court orders were granted Sept. 23 approving the sales of the company’s five sites in Western Canada to three separate buyers.

The CGC determined 126 farmers owed money for grain delivered to W.A. Grain were eligible for a share of funds secured by the commission.

To qualify, farmers needed official receipts documenting deliveries, which had to have occurred within 90 days of delivery or 30 days of getting a cheque.

Of the $5.6 million in compensation, $4 million — representing about 71 per cent of the total — came through security W.A. Grain posted with the CGC, as is required under the Canada Grain Act, Gosselin said.

Just under $200,000 — 3.6 per cent of the total — came through the bankruptcy process.
The rest — $1.4 million — 25 per cent of the total — came from revenues earned when the receiver in bankruptcy sold W.A. Grain’s grain inventory.

“The Canadian Grain Commission had to intervene before the courts,” Gosselin said. “We used the Canada Grain Act to maximize compensation for all eligible producers. Under a distribution plan that was approved by the Court of Queen’s Bench eligible claimants were able to receive funds from three different pools of money.

“The CGC has always held that grain in inventory that was not paid for still belonged to producers. What happened in previous situations is that receivers would basically come in and liquidate all assets and then provide the money to secured creditors,” which didn’t include farmers who hadn’t been paid, he said.

The commission he said, has “successfully over the past few years argued before receivers and before the courts that that part of that money belongs to producers.”

In one case a few years ago some unpaid farmers were able to retrieve ‘like grain’ from a financially troubled grain company, reducing the amount of posted security needed to compensate farmers.

In the W.A. Grain case the $1.5 million shortfall in compensation averages more than $11,900 per farmer.

Ideally grain companies security held by the CGC should cover farmer liabilities, but that’s not always so, despite the CGC’s best efforts.

“An important point here is that the payment protection program at the grain commission never guarantees that producers will be fully compensated for licensee failures,” Gosselin said.

The commission, he said, fixes the amount of security to be provide by licensees based on monthly liability reports submitted by the licensees and licensees are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of those reports.

“If we feel there are some issues there we will conduct audits to make sure that reports have been completed properly.”

Those audits, he said, are done on the resources that are available at the grain commission for that purpose. Priority is put on audits of licensees about which the grain commission has received complaints from producers about slow payments, and/or where previous audits “have indicated problems.”

When the CGC suspended W.A. Grain’s license, it didn’t have enough security to cover what farmers were owed.

“I’d like to remind producers to cash their cheques upon receipt and if you don’t you’re lending your money to your grain company,” Gosselin said. “The best protection against the risk of failure is cashing cheques promptly.

“Over the last 30 years our payout record is 94 per cent of eligible claims.”

— Allan Dawson is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator at Miami, Man.

The post W.A. Grain’s farmer suppliers to get 80 cents on dollar appeared first on Grainews.

The CGC on Monday opened up proposed regulatory amendments to an 11-week public consultation period ending Feb. 28, 2022.

The idea came up during consultations held earlier this year as part of the federal review of the Canada Grain Act, the CGC said Monday.

That broader federal review is still ongoing, but CGC chief commissioner Doug Chorney said Monday that the commission wants to take concerns raised by the grain sector in those consultations and respond “quickly” in areas where it can do so within the confines of the current Grain Act.

The CGC’s proposal, as described Monday, doesn’t yet list an exact time window in which farmers would be able to trigger the dispute resolution process.

As they’ve been proposed so far, the changes to the “Subject to Inspector’s Grade and Dockage” process would “clarify the time period over which a producer is entitled to exercise their right” to do so, “including a period after delivery.”

In a document in mid-August laying out the responses it got from the grain sector during Grain Act consultations, the federal government said “many respondents” found that the current grade and dockage dispute process was “not appropriate.”

Farmers who disagree with a CGC-licensed primary elevator’s assessment of their grain today have the right under the Grain Act to ask for a sample to be sent to the CGC for a binding decision on a delivery’s grade and dockage.

However, the process today also requires that a farmer has to request that binding determination right at the time of delivery.

And, as the CGC pointed out Monday, “grain delivery and handling processes have changed. Producers are often not present when their grain is delivered to the licensed primary elevator. Third parties, such as commercial truck drivers, are increasingly being hired to deliver grain into the licensed elevator system.”

In its consultations, the federal government said, “many suggested that somewhere between five to 14 business days was an appropriate window of eligibility.”

That wider window, the government said, “would provide producers with adequate time to receive the grade and dockage result, compare to on-farm samples, and decide whether to access binding determination.”

The CGC’s proposed amendments to sections 34 and 36 of the Canada Grain Regulations would also clarify that producers can dispute an elevator operator’s grade and dockage assessment “even if they are not present at the time of delivery.”

The amendments would also require that samples be retained for seven days minimum, “or until an agreement on grade and dockage has been reached between the elevator and the producer.”

Also, those samples “would no longer need to be taken in the presence of the producer, unless the producer requires it.”

Federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau, in the CGC’s release Monday, hailed the proposed regulatory changes, saying they’d be “an important first win for grain farmers, in response to the feedback we received during the Canada Grain Act review consultations.”

‘Other classes’

All that said, the CGC’s proposal, if it goes through, may not necessarily cover all the changes farmers had sought to “Subject to Inspector’s Grade and Dockage” during those Grain Act consultations.

For example, the government said in August, “many” respondents want to see an expansion of the quality characteristics eligible for such assessments.

That’s because grain contracts are “increasingly specifying non-grade factors” such as deoxynivalenol (DON) level and falling number for wheat. Respondents said farmers would thus get “better protection against disputes related to the contract specifications.”

Also, respondents to the Grain Act consultations said they’d like to see the right to access binding determination also include “other classes of CGC licensees” such as processing elevators and grain dealers.

There’ve been more processing facilities going up on the Prairies in recent years, farmers said in the consultations, and more such plants are on the way. Thus, the government said, farmers expect that “a further proportion of deliveries will likely shift away from primary elevators to process elevators.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Farmers may get time to dispute grain grade, dockage appeared first on Grainews.

The Grain Act and its regulations provide the framework for Canada’s grain quality assurance system and it’s the CGC that administers the act.

The English-language Webex webinar goes from 12:30 p.m. (CT) to 2 p.m. on April 23. Farmers can register here.

The review started about two years ago.

“The Canada Grain Act sets out the objectives and functions of the Canadian Grain Commission, which is responsible for regulating grain quality and handling in Canada to ensure a dependable commodity for domestic and export markets,” the federal government says in a discussion paper on the review.

“The Canadian Grain Commission delivers programs and services to establish and maintain Canada’s science-based grain grading system and provide various safeguards for grain farmers.”

The paper highlights the following issues that could be of special interest to farmers:

• Access to binding determination of grade and dockage: Binding determination is intended to be an independent dispute resolution mechanism when a producer and buyer disagree on grade or dockage. Are there any gaps between the current system and what is needed?
• Producer payment protection: The program is intended to help ensure producers are protected against a buyer’s failure to pay for grain, in a cost-effective manner that fairly allocates risk. Can the program be improved to better meet the needs of the sector?
• CGC licensing: The licensing system for elevators and grain dealers is designed as a framework for establishing and maintaining Canada’s grain quality assurance system, while also safeguarding producers and enabling data collection. Does the existing licensing approach meet the sector’s needs?
• Official inspection and weighing: The system of inspection, weighing, and certification of grain for export is intended to help ensure there is dependable Canadian grain for domestic and export markets. Are there ways the system could better meet the sector’s needs? Currently it’s mandatory for the CGC to weigh and grade Canadian grain exported by ship — a process is referred to as ‘outward inspection.’

The Western Grain Elevator Association (WGEA), which represents Canada’s main grain companies, wants to be able to use private grain inspectors, with CGC accreditation, instead.

The WGEA says it already uses private inspectors in part because grain buyers use the same inspecting companies when they received the grain.

Eliminating CGC inspection would save money, the association says.

But some farmer are wary noting the CGC is independent and its oversight assures the integrity of Canadian grain, renowned for its quality and consistency.

— Allan Dawson is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator at Miami, Man.

The post Virtual town hall on federal Grain Act set for Friday appeared first on Grainews.

“I tend to think Canary seed looks like a pretty good option but there are a lot of good options. Prices are up around $0.31 per pound right now (December 2020). But, unless someone is out there offering new crop contracts at a high price, there’s no guarantee that the price you’ll receive next year (2021) will be at today’s level. The worry is that Canary seed is a small acreage crop; an extra 50,000 or 100,000 acres would be a big deal. If a whole bunch of people jump into Canary seed, the price will crash.”

Knowledge gap

One of the biggest challenges with Canary seed is a lack of good information. Exactly how many acres are grown each year? Hursh isn’t totally sure. Statistics Canada’s acreage numbers are rough guesstimates. Exactly how much product is available to the market in any given year? That’s a wild card as well. In years past, farmers stored Canary seed for long periods in hopes of capturing a market high.

“In the last 10 to 15 years, prices haven’t done the big spikes we sometimes saw earlier. We think that the $0.30 per pound pricing pulled long-stored Canary seed out of storage, since the market is acting like availability is much tighter than it was in the past. But to be honest, we just don’t know,” says Hursh.

Most acres are planted to itchy varieties including Keet and Cantate. Hairless (glabrous) varieties (CDC Maria, CDC Togo, CDC Bastia and, most recently, CDC Calvi and CDC Cibo) make production more comfortable, but produce lower yields than the itchy varieties. CDC Cibo is the first yellow-seeded variety registered, which may make it more popular for human food uses. CDC Lumio, a new hairless variety that will be available in limited quantities in 2021, is a high yielder that starts to bridge the yield gap between hairless and itchy varieties.

Canary seed agronomics

Canary seed is easy to grow and fairly widely adapted. It’s a lower input crop than most other cereals. While a potash application is recommended, the crop requires relatively low nitrogen. Canary seed can be a good alternative on acres prone to wheat midge.

The cereal isn’t recommended on flax stubble as the seed size is so similar that flax volunteers can’t be easily separated. (Hursh says quinclorac — registered by BASF as Facet and Farmers Business Network as Clever — is registered for use in Canary seed and can effectively control flax volunteers, but the field can’t be recropped to lentils in the next season).

• Canary seed is a component of feed mixtures for caged and wild birds.
• Canada is the top producer of Canary seed and almost all of it is grown in Saskatchewan.
• The crop can pay well, but is susceptible to oversupply.
• Canadian export values are around $100 million each year.
• In recent years, Canary seed has ranged from $0.20 to $0.30 per pound.
• An average yield in Saskatchewan ranges from 800 to 1,400 pounds per acre.

Because there is no post-emergent wild oat control available, producers should apply Avadex in the fall as a granular or in the spring as a granular or liquid.

“I’ve had people call me after they’ve seeded the crop to ask how to control wild oats. At that point, they can’t,” says Hursh.

One of Canary seed’s biggest benefits is that it generally does not degrade at harvest.

“Canary seed can be left until the last crop in at harvest because the seed isn’t harmed by weather and it doesn’t shatter. Growing Canary seed can lengthen your harvest window, which decreases harvest pressure,” says Hursh.

The Canary Seed Development Commission of Saskatchewan is currently working to bring Canary seed under the Canada Grain Act, likely by August. While that would impose a grading table, Hursh assures that the restrictions would be very minimal and wouldn’t affect most farmers. Importantly, coming under the Grain Act would offer producers payment protection.

The post Want to try Canary seed in your crop rotation? Caution is advised appeared first on Grainews.

Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau, speaking Tuesday to Saskatchewan crop organizations’ virtual CropSphere conference, announced the feds’ current Canada Grain Act review has entered its consultation stage, running until April 30.

The government said it wants feedback from grain industry stakeholders on “ways to potentially update the legislation.”

Both the Canada Grain Act and its main regulatory body, the Canadian Grain Commission, were “established at a time when the Canadian grain sector looked much different than it does today,” the government said in its discussion document.

“The way grain is bought, sold, delivered and handled at facilities has changed significantly, as have buyers’ demands for grain quality… (and) it is possible that some modernization is required to ensure the system is better aligned with current and future market realities.”

Apart from some “targeted” changes, the government said, the last “comprehensive” amendments to the Act came in 1971, since which time several reforms have been proposed.

Also, the feds noted, the CGC has been working on a “grain grading modernization initiative” since 2017, “to ensure that, where possible, grain grading is continually evaluated using more scientifically-based, effective, precise and user-friendly tools.”

“The marketplace for grain has greatly evolved over the past half century, and now is the time for the Canada Grain Act to reflect that evolution,” Winnipeg MP Jim Carr, who was named Tuesday as the federal cabinet’s special representative for the Prairies, said in Bibeau’s release.

“I encourage all those with a stake in Canada’s grain industry to make their voices heard as part of this consultation.”

The consultations’ discussion document flags issues the government said “may be of particular interest” to the sector, such as:

• binding determination, which is meant to be an “independent dispute resolution mechanism” when a grower and buyer disagree on a grain’s grade or level of dockage;
• producer payment protection, the CGC-led program “to help ensure producers are protected against a buyer’s failure to pay for grain, in a cost-effective manner that fairly allocates risk;”
• the CGC’s licensing system for elevators and grain dealers, meant to maintain Canada’s grain quality assurance system, serve as a safeguard for producers and allow for collection of grain data; and
• Canada’s system of inspection, weighing and certification of grain for export.

In those cases, the government asks in its discussion documents if there are ways in which those systems and programs “could better meet the sector’s needs.”

The list of flagged issues is “not a comprehensive list of Canadian Grain Commission functions,” the government said, but is meant to highlight “practical areas that may be of interest to stakeholders.”

In the past decade alone, the government said, Canadian grain production has risen from 69 million tonnes in 2010 to 93 million in 2020, and exports from CGC-licensed elevators rose from 30.8 million tonnes in 2009-10 to 44.3 million in 2019-20.

The grains sector has also made “significant infrastructure investments” in recent years, such as in rail and port infrastructure, and has also boosted the Prairies’ primary elevator storage capacity.

“Structural changes have also affected the sector, such as reforms in wheat and barley marketing,” the government said.

Also, “technological advancements and evolving grain buyer demands also continue to shape the sector and its capacity as one of the world’s leading exporters of grain.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Feds launch consultations on Canada Grain Act appeared first on Grainews.

The Canadian government is advertising both positions on the CGC’s website and Twitter.

Applicants must apply online for the positions, which are cabinet appointments. The deadline is Tuesday (June 30).

The jobs involve lots of travel in and outside of Canada and good salaries. Commissioners’ salaries range from $150,200 to $176,600 a year; the chief commissioner is paid $242,700-$285,500.

Both jobs are based in Winnipeg, where the CGC is headquartered.

Patti Miller, the current chief commissioner, is retiring this month. Her appointment otherwise would have expired in 2023.

Commissioner Lonny McKague’s four-year appointment expires in February 2021. McKague, the CGC’s assistant chief commissioner, Doug Chorney, and Miller were appointed Feb. 13, 2017. Chorney’s appointment doesn’t expire until February 2022.

Why it matters: CGC commissioners oversee the commission and maintain close links to farmers and grain companies.

The CGC is a federal government agency that reports to Parliament through the minister of agriculture.

The three commissioners are the CGC’s executive, setting the CGC’s direction, establishing policy and administering and enforcing the Canada Grain Act.

The commissioners also have quasi-judicial powers on some matters.

While ideally those chosen will have the right experience and aptitude, a commissioner learns on the job. Few people have a working knowledge of the Canada Grain Act, or understand wheat chemistry.

The tradition of both Liberal and Conservative governments has been to appoint commissioners from each of the three Prairie provinces (or British Columbia’s Peace River District).

In addition, commissioners have been farmers — as is the case for McKague and Chorney — or from industry, which is Miller’s background. She also had worked for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

The CGC was created in 1912, following years of protests from western farmers who complained grain companies and railways were treating them unfairly.

The strength of the commissioner system is that it gives the grain sector, including farmers, confidence those overseeing the CGC understand the grain business, and especially farmers’ needs.

“As set out in the Canada Grain Act, the Canadian Grain Commission’s mandate is to, in the interests of producers, establish and maintain standards of quality for Canadian grain and regulate grain handling in Canada to ensure a dependable commodity for domestic and export markets,” the government says in its posting for a new chief commissioner.

A big part of the CGC’s role is grain quality control, which underlies Canada’s reputation for delivering high-quality grain.

— Allan Dawson is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator at Miami, Man.

The post Help wanted: CGC seeks new leadership appeared first on Grainews.

Bill C-4, the implementing legislation for the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), passed second reading Feb. 6 and came back without amendment Feb. 27 from the Commons standing committee on international trade.

While C-4 is meant to amend various laws for CUSMA compliance, the NFU says the bill’s proposed changes to the Canada Grain Act “go beyond what is required” and would make “substantive changes to Canada’s grain quality control system.”

The CUSMA pact, as signed in Mexico City in December, has just four clauses relating to grain, only two of which call for changes to the Grain Act, the NFU said in a release Friday.

Those two clauses, the association said, would provide grades to U.S.-grown wheat according to the same quality standards and handling it as if it were Canadian-grown wheat.

However. the NFU said, C-4 goes further than CUSMA calls for, by amending the Grain Act so all U.S.-grown grains, not just wheat, would “become equivalent to Canadian-grown upon delivery into Canada’s grain handling system.”

In so doing, the association said, C-4 would allow grain companies to “increase their ability to use U.S.-grown grain to weaken prices paid to Canadian farmers by purchasing lower-priced American grain grown under U.S. Farm Bill subsidies.”

In its form at first reading, C-4 calls for the repeal of the Grain Act’s definition of “foreign grain,” replacing it with a definition of “imported grain” as “any grain grown outside Canada or the United States and includes screenings from such a grain and every grain product manufactured or processed from such a grain.”

C-4, the NFU said, would also “weaken (Canadian Grain Commission) authority to decide what constitutes contaminated or adulterated grain” and would make issuance of official export certificates “optional.”

The bill at first reading repeals the Grain Act’s current definition of “contaminated grain,” instead deeming grain to be contaminated “if the grain contains any substance in sufficient quantity that the grain is either… adulterated for the purposes of the Food and Drugs Act; or… contaminated within the meaning of the regulations made under section 51 of the Safe Foods for Canadians Act.”

C-4, the NFU said, would also “enable regulations that will allow inspectors to confer Canadian grades” on grain grown outside of both Canada and the U.S.

The bill, in its first-reading form, allows for the CGC to be able to issue “any certificate or other document setting out any information that the Commission considers necessary to facilitate the export of any grain.”

“As it stands, Bill C-4 is a Trojan Horse designed to make it easier for grain companies to pay farmers less for their grain,” NFU second vice-president Stewart Wells said in Friday’s release.

Fast-tracking C-4 “just weeks before planned consultations on revisions to the Canada Grain Act is an end-run around the public process that sidelines farmers and is contrary to the government’s claimed commitment to transparency,” he said.

That’s a reference to a review of the Grain Act, announced in March last year, to be conducted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau said last month the process for that review “is still taking shape” but added the government remains “committed to holding consultations in order to hear from grain farmers, stakeholders and parliamentarians.”

The NFU, Wells said, is calling on Bibeau “to do the right thing and correct these mistakes (in C-4) before the final vote.” –– Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post NFU sees red flags in CUSMA bill for grain growers appeared first on Grainews.

Patti Miller, who has held the position for three years, announced Tuesday to CGC staff that she will retire June 26.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) “will be launching an open, transparent and merit-based process to find a new commissioner as soon as possible,” federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau said via email Thursday.

Meanwhile, an AAFC-led review of the Canada Grain Act — and of the CGC’s role in administering it — will continue. The department quietly announced the review last March.

“Our government remains committed to modernizing Canada’s Grain Act,” Bibeau said. “While the process is still taking shape, we are committed to holding consultations in order to hear from grain farmers, stakeholders, and parliamentarians.”

Under the Grain Act, the CGC — created in 1912 in the “interest of producers” — regulates Canada’s grain industry by overseeing grain quality regulations and acting as an industry watchdog.

The CGC is overseen by the chief commissioner, an assistant chief commissioner and a commissioner.

Reliable sources have accused Miller of having a pro-grain company agenda, which, in their view, could hurt farmers. They also alleged Miller had sidelined input from assistant chief commissioner Doug Chorney, who farms at East Selkirk, Man., and commissioner Lonny McKague, who farms at Omega, Sask.

Miller denied that claim. “I have a huge amount of respect for both Doug and Lonny,” she said in an interview last March 18. “Does that mean we agree on everything? Heavens no.

“Did Doug and Lonny have input into it, as did I? Yes. Was it exactly how they wanted to see it? Perhaps not, but they are a voice and provide input into that process.”

On the allegation she favours the grain companies’ agenda, Miller replied: “If you asked the industry they might give some comments that… I’m not making decisions unilaterally in their favour. We have rigour in our decision-making.”

What grain companies want most from the review are recommendations to amend the Grain Act to end mandatory CGC outward inspection.

Some grain companies say it’s redundant and costly because many of their customers are satisfied using less-expensive private inspection services.

But some in the industry say making the CGC’s ‘Certificate Final’ optional will undermine Canada’s grain quality assurance system.

Speaking last March 6 at the Canadian Crops Convention in Montreal, Viterra CEO Kyle Jeworski argued in favour of ending mandatory CGC outward inspection.

“I think it’s important that we have the Canada Grain Act to better reflect our industry today and prepare for the future,” he said. “We need to remove unnecessary regulations. There are many examples — grain grading, weighing, inspection. There are things that add cost and delays in our industry.”

But the three Prairie general farm organizations agree the CGC’s oversight is more important than ever because of the rise in non-tariff trade barriers.

AAFC wants farmer input on the review, as Michelle Bielik, director of the ag department’s crop and supply chain policy division, told Keystone Agricultural Producers’ advisory council meeting in Portage la Prairie, Man. last April 2.

“We are right now just gathering our thoughts about how we’re going to conduct our analysis,” she said at the time. “That’s why we want to hear from you about the issues you want to focus on. We are nowhere near tabling proposals and when the time comes we hope we are in a position to engage with you further.”

Much of that work would be done during the election period that fall, Bielik said at the time. “Ultimately our goal is to have a set of legislative proposals to include as part of the minister’s next mandate.”

Although Bibeau confirmed Thursday that AAFC’s review continues, there’s no specific reference of it in her mandate letter from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

On the matter of Miller’s retirement announcement, Bibeau said Miller “has been dedicated to the grain sector for over 35 years, and felt it was time for her to retire.

“During (Miller’s) time at the CGC, she has helped modernize the organization and begin the review of the Canada Grain Act. In order to ensure an orderly transition, Ms. Miller will be in place (at the CGC) until June 2020.”

Miller, Chorney and McKague were all appointed to their positions by the federal government in early 2017, after having applied to serve.

Miller’s 35-year career in agriculture included 25 years with the federal government. She also worked for Cargill and was president of the Canola Council of Canada at the time of her CGC appointment.

— Allan Dawson is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator at Miami, Man.

The post Grain Commission’s chief announces retirement appeared first on Grainews.

Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives on Friday released a platform promising a number of regulatory changes of interest to grain and livestock producers ahead of the federal election on Oct. 21.

The incumbent Liberal government in February this year announced its amendments to the Health of Animals Regulations on animal transportation. The changes were billed as “improv(ing) the well-being of animals during the entire transportation process, keeping in mind Canada’s geographic size and the time required to travel between locations.”

The Liberals said in February their new “science-based” rules will focus on tightening animals’ intervals without feed, water or rest, whereas current transport rules dating back to 1977 “focus mainly on (animals’) time in confinement.”

However, the Tories said in Friday’s platform, a Conservative government “will postpone their coming into force until we have conducted a review,” so as “to ensure (the new rules) are based on complete evidence.”

While it’s the federal government’s regulatory role to ensure the welfare of animals during transport, the Tories said, “unfortunately, Justin Trudeau is pushing forward with updates to these regulations that are not based on the latest facts.

“Farmers care deeply about the wellbeing of their animals and they want to take reasonable steps to ensure their safety.”

Livestock truckers and other industry groups have also recently been calling on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for clarification on several matters in the new regulations, ahead of their February implementation date.

Refunds

The Tories’ platform also calls for the federal Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission to “align with modern agricultural practices, global market requirements, and the needs of our farmers.”

Regulation of agriculture in Canada “has not always kept up with the market,” the party said, pledging to “bring the CGA and CGC in line with today’s standards in consultation with farmers.”

As part of that modernization process for the CGA and CGC, the Tories said “we will return the $130 million in overcharged user fees amassed by the CGC to farmers.”

The party said it will also see to it that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the Health Canada branch responsible for pesticide regulation, “effectively balances protecting health and the environment with Canada’s economic interests.”

To that end, the party said, “we will add competitiveness as a key component of (PMRA’s) mandate, require that it work more transparently with those it regulates, encourage regulatory innovation and harmonization with international trading partners, and ensure that it has sufficient resources to deliver on its mandate.”

A Conservative government would also set up “global monitoring” of other countries’ non-tariff barriers against Canadian goods, and “aggressively” challenge such barriers at the World Trade Organization.

“Decades ago, the primary barriers to trade were tariffs,” the Tories said. “As these have come down, it is now regulatory and non-tariff barriers that are the biggest problems for Canadian exporters, particularly in the agricultural sector.”

In any future trade deals, the party said, a Conservative government will “insist on chapters dealing with non-tariff trade barriers,” so as to “address these issues and to find new ways for resolving these types of regulatory disputes.”

Among other pledges for farmers and rural residents, the Tories on Friday promised:

• to “work with provinces and farmers to make Agri-Stability more simple, predictable, bankable, and timely;”
• to “examine the rule that makes it easier to transfer a farm to a stranger rather than a family member;”
• to not put supply management on the table in any future international trade negotiations, and to deliver “promised compensation” to affected supply-managed sectors in the wake of market access granted under trade pacts such as CETA, CPTPP and CUSMA;
• to set aside a portion of all broadband spectrum auctions for rural Canada;
• to add aggravating factors to sentences for crimes that target rural residents, “because of their remoteness from police stations;”
• to set aside a specific infrastructure fund for rural and remote communities;
• to use a “mitigation and adaptation lens” when budgeting for infrastructure investments, including designing infrastructure to be resilient to extreme weather events or to protect against known hazards;”
• and to “pursue natural infrastructure projects that leverage the resilience of our natural landscapes” such as wetlands.

— Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Federal Tories pledge to postpone new livestock transport rules appeared first on Grainews.

Bill C-100, the implementing legislation for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), received first and second reading in the House of Commons May 29 and last Tuesday (June 11) respectively. It includes amendments to the Canada Grain Act and a long list of other legislation.

“The changes will address American concerns that were raised during the CUSMA negotiations while preserving the integrity of the Canadian grain quality assurance system,” Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) said in an email May 31.

“Currently, the Canada Grain Act excludes imported grain from receiving statutory Canadian grain grades on the basis of origin rather than quality. This means that a variety of grain that is registered in Canada, but grown in the U.S. and delivered to a primary elevator in Canada, cannot receive a statutory grade for the class that reflects its quality.”

U.S. complaints go further back than the USMCA negotiations. U.S. Wheat Associates, which promotes American wheat exports, says while Canadian farmers can deliver wheat to American elevators without discrimination, but U.S. farmers can’t do the same. Currently U.S. wheat, even if the variety is registered to be grown in Canada, is ineligible for an official grade.

Amendments to the grain act proposed under C-100 will allow American to receive an official grade so long as the variety is registered to be grown in Canada. If it’s not, the grade assigned will be the lowest for the intended class. But the same rule applies to Canadian farmers delivering unregistered wheats.

Several U.S. spring milling wheats, including Faller, Prosper and Elgin ND, are registered in Canada and fall into the Canada Northern Hard Red wheat class.

“These changes will not impact Canadian consumers,” AAFC said. “All U.S. grain that is imported into Canada will need to meet the same rigorous quality standards that are applied domestically. Canadians can continue to expect wheat and milled products that are dependable and safe.”

Several Canadian wheat organizations, including Cereals Canada, have pressed to have the U.S. concerns addressed, noting it’s necessary to ensure Canadian wheat continues to have unimpeded access to the U.S. market.

“Most Canadian grain stakeholders have been supportive of reforms that reflect the complementary grain trading relationships between Canada and the U.S.,” AAFC said. “In fact, many Canadian industry representatives have identified the current situation as an unnecessary barrier to trade.”

There are exceptions, including the National Farmers Union. It warned last September that accommodating U.S. wheat threatens Canada’s reputation for exporting high-quality milling wheat.

According to NFU vice-president Cam Goff, Canada’s grain grading and variety registration systems are never used to block imports of U.S. grain.

“In fact many southern Alberta feedlots regularly import American corn and barley with no restrictions,” he wrote in a 2018 op-ed. “Our system just does not allow American grain to pretend to be Canadian — and there are good reasons for that.”

While U.S. complaints are technically correct, the Canadian government and grain industry have maintained there’s no law preventing U.S. wheat farmers from selling to Canadian elevators. While the wheat was ineligible for an official grade buyers and sellers were free to negotiate a price based on specifications.

“The volume of U.S. producer deliveries to the Canadian grain handling system over the years has been more a function of market conditions — transportation, costs, currency, et cetera — than of any particular Canadian regulation or policy,”AAFC said.

“The agreement will not change how Canadian grain is delivered in the primary elevator system in Canada, and will have minimal impact on the Canadian grain sector. Small volumes of U.S. grain regularly move through the Canadian licensed elevator system, and this agreement is not expected to significantly influence this trend.”

The pressure is on to ratify USMCA in Canada and the United States ahead of a Canadian election Oct. 21 and a U.S. presidential election in 2020.

The House of Commons will adjourn June 21, however, the Liberal government could recall Parliament to deal with the bill, the Canadian Press (CP) quoted a senior government official as saying Thursday.

As much as the government wants to move “in tandem” with the U.S on ratification, it doesn’t want to get too far ahead, CP reported.

Parliament will be dissolved ahead of a federal election Oct. 21.

Meanwhile, U.S. president Donald Trump is pushing Congress to approve USMCA before its month-long recess in August. But the Democrats aren’t keen on giving Trump ‘a win.’

“It would help if [Canada] went ahead of the United States [and] put more pressure on Congress,” Ag Insider reported U.S. Senate finance chairman Chuck Grassley as saying last month.

If C-100 becomes law it would allow Parliament to ratify USMCA while giving the federal cabinet the power to make any changes necessary for implementation, CTV News reported.

— Allan Dawson is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator at Miami, Man. Follow him at @allanreporter on Twitter.

The post USMCA ratification bill amends Canada Grain Act appeared first on Grainews.