“It is time to end the danger posed by illegal immigrant and foreign national truck drivers who are not capable of safely operating an 18-wheel commercial vehicle or, in many cases, understanding English language warning signs and road instructions,” Van Duyne said in a news release.

Among those falling under the bill’s definition of “ineligible foreign nationals” are apparently Canadian commercial drivers because it proposes to remove the licensing reciprocity agreement the United States has with foreign countries.

Currently the only countries to have such agreements with the U.S. are Canada and Mexico.

The bill goes on to require any non-resident holder of a state-issued commercial driver’s license to prove residency in that state.

It would seem that this would prevent Canadian drivers from entering the U.S. with a Canadian licence or obtaining a recognized U.S. licence, meaning only U.S. drivers could handle cross-border freight hauls with Canadian carriers effectively shut out.

This is how Section 3 of the proposed bill describes it: “Not later than six months after the date of enactment of this aAct, the administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration shall take such actions as are necessary to terminate any existing reciprocity agreements that recognize foreign commercial driver’s licenses in the United States or permit holders of foreign commercial driver’s licenses (CDL) to operate a commercial motor vehicle in the United States, unless expressly authorized by statute.”

Reciprocity for Canadian CDLs stems from a notice published in the FMCSA Register as of May 1989.

The U.S. government shutdown at the time of writing made it impossible to get further comment for this article.

In her online press release, Van Duyne said the bill is in response to an immigration crackdown and a high-profile commercial motor vehicle collision that involved an immigrant driver.

That incident and another fatality crash have spurred a number of government actions in the U.S. aimed at immigrant drivers, including a rule that drivers must pass a roadside English proficiency exam by traffic officers or be placed out of service. In some cases, the truck can be impounded.

Van Duyne’s bill hasn’t yet passed, but if it did and reciprocity was terminated, the disruption to cross-border trade and Canadian commercial carriers would be enormous.

When contacted, a Canadian Trucking Alliance spokesperson said the bill hadn’t yet been brought to its attention and the organization would need time to study it before commenting.

The post U.S. bill could keep out Canadian truckers appeared first on Grainews.

They soon found a loyal following with many people.

“I think we hold the claim of being the creator of the sub-compact (tractor) market,” Kubota’s product manager for compact utility tractors Justin Parrott says.

“This is our 50th anniversary in Canada. Kubota started in the 1960s with tractors to fill a gap in the Asian market. Small, lightweight tractors. It was around ’72 for the U.S. and ’75 for Canada where they said, ‘Hey, maybe there’s a market outside of Asia we’re not really considering.’”

Breaking into a new market with an unfamiliar brand in those years, though, wasn’t as easy as it might be today with social media.

“We started knocking on doors at dealerships, saying, ‘Hey, we have this orange tractor. Do you want to see if there’s a market for it?’” Parrott says.

“I definitely wouldn’t call it an overnight success. It was really a couple of years for these things to start gaining popularity. Back then there was no social media or public outlets like we’re used to today. So it was a lot of word of mouth. And it started filling a market gap people didn’t know they needed.”

The brand remained a significant player in the compact tractor segment but eventually made a move into larger models. The range of Kubota tractors offered to Canadian buyers has since increased substantially.

“I think it was the late ’70s, early ’80s we started getting into the more utility-size tractors,” he says. “In 2000 we went back down to the BX Series and created that sub-compact market. That was really to do with the evolving times. People were moving away from cities. Going into rural one- to 10-acre properties was becoming a lot more popular. That’s what drove the need for that sub-compact market.

“It’s still a very large market for us. I think most people see Kubota as being the leader in the compact and sub-compact market.”

In 2019, five years after launching the M7 tractor line, the brand introduced its largest series, the M8, which now hits the 200-horsepower mark.

At the official introduction of the M8 tractor line at Grapevine, Texas, company executives said Kubota intended to become a major player in the commercial agriculture market. Three years before the M8 launch the company had already made a major step in that direction by buying U.S.-based implement manufacturer Great Plains, which produces seeding and tillage equipment.

Even earlier, in 2012, Kubota had acquired the Norwegian implement manufacturer Kverneland. Since then technology from that purchase has found its way into Kubota-branded round balers.

Kubota now has around 150 dealers across the country. And even though its product line has expanded significantly, the small tractor market continues to be a major part of its business.

Look for some high-profile advertising this year to mark the anniversary, as well as some custom-wrap options on tractors.

“We have some pretty big campaigns going on with our dealerships to celebrate 50 years,” Parrott says.

The post Tractor maker Kubota celebrates 50th anniversary appeared first on Grainews.

Jeff Van Pevenage, president of Columbia Grain at Portland, Ore., first made the allegations to the Western Producer in September. He said this practice has allegedly been going on for about six to eight months.

Van Pevenage told the Producer U.S. peas face a 25 per cent tariff when exported to China, whereas there isn’t a tariff for Canadian peas. Also, U.S. lentils are slapped with a 55 per cent tariff when going to India, compared to the 33 per cent levy for Canadian lentils.

Supporting Van Pevenage’s claim are data from Statistics Canada, which show almost 47,500 tonnes of peas and nearly 39,600 tonnes of lentils from the U.S. came into Canada in July alone. That compares to about 19,700 tonnes of peas and close to 16,800 tonnes of lentils imported from the U.S. into Canada for all of 2018.

“That’s where the distortion is coming and that’s where it’s allowing people to take advantage of the system, so to speak,” he said to MarketsFarm.

Although Columbia Grain has been unable to verify its claims, Van Pevenage remained adamant.

“I have no solid proof, but I can tell you that there are Chinese customers that have bragged about being able to do this. Chinese customers who clearly ask me if I would take our green peas and put them in Canada and call them Canadian,” he said.

Furthermore, Van Pevenage accused the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) of turning a blind eye to this practice. He said phytosanitary certificates would be required to identify the origin of the product.

In an email response to the allegations, the CFIA said it’s the responsibility of the exporters to correctly label the origin of the grain, especially when applying phytosanitary certificates from the agency.

CFIA, in its email, also stated India requires phytosanitary certificates for peas and lentils, and China requires such for peas, adding Canada currently doesn’t export lentils to China.

In addition, the Canadian Grain Commission said it has not seen anything crop up in its data to support Van Pevenage’s allegation.

“At this point, based on the statistical reporting we’re getting from our licensees, we’re not seeing that,” said Remi Gosselin, manager of corporate information services for the CGC.

As for the Canadian Special Crops Association (CSC), its spokesperson said the group won’t comment on accusations or allegations made by members of the trade.

“But I can assure you that the CSC works closely with the CFIA to ensure that our members are aware of their requirements for export,” said Tracy Shelton, vice-president of marketing and communications.

— Glen Hallick reports for MarketsFarm, a Glacier FarmMedia division specializing in grain and commodity market analysis and reporting. Includes files from Sean Pratt of the Western Producer.

The post Allegations of U.S. peas, lentils passed off as Canadian appeared first on Grainews.

Canada only exported 69,900 tonnes of canola during the week ended Sunday, well below the 205,500 tonnes that moved the previous week. Total canola exports during the crop year-to-date of 5.514 million tonnes were about 400,000 tonnes behind the 2017-18 pace.

However, crusher demand remains steady with the year-to-date domestic disappearance of 5.19 million tonnes about 200,000 tonnes ahead of the year-ago level.

Total supplies in the commercial pipeline increased to 1.066 million tonnes during the week, up from 994,700 the previous week. However, that was still tighter than the supplies on hand of 1.425 million at the same point in 2018.

While canola exports continue to lag on the year, wheat exports remain solid. Year-to-date Canadian wheat exports moved above 10 million tonnes during the week, which compares with 8.645 million in the middle of February 2018.

Barley exports were also up by about 400,000 tonnes on the year, with 1.393 million tonnes exported as of Sunday.

Total year-to-date exports of all the major grains and oilseeds of 25.727 million tonnes compares with 23.656 million tonnes at the same time the previous crop year, as increases in wheat, barley, soybeans and corn more than make up for the slower canola exports.

— Phil Franz-Warkentin writes for MarketsFarm, a Glacier FarmMedia division specializing in grain and commodity market analysis and reporting.

The post Canola exports still sluggish, but grains solid appeared first on Grainews.

Both nations suspended Canadian wheat imports following the June 15 announcement that Canada had discovered several genetically modified (GM) wheat plants in southern Alberta.

But both are expected to come back to the market shortly, while exports to others won’t be affected, according to Cereals Canada president Cam Dahl.

“We are in a good spot in that we are only going to see (temporary) trade action from Japan and Korea,” Dahl said in an interview Friday.

When GM wheat was first found in the western United States in 2013, Japan suspended U.S. wheat imports for about a month.

“I don’t want to speculate, but I think that might be a valid guideline” for Canada, he said.

“I do expect South Korea to be open in two to three weeks. It’s a 230,000-tonne (a year) market versus a 1.5 million-tonne market (in Japan).”

The GM wheat that didn’t die when sprayed with the non-selective herbicide glyphosate was found along an isolated oil platform access road in southern Alberta last summer. It contained a Monsanto trait (CP4 EPSPS) conferring glyphosate resistance, a Monsanto official said last week.

The same trait has been used in canola, soybeans and corn for 20 years and is deemed safe by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

Although CFIA doesn’t know the name of the GM wheat, through DNA fingerprinting it has determined it’s not a Canadian variety. Based on that, and extensive testing, CFIA said the GM wheat hasn’t entered Canada’s commercial wheat handling or seed system. But since no GM wheat is authorized in Canada, or elsewhere, for commercial production, there’s zero tolerance in wheat exports.

Many unanswered questions remain.

And in what’s expected to be a surprise to many, CFIA confirmed that confined field tests of GM wheat didn’t stop when Monsanto shelved its GM wheat research in 2004.

“In answer to your question, all wheat trials conducted in the 2017 confined research field trial season contained genetically modified wheat,” CFIA said in an email last week. “Trait objectives in these trials included herbicide tolerance, yield increase, fungal resistance, and selectable markers.”

The National Farmers Union’s seed committee chair, Terry Boehm, is among the surprised.

“I thought there might be laboratory tests (of GM wheat in Canada), but I thought in-field test plots, that was the end of it (in 2004), but I was mistaken,” the Colonsay, Sask., farmer said in an interview Thursday.

That prompted the National Farmers Union (NFU) to ask CFIA to ban “open air” testing of GM wheat and to reveal where it is and was tested, “so that farmers and other Canadians can be on the lookout for escapes, and if found, assist in eradicating them.”

“As the market harm implications are so great and the demand or interest in such a product is nil, we just don’t see why there should be open-air tests conducted at all on GM wheat,” Boehm said.

The federal New Democrats last week said they would call for “urgent hearings” on the matter at the House of Commons’ agriculture and agri-food committee.

“After months of challenges getting their product to market, Canadian wheat farmers are facing yet another obstacle. Canadians deserve to know more about this,” NDP ag critic Alistair MacGregor said June 15.

‘Good feedback’

Asked if Cereals Canada supports banning confined field trails for GM wheat, Dahl said that’s a question for another time.

“My focus in the next while is really on our markets… and we keep our markets open and we get Japan opened up as quickly as possible.”

Officials from Japan’s ministry of agriculture, forestry and fisheries (MAFF) were in Canada last week reviewing CFIA’s procedures, including the test it developed for wheat buyers to check Canadian wheat for the GM event, Dahl said.

They also met with the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) to see the process it developed to identify the GM wheat, as well as Cereals Canada.

“I believe that Canada has affectively answered the questions they had,” Dahl said.

Although MAFF officials are doing the research and preparing a report, the decision to resume Canadian wheat imports rests with Japan’s ministry of health, he said.

While other Canadian wheat customers are following the GM wheat discovery, none are contemplating suspending Canadian wheat imports, Dahl said.

“I think we will be OK in the EU (European Union),” he said. “They are not about to take trade action. So that is a very positive. Of course they are going to be testing and they will be enforcing the zero tolerance for unapproved events. They appear to be accepting the process that has been carried out here in Canada so that’s very positive.

“We’re getting good feedback from some of the other large markets. Indonesia would be an example, where again they are looking at the processes the that CFIA and CGC have carried out on their inspections and are accepting that.”

Wheat sales will also continue uninterrupted to the U.S.

“We are very much in the same boat, as it were, with the U.S.,” Dahl said alluding to small amounts of GM wheat being discovered in Oregon in 2013, and Montana and Washington in 2014 and 2016 respectively.

Surprisingly, Canada’s GM wheat is different than that found in the U.S.

What’s also odd, Monsanto Canada spokesperson Trish Jordan said, is that the CP4 EPSPS “event” found in the Alberta wheat was dropped by Monsanto in 2000 in favour of two other “events” it was planning to commercialize.

It might also seem strange that CFIA hasn’t identified the wheat the event was found in. But former University of Manitoba weed scientist Rene Van Acker said it’s likely a non-Canadian wheat Monsanto used during its early development of Roundup Ready wheat.

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

The post Wheat shipment halt seen as temporary appeared first on Grainews.

With three quarters of Canadian exports landing in the U.S., the terms of that trade are key to Canadian industries ranging from automotives to agriculture, energy and aluminum, as well as the railways and pipelines transporting their goods.

Yet if the U.S. does decide to walk away from the trade deal that tightly links the U.S., Canadian and Mexican economies, a scenario seen as increasingly likely, it is unclear what tariffs might apply to which exports, and what timeline might apply.

“The problem with it is, even if they pull out of NAFTA what comes next and that’s unclear,” said David Tyerman, a transportation and industrials analyst at Cormark Securities. “So you are hitting at a straw man that is not defined at all.”

Without NAFTA, the terms of trade could default back to a bilateral agreement which NAFTA replaced or to World Trade Organization rules, or could be created afresh.

The lack of clarity means that auto part companies such as Magna International, Linamar and Martinrea International have little choice but to focus on delivering existing commitments and winning new contracts, Tyerman said.

“It’s almost like it’s business as usual,” he said. “The parts companies are continuing to win business from the auto makers.”

Aluminum producers in Canada, the world’s biggest supplier to the United States, worry about “collateral damage” from changes that could pinch the flow of Canadian exports, said Jean Simard, CEO of the Aluminum Association of Canada, who said the current system “works beautifully.”

Railway operators may also face lower volumes in the aftermath of a NAFTA breakup, but also need a better sense of how any new rules will affect their customers’ decisions.

“In a worse-case scenario with double-digit tariffs you will still only see incremental change in traffic patterns”, said Rick Paterson, an analyst at Loop Capital Markets who covers companies including Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway.

An end to NAFTA would not immediately hurt Canadian grain exporters, since any new tariffs would require Congressional approval. But it could sting exporters and farmers longer term since the U.S. is Canada’s biggest wheat, hog and cattle export market.

The country’s energy industry does not expect tariffs to be imposed on oil and gas exports, said Nick Schultz of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, given that would amount to an additional cost to U.S. refiners, which import three million barrels a day of Canadian crude.

— Reporting for Reuters by Alastair Sharp, Susan Taylor and Fergal Smith in Toronto, and Nia Williams and Rod Nickel in Calgary.

The post Canadian companies struggle to plan for post-NAFTA world appeared first on Grainews.

China views the tainted shipment as a “systemic failure” of Canada’s program that certifies pork sent to China is free of ractopamine, and the situation “could affect future pork exports,” according to an email to the industry from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). The email circulated on Monday and was obtained by Reuters.

The pig feet were shipped by Olymel, the protein arm of agrifood co-operative La Coop federee, and were produced at the its Vallee-Jonction, Que. slaughter and processing plant, company spokesman Richard Vigneault said.

Olymel, one of Canada’s two biggest pork processors, is investigating how it may have shipped the pork with ractopamine to China, Vigneault said.

CFIA has temporarily stopped signing certificates that allow the plant to export to China, and asked the company to send back any other shipments that may be in transit to that country, spokeswoman Lisa Murphy said.

Chinese inspection authority AQSIQ notified CFIA on Friday that the 27,000-kilogram shipment of frozen pork hocks, also known as pig feet, contained ractopamine, she said.

China, the world’s biggest pork consumer, is one of Canada’s biggest pork markets, importing 314,000 tonnes worth $587 million in 2016, according to Statistics Canada. Pig feet are a popular dish in China.

The last time China detected ractopamine in a Canadian pork shipment, in 2015, it removed several Canadian processing plants from its list of eligible exporters to China, said Gary Stordy, spokesman for the Canadian Pork Council, an industry group.

“We’re taking this as a serious situation,” Stordy said. “We want to understand what happened in the program and how we can take corrective action.”

CFIA certifies that Canadian pork sent to China is free of ractopamine, based on verification from farmers, feed mills and pork processors. China bans ractopamine, sold as an Eli Lilly drug called Paylean, because of concerns about food safety.

Chinese authorities have stepped up testing of Canadian pork for ractopamine as a result of the tainted shipment, CFIA said. A spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Ottawa could not be immediately reached.

— Rod Nickel is a Reuters correspondent covering the agriculture and mining sectors from Winnipeg. Additional reporting for Reuters by Theo Waters in Chicago.

The post Canadian pork shipment flagged in China for ractopamine appeared first on Grainews.