FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT A VISION

A Federal election could be called for early May. The question to ask your local candidate is "What is your vision for the future of Canadian agriculture?" Rather than comment on something they likely have thought little about, most candidates will turn the question around and ask the same of you. Here are some things to think about in formulating your own response.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been operational for a decade, and the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement (CUSTA) was in effect for three years prior to NAFTA. Both Agreements are built around the vision of a seamless trading bloc covering all of North America where borders are transparent. Government is fond of describing the NAFTA as a tremendous success and boon to the Canadian economy. Whether you agree with the NAFTA or not, in order to make such a vision work, domestic regulations and policy directions must be harmonized. That is where the problem arises. Implementation of a transparent North American trading environment has fallen far short of the vision.

Such things as pesticide registration systems must necessarily be harmonized so that equivalent sectors on either side of the border are treated equally and enjoy equal access to the same technology. In fact, harmonization of pesticide registration was specifically mentioned as a goal under NAFTA. Hasn't happened. Registration protocols and procedures at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Canadian Pest Management and Regulatory Agency (PMRA) have not been meshed sufficiently. PMRA continues to operate as a world unto itself, unaccountable for its decisions and tardy performance. PMRA insists that although a company seeking to register a new technology might submit the same supporting data and documentation to both PMRA and EPA, PMRA will not necessarily reach the same conclusion as the EPA and therefore will continue to conduct its own reviews. And you thought science was science!

Canadian agriculture is severely hampered through such nonsense. Canadian agriculture is not able to use the best technology available as soon as our major competitor. Canadian agriculture is forced to use outdated, less efficient, and in some cases more harmful older technology. Yet, Canadian agriculture must compete against imported raw and processed products produced in the U.S. using this newer technology even though we are denied access to it here. This happens simply because PMRA (and therefore by default the Canadian government) refuses to accept registration by the EPA (or on a broader stage, international registration by the scientifically advanced nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) as sufficient for automatic registration in Canada. In effect, the Canadian government refuses to implement its avowed vision of a seamless and transparent NAFTA.

This detrimental situation is most apparent and harmful in minor use applications for horticultural crops; but we have examples in corn as well. The PMRA withdrew approval for an existing older root worm control product in early 2003 leaving corn producers with no effective alternative for the 2004 crop to be planted this spring. "Poncho" was developed several years ago as a better replacement and was to be the poster-child for simultaneous approval under NAFTA in both the U.S. and Canada. The EPA approved Poncho three years ago. The PMRA did not finally approve the same product for sale in Canada until December 2003, too late for Poncho to be incorporated at all application rates on seed corn harvested and bagged in October-November 2003 for planting this spring of 2004.

Here is another example of failure to implement the vision of a seamless NAFTA. Manitoba corn producers grow corn in the same way using the same inputs as Ontario producers. However, pesticide availability, especially new technology, is relatively restricted because PMRA treats corn in Manitoba as a 'minor' use category which makes registration and availability considerably more difficult. Companies may be dissuaded from registering the product at all, viewing the relatively limited acreage and market as not worth the hassle and cost of PMRAs 'minor use' registration process. Pesticide availability for major crops being grown in "minor' areas, such as corn and soybeans in western Canada and wheat in Quebec, is an issue of longstanding for grain and oilseed producers that PMRA has refused to address.

These are merely two specific examples of the failure to implement the NAFTA vision of a seamless harmonized North American trading system. There are many others. For example, the only product for control of a specific disease in pear trees is accepted in the U.S., but not in Canada. Pears from the U.S. and other countries using this product are imported into Canada. The pear industry in Canada has been unable to get PMRA to speed up processing of registration and approval. As a result, pear production in Canada may disappear, replaced by imported product only because a government bureaucracy was unaccountable.

But the harm does not end there. Producers invest significant dollars in research and technology development both directly and through tax dollars invested in our universities and colleges. PMRAs track record of delaying tactics in the commercialization of new technology means that several new developments have gone south of the border or overseas. The intellectual invention took place here at taxpayer expense, but bureaucratic red tape forced commercialization to go elsewhere.

And there's more. Because of differences in treatment in the U.S. and Canada for patents, taxation of capital, taxation of venture capital investment, capital cost allowance, capital expenditure write-off terms, and many more examples, the business environment for agriculture north of the border is not equivalent to that existing south of the border. The business environment is less attractive here.

When your candidate asks for your response to your own question, tell them that harmonization of the business environment for agriculture on both sides of the border is absolutely essential if Canadian agriculture is to have any future at all.

1