This review process is not cheap. AAFC is paying travel and accommodation costs for about 40 producer reps to attend meetings. But it remains unknown whether committee discussions will have any effect on the ultimate decisions made by Canadian ministers of agriculture. Reasons for scepticism include the facts that provincial government reps have been all but excluded from this process (they can attend as observers, but are excluded from open discussions), and the format of the meetings seems more designed to "let everyone have their say," rather than to make decisions.

In addition, there is a sense of deliberate orchestration of the process by AAFC Policy Branch staff. For example, producer reps were given no choice as to which of several breakout discussion groups which they could attend at the meeting in Calgary (producers were assigned to the various discussion topics by AAFC staff). And there was discrimination as to which observers who were entitled to participate in group discussions and those who were not. Such an orchestration detracts from the credibility of the review process.

However, we do appreciate that reps from producer organizations not formally invited to be part of the committee have been permitted to attend most of the meetings, and to make occasional comments.

NISA officials intend to introduce new "coefficients" to allow farm-fed grains for dairy cattle and poultry feeding to be eligible for NISA contributions. This is welcomed, as are plans to allow interim NISA withdrawals in the same taxation year(s) as income losses are experienced. Both represent good improvements.

Some opposition has been expressed by certain groups - especially the Canadian Pork Council (CPC) and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) - over the use of NISA "top ups" which have become a core part of the safety net program in Ontario. The concern involves vulnerability to countervailing duties on Canadian farm exports. Though NISA is an "amber" (not a "green") support program under World Trade Organization rules, the U.S. Commerce Department appears to consider it to be "generally available" and therefore not countervailable under U.S. trade law. The CPC and CFA positions seem to be that this "generally available" status will be best preserved if support programs (including NISA) are as close to identical as possible for all provinces and commodities.

The CPC position seems somewhat at odds with current Canadian pork support practices, where about one-third of Canadian pork is produced with commodity price support (the ASRA program in Quebec), and about one-third is produced with NISA top-up support (in Ontario). The CFA position appears to be at odds with that of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council.

AAFC now allows provinces (e.g., Quebec) or commodities (beef industry in Alberta) to collect and use federally supplied "NISA-equivalent" funds to fund other safety net or market development programs. There is major unease over the legitimacy of this practice, especially when NISA and NISA-equivalent expenditures come "off the top" of the federal safety net budget. However, it is unlikely Ottawa will have the fortitude to seriously curtail this practice.

There seems to be general recognition that crop insurance is an important component of Canadian farm safety net programs, but little agreement about what that means. There are almost no federal rules on the nature of federally funded programs across various provinces. For example, the previous federal requirement that producers must pay half of total premium costs has been discarded, as have restraints on "risk splitting." Spot-loss hail coverage exists in several provinces. Certainly there would seem to be good rationale for funding a self-directed risk management (SDRM) program for some Ontario horticultural producers out of crop insurance funds. (SDRM is more like crop insurance than Alberta beef market development activities are like NISA.)

Inequities across provinces in federal expenditures for crop insurance continue to be a subject of national debate. Some, especially producers and government officials in Manitoba and Saskatchewan (where the majority of federal crop insurance money now goes) have argued that funds should go to those with higher risks. However many others, including Ontario reps, say that government money should not be used to counter differences in competitive advantage. Even within the prairies there are some substantial inequities in crop insurance spending. High-risk farmers in the Peace River region of Alberta and in southwestern Saskatchewan are heavily supported, to the detriment of producers in other regions of those provinces.

With the lack of uniformity in national crop insurance programs and funding, there is no national crop insurance program. We believe crop insurance should be considered as another regionally specific companion safety net program, and funded accordingly.

Broad interest has been shown in introducing new "disaster relief" safety net programs - possibly like the Farm Income Disaster Program (FIDP) in Alberta, but with support perhaps being at a lower level than the "70 per cent of the previous three-year average" which exists with FIDP in Alberta. This type of program would function "if all else fails," with the intent being to prevent bankruptcy, in the event of a one-time disaster, not alleviate moderate financial stress. Disaster relief would not substitute for NISA, crop insurance, or various other companion programs.

Ontario farm groups have not devoted much attention to the potential need for a program of this nature here, but will be doing so in the months ahead.

Probably the biggest flaw in current safety net discussions at the national level is the continuing assumption that "one size generally fits all" and that it is possible - indeed, desirable - to have the same level of government financial support for producers of all commodities, regardless of what is occurring internationally.

This makes little sense. For example, calculations from the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) presented at the February meeting of the National Safety Net Review Committee show very low levels of producer subsidy support ("producer subsidy equivalents," or "PSE") for red meats in major exporting countries. However, the reverse exists for grains for which subsidy levels, though declining, remain large in the U.S. and Western Europe. Further, Canadian subsidy levels tend to be lower in Canada than the U.S. for grain producers, and higher for Canadian producers of red meats and supply-managed commodities.

Data presented at the February meeting showed subsidy support for corn, in 1996, equivalent to about Can$13/tonne for Canada, Can$24/tonne for the US, and Can$94/tonne for Western Europe. For beef, the corresponding numbers were Can$18/cwt for Canada, $7/cwt for the U.S., and $197/cwt for Europe. There appears to be little information on relative support levels for horticultural commodities.

It seems absurd to consider that one common level or program of support for all Canadian commodities is appropriate, regardless of the different subsidy environments in which farmers compete internationally.

Once again, interest is growing in Western Canada for some type of income support targeted to grain and oilseed producers who are facing continuing high subsidy programs in the U.S. and Europe. The realities of much lower prices for 1997 crop sales -- following the inflated prices of 1995/96 and 1996/97 and the benefits of $1.6 billion in tax-free money provided as compensation for the elimination of the Western Grain Transportation Act subsidy -- are starting to hit home. A recent issue of the Manitoba Cooperator had several separate stories on the possible reintroduction of GRIP...possibly triggered, also, by the introduction of GRIP-like grain support programs in the U.S.

We appreciate Jack Wilkinson’s action to help ensure Ontario representation.

Hector Delanghe of Blenheim remains on the NISA committee as a representative of the Canadian Horticultural Council.

Despite a request from OCPA to the contrary, there will be a no minimum compensation price with the floating price option. If prices plunge this fall, producers enroled in the floating price option could get a lower rate of compensation than those with fixed price coverage. However, the floating price option does allow producers to price corn for fall delivery, knowing that in the event of pre-harvest crop loss, they will be compensated by crop insurance at a compensation price close to the market price at time of harvest. The same applies for livestock farmers faced with the prospect of buying corn at harvest to replace their own crops damaged by weather.

Basic premium levels for 1998 (before considering surcharges and discounts) are shown in the accompanying table.

The 70 per cent and 75 per cent options are no longer available. If you chose 80 per cent or 85 per cent in 1997, you will be renewed at the same level in 1998. Note that you will be automatically renewed at the floating price. If you want to choose the fixed price option, please indicate this on your renewal or contact AGRICORP at 1-888-AGRI-999. If you previously insured your corn at the 70 per cent or 75 per cent level, AGRICORP will be contacting you to determine which coverage level (80 per cent or 85 per cent) you wish to choose in 1998. May 1, 1998 is the deadline for you to have your 1998 coverage in place.

Unseeded acreage claims will be settled at $3.75 per bushel if you choose the floating price option and $3.50 per bushel if you choose the fixed price option.

A subcommittee involving representatives of the crop insurance committee of AgriCorp, and of Ontario grain and oilseed organizations, has been formed to study how separate farm coverage could be introduced for crop insurance in Ontario. The committee met in early February, with the second meeting scheduled for mid March. Separate farm coverage is included as part of multi-peril crop insurance program in the U.S., which the committee will be studying. Also being reviewed are premium surcharges and discounts, and how to manage the co-mingling of stored grain (for example, from separate farms or farmers) for crop insurance yield monitoring purposes. The goal is possible implementation in 1999.

We also congratulate Renie Long, Middlesex County, AgriCorp’s new chair.

The CSTA seed corn committee has been actively lobbying Ontario MPPs to try to counter the OCPA proposal. In at least one case, a paid lobbyist has been employed. Livestock producer organizations have also been contracted, though these groups have informed us that they are either neutral or supportive of OCPA on the matter.

Minister Villeneuve continues to assure us that we have his support. As he has noted, "Research and development are absolutely crucial for the future success of the Ontario corn industry, and, after all, the OCPA request is for only 50¢/bag."

An 80,000 kernel bag of seed corn now sells for as much as $190. With the proposed research levy, the price would be $190.50.

The Research and Technology Committee has recommended that OCPA pursue this route, subject to approval by the board of directors and delegates at the 1998 annual meeting.

Dr. Lee begins her tenure at Guelph on April 1. OCPA will be paying 17.5 per cent of her employment costs, and will be providing operating funds for breeding research at Guelph, Woodstock and Ridgetown.

Dr. Bob Hamilton, corn breeder at the federal Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre (ECORC) in Ottawa has announced he will be retiring in the spring, 1998. Bob has had a productive career which has included research on corn in both Manitoba and Ottawa. We wish him good health in his retirement.

The changes include greater use of Internet technology and the creation of a new class of "extension experts" designed to provide expertise at the provincial level (i.e., comparable to that provided by extension experts located at land-grant universities in the U.S.). These extension experts will be located in close proximity to researchers in an attempt to ensure a close integration between research and extension efforts in the province.

One of the expert positions will be targeted specifically to corn, and will be funded in part by OCPA. This position, which will be for a two-year trial period (and can be extended indefinitely) will be a special pilot project. We are eager to see this position filled quickly.

Although Oulton was ADM, in charge of the Policy Branch of AAFC, for less than three years, he had established a reputation for openness and for being willing to listen to the advice of outsiders...an area where the Policy Branch is not known to be strong. He will be missed, but we expect he will continue to have ample contact with the farm community as he fulfills his new mandate. Agriculture can be expected to be a major player in Canadian efforts to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions.

A second ADM position is also vacant in AAFC, with Diane Vincent having left the Market Information and Services Branch for a position in Industry Canada. It is not known how quickly the two ADM positions will be filled.

AAFC is also seeking a permanent replacement for Conrad Paquette, formerly in charge of the AAFC office in Guelph. Conrad has also taken a position in Industry Canada.

Pursuit is known to have residual-effects on some very sensitive crops (such as sugar beets) but it appears corn is not one of these. And, of course, Pursuit-tolerant corn hybrids are now on the market, for which Pursuit can be used as a herbicide in the year of corn production.

However, there was a significant change in the AAC executive with Roger George stepping down as both chair and board member. Paul Henderson (Dairy Farmers of Ontario) becomes chair. Other members of the executive include Murray Porteous (OFA) as vice-chair and Tom Smyth (Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada) as the executive member.

New representatives to the board include Keith Strang (horticulture), Wayne Newman (red meat) and Art Bailey (poultry).

OCPA joins other farm groups in thanking Roger for his many years of service to the Ontario farm community. Roger’s role as founding chair of AAC, and the driving force behind its creation, was only one of the many contributions which he has made to Ontario agriculture. We wish him well in his new role as full-time owner/operator of the restored Windsor Hotel in Powassan.

The guest speaker at the AAC annual meeting was AAFCdeputy minister Frank Claydon, who was very complimentary about the accomplishments of AAC during its initial two years. Frank assured those present that he is a strong supporter of the concept behind AAC -- that is, that farm and rural organizations, through entities such as AAC, are better able to allocate and administer adaptation funds, than are bureaucrats based in Ottawa. We couldn’t agree more.

The OCPA web site (www.ontariocorn.org) continues to be a popular site. The number of visitors is now approaching 50,000, less than two years after its introduction in April, 1996.

The OCPA-Gustafson "Corn Connection" site (www.corninfo.com) has proven to be an internationally recognized starting point for finding information on the web about corn production and technology.

The proposed amendment would apply for sales of beans, buckwheat, corn, lentils, fababeans, mustard, peas, safflower, soybeans, sunflower and triticale.

The program is very similar to the grain financial protection program in Ontario. All dealers and elevators licensed under the Canada Grains Act (i.e., all primary elevators in Western Canada) would be obliged to collect a fee of $0.38 per $100 of sales by producers, with the money being contributed to a special CGC account.

This rate compares to the present $0.01/tonne collected on commercial corn sales in Ontario to support this province’s corn financial protection program. Note that the corn levy was $0.20/tonne during its initial years, before the fund built to its present level (about $4 million for corn).

The SCRIP/CGC proposal is that the levy be refundable. This makes little sense to us. Why wouldn’t all farmers ask for a refund after they were sure their cheques had cleared?