Index
Market Revenue Insurance Plans
The Government of Canada has dropped its provision that the coverage level under the Ontario Market Revenue Insurance
(MRI) program could fall to 80 per cent in 2000/01 if use is made of $112 million in federal funds contributed
to the MRI account prior to April 1, 1995. OCPA welcomes this change.
Representatives of corn, soybean, wheat, white and coloured beans and seed corn producer organizations and the
Ontario Federation of Agriculture were in Ottawa in mid April, meeting MPs to seek support for this program’s continuation
at least through the 2002/03 crop marketing year - i.e., for the duration of the new federal-provincial agreement
on safety nets, reached in March. They also sought the elimination of premium deductions with MRI, and other changes
needed to reduce the disparity between income support for grain and oilseed producers in Ontario versus the U.S.
These farm reps appreciate the hospitality provided by the following MPs who met them: Peter Adams, Colleen Beaumier,
Rick Borotsik, Garry Breitkreuz, Murray Calder, Roy Cullen, Paul DeVillers, Wayne Easter, John Finlay, Deborah
Grey, Honourable Herb Gray, John Harvard, Howard Hilstrom, Ovid Jackson, Joe Jordan, Bob Kilger, Gar Knutson, John
Maloney, Joe McGuire, Lynn Myers, Janko Peric, Jerry Pickard, David Pratt, Dick Proctor, Gerry Ritz, Julian Reed,
John Richardson, Alex Shepard, Paul Steckle, Rose-Marie Ur, Honourable Lyle Vanclief, and Susan Whelan.
No commitments were made by government (Liberal) MPs, and opposition MPs could only offer their support. But the
response from most of them was that our requests seemed reasonable and feasible. Also, the requests would not cost
the Government of Canada any more money than that already committed for safety net programs in Ontario.
Further discussions are now occurring among staff in the offices of ministers Vanclief and Hardeman, and with ministry
officials in both governments, in response to the request by Ontario grain and oilseed groups. We’re hoping for
decisions in the next few weeks.
A key date will be this autumn when final payments are made under the 1999/2000 MRI program, hopefully reflecting
the improvements identified earlier in this article.
Remember that final acreages must be reported to Agricorp by June 30, 2000 to be eligible for MRI and crop insurance
for the 2000/01 crop year.
GRIP (Gross Revenue Insurance Program)
One of the arguments advanced by some MPs during the Ottawa trip was that other provinces had returned surplus
GRIP funds when these programs ended in those provinces, and so Ontario should too. The most obvious counterargument
is that GRIP has not ended here; MRI is the effective continuation in Ontario of the highly valued national GRIP
program. In addition, it seems clear that other provinces did not really return all excess GRIP funds. Quebec retains
some, and the situation in Saskatchewan is best described in a provincial news release in late 1994, which states,
“the governments are using a substantial portion of their GRIP surplus to support the new safety net and agriculture
development initiatives and part will be retained for deficit reduction.” Also, the federal government provided
$150 million to Saskatchewan to help reduce a crop insurance account deficit at almost exactly the same time GRIP
ended.
The Liberal Party of Canada has endorsed a resolution calling for the reintroduction of a national GRIP program,
though the Government of Canada has not yet adopted this position. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
has called for the return of GRIP as one of its agricultural policies.
National and Ontario Safety Net Plans
There are many unresolved safety net issues at the national level, despite the agreement reached by Canadian ministers
of agriculture in March. One is the amount of autonomy to be given to provinces in safety net designs. A second
is the design of national and provincial disaster relief programs.
Ottawa continues to insist on uniformity despite the near impossibility of getting agreement with all provinces
on common program designs. A more practical approach seems to involve a wide degree of provincial flexibility,
within broad limits set nationally.
In the case of disaster relief, the only practical approach seems to be a common national formula for the allocation
of federal disaster relief funds. Provinces want flexibility in the design of within-province disaster relief programs,
especially if they are paying 40 per cent of total costs. The less desirable alternative is to have both national
and provincial disaster programs with different design features (such as now exists with the federal Agricultural
Income Disaster Assistance [AIDA], and the Ontario Whole Farm Relief Program, [OWFRP]). Similar discrepancies exist
in other provinces - notably Alberta, with its provincial Farm Income Disaster Program, and Quebec, which uses
federal AIDA funds to top up ASRA fund accounts in that province.
OCPA directors support the decision by the Government of Ontario to operate its own disaster program, because this
has allowed Ontario to distribute funds more quickly and avoid pitfalls which have occurred nationally with AIDA.
These pitfalls include recent design changes in AIDA which will likely mean substantial prorating in paying 1999
claims, because requests are now expected to exceed available funds by a sizeable amount.
Ontario continues insisting that the MRI account be compensated for the reduction in AIDA funds coming to Ontario
because of the existence of MRI support. (This is identical to the rationale used to replenish the ASRA account
in Quebec, using federal AIDA funds.)
Discussions continue among participants in the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council (with participation by general
farm groups) and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs on the best way to use available safety
net funds under the new federal-provincial agreement on safety net spending.
MRI Appeals
The 1998/99 MRI appeal process is proceeding very slowly. A major delay occurred when the terms of two of the three
Agricorp director appointees to the appeal panel expired in late 1999. The Government of Ontario has now granted
approval for all three to continue on the appeal committee, but there has been a setback of several months. As
of mid April, about 20 requests had been reviewed (about two-thirds successfully) and about 60 were outstanding.
The delay in Agricorp director appointments/reappointments is also reflected in the Agricorp board (including the
all-important crop insurance committee of Agricorp) which is now operating with a near-skeleton crew. Minister
Hardeman needs to do something about this.
ASRA Study
Brian Doidge of Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, has taken the lead in initiating a study of how the Quebec
ASRA income support program might work in Ontario. This is in response to a resolution approved at the OCPA annual
meeting. With ASRA, support prices are based on a complex cost-of-production formula for a constructed model Quebec
farm growing a range of crops. It is then assumed that every acre of corn (or soybeans, or other crops) in Quebec
is identical to those on the model farm - i.e, same yields, costs, etc. - and premiums and payouts are at the same
rate per acre, for every acre of each crop enrolled in the province. The calculated costs of production are quite
high and so are the support prices (more than $180/tonne, $4.50/bu for corn, for example). Producers pay one-third
of payout costs, on average, and these are also quite high (typically about $35/acre).
It is not known how much high support prices affect land rental costs for crop producers in Quebec, though in many
areas of Quebec, land costs are dominated by the needs of dairy producers who represent about half of total farm
income in that province.
Biotechnology Labelling Update
The Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) committee developing standards for the voluntary labelling of Canadian
foods derived from – or not derived from – genetically modified (GM) organisms, continues to progress. The major
stumbling blocks continue to be two questions: What does ‘genetic modification’ mean? Should ‘derived from’ be
treated the same as ‘containing’?
On the former question, there seems to be growing support for a definition which matches Canadian ‘novel crops’
and ‘novel food’ regulations, which have governed new genetically modified crops and foods since 1994. There have
been 43 genetically modified crops approved in Canada since the introduction of these rules, of which 34 involve
recombinant DNA (rDNA, the transfer of specific genes between species and/or the reintroduction of genes altered
in vitro back into the same crop species - the latter applies with DeKalb’s Roundup-Ready corn), and nine involving
other genetic techniques, mainly accelerated mutagenesis caused by exposure to nuclear radiation. This approach
is being opposed mainly by two groups - one centred on Cyanamid which has approval to sell new nuclear-mutated,
herbicide-resistant canola varieties, and which hopes to have these considered as ‘non-GM.’ The other group centres
on Western Canadian wheat exporters who are worried about the one approved wheat event/variety (i.e., one artificially
mutated wheat product out of the 43 approved novel crops) and don’t want it considered to be GM for export purposes...even
though the proposed standards are voluntary and for foods sold in Canada only (this also means foods imported into
Canada, such as those made from nuclear-mutated crops in Europe).
A question remains about how to deal with GM products introduced prior to 1994. There seems to be agreement that
mutated crops and foods introduced decades ago should be considered acceptable, based on decades of safe usage.
But it may be different for foods introduced in 1993, for example. And it may be different for labels stating ‘does
not contain GM ingredients’ than for those stating that the food does contain a specified GM event.
The second issue is: Are foods ‘GM’ if made from GM crops but don’t contain detectable GM ingredients? There is
broad agreement that livestock products made from GM feeds (and using GM drugs, where these don’t affect the genetic
makeup of the animal) should not be labelled as GM foods. But there is greater division over whether foods containing
products such as starch and sugar from corn, and oils from soybeans, canola and corn, are GM. (There is generally
no detectable GM protein or DNA in the starch, sugar or oils, though this may be a function of the sensitivity
of the test and its ability to measure micro-ingredients.) Food manufacturers don’t want labelling to include products
with non-detectable ingredients because of the difficulties of verification.
It would be tempting for corn, soybean and canola interests to support this position because it would mean that
almost all foods made from these GM crops (exceptions would be products like tofu and corn flakes) would not be
subject to labelling - even voluntary labelling. But consumer polls show this is unlikely to be acceptable to the
public, whose concerns are commonly broader than just safety of the food products. (It’s the same for organic foods
which cannot be verified by testing of products, and depend on ‘identity preserved,’ or ‘IP’ production protocols
for verification.)
Consumer reps on the CGSB committee, reflecting results such as the Angus Reid poll conducted by Ontario Agri-Food
Technologies (see April issue of the Ontario Corn Producer), their own focus group polling, and views of their
members, believe the standards must apply to all foods directly derived from GM crops, regardless of detectability.
Many farm and farm-related groups, including OCPA, AGCare, the Ontario Soybean Growers, Ontario Agri-Food Technologies,
and the Canadian Seed Growers Association (CSGA), support this position, believing that it represents the most
honest approach to consumer information and food labelling.
Other issues remaining to be resolved include ‘tolerances’ (at what minimal level is the inclusion of GM ingredients
in processed foods considered to be insignificant), and IP verification procedures. While there is some interest
in adopting organic-type verification protocols for GM or non-GM foods, seed-production type protocols (like those
used by CSGA) seem more practical.
The hope is that the CGSB process may reach a conclusion by late summer or early autumn.
Standing Committee considers Mandatory
Labelling
The most consistent proponent of mandatory labelling of GM foods in Ottawa is Bloc MP Mme. Alarie, who has introduced
a private member’s motion in the House of Commons calling for mandatory labelling of all GM foods. The motion is
now being considered by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food which is scheduling public hearings
through until late 2000. The Standing Committee on Health, chaired by Waterloo-Wellington MP, Lynn Myers, may also
hold hearings on broader biotech issues this fall. An initiative to have the two committees hold joint hearings
was blocked by the Bloc Quebecois.
New restructuring of the former Health Protection Branch in Health Canada may also have implications for the regulation
of GM crops and foods.
Public Attitudes to GM
Media and public interest in the ‘GM’ issue continues to sag. The April 1 ‘big event’ staged internationally by
anti-biotech activists was largely ignored by media. Media interest in the April anti-world-trade (and anti-everything
else) protests in Washington, D.C. was subdued compared to coverage of the Seattle protests last December. Another
opportunity comes in May when the international Codex Alimentarius committee (charged with international food labelling)
meets in Ottawa. But the lack of any credible evidence to date of health or environmental problems with GM crops
and foods is having its effect, as are the efforts of AGCare, Doug Powell, Gord Surgeoner and others. Public interest
is shifting to other subjects - such as harmful bacteria in foods and non regulation of so-called ‘health foods’
and herbal remedies - as it should.
Greenpeace seems to have sidelined its chief anti-biotech campaigner, Michael Khoo, and the chief of staff for
Greenpeace, former Toronto councillor Peter Tabuns, is now leading the charge - to date, with no notable increase
in effectiveness.
But it’s a tenuous peace. Any high-profile mistakes could cause media attention to return in a dramatic manner.
And activist groups have shown no inclination to throw in the towel.
For that reason, we’re watching – with some trepidation – the new public advertising campaign by agri-food biotech
companies. Hopefully it does not become a magnet for criticism. We do note that initial response to similar ads
now in place in the U.S. has generally been favourable.
Activist groups have turned their attention to direct attacks on specific targets - Kellogg’s is one and Loblaws
is another - and are hounding them with anti-GM letters, postcards, telephone calls, etc. Fortunately, Kellogg’s
and Loblaws are also hearing directly from Ontario farmers of the benefits of the new technology. Why not add your
voice?
Ontario and International GM Update
At a late-April, London (Ontario) meeting organized by OCPA and the Ontario Soybean Growers, and involving reps
of livestock, feed, elevator and food processor groups, several speakers provided broad information on GM crop
production and marketing in Ontario.
Casco, Nacan and Ontario oilseed crushers expect no changes in their delivery policies this fall (all GM crops
will be accepted, except for corn hybrids not approved for importation into Europe...in practice, this means don’t
deliver Roundup-Ready corn). King Grain announced it expects its rules this fall will be the same as Casco’s -
a change from an earlier expectation that it would be going GM free. All processors reported a decline in interest
by buyers in non-GM products, and virtually no interest in paying premiums for the same. (The one exception is
5,000 acres contracted by Cargill at Staples, Ontario at a premium to farmers of 50 cents/bu, though the ultimate
buyer for this corn remains a secret.)
Brian Doidge reported results of a U.S. study showing that the estimated additional costs to the trade (before
premiums to farmers) for identity preservation processes needed for non-GM corn and soybeans are about 22 cents/bu
and 54 cents/bu (U.S. currency) respectively.
There are now no feed companies in Ontario planning to produce and sell GM-free feeds in Ontario this fall - a
change from a few months ago. And farmers holding GM-free corn have had little luck in finding buyers willing to
pay premiums.
The exceptions are sales of IP soybeans, generally white-hilum varieties, mainly to the EU and Japan.
Internationally, the EU and many member countries continue to tighten their GM labelling rules. EU rules now cover
minor ingredients such as enzymes. And some EU food retailers are making wild claims about their non marketing
of livestock products made from GM-fed animals. However, those in the business of producing foods for Europe say
that ingredients from GM corn and soybeans continue to be included in so-called GM-free foods, with little disruption.
And although there has been lots of attention given to imports of supposedly GM-free soybeans from Brazil, sales
of non-segregated soybeans into Europe continue strong. Interestingly, polls are suggesting that public concerns
about GM foods may be starting to decline in the UK.
Japan plans to introduce new mandatory GM labelling rules on April1, 2001, and these rules are still in development.
It appears that these will apply only to the top three ingredients in prepared foods, with tolerances for GM components
of five per cent, and only if the GM ingredient can be measured. Some Japanese food processors and retailers have
apparently already implemented stricter limits, but verification protocols are not well known.
Farmers of Ontario
The Farmers of Ontario Coalition (TFOC) campaign is active again in 2000, attempting to address cuts in OMAFRA
spending for agricultural and rural extension, and to ensure that the new Healthy Futures program announced in
late 1999 does work to the benefit of Ontario agriculture.
A difference in the campaign this year has been a greater desire by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA)
to pursue Ontario budget-enhancing objectives independently of the TFOC which also includes the Ontario Agricultural
Commodity Council, supply management marketing boards, and the Christian Farmers’ Federation of Ontario.
The OFA budget agenda also includes requests for increases in provincial tax exemptions on purchases used in farming.
The effectiveness of these campaigns will be known when the Ontario budget is announced on May 2.
Increased Industrial Use of Corn
There continues to be lots of good news about increased industrial use of corn.
There is good news from the Seaway Valley Farmers’ Energy Cooperative which appears to have now secured all of
the non-member financing needed to begin plant construction. The plant will produce about 75 million litres of
ethanol per year, using 7.5 million bu of corn.
The new JBL plant at Port Colborne (using corn sugar from Casco to make citric acid) is a go, with ground-breaking
festivities expected soon. While this will not mean an immediate increase in corn use, it should do so in the intermediate
term, as Casco continues expanding.
Plans are afoot for a major expansion of the Commercial Alcohols Inc. (CAI) plant at Chatham, as the use of ethanol
in Ontario gasolines continues to grow. A more formal announcement is expected. We understand a new byproduct drying
system will also be installed this summer, ending the odour problem which has plagued downwind residents in Chatham.
Also expected is a formal announcement of the construction of the CAI plant at Varennes, Quebec (on the south shore
of the St. Lawrence River, immediately east of Montreal). It should use 12-15 million bu of corn per year, when
built.
Finally, Casco will be spending $1 million this summer improving its corn delivery system at London. That’s good
news for many frustrated truckers and farmers.
Corn Products International, the parent of Casco, is downsizing its Chicago-based research facilities, and Casco
is attempting to transfer some of these to its Cardinal, Ontario location, to be available for public and private
research on corn quality and processing. These intentions have been supported enthusiastically by OCPA directors.
There may be opportunity for close cooperation between Casco’s research facility at Cardinal and activities of
the Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada at Ottawa.
Corn production exceeded 230 million bu (about six million tonnes) in both 1998 and 1999 and, if Statistics Canada’s
projection of 2.05 million acres of grain corn in Ontario in 2000 proves true, another 230-million-bushel-plus
crop might be expected this year. Yet within-Ontario use continues to grow just as quickly (about 230 million bu
in crop marketing years 1998/99 through 2000/01, see specifics at www.ontariocorn.org/supply.html). Domestic industrial
applications are the fastest growing component of Ontario corn use.
Research Funding
More funding for public agri-food research is a priority for the Ontario Agricultural Research Coalition (OARC)
which had its annual meeting in late March, about one year after its inauguration. Bob Down, OCPA past president,
and director for Huron, was re-elected chair.
OARC has identified the need for changes to Revenue Canada’s research tax credit program. If the credits were extended
to funds contributed to support of research via farm commodity groups, using check-off levies, the amount of research
supported by farm groups could be increased by up to 42 per cent - including both federal and Ontario credit programs.
Ottawa continues to seek to limit the amount of outside money eligible for matching under the Matching Investment
Initiative (MII) of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) - mainly, it appears, because demands for matching
funds exceed the AAFC budgeted amount for the MII program. In the past, funds provided through the CanAdapt program
(provided under the AAFC Canadian Agricultural and Rural Development program, but administered and allocated in
Ontario through the Agricultural Adaptation Council) have been eligible for MII matching. Following as a result
of direct representation from OCPA and other OARC members, it appears that this policy will be continued.
Funds provided for public research out of the Ontario Safety Net Research and Development fund ($3 million per
year, allocated across all Ontario farm commodities eligible for safety net support) should also be eligible for
MII matching. In addition, OARC has joined the Ontario Field Crop Research Coalition and other farm groups in asking
that this $3 million allocation be included in future safety net budgets.
And OCPA continues to seek seed corn company cooperation for the voluntary seed corn research contribution of 50
cents/unit on all corn seed sales. We’re getting closer to this objective, with only one major seed company left
to join.
Canadian Grain Commission - ‘RIOT’ Program
OCPA has joined other Canadian grain interests in supporting plans by the Canadian Grain Commission to develop
new technology for the improved rapid detection of quality traits in Canadian grains and oilseeds. The approach
is called Rapid Instrumental Objective Testing and is expected to involve a multi-year and multi-million-dollar
commitment, using both public and private funding. Brian Doidge, Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, has been
appointed to two key national committees to oversee corn interest in this process, and to identify specific corn
needs.
Some of the traits being identified for the
production and marketing of high-quality milling-grade corn could benefit from new 'RIOT' technology.
Canada Grains Council
OCPA congratulates the Canada Grains Council (CGC) on a successful
annual convention in Winnipeg April 9-11, with a speakers' program addressing biotechnology, international trade
and new marketing opportunities. OCPA general manager Don LeDrew was a member of the planning committee. Anna Bragg,
OCPA president, chaired the evening banquet where a number of speakers roasted Mike Gifford, AAFC's chief agricultural
trade negotiator for many years, on the occasion of his retirement. Brian Doidge and Mary Lou Garr, vice chair
of AGCare, were among the many quality speakers.
Don Kenny, an Ottawa-area farmer and OCPA director for Region 2 (also chair of the OCPA Grain Trade and Marketing
Committee) is one of eight directors elected to a revamped CGC board of directors.
The next CGC convention occurs this autumn in Ottawa.
The council is undergoing major change with a vastly reduced budget, membership fee structure and staff. Membership
is now $1,000 per member per year, down from amounts as high as $ 15,000 before. Victoria Watson is the only full-time
employee at the Winnipeg office, with other functions now being done through service contracts and voluntary support
by member organizations.
OCPA remains committed to the belief that the CGC is the most effective means in existence for Canadian grain and
oilseed personnel (farm groups, grain marketers, shippers, processors, etc.) to meet and discuss common interests.
Its new structure should permit this to continue, at minimal costs.
Port Stanley
Port Stanley is an important port for loading grains and oilseeds
and for the importation of fertilizer and other materials. Unfortunately, the harbour is badly in need of dredging
and Transport Canada continues to ignore its responsibilities for doing so.
With low Lake Erie water levels, there is a significant chance of boat grounding in 2000. Indeed, vessels are now
refusing to use this port because of risk of grounding. OCPA continues to pressure the Hon. David Collenette, Minister
of Transportation, to take action.
Drainage Review
A major review of the Ontario Drainage Act is underway, with the
review documents making it clear that reduced provincial spending is one of the intended goals. OCPA joined other
farm groups in making representations to the review panel, expressing strong support for continued public support,
both through capped interest loans to producers and grants for the construction and maintenance of municipal drains.
Interested members may want to contact their MPPs directly on this matter.
A copy of OCPA's presentation is available to any member upon request.
Retirements and Position Changes
Rita Burak, former assistant deputy minister and, later, deputy minister
of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and secretary to the Ontario cabinet since
1995 (the most senior civil servant in Ontario) has announced her decision to retire in June.
Also retiring in June is Ken Knox, who served in many roles in OMAFRA, the last as its deputy minister - and, more
recently, as deputy minister of the Ontario Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology.
Both of these individuals have been giants in changing the relationship between the Government of Ontario and farm
groups - to one of cooperative partnerships, compared to the former 'us versus them' mentality. As a result, both
have had large influences on Ontario agriculture. And both have remained strong friends of Ontario farmers and
rural Ontario. But the pace at the deputy minister level can be extremely demanding, and their decisions to step
down are understandable.
They'll be sorely missed. We wish them all the best in their well-earned changes in careers.
We also thank Frank Claydon, who recently left his position as deputy minister in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
to become secretary to the Treasury Board. Frank had a refreshingly positive attitude and a broad perspective of
Canadian agriculture, coupled with an open and cheerful disposition, and he'll be a hard act to follow.
The person who gets this challenge is Sammy Watson, who becomes deputy minister of AAFC after having served in
various positions in the Cabinet office and the Department of Finance. We look forward to a good working relationship
with him.
ACGA versus NCGA
Ontario farmers have been confused by the many anti-biotech messages
coming from the American Corn Growers' Association (ACGA). In fact, ACGA is a small left-wing group which is philosophically
very similar to the National Farmers Union. The much larger U.S. group is the National Corn Growers' Association,
which has member organizations in virtually all corn-growing states, and a membership in excess of 35,000. The
NCGA is similar to OCPA in its approach to technology and many other issues. The two organizations are in frequent
communication. Indeed, the present and CEO of NCGA are scheduled to visit OCPA in late May - the second such visit
within 13 months. And OCPA reps usually attend NCGA annual meetings.
According to a late 1999 feature in the Wall Street Journal, the ACGA has received $85,000 from environmental trusts
and other (non-farmer) sources to fund its anti-biotech campaign.
CORN
PRICES (April 12, 2000)
| Period: Oct. 1 - Feb. 29 |
Approximate Tonnes Marketed
|
Average Weighted Price
|
| 1999-00 |
1,832,200
|
$110.32/tonne
|
| 1998-99 |
2,028,400
|
$116.32/tonne
|
|
1997-98
|
1,160,300
|
$153.60/tonne
|
| |
|
|
| The above figures are based on levies received by OCPA for commercial
sales. |
1