by SUSAN MANN & BETTER FARMING STAFF
A resolution calling for Grain Farmers of Ontario to withdraw its membership in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) was tabled at the commodity group’s annual meeting Tuesday.
The fact that the resolution was proposed, discussed — and not turned down — still sends a powerful message to the general farm organization, said Mark Brock, Grain Farmers chair. The resolution originated in Perth County, the district that Brock represents.
The federation “isn’t representing the views of the grain producers in Ontario,” Brock said, Thursday. “I think the reason the resolution was brought forward was just to communicate frustration with OFA’s approach to the neonic (neonicotinoid) issue.” A growing body of scientific evidence shows that neonicotinoid insecticides are highly toxic to honeybees and other beneficial insects, a June release from the provincial ministry of environment and climate change said.
Grain Farmers and other organizations within the agricultural industry point to other research that suggests with precautions, neonics can be far safer to use than the insecticide they replaced. The insecticide is often applied as a seed treatment on corn and soybeans to protect crops from early season insect damage.
“Ultimately, most grain producers are frustrated with OFA’s position on the neonics and how they’ve handled it,” Brock said. “But they don’t want a message sent to government either, I think, that says we’re fragmented within the ag community.”
Asked what “tabling” a resolution means, Brock said, “The next time we get together as delegates we can have a motion that brings it back to the floor and we can have a discussion on it and vote on it.” The next formal meeting of Grain Farmers’ delegates is at the organization’s semi-annual meeting in March 2016.
Almost all of the corn and 60 per cent of the soybean seeds sold in Ontario are treated with neonicotinoid insecticides, the provincial ministry of environment said in the controversial June 9 press release.
That same release included quotes from the farm federation’s leader. OFA president Don McCabe has said since that his comments within the government’s release are not an endorsement of the regulations but an acknowledgement that more work was needed to develop the new rules. McCabe also said the federation planned to continue to make sure farmers’ voices are heard.
Asked about OFA's position on neonics, McCabe said the federation and Grain Farmers have the same goal in mind. Both organizations want to lift stringent and arguably unworkable provincial rules on neonics, but the organizations are following different strategies, he said.
Grain Farmers representatives walked out of a briefing meeting with agriculture minister Jeff Leal last December; some other agricultural groups left with them. The federation remained in the meeting, along with the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association.
Brock stressed it isn’t an official Grain Farmers board position to withdraw membership in the federation. “From the grassroots side of things, there’s a lot of grain farmers that were frustrated with OFA being in that (government) announcement of the (neonicotinoid) regulation back in June. They feel OFA is helping government implement a regulation and trying to make it workable for farmers but the regulation isn’t workable at all.”
Even if the tabled resolution is eventually passed, it doesn’t mean it becomes Grain Farmers policy. Brock said resolutions are recommendations to the board and it’s up to directors to decide how to handle them.
Grain Farmers was formed in 2010 through an amalgamation of the corn, wheat and soybean growers’ organizations. It has been a member of the federation ever since and pays a $500 annual membership fee.
photo: Don McCabe
Federation president Don McCabe said on Thursday he hasn’t officially been made aware of the resolution. “Therefore, I haven’t got too much to worry about at the moment, I guess.”
There are many shared individual members between OFA and GFO. The federation has 37,000 members; Grain Farmers has 28,000.
If the Grain Farmers commodity group did withdraw membership in the federation, McCabe said that’s its choice. “Members come, members go, both on a group level and on an individual level.”
The Ontario government’s regulation on the sales and use of neonicotinoid-treated corn and soybean seeds came into effect July 1. The government wants to cut the acreage planted with the treated seeds by 80 per cent by 2017. The new rules are being phased in over two years.
Grain Farmers said the regulations are unworkable and is taking the provincial environment ministry to court the end of this month, asking that the implementation date be delayed until May 2016, after next year’s crop is planted. BF
Comments
The only "powerful message" being sent by anyone is that the Grain Farmers of Ontario:
(A) because this motion saw the light of day in the first place
(B) because of the rhetoric coming from its chair in response to this motion
remains far-more toxic than the neonicotinoids it defends - GFO risks becoming an organization with no audience anywhere. What good is having 28,000 members if not even your "friends" care?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
From some of your Ontario farmer letters, I would suspect the Huron federation of ag organization does not agree with you. So, where is the disclaimer? or are you no longer part of their organization?
I included a disclaimer in my most-recent letter published in the Ontario Farmer, the first one published subsequent to my signing the protocol established by the Huron County Federation of Agriculture - the Ontario Farmer didn't print the disclaimer and I have also noticed that, as of late, they don't publish a disclaimer for anyone except for those people who are writing letters on behalf of and/or approved by some specific organization.
That's probably a good thing, because it allows people to gag and puke when reading letters that are clearly propaganda because the writer has identified a connection. It also keeps people from gagging and puking when reading a letter from an individual who isn't a hired shill for somebody seeking a legislated advantage over somebody or something
I'm not sure why the Ontario Farmer is doing this but It could be for legal reasons because a few years ago, somebody sent a letter to them using his/her professional letterhead rather than his/her personal stationery, thereby giving the impression that the letter writer was trying to assign more credibility to his/her letter than it deserved.
In addition, in the most-recent edition of the Ontario Farmer, the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) took significant issue with what they believe was an incorrect disclaimer identification of Ian Cumming as "an Ontario dairy farmer". All this proves is that in addition to not being able to understand basic economic principles, the communications department at DFO doesn't understand and/or appreciate good grammar because the term "Ontario dairy farmer" has everything to do with the residency status of the farmer and nothing to do with ther residency status of the farm. DFO is, as could be expected of any organization overly-focused on "shooting the messenger" is making "a mountain out of a molehill" because they can't seem to understand there is a substantial difference between an "Ontario dairy farmer" and an "Ontario dairy farm". Therefore, in order to avoid hassles from the less-than-capable grammarians at DFO and elsewhere, the Ontario Farmer may have simply decided to eliminate all disclaimers from individuals expressing their own opinions, as is the case with both Mr. Cumming and myself.
Therefore, it would appear that unless the writer is specifically writing on behalf of an organization, and clearly identifies that he/she is doing so, his/her opinions are considered to be entirely his/her own, and that's the way it should be
It would appear, therefore, that the disclaimer policy put into effect by the Huron County Federation of Agriculture is effectively-worthless because the Ontario Farmer is ignoring it.
That, of course, is my opinion based on my experience.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
You are saying that the Huron County Federation of Agriculture is worthless and useless ?
Does the Huron disclaimer not basically mirror the OFA policy ?
Sounds like Huron would be better with out you since you can't figure out what rules you want to follow , break or ignor .
Was it not you that had a problem with some media that took a letter or comment as being part of a bigger group ?
Fact is if you want to participate in the group , you follow the rules .
FACTS:
(1) I followed the rules of the social media protocol agreement I, and all of our Directors, signed with the Huron County Federation of Agriculture. Under my signature on my most-recent letter to the Ontario Farmer, I included a disclaimer stating that my views may or may not be the views of any organization with which I am affiliated.
(2) The Ontario Farmer did not print this disclaimer
OPINION:
(1) The social media protocol agreement I signed with the Huron County Federation of Agriculture would appear to be effectively worthless because the Ontario Farmer chose to ignore it.
(2) social media protocol agreements are out-dated and moot because generally-accepted custom has come to the point where everyone is assumed to be giving their personal opinion unless they indicate otherwise - thereby making disclaimers such as the one the Huron County Federation of Agriculture required me to offer to the Ontario Farmer, redundant and which is why, I believe, the Ontario Farmer didn't print it.
(3) anonymous <removed by editor>
As always, my opinions are entirely my own and may or may not be the views of any organization with which I am affiliated.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Editor: Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.
Editor: In accordance with our guidelines this comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.
OFA is in a tough place here because the government is dead wrong. At the end of the day though "talk talk is better than war war." I would have to say that OFA has managed an impossible situation as well as it possibly could.
Unlike the Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO), the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) learned from the example Adrian Measner set at the Canadian Wheat Board, and decided that rightly, wrongly or otherwise, obstructionist martyrdom serves no purpose. The result is that the OFA still has a voice at Queens Park, while the GFO does not and given its toxicity, isn't likely to get a voice even if and/or when the government changes.
While Moses became a biblical hero for leading his people through the wilderness for 40 years, it's unlikely that, 40 years from now, the current leadership of GFO will be accorded hero status for leading grain farmers into the political wilderness in which they now find themselves.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
No one is forced to belong to OFA, NFU, or CFFO. I think the legislation forces anyone who markets grain to join the grain farmer organization. So what I'm wondering is if I am a member of the grain farmer organization and let's say I disagree with their position on something how can I withdraw?
GFO can't just accept,deal with it and move on , neonics has a place and can be used if need is shown. As above poster nots GFO really only has 28,000 memebers because of there own Mandate too collect fees. When in the future they ask for more government support programs I am sure someone will rmind them about there stance . Exactly how many GFO members support the neonic lawsuit? And how many was asked for there opinion?
I'm a GFO member because I market grain not because of their stance on neonics or their support of the PC candidate in the recent byelection or their issues with OFA. Would it be possible to separate GFO political activity from their marketing? What about separate memberships for example? One could be voluntary and the other mandatory.
so how do we make that happen?
Farm business registration is manditory if you want the Farm Property Class Tax Rate Program . Or also if you want/need to participate in Gov programs . So you must register but you do not need to pay a fee to a general farm org . Registration with a general farm organization is NOT mandatory .
The fact that you have to pay your registration fee to one of the three general farm orgs is misleading . You can ask for your fee back . You must send a request for a refund or else the group you paid it to keeps your money . Just because you did not ask for a refund does not automatically make you a member although you will be added to the number used as member representation by these groups .
No one can force you to take out a membership but if you do not ask for a refund the group you made your cheque payable to gets to keep the money . If you want to be a member you must sign a 2nd step membership form .
Some what of a backwards or slippery way of conducting business and getting money .
The key is that you have choices with GFOs but not with commodity groups.
Folk’s, let’s be clear, from what has been written, this is not a lawsuit; it is simply a court challenge of the unworkable regs. OFA agrees with GFO and admits that the regs remain unworkable.
Editor. In accordance with our published guidelines this comment will be published in its entirety if signed and resubmitted.
Many farmers are unhappy with the GFO and would like to withdraw
Editor: comment will be published if signed and resubmitted.
The problem is that we have the commodity groups representing their producer interest and then you have the general farm orgs speaking for gov and claiming to speak for the commodity members also . Good reason for all commodities to not have memberships in general farm orgs . When it is a commodity specific issue it should be left up to the commodity to speak for its members . General farm issues are not commodity specific issues or vice versa . You don't see the commodity boards stepping in to general issues , they leave that up to the general political appointment seekers .
Really our farm property tax class rate should be tied to the commodities we grow because the commodity sold is used to base the amount used to qualify for the program .
If you were not force to belong Grain Farmers they would
Editor: comment will be published if signed and resubmitted.
OFA did not invent or even condone the neonic legislation, I believe they are being made a scapegoat by some people.
Editor: In accordance with our guidelines this comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.
I think any member whether it's an association or an individual has the freedom to withdraw from OFA. That's not the case with the mandatory membership in some commodity groups and marketing boards however and that's fine as long as those groups avoid political activity. I'm not singling any particular group out here. If any group wants to speak for me politically I want the freedom to opt out.
You simply can't separate the agri-organizations and politics,there is more evidence of that nowadays than ever.
Posturing, pure and simple. Finger-pointing and sissy talk; while the real issue - the neonicotinoid regulations - isn't touched.
When is someone going to find some cojones and get about five hundred tractors circling Queens Park for a week or two?
Jamie MacMaster
North Glengarry
Better yet...label food sold in Ontario derived from ingredients that were grown with neonic treated seed. Add that to the increasingly incomprehensible "Sustainability Plan".
I believe the foods already are labeled, called organic.
The Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO) just doesn't seem to understand that as in bacon and eggs where the hen is "involved" but the pig is "committed", the same adage applies to neonicotinoids in that bee-keepers are "committed" in a life-or-death struggle, while grains farmers are "involved" to the extent that their costs are likely to increase somewhat.
Simply stated, GFO's inability to understand that, in neonicotinoids, bee-keepers are the "pig" while grains farmers are the "hen", has led them to the present confrontational and dysfunctional state of affairs.
In addition, while not mentioned in the story above, other media outlets reported that Mr. Brock also claimed OFA's so-called "Grenville Resolution" from 1986 was a precedent requiring OFA to subordinate itself to GFO in this matter.
However, anyone asking the OFA about the Grenville Resolution would be told, as I was in June of this year, that the Grenville Resolution came about because livestock groups were opposed to the OFA's support of a resolution from Grenville County endorsing supply management for beef, and the OFA acceded to the wishes of livestock groups and backed away from support of the resolution from Grenville.
As I understand it, OFA's moving away from supporting a resolution from the Grenville Federation of Agriculture because of a request by livestock groups was a one-time matter involving specific issues at that time, and is not to be considered a "policy" adopted by OFA. More to the point, the Grenville Resolution involved only livestock farmers - the neonicotinoid issue involves bee-keepers as well as grains farmers, meaning that the OFA simply cannot, and, indeed, must not abandon one group of its members in favour of another.
As for policy and/or procedural precedents, the OFA's own records show nothing more sinister than the comment that after the experience of the Grenville Resolution, the OFA "took special care to consult" which is a long way from obligatory subordination.
I suspect, alas, that GFO's "drum-beating" about the Grenville Resolution will evoke considerable sympathy from GFO sympathizers within the OFA, especially among those OFA members who refuse to understand that the Grenville Resolution is neither a "precedent" nor a "policy", but a one-time response to an isolated and unusual situation.
I further suspect that disaffected OFA members will work to have at least one County Federation bring a resolution to the OFA convention in November of 2015 demanding that OFA subjugate itself to GFO on the neonicotinoid matter - given the testiness of grains farmers, given their numbers and given their refusal to understand what the Grenville Resolution was all about, any 2015 resolution to that effect could pass.
Thankfully, resolutions passed at OFA's annual convention don't automatically become OFA policy, and while this would normally end the matter, in this case it likely would not because of GFO's well-demonstated desire to maintain a "scorched-earth" policy when it comes to neonicotinoids.
The question remains - Why, since GFO is already running around like a headless and very-directionless chicken, would the OFA cut off its own head hoping that another headless chicken would be able to lead them both?
Even though no other group might agree with me, especially GFO, I'm almost positive the OFA does.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Cash crop/ grain farmers own hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in equipment,not to mention the costs of owning and renting land.Add to that the market uncertainties from year to year and you're saying they are not committed ??
Most bee keepers l know have off farm jobs,part timers or hobbyists, you have the involved and committed switched around.
While I don't know any so-called "part-time" bee keepers, I do know a lot of grain farmers who have "off farm jobs, part-timers and/or hobbyists" - thereby, according to the dismissive "logic" used by the above anonymous poster, relegating a great number of grains farmers to the same insignificant status afforded by the poster to part-time bee keepers.
Therefore, since the above anonymous poster seems to want to continue with the dismissive attitude towards bee-keepers that has continually dominated the thinking of grains farmers, why shouldn't people be equally as dismissive about part-time grains farmers?
The above poster's inability to apply any sort of consistent logic to both sides of the equation exemplifies the constant inability of grains farmers to do anything except bungle and blame everybody but themselves for their predicament.
As usual, my opinions may not be shared by any organization with which I am affiliated, or by any organization of which I am a member, including, I dare say, the Grain Farmers of Ontario.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Post new comment