Universal fees to fund Ontario Pork debated

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

© AgMedia Inc.

by BETTER FARMING STAFF

Fees to deliver universal services to Ontario’s pork producers may initially be higher than a recent letter to the industry outlines.

In a letter to industry players dated Feb. 17, Geri Kamenz, chair of the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission, announced that the Hog Industry Advisory Committee (HIAC), which is overseeing the restructuring of Ontario’s hog marketing, had recommended introducing fees of $0.80 per hog and $0.20 per weaner/feeder pig to help the industry’s commodity organization deliver universal services.

This week, Kamenz says HIAC is suggesting a temporary “safety sleeve” fee “over and above the $.80 as a transition measure,” recognizing that the transition to open marketing “will have some added costs to it.” Kamenz says the Commission hasn’t seen the proposal. It meets next in March.

Kamenz says the fees were “all in and benchmarked” against fees in other provinces. But Ontario Pork chair Curtiss Littlejohn says additional funding will be necessary to maintain Ontario Pork’s current research commitments. Approximately $1 million raised by producer levies annually “is leveraged” and can generate as much as $8 million in some years, he says. 

Littlejohn says Ontario and Quebec producers have shouldered a substantial proportion of Canada’s swine industry research in recent years as provincial organizations in Western Canada cut their budgets.

Some parts of the Feb. 17 letter are contentious. Littlejohn questions the letter’s claim that the Commission did not direct Ontario Pork to separate its marketing arm from universal services. He agreed that Ontario Pork made the proposal, recognizing that “if the marketing arm is to compete in an open marketing environment, it needs to be free of political encumbrances.” But the committee, which reports to the Commission also unanimously supported the idea. “I’m not sure what they’re trying to say; maybe you should ask the Commission.”

Kamenz says no such recommendation has been presented to the Commission. 

“The Commission was clear in its direction in not forcing two organizations to be created,” he says. “The marketing services could very well be carried out under Ontario Pork,” adding: “We don’t get into that level of micro-management.”

Ontario Pork paid for two previous Commission mailings to producers but is charging to mail the Feb. 17 letter. “The Board had decided enough was enough; we’ll return to our standing policy,” says Littlejohn.

Former Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario policy advisor Elbert van Donkersgoed, also disputes claims made in Kamenz’s Feb. 17 letter. The consultant is assisting Glencoe pork producer Rein Minnema in appealing the Commission’s October decision to remove Ontario Pork’s agency powers, 

The letter “spins the pork decision as if it is about more choice while in reality the biggest change strips pork producers of the most important choice – the choice of working together to increase buyer competition for all market hogs in the province,” he states in a news release.

Along with Minnema, Tony Felder, from Lambton County, and the Huron Pork Producers Association are appealing the Commission’s October decision. In addition, 35 producers have signed letters supporting Minnema’s appeal and two regional associations – Huron County and Golden Horseshoe – support Huron’s appeal, Van Donkersgoed says.

“The appeal isn’t coming from small producers, as some appear to assume,” he says, noting that both Minnema and Felder average a truckload a week to the processor, a volume matched by just over 100 producers in the province. 

The Tribunal will hold a pre-hearing conference on the issue of the stay March 9 beginning 9 a.m. at a yet-to-be-confirmed location.

Ontario Pork, which withdrew from Hog Industry Advisory Committee meetings earlier this month citing concerns participation would be in contempt of Tribunal regulations, has applied for party status in the hearing, Littlejohn says. 

Ontario Pork wants the stay’s terms clarified before participating further. The Commission maintains the Tribunal’s stay doesn’t prevent planning activity. BF