by SUSAN MANN
Farm and agri-business groups across Canada are poring over the proposed federal agricultural growth bill to figure out what it means for growers and agricultural businesses.
But so far very few groups contacted this week have a complete handle on whether farmers will come out winners due to the large number of changes proposed in the bill that impacts nine different acts used to regulate farming. Agri-business groups also aren’t sure yet what effect the changes will have on feed mills, crop input suppliers and grain elevators.
The agricultural growth bill, introduced Monday to the House of Commons, proposes several changes to legislation under the authority of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency including:
- Plant Breeders’ Rights Act
- Feeds Act
- Fertilizers Act
- Seeds Act
- Health of Animals Act
- Plant Protection Act
- Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act.
The bill, which has received first reading, also proposes changes to two acts under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s authority – the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the Farm Debt Mediation Act.
Halton farmer Peter Lambrick says what he needs the government to do with regulations is make them reasonable “and as simple as possible. Don’t make it more onerous than it has to be.”
Lambrick says he’ll take at face value federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz’s assertion the bill will increase farmers’ access to new crop varieties, enhance trade opportunities and the safety of agricultural products, reduce red tape and contribute to Canada’s overall economic growth. “But I do want to see it.”
One group that says the bill will have a positive impact on farming is Grain Farmers of Ontario, which is a member of Partners in Innovation. This is a group of 12 national and provincial farm and agri-business organizations that have recently come together to support the government’s legislation to improve plant breeders’ rights in Canada.
Grain Farmers chair Henry Van Ankum says they support the government’s efforts to strengthen plant breeders’ rights and align Canada’s legislation with the International Union for Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV ’91). “We feel that’s an important step to try and create an attractive climate within Canada for private companies’ seed development investment.”
Some farmers are concerned meshing Canadian plant breeders’ rules with the international ones will mean handing control of the seed system over to large international multinational corporations and increased costs for farmers. Van Ankum says the proposed extension of time that royalties can be collected, to 20 years in the new proposal compared to 15 years now, isn’t a big concern to them because “the way the genetics development pipeline works now is often a variety can be replaced with something better well before the 15 year (royalty collection) period is finished. Farmers typically move to those newer varieties that offer stronger performance.”
Overall Grain Farmers supports the changes proposed in the agricultural growth bill and “we believe it will” have a positive impact on farmers and farming, Van Ankum says, noting it will lead to less red tape “going forward.”
One of the real strengths of the bill will be to give regulators the authority to consider foreign scientific reviews, data and analyses during the approval or registration of new agricultural products in Canada, which will lead to a more effective approval process. This is something farm and agri-business groups say they have requested for some time and it has the potential to have a huge impact on farming because a large number of products fall under this.
Elena Koutsavakis, CFIA spokesperson, says by email veterinary biologics, such as antibody products and in vitro diagnostic test kits that are used for the prevention, treatment or diagnosis of infectious diseases in animals, are included here because they fall under the Health of Animals Act. However, veterinary drugs and pesticides aren’t part of these proposed changes because they are regulated by other acts that aren’t part of the agricultural growth bill.
Van Ankum says using scientific data from other countries in the approval process for new farm products here is a positive step forward.
Ryder Lee, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association manager of federal and provincial relations, agrees. “That’s something we’ve been requesting for a long time.”
One of the current acts slated for changes, the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, governs programs farmers like. Lee says farmers generally like the Advance Payments Program “so any improvements they (the federal government) can make there to simplify the delivery and ease access, like they said, will be seen as positive.”
The ability for farmers to access innovative products depends on the government’s processes for approving new products. “In a global business like beef, the access to something that’s new and innovative that can shave $10 or $20 per animal off is a big, big deal when we’re finishing three million head a year,” he says. “That adds up to some serious change.”
About changes to strengthen plant breeders’ rights in Canada, Lee says he doesn’t see the alignment of Canada’s rules with UPOV ’91 as detrimental to farmers. Instead he says “anything that’s going to make companies invest in exploring new seed varieties in Canada and launching them in Canada is positive.”
Once the government agricultural growth bill is passed, Canada will be joining other countries that have already brought their plant breeders’ rights in line with UPOV ’91. Lee says he hasn’t heard of the “world falling down around the United States or Australia with UPOV ’91. My level of concern subsides when I look at how many countries are already living under this regime and their farmers are okay.”
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is going through the bill now to figure out “what it means,” says president Ron Bonnett. “We haven’t got a definitive answer yet.”
But Bonnett notes changes are proposed to the cash advance program and farmers have been asking for these changes for some time. The government is holding “a very fast-tracked consultation period to walk through how to implement some changes to streamline the whole program and make it more effective.”
Also working to figure out what the bill means for their members are the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Agri-Business Association and the Animal Nutrition Association of Canada, a national trade group for Canada’s feed industry.
Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Mark Wales says the changes to the advance payment program are “about reducing paperwork.” Many of the changes are being put in place now and the federal legislation “will allow the changes to take place.”
The agricultural growth bill includes a new licensing and registration regime for animal feed and fertilizer operators. Graham Cooper, executive director of the animal nutrition association, says this will impact feed companies but “we have not yet had a chance to discuss the details of the legislation with the people at CFIA.” They will be doing that next week.
Cooper says the terms ‘licensing’ and ‘registration’ are both used in the bill but it isn’t clear what “if any difference there is between those two terms. There must be a difference, I would suggest.” Neither term is defined in the bill.
The bill will require establishments that import, export or sell products across provincial borders to be licensed or registered before they can conduct business. “What is unclear at this point in time is how much of the industry would actually be affected by that,” he says.
About giving CFIA the authority to look at foreign government’s scientific analyses and data when approving new products, Cooper says this will remove some red tape but he couldn’t say if it would lead to cost savings for farmers on their feed bills. “There are a lot of things that go into determining the cost of feed.”
But over time, the government’s bill would result in giving Canadian farmers access “to the full range of ingredients that are used across the world, which today perhaps are discouraged from coming into Canada by virtue of our cumbersome regulatory system,” he notes.
Another fairly major change in the bill is the need for preventative control and hazard identification plans for commercial feed establishments. “This is very consistent with what is happening in the United States and in the European Union,” he says.
Dave Buttenham, chief executive officer of the Ontario Agri-Business Association, says they’re looking at the legislation “to see what the ramifications are for our sector.” National agri-business associations will also be studying the bill from a “national scope but we’ll also be looking at it from an Ontario business-based approach.” BF
Comments
The above article notes that farm groups are "pouring over" this proposed bill - however, "pouring over" and "poring over" have two completely-different meanings.
"Pouring over" normally means doing something with a liquid, such as pouring cold water on something, or in a more vernacular interpretation, urinating on something.
"Poring over" something normally means reading it carefully.
In this case, however, once people have "pored over" the proposed bill, then they may have reason to "pour over" it, but not until then.
On the other hand, anything coming from supply management supporters can always be immediately "poured over" because it's never worth "poring over".
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
editors start doing your job this is totally uncalled for and should not have been published. its time to reign in this economist.
The obligation of an economist is to be the bearer of unpalatable truth - a task made tremendously-easy and tremendously-enjoyable when the truth also happens to be, as it is in this case, tremendously-funny.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The editors are doing their job. What you want is a "screening" of the comments so that SM is seen in nothing but a good light...right? They already have that in Countries like China where the news is always "screened" by the government. Control of the media is not a good thing...nor is hearing nothing but one sided views...time to put your "big boy pants on" and form your own views?
Your kidding me!! Supply Management is not even mentioned in the articule.Mr Thompson has the same one-side view in every topic. It would also help if he actually read the whole story instead of the first line!
The story dealt many times with the problems represented by so-called "red tape". For non-supply managed farmers, the biggest item of "red tape" they will ever face is the unequal incomes and purchasing power which supply management gives to dairy and poultry farmers.
If, therefore, we were to get rid of the "red tape" of trying to compete with supply managed farmers, we'd be a long way towards solving all of the other problems outlined in the article
The article is simply more window-dressing in an attempt to deal with symptoms of problems, not the actual problems themselves.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
You take a story and twist it around .
I call Bull Pucky to your twisted reasoning .
SM is not even mentioned .
Nice try again !
All I can add is Right On.
This bill is dubbed the "Agricultural Growth Bill" which is, all at the same time, oxymoronic and a half-truth, because for many farmers, especially non-supply managed farmers under the age of 40, by-far the biggest restriction to growth, or even entry into primary agriculture, is the distorted and bloated purchasing power accruing to supply managed farmers because of 200% tariff barriers available to them alone.
Therefore, the proposed legislation, and the lack of critical thought by farm organizations into the real restrictions on growth in agriculture in this country, mean that this bill, as is always the case in Canadian agricultural policy, studiously avoids the divisiveness of, and the growth restrictions imposed by, supply management.
Or, to look at it another way - how can anyone credibly talk about eliminating restrictions to growth in Canadian agriculture and not include supply management as one of the major restrictions?
For example, how can anyone talk about eliminating restrictions to growth in Canadian agriculture and ignore supply management's ability to drive growth-oriented companies like Chobani right out of the country, as well as drive increasing numbers of consumers of dairy and poultry products into the US?
The only people twisting anything in this story are the always-anonymous supply management advocates twisting and writhing in an increasingly-futile attempt to deny that supply management is the biggest restriction to agricultural growth in Canada, even in the dairy industry itself.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Ahh yes grasshaopper but you must not let your jealousy and short sightedness cloud the truth . Supply Management is a stale and limited market . It will never expand beyond what it is in any real amount because of limited uses . Let them have it and drive them selves down . They too are short sighted like you .
Agriculture in this country is so much more and could be so much more than what it currently is . For example look at goat's milk and meat production and where it has come from and will be going . SM is just but a sliver slice of the whole . Opportunities exist and will continue to be more for other products made from corn , soy, wheat and other crops . With SM all you do is eat it and shit it out the other end .
Do not forget how pork farmers were in the same or better position not that many years ago . Now they are the ones calling the kettle black .
You and your cronnies are a perfect example of the "ME" and Me Only matters . Open your eyes and your mind and embrace all the opportunity where it exists , and leave the SM to die a cruel self inflicted death .
The problem is that while we are waiting for supply management to die a cruel, and self-inflicted, death, it causes collateral damage to everyone, and everything, around it - supply management is the reason why young people need to make $100,000 annually in off-farm income just so they can buy a 50-acre roof over their head. Supply management is also what causes even goat farmers to have to pay ridiculous prices for land simply so that they, too, can be second-class farmers when compared to the aristocrats with quota.
My eyes are wide-open and I am short-sighted about nothing - I hear all the time from young, non-supply managed farmers who detest supply management, and all that it represents, with a passion. People who think non-supply managed farmers are jealous of the aristocrats with quota, don't have a clue - jealousy is something you feel when your buddy takes a better-looking girl home from the party than you, resentment is what you feel when you are forced to be a second-class citizen, and a second-class farmer, for your entire farming career - which is exactly the prospect facing non-supply managed farmers under the age of 40.
And, sadly, you have the "me and only me" concept completely backwards - that attitude is the attitude held by supply managed farmers, and it's exactly why supply management is not well-liked, and exactly why, my anonymous and very-dismissive friend, it won't be missed.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
If Chobani had proposed building a plant in "milk' rich South Western Ontario it probably would have been more well recieved.With a Kingston plant and only half hour from the US border it became pretty tranparent what their intensions would be if they felt they wouldn't be allowed enough milk.
Just another example how some of our Agr-industries in this country feel the need to depend heavily on the US.They say they need access to foreign markets but what they really mean is they need access to ONE market..the US! A clear-cut case is the Quota allotment in Beef and Pork that we have had for years in the EU but never filled it because the US border was just a few miles away!COOL changed all that and now its Boo-hoo Supply Management is all to blame.
We have put our eggs in one basket for far too long and its unfortunate that a lot of farmers have been burned by it but blaming SM is for the weak-willed and people that can't seem to come to grips.
Sorry, but your logic is entirely backwards - supply management exists solely to prop up weak-willed dairy and poultry farmers who can't come to grips with the reality the rest of us face. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate to blame supply management for the constantly-increasing divisions in the farm community, it is entirely appropriate to blame supply management for chasing Chobani right out of the country, and it is entirely appropriate to blame supply management for creating barriers to entry for all types of farming, including supply management itself.
More to the point, only the weak-willed, and people who can't come to grips, are prepared to exonerate supply management for being the major problem facing Canadian agriculture.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I when to the store the other day and bought some eggs , when I got home and looked at it and it was from a very large egg producer in Ontario and beyond and what a surprise it was a product from the USA. So why can,t other people produce eggs to sell here without quota? Comes down to the BIG Guy can do whatever while the small guy gets shit on.
About a year, or so, ago, a news item revealed that the Egg Farmers of BC was quietly buying US eggs, at US prices, importing them, and then selling them at Canadian prices to BC consumers who were, presumeably, none the wiser that they weren't buying Canadian produced eggs at all.
What's worse is that supply managed farmers in BC have seen such an erosion in market share to US dairy and poultry products sold in US border towns that they've taken out ads to try to persuade consumers to shop in BC instead.
It's, of course, a complete double-standard for BC's supply managed farmers to decry cross border shopping by consumers, but blithely do it themselves and think nothing of hosing their own customers in the process.
Supply management shouldn't be known by the SM label at all, but because of what supply management is all about, it should be labeled DS, which is, of course, Double Standard.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Is that any different than the Buy Local push that gov has on many fruit and veg products ? They are not even under the SM roof . It too will fall flat on it's face .
What, people are going to stop eating fruit and veggies ??l am going to bet against that happening!
One of my customers, who works for a transport company, has been sent to Ohio over the years to pick up eggs and deliver them to a town less than an hour from me. The most interesting part of this was that when he picked them up in Ohio they were already packaged and labelled "product of Ontario". Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
It is not only here that we see these problems . Was going thru some papers on a shelf that needed some attention . While leafing through one from a farm rep group I noticed in the magazine that one of the staff is listed as an economist . I am sure he and Mr. Thompson do not share the same view on many things and SM and Green Energy being a couple .
So nice to see that two of the "same" can be on totally different ends of the spectrum .
Your in good company Stephen !! LOL ;-)
It's like this - somebody can be an economist or a supply management supporter, but it's simply not possible to be both. It is always tragic to see someone abandon his/her obligation to be the bearer of unpalatable truth, by taking the proverbial "30 pieces of silver" offered by those who exist solely to hide and/or twist the truth in an attempt to preserve the aristocratic entitlements of a few at the great expense of many.
Therefore, to any economist with a conscience, anything written in support of supply management must always be "poured over" because it is always nothing more than protectionist twaddle. More to the point, nothing needs to be "poured over" more than supply management. I simply used it to illustrate the substantial difference between "pouring over" and "poring over".
It is always a good thing to sink the battleship of those who can't face the truth, and I obviously did just that - it's been a good day!
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Post new comment