The survey (found at the Government of Canada website) closes May 1 and is part of the seed regulatory modernization (SRM) process launched in September 2020 by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), which administers the Seeds Act and its regulations.

Essentially, Canada’s pedigreed seed system, which evolved over the last 119 years, is under the microscope.

Canada’s seed sector — seed companies, seed growers, farmers, plant breeders, and commodity and value chain associations — is participating. But exactly what changes may come from this process, described as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to revise the rules, is not yet clear and there are some clear fault lines within industry itself that may play into the seed sector’s various stances.

Acrimony

Like with most Canadian agricultural policy discussions, there’s an undercurrent of tension over differing commercial and ideological views.

One major fault line involves the two major seed sector players: the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association (CSGA) and Seeds Canada. It’s not just their differing positions, but also the lingering acrimony following the 2020 vote in which CSGA members forewent merging with other seed trade groups, including the Canadian Seed Trade Association (which represents seed companies), to form Seeds Canada.

The plan was to put Canada’s seed industry, including CSGA, under one roof with one voice.

Even though the CSGA and Canadian Seed Trade Association had long co-operated and even shared some members, there was unease about merging from some growers.

The vote, which was rejected by 55 per cent of CSGA’s members and required two-thirds support to pass, was preceded by 18 months of negotiations and five years of ‘Seed Synergy,’ an industry-wide effort to develop consensus for an improved seed system.

The Canadian Seed Trade Association and the other three organizations voted to merge. In 2021, they formed Seeds Canada without the CSGA.

Seed certification

Through its authority under federal seed regulations, the CSGA says it is one of the world’s biggest crop certification administrators. It annually certifies more than 1.2 million acres of seed from more than 60 different crop types.

There are five categories of seed with Canadian pedigreed status: breeder, select, foundation, registered and certified — the latter being what farmers buy to plant if they aren’t sowing saved or common seed. CSGA certifies breeder and select seed.

The CSGA, with input from the entire seed sector through its crop-specific working groups, sets the standards for pedigreed seed and crop production.

After passing inspection by a CFIA-authorized inspector, CSGA also certifies standing seed crops in the foundation, registered and certified categories. After harvest, that seed is sampled, tested and graded by authorized samplers, analysts and graders, all overseen by the CFIA. If the seed meets quality standards, it gets a CFIA tag (coloured blue in the case of certified seed).

CSGA wants to expand its current role to be the “main administrator through a digital single window managing all seed certification function on behalf of the government,” it states on its website.

Michael Scheffel, CSGA’s managing director of policy and standards, says it makes sense, given CSGA’s more than 100 years of experience in pedigreed seed crop standards-setting and seed certification.

However, CSGA also wants its work to continue to be overseen and regulated by the CFIA.

CSGA wants “a sector-led, government-enabled” pedigreed seed system, Scheffel said in an recent interview.

CSGA is also touting its ‘SeedCert’ digital platform for collecting more information regarding seed declarations, seed grading reports and quantity of certified seed.

CSGA has used the system for more than 10 years, providing a digital end-to-end seed crop certification framework.

Expanding SeedCert to provide a digital single window for all seed certification services would expedite data access, provide value-added traceability opportunities for the seed sector and its customers and improve monitoring and regulatory oversight of the sector, CSGA says.

Due diligence

Seeds Canada was still consulting its members on recommendations to the CFIA as of press time.

Recommendations could be out by the second week of April, Lauren Comin, Seeds Canada’s director of policy, said March 25.

The agency’s survey questions don’t leave a lot of room for nuance, she said. “What’s good for the cereals and what’s good for canola is not always good for forage and turf and for a garden seed,” Comin said.

Initially, Seeds Canada proposed opening up CSGA’s role in crop certification to competition but, when asked if that’s the current policy, Comin was circumspect.

Since Seeds Canada doesn’t have access to CFIA’s internal process for assessing alternative service providers, Seeds Canada doesn’t know if expanding CSGA’s role would be good for the sector or not. “So while we’re not saying ‘absolutely not,’ that CSGA can’t take on anything more, we’re saying we need to do our due diligence here and we need to make sure that anything that we are contracting out through an alternative service delivery arrangement is done with the best interest of the entire seed sector in mind,” Comin said.

However, she added that “competition is always a good thing,” because “it tends to keep costs low and people responsible.”

Seeds Canada is also skeptical of expanding CSGA’s digital SeedCert program.

“We can’t have costs go through the roof and provide additional bells and whistles throughout the certified seed system (that) the farmer doesn’t actually need and that they don’t want to pay for,” Comin said.

In particular, she noted that data collection is an area that deserves further scrutiny. There’s a lot of data that could be collected, but does it make sense to collect it? “We are opposed to collecting extra data and going through extra steps that are of no value to the farmer and that are only going to add cost to the system.”

CSGA is proposing a cost-effective seed certification system, Scheffel said via email. He noted that during the Seed Synergy process, all seed sector partners endorsed the single-window concept and there was a projected cost and time savings of between $1.5-$2.5 million annually.

“Our commitment to this digital single window remains,” he said.

Advisory committee

Seeds Canada and the CSGA agree that to continually improve seed regulations, an advisory committee to the CFIA made up of members representing the seed sector should be created.

Seeds Canada wants to model it after the Plant Breeders’ Rights advisory committee to the CFIA, with formal governing powers, fiduciary responsibilities and the ability to set pedigreed seed standards.

CSGA, which currently sets seed standards through its crop-specific working crops (which represent the entire seed sector) wants to keep doing it. “CSGA and its standard-setting process is a 100-year-old example of how effective delegation of (government) authority and incorporation by reference can be,” it says.

CSGA wants a multi-stakeholder advisory committee with no governing power, no standard-setting authority, no fiduciary responsibility and no organization budget or personnel.

“The key word is advisory,” Scheffel said. “The SRM process has been successful because lobby organizations have not been able to take control and seize power. An advisory committee should… advise government.”

Seeds Canada wants seed standards set by an “independent body” rather than CSGA, Comin said.

“We really do need to have something that’s independent that everyone can sort of see themselves and see their operations in,” she said.

Cancelling varieties

Should registrants be able to cancel varieties at their own request when there are no safety concerns with the variety? Seeds Canada says yes. CSGA says no.

“I think we need to let some varieties go,” Comin said. “Every year we’re getting better varieties and everyone’s goal across the agriculture community should be for farmers to adopt the latest and greatest varieties.”

She said that policy would benefit farmers agronomically and strengthen markets for Canadian grain through reputational enhancement, increased environmental gains and will help with climate change adaptation.

Cancelling varieties gives farmers less choice and it directly affects farmers’ use of common seed, because it’s illegal to sell seed from an unregistered variety, Scheffel said. It is also unlikely the CFIA has the resources to police it, he said.

“Producer and commodity groups have let us know through the SRM process that they want choice,” he said. “Being able to cancel a variety because it is not of interest to the company anymore is not giving choice to farmers.”

According to Comin, it’s unlikely a seed company would cancel a variety if it were still popular with farmers. “That variety is their intellectual property and they should be able to decide if they want it on the market or not,” she said.

Farmers would have more say in preventing publicly owned varieties from being cancelled, Comin added.

Common seed

Canadian farmers can save seed from crops they harvest to plant in the future, so long as they haven’t signed a contract with the seed seller prohibiting it. Common seed, unlike certified seed, is produced without any officially recognized third-party inspections to confirm varietal purity, identity or quality.

Farmers are allowed to sell common seed to other farmers unimpeded, as long as they don’t advertise it for sale or give it a grade name. Should the buyer ask for a seed test report, the seller must provide one. If they advertise, it must be tested and labelled when sold with a grade name.

CFIA is asking the industry if only accredited graders should be allowed to assign a grade to common seed moving forward. Scheffel said that a farmer selling seed could hire an accredited grader or become one, but the change would impede selling common seed.

“We’re advocating that farmer-to-farmer sales can still happen without a grade name,” he said. “We’re also suggesting that, instead of putting a grade name on that common seed and therefore having to become an accredited grader, a commercial common seed seller could instead provide their customer with a seed test report for that seed.”

While CSGA firmly supports plant breeders’ rights, it believes that once those rights have expired, farmers should have royalty-free access, Scheffel said.

“Cancelling a (variety) registration sort of turns CFIA into a cop for the plant breeders in that situation,” he said.

The post Survey offers farmers opportunity to guide seed sector appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Even the carbon tax hasn’t had much impact, according to the associate professor of food economics.

“I would argue that inflation … and food inflation is very poorly understood,” he said.

The web-based event tackled factors affecting the agri-food supply chain, ranging from geopolitical stresses to weather, transportation logistics, government policies such as carbon pricing and the increasing push for sustainability.

Inflation

While food prices on average in November 2023 were up 5.4 per cent year over year, they declined month to month in four of the last five months, von Massow noted.

“They just haven’t gone down to levels below what they were a year ago. So, I think it’s important to remember that context … and understand that not everything is going up universally.”

For example, pork prices are up less than the 5.4 per cent average.

“Ham and bacon are actually down 7.5 per cent [year over year],” von Massow said. “There are some things that are up much more than that. There are some things that are actually down, and I think that that’s some important context as we talk about some of the drivers of inflation.”

Canadian food prices are typically higher in winter as more fresh fruit and vegetables are imported, he said.

That also exposes those food categories to the whims of the exchange rate, and the wide gap in value between the Canadian and U.S. dollar adds to Canadian food costs.

Consumers and government are anxious for easy solutions, von Massow said, and they want a scapegoat.

“I would argue that there isn’t a silver bullet, that most of these issues are beyond the control of governments, of grocers and of others to make a difference.”

The war in Ukraine and weather are major drivers of food prices, the academic told listeners. Both have affected world food supplies and supply chains.

The war saw Ukrainian exports of wheat and sunflowers fall, leading to higher prices for flour, pasta and baked goods. As food supplies tightened, other exporters, such as India, Malaysia and Argentina, cut back to assure local supplies.

Extreme weather added to the disruption.

“We can look back a couple of years to the flooding in British Columbia, but we’re also seeing it more directly impacting production of food, which reduces supply and drives costs up,” von Massow said, also pointing to instances of flooding and disease issues in California.

“We know it’s been dry in parts of Western Canada. We’re seeing some liquidation in cattle herds, which will probably drive some price increases into the future.

“India banned export of non-basmati rice recently, again in response to weather pressure on rice supplies. So, it’s happening everywhere and it’s happening with greater frequency.”

Competition

While Canada’s grocery sector would benefit from more competition, von Massow said “they are not necessarily contributing significantly to food price inflation.”

Historically, income as a percentage of total revenue for Canada’s top three grocers goes up and down, he said. Loblaws’ ratio is up one per cent.

“I would argue that that’s largely because of pressure back on their suppliers, and we heard [Loblaws’ chair] Galen Weston say that,” von Massow said.

“Their increase in profit percentage is largely at the expense of their suppliers, which is not a good thing, which is a demonstration of market power, but doesn’t necessarily reflect in higher grocery prices.”

Metro, another large Canadian food retailer, saw a bigger increase in income over revenue, but likely because of higher earnings from its pharmacies, he said.

“So, while these [income over revenue] percentages are a little higher in Canada, which may suggest that there’s some room for improved competition, it doesn’t look like grocers have driven food price inflation.”

He further argued that grocers stand to profit more as inflation cools, as “they adapt more slowly than they did when prices go up.”

Carbon price

Canada’s levy on carbon emissions isn’t weighing overly heavy on food prices, adding an estimated 0.1 to 0.2 per cent, he said.

As the carbon price rises, so will food prices, he warned, “but in the context of sort of this generational food price inflation, it’s been relatively modest.

“I think the other thing to remember is that the majority of Canadian households are actually getting more money back from the carbon tax than they’re paying in. So, it’s worth looking at whether that net increase is covering sort of the cost increases they’re seeing.”

It isn’t just the Bank of Canada that says the carbon price has had a small impact on food prices, von Massow said. A number of organizations and individuals have echoed the argument, including University of Calgary economics professor Trevor Tombe.

Looking hungry

Higher food prices have increased food insecurity in Canada, von Massow said, and some people have changed the way they shop.

“People at the bottom end of the income scale are just buying fewer calories and having to go elsewhere. But we see … what I call trading down – buying cheaper cuts, maybe doing one meal a week without an animal protein.”

Big grocery chains say their discount stores are doing more business, which could increase their profits. While prices at those locations may be cheaper, margins may be higher.

But some consumers are creatures of habit and buy many of the same items every week.

Shoppers could reduce their bills by buying in-season and storable Canadian products, he suggested.

“If we adapt our purchases, which some people are doing … people are able to sort of buffer themselves at least a little bit.”

Supply chain resiliency helps keep food prices down, von Massow said. That means having supply chains that can quickly get back to normal after a setback.

After COVID-19, many believed localizing supplies would lead to less disruptions, but von Massow said that might not be the right approach.

“We have to look at what the relative risks are. What are the costs of those risks? And then balance our response, because increasing localization might help protect us from supply chain disruptions, but it may make us more susceptible, frankly, to climate change risk and production disruptions.”

Canadian cattle producers suffered during COVID-19 as packing plant workers fell ill and capacity suffered. Perhaps Canada needs more packing plants, von Massow said, but the existing ones are smaller than in the United States, an allusion to Canadian plants’ competitiveness. Smaller Canadian plants have been built and disappeared, he noted.

“So, we have to, again, balance resilience with cost. What is the actual risk, and how can we adapt to it?”

The post No silver bullet for food price inflation appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

In a ‘proposed decision’ released in April the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized canola oil’s value as an environment-friendly alternative to fossil-based fuel — a move that’s expected to add new demand for the crop.

“This is a positive step forward in securing a canola oil pathway in the growing U.S. renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel markets, putting canola on a level playing field with other oilseed crops,” Jim Everson, Canola Council of Canada (CCC) president, said in a news release April 18 after EPA said canola oil-based renewable diesel, jet fuel and other biofuels qualify as “advanced biofuels” under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program.

“In addition to the environmental benefits, this will also help diversify markets and support value added processing, creating opportunities for the entire canola sector.”

The CCC is optimistic EPA will come to the same conclusion this summer when it releases its final decision, Everson said in an interview April 19.

“The fact that EPA has come to the position that it has, after all its analysis, I think bodes very well for the industry,” he said.

Why it matters: Canola, already one of Canada’s most economically important crops, could see even stronger demand as the world seeks lower carbon fuels in the fight to slow climate change.

A statement from The White House said: “This action demonstrates EPA’s commitment to approving new petitions for renewable fuels that can provide greenhouse gas benefits as well as reduce reliance on petroleum fuels.”

The CCC worked with the Canadian Oilseed Processors Association on a U.S. Canola Association petition to the EPA in 2020 to approve canola oil as a feedstock for renewable diesel, jet fuel and other biofuels, Everson said. Renewable diesel and renewable jet fuel are chemically similar to petroleum and are increasingly used in existing vehicles and aircraft to help decarbonize the transportation sector.

The EPA found canola-based renewable diesel, jet fuel and other fuels were 60 to 69 per cent lower in carbon emissions than petroleum-based fuels, Everson said. The EPA’s threshold for sustainable fuels is a 50 per cent cut in emissions, he added.

“We have some analysis that the canola council has done a little while ago that shows canola as a feedstock in biofuels can reduce GHG’s (greenhouse gases) by up to 90 per cent relative to regular fossil petroleum diesel,” he added.

Part of canola’s advantage is its high proportion of oil to meal. But because of production practices, including minimum- and no-till, Canadian canola production sequesters more carbon than some other producers.

Canola oil is increasing being used in biodiesel and renewable fuels, but it remains one of the healthiest food oils in the world, Everson said.

“It’s low in sat (saturated) fats, no-trans fats and all the right fats and oils.” he said. “It’s an attractive and very flexible oil. And demand for vegetable oil generally continues to increase globally as well so there’s going to be a lot of continued demand for canola.”

In fact, some observers might conclude canola oil demand is exceeding supply, following months of prices almost double what they often have been.

How much demand for canola-based fuel will increase, especially in the U.S., is difficult to predict, Everson said. The same is true when it comes to forecasting American canola production. Last year the U.S. planted just 2.152 million acres of canola. Most of that — 1.75 million acres — was seeded in North Dakota.

In January the U.S. Department of Agriculture predicted U.S. canola acres would remain unchanged in 2022, providing an opportunity for Canadian canola farmers.

However, despite very high new-crop prices, Statistics Canada estimated April 26 that Canadian farmers would seed 20.9 million acres this spring, down seven per cent from last year.

While canola prices are high, so are production costs, StatCan said. Some of the decline might be due to concerns about the drought continuing.

The CCC’s target is for Canada to produce 26 million tonnes of canola by 2025. Given annual plantings shouldn’t go much higher so land can be properly rotated to reduce canola pests, the CCC is focused on boosting canola yields to 52 bushels an acre, from the current 40.

Last year, despite 22.5 million acres of Canadian canola, drought cut average yields to 25 bushels, with production hitting just 12.6 million tonnes.

Canola yields typically bounce back following a poor yield, Everson said.

While the 26 million-tonne canola production goal might not be achieved in just three years, setting production targets has worked before, Everson said. Certainly strong canola prices and announcements for expanded and new Canadian crushing plants send a strong market signal for increased production, he added.

“So it’s all about trying to work with the producer to make sure they have the crop inputs that are necessary and we have the research going on in the private sector and the public sector to focus on increased yields,” Everson said.

— Allan Dawson is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator at Miami, Man.

The post U.S. EPA proposal likes canola oil for renewable fuel appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“It’s not a big change,” Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) spokesman Remi Gosselin said in an interview Thursday.

Wade Sobkowich, executive director of the Western Grain Elevator Association, agrees.

“It won’t be much of a change,” Sobkowich said in a separate interview. “Farmers will be presented with a declaration, as they have been in previous years by the grain company. It’s going to reflect the grain commission’s declaration so that the regulatory component is satisfied, and then the commercial (provisions).

“Farmers won’t notice any difference really unless they read the list of grains… on the regulatory part of the declaration.”

Most crops, including wheat and canola remain on the declaration, but corn and soybeans will not.

The following crops will be dropped from the western declarations:

• canary seed;
• chickpeas;
• corn;
• safflower;
• soybeans (food grade);
• soybeans (oilseed); and
• sunflower.

Previously the declaration of eligibility requirement applied to all grains under the Canada Grain Act and only to western grain. Following the change, certain grains will no longer need to be declared under regulation of the Act, the CGC said in a news release Wednesday.

Starting July 1, eastern farmers will also sign declarations before delivering grain to elevators.

“Declarations are a way to assure the dependability and quality of grain at entry into the Canadian licensed grain handling system,” the CGC said in Wednesday’s release. “They support Canada’s commitment to allow U.S.-grown grain to receive an official grade under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

“By requiring information on variety registration at the time of delivery, declarations help to preserve the integrity of the Canadian grain quality system. The declaration form confirms that the variety delivered, bought, and sold is eligible for the kind of grain and class.”

If an American farmer deliverers to a Canadian elevator an unregistered variety of a crop that requires end-use quality assessment the crop will receive the lowest grade for the intended class, which for milling wheat is ‘feed.’

The same rule applies to a Canadian farmer.

“The declaration supports Canada’s quality assurance system while meeting our commitments” under CUSMA, CGC chief commissioner Doug Chorney said in a statement. “We’ve simplified the declaration requirement to only apply to those grains where registration includes quality factors. This is a more flexible approach that better responds to the needs of the Canadian grain sector.”

Variety declarations started in Western Canada after Alsen wheat lost its interim registration in 2003. The goal was to prevent Alsen from mixing with registered varieties.

The declarations evolved over the years, including after kernel visual distinguishability (KVD) ended in 2008. Under that policy, western Canadian milling wheats had to look like other class members so they could be visually segregated throughout the handling system.

Over the years grain companies also started asking farmers to declare their grain was free of certain pesticides.

“Two years ago the CGC was given the authority to govern producer declarations as it relates to variety,” Sobkowich said. “We needed to be compliant with the regulations, but we didn’t want to overly complicate it and we (grain companies) still had commercial considerations so we figured out a way to put it all onto one declaration so that it was clear and so that it was administratively simple.

“The CGC has made this change with respect to the different commodity types.” he said. “We’ve altered the declaration to reflect that.”

While declarations have focused mainly on milling wheat, end-use quality is a prerequisite to registration for many western crops, including canola.

The following crops remain on the new declaration:

• barley;
• beans;
• buckwheat;
• canola;
• fababeans;
• flaxseed;
• lentils;
• mustard seed;
• oats;
• peas;
• rapeseed;
• rye;
• triticale; and
• wheat (including durum).

Declarations help grain companies deliver the crops buyers want, Sobkowich said. If a farmer misrepresents a crop, that could downgrade an elevator bin or even a shipload of product, potentially costing the grain company millions of dollars.

Declarations help ensure the high quality of Canadian crops even though they are being moved through a bulk handling system, which is more efficient and less costly than an identity preserved system.

“This is what the customer demands,” Sobkowich said. “It’s a tool to help manage varieties and MRLs (maximum residue limits for traces of pesticides) to meet their demands.”

— Allan Dawson is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator at Miami, Man.

The post Elevator declarations changing Aug. 1 appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Chris Martin delivered his written judgment Tuesday in Winnipeg, clearing the way for a judge to hear the allegations on behalf of an estimated 70,000 or so western Canadian farmers who delivered grain to the wheat board’s pool accounts in 2010-11 and 2011-12.

“I think it is good news for the farmers who felt they weren’t dealt with fairly when (Agriculture Minister Gerry) Ritz and (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper were privatizing the wheat board,” Stewart Wells, a Swift Current, Sask., farmer and member of the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board, said in an interview Thursday. “The wheels of justice grind slowly but they’re still grinding.

“It’s the first major progress since the case was launched in 2012 and it’s certified so this is going to be heard in court. It’s just not going to be swept under the rug somewhere. So that’s a pretty major advancement.”

However, Wells didn’t rule out the possibility that the government and G3 will appeal Justice Martin’s decision.

An out-of-court settlement is also possible.

The Harper government government removed the CWB as the sole marketer of western Canadian wheat and barley destined for export or domestic human consumption Aug. 1, 2012.

In 2015, G3 (Global Grain Group), newly formed to subsume the CWB, agreed to invest $250.5 million and in return received the CWB’s assets from the federal government.

G3 is a joint venture firm majority-owned by the state-owned Saudi Agricultural Livestock Investment Co. (SALIC) and Bunge.

The lawsuit brought by Brookdale, Man., farmer Andrew Dennis alleges Ritz acted unlawfully by taking $150.9 million of farmers’ money from the CWB’s pool accounts to help privatize the wheat board.

One hundred and forty-five million dollars was used to triple the wheat board’s contingency fund and $5.9 million went to cover some of the transition costs.

Under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, all money collected in the CWB’s pool accounts earned from marketing farmers’ grain was required to be paid to farmers, less board operating expenses.

“What’s alleged is that Gerry Ritz… was acting illegally and not in good faith — the legal phrase is misfeasance while in public office — when he directed money to the contingency fund that we argue ought to have been paid to farmers instead,” Wells said.

“We argue that he was morally and legally wrong to be hiving off money that should have gone to the pooling accounts and been paid to farmers but instead he was trying to build up the Canadian Wheat Board as an entity so he could later on give it away to Saudi Arabia and Bunge.”

The CWB’s board of directors unanimously passed a resolution calling on the government to cover the cost of privatizing the board instead of farmers, Wells said.

“And then Ritz said in public that he would pick up all the cost, but when the (CWB’s) final annual report came out it showed that they had taken $5.9 million out of the pooling account to cover restructuring costs,” he said. “It makes no sense. It just loops back to the notion that farmers weren’t being treated fairly.”

The suit also asks for $10 million, plus interest since 2012, in damages, bringing the total compensation sought to $160.9 million, excluding interest.

“It’s not that much per individual farmer (if the suit is won),” Wells said. “It totally depends how many tonnes they (farmers) delivered to the pools in those two years, but that’s one of the reasons class actions were invented. It wouldn’t make sense for one or a very small group of farmers to take this sort of action, but it certainly makes sense to launch it as a class.”

Farmers who delivered to the pools in 2010-11 and 2011-12 are automatically part of the class action lawsuit unless they opt out, Wells said.

More information for affected farmers will be posted on a website, he added.

Wells doesn’t know when the case will be heard, but doesn’t rule out it taking another three to five years to resolve.

“They (federal government and G3) have been deliberately trying to delay this process all the way along for the last 10 years… but this is a very significant step toward getting the action certified having the representative plaintiff Andrew Dennis named in the action so he can carry it forward on behalf of all these farmers,” Wells said. “It’s a really crucial step. Without this the case couldn’t have gone anywhere.”

Wells declined to disclose how much money has been spent litigating the case so far.

“We have said all along that we are very grateful to all of the farmers that supported us when we started fundraising for this action back in very, very late 2011 and then in 2012, 2013 and 2014,” he added. ‘We wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without the support of those farmers there’s no question about that. This is truly the farmers’ action. Everybody is looking forward to the result.”

While the case is about the alleged misuse of farmers’ money, it’s also about holding government to account, Wells said.

“Cabinet, through orders-in-council, can change some things but they can never override the existing legislation,” he said. “And that’s what we are arguing happened here — that Ritz was overriding the original legislation with his orders-in-council, which in turn makes his actions illegal.

“Whether they (farmers) agreed with the wheat board being a (mandatory) marketing agency or not they still didn’t deserve to have money taken from the pooling accounts and just given to the King of Saudi Arabia and Bunge.”

After taking over the CWB, the new G3, renamed G3 Canada Ltd., was 50.1 per cent owned by SALIC and Bunge and up to 49.9 per cent potentially owned by farmers, depending on how much grain they delivered to the new firm.

Farmers were to earn $5 of G3 equity for every tonne.

G3 Canada had two shareholders — G3 Global Grain Group and the farmers’ equity trust. Farmers who deliver to CWB own units in the trust and the trust owns shares in G3 Canada Limited.

After the farmers’ equity is fully allocated, or in seven years (2022), G3 Canada Ltd. can buy the equity, but isn’t obliged to.

In 2016 Reuters reported SALIC’s ownership within G3 Global Grain Group jumped to 75 per cent from 49 per cent, according to an April 28, 2016 Bunge filing.

— Allan Dawson is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator at Miami, Man.

The post Farmers’ CWB class action lawsuit gets certified appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

• [READ MORE] Farming behind the lines in Ukraine

Livestock production, the rise of faux meats, phosphorus recycling and biofuels were some of the issues raised by ag economic experts on a panel convened by the Canadian Agricultural Policy Institute on March 9.

The Food and Agriculture Organization’s world food index is the highest since 1973, said Ted Bilyea, an agri-food consultant and former food company executive, noting wheat prices have soared by more than 50 per cent since the invasion.

“The end game is a lot of people are going to be hungrier,” Bilyea said. “And yes the prices will simply lower demand in not a very good way, but it will lower demand and that will be how we’ll get through this crisis. People will eat less.”

People will also eat less meat and more pulses, including “fake meat” made with plant protein, said Sebastien Pouliot, an agricultural economist with Farm Credit Canada.

“We’re already seeing people consume less meat than before… less beef, less pork and more chicken,” he said.

Canadian cattle producers were already suffering because of high grain prices following drought last year and the latest jump in feed grain prices will make Canadian beef production even less profitable, Pouliot said.

But Bilyea predicted high grain prices will see a shift, especially in Europe, on where meat is produced. Large livestock-producing countries like the Netherlands, Spain and Belgium were already net grain and protein importers. Where production isn’t subsidized or protected, livestock should move to grain and not the other way around, he said.

World fertilizer prices were up dramatically even before the war and are going higher, Pouliot said. Russia is a major fertilizer exporter, but sanctions will cut into sales. He expects this year Canadian urea will double in price from last year, while anhydrous ammonia and ammonium phosphate will jump 65 per cent.

World oil prices are up dramatically too, increasing farmers’ diesel bills.

“Pretty much all crops in Canada we expect them to be profitable… even though input prices are going up so much,” Pouliot said.

High grain prices will put pressure on governments and farmers to take marginal land out of conservation programs to produce more grain, said Shane Knutson, an ag equipment executive who has more than two decades of selling in Ukraine.

“What I do know in the short term people need to be fed and so we’re going to do whatever we have to globally to try to make sure that everyone gets fed whether that means, as Sebastien pointed out eating less meat in the short term, or doing whatever we need to do,” said Knutson, president of Polywest Ltd.

Bilyea agreed there’s an incentive to convert marginal land into grain production, but said it’s a mistake.

“We are going to destroy ourselves if we go that route,” he said. “You know taking cattle off grassland is an insane thing to be doing. We need the grasslands and we need the cattle on the grassland everywhere in the world.

“I think we have to come up with other ideas of how we are going… to be more productive, intensify productivity in a way that’s highly sustainable.”

The high, and increasing prices, of oilseeds has major implications for the plans of Canadian and American companies that are investing heavily in renewable diesel production.

“I do think this situation will affect how fast we go forward with all those things,” said Bilyea.

The food-versus-fuel debate has gone on for years, Pouliot said. So far government hasn’t announced any changes to renewable fuel mandates “and I don’t expect them to go away either,” he said.

Bilyea’s advice to the Canadian government now is “do no harm.”

“Some of the climate mitigation issues that were being put forward we could just delay those for a bit,” he said. “We don’t need to stop them. We delay them and work them into a more systematic change rather than do things overnight.”

Canada and other nations also need to be more resilient, he added. One way is to rely less on fertilizer imports. Canada is a net exporter of nitrogen and potash but relies on phosphate from the U.S.

“But we could be a leader essentially in recycling phosphate,” Bilyea said. “As you know every city in the world is a phosphate dump essentially and you could just recycle it through struvite back into farms.”

First though, legislative challenges are needed to allow struvite (a form of phosphorus that can be recovered from waste water) from humans to be used as a fertilizer, he said.

Ukraine and Russia grow mainly winter wheat, which is already in the ground, said Knutson, who has worked in both countries. What’s unknown regarding Ukraine is how well that wheat will be cared for and what will happen at harvest, he said.

There’s uncertainty about who will buy Russian wheat. Although clearly China will be one customer, how it will be shipped is unclear as Black Sea ports are closed due to the war.

Ukraine can ship grain by truck and train to European buyers, but Russia doesn’t have that option. It has ports in the far east but they lack the capacity to handle all the country’s grain exports, Knutson said.

– Allan Dawson is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator.

The post Russia’s war could affect agriculture around the globe appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“While we regret producers didn’t get 100 per cent (of what they were owed) we worked diligently to maximize the amount they were paid for their deliveries,” Remi Gosselin, the CGC’s head of communications and corporate information services said in an interview Wednesday.

While most of the money comes from security W.A. Grain posted to cover farmer liabilities as required under the Canada Grain Act, some came through CGC efforts during the bankruptcy process.

Why it matters: While the Canadian Grain Commission tries to ensure grain companies post enough security to cover what they owe farmers for grain, sometimes, as in this case, it falls short. That’s why the CGC urges farmers to get paid upon delivery and cash their cheques immediately.

The CGC suspended W.A. Grain’s grain dealer licence and five primary elevator licences on April 20 last year; the company entered receivership April 26. Court orders were granted Sept. 23 approving the sales of the company’s five sites in Western Canada to three separate buyers.

The CGC determined 126 farmers owed money for grain delivered to W.A. Grain were eligible for a share of funds secured by the commission.

To qualify, farmers needed official receipts documenting deliveries, which had to have occurred within 90 days of delivery or 30 days of getting a cheque.

Of the $5.6 million in compensation, $4 million — representing about 71 per cent of the total — came through security W.A. Grain posted with the CGC, as is required under the Canada Grain Act, Gosselin said.

Just under $200,000 — 3.6 per cent of the total — came through the bankruptcy process.
The rest — $1.4 million — 25 per cent of the total — came from revenues earned when the receiver in bankruptcy sold W.A. Grain’s grain inventory.

“The Canadian Grain Commission had to intervene before the courts,” Gosselin said. “We used the Canada Grain Act to maximize compensation for all eligible producers. Under a distribution plan that was approved by the Court of Queen’s Bench eligible claimants were able to receive funds from three different pools of money.

“The CGC has always held that grain in inventory that was not paid for still belonged to producers. What happened in previous situations is that receivers would basically come in and liquidate all assets and then provide the money to secured creditors,” which didn’t include farmers who hadn’t been paid, he said.

The commission he said, has “successfully over the past few years argued before receivers and before the courts that that part of that money belongs to producers.”

In one case a few years ago some unpaid farmers were able to retrieve ‘like grain’ from a financially troubled grain company, reducing the amount of posted security needed to compensate farmers.

In the W.A. Grain case the $1.5 million shortfall in compensation averages more than $11,900 per farmer.

Ideally grain companies security held by the CGC should cover farmer liabilities, but that’s not always so, despite the CGC’s best efforts.

“An important point here is that the payment protection program at the grain commission never guarantees that producers will be fully compensated for licensee failures,” Gosselin said.

The commission, he said, fixes the amount of security to be provide by licensees based on monthly liability reports submitted by the licensees and licensees are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of those reports.

“If we feel there are some issues there we will conduct audits to make sure that reports have been completed properly.”

Those audits, he said, are done on the resources that are available at the grain commission for that purpose. Priority is put on audits of licensees about which the grain commission has received complaints from producers about slow payments, and/or where previous audits “have indicated problems.”

When the CGC suspended W.A. Grain’s license, it didn’t have enough security to cover what farmers were owed.

“I’d like to remind producers to cash their cheques upon receipt and if you don’t you’re lending your money to your grain company,” Gosselin said. “The best protection against the risk of failure is cashing cheques promptly.

“Over the last 30 years our payout record is 94 per cent of eligible claims.”

— Allan Dawson is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator at Miami, Man.

The post W.A. Grain’s farmer suppliers to get 80 cents on dollar appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“I think by next week it’s going to look a lot better,” he said. “Is it normal? No. Normal won’t come for another month or two, but certainly better.”

Extensive flooding and landslides caused by record-breaking rainfall last month knocked out road and railway movement in British Columbia’s Interior, halting trains for almost three weeks starting Nov. 15. Vancouver was expecting to receive about 3,400 grain cars during shipping Week 20 (Dec. 13-19), Hemmes said.

“Bear in mind a normal week is somewhere between five and six thousand,” he said.

“They did around 670 (grain cars) yesterday (Dec. 14), which is really good when you consider the fact that we went for three weeks with almost none so it is coming back. We’re down to 22 (grain) vessels (waiting in port) this week. You do the math — it means they’re still looking for somewhere around 850,000 tonnes. That translates into 85 trains.”

Why it matters: Most of Western Canada’s grain is exported through the Port of Vancouver and normally the biggest volumes are shipped in the fall and winter. Disruptions can affect farmers’ ability to deliver grain and get paid for it, while grain companies are anxious to fulfill sales and avoid demurrage.

About 25 trains a day — seven of them hauling grain — are now getting to Vancouver, Greg Northey, Pulse Canada’s vice-president of corporate affairs, said in an interview Wednesday.

While grain movement hasn’t returned to normal, that was expected, he added.

“They have been moving a lot of grain through there the last week,” Northey said. “At least on the bulk side we don’t expect things to be ‘normal’ until January. But that’s not to say things aren’t moving.”

One issue the railways have in Vancouver is congestion — a problem under normal conditions given how the port is squished between the ocean, the city and mountains.

Clearing containers will be key, Hemmes said.

“They will be moving those as fast as they can so they can clear the backlog off.” he said. “And that’s going to take awhile because I think this morning there were 13 container ships at the port — 13 container ships and essentially eight berths.

“In order to do that they need to get the container trains in with the container cars. It’s not much different than grain. You need the cars to go in to get the traffic out. But there isn’t an infinite supply of container cars.”

While the railways have moved the grain trains on the way to Vancouver when the flooding occurred, the grain backlog created by the disruption remains, Western Grain Elevator Association executive director Wade Sobkowich said in an interview Wednesday.

“It’s going to take the grain industry weeks and months to clear the shipping backlog,” he said. “We’re probably talking the spring before we can say that we’ve caught up or returned to normal. But I think most grain companies are content with the way the rebound has occurred. They are seeing quicker progress under the extreme circumstances than they probably expected.”

In the meantime grain companies have, at their own expense, been trying to relieve some of the pressure on the rail lines running through B.C., Sobkowich said.

“In some cases they’ve diverted vessels up to Prince Rupert and were able to execute a sale out of that facility,” he said. “In some cases they have ceased forward sales of certain products until 2022 and they’ve re-directed some grain — canola for example destined for the export market to the domestic crush.”

The rail outage will have prevented some Manitoba farmers from delivering grain, but Sobkowich said he doesn’t know to what extent.

“Companies have been trying all they can to take scheduled deliveries,” he said. “In some cases they were not able to take unscheduled deliveries until they had better sense when it would move, but now that things are moving again I am sure that producers are being contacted and invited to deliver.”

Much of Manitoba’s grain moves through Thunder Bay until the annual freeze-up on the Great Lakes-St Lawrence Seaway system. The Montreal-to-Lake Ontario stretch of the seaway is set to close for the 2021 season on Dec. 31.

Some Manitoba grain also moves south to the U.S.

Prairie elevators took 4.41 million tonnes of grain in from farmers during Week 18 (Nov. 28 to Dec. 4), according to the Grain Monitor’s Week 18 report. Eighty-one per cent of the Prairie elevator system was being used.

“Space in primary elevators is good,” the report said.

Total western port terminal stocks decreased to 1.09 million tonnes in Week 18, utilizing 56 per cent of the working capacity.

On the export side year-to-date, western Canadian shipments from port terminal elevators as of Week 18 were 37 per cent lower than the same period last year and 22 per cent lower than the three-year average.

While the WGEA has sometimes been critical of rail service, it’s not complaining now given how quickly the railways restored service.

Both Hemmes and Northey are impressed, too.

“I’ve said it before and I will say it again, it’s a testament to how good the railways’ engineering departments are,” Hemmes said. “They managed to take a roll of duct tape and binder twine and turn it into gold.

“They did a phenomenal job and in what you’d think would be the (worst) place to be in the last two weeks, somewhere between Kamloops and Vancouver, because you are ploughing around in the rain and the muck trying to rebuild a railway and you have to do it fast.”

Northey, an engineer by training, said what the railways did would’ve made a fascinating reality TV show.

“The feat of engineering that was pulled off, especially for CP to get their line up and going in six days or less, was really incredible,” he said.

“How they managed to do that, how they are going to get the Coquihalla (highway) up and running in the few weeks is just amazing.”

— Allan Dawson is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator at Miami, Man.

The post Grain movement to Vancouver picking up appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“It depends on whether employees that aren’t vaccinated will get vaccinated, or would they leave their jobs,” Wade Sobkowich, executive director of the Western Grain Elevator Association (WGEA) said in an interview Thursday. “In that case do we end up in a deficit of human resources to keep the grain supply chain functioning?”

The Canadian government will “make vaccination mandatory in federally regulated workplaces,” including grain elevators, through regulations under Part II of the Canada Labour Code, it announced in a news release Tuesday.

“The government will consult with key stakeholders, including representatives of small and medium-sized employers, as it works expeditiously to finalize the new regulations, which would come into force in early 2022,” the release says.

Why it matters: Vaccination rates are generally lower in rural areas where most grain elevators are. When new federal regulations require all elevator employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 or lose their jobs it’s possible some facilities will be short-staffed.

The WGEA wants more details about Ottawa’s new vaccine mandate, but as of Thursday Sobkowich said he understood ongoing COVID testing would not be allowed in lieu of vaccination.

That’s Hugh Wagner’s interpretation too. The general secretary of the Grain and General Services Union also believes, based on legal opinions, if enacted with a clear, consistent policy and allowing workers time to get vaccinated, employers can demand workers be vaccinated.

“(I)f an employer goes about it the right way, following those steps that I have just laid out, then they likely can implement a mandatory vaccination policy and the employees will have to adhere to it if they want to continue to their job,” Wagner, whose union represents about 800 workers, mainly in Saskatchewan working at some Viterra and Richardson facilities, said in an interview Thursday.

“We have also advised union members that there may be situations… be they medical or reasons of religion, where an individual can raise a question or a challenge as to an exemption, but that is a very high bar to overcome.

“I’ve told people very explicitly that you might say it’s against your religion but actually with all the major religions on board with vaccinations, what you’re really saying is it’s your interpretation of your religion. That won’t get you a get-out-of-jail-free card.”

Asked if he thought grain companies can implement the vaccine mandate with a minimum of disruption, Sobkowich replied: “I hope so. It depends on the region. It depends on how employees react. It’s difficult to predict at this point.”

There are a number of elevators in Manitoba’s Southern Health District where the following six municipalities have the lowest vaccination rates in Manitoba:

(Source: Manitoba Health)

As of Dec. 8 more than half of the COVID-infected patients in Manitoba intensive care units (ICU) were from Southern Health, which accounts for just 15 per cent of Manitoba’s population. Of those infected patients 92 per cent were either not vaccinated or had just one dose.

Meanwhile, the number of ICU cases continues to grow forcing Manitoba Health to cancel more surgeries and diagnostic procedures. Doctors Manitoba puts the backlog of 152,000.

“The (WGEA) member companies are fully supportive of as many Canadians receiving the vaccine as possible,” Sobkowich said.

“The grain companies continue to promote vaccinations among workers. It’s a sensitive issue and one that needs to be approached considering the perspectives of all the stakeholders. There are a number of questions that really need more fleshing out. In the midst of getting on board with the government’s mandate there are a number of questions that need to be answered.”

Some of them include rules around employers asking employees about their vaccination status, he said.

Vaccination is the best line of defence against COVID-19, the government release says.

“It not only protects those who are vaccinated, but it protects vulnerable populations like young children who aren’t yet able to get vaccinated,” the release says. “To finish the fight against COVID-19, protect workers and their families, and ensure businesses can get back up to speed, we need to do everything we can to keep public spaces safe, particularly as we continue to face new variants.”

Mandatory vaccination is already required for employees working in the federally regulated air, rail, and marine transportation sectors, and travellers using these modes of transportation.

There are about 18,500 employers in federally regulated industries, including federal Crown corporations, which together employ 955,000 people. That’s about six per cent of all Canadian employees.

The majority (87 per cent) work in companies with 100 or more employees, the release says.
These figures exclude the federal public service.

Including the federal public service, there are approximately 19,000 employers and 1.3 million employees, which represents about 8.5 per cent of all employees in Canada.

All federal public servants in the Core Public Administration, including RCMP members and reservists, must be vaccinated against COVID-19.

This requirement applies whether employees are teleworking, working remotely or working on-site. More than 95 per cent of employees have attested to being fully vaccinated and approximately 98 per cent have had at least one dose.

“Employers who do not comply with their obligations under the Canada Labour Code may be subject to compliance and enforcement measures, including administrative monetary penalties,” the release says.

“In recognition of Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and self-government, Indigenous governing bodies and First Nation band councils will be exempted from the new requirements. The government of Canada will work with Indigenous partners to provide information on the new measures should they wish to follow the same approach, however, doing so will be at their discretion. This is also in line with the Government’s commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

A copy of the consultation paper on the new vaccination mandate may be requested from the Labour Program by email.

— Allan Dawson is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator.

The post Elevators hope mandatory vaccination doesn’t disrupt operations appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“They [Cargill] have worked through most of the issues,” Canadian Grain Commission spokesman Remi Gosselin said in an interview Tuesday. “Our understanding at the grain commission is that there should be no issues on a go-forward basis for future deliveries and they are working through previous deliveries to resolve all of the complaints, but it’s going to take sometime to get through each one of them.”

Some farmers who delivered grain starting in August complained Cargill was slow to pay them. Under the Canada Grain Act, licensed primary grain elevators are obliged to pay farmers for their grain immediately if the farmer requests it.

Payment delays followed “the implementation of a new technology system,” Cargill official April Nelson wrote in an email Friday.

“We apologize for the impact this has had on our Canadian grain customers and our teams are dedicated to fulfilling all contracts as soon as possible. We know that this experience is not what customers expect from Cargill.

“We are committed to a high level of service and are in frequent communication with the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) as we navigate this issue, with focused priority on quick resolution for our farmer customers. We ask anyone currently experiencing payment delays to reach out to their local Cargill representative if they haven’t already done so.”

The Western Producer reported on Cargill’s problems Sept. 30.

The CGC was aware of the issue and working with Cargill, Gosselin said in an interview with the Manitoba Co-operator Nov. 1.

“The point we want to make is farmers don’t need to worry about the financial wellbeing of Cargill,” he said. “It’s not that they are going out of business, or having trouble paying producers, it’s more about their internal computer systems having a glitch and they are working on resolving that problem.

“Believe me, if we had any indication of any problem the CGC would be taking action. We have no indication of financial difficulties at Cargill.”

A number of farmers have complained about Cargill’s slow payments on social media.

In a letter Friday to Cargill customers president Jeff Vassart apologized and asked for continued patience.

“Your local [Cargill] team has been working extremely hard throughout this difficult situation and is dedicated to delivering excellent customer support,” Vassart wrote. “They continue to actively communicate the customer impact of these issues to Cargill leadership. Please know we continue to work hard to return to the level of service you deserve.

“If you require an immediate payment, please reach out to your Cargill representative or your Cargill location. We will ensure your payment is addressed as quickly as possible. We will continue to post updates on CargillAg.ca as we continue to work through these issues.”

Unpaid farmers can also call the CGC, Gosselin said.

“Our [CGC] experience has been when we escalate things with them [Cargill] that they resolve the individual complaints in relatively short order,” he said.

“Cargill will be presenting us with a plan on how they will work through all of the outstanding payments. There is open and direct communications with Cargill and we are in direct contact with them.”

Ensuring farmers get paid for ‘regulated‘ grain delivered to licensed grain companies is part of the CGC’s role under the Grains Act.

The CGC regularly audits grain companies to ensure they have enough security posted to cover farmer liabilities. However, the CGC’s payment protection program is time-limited.

After delivering grain, farmers have 90 days to exchange a primary elevator receipt or grain receipt for a cash purchase ticket or cheque. But once a farmer receives a cash purchase ticket or cheque, he or she is eligible for compensation paid from the licensed company’s security for only 30 days, so long as it’s still within the 90 days post-delivery. If not, farmers are ineligible for payments from the company’s posted security.

There’s also a chance the security doesn’t cover all what’s owed to farmers. In that case payments are pro-rated. That’s why the CGC recommends farmers get paid as soon as they deliver grain to an elevator.

— Allan Dawson is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator at Miami, Man.

The post Cargill close to resolving slow grain payments to farmers appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.