“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.

The CGC on Monday opened up proposed regulatory amendments to an 11-week public consultation period ending Feb. 28, 2022.

The idea came up during consultations held earlier this year as part of the federal review of the Canada Grain Act, the CGC said Monday.

That broader federal review is still ongoing, but CGC chief commissioner Doug Chorney said Monday that the commission wants to take concerns raised by the grain sector in those consultations and respond “quickly” in areas where it can do so within the confines of the current Grain Act.

The CGC’s proposal, as described Monday, doesn’t yet list an exact time window in which farmers would be able to trigger the dispute resolution process.

As they’ve been proposed so far, the changes to the “Subject to Inspector’s Grade and Dockage” process would “clarify the time period over which a producer is entitled to exercise their right” to do so, “including a period after delivery.”

In a document in mid-August laying out the responses it got from the grain sector during Grain Act consultations, the federal government said “many respondents” found that the current grade and dockage dispute process was “not appropriate.”

Farmers who disagree with a CGC-licensed primary elevator’s assessment of their grain today have the right under the Grain Act to ask for a sample to be sent to the CGC for a binding decision on a delivery’s grade and dockage.

However, the process today also requires that a farmer has to request that binding determination right at the time of delivery.

And, as the CGC pointed out Monday, “grain delivery and handling processes have changed. Producers are often not present when their grain is delivered to the licensed primary elevator. Third parties, such as commercial truck drivers, are increasingly being hired to deliver grain into the licensed elevator system.”

In its consultations, the federal government said, “many suggested that somewhere between five to 14 business days was an appropriate window of eligibility.”

That wider window, the government said, “would provide producers with adequate time to receive the grade and dockage result, compare to on-farm samples, and decide whether to access binding determination.”

The CGC’s proposed amendments to sections 34 and 36 of the Canada Grain Regulations would also clarify that producers can dispute an elevator operator’s grade and dockage assessment “even if they are not present at the time of delivery.”

The amendments would also require that samples be retained for seven days minimum, “or until an agreement on grade and dockage has been reached between the elevator and the producer.”

Also, those samples “would no longer need to be taken in the presence of the producer, unless the producer requires it.”

Federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau, in the CGC’s release Monday, hailed the proposed regulatory changes, saying they’d be “an important first win for grain farmers, in response to the feedback we received during the Canada Grain Act review consultations.”

‘Other classes’

All that said, the CGC’s proposal, if it goes through, may not necessarily cover all the changes farmers had sought to “Subject to Inspector’s Grade and Dockage” during those Grain Act consultations.

For example, the government said in August, “many” respondents want to see an expansion of the quality characteristics eligible for such assessments.

That’s because grain contracts are “increasingly specifying non-grade factors” such as deoxynivalenol (DON) level and falling number for wheat. Respondents said farmers would thus get “better protection against disputes related to the contract specifications.”

Also, respondents to the Grain Act consultations said they’d like to see the right to access binding determination also include “other classes of CGC licensees” such as processing elevators and grain dealers.

There’ve been more processing facilities going up on the Prairies in recent years, farmers said in the consultations, and more such plants are on the way. Thus, the government said, farmers expect that “a further proportion of deliveries will likely shift away from primary elevators to process elevators.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Farmers may get time to dispute grain grade, dockage appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The grain commission says reducing inspection and weighing fees will cut the cost of exporting grain by nearly $14 million in the next crop year and more than $20 million annually thereafter (the latter amounting to a 29 per cent reduction).

But while Alberta Wheat and Alberta Barley say they “applaud” the move, they want the grain commission to get out of the inspection business altogether and instead just provide regulatory oversight.

“You can look at it as a cup half full, yes, there’s going to be reduction and savings to farmers,” said Alberta Wheat chair Todd Hames. “But I guess the bigger question is about what about all the money that we’re paying for duplication of services. About 70 to 80 per cent of export out of the port is being reinspected by a third party, so they’re not using the services that the Canadian Grain Commission is charging them for.” 

The commission “hasn’t been responsible in their financial affairs and farmers are paying a lot of unnecessary money,” added the Marwayne-area producer.

Alberta Barley chair Tara Sawyer agrees.

“They’ve reduced the rates, but at the end of the day, they’re holding onto a surplus of $148 million,” said the Acme-area farmer. “It may be a start, but at the end of the day, they have all that money, so why do they need to still be charging us? It doesn’t even make sense.”

The grain commission gets the vast majority of its revenue from inspection and weighing. An inspector takes samples of every 2,000 tonnes during loading of ships, and also monitors official weighing (grain sent to the U.S. is exempt from both). Normally, commission’s fees are set for five years, but they’re being cut two years early because grain volumes have risen so much, said Doug Chorney, the chief commissioner of the agency.

“Reducing these fees will ensure that millions of dollars remain in the grain sector to the benefit of the entire value chain over the next three years,” he said.

When the current fees were set, it was estimated that 34.4 million tonnes would be weighed and inspected annually, but grain production has grown and the grain volume forecast now tops 48 million tonnes annually.

The Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan was among farm groups praising the fee reduction.

“This is good news for Saskatchewan producers and all producers across Canada,” said association president Todd Lewis.

His organization and Manitoba’s main farm group, Keystone Agriculture Producers, are among those that want the grain commission to continue its hands-on inspection role, something they say ensures Canada’s reputation as a supplier of top-quality grain. Its role is currently being reviewed as part of a larger review of the Canada Grain Act.

But Alberta Wheat and Alberta Barley say those inspections aren’t needed as grain companies — at the request of their global customers — hire third-party inspection companies and they do the job just as well and at a cheaper cost.

“I think for most farmers, they would like to see the redundancy gone,” said Sawyer. “There are double inspection costs that we’re bearing the brunt of.”

The “fee reductions point to a flawed system that imposes high costs on farmers,” the two Alberta organizations said.

They noted the grain commission has racked up a huge surplus of $148 million and the increased amount of grain being inspected means that figure will jump further by the time the current crop year ends on July 31.

“Those inspection costs are passed onto farmers through lower grain prices,” the two farm groups said in a release. And that puts Prairie farmers at a disadvantage compared to competitors in other grain-exporting countries, they said.

And since farmers are paying most of the costs, they should have more info on how the commission spends its revenues and what’s going to happen with the surplus, said Hames.

“There’s no path of transparency in the Canadian Grain Commission to let farmers in on what’s going on and what they’re going to do with the surplus,” he said. “And really, it is farmers’ money sitting there.”

While the fee cuts are expected to come, the proposed changes require an amendment to the Canada Grain Regulations. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is also reviewing the Canada Grain Act and the grain commission, which administers it.

But the move to adjust its fees two years early was not triggered by the review, said Chorney.

“We realize this might look like we’re posturing for the review process but that’s not the case at all really,” he said. “It’s a reflection of the fact that the surplus has continued to accumulate. Grain volumes have not just been up a bit — they’re record-breaking and it’s necessary for the fees to be adjusted to better reflect the actual grain volumes that are moving”

But even farm groups that want the grain commission to keep its inspection role, want changes. For example, the Saskatchewan Wheat Development Commission wants the federal government to cover its operating costs, arguing the agency provides a public benefit.

– With files from Allan Dawson/Glacier FarmMedia

The post Fee cuts by grain commission not enough, say Alberta farm groups appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“The Canada Grain Act hasn’t been reviewed since 1971, and from 1971 to 2021, we’ve seen significant changes on the farm,” said Alberta Wheat chair Todd Hames. “It’s an old act, so it’s time to make it new.”

Ottawa is reviewing the act and the role of the Canadian Grain Commission, and both need an overhaul, said Tom Steve, general manager of Alberta Wheat and Barley.

“The nature of the grain industry and farming has changed dramatically, and we believe it’s time to look at what the Canadian Grain Commission should be doing and what it should potentially stop doing,” he said, adding the agency should move from being a “service provider to predominantly being a regulation and enforcement agency.”

The first step is to scrap its outward weighing and inspection services — work that can be done more efficiently by the private sector, said Steve.

Currently, the grain commission inspects grain for export — and then most large grain companies pay a third party to do a second inspection.

“Those vessels are inspected twice in 70 to 80 per cent of the instances,” said Steve. “So what we’re actually seeing is the cost of not one but two inspections end up being charged back to the farmer through lower prices at the farm gate.”

That’s not sensible, said Alberta Barley chair Tara Sawyer.

“I don’t want to be charged twice for the same test. A third party can do it for us,” said Sawyer, who farms near Acme. “There’s still a role for (the grain commission) regulating and enforcing how grading methods are done wherever their standards are used for quality assessment.

“That’s their wheelhouse and that’s where they can expand their role.”

There also needs to be a way to deal with newer quality parameters for wheat such as falling number (an indicator of sprouting damage) and DON, said Steve.

“Because those are not grading factors, the grain commission doesn’t have the full authority to help farmers adjudicate disputes,” he said. “This is a frustration for farmers when they’re dealing at the local elevator and grain companies are imposing discounts on issues that the grain commission doesn’t have the power to provide any sort of third-party adjudication on.

“What we’re hearing from farmers is that they’d like to see the grain commission more active in helping them exercise their rights to dispute grading decisions by grain companies.”

Producers should also have longer to dispute grading results, added Sawyer.

“When we’re talking about falling number and DON, we’re asking that the timeline to dispute be available in a larger window — five business days from the date of delivery,” she said. “As it stands right now with the way farms deliver grain, we’re not always there, whether we’re using truckers or other third parties for delivering our grain.”

The commissions would also like the government to pay more of the bill for the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC), which gets most of its revenue from outward weighing and inspection services.

“We think it’s unfair that farmers have to bear that cost. The taxpayers of Canada should shoulder some of that responsibility,” said Steve. “The federal contribution to the cost of operating the CGC is very low, so farmers are paying over 80 per cent of the cost of operating the CGC. Those costs affect our competitiveness.”

The cost of grain commission services should also be on the invoice a farmer gets when delivering grain, added Hames.

“Right now, farmers aren’t really aware of what they’re paying for the CGC,” said the Lloydminster-area farmer.

Lowering these sorts of regulatory costs are key for Prairie producers, added Steve.

“We’re the farthest producing region from international tidewater in the world,” he said. “So every cost factor that’s added into the system along the way will make us potentially less competitive.”

But not everyone in the industry agrees.

While the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and the Western Grain Elevator Association back such changes, other Prairie farm groups are opposed, including Sask Wheat, the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, and Keystone Agriculture Producers.

“To maintain Canada’s international reputation for high-quality grain, the CGC must ensure all grain leaving Canada meets buyer specifications,” the latter, Manitoba’s main farm group, wrote in its submission for the federal review.

But Canada’s reputation as a producer of top-quality grain won’t “take a hit” just because an act that hasn’t been reviewed since 1971 is modernized, said Hames.

“Our reputation is strong, and that’s in part because of the grain commission and what it’s done,” he said. “We can’t move forward into the future if we don’t change the CGC. The risk we face is being stuck in this old world and getting left behind.”

The post Cut grain inspection costs to stay competitive, say Alberta farm groups appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The Grain Act and its regulations provide the framework for Canada’s grain quality assurance system and it’s the CGC that administers the act.

The English-language Webex webinar goes from 12:30 p.m. (CT) to 2 p.m. on April 23. Farmers can register here.

The review started about two years ago.

“The Canada Grain Act sets out the objectives and functions of the Canadian Grain Commission, which is responsible for regulating grain quality and handling in Canada to ensure a dependable commodity for domestic and export markets,” the federal government says in a discussion paper on the review.

“The Canadian Grain Commission delivers programs and services to establish and maintain Canada’s science-based grain grading system and provide various safeguards for grain farmers.”

The paper highlights the following issues that could be of special interest to farmers:

• Access to binding determination of grade and dockage: Binding determination is intended to be an independent dispute resolution mechanism when a producer and buyer disagree on grade or dockage. Are there any gaps between the current system and what is needed?
• Producer payment protection: The program is intended to help ensure producers are protected against a buyer’s failure to pay for grain, in a cost-effective manner that fairly allocates risk. Can the program be improved to better meet the needs of the sector?
• CGC licensing: The licensing system for elevators and grain dealers is designed as a framework for establishing and maintaining Canada’s grain quality assurance system, while also safeguarding producers and enabling data collection. Does the existing licensing approach meet the sector’s needs?
• Official inspection and weighing: The system of inspection, weighing, and certification of grain for export is intended to help ensure there is dependable Canadian grain for domestic and export markets. Are there ways the system could better meet the sector’s needs? Currently it’s mandatory for the CGC to weigh and grade Canadian grain exported by ship — a process is referred to as ‘outward inspection.’

The Western Grain Elevator Association (WGEA), which represents Canada’s main grain companies, wants to be able to use private grain inspectors, with CGC accreditation, instead.

The WGEA says it already uses private inspectors in part because grain buyers use the same inspecting companies when they received the grain.

Eliminating CGC inspection would save money, the association says.

But some farmer are wary noting the CGC is independent and its oversight assures the integrity of Canadian grain, renowned for its quality and consistency.

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

The post Virtual town hall on federal Grain Act set for Friday appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

So AgCanada’s invitation to be part of the process is pretty much a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. And the federal department says it does want to hear from individuals, and not just organizations or companies.

Start by finding the ‘Share ideas: Canada Grain Act review’ section at AgCanada’s website agr.gc.ca (there’s a link on the right side of the home page or you can type ‘grain act review’ in the search box).

That web page includes a link to a discussion document that provides some background on the review, including four “issues that may be of particular interest.” While mandatory inspection is the headline issue, one of the four highlighted issues is the grain commission’s method for resolving a dispute between a farmer and grain company over grade and dockage. The discussion document also provides an overview of how the grain commission operates.

But looking at the discussion document isn’t required, anyone can fire off a letter or email to aafc.cgareview.aac@canada.ca to give their views, although AgCanada says it’s helpful if you “include a rationale and supporting elements of your views.”

You can also use that email to “discuss the review process, or specific issues related to the review.” Moreover, “government officials are also available to meet virtually with interested parties as part of this process,” AgCanada’s website says.

The deadline for submitting comments is April 30. You can also send your comments by mail to:

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
1341 Baseline Road
Ottawa, Ont.
K1A 0C5

The post How you can participate in the grain act review appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau, speaking Tuesday to Saskatchewan crop organizations’ virtual CropSphere conference, announced the feds’ current Canada Grain Act review has entered its consultation stage, running until April 30.

The government said it wants feedback from grain industry stakeholders on “ways to potentially update the legislation.”

Both the Canada Grain Act and its main regulatory body, the Canadian Grain Commission, were “established at a time when the Canadian grain sector looked much different than it does today,” the government said in its discussion document.

“The way grain is bought, sold, delivered and handled at facilities has changed significantly, as have buyers’ demands for grain quality… (and) it is possible that some modernization is required to ensure the system is better aligned with current and future market realities.”

Apart from some “targeted” changes, the government said, the last “comprehensive” amendments to the Act came in 1971, since which time several reforms have been proposed.

Also, the feds noted, the CGC has been working on a “grain grading modernization initiative” since 2017, “to ensure that, where possible, grain grading is continually evaluated using more scientifically-based, effective, precise and user-friendly tools.”

“The marketplace for grain has greatly evolved over the past half century, and now is the time for the Canada Grain Act to reflect that evolution,” Winnipeg MP Jim Carr, who was named Tuesday as the federal cabinet’s special representative for the Prairies, said in Bibeau’s release.

“I encourage all those with a stake in Canada’s grain industry to make their voices heard as part of this consultation.”

The consultations’ discussion document flags issues the government said “may be of particular interest” to the sector, such as:

• binding determination, which is meant to be an “independent dispute resolution mechanism” when a grower and buyer disagree on a grain’s grade or level of dockage;
• producer payment protection, the CGC-led program “to help ensure producers are protected against a buyer’s failure to pay for grain, in a cost-effective manner that fairly allocates risk;”
• the CGC’s licensing system for elevators and grain dealers, meant to maintain Canada’s grain quality assurance system, serve as a safeguard for producers and allow for collection of grain data; and
• Canada’s system of inspection, weighing and certification of grain for export.

In those cases, the government asks in its discussion documents if there are ways in which those systems and programs “could better meet the sector’s needs.”

The list of flagged issues is “not a comprehensive list of Canadian Grain Commission functions,” the government said, but is meant to highlight “practical areas that may be of interest to stakeholders.”

In the past decade alone, the government said, Canadian grain production has risen from 69 million tonnes in 2010 to 93 million in 2020, and exports from CGC-licensed elevators rose from 30.8 million tonnes in 2009-10 to 44.3 million in 2019-20.

The grains sector has also made “significant infrastructure investments” in recent years, such as in rail and port infrastructure, and has also boosted the Prairies’ primary elevator storage capacity.

“Structural changes have also affected the sector, such as reforms in wheat and barley marketing,” the government said.

Also, “technological advancements and evolving grain buyer demands also continue to shape the sector and its capacity as one of the world’s leading exporters of grain.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Feds launch consultations on Canada Grain Act appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The Canadian government is advertising both positions on the CGC’s website and Twitter.

Applicants must apply online for the positions, which are cabinet appointments. The deadline is Tuesday (June 30).

The jobs involve lots of travel in and outside of Canada and good salaries. Commissioners’ salaries range from $150,200 to $176,600 a year; the chief commissioner is paid $242,700-$285,500.

Both jobs are based in Winnipeg, where the CGC is headquartered.

Patti Miller, the current chief commissioner, is retiring this month. Her appointment otherwise would have expired in 2023.

Commissioner Lonny McKague’s four-year appointment expires in February 2021. McKague, the CGC’s assistant chief commissioner, Doug Chorney, and Miller were appointed Feb. 13, 2017. Chorney’s appointment doesn’t expire until February 2022.

Why it matters: CGC commissioners oversee the commission and maintain close links to farmers and grain companies.

The CGC is a federal government agency that reports to Parliament through the minister of agriculture.

The three commissioners are the CGC’s executive, setting the CGC’s direction, establishing policy and administering and enforcing the Canada Grain Act.

The commissioners also have quasi-judicial powers on some matters.

While ideally those chosen will have the right experience and aptitude, a commissioner learns on the job. Few people have a working knowledge of the Canada Grain Act, or understand wheat chemistry.

The tradition of both Liberal and Conservative governments has been to appoint commissioners from each of the three Prairie provinces (or British Columbia’s Peace River District).

In addition, commissioners have been farmers — as is the case for McKague and Chorney — or from industry, which is Miller’s background. She also had worked for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

The CGC was created in 1912, following years of protests from western farmers who complained grain companies and railways were treating them unfairly.

The strength of the commissioner system is that it gives the grain sector, including farmers, confidence those overseeing the CGC understand the grain business, and especially farmers’ needs.

“As set out in the Canada Grain Act, the Canadian Grain Commission’s mandate is to, in the interests of producers, establish and maintain standards of quality for Canadian grain and regulate grain handling in Canada to ensure a dependable commodity for domestic and export markets,” the government says in its posting for a new chief commissioner.

A big part of the CGC’s role is grain quality control, which underlies Canada’s reputation for delivering high-quality grain.

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

The post Help wanted: CGC seeks new leadership appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Bill C-4, the implementing legislation for the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), passed second reading Feb. 6 and came back without amendment Feb. 27 from the Commons standing committee on international trade.

While C-4 is meant to amend various laws for CUSMA compliance, the NFU says the bill’s proposed changes to the Canada Grain Act “go beyond what is required” and would make “substantive changes to Canada’s grain quality control system.”

The CUSMA pact, as signed in Mexico City in December, has just four clauses relating to grain, only two of which call for changes to the Grain Act, the NFU said in a release Friday.

Those two clauses, the association said, would provide grades to U.S.-grown wheat according to the same quality standards and handling it as if it were Canadian-grown wheat.

However. the NFU said, C-4 goes further than CUSMA calls for, by amending the Grain Act so all U.S.-grown grains, not just wheat, would “become equivalent to Canadian-grown upon delivery into Canada’s grain handling system.”

In so doing, the association said, C-4 would allow grain companies to “increase their ability to use U.S.-grown grain to weaken prices paid to Canadian farmers by purchasing lower-priced American grain grown under U.S. Farm Bill subsidies.”

In its form at first reading, C-4 calls for the repeal of the Grain Act’s definition of “foreign grain,” replacing it with a definition of “imported grain” as “any grain grown outside Canada or the United States and includes screenings from such a grain and every grain product manufactured or processed from such a grain.”

C-4, the NFU said, would also “weaken (Canadian Grain Commission) authority to decide what constitutes contaminated or adulterated grain” and would make issuance of official export certificates “optional.”

The bill at first reading repeals the Grain Act’s current definition of “contaminated grain,” instead deeming grain to be contaminated “if the grain contains any substance in sufficient quantity that the grain is either… adulterated for the purposes of the Food and Drugs Act; or… contaminated within the meaning of the regulations made under section 51 of the Safe Foods for Canadians Act.”

C-4, the NFU said, would also “enable regulations that will allow inspectors to confer Canadian grades” on grain grown outside of both Canada and the U.S.

The bill, in its first-reading form, allows for the CGC to be able to issue “any certificate or other document setting out any information that the Commission considers necessary to facilitate the export of any grain.”

“As it stands, Bill C-4 is a Trojan Horse designed to make it easier for grain companies to pay farmers less for their grain,” NFU second vice-president Stewart Wells said in Friday’s release.

Fast-tracking C-4 “just weeks before planned consultations on revisions to the Canada Grain Act is an end-run around the public process that sidelines farmers and is contrary to the government’s claimed commitment to transparency,” he said.

That’s a reference to a review of the Grain Act, announced in March last year, to be conducted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau said last month the process for that review “is still taking shape” but added the government remains “committed to holding consultations in order to hear from grain farmers, stakeholders and parliamentarians.”

The NFU, Wells said, is calling on Bibeau “to do the right thing and correct these mistakes (in C-4) before the final vote.” –– Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post NFU sees red flags in CUSMA bill for grain growers appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Patti Miller, who has held the position for three years, announced Tuesday to CGC staff that she will retire June 26.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) “will be launching an open, transparent and merit-based process to find a new commissioner as soon as possible,” federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau said via email Thursday.

Meanwhile, an AAFC-led review of the Canada Grain Act — and of the CGC’s role in administering it — will continue. The department quietly announced the review last March.

“Our government remains committed to modernizing Canada’s Grain Act,” Bibeau said. “While the process is still taking shape, we are committed to holding consultations in order to hear from grain farmers, stakeholders, and parliamentarians.”

Under the Grain Act, the CGC — created in 1912 in the “interest of producers” — regulates Canada’s grain industry by overseeing grain quality regulations and acting as an industry watchdog.

The CGC is overseen by the chief commissioner, an assistant chief commissioner and a commissioner.

Reliable sources have accused Miller of having a pro-grain company agenda, which, in their view, could hurt farmers. They also alleged Miller had sidelined input from assistant chief commissioner Doug Chorney, who farms at East Selkirk, Man., and commissioner Lonny McKague, who farms at Omega, Sask.

Miller denied that claim. “I have a huge amount of respect for both Doug and Lonny,” she said in an interview last March 18. “Does that mean we agree on everything? Heavens no.

“Did Doug and Lonny have input into it, as did I? Yes. Was it exactly how they wanted to see it? Perhaps not, but they are a voice and provide input into that process.”

On the allegation she favours the grain companies’ agenda, Miller replied: “If you asked the industry they might give some comments that… I’m not making decisions unilaterally in their favour. We have rigour in our decision-making.”

What grain companies want most from the review are recommendations to amend the Grain Act to end mandatory CGC outward inspection.

Some grain companies say it’s redundant and costly because many of their customers are satisfied using less-expensive private inspection services.

But some in the industry say making the CGC’s ‘Certificate Final’ optional will undermine Canada’s grain quality assurance system.

Speaking last March 6 at the Canadian Crops Convention in Montreal, Viterra CEO Kyle Jeworski argued in favour of ending mandatory CGC outward inspection.

“I think it’s important that we have the Canada Grain Act to better reflect our industry today and prepare for the future,” he said. “We need to remove unnecessary regulations. There are many examples — grain grading, weighing, inspection. There are things that add cost and delays in our industry.”

But the three Prairie general farm organizations agree the CGC’s oversight is more important than ever because of the rise in non-tariff trade barriers.

AAFC wants farmer input on the review, as Michelle Bielik, director of the ag department’s crop and supply chain policy division, told Keystone Agricultural Producers’ advisory council meeting in Portage la Prairie, Man. last April 2.

“We are right now just gathering our thoughts about how we’re going to conduct our analysis,” she said at the time. “That’s why we want to hear from you about the issues you want to focus on. We are nowhere near tabling proposals and when the time comes we hope we are in a position to engage with you further.”

Much of that work would be done during the election period that fall, Bielik said at the time. “Ultimately our goal is to have a set of legislative proposals to include as part of the minister’s next mandate.”

Although Bibeau confirmed Thursday that AAFC’s review continues, there’s no specific reference of it in her mandate letter from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

On the matter of Miller’s retirement announcement, Bibeau said Miller “has been dedicated to the grain sector for over 35 years, and felt it was time for her to retire.

“During (Miller’s) time at the CGC, she has helped modernize the organization and begin the review of the Canada Grain Act. In order to ensure an orderly transition, Ms. Miller will be in place (at the CGC) until June 2020.”

Miller, Chorney and McKague were all appointed to their positions by the federal government in early 2017, after having applied to serve.

Miller’s 35-year career in agriculture included 25 years with the federal government. She also worked for Cargill and was president of the Canola Council of Canada at the time of her CGC appointment.

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

The post Grain Commission’s chief announces retirement appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.