Tribunal quizzes CFFO closely

Guelph – The appeals tribunal bombarded leaders of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario with detailed questioning during its first-ever Saturday hearing, this one to deal with the CFFO application for accreditation under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act of 1993.

The hearing followed similar ones for the National Farmers Union – Ontario and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

All three flunked in their initial attempts at re-accreditation that began with public hearings in June, 2011, and ended with tribunal decisions released May 23 this year.

The Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal picked at technical details, such as absolute proof that farmers choose to be a member of one of the general farm organizations and funding from the provincial head offices to locals or districts spread around the province.

The National Farmers Union’s main challenge, judging from tribunal questions this week, will be its ties with the national organization headquartered in Saskatoon. 

Ann Slater struggled to distinguish Ontario policies from national policies and could not guarantee that the national office might intervene again to reject an elected Ontario leader and appoint someone of its own choice.

That happened when Sean McGivern was dismissed and Slater was chosen, then later elected at the next Ontario general annual meeting. McGivern is now trying to organize another general farm organization.

All three organizations use the legislation to garner $195 per year from farmers who choose which of the three organizations they want to represent them;  they can also choose after registration to apply for a refund.

When they lost their accreditation on May 23, all three organizations had to scramble to sign up a minimum of 250 members and/or 10 per district (or local) to meet the registration minimums. They had to collect $195 plus GST from each of them and a signed affirmation that they want to be a member of the organization.

The CFFO came with 301 signed applications and accompanying proof of payment of $195 each.

It has 21 district associations, but only 14 of them qualified by July 5 under the legislation’s criteria. Some don’t have the minimum 10 members and some haven’t held an annual general meeting since this January.

Since July 5, two more have qualified, reported CFFO general manger Nathan Stevens.

CFFO general manager Nathan Stevens

The CFFO has amended its bylaws to more clearly define membership and election procedures and has signed service agreements with its district associations, basically to prove that at least 25 per cent of the CFFO revenues flow to district associations.

They get $10 per member in cash and can apply for more. Those requests have usually been granted, testified president Lorne Small.

The service agreements cover items such as fieldman salaries and expenses, local meeting and travel expenses and 25 per cent of the CFFO executive and staff salaries and expenses which are deemed to be spent on behalf of the district associations.

The NFU-Ontario and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture have chosen to give their locals straight cash to meet the 25 per cent minimum requirement, then the locals buy services from the provincial organizations.

Both changed their funding systems after the May 23 tribunal rejection of their initial re-accreditation applications. They, like the CFFO, had counted head-office services in meeting the 25 per cent standard.

The CFFO intends to negotiate service-agreement renewals every year, an option that the tribunal mentioned in its May 23 decisions.

The CFFO stumbled over a detail in a footnote to its annual financial statements. When tribunal panel chairman Nicholas Richter asked where he could find an entry to match a footnote claim that more than $8,000 cash was distributed to district associations this year, Stevens could not find it.

After the lunch break, he furnished a two-page listing of disbursements, but Richter noted that the list has not been subjected to a professional audit.

The CFFO is under tribunal instructions now to produce an amended audited statement to cover that issue, plus a letter from the auditing firm to indicate that it applied the handbook of the Chartered Accountants Association in preparing its audit report.

CFFO president Lorne Small

Under close questioning by panel member Dr. Jane Sadler Richards, Stevens and Small explained how the CFFO has added a new category for “supporters” who pay the $195-per-year fee, but for religious reasons do not want to be members of the CFFO.

Small said this has been an issue for more than 20 years with some farmers “who support our principles” but don’t want to become members.

Members will, from now on, be those who specifically indicate they want to be members. The details of how they will make that membership choice clear have yet to be nailed down via negotiations with AgriCorp, assuming the tribunal grants accreditation so the annual fee collected by AgriCorp can be forwarded to the CFFO.

Farmers who want a break on provincial property taxes and access to many of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs’ programs and services, need to pay the annual fee to obtain a Farm Business Registration number.

The process involves writing a cheque for $195 plus HST to an accredited Ontario farm organization and mailing it to AgriCorp which then forwards the money and information to the organization chosen. The farmer then has 90 days to apply to that organization for a rebate of the fee, if desired.

The new category of “supporter” prompted Richter to suggest that the CFFO carefully consider the implications because, Richter said, legislation usually applies a single definition for terms, but the CFFO seems to be using multiple definitions for membership.

Another category is personal (or signed) membership which is for those who apply directly to the CFFO for membership and pay $195 plus HST. They do not go through the AgriCorp farm business registration process. There are 35 of them now and 30 of them are active farmers, Stevens said.

Five are either retired or the CFFO doesn’t know their status relative to farming.

Richter promised to provide a decision as soon as possible, noting that the tribunal is well aware of the upcoming Sept. 1 deadline for property taxation and OMAFRA’s interest is getting Farm Business Registration numbers out as soon as possible.

                                    

Trade specialist heads AAFC

Suzanne Vinet will be the new deputy minister of Agriculture and AgriFood Canada (AAFC), effective Sept. 17.

She takes over from John Knubley, who has been deputy since 2009 and is moving to the industry department.

Vinet began her career as a federal civil servant with AAFC in 1984. She was director-general of international trade policy from 1990 to 2002 and assistant deputy minister for strategic policy from 2005 to 2007.

She is an economics graduate from Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, of the Institut de Technologie agricole et alimentaire in St-Hyacinthe, Que., and attended the National Defence College of Canada in Kingston, Ont.

She was born and raised in Vaudreuil in Quebec's Monteregie region.

Vinet also worked as director general for trade policy in international trade in the Department of Foreign Affairs from 2002 to 2005. She was also deputy chief negotiator for Canada at the World Trade Organization, where negotiations for a new global deal failed, and a key participant in the multilateral trade policy issues of the department.

In 2007, Vinet was named associate deputy minister of health, followed by a stint as associate deputy minister for transport, infrastructure and communities before she was named president of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec in March 2010.

Senate debates food safety

While the food and agriculture industry issued news releases praising the federal government’s proposed legislation on food safety, several industry leaders expressed reservations during hearings by the Senate agriculture committee.

They said they support the goals, but often said “the devil is in the details” and then raised concerns.

For example, Robin Horel, president and chief executive officer for the Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council, which has 170 members who hold 99 per cent market share, said “we have received concerns from members about the current drafting of clause 24(2)(e) of the proposed legislation that would appear to allow any inspector in any facility to commandeer any computer at any time to access any content that is either contained in the individual computer hard drive or on the company computer system.”

He did not say which members raised that issue, but it might be egg graders in Ontario where lawyers for L.H. Gray and Son Ltd. and Burnbrae Farms Ltd. are fighting to keep computer records out of an explosive lawsuit charging them with conspiracy to drive Best Choice Eggs out of business.

They have denied the allegations.

Horel went on to say “ although the desire to assure a means of access to compliance‑related data is understood and accepted, the current unlimited provision appears to be more extensive than necessary or justified. 

“At a minimum, an inspector should be required to declare reasonable grounds to access individual computers or company computer systems that may contain primarily personal and/or personnel information as well as other information that is unrelated to compliance verification,” he said.

Senator Pierre Cardin, later in the hearing, asked Horel to provide that concern in writing, adding that it would help to have it come with comment by a lawyer.

Jim Laws, speaking for the Canadian Meat Council, said they want the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to move from paper to electronic records for export certificates. He said the paperwork involves multiple copies that need to be signed, including signatures from a veterinary inspector who might be hard to chase down.

He said electronic records would make it much easier to gather approvals and present them to import officers for other countries, particularly the United States.

He also complained that U.S. border inspectors always open the back of trucks carrying meat, even though they have been inspected and sealed at the plant by a Canadian Food Inspection Agency official.

He said it’s not fair that meat is the only type of shipment that is treated this way by U.S. border officials. He said it costs $100 per truckload and, if the load is one of the 10 per cent that are chosen for sampling, the charge rises to about $400.

He said it would be better if U.S. officials allowed those 10 per cent of shipments that are sampled to travel to destination for sampling there, as is the Canadian practice.

He also complained that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency takes too long to approve new packaging materials, and cited the example of a can developed by a Danish company. It’s lighter, much cheaper and has a quick-release top, he said.

This can was approved by U.S. officials long before Canadians could use it, so these cans were imported and sold by Canadian supermarket chains, resulting in “unfair competition” for Canadian packers, Laws said.

In a similar vein, Rory McAlpine of Maple Leaf Foods Inc. said U.S. officials are often months ahead of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in approving advanced testing methodology and standards. He urged greater harmonization.

Gordon Harrison, president of the Canadian Millers Association, called for harmonization of the Food and Drug Act, which falls under Health Canada, and this new food safety act for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

He drew attention to the distinction between additives and adulterants and said they could and should be dealt with under unified legislation and regulatory procedures.

There has been a great deal of publicity about cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency budget contained in the federal government’s budget bill, and the senators asked about that.

Horel said he, too, was curious about the 10 per cent cut and when he asked the president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency during a briefing meeting, was told it will not reduce “front-line inspection”.

                       

Couple drive message that farming’s important

 A Hamilton couple is driving a tractor across Canada to let the public know that family farms are important.

John Varty is a writer and professor at McMaster University in Hamilton and his fiancée, Molly Daley, is a public relations and marketing specialist he met and brought to Hamilton from Florida.

They are towing a small farmhouse as sleeping quarters for their cross-Canada trek.

They are making a video and are interviewing farmers, politicians, food company executives and members of the food movement.

In 2005, Carl Hiebert of Linwood drove a tractor across Canada, also to draw urban attention to family farmers. Hiebert, who is a professional photographer, took pictures of farming families and Deb Cripps, who drove the route with him, wrote about the families.

They published a book, Keepers of the Land, about their experiences.

Varty notes that he grew up on a farm near Kingston and "I've taught agricultural issues for a long time and I think it's just too important to keep (this conversation) locked up in the academic world. It's time to take these issues to a bigger world."                   

Graphs

Praying for rain criticized

Praying for rain is not politically correct, according to an atheist organization.

Tom Vilsack

The Council for Secular Humanism has criticized U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack for telling President Barrack Obama that every day he gets on his knees to pray for rain.

“If I had a rain prayer or a rain dance I could do, I would do it,” Vilsack said.

Tom Flynn, executive director for the Council for Secular Humanism, said “it sends the wrong message to distraught farmers when the agriculture secretary suggests that the best response is to pray.”

I guess Vilsack and Flynn have differing views about who’s in charge here.

Viterra bondholders ok Glencore takeover

More than 92 per cent of those who hold $400 million worth of Viterra bonds have indicated their approval of Glencore’s offer to purchase the company.

The bonds pay 5.95 per cent interest and are due in 2020.

Those who hold another $200 million worth of unsecured bonds have been invited to a meeting in Toronto on July 23 to consider Glencore’s offer. Those bonds pay 6.406 per cent interest.

Glencore’s offers on these bonds remain conditional on gaining final approval to buy Viterra, formerly known as the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.