SASKATOON – Farmers shouldn’t expect any quick policy changes after the recent release of the final report of the Canada-U.S. Joint Commission on Grains.
A spokesperson for agriculture minister Ralph Goodale said there’s no sense of urgency in dealing with any of the panel’s 14 recommendations.
“There’s nothing in there the minister is moving quickly on yet,” said Vern Greenshields, press aide to Goodale. “He wants to see what the industry has to say about it.”
A week after the release of the report, no meetings had been set up with the industry to discuss the report, nor had any meeting been scheduled with U.S. secretary of agriculture Dan Glickman to discuss possible joint action.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
The 10-member commission released its final report on Jan. 22. Most of the recommendations in the final report are identical to those contained in the interim report released last June, with a couple of exceptions, including the controversial section dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board.
The panel got into hot water with many in the Canadian grain industry when the interim report lumped together the Canadian Wheat Board and the U.S. Export Enhancement Program in its discussion of trade distorting policies.
This time the panel draws a clear distinction between the board and EEP. The report specifically states that board marketing operations are funded by farmers and “do not represent a taxpayer-financed export subsidy.” On the other hand, it describes EEP as an export subsidy that has distorted world trade and been a factor in increased Canadian sales to the U.S.
Recommendations reworded
In its report last summer, the commission said the board should operate more like a commercial grain company and suggested a number of changes including voluntary pooling, dual marketing and an end to government guarantees of initial payments.
That recommendation was extensively re-worded in the final report. It now says simply Canada and the U.S. should:
- Eliminate export subsidies.
- Eliminate the excessive discretionary pricing practices of their institutions.
- Modify domestic policies to remove trade distortions and ensure support levels are balanced across the border.
- Ask other grain exporters to take similar action.
It suggests ways to accomplish those ends, including ending EEP and putting the board at risk of profit or loss in the marketplace, “without precluding the use of pooling.” Contentious issues like voluntary pooling and dual marketing are simply described as issues that were examined by the panel, with no recommendation they be implemented.
CWB information officer Deanna Allen said the board is happy the final report draws a clear distinction between it and EEP.
“That’s something we’re really pleased about,” she said. “I think that the Canadian panelists lobbied quite hard about it.”
Some concerns remain
She said the board remains concerned about suggestions that the agency operate at risk of profit or loss and that Ottawa’s initial payment guarantees be eliminated.
While there was little reaction to the final report from the Canadian grain industry, one farm organization said it was no better than the first.
The report recommends a “major dismantling” of the Canadian grain marketing system while leaving the U.S. system unscathed, said National Farmers Union vice-president Chris Tait.
He also singled out the report’s recommendations to eliminate end-use certificates, standardize grain inspection methods and scientific testing procedures on both sides of the border and examine ways to handle non-registered varieties in the Canadian system.
“The report targets the very components that have given Canadian farmers a competitive advantage in the world grain industry,” he said.
