Government transparency
Re: “Ottawa ‘hiding truth’ on budget cut impacts”, on WP website producer.com Aug. 8.
The Government of Canada continues to demonstrate its commitment to transparency and accountability. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency provided the Parliamentary Budget Office with the data that was requested within the PBO’s legislative mandate, and this data has also been made available on our respective websites.
The safety of Canada’s food supply is of the highest importance to the Government of Canada. The CFIA remains committed to the continuous improvement of Canada’s strong food safety systems and AAFC is equally committed to the agricultural research that supports them.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
By achieving internal efficiencies that will reduce corporate overhead costs, the CFIA will be better placed to focus on important services to Canadians.
For example, as announced in 2011, the Government of Canada provided the CFIA with $100 million over five years to modernize food safety inspection in Canada, provide better training and more modern tools to front-line inspectors, and to increase the agency’s scientific capacity.
In addition, the government is investing $16 million over the next three years to establish inspection verification teams that will ensure a consistent level of food inspection rigour is applied across the country.
Just as farmers adapt their farm practices to changing consumer preferences or weather conditions, so too is AAFC adjusting its programs and services to help farmers capitalize on the opportunities of today and better meet the challenges of tomorrow.
Recent changes will modernize AAFC, allowing us to help producers capitalize on local and global market opportunities and ensure access to markets abroad, where consumers want and need Canada’s food exports.
We recognize we need to adapt and change to ensure we are focused on allowing farmers to maximize returns from the marketplace and fulfill an important obligation to help feed the world.
These savings are fair, balanced and moderate and will provide the sector with effectively delivered programs that will meet the priorities of farmers and industry, while continuing to ensure the safety of consumers.
Neil Bouwer,
Vice-President, Policy and Programs,
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Greg Meredith,
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa
Neonicotinoids
Recent articles in The Western Producer have tended to indicate that all beekeepers are calling for a ban on neonicotinoid seed treatments and that is far from the truth.
The Canadian Honey Council is made up of the membership of all provincial beekeeper associations and takes a national rather than regional perspective on issues that impact beekeepers.
Two of our member associations, the Ontario Beekeeper Association and the Federation des Apicultuers du Quebec, have publicly asked their respective governments to ban neonicotinoid seed treatments.
This strategy has yet to be adopted by the majority of members of the Canadian Honey Council as it has preferred a different course of action to protect beekeeper interests.
The Canadian Honey Council has spent a great deal of time and energy addressing the matter of neonicotinoids and the dusting events of 2012 in Quebec and Ontario. While initial claims were directed towards an incident, more recent claims are being targeted toward the systemic nature of the pesticide and its sub-lethal impacts.
In 2012, … the CHC formed a bee incident committee, which has put forward a number of recommendations, which can be found on our website.
These recommendations represent a national, co-operative perspective and were vetted by all board members and approved by every provincial representative.
The committee took the view that co-operation and association with all those involved in the agricultural sector will yield greater benefits for beekeepers versus an adversarial approach. …
It must be said that the members of the CHC have considerable sympathy for the beekeepers that were, and are, being impacted by corn seed treatments.
Those beekeepers who are situated in and around the nearly 3.3 million acres of feed corn grown in Ontario and Quebec are experiencing situations that other beekeepers from across Canada have either chosen not to report or are not necessarily experiencing.
It is hoped that as beekeepers’ awareness of acute and sub-lethal effects of pesticide poisoning are better understood and identified, more beekeepers will be come forward.
Yet, the fact remains that last year, there were over 21.3 million acres of seed treated canola planted in Canada and there were no reported incidents of neonicotinoid poisoning.
In addition, there were millions of other acres planted with crops that use the seed treatments such as soybeans, and again, no reported incidents, at least none that the CHC is aware of.
While the sub-lethal impacts may be proven in these crops, they have not been evident to date, at least in widely accepted scientific form. …
The CHC will continue to work toward getting answers, whether it be through sponsoring additional research as with the Corn Dust Re-search Consortium, working with the (Pest Management Regulatory Agency) in ensuring the PMRA investigation covers all the necessary bases, working with the chemical companies urging them to develop more pollinator friendly products, working with farmers in engaging their awareness of the importance of bees and most importantly, working for and with beekeepers, ensuring that their livelihood is nurtured, protected and sustained.
Rod Scarlett
Executive Director,
Canadian Honey Council,
Sherwood Park, Alta.
IN AGREEMENT
I certainly agree with Peter Fricker (WP letter to the Editor, Aug. 15) about rodeos and that they “celebrate cruel and unnecessary methods to make animals perform for human amusement”.
I hate seeing pictures of bull riding, steer wrestling, mutton busting, etc. I wish all of these activities would be abolished.
Sharon Markwart,
Rosthern, Sask.
ETHANOL MANDATE
I would like to respond to some of the issues raised in recent articles and editorials in The Western Producer regarding ethanol production in Canada.
I recognize, as many of your readers must, that the Canadian mandate for ethanol includes imports. This should not be surprising given North America’s open fuel market, an arrangement that is not without advantages for Canadian renewable fuel producers.
However, assuming that our Canadian renewable fuels industry is seeking to increase the federal mandate for ethanol content from five percent to 10 percent is inaccurate and quite simply — not true.
Right now, the federal mandate for ethanol does not need to change. Clean-burning ethanol is already being included in our petroleum pool, reducing harmful emissions and enhancing octane with every litre we blend.
What is required however is ensuring that these valuable ethanol blends (like E20-E25) make it to the fuel pump by 2017.
Federal regulations in Canada and the United States require North American automakers to significantly improve their fuel economy standards.
As auto manufacturers have correctly pointed out, meeting these fuel economy goals requires higher octane fuels.
Without a doubt, there is no better source of octane than clean-burning ethanol.
Due in large part to the leadership of the Conservative government, we have built a sustainable renewable fuels industry in Canada. Our members, and the farmers they work so closely with, have worked hard, and succeeded, in meeting the majority of Canada’s ethanol requirements domestically.
The critical next step is not mandating higher ethanol blends but ensuring we have the proper fuel infrastructure in place to, in fact, deliver them.
W. Scott Thurlow, President,
Canadian Renewable Fuels Association
Ottawa, Ont.
