"Federal Taxation 2010 Solutions Manual"
TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 SECTION ONE: A Canadian Farm Bill - A New Vision for Agriculture 5 SECTION TWO: Standing Policy Statements 15 Trade Policy Statement 17 Safety Nets Policy Statement 37 Environment Policy Statement 42 Biotechnology Policy Statement 56 Rural Policy Statement 63 Food Safety Policy Statement 70 SECTION THREE: Resolutions 73 Trade 75 Business Risk Management 79 Environment and Science 87 Food Safety 90 Transportation 92 Taxation 93 Food Labelling 95 Rural 96 Strategic Growth 98 Grains and Oilseeds 99 Other Resolutions 100 1 2 INTRODUCTION The Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) is the largest general farm organization in Canada. It is a national federation of provincial farm organizations and interprovincial and national commodity organizations united to speak with an authoritative voice for the agricultural community of Canada. First organized in 1935 under the name Canadian Chamber of Agriculture, the CFA grew out of the need for one unified national organization to represent all agricultural producers in all provinces. The Policy Manual presents CFA's position on subjects of importance to the economic and social wellbeing of farmers and their families. The document consists of current policy statements as well as resolutions passed during the past three years at Annual Meetings and Semi-Annual Meetings. Also included are earlier resolutions which have been reaffirmed by the Federation. Standing Policy Statements are drawn from resolutions; briefs to the federal government, its agencies, Parliamentary Committees, Royal Commissions; and other hearings. On occasion, CFA policy involves matters under federal government review or change. In these cases, the CFA policy includes recommendations which the Federation believes are relevant to the government‘s policy review. In forming policy, the CFA is consistent with its corporate objectives, which are: • To coordinate the efforts of agricultural producer organizations throughout Canada for the purpose of promoting their common interest through collective action. • To promote and advance the social and economic conditions of those engaged in agricultural pursuits and to render such services to them as conditions may justify. • To assist in formulating and promoting national agricultural policies to meet changing national and international economic conditions; and to collaborate and cooperate with organized groups of producers outside Canada for the furtherance of this objective. The manual is updated annually to represent current CFA position. Amendments are made to the manual when new policy is established by the federation. Dates by the policy positions indicate the year the policies were adopted. Members of Canadian Federation of Agriculture: Agricultural Producers Association of Chicken Farmers of Canada Saskatchewan Coopérative Fédérée de Québec Agriculture Alliance of New Brunswick Dairy Farmers of Canada British Columbia Agriculture Council Keystone Agricultural Producers Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing L'Union des Producteurs Agricoles Agency Newfoundland & Labrador Federation of Canadian Egg Marketing Agency Agriculture Canadian Horticultural Council Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture Canadian Pork Council Ontario Federation of Agriculture Canadian Sugar Beet Producers' Ontario-Québec Grain Farmers‘ Coalition Association Prince Edward Island Federation of Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency Agriculture Canadian Wheat Board Wild Rose Agricultural Producers Canadian Young Farmers Forum 3 4 SECTION ONE A Canadian Farm Bill: A New Vision for Agriculture 5 6 A CANADIAN FARM BILL A New Vision for Canadian Agriculture INTRODUCTION When the government‘s Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) was first developed, its purpose was to enhance the capacity, capabilities and profitability of the Canadian agriculture and agri-food industry. The programs that formed within the APF have had varying degrees of success and shortfall. Bulk exports of agricultural products have floundered over the last decade. While agri-food exports have increased, competition, regulatory and policy hurdles combine to pressure Canadian profitability and slow agri- food innovation. Canada is slow to develop and take advantage of new technologies for the benefit all Canadians. Canada continues to fall behind in agriculture and agri-food innovation, investment and competitiveness. Most notably the last three years of Canadian farm income have been the lowest in recorded history. In comparison, the last three years of US farm income have been the best in their recorded history. There is need for fundamental changes in the industry. There needs to be fundamental shifts in focusing research and development, ensuring the regulatory environment is efficient, ensuring opportunities and the necessary tools are transferred to primary producers and perhaps most important, a fundamental shift in how policy is developed. Why is this important? Agriculture and agri-food is a key industry for Canadians, for its contribution to the economy, for its role in sustaining rural communities, for food security and for its contributions to health and the environment. Agriculture and agri-food is a significant contributor to Canada‘s economic engine. It provides one in seven Canadian jobs and employs nearly two million Canadians. In 2004 the Canadian agri-food industry exported $26.5 billion worth of products and contributed $6 billion to Canada's trade balance accounting for 11 percent of Canada‘s total trade surplus. Agriculture and agri-food is the backbone of Canada‘s rural communities. Every year Canadian agriculture producers pay almost $2 billion in salaries to Canadian workers, spend $1.9 billion for fuel, $2 billion for fertilizer, $570 million on veterinary services and drugs, $800 million on electricity and telecommunications, and over $300 million on rental and leasing of machinery, equipment and vehicles. The majority of these expenditures occur in rural communities and in turn provide a host of spin-off industries and economic flow within these communities. Agriculture and agri-food production, innovation and service are the life-blood of rural communities. Most importantly the industry is a provider of high quality, safe and environmentally responsible foods to the Canadian people. Into the future, Canadian producers can also be the foundation of renewable bio-solutions for the world‘s food, energy and health problems. Solutions must be found to ensure primary producers remain strong, gain strength and continue to contribute significantly to Canadians. It is in our national interest to ensure the industry remains strong and spurs growth for the future. 7 OBJECTIVE In 2004, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture commenced a process to look forward and be proactive in proposing practical policy solutions for the needs of Canadian producers and the agricultural industry. This document, titled the Canadian Farm Bill, is a synthesis of the ideas and concepts proposed by CFA members – producers across Canada and their representative organizations. As the APF sunsets and the consultations for the next generation of agricultural policy begin, the objective of this document is to lead debate and drive home the concerns and needs of Canadian farmers to politicians and policy makers. Clear from those discussions, CFA members propose the clear need for a strong, new vision for the industry and an integrated framework of policy and programs that focuses on profitability of the industry and practical solutions to achieve success. A New Vision for Agriculture and Agri-Food: Provider of Economic, Environmental and Health Solutions for the Future Through extensive discussion our vision for the industry and the next generation of agricultural policy: ―Canadian agriculture and agri-food as a vibrant, dynamic industry, where all partners of the production chain have the opportunity to succeed, be profitable, and are world leaders as solutions providers for the world‘s economic, environmental, and health objectives.‖ Key Components of the New Vision Agriculture and Agri-food as dynamic and innovative The world is ever changing. Knowledge and perceptions change. New markets, international and domestic, continually emerge for food, energy, industrial and health products. Demand is increasing for safer, organic and locally grown foods. Agriculture faces a tremendous opportunity to be a provider of renewable fuels to meet the world‘s energy needs in a sustainable manner. Bio-based health products through food and agricultural products can be a major contributor to the world‘s health care constraints. A strong, vibrant agricultural industry must be continually dynamic and innovative to meet new consumer demands for both food and non-food needs. Increasing value-added contributions to the Canadian economy and rural communities Not only does the industry need to be dynamic and innovative to meet consumer demands but the industry needs to maximize its opportunities to value-add and achieve greater contribution to the Canadian economy. No longer should Canada remain a hewer of wood and drawer of water but become also a source of high-value, quality products. Increasing value-added processing and distribution will generate greater wealth, jobs and opportunity within rural communities and Canada as a whole. Agriculture as a steward of the environment and provider of the highest quality, safe foods to Canadians Agriculture is a primary solutions provider of environmental goods and services from water and air filtration, habitat protection, carbon sequestration and provider of renewable resources. Canadian agriculture and agri-food is also a world leader in food safety and quality systems, providing the highest quality products to Canadians and the 8 world. Increasingly society is demanding safer, better products, renewable products and the protection of the environment. Agriculture and agri-food must continue to contribute to these objectives and incentives must be generated to make these contributions sustainable into the future. Agriculture and Agri-food as an industry in which all parts of the production chain have the opportunity to grow and succeed Not only must the new vision create a dynamic and innovative industry, increase the industry‘s value added contributions to the Canadian economy, and continue its stewardship of the land, air and water, the new vision must be of a business and investment environment with efficient policy and regulation that enables all segments of the production chain to be successful. This entails: 1) Creating a stable business and investment environment for all stakeholders in the industry to be efficient and responsive to consumer desires, market signals and social responsibilities; 2) Enabling information and opportunities to flow to all stakeholders in the industry and enabling all stakeholders to take leadership in being innovative and seeking out new markets. 3) Building strategic policy, based on a comprehensive view of the industry, creating an economic and regulatory environment for all stakeholders in the industry to be competitive, domestically and internationally; and, 4) Enabling primary producers with information, tools and abilities to achieve sustainable net incomes from the marketplace. The principal goal should be to achieve profitability and growth for every sector and, therefore, must go beyond simply identifying solutions to problems; it must also identify and strengthen the components that are successful. The next generation of agricultural policy must identify and strengthen those mechanisms that work to maintain farm incomes and bargaining power in the marketplace including cooperatives, collective marketing, supply management and its three pillars and the Canadian Wheat Board. Canadian policy must understand what it is competing against and develop strategic plans accordingly. Canadian industries, producers and processors are competitive but to be truly competitive in the global marketplace, they need competitive policy. Value added industries cannot succeed without stability of inputs. Livestock producers are inexorably linked to grains and oilseeds production. Processors need stable supplies of primary inputs. Producers and processors cannot innovate successfully without strong links to consumers. All industries face exchange rate risks. Not only does the industry face price distortions but also regulatory, transportation, investment and stability distortions. Strategic policy that achieves gains for Canada first and creates a strong, stable and innovative environment is the key to success. A NEW STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK To achieve this vision, the CFA proposes a new Agricultural Policy Framework built on three major ―Pillars‖: The Public Goods and Services Pillar addresses environment programs and food safety programs – those programs that work towards contributing to the public good. 9 The Business Risk Management Pillar addresses programs that provide stability for disease, climate and major market fluctuations. Finally, the proposal puts forth a new Strategic Growth Pillar that coordinates proactive policy for the generation of growth and strength in the industry. While each Pillar defines the primary roles of agriculture and agri-food policies it is understood that all programs interact and as a whole they work together for the industry. Environment programs work towards the public good but also provide strength in international markets. Developing tools for producers to achieve stronger incomes from the marketplace contributes to rural development. Business risk management programs provide stability as a foundation for strategic growth. Missing from the original APF is a concerted development of proactive strategic policy to generate growth. Therefore in addition to the existing Public Goods and Services and BRM pillars, we propose a new pillar of Strategic Growth. PUBLIC GOODS AND SERVICES PILLAR Canadian agriculture and agri-food producers provide high quality, environmentally responsible foods to Canadians and the world. Canadian producers work with society at large to achieve certain environmental and production objectives and work to improve the link between production and consumer demands. This pillar addresses issues of: • Environment, such as ecological goods and services, water and air quality, biodiversity and land usage; • Food safety and quality, such as the development, implementation, monitoring and recognition of assurance systems, on-farm implementation and traceability; and • Animal and plant health, such as bio-security systems, emergency preparedness and animal welfare. Vision of the Public Goods and Services Pillar: Canadian agriculture as environmentally, economically and socially sustainable, internationally competitive and a provider of high quality, safe and healthy food to Canadians and the world. Four general principles were defined for this Pillar: 1) Sustainability of public good initiatives: Environment, food safety and other initiatives add cost, often without corresponding increases in revenue. This is made increasingly difficult for producers with low farm incomes. If an initiative is a public good for all society then, to ensure the sustainability of the initiative, society at large needs to bear the costs either through the market place or directly. 2) Continual innovation: To meet the environmental, economic and health goals of society, innovation strategies that promote science and research, efficiencies, integration and technology transfer are critical for success. 3) Policy Coordination: Coordinated, synergistic policies among federal, provincial, and municipal governments, as well as within governments, are needed to achieve society‘s goals better and more efficiently. 10 4) Integrated management systems: Management systems need to be integrated to reduce costs and paperwork. Integration should however, remain flexible to accommodate existing programs. Together these four principles strengthen the ability of stakeholders to achieve competitiveness and the objectives of environmental, economic and health sustainability. ENVIRONMENT Producers are stewards of the land and see themselves as environmentally responsible for that land. Protection of the environment should not be a choice pitting protection of a public good versus dwindling farm incomes. To be successful, strong initiatives protecting the environment need positive incentives that build opportunity for stewardship. • ―Environmental Goods and Services‖ • Environmental stewardship and habitat protection • Carbon sequestration/reduction • Pest Management • Nutrient Management • Species at Risk • Soil Conservation • Water Management FOOD SAFETY AND FOOD QUALITY Producers are making long-term commitments to programs that provide high quality, environmentally responsive and safe food, but find it difficult justify costs. To be sustainable into the future, on-going financial commitment from government would support maintenance of programs and continued participation by producers. Support should be focused on national development, implementation, monitoring and recognition of the following: • Food Safety and Quality systems • Traceability systems • Animal Health systems • Bio-security systems • Emergency preparedness • Surveillance ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH Canada enjoys an excellent animal and plant health status. To ensure the continuation of Canada‘s strong record must develop and implement a coordinated national plan and animal health strategy. The fist line of defense being disease prevention with solid 11 biosecurity approaches coupled with timely access to competitively priced and effective inputs, including pesticides and veterinary products, is critical. The second line of defense must minimize the damage from disease, in terms of animal and plant health losses, public health and market closures. For this, it is essential that Canada have a strong emergency response system in place with clear roles and responsibilities, and avenues for appropriate compensation. Attention should be focused on: • Animal / plant health • Bio-security systems • Emergency preparedness • Animal welfare BUSINESS RISK MANAGEMENT PILLAR Agricultural producers face extraordinary production risk – insect, disease, frost, drought, wind, and floods. Producers face further market risks as well with volatile price risk, tariff and non-tariff barriers – expected and unexpected. With extraordinary risk comes the need for extraordinary risk management tools. The primary objective of BRM programs is to provide disaster assistance and stability to producers who have incurred unforeseen loss. While BRM programs do not build growth, they provide stability to the industry and act as a foundation for growth. To build that foundation, BRM programs must be strategic in how it provides stability to primary producers. That strategy requires programs to: • Address markets that are distorted by international subsidies • Be flexible to address regional and commodity needs • Be predictable and bankable for producers • Maintain supply management and its three pillars as producer tools to manage risk CFA members have held extensive discussions on how to address this foundation. These discussions have resulted in a conceptual design of safety-nets containing seven major program components that producers would like explore: 1) A self-stabilization program 2) A CAIS-type ―whole farm‖ disaster program 3) Production insurance 4) Companion programs 5) A contingency fund for catastrophes 6) Protection of supply management as a program for risk management 7) A component to address declining farm incomes due to distorted international markets. The US Farm Bill and other international subsidies have distorted international markets. In the integrated North American system, these subsidies have distorted trade flows and competitiveness, not only for primary producers but for value added industries as well. Canadian policy must be equally strategic with what it is competing against. BRM 12 programs must be strategic in building a foundation in which Canadian industry can be competitive in global markets and build value-added opportunities within Canada. Further, supply management systems are Federal-Provincial agreements initiated and supported by appropriate legislation that regulates the marketing of dairy, poultry and eggs in Canada. These systems are dependent upon the support of three equally important pillars: a) Producer Pricing b) Import Controls, and c) Production Discipline. The next generation of agricultural policy must maintain supply management and the strength of these three pillars as strong risk management tools for primary producers. STRATEGIC GROWTH PILLAR The keys to building growth and profitability for agriculture are strategic investments. The vision of this Pillar is of a framework of policy that proactively facilitates innovation, growth and profitability within the industry. Five principles have been outlined for this pillar: 1) Coordinated, strategic policy where all components of policy and regulation work together to strategically build industries across production chains. Building strong partnerships among production chain stakeholders is key to this strategy 2) Clear assessments of the roles of government and industry partners. In the provision of private and public goods and services, policies and actions by both government and industry can be supportive as well as regressive. Policies must continually strive to apportion appropriate roles and mechanisms that achieve social and economic objectives most effectively 3) Building of primary and value-added opportunities for Canada and rural communities 4) Innovation and continual dissemination of knowledge, new markets and innovation opportunities to all industry partners 5) Enable primary producers with knowledge, expertise, technology and policy to maintain and improve incomes from the marketplace There are many components that can be combined to accomplish this: • Strong market development and market intelligence with enhanced linkages with consumers • Building and maintaining the strength of cooperatives, strategic partnerships and producer marketing tools • Strong trade strategies • Highly responsive and efficient regulatory framework • Strategic investment in infrastructure • Strong research, innovation and commercialization tools • Strategic investment in value-added – ―Top-Down‖, such as capital investment tools, tax treatment and market development tools for value-added industries 13 • Strategic investment in inputs and production – ―Bottom-Up‖, such as the cash advance programs for producers, tax treatments and targeted support into emerging markets To become world leaders in new innovations strategic support must be done to support the entire value chain. Enhancing consumer communications to meet demand, market development, and capital and tax incentives into strategic value-added industries, all work to increase profitable flow through of product by drawing product through the chain from the top. Decoupled payments, BRM programming and targeted support act to ensure steady, quality assured, and environmentally responsible supplies for value- added activity. Such support increases flow of product through the chain from the bottom-up. Finally, support for cooperatives, strategic partnerships and producer marketing tools work to achieve sustainable incomes for producers from the marketplace. ―Top- Down‖ supports that build value ―Bottom- added and Up‖ draw supports product that up through build stable the supply of production quality chain product at competitive prices Together, all three pillars work towards a Framework that can build the agriculture and agri-food industry into a true world leader in providing solutions for the world‘s food, energy, environmental and health needs. Together, the policies can strategically invest into the development of the sector into new technologies and new markets. Together the policies can increase agriculture‘s contribution to the Canadian economy and achieve transformative change to enable primary producers to be profitable. 14 SECTION TWO Standing Policy Statements 15 16 TRADE POLICY STATEMENT Introduction Canadian agriculture is an essential part of the economic, political and social fabric of Canada. It is the backbone of many rural communities and contributes significantly to the well-being of Canadians in both rural and urban Canada. The future of these communities is tightly intertwined with the future of the Canadian agricultural sector. Canadian agriculture is a major generator of jobs in both rural and urban Canada through employment on farms, in the production of agricultural inputs, in the processing of farm products and in the service sector. Primary agriculture is not just another industrial sector. Unlike other primary industries, agricultural production is not carried out by large corporations. It is done by a large number of individuals farms. Canadian agriculture occupies a significant portion of Canada's land resource and must carry the responsibilities of the stewardship of this resource. The continued health and development of a successful and diverse agricultural sector requires that federal policies recognize, on the one hand, the global environment in which the industry operates, and on the other, the domestic requirements for a healthy and vigorous industry. CFA believes that Canada's agricultural trade policies must reflect the requirements arising from the unique characteristics of this sector. 1.0 Basic Trade Policy Goals The increasing interdependence of national economies and the growing and competitive global market place have reinforced the importance of export market opportunities and the importance of fair and effective trade rules. Canada must approach trade negotiations with the objective of achieving positive results for Canadian farmers. Clear and effective rules governing international trade should result in a better functioning of international and domestic markets and contribute to the improvement of Canadian farm incomes. The range of processes, initiatives and options on Canada‘s current trade policy agenda is very large (e.g. WTO, NAFTA, Canada/ Chile bilateral, Canada/Israel bilateral, APEC, Quad, G-7, OECD, FTAA etc.). The breadth of this agenda provides opportunities, but also poses risks. The CFA has asserted, and continues to assert, the Canadian Government's trade policy must: Identify the WTO as the principal vehicle for the establishment of fair and effective trade rules and improved export opportunities. Approach all trade negotiations in a coordinated fashion that ensures trade agreements and initiatives complement each other. Give high priority to the review of the effect of existing trade agreements and give high priority to the achievement of full implementation of existing commitments in the consideration of future action. Achieve the maximum possible access for agricultural exports, but also respect the domestic interests of Canadian farmers. 17 Preserve its right to enable Canadian farmers to design and operate marketing systems, including orderly marketing1 and preserve those measures necessary for the stability and profitability of Canadian agriculture. Ensure that farmers' marketing structures are not subject to stricter international trade rules than other corporate structures and private enterprises. Ensure that government involvement in marketing structures and state trading enterprises remains transparent and is fully notified to all WTO members Recognize that change is negotiated on a reciprocal basis, but insist that the results establish clear and effective rules and standards that apply equally to all countries. Ensure a continuing commitment not to allow one commodity to be traded off to enhance the interest of another commodity nor to trade off agriculture in general for another industry sector. 1.1 Next Round of WTO negotiations In order to achieve meaningful and comprehensive results, Canada should endeavour to have the next round of agricultural negotiations carried out in the context of a comprehensive round of WTO negotiations. The next round of trade negotiations must focus at the onset on: Reaching an agreement to eliminate all export subsidies Reaching an agreement which contains precise and enforceable rules which apply equally to all members, and thereby rectifies the disparity in the level of commitments which resulted from the Uruguay Round (e.g. minimum access). 2.0 Export Subsidies Canada is eliminating all export subsidies. Further action is required to ensure that Canadian producers are not forced to compete in an international market that is distorted by export subsidies provided by others. Canadian goals should include: Eliminating the use of export subsidies. Establishing effective WTO rules governing the use of government export credit programs. These rules should : - Limit the repayment period of a loan to period approximating the life of the product being sold2 1 "Orderly marketing" includes supply management, the Canadian Wheat Board, and other provincial marketing structures. 2 In general, 180 days is a reasonable maximum repayment period. A longer repayment period is probably required for breeding animals and plant reproductive materials. One to three years, based on the length of the reproductive cycle, should be an adequate maximum for breeding animals and reproductive materials. 18 - Prohibit the subsidization of interest rates, - Require premiums (reflecting cost of risk involved) for credit guarantees and insurance, - Allow governments to provide direct credit as well as guarantees and insurance, and - Provide that state trading enterprises are subject to the same non-subsidization rules as government, but are allowed to exceed the repayment limits when necessary to match the repayment periods being offered by the private trade. • Establishing clear and enforceable WTO rules to govern the use of export promotion programs and food aid to ensure that these programs are not disguised export subsidies. • Ensuring that the definitions of export subsidies do not undermine the effectiveness of Canadian agricultural marketing bodies or Canadian exporters. 3.0 Export Restrictions The use of quantitative export restrictions and/or export taxes can in effect subsidize the export of processed products and can undermine the confidence of importing countries, in the security of imported food supplies. Canadian negotiating goals should include: • Establishing effective WTO rules governing the use of quantitative export restrictions and export taxes. These rules should : - Clearly define the circumstances when quantitative export restrictions or prohibitions are allowed, and the allowed duration of such a measure. - Require that a restriction or prohibition shall not reduce the proportion of exports, to the domestic supply of the product, to a level below the average proportion of exports to the domestic supply in a recent representative period. - Prohibit the use of export taxes to isolate domestic prices from increases in international prices. 4.0 Market Access CFA believes the fundamental market access goal should be to achieve the maximum possible access for agricultural exports, with due regard for the need to maintain our domestic interests and orderly marketing structures (See Annex 3). • Canada should pursue full equivalency of minimum access levels based on clear and precise rules. • Canada should continuously pursue maximum market access opportunities for Canadian agricultural sectors with strong export interests • As a first priority, the Uruguay Round goal of five per cent minimum access must be provided for all agricultural products for which non-tariff barriers were converted into tariff equivalents • Agriculture sectors which already offer access greater than the common minimum access agreed upon at WTO should not be required to offer additional access. • Minimum access commitments should be established on the basis of: 19 Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs) being established on a product group basis such as pork, beef, dairy, wheat, barley and oilseeds, and be available to all products within each product group. The product groups, for which separate minimum access calculations and provisions are required, should be defined in a specific list. Over-quota tariffs being maintained at a level that ensures no more access than the intended level of the TRQ. In-quota tariffs being reduced to zero. • Transparent, effective and binding rules governing TRQ administration in order to ensure that the committed level of minimum access is available and achievable, including: the elimination of country-specific allocations; and The right for Canada to designate the market sectors that receive imports, provided it does not impede the level of committed minimum access, and provided the TRQ administration is transparent and non-discriminatory within the sector. • TRQ administration in support of the objective of equivalent and achievable market access should be guided by the following principles: Administration measures must be fully transparent and predictable to importers and exporters, and be applied equally to all WTO Members. Administrative burdens on importers and exporters should be minimized. State Trading Enterprises (STEs) must be recognized as legitimate structures of administering TRQs, provided that they are in compliance with WTO commitments. • In principle, all current access above the minimum access level must be maintained. However there is a bilateral (Canada/US) anomaly that must be resolved. The current access provided by Canada for hatching eggs and chicks exceeds the base period access volume, while the access provided by the US for Canadian refined sugar is well below historic access levels. • Notwithstanding the above position on in-quota and over-quota tariffs, Canada should pursue the maximum reduction of all other tariffs.3 • For grains, oilseeds, pork and their products: Canada should seek parity of access/tariffs for competing products. For example, canola should enjoy access/tariffs equivalent to that of soybeans. The practice of ―tariff escalation‖ where progressively higher tariffs are applied as the product moves farther up the processing chain, should be prohibited. Primary and processed forms of a product should enjoy parity of tariff treatment. • Canada should continue to pursue ―0‖ for ―0‖ agreements for products of interest to specific Canadian sector • Both developed and developing countries should have access to special agricultural safeguard measures: 3 An illustration of the application of CFA market access policy to the single tariff concept in the Canadian Government‘s agricultural negotiating mandate is provided in Annex 2. 20 These measures should continue to include both price and volume based safeguards. These safeguards should be applicable to over-quota lines for sensitive products. 5.0 Non-Tariff Barriers 5.1 Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Canada must recognize that for some sectors, the elimination of sanitary, phyto-sanitary and other barriers without technical merit require as much priority as the further elimination of tariffs. In general, the SPS Agreement is working well and does not need to be renegotiated. However, if it is opened up, Canada should seek to achieve: • WTO provisions that require countries to accept international pesticide registration and residue standards. • Clearer language on equivalency that will make it more incumbent on countries to allow imports where the food safety protection afforded by exporting countries‘ inspection programs is at least equivalent to that of the importer, even if the modus operandi is different in certain respects. • Provisions that would ensure timely resolution of problems with unjustified sanitary and phytosanitary measures. In addition, priority should be given to: Measures which will ensure that science is the basis on which countries assess the acceptability of GMO products and that labelling requirements not constitute a non-tariff barrier to trade. Achieving a WTO Agreement on Arbitration and Licensing that will ensure that shippers of fresh fruits and vegetables will have access to an effective and comparable dispute resolution system in all markets. Measures which will help ensure that import regulations and other trade restrictions are administered and enforced uniformly for all exporters shipping into a country. Recognizing that an increasing number of agricultural products, developed through biotechnology, are commercialized and enter into international trade. Canada shall seek to establish a working party on biotechnology in the WTO to assess potential trade implications and to determine the adequacy of existing rules and to report to the steering body for the negotiations on whether negotiations are required within the WTO in this area. In negotiations regarding technical regulations, Canada must recognize the importance of maintaining its bulk container and consignment selling rules which are consistent with WTO national treatment requirements. • Both developed and developing countries should have access to special agricultural safeguard measures. These measures should continue to include both price and volume based safeguards. These safeguards should be applicable to over-quota lines for sensitive products. 21 6.0 Labelling Standards Proper labelling standards help ensure that consumers are provided with sound, factual information about the product they are purchasing. Labelling requirements can be used to promote domestic agendas and create technical barriers to trade. WTO Technical Barrier to Trade rules and Codex standards must ensure that: • Mandatory labelling requirements are limited to clear and factual information of importance to the consumer and do not create costly and/or complex record-keeping or verification, requirements for producers, processors and exporters. • Labelling regulations do not impose product description requirements that discriminate again imported product. • In the case of processed products, there are no mandatory requirements for the declaration of the origin of ingredients, or provisions for identifying the location of earlier stages of production or processing of components of the final product. • There are no mandatory requirements for the declaration of the country of origin of primary agricultural products. • Standards for the identification of products with particular characteristics, that some consumers may desire (e.g. organic product or BST free milk), are not mandatory, and the identification is limited to declaration of the presence of the characteristic. 7.0 Domestic Support The domestic support priority should be to provide substantial further discipline on the use of domestic support. This must be done in a manner that removes the disparities in WTO obligations and respects the domestic interests of Canadian farmers. Key considerations include: 7.1 Green box The clarity and equity of the definitions and rules governing domestic support programs should be improved by: • Clarifying the 'green box criteria' for weather and income related safety net programs (paragraphs 7 & 8, Annex 2) in order to provide more realistic options for these programs.4 • Tightening the definitions of green programs to reduce the possibility of trade distorting programs being provided within the green category.5 The status and role of green programs should be improved by: • Permanently exempting green programs from countervail action. • Establishing a WTO system for the prior determination of the green status of a specific domestic program. 4 See Section A: of Annex 1 for specific recommendation for change of the green criteria. 5 See Section B: of Annex 1 for specific recommendation for change of the green criteria. 22 7.2 Amber box a) Exemptions • The rules should apply equally to all types of trade distorting support • The blue box exemption from reduction commitments for specific types of amber programs (para.5, Article 6, WTO agreement on Agriculture) should be eliminated. b) De minimis • Countries will, at times, find it necessary to provide targeted support to deal with extraordinary problems in agriculture. Small amounts of targeted assistance will not distort trade. • The de minimis exemption from amber support calculations (AMS) should be maintained. c) Relationship of de minimis and Blue Box CFA continues to believe that every possible effort should be made to eliminate the Blue Box and to maintain the current de minimis provisions. If that proves to be impossible, CFA would support a provision which permitted Canada to continue to use the full current de minimis provisions in exchange for not using a revised blue spending option. d) Policy on Product Specific Caps CFA is opposed to capping product-specific support. However, if caps are established, it must be done in an equitable manner. They cannot be based on spending in an historical period. The caps must be a set percentage of the value of the product's production and be the same percentage for all products in all countries [subject to special and differential provisions for developing countries.] Regardless of any caps that may be established, countries must retain the ability to provide product specific support to assist a commodity in its recovery from an emergency situation (e.g. market failure due to BSE.) This right would be subject to the final Bound Total AMS limit. e) Amber spending limits There is an imperative need to curtail the high level of support provided by the United States and other high spenders. The effectiveness of amber support reduction is dependent on the degree to which other measures limit the ability of countries to provide excessive support in other guises (e.g. a cap on total domestic support spending and tighter green definitions.) A key domestic consideration is ensuring that Canada has the ability to provide effective income and weather related safety net programs. Canadian NISA and crop insurance programs are currently notified as amber. The amount of amber support capacity required to accommodate these programs in the future will be 23 dependent on the degree to which the green definitions are modified to provide realistic criteria for income and weather safety net programs. We believe that the amber spending limit reductions should: • Be in the form of a percentage reduction of existing commitments • Be substantial enough to arrest the current high level of support provided by the U.S., the E.U. and other high spenders. • Provide sufficient latitude to insure that Canada can provide effective income and weather related safety nets. 8.0 Export Promotion 8.1 Export promotion programs All market and promotion services, including export promotion, should be considered domestic support, be subject to the provisions of Article 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and be reported in the domestic support notifications. To be exempt from reduction commitments6, an export promotion program: • Must relate to a generic commodity or product, and not be used for promotion of a particular brand. • Must be generally available; that is be provided to associations representing the marketers of a particular type of product. The assistance cannot be provided directly to an individual company or integrated marketer (such as a co-op.) • Cannot be used to reduce the selling price of the product, and cannot be used to provide free samples or reduce the cost of trial shipments. 8.2 Food Aid Establishing clear and enforceable WTO rules to govern the use of export promotion programs and food aid to ensure that these programs are not disguised export subsidies. The rules on food aid should provide that: • All food aid shall be provided in fully grant form, including aid to least developed and net food importing developing countries. • Food aid shall not be tied to the purchase of other agricultural products or of other goods and services. 9.0 Overall cap Amber support is the most trade distorting. However excessive spending on any form of domestic support can created an unequal and unfair trading environment. • In addition to the elimination of the blue box and reduction of amber spending limits, the effective discipline of domestic support requires an overall cap on domestic support spending. 6 Market promotion services is dealt with in 2.(f), Annex 2, WTO Agreement on Agriculture 24 • This cap must designed in a manner that provides meaningful limits on the spending of all parties: The cap should be defined as a percentage of total value of production. The cap should focus on actual government expenditures. It should apply to all amber spending, including programs currently in the blue box, but not market price support calculations; and apply to all green spending. The overall cap should be subject to progressive reduction as the amber spending limit is reduced. 10.0 Amber support definitions and calculation (AMS) At the end of the Uruguay Round of negotiations, Canada‘s negotiators were confident that the other Parties had accepted that Canada had correctly calculated and reported its domestic support and export subsidies in the commitment schedules. After the initiation of the dispute over the calculation of dairy export subsidies, we learned that this was not necessarily true. Clarifying and tightening the green definitions can, in general, resolve problems related to actual expenditures. The main uncertainties relate to whether the presence or near presence of government, without any expenditure, constitutes a subsidy. We believe that our negotiators must be sensitive to the need to resolve any uncertainties regarding the application of domestic support commitment. Particular considerations include: 10.1 Market price support Market price support is a calculation of the perceived benefits of 'administered prices'. When actual expenditures are used to maintain prices, this would fall within the normal concept of government support expenditures and the subsidy element of those expenditures should not be too difficult to identify. If the level of 'administered prices' is dependent on border protection, this really is a measure of the effects of border protection which can be dealt with more realistically by the market access provisions in the agreement. We believe: • Where actual purchases or payments are used to maintain administered prices, the calculated subsidy should be the amount of subsidy provided to the volume that is purchased or the volume receiving an actual support payment. • The calculation of market price support be eliminated from the calculation of the AMS. 10.2 Market price structure Despite the fact that the allegations are unsubstantiated, there is a risk that some countries might try to use the trade negotiations and WTO rules to attack the legitimacy of Canadian marketing boards (e.g. the current assertions that export central desk selling agencies such as the Canadian Wheat Board, are somehow subsidizing exports). We believe that it is essential that the Government, while pursuing subsidy elimination and subsidy reduction goals, take whatever steps are necessary to insure that the domestic and export subsidy rules are not used to undermine the ability of producer 25 supported agricultural marketing bodies to regulate the volume of domestic product marketed, to operate a central desk selling agency and to pool returns. 11.0 Non-trade concerns The concept of 'multifunctionality' is being promoted by some WTO members. It is a way of saying that considerations, other than commercial issues, are factors in determining national agricultural policy. It is important that non-trade concerns are dealt with in a manner that does not undermine the disciplines on domestic support. • Measures intended to support the multifunctional character of agriculture must be provided in a way that does not distort trade. • There should be no special concession for expenditures related to the financing of these measures, either in extra spending rights or weakening of the green definitions. These programs should be subject to the overall cap on domestic support spending. 12.0 Domestic policy One hand of government not knowing what the other hand of government is doing, is a recipe for potential disaster. • It is essential that domestic agricultural policy makers design policies that are compatible with Canada's negotiating goals for domestic support programs, and design policies that reflect an honest evaluation of the art of possible in the negotiations. • It is essential that Canada's negotiating bottom line is designed to insure that we have the capacity to provide the safety net programs required to maintain a stable Canadian agriculture sector. Beyond safety nets, the Government of Canada must be prepared to match the level of green support given to our competitors in other countries; particularly in the areas of food safety, research, infrastructure, pesticide regulation, resolution of environmental problems, and maintenance of standards and inspection. 13.0 Marketing Structures The suitable form of marketing structures varies between commodities and over time. However, one of the most important tools available to Canadians farmers is the Canadian agricultural marketing legislative framework. Under this legislative framework, the federal government and the provinces have established agricultural marketing boards, agencies and commissions that, without distorting trade, permit farmers to deal effectively with their buyers and give farmers the leverage to successfully meet the challenges of a competitive market place. At the same time, they have provided fair prices to consumers and ensured strong national industries. They must not be traded away. Canada should: • Not only defend its right to enable producers to establish and maintain effective marketing structures, but seek allies and vigorously promote WTO rules that clearly 26 confirm the right of countries to grant producer supported marketing bodies (such as Canadian supply management systems) the power to regulate the volume of domestic product marketed, to operate a central desk selling agency and to pool returns in a fashion that does not distort international trade. • Ensure that any international agreement on the application of competition policy respects Canadian provisos that exempt specific aspects of federal and provincial agricultural marketing structures from the provisions of competition legislation. 14.0 Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries There is compelling need for objective criteria which will determine eligibility for special and differential treatment. Countries should not have the ability to decide on their own that they are eligible. There should be an upper limit to when a country can be classed as developing. This should be based on objective criteria such as per capita GNP. Not all developing countries should be entitled to all special and differential provision. There should be more than one category of developing country. The criteria might include per capita GDP, size and diversity of the agricultural sector and level and range of agricultural exports. • Least developed countries should be eligible for all special and differential provisions. • A developing country with a relatively strong economy and a well developed agricultural sector [e.g. Brazil] might only be eligible for very limited special and differential privileges such as a longer implementation period. • Special products and special safe guards may be two of the most beneficial special and differential provisions: Access to these measures may be limited by the general economic development of a country. However, the primary criteria for these measures should determine what products or tariff lines might be eligible. These criteria should require that there is evidence that special treatment for a product will support and provide needed enhancement of the local agricultural economy and not just create an opportunity for an investor to exploit an exceptional opportunity primarily for its own benefit. 15.0 Trade Remedy Measures The use of countervail, anti-dumping and safeguard measures is a double-edged sword; necessary at times to protect the legitimate interests of Canadian producers, but also at times unfairly damaging to Canadian export interests. In a less-than-perfect trade environment, Canada needs to: • Ensure we maintain and improve trade remedy legislation that permits farmers to effectively counteract unfairly damaging trade practices, but give priority to achieving trade agreement provisions which would significantly restrain the ability of other countries to take trade remedy action against Canadian exports. 27 • CFA believes the best long-term resolution of problems with countervail action lies in improvement of the domestic support provisions of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture; improvements which will place stronger and equitable limits on domestic support spending and provide better definition of countervail free green programs (See Domestic Support). Despite the damage to Canadian agricultural export interests caused by the use of anti- dumping action within NAFTA, the elimination of anti-dump within NAFTA, while desirable, is not a realistic option. Therefore, Canada should endeavor to find means to minimize the use of anti-dumping action within NAFTA and/or establish effective and meaningful alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Many anti-dumping and countervail actions do not lead to final imposition of a duty. However, even if an action is not successful, the imposition of initial duties and/or the cost of defending an exporter‘s interests in the proceedings can be very disruptive and damaging to the interest of the exporting parties. In order to reduce the frequency of these unsuccessful, but harmful, actions Canada should: • Seek revisions to WTO rules which strengthen the requirements for initiating a trade remedy action and, in effect, eliminate the initiation of actions which had little likelihood of success. • Seek revisions which establish more stringent requirements for the initial determinations and, in effect eliminate actions which lack sufficient evidence to justify proceeding to the final determinations. Beyond strengthening the initiation standards, CFA believes that there is a need for revisions of WTO rules which will help restrain the use of countervail and anti-dumping actions, and improve the fairness and consistency of the proceedings and results. Our specific recommendations follow. 15.1 Anti-dumping We believe the following provisions would improve anti-dumping rules: a) In the case of trade within economically integrated commodity markets, such as the North American red meat markets, dumping should be based on whether export prices are less than those prevailing at the same time in the home market, not cost of production. Within other sectors, such as horticulture, costs of production should still be used as another method to calculate dumping margins. b) The time period used for compensation between export and home market prices should be calculated using methodology acceptable under the WTO that reflects a true market to market comparison. c) If a cost of production calculation is made, the length of period, for the determination of whether there is recovery of cost of production, should be long enough to include the high as well as the low of a price cycle. Periods when returns are adversely affected by extraordinary events such as disease or drought should be excluded from cost of production calculations 28 d) It should be clearly required that any individual sample, that has a ―0‖ or de minimis level of subsidy or dumping, is included in the averaging to determine the level of subsidy or dumping. e) When individual determinations of countervail or dumping rates are made, there should be a limit on the cost of establishing an individual rate for a firm not included in the initial sampling. f) Producers of primary product should have ―standing‖ (i.e. be considered part of the domestic industry) in cases where imports of processed product cause or may cause injury to producers of primary product. 15.2 Countervail Recommendations d, e and f above, also apply to countervailing duty actions. In addition, we believe that: • It should be provided that the level of countervailing duty, which may be imposed, shall not exceed the net difference between the level of subsidy provided for the product in the exporting and the level of subsidy in the importing country. 16.0 Trade and the Environment CFA recognizes the importance of measures to resolve environmental problems. While the WTO is not equipped to resolve environmental problems, there is an interaction between trade and environmental issues. There is potential for legitimate environmental concerns to be used as an excuse to introduce disguised trade barriers. Neither international trade nor the environment would benefit from such action. CFA believes that: • The Committee on Trade and Environment should be a permanent WTO body. • Eco-labelling and other applications of environmental standards should be subject to WTO disciplines, no less rigorous than the disciplines placed on the application of other standards. • Trade provisions in international environmental agreements should be subject to full WTO discipline. If it is deemed necessary to give special consideration to any environmentally related trade measures, clear WTO rules should be developed to prevent misuse in the cause of protectionism. 17.0 Trade and Labour Standards The liberalization of international trade has increased awareness of the lack of core labour standards in some countries. While CFA believes that: • The primary responsibility for dealing with labour standards should lie with the International Labour Organization; and • Trade barriers should not be used to impose or enforce labour standards, It recognizes that one of the functions of the WTO is to cooperate with international organizations 'with a view to achieving a greater coherence in global economic policy- making' (Article III, Paragraph 5 of the Marrakech Agreement). There is a need for a 29 strong and transparent consultative link between the World Trade Organization and the International Labour Organization. 18.0 Dispute Settlement Canada must seek to improve the transparency of the WTO and in particular, the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding through: • Allowing producer organizations, commodity and trade associations affected by a panel ruling to observe the proceedings of the Dispute Settlement Body in a manner that does not affect the proceeding themselves; • Ensuring that adequate proceedings are made available to the public, while respecting any confidential information; • Ensuring that the WTO panel and Appellate Body submissions are made publicly available on a timely basis. 19.0 Regional and Bilateral Trade Negotiations 19.1 Agriculture specific issues a) Market access: Canada's approach should be the same as in other regional trade agreements. Canada should seek the elimination (or reduction when elimination is not possible), on a reciprocal basis, of all agricultural tariffs except for over-quota tariffs for supply managed products. Any considerations related to the size of supply managed TRQs or over-quota tariffs should be reserved for WTO negotiations. b) Domestic support: Limitations on domestic support expenditures is an issue which can most effectively dealt with in the context of the WTO. Canada should oppose any efforts to go beyond WTO domestic support commitments. c) Export subsidies: Canada should seek the elimination of the use of export subsidies. The CUSTA provision, which prohibited export of agricultural product by government entities at a price below acquisition costs, should not be duplicated in these trade agreements. d) Other agricultural questions: Canada should oppose any efforts to establish new rules governing the activities of state trading enterprises. Issues relating to state trading enterprises should be dealt with in the WTO. If the opportunity occurs, Canada should seek specific rules regarding the specificity, of agricultural programs, for the purpose of determining if a program is countervailable. The goal should be to establish rules that make programs, which are generally available to agriculture, non-countervailable. 20.0 Investment 30 Canada should endeavor to insure that investment provisions, which may be included in these agreements, do not inadvertently conflict with Canadian agricultural policies, programs and/or regulated marketing systems. CFA asks that Canada's investment negotiators consult with CFA during the development of any investment provisions. 21.0 Competition policy Canada should endeavor to insure that any competition policy provisions are compatible with the manner in which Canada applies competition law to agricultural marketing bodies. 22.0 Trade Remedies 22.1 Anti-dumping action: It may be useful to seek more effective rules governing the use of anti-dumping action, however, Canada should not seek the elimination of the use of anti-dumping action (particularly in the case of horticultural products.) 22.2 Countervailing duties: If possible Canada should seek rules which govern the determination of the specificity of agricultural subsidies for the purpose of countervail action (see comments above under Other agricultural questions.) 22.3 Safeguard action: There is a need to develop measures that address the problems which the producers of perishable horticultural products suffer from surges of low priced imports. CFA requests that they be consulted regarding any possible provisions related to safeguard measures. 22.4 Intellectual property rights The question, of whether a country should be required to allow the patenting of plants and animals, is an issue which should be dealt with in the WTO. Canada should oppose any patent provisions in these regional agreements which would limit Canada's options regarding the patenting of life forms or which would limit the conditions Canada might place on a patent of a plant or animal. 23.0 Conclusion CFA supports the development of a coordinated and equitable agriculture trade policy for Canada. In the development of Canadian agriculture trade policy, the Government of Canada needs to take into account the special nature of agriculture and its positive contribution to the rural and regional economies in Canada. CFA must be fully involved and consulted from the outset during all trade negotiations, not only on the specific issues, but also on the direction and focus of Canada's agricultural trade policy. 31 Annex 1 Recommendations for revision of Green Criteria in Annex 2 of WTO Agreement on Agriculture Section A: Proposed wording for green box criteria for weather and income related safety net programs. Paragraph 7: Income and income safety-net programs 1. Individual eligibility for payment shall be triggered by a loss of agricultural income, which is greater than 30 per cent of the individual's average agricultural income during a recent representative period. • Income may be determined on a 'net income', 'gross income ' basis, or combination thereof, but only one methodology may be used for the program. Negative numbers may be included in the calculations, provided that they are used in both the calculation of average income and the calculation of current income. • Income from the same or similar schemes shall not be included in the calculation of the average income. • The representative period for determining average income shall be not less than the preceding 3 years and no greater than the preceding 10 years. Once the length of the period has been determined, it shall be used consistently for the life of the program. 2. The amount of government payment to an individual shall be no greater than 70 per cent of the individual income loss in the year in which an individual is eligible for payment. 3. Where an individual in the same year receives a payment under this paragraph and under paragraph eight (relief from natural disasters), the total of such payments shall be less than 100 per cent of the individual's total loss. 4. In the case where a program is funded jointly by producers and government, payments may be triggered by less than a 30 per cent loss of income provided that: • The annual government contribution to each account does not exceed six per cent of the value of the producer's annual sales of agricultural products. • Producers must enter into a contract to participate in the program and the contract requires the producer to provide at least one third of contributions to his or her account. • Payments are limited to funds in producer accounts by joint producer and government contributions. • The total payments from a jointly funded program and any other program under this paragraph shall be less than 100 per cent of the individuals total loss. Paragraph 8. Payments (made either directly or by way of government financial participation in crop insurance schemes) for relief from natural disasters 1. Individual eligibility for payment shall be triggered by a production loss, which is greater than 30 per cent of the individual's average of production during a recent representative period The representative period for determining average production shall be not less than the preceding 3 years and no greater than the preceding 15 years. 32 The length of the representative period may vary between individual crops if necessary to reflect the production patterns of individual crops. The methodology for determining the yield for an individual crop, once established shall remain unchanged unless a formal process has been established to adjust average production to reflect changes in production technology. Such a process must be transparent and based on objective criteria. 2. Payments made following a disaster shall be applied only in respect of losses of income, livestock (including payments in connection with the veterinary treatment of animals), land or other production factors due to the natural disaster in question. 3. Payments shall compensate for no more than the total cost of replacing such losses and shall not require or specify the type or quantity of future production. 4. Payments made during a disaster shall not exceed the level required to prevent or alleviate further loss as defined in criterion (2) above. 5. Where a producer receives in the same year payments under this paragraph and under paragraph 7 (income insurance and income safety-net programs), the total of such payments shall be less than 100 per cent of the producer's total loss. 6. In the case where a program under this paragraph is funded jointly by producers and government, payment may be triggered by a loss less than 30 per cent provided that payments for losses less than 30 per cent of the average yield are jointly funded by government and producer contributions to accounts established under the program. Section B: Proposals for tightening the definitions of green programs to reduce the possibility of trade distorting programs being provided within the green category General Services Paragraph 4. Domestic food aid: (Example: US Food Stamps and US School Lunch Programs) Add the requirement that food purchases shall not be limited to domestically produced product (i.e. imported product shall receive national treatment in regard to domestic food aid purchases.) Direct payments Direct payments is the form of support which is most likely to produce trade distorting effects. CFA believes no direct payment program should be green unless it conforms with a purpose which is clearly defined in the green criteria. If a country has a new type of program it wishes to introduce under the green category, there should be a mechanism for determining if this type of program meets the green goals and determining what specific rules should apply to the program. 33 CFA also believes that the definitions must contain provisions which prevent support in excess of the level necessary to achieve the defined goals of green programs and which prevent a level of support that will become trade distorting. The criteria, for each type of green direct payment, should provide specific limits to the level of payments that can be provided under that type of program. Specific Recommendations: Paragraphs 5 - 13: Each paragraph relating to direct payment should be reviewed and revised if necessary to insure that: The paragraph clearly defines a type of decoupled non-trade distorting program which is compatible with the goals of the green category, and clearly defines the acceptable application of the program. The paragraph contains limits which prevent payments in excess of the amount necessary to achieve the intent of the defined program. In addition to the steps identified above, CFA also believes that the following revisions should be made: Paragraph 5. Direct payments to producers: The last sentence of the existing paragraph should be deleted in order to eliminate the provision for direct payment programs which do not meet the specific criteria for the individual types of direct payment identified in the green definitions. Paragraph 6. Decoupled income support: This paragraph should be revised so that the provision is limited to temporary compensation for policy change or temporary payments to assist a commodity in its recovery from an emergency situation. It should be stipulated that the payments must cease after five years. Paragraph 11. Structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids: This paragraph should be revised to clearly indicate that programs for beginning farmer are included under this paragraph provided that there is a definite limit to how long an individual can be considered a beginning. Annex 2 Illustration of the application of CFA market access policy to the single stage tariff concept in the Canadian Government‘s agricultural negotiating mandate. Single stage tariffs Achieve the maximum possible reduction of single stage tariffs through a formula based approach which would also reduce tariff escalation and reduce the tariff differentials between competing products. This formula should: 1. Establish a minimum reduction requirement for each tariff line. 2. Establish an average reduction for all tariff lines. 3. Establish a maximum binding level for single stage tariffs. 34 4. Where the minimum reduction requirement does not bring a tariff line down to the maximum binding level and a country is not prepared to reduce the tariff line further, require that the tariff be converted to a two stage tariff (TRQ) which would be subject to the new improved rules for two stage tariffs. Annex 3 Clarification of CFA policy on market access It is not realistic to manage the scope of "sensitive products" by defining what tariff lines can be classified as sensitive. The modalities should establish the basic improvement in market access as combinations of tariff quota commitments and tariff reductions that will be required for sensitive tariff lines. The negotiations should also establish the basic percentage of a member's tariff lines within the percentage they want designated as sensitive. However, there would be some proportional relationship between the number of sensitive tariff lines and access improvement requirements. A member could designate more than the basic percentage of tariff lines as sensitive but would be required to provide an increase in access above the basic access improvement requirement for sensitive products. Annex 4 Canada‘s Farm and Food Sovereignty and Security Declaration Whereas, hunger, food prices, energy costs and carbon footprints have increased the attention on a domestically produced and secure food supply and the exercise of countries‘ agricultural and food policy rights, and Whereas all people should have affordable access to safe, nutritious and culturally appropriate food in sufficient quantity and quality to sustain a healthy life, and Whereas Canada has signed a number of treaties recognizing food as a fundamental right, and Whereas, Food Sovereignty recognizes the importance of both domestic and export markets for Canadian agriculture producers, and Whereas increasing world population and the need for agricultural production for energy and other non-food uses emphasize the continuing need for expansion of world agricultural production, and Recognizing that every country has the right to determine and define its own agricultural and food policy within the parameters of binding agreements it has chosen to enter into, and that the policy must be designed to fit the particular realities of the country, Canada, as a sovereign nation, will develop, promote and implement domestic and global policies supportive of sustainable farming and food industries in Canada, which create a fair and competitive playing field including: o Measures that ensure all food in Canada satisfies Canadian requirements; 35 o Buy local/regional/Canadian promotional initiatives at home which emphasize the high quality of Canadian agricultural products; o Export promotion programs that emphasize the high quality of Canadian agricultural exports o Programs that support and promote the sustainability, efficiency and productivity of Canadian Agriculture, in order to Maximize the long term ability to supply domestic food requirements, and Provide the ability to benefit from export market opportunities; o Programs that ensure Canadian farmers have the right to use, subject to proper standards, modern agricultural technology that is developed in Canada or that is available to competing jurisdictions. This includes but is not necessarily limited to intensive modern livestock production methods, biotechnology and pest management products, o Policies that allow producers to choose the marketing system best suited to their commodity and include the necessary provisions, where appropriate, for orderly marketing systems.7 o Business risk management programs adequate to deal with the realities of Canadian agricultural production. 7 orderly marketing" includes supply management, the Canadian Wheat Board, and other provincial marketing structures. 36 SAFETY NETS POLICY STATEMENT Introduction Canadian agriculture is an essential part of the economic, political and social fabric of Canada. It is the backbone of many rural communities and contributes significantly to the well being of Canadians in both rural and urban Canada. The future of these communities is tightly intertwined with the future of the Canadian agricultural sector. Canadian agriculture is a major generator of jobs in both rural and urban Canada through employment on farms, in the production of agricultural inputs, in the processing of farm products and in the service sector. The continued health and development of a successful and diverse agricultural sector requires that federal policies recognize, on the one hand, the global environment in which the industry operates, and on the other, the domestic requirements for a healthy and vigorous industry. The CFA believes that Canada's agricultural safety net policies must reflect the requirements arising from the unique characteristics of this sector. Agriculture is a high-risk business, and unlike other primary industries is comprised of a large number of individual farms. A priority must be to provide Canadian agriculture with the tools to create a stable and healthy agriculture environment. Notwithstanding that good management is a prerequisite for success, a majority of the factors determining receipts and input costs are beyond a farmer‘s control. Variables such as unpredictable weather conditions, fluctuations in market prices, and government support to competing farmers in other countries are a few examples. These factors severely undermine the ability of Canadian farmers to compete effectively. In order for farmers to continue investing and expanding their farming operations, they need financial stability and adequate tools to offset the risks tied to agriculture. While the preference is for farmers to derive their income from the marketplace, the CFA supports a safety nets package that provides risk management tools for managing the effects of weather problems, market volatility and any type of moderate to disastrous variations in income. The CFA believes a credible, long-term, safety nets package that complies with WTO agreements and does not provoke trade action is paramount to ensuring the needs of Canadian producers are met. Safety net programs must not be linked to programs aimed at environment, food safety, or investment initiatives. Safety net programs should not only stabilize income, but also contribute to sustainable farm viability. CFA supports safety net programs that are stable, meaningful and adequately funded. This means that they must accurately measure the need at the farm gate, provide adequate money, and flow money quickly and efficiently. The end result must be that any safety net money should end up at the farm-gate very close to the time of need! The design of safety net programs, including relevant links between programs, is an evolution. The guiding principles, however, are that the national safety net package should be based on four pillars -- income stabilization, disaster assistance, production insurance, and companion programs – and should provide support when necessary. 1.0 Fundamental issues to be addressed include: 1.1 Funding 37 Both levels of Government must be committed to strategic investment in agriculture, investment that reflects immediate need in the agricultural industry, as well as addressing long-term need to further the industry‘s ongoing goals and objectives. Governments must also ensure that domestic support policy is harmonized with fiscal policies and with international agreements, so that all of these components work together to support the long-term viability of the agricultural sector. An adequate financial foundation for the industry must be established by developing credible programs and then providing the funds to pay for their full cost. Finally, prorating of any program payments is unacceptable. Governments must establish safety net funding levels that: • Offset previous funding cuts • Create a level playing field with our competitors • Pay for a credible safety nets package • Ensure farmers have access to useful risk management tools • Allows for the development of strong, credible, and effective programs that are responsive to farmers‘ needs 1.2 Trade Injury Canadian farmers are affected by the actions of governments in other countries; foreign subsidies, trade actions, and other activities can all harm the Canadian agricultural industry. Where an injury to Canadian farmers can be identified, the federal government must be prepared to implement and fund strategies and programs to mitigate the imbalance regarding affected commodities. In order to be effective, safety net programs need to take into account the effects of actions by other countries. Furthermore, funding for any trade injury program must be new money, as the current funding is needed for income stabilization. 1.3 Trade Neutrality Given that Canadian agriculture is highly reliant on trade, safety net programs must continue to be designed to be as production and trade neutral as possible. They must be able to withstand international scrutiny, and must be defensible against trade actions. 1.4 Complementary Programs In the ongoing improvement of the safety net programs, it is essential that all the components complement one another. The development of one program must never undermine the utility of another. No producer or region should be disadvantaged by safety net programs, and all producers should be treated equitably. Companion programs are an important component of the total safety net package, giving provinces the ability to address province-specific needs. It is therefore important that 38 national and provincial programs not undermine one another, nor lead to marginalizing or discounting the total compensation provided to farmers. Risk management design should not be based on a single, coast-to-coast program but rather provide a common basis for risk management programs that is sufficiently flexible to allow the provinces to adapt the programs to their specific set of circumstances. 1.5 Program Linkages Any links between different safety net programs should be positive ones that encourage program use, rather than penalizing producers. All growers must be able to access conventional safety net programs (such as AgriInsurance, AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriRecovery, and companion programs) without being required to adopt food safety or environment guidelines. At the same time, incentives should be developed to encourage the adoption of food safety and environmental guidelines. 1.6 Supply Management Supply management must be recognized as a risk management program, and the three pillars of supply management -- border measures, ability to set prices, and the ability to manage supply -- must be identified and supported in the context of the current and future agricultural policy framework. Specific policy recommendations in relation to current safety net programs: 2.0 BRM Programs An income stabilization and disaster program must adequately compensate farmers on a timely basis for severe drops in income created by factors over which they have no control. In general: • Any unused program dollars in one year must be rolled over for use in future years, • The program should be designed in such a way that farmers can make maximum use of it. • Once the program is established, it must be regularly reviewed to reflect current needs of the industry. • Design features of any income stabilization program should remain nationally uniform but with the flexibility to allow provinces/producers to enhance and provide other companion programs • Under no circumstances should there be prorating of program payments. 2.1 AgriStability Fees It is agreed by all across the agricultural industry that the AgriStability fee requirement serves no purpose, ties up valuable working capital and directly contradicts the Business Risk Management principles of program practicality and affordability. Without the fee, all BRM stated objectives are maintained within AgriStability. AgriStability fees only serves to further disadvantage Canadian producers on the international stage. AgriStability 39 must not contain any upfront cost to producers. Our global competitors face simpler and wealthier programs with no upfront costs. The deposit only serves to deny access to those producers that are most in need -- those who cannot afford a deposit. The fee must be eliminated. 2.2 Reference margins Any income disaster program must be designed to address compensation adequately to commodities that experience protracted income problems that cannot be addressed by short term reference periods. The choice of revenue and expenses to be included in the margin is key to the success of any margin-based program. 2.3 Timeliness of payments • The success of any safety net program is contingent on being able to deliver funds quickly and easily to producers. • Triggered funds must be calculated as income for the year they are triggered. 3.0 AgriInsurance CFA believes that production insurance programs must be maintained and improved. Government must provide effective production insurance for commodities that are not adequately covered by traditional crop insurance. Provinces should be given the opportunity to preserve the integrity of current programs, and these programs should be available equitably to all producers in Canada. Funding should be made available to meet the demand for the programs in any given year. An insurance program must meet the following basic principles: • It must be an actuarially sound program. • The allocation of funds must be set according to risk factors. • The calculation of premiums to be paid by producers should be related to government contributions • Self Directed Risk Management Programs (SDRM) must be an integral part of production insurance and available to commodities not insurable or not adequately covered by basic crop insurance programs. The federal allocation to provinces must include additional funds to provide coverage for SDRMS (for uninsured commodities and commodities with inadequate production insurance). • A link must be established between the production insurance and income disaster programs to encourage maximum participation in current production insurance programs. • Production insurance premiums should not be considered as eligible expenses for the purpose of calculating the reference margin, but should be included in the calculation of the claim year margin. 40 • The producer‘s share of production insurance indemnity (i.e. 40 per cent) should not be included as revenue in the claim year margin, but should be included in the calculation of the reference margin. 4.0 Companion Programs Companion programs are an important pillar in the total safety net package to ensure provinces have the ability to address their own specific needs of their farmers. It is imperative for companion programs be designed to ensure that: • Companion programs not undermine the integrity of the other pillars of the safety nets package. • All provincial companion funding be allocated to programs that improve the financial viability and stability of farmers. 5.0 Research and Development Recognizing that research and development is an essential component of creating an environment within which farmers can be successful, it should be funded from outside the safety nets budget. It is imperative, however, that governments take seriously the potential of research and development and ensure long term funds outside safety nets are available for this very important purpose. Conclusion In conclusion, the CFA believes that any changes made to the safety nets package of programs not result in any reduction to overall funding and must always result in improvement in the measurement of need at the farm gate level. Further, it is imperative that safety net programs be developed with farmer input. 41 ENVIRONMENT POLICY STATEMENT Introduction Canadian agriculture is an essential part of the economic, political and social fabric of Canada. It is the backbone of many rural communities and contributes significantly to the well-being of Canadians in both rural and urban Canada. The future of these communities is tightly intertwined with the future of the Canadian agricultural sector. Canadian agriculture is a major generator of jobs in both rural and urban Canada through employment on farms, in the production of agricultural inputs, in the processing of farm products and in the service sector. Primary agriculture is not just another industrial sector. Unlike other primary industries, most agricultural production is not carried out by large corporations. It is done by a large number of individual farms. Canadian agriculture occupies approximately 7 per cent of Canada's land resource and carries the responsibilities of the stewardship of this resource. The continued health and development of a successful and diverse agricultural sector requires that federal policies recognize, on the one hand, the global environment in which the industry operates, and on the other, the domestic requirements for a healthy and vigorous industry. The CFA believes that Canada's agricultural environment policies must reflect the requirements arising from the unique characteristics of this sector. 1.0 Basic Environmental Policy Goals Canadian agriculture occupies a large and important part of the Canadian environment. The farm community is the chief steward and manager of extensive natural resources, owner and architect of much of the landscape and protector of a precious soil resource. In its concern for the environmental fabric of Canada, the CFA believes that great importance should be placed on measures of environmental management to ensure maintenance of land resources which provide food for the people of Canada and a large part of the world's population. There is a growing awareness in Canada of the relationship between agricultural production and environmental issues. As stewards of the land, Canadian farmers are aware of their responsibilities to the environment and are taking positive steps to ensure the environmental sustainability of their industry. Canadian farmers are leaders in sustainable agricultural practices. Canadian farmers have a history of being proactive in developing and adopting techniques to benefit the Canadian environment. The CFA recommends that the Government of Canada invest more financial resources to facilitate information and technology transfer. 2.0 The Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Registration of Pesticides The Canadian government under Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) regulates chemicals, devices, and organisms, that are referred to collectively as pest control products, or simply 'pesticides'. The legislative authority for 42 the regulation of pesticides in Canada falls under the federal Pest Control Products Act and provincial/territorial legislation. Pesticides play an important role as farmers continue to work towards producing the safest and highest quality foods possible. In order for producers to do their jobs efficiently and effectively, they need a regulatory system that is science based and a government that is willing to provide producers with the necessary tools. The ability of farmers to have timely access to new products for use in pest management is extremely important to farmers. If Canadian farmers are to remain competitive in the global market, we must ensure they have access to the newest products used by our competitors, which meet Canadian regulatory requirements. The CFA urges the PMRA to recognize the competitive disadvantage Canadian producers are left at by the current system that is over bureaucratic, costly and redundant and implores the government to work to harmonize systems with the U.S. and EU countries. In doing so, the CFA requests that border barriers be lifted allowing any products into Canada currently approved for similar purposes by the U.S. EPA or the EU equivalent. In addition, the CFA insists the government continue to build on the fifteen year commitment under the 1986 CUSTA, and accelerate its work through the NAFTA process and through the OECD process to harmonize regulatory systems, while continuing to ensure that the health and safety of the Canadian food systems not be compromised. The CFA supports an expedited registration process for reduced-risk products in order to facilitate access to these lower risk products. While the Minister of Health holds responsibility of the PMRA, the ineffectual performance of the agency impinges on responsibilities of the Ministers of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Environment, Industry, Treasury, and Natural Resources. As such, the CFA calls for greater accountability of the PMRA and requests intervention by the other Ministers, recognizing issues of trade, competitiveness, NAFTA agreements, science policy and sound government. The CFA also requests that more resources be directed at the registration of 'minor use' products to ensure producers of horticultural, vegetable, fruit and small acreage crops have access to the pest control tools they need. The CFA participates in both the Economic Management Advisory Committee (EMAC) and the Pest Management Advisory Council (PMAC), along with other stakeholders with the shared goal of improving the current regulatory system. Although PMAC offers a good opportunity to address issues it must be kept in mind that the number of industry stakeholders at the table is very limited. In order to ensure the needs of the industry are being met, CFA suggests that industry representation on the PMAC be increased. We also encourage the government to continue working closely with producers to ensure they have the tools they need to continue providing Canadians with one of the safest and cheapest food supplies in the world. 3.0 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act sets out in legislation the responsibilities and procedures for the environmental assessment of projects involving the federal government. The Act is meant to set out a clear and balanced process that brings a degree of certainty to the environmental assessment process and helps responsible 43 authorities determine the environmental effects of projects early in their planning stage. The Act applies to projects for which the federal government holds decision-making authority—whether as proponent, land administrator, source of funding, or regulator. The CFA supports any effort to improve the implementation of the CEAA. The process must be made more predictable, consistent and timely. It is also imperative that while implementing the CEAA, that logical steps are taken to eliminate redundancy, specifically as it applies to Beneficial Management Practices under the National Farm Stewardship Program. The CFA urges the government to add BMPs to the Exclusion list (Paragraph 56 of the Act) exempting BMPs from the requirement of an Environmental Assessment. It is also important that consistency, especially on items such as terminology and scope, is maintained with work being done in other departments e.g. Canada's Environmental Review of Multilateral Trade Negotiations at the World Trade Organization (Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade). Environmental assessments must provide for opportunities for effective public participation and must be based upon sound scientific analysis. 4.0 Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) was passed in 1988. After a five- year review, the revised Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA 1999, was proclaimed into law on March 31, 2000. The new Act incorporates many substantial amendments to the original CEPA. The focus of this new Act is pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development. 4.1 Toxic Substances Under CEPA 1999, there is the potential that substances can be named to the second Priority Substance List (PSL2). Once a substance is named to the PSL2 list, it triggers an assessment under the Priority Substances Assessment Program, administered jointly by Environment Canada and Health Canada. After a public comment period, a final ministerial decision is taken as to whether or not the substance is 'toxic' under CEPA, 1999. The CFA strongly recommends that Environment Canada and Health Canada clearly distinguish between all possible sources of a substance and their respective impact on the environment. The CFA also encourages the government to carefully review the process used to declare substances toxic. CFA believes that each substance must have an individual science-based review and there must be broad public consultations prior to the listing of the substance as toxic. Once a substance or activity is deemed toxic under CEPA, it is placed on Schedule 1 of the Act. It is then considered for risk management measures, such as regulations, guidelines or codes of practice to control any aspect of its life cycle, from the research and development stage through manufacture, use, storage, transport and ultimate disposal. Although provinces, municipalities and producer group activities normally address such environmental issues, the federal government could exercise greater authority if it felt that these measures were inadequate. 44 CFA recommends the government work with producer groups to ensure that any regulations are efficient and workable for the industry. The CFA also urges the government to more widely engage the farm community in the CEPA 5- year Parliamentary review process. 5.0 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety The Biosafety Protocol is an international agreement, negotiated under the United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was formally adopted on January 29, 2000 in Montreal. The objective of the Protocol is 'to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account risks to human health and specifically focusing on transboundary movements.' (Article 1) The Canadian agriculture industry and Canadian agriculture producers will be the most affected domestic stakeholders from this Protocol. For this reason it is imperative that the Protocol work effectively and efficiently for the movements of agricultural products. CFA has several concerns regarding the Protocol and we encourage the government to work diligently to address these issues so that Canadian agriculture producers will not be adversely affected. 5.1 Biosafety Clearinghouse Each country will notify new living modified products onto a Biosafety Clearinghouse in advance of any shipments taking place. As this will be a huge undertaking, Canadian farmers encourage governments to be vigilant in keeping administrative costs and time delays to a minimum. In addition, CFA stresses that Canada only notify those living modified organisms produced through modern biotechnology (as defined by the Protocol) onto the Biosafety Clearinghouse for exporters prior to Canada ratifying this Protocol. 5.2 Documentation Requirements for Commercial Shipments CFA requests that dockage and tolerance levels must be agreed to by all parties and set out clearly for exporters prior to Canada ratifying this Protocol. The levels must be attainable under commercial handling and transportation systems, while recognizing the capability of modern testing technology to identify trace amounts of a substance. 5.3 Testing and Sampling Methods for Shipments The CFA requests the testing and sampling methods for shipments be standardized to ensure the methods used by the exporter will also be accepted by the importer. 5.4 Scope of Products Covered Under the Protocol 45 The scope of products covered under the Protocol must be clearly understood by all parties. It has come to our attention that several agricultural products, which present no potential risk to a country's biological diversity, may be covered under the scope of the Protocol. The CFA sees it as imperative that the Canadian government clearly define what products are covered under the Protocol and that this be communicated domestically and internationally. 5.5 Illegal Transboundary Movements, Liability and Redress Issues Agricultural producers are very concerned with the potential costs, which may be borne by exporters of non-genetically modified commodities if a small percentage of genetically-modified dockage is contained in the shipment. Until tolerance, tolerance in dockage levels, as well as standardized testing and sampling methods are agreed upon under the Protocol, the CFA urges the government not to ratify the Protocol until the implications are agreed to by the Canadian agri-food industry. 5.6 Implementation of Canada’s Regulatory Requirements Under the Protocol CFA stresses that imports under the Protocol be subject to the same requirements as Canadian exports and that any additional regulatory requirements fall under the commodity specific regulations, which currently govern trade in agricultural commodities. 5.7 Disputes Arising From the Protocol The CFA urges the government to ensure that a clear method for resolving any dispute that might arise under the Protocol, or under any other international agreements in relation to the Protocol, is devised. It should be clear domestically and internationally where disputes will be resolved. 5.8 Risk Assessments and Risk Management CFA believes the Canadian government must ensure that all risk assessment and risk management decisions made under the Protocol continue to be based on a science- based system in conformance with the WTO Agreements on Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary (SPS) Measures and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). 6.0 Farmers and Endangered Species Protection Farmers have clearly demonstrated their commitment to protecting and restoring habitat on their farms and ranges by their proactive and voluntary actions. Producers are aware of the need for good information about the threats that agriculture may pose to endangered species, the actions that they can take to protect species (this includes education and awareness on species and their habitat needs), and the benefits to agriculture from the protection and enhancement of biodiversity in general on our farms and ranges. 46 Farmers have an added interest in biodiversity because they want to ensure that there are adequate biological resources to provide them with future crop varieties and pest control methods. Farmers recognize the need to protect endangered species. This means that methods to encourage participation and partnerships such as incentives, tax treatments, and compensation are necessary as well as agreements that protect farmers from legal prosecution. In order to meet the challenges of protecting endangered species the CFA supports a science based approach. This would include ensuring that there is good information on habitat protection and on the factors needed to protect a species. This science-based approach must also take into consideration other factors like the economic impact of protecting species, as well as the impact of stewardship actions on the entire farm eco- system. The CFA also supports the development of a system that is proactive rather than reactive. The government must be prepared to work with landowners to encourage wise land use choices and ensure effective implementation of action plans. The government must recognize voluntary efforts being taken by landowners and promote partnerships among sectors to increase conservation efforts. The CFA feels the most effective and efficient way for government to protect species at risk is by focusing on incentives rather than on enforcement and prosecution. The CFA asks the federal government to come up with programs that will give property owners incentive compensation when a species at risk is found on their property and requests that incentive and compensation schemes be addressed immediately in the consultative process. The CFA urges the government to work closely with stakeholders in the development of regulations to assist with adoption practices. Within this process, sufficient measures must be taken by government to ensure industry is well educated and informed of potential Species at Risk on their property, avoiding the possibility of inadvertent offenses. CFA also requests that the principles of full compensation be adopted by government and established in regulation. The CFA requests that all regulations in respect to compensation be created in consultation with the agriculture industry. 7.0 Climate Change Primary agriculture is responsible for approximately 10% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. Although this is a relatively small percentage, Canadian Farmers represent a significant opportunity for voluntary emission reductions and could be a valuable part of Canada‘s climate change solution. For Canadian society to benefit from the emission reduction potential within agriculture, key policies, market signals and decisions must be made by government. These include: A renewed dedication to supporting targeted and stakeholder driven research, The creation of a stable domestic carbon market accessible to the entire agriculture sector, 47 Tax regimes that won‘t unfairly target primary producers and create an international competitive disadvantage, A comprehensive program to aid and prepare the agriculture sector for any adaptations required as a result of a changing climate. Research The further development of climate change research capacity is an essential component of any climate change strategy. The CFA encourages the federal government to work with their provincial partners in focusing climate change research on two key themes: Emission reduction and sequestration techniques and technology, Adaptation. These themes will ensure that the agriculture sector will remain resilient and sustainable in the face of more extreme weather patterns and events, as well as ensuring that agriculture will continue to be a stable provider of carbon credits and part of the long term solution to climate change. The CFA encourages the federal government to define a long-term national strategy by working with Canadian farmers and the research community to facilitate the identification, coordination and funding of research priorities and technology transfer. It is important that a central body such as AAFC play an integral role in funding and coordinating this research through its existing programs or new ones in order to reduce duplication and provide a central location for the agriculture industry to access the results. Mitigation Carbon Tax A Carbon tax will significantly increase the cost of doing business for farmers. As price takers, farmers cannot pass the additional cost of a carbon tax on to consumers or the international market. In addition to direct cost increases on the fuels they use, farmers will see an increase in their indirect costs for shipping and fertilizer. A Carbon tax will create a competitive disadvantage for Canadian farmers. The CFA believes that agriculture should be exempted from a carbon tax until measures are put in place that ensure the tax is truly revenue neutral for farmers. A revenue neutral carbon tax would require a policy mix that provides farmers with more income for the costs they incur while producing ecological goods and services; including emission reduction. The policy mix should include: A domestic carbon market that allows agriculture to trade offset credits for all of the carbon mitigation techniques and practices available to them. This should be in conjunction with an effective cap on industrial emitters to ensure a market exists for offset credits. Programs that significantly increase the incentives for farmers to invest in green technology and practices, such as grants, rebates, accelerated capital cost allowances on ‗green‘ capital investments etc. 48 An enhancement of current environmental programs under the Agriculture Policy Framework. Ecological goods and services provided under other programs should still be eligible for offset credits, and the range of services farmers can provide to sequester or mitigate carbon should be expanded and developed into carbon offset protocols. A rebate system that acknowledges the competitive risk that carbon tax imposes upon sectors that export product as well as farmers who produce for the domestic market and must compete with imported products who are not taxed. Tax regimes that effectively account for the increased cost a carbon tax will impose on Canadian farmers. Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Markets An acceptable domestic or continent-wide carbon market for Canadian farmers will include: An effective cap on regulated industries to ensure a fair market exists for all offset credits. A system that allows for the aggregation of producers to create blocks of carbon credits. A wide range of Carbon offset protocols that will provide all sectors and commodities in Canada an opportunity to reduce or sequester carbon. These protocols should be developed in a fair and transparent way with farmers input. Offset protocols should ensure that: o Verification of offset credits can be done quickly and effectively to limit the costs involved and ensure the integrity of the offset system is maintained. o The variation in regulations, growing conditions/techniques and the existing incentives and polices across the country are taken into account within the protocols with flexibility provisions and conditions, specifically; The techniques provided to calculate baselines recognize these differences and do not implement a normalized country wide baseline or a broad business-as-usual approach that will be the same for all farmers across the country. o Administration of the system should be transparent and cost-effective to ensure that all review processes, project approvals and credit issuing is timely and does not serve as a barrier to farmer participation. o The risk of sink reversals should not be managed with a liability period or with temporary credits with reduced value. The management of reversals should include a variety of mechanisms that encourage farmer participation such as: Mandated hold back at the aggregated level, 49 Employing science based and trustworthy assurance factors, A fair system of private insurance. o Provisions should be included to issue full value offset credits to farmers who adopted techniques and technology to mitigate carbon emissions prior to the development of the market. Canadian farmers should be recognized for their early investment and provision of climate related ecological goods and services. o Stacking must be a fully implemented policy. This will ensure that agricultural emission reductions are rewarded or can be used to comply with overlapping federal and provincial greenhouse gas requirements. Adaptation The CFA urges the government to continue to direct resources towards understanding the impacts of climate change and to developing the tools, strategies and research needed to ensure Canadian agriculture remains resilient and sustainable. Any adaptation strategy should focus on the following objectives: Weather - a substantially improved weather forecasting and warning system, Plant Breeding - a renewed focus and investment in the improvement of plant breeding programs, Pest management – significant research and effort must be placed on further developing integrated pest management techniques and understanding new pests and vectors that will emerge as the climate changes, Investment – a long term investment in transportation and rural infrastructure, Insurance – the enhancement of crop insurance programs. 8.0 Trade and the Environment While the WTO is not equipped to resolve environmental problems, there is an interaction between trade and environmental issues. Legitimate environmental concerns could be used as an excuse to introduce disguised trade barriers while neither international trade nor the environment would benefit from such an action. In order to address these types of issues, CFA believes that the Committee on Trade and Environment should be a permanent WTO body. In addition, we support the principle that ecolabelling and other applications of environmental standards should be subject to WTO disciplines. Trade provisions in international environmental agreements should be subject to full WTO discipline. If it is deemed necessary to give special consideration to any environmentally related trade measures, clear WTO rules should be developed to prevent misuse in the cause of protectionism. 9.0 Environmental Assessment Framework for Trade Negotiations The Government of Canada with the help of provinces and territories, First Nation groups, and representatives from academic, non-governmental organizations, and the 50 private sector has developed a draft environmental assessment framework for trade negotiations. An Environmental Assessment Committee for Trade Negotiations, comprising representatives from relevant federal government departments and chaired by DFAIT, will coordinate the analysis required to complete the environmental assessments. The assessments will be applied on an agreement basis for a variety of trade negotiations including bilateral, regional and multilateral. The level and scope of analysis will be determined on a case-by-case basis according to the nature of the agreement to be negotiated and the significance of the likely environmental impacts. CFA believes the availability of analytical tools capable of assessing environmental impacts at an adequate level of detail must be a consideration when deciding whether or not to do an in depth review. Once significant environmental impacts are identified an analysis of the options must look at both mitigation of negative impacts and enhancement of positive impacts. At this time the CFA is not confident these tools are available and therefore question the objectivity of doing the assessments. At this point, the CFA has concerns that the concept of doing environmental assessments on trade agreements is not workable. We caution that any guidelines developed for conducting assessments should not set the bar so high as to discourage trade rather than being used as a beneficial analytical tool. If the government does go ahead with the development of these guidelines CFA recommends the methodologies used for the environmental assessment be science- based. The analysis must be based on scientific information, principles, objective data and documented experience. Consequently, the environmental assessment must deal with only the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of trade agreements. As there are a variety of trade agreements, the environmental process must be flexible enough to deal with the different methodologies which will be necessary to assess the impacts. 10.0 Farmers and On-Farm Environmental Planning Starting in the early 1990's farm organizations and government began devising new methods of helping farmers become more aware of their impact on the environment. As a result, environmental farm planning programs were created. These initiatives have stemmed from a grassroots movement and producer involvement in all stages of program creation and implementation has been significant. EFPs demonstrate the proactive actions the agriculture industry is taking to protect and enhance the environmental sustainability of the industry. An environmental farm plan, or an EFP, is a voluntary program for farmers to assess the environmental impact of their farming operation with the goal of identifying areas of concern and actions that can minimize environmental risk. In general, EFPs help farmers determine environmental risks and liabilities as well as strengths and assets that can impact their operation and natural resources. The plans flag areas of concern and identify opportunities for improvement and they also inform farmers about regulations that may apply to their farm. To date all EFPs, or versions of EFPs have been confidential and voluntary. As more provinces begin to implement on-farm planning programs and existing programs are 51 improved, the CFA maintains that any on-farm environmental assessment and planning process must be voluntary and the results this activity must remain confidential. The CFA insist the federal government enact effective legislation enforced by the privacy commissioner making it illegal for a supplier, government agency or other party to demand the information contained in a farmer‘s environmental farm plan. In addition the CFA requests that AAFC obtain an MOU with all environment, health and resource ministries and other departments that would prevent EFPs from being used as evidence in litigation against the producer. Where results need to be communicated for accountability purposes or as promotion, any information must be presented in an aggregated form in order to protect the sensitive information of individual producers. The CFA supports on-farm environmental programs which encompass the following principles: • Federal and provincial governments must adopt policies that promote the viability of the agricultural sector. Without financial profitability, there will be no environmental planning. • Participation in environmental planning on the part of farmers must be voluntary. • Environmental planning must be confidential and non-threatening. • An overall national framework must allow for and encourage province-specific structures, goals, and procedures, while setting nationally recognized standards and minimizing inter-provincial rivalry. • EFPs must be producer driven and should be encouraged through financial incentives. • As environmental concerns are shared by society as a whole, society must be prepared to share the cost. This also means government must find a way to share in the costs of infrastructure. • Environmental initiatives must be science-based, and there must be information sharing among the agriculture industry at the local, provincial, and national level. • Environmental farm plans can be used as a marketing tool to educate the public of the environmental awareness and responsibility of Canadian farmers. • The agricultural sector must set the agenda and vision for environmental planning. The agriculture sector must play a strong role in implementation, delivery, and promotion of these programs. 11.0 Streamside Grazing The CFA pressures the Canadian government to enforce regulations under the Fisheries Act to ensure producers are not prosecuted for low density streamside grazing by livestock in waterways. The CFA requests recognition for due diligence and the use of Beneficial Management Practices when applying legislation. It is also imperative that the issue be dealt with on a national basis rather then zeroing in on specific provinces. 12.0 Renewable Energy 52 Renewable Energy is an essential ingredient to the government of Canada‘s climate change initiative. The agricultural industry is already making strides towards adopting practices that generate energy on the farm. Wind, solar, and biomass energy can be harvested, providing farmers with a long-term source of income while helping to reduce the country‘s environmental footprint. The CFA urges the Government of Canada to increase resources towards the research of renewable energy technology as well as to the development and strengthening of renewable energy markets. We request the government set supplementary support programs in place, offering industry direct support for adopting renewable energy practices while offering the consumer a subsidy for choosing renewable energy over non-renewable options. In addition, we requests that the government recognize and provide support programs that encourage all renewable energy types, rather then focusing on one specific area. 13.0 Ecological Goods and Services Agriculture, in addition to food and fibre, produces a range of other beneficial non- commodity outputs such as fresh water, clean air, as well as erosion control, climate regulation, disease prevention and recreational opportunities. These non-commodity outputs are termed Ecological Goods and Services (EG&S) and are critical to modern economies and human quality of life. There is a need to provide a market mechanism to value these EG&S that farmers have been providing to ensure the maintenance now and for future generations of these public benefits on private land. The concept of paying agricultural producers for rendering EG&S bridges the environmental demands of Canadians and the policy requirements of the industry to foster a socially and economically viable agriculture industry and sustainable rural communities. The CFA requests the Government of Canada provide programs and policies that economically support the land stewardship practices of farmers by recognizing the market value of the resulting goods and services. The CFA also requests that initiatives to increased EG&S that are driven by the public must adequately offset impacted farmers. 13.1 Alternative Land Use Services Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) is delivery program that promotes the provision of EG&S by creating an incentive-based, non-trade distorting vehicle for encouraging resource stewardship by landowners and integrating the environmental demands of Canadians into the mainstream of Canadian agriculture. ALUS offers payments for the maintenance of existing natural assets, particularly where a viable alternative exists for converting natural assets into other (agricultural) uses and provides incentives for landscape improvement. Further, ALUS invests in the capacity of citizens and rural communities to support local conservation by allowing flexible decision-making at the community level that respects local agricultural and environmental priorities. Since farmers and ranchers are in the best position to deliver environmental goods and services on their land, ALUS allows farmers to lead the environmental agenda and 53 develop workable solutions in cooperation with their communities, farm organizations, governments, non-government agencies, and the Canadian public. 14.0 Water Water is an essential element for agriculture and food production. Ensuring food security and a productive, thriving agricultural economy is paramount for the long term health of Canada itself. With increasing development and pressure on Canada‘s water resources, the CFA recognizes that balance must be achieved between social, economic and environmental uses of water. Producers in Canada achieve that balance through their food production, rural economic development and the significant contributions to the environment through soil filtering, riparian management and land stewardship. The vital links between water, the agricultural economy and the environment must be preserved. As such: • Canada‘s water resources must be protected and the Canadian government must protect Canadian water rights in all trans-boundary water treaties. • No trans-boundary water treaties that impact agriculture should be renegotiated or amended without the clear consensus and participation from the Canadian agricultural community. • The Canadian government must preserve agriculture as a priority user and caretaker of Canada‘s water resources. • Governments must work with the agricultural industry to ensure the long term quality and quantity of water resources. Governments must provide appropriate funding to support projects that ensure the long term sustainability of water resources for the public good. 15.0 Air Quality Agriculture is an essential Canadian industry that generates safe, high quality and healthly food as well as substantial economic impacts for Canadians. As with any industry there are associated air quality emissions related to a number of diverse activities. There are many ―win-win‖ opportunities that increase soil and agricultural productivity while reducing atmospheric pollution. The CFA supports the development of economically feasible abatement strategies, programs and policies that will ultimately benefit the environment and agriculture. These approaches should be incentive based and not mandatory. In addition, the CFA supports cost sharing programs that promote the adoption of new emission reducing practices in order to help farmers deal with the initial capital costs. However, in the case where there is no clear private benefit of a new practice, the CFA urges the development of economic incentives to encourage farmers to modify their operations without significant economic burden to the sensitive agricultural industry. Where there are gaps in knowledge in the relationship that agriculture has with air quality the CFA supports further funding for science and research and the 54 communication and implementation of those results at the farm gate. Farmers see themselves as stewards of the land and with access to the right information, will make decisions that benefit their land and society. The development of any national air quality standards should take into consideration regional differences and be set to the most attainable levels. Currently, odour is difficult to measure and regulate, thus any effort to regulate odour should recognize the needs of farmers to continue, and diversify their operations. Where conflict occurs between land uses, the CFA urges the government to support farmers in introducing mitigative measures designed to abate odour issues. Finally, agriculture must be a partner in the development of any air quality policy of programs that relate to the agricultural sector. It is necessary to have the full involvement and the full buy-in of the agricultural community for the successful implementation of programs and policies in order to benefit the environment and Canadian agriculture. 16.0 Fertilizer Registration Modernization Fertilizers are on average the largest input cost to farmers. For a competitive agricultural industry there needs to be a competitive fertilizer industry which must be supported by an efficient and timely registration system. The CFA supports the modernization of the fertilizer program. Recognizing the fine line between protection and impediments, the CFA supports the need for efficacy data for fertilizer registration as long as it does not impede the timeliness of the registration process. To enable that, the CFA supports the use of foreign data where deemed scientifically appropriate. The CFA will continue to encourage the government to make the fertilizer regulatory framework more efficient while simutaneously, minimizing the registration burden to promote the introduction of new and innovative products for the enhancement of a competitive fertilizer and agricultural industry. 55 BIOTECHNOLOGY POLICY STATEMENT Introduction Canadian agriculture is an essential part of the economic, political and social fabric of Canada. It is the backbone of many rural communities and contributes significantly to the well being of Canadians in both rural and urban Canada. The future of these communities is tightly intertwined with the future of the Canadian agricultural sector. Canadian agriculture is a major generator of jobs in both rural and urban Canada through employment on farms, in the production of agricultural inputs, in the processing of farm products and in the service sector. Primary agriculture is not just another industrial sector. Unlike other primary industries, most agricultural production is not carried out by large corporations. It is done by a large number of individual farms. Canadian agriculture occupies approximately 7 per cent of Canada's land resource and carries the responsibilities of the stewardship of this resource. The continued health and development of a successful and diverse agricultural sector requires that federal policies recognize, on the one hand, the global environment in which the industry operates, and on the other, the domestic requirements for a healthy and vigorous industry. 1.0 Basic Biotechnology Goals The evolution and development of the Canadian agriculture sector has been driven by research, innovation and adoption of new technology. Biotechnology research and development is a new facet of this ongoing process. The nature of agricultural production and possibly the final products will be affected by these developments. Our most primary goal is have a government policy and regulatory framework that insures that biotechnology developments are compatible with the needs and expectations of the marketplace and contribute to the success and economic well being of farmers. The CFA believes that: • Research and development in biotechnology must be accompanied by the accumulation of sound factual information on the potential use, effect and safety of the biotechnology. Consumer information and education must be an integral component of biotechnology development. • The legislative and regulatory framework, for agricultural biotechnology development and approval, must be balanced and respect the legitimate interests of both the developers of the technology and the farmers who may use the technology. • Decisions to approve new biotechnology developments must be sensitive to the requirements of the market place and enhance the marketing of Canadian agricultural products. 56 • The risk of creating unreasonable costs associated with regulatory activities, and the risk of creating legal liabilities for producers or marketers should be considered prior to approval of new biotechnology developments • Adequate resources must be provided for an effective, scientifically sound approach to biotechnology regulatory issues. 2.0 Labelling of Genetically Engineered Foods Some consumers wish to know whether a food product contains or does not contain a genetically engineered component. If a supplier chooses to so label a product, the labelling should be: • Truthful and verifiable • Consistent with domestic regulations • Consistent with international standards and the requirements of our international customers Any claims related to health, safety, nutrition and/or environment are covered by existing mandatory labelling regulations. The CFA supports the development of a voluntary standard for the labelling of foods that contain or do not contain genetically engineered ingredients. This standard should: • Apply only to products which contain a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology8 that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection • Exclude processing aids (in particular the enzyme chymosin), veterinary biologics, and animal feeds • Apply to food sold to consumers in Canada regardless of whether it is produced domestically or imported • Provide for an adventitious (accidental) inclusion of food from genetically engineered crops, of less that 5 per cent when making claims that a food or food ingredient is not genetically engineered • Allow for differentiated labelling of foods or food ingredients derived from genetically engineered crops, to indicate that they do not contain any genetically engineered materials 3.0 Registration and Regulations of Genetically Engineered Varieties Even if a genetically engineered variety has useful traits, it is not necessarily beneficial to register and release the variety. The success of Canadian agriculture is highly 8 ‗Modern biotechnology‘ means the application of: a) In vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribopnucleic acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or b) Fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family. 57 dependent on export markets. At the present time there are markets where transgenic products would not be acceptable and at times it would difficult or impossible to maintain separation between a variety that is genetically engineered and one that is not. In addition, there are serious uncertainties over the full implications of the Biosafety Protocol. We do not know what level of dockage (or if any contamination from genetically engineered product) will be allowed in a shipment of non-genetically engineered product. It is also far from clear who will bear the liability arising from the accidental contamination of a shipment with an undesired genetically engineered product. 4.0 Variety Registration Regulations The registration of varieties is governed by regulations under the Seeds Act and is administered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It is not at all clear that the current regulations gives the government the authority to prevent the registration and release of GE variety because of market acceptability issues. CFIA has stated ―The Variety Registration system is not the appropriate mechanism to delay the release of a transgenic variety which may not have regulatory approval or market acceptance in foreign markets.‖ CFA therefore urgently requests that the Canadian government takes the steps necessary to ensure that it has the ability to prevent the registration and release of a genetically engineered variety until any significant handling, storage or marketing problems, associated with the presence of that variety in the market place, are resolved. In registration decisions consideration should be given to the agronomic effects of registering the variety (e.g. glyphosphate resistant wheat). Agronomic issues include possible contamination of other varieties and their products, and the effect on the sustainability of various cropping systems. 5.0 Genetically Engineered Wheat Canada's internationally reputation as a major exporter of high quality wheat, is highly dependent on our consistently accurate grading system. Visual kernal identification is a key part of this grading system. Wheat variety registration has been limited to the varieties with characteristics consistent with the grading system. An application has been made for the registration of a variety of genetically engineered wheat. GE wheat cannot be visually separated from non-GE wheat. And there is no practical technology that will permit the segregation of transgenic from non transgenic wheat. The presence of a GE variety of wheat could cause serious marketing problem, because there are markets where transgenic wheat would not be acceptable. CFA believes the Canadian government must take whatever steps are necessary to insure that GE wheat is not registered or released until segregation questions are resolved and there are assurances that it will not disrupt the marketing of current wheat varieties. 6.0 Intellectual Property Rights for Animal and Plant Breeders 58 Private researchers are unlikely to invest in animal and plant breeding unless they are confident that they will have a reasonable opportunity to receive a return on their investment if their breeding research is successful. The availability of adequate intellectual property right protection does provide such an opportunity. Effective intellectual property rights protection also helps to insure that Canadian farmers have access to the results of private breeding research in other countries. Canada provides two types of intellectual property rights which can apply to plant or animal research developments, plant breeders rights and patents. 6.1 Plant Breeders Rights These grant control over the sale of, or production for sale of, propagating material of a new plant variety. There are provisions related to plant breeders rights which help safeguard the interests of affected parties such as researchers and farmers. • Farmers are allowed to retain seed from a protected variety for their own use without paying additional royalties, • Protected varieties are available to other researchers for further varietal development, and • The Commissioner of Plant Breeders Rights has the power to issue compulsory licenses if necessary to insure that a plant variety is made available to the public at reasonable prices, is widely distributed and is maintained in quality. Canada is a signatory to the UPOV Convention, and international agreement designed to standardize plant breeder's rights provisions between countries and to facilitate the movement of protected varieties between countries. The 1991 UPOV agreement updated those international standards. Canada has signed but not implemented the provisions of the 1991 agreement. 6.2 Patents Patents grant total control over the production, use or sale of a new invention. To date the patents related to plants or animals have been primarily gene patents. The patent act does not provide the same type of safeguards for the interests of others as provided under plant breeder's rights. 6.3 Achieving a Balance in Intellectual Property Rights CFA supports the provision of effective intellectual property rights for plant and animal breeders provided that the provisions related to these rights are balanced and respect the interests of farmer and other affected parties as well as the breeders. To help insure that this balance is achieved and maintained CFA asks that Canada: • Maintain the current safeguards provided by plant breeders rights • Implement the provision of the 1991 UPOV Agreement in a manner that insures that adequate safeguards of farmer's interests are maintained 59 • Amend the Patent Act to provide, in the case of patents related to agricultural plants and animals, safeguards comparable to the safeguards provided under plant breeder's rights CFA believes these provisions should: • Ensure the right of a farmer to save seed for his or her own use; or if contracts are used to regulate the use of the patented material provide a mechanism for intervention if necessary to ensure that the contract conditions respect the interests of the farmer as well as the interests of the patent holder. • Ensure that only one royalty is charged for each reproduction of the patented material, and provide the ability to limit how far down, or when, in the reproductive chain a royalty can be charged. • Ensure the right of researchers to use patented materials as the basis for developing a new variety or other research use. • Ensure that compulsory licenses can be issued if necessary to secure that the patented development is made available to the public at reasonable prices, is widely distributed and is maintained in quality. • Protect agriculture producers from claims of patent infringement with respect to natural/accidental spreading of patented plant genetic material, or the insemination of an animal by an animal with patent protection. In addition we believe there is a need to address, both nationally and internationally, issues of liability for undesired natural/accidental spreading of patented seed, patented genetic material, or the insemination of an animal by an animal with patent protection. The patenting or production of new genetic material, should not create liability traps for producers or marketers. 6.4 Patenting of Life Forms The 'inventions' have been changes in genes and other lower life forms. They can be and are patented. This type of patent would appear to give the patent holder adequate control over an organism containing the patent. If the patent holder believes that they have developed a distinct variety (containing the patent or otherwise) they can obtain a plant breeders right on the variety. In animal science or for livestock, the biotechnical changes would relate to genes and current patent capability should be sufficient to protect the interests of animal breeders. CFA does not support the patenting of whole agricultural plants or animals. We believe the first priority should be the establishment of patent provisions which will strike a balance between the interests of the patent holder and others. That should be achieved and more experience gained regarding the use of patents related to agricultural plants and animals before consideration is given to the extension of patents to whole plants and animals. 7.0 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety 60 CFA believes that Canada's approach to the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety must meet the basic biotechnology goals identified above. Detailed policy on the Protocol is contained in the CFA Environmental Policy Statement. ANNEX 1 Excerpt from CFA environment policy statement: 1.0 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety The Biosafety Protocol is an international agreement, negotiated under the United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was formally adopted on January 29, 2000 in Montreal. The objective of the Protocol is ―to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account risks to human health and specifically focusing on transboundary movements.‖ The Canadian agriculture industry and Canadian agriculture producers will be the most affected domestic stakeholders from this Protocol. For this reason it is imperative that the Protocol work effectively and efficiently for the movements of agricultural products. CFA has several concerns regarding the Protocol and we encourage the government to work diligently to address these issues so that Canadian agriculture producers will not be adversely affected. 1.1 Biosafety Clearinghouse Each country will notify new living modified products onto a Biosafety Clearinghouse in advance of any shipments taking place. As this will be a huge undertaking, Canadian farmers encourage governments to be vigilant in keeping administrative costs and time delays to a minimum. In addition, CFA stresses that Canada only notify those living modified organisms produced through modern biotechnology (as defined by the Protocol) onto the Biosafety Clearinghouse. 1.2 Documentation Requirements for Commercial Shipments CFA requests that dockage and tolerance levels must be agreed to by all parties and set out clearly for exporters prior to Canada ratifying this Protocol. The levels must be attainable under commercial handling and transportation systems, while recognizing the capability of modern testing technology to identify trace amounts of a substance. 1.3 Testing and Sampling Methods for Shipments The CFA requests the testing and sampling methods for shipments be standardized to ensure the methods used by the exporter will also be accepted by the importer. 1.4 Scope of Products Covered Under the Protocol The scope of products covered under the Protocol must be clearly understood by all parties. It has come to our attention that several agricultural products, which present no 61 potential risk to a country's biological diversity, may be covered under the scope of the Protocol. The CFA sees it as imperative that the Canadian government clearly define what products are covered under the Protocol and that this be communicated domestically and internationally. 1.5 Illegal Transboundary Movements, Liability and Redress Issues Agricultural producers are very concerned with the potential costs, which may be borne by exporters of non-genetically modified commodities if a small percentage of genetically-modified dockage is contained in the shipment. Until tolerance, tolerance in dockage levels, as well as standardized testing and sampling methods are agreed upon under the Protocol, the CFA urges the government not to ratify the Protocol until the implications are agreed to by the Canadian agri-food industry. 1.6 Implementation of Canada’s Regulatory Requirements Under the Protocol CFA stresses that imports under the Protocol be subject to the same requirements as Canadian exports and that any additional regulatory requirements fall under the commodity specific regulations, which currently govern trade in agricultural commodities. 1.7 Disputes Arising From the Protocol The CFA urges the government to ensure that a clear method for resolving any dispute that might arise under the Protocol, or under any other international agreements in relation to the Protocol, is devised. It should be clear domestically and internationally where disputes will be resolved. 1.8 Risk Assessments and Risk Management CFA believes the Canadian government must ensure that all risk assessment and risk management decisions made under the Protocol continue to be based on a science- based system in conformance with the WTO Agreements on Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary (SPS) Measures and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). 62 RURAL POLICY STATEMENT Introduction Canadian agriculture is an essential part of the economic, political and social fabric of Canada. It is the backbone of many rural communities and contributes significantly to the well-being of Canadians in both rural and urban Canada. The future of these communities is tightly intertwined with the future of the Canadian agriculture sector. Canadian agriculture is a major generator of jobs in rural Canada through employment on farms, in the production of agricultural inputs, in the processing of farm products, in the transportation sector and in the service sector. Primary agriculture is not just another industry sector. Unlike other primary industries, agricultural production is not carried out primarily by large corporations. It is done by a large number of individual farms. Canadian agriculture occupies a significant portion of Canada‘s land resource and is an integral player in the stewardship of this resource. The continued health and development of a successful and diverse agricultural sector requires that federal policies recognize, on the one hand, the global environment in which the industry operates and, on the other, the domestic requirements for a healthy and vigorous industry. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture believes that Canada‘s rural policies must reflect the requirements arising from the unique characteristics of this sector. 1.0 Basic Rural Policy Goals Canadian agriculture dominates the rural landscape in many diverse forms. The agricultural community, along with other rural citizens, has social and economic concerns that must be addressed in government policy and programs. In principle, CFA supports the work of the federal Secretary of State for Rural Development, and maintains that this office must continue to examine federal policy and legislation that impacts rural Canada. The CFA looks to the federal government to develop and enhance policies with the goal of creating an environment that promotes the long-term viability and sustainability of agriculture, agri-business and the rural community, and ensures equity between rural and urban areas. Issues that need to be addressed include: sustainable farm incomes, taxation, rural infrastructure, farm safety, farm transitions, insurance, labour, etc 2.0 Sustainable Farm Incomes The most effective way to maintain a viable, sustainable rural Canada is to maintain strong, sustainable rural incomes. Farm incomes have been falling steadily for 30 years and this has had a direct affect on the viability of rural communities. The CFA defines seven Common Principles as essential for the long term improvement of farm incomes into the future: • Producers have the ability to achieve sustainable income • Producers work together to achieve common goals 63 • Producer empowerment in marketplace • Better sharing of benefits along the Value-Chain • Shared responsibility and accountability • Full producer participation in policy development • Recognition of primary production as a significant contributor to Canadian society and economy Governments can directly aid producers in achieving these goals through full support for farm organizations and marketing entities, the development of tools for more equitable sharing of benefits in the production chain, full consultation in policy development and promotion of Canadian agriculture to Canadians and consumers abroad. 3.0 Taxation Rural Canada is facing numerous economic and social challenges: low commodity prices, high input costs, and shifting demographics. Changes to taxation regulations and additional tax incentives would assist rural Canadians in meeting these challenges. CFA recommends: • That the federal government address the tax implications and regulations concerning off-farm income and restricted farm losses • That agriculture be given the same access to research and development tax credits as other industry sectors • That the federal government continue support for zero-rating Goods and Services Tax for agricultural items • That the federal government reinstate the previous interpretation bulletin on the tax treatment of the sale of standing timber from farm properties • That the federal government restore the Investment Tax Credits to their previous level of 50 per cent • That the federal government should reinstate the 5-year income tax averaging provision CFA further recommends that the federal government implement tax credits or tax incentives for environmental stewardship initiatives. Proposed changes include: • Increasing the capital cost allowance for new manure storage from 4 per cent of declining balance to 50 per cent of declining balance • The reinstatement of an accelerated depreciation schedule for on-farm environmental capital expenditures Tax provisions already in effect need to be reviewed periodically to ensure they are still current. In particular, CFA recommends: • That the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption be increased from $500,000 to reflect the new environment in farming and should be indexed on a yearly basis 64 • That the Restricted Farm Losses Provision be increased to cover the inflation since it was last adjusted • That the Department of Finance should review, in consultation with the agricultural industry, the Capital Cost Allowance rates applicable to farm capital with a view to updating them and encouraging farm investments 4.0 Rural Infrastructure and Services 4.1 Transportation Infrastructure a) Railways The railways are critical to the agricultural economy. The CFA believes: • Policies and regulations must create a competitive environment in the rail transport sector, with open access to all rail lines for all rail companies, to ensure that producers can access efficient rail transportation at the best price. • Changes to the rail system, rail policies and regulations, and freight rates must begin with stakeholder consultations, and must consider the needs and interests of agricultural producers. • Responsibility and cost for railway safety and access measures must not be devolved from the railway owner to the agricultural landowner. • A Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada (TATC) must be established as a third party option for swift, simple and effective dispute resolution. • The Canada Transportation Act should be amended to include crossings and non- facility sidings under abandonment provisions within the Act and to subject siding and lease rates to the scrutiny of the agency upon request of producers directly involved in siding lease rate negotiations. • The federal government should maintain the existing level of service provisions and shipper protections and should amend the Canada Transportation Act to include reverse-onus running rights. b) Roads The health of rural Canada, both economically and socially, depends upon well- structured and well-maintained road infrastructure. Roads are increasing in importance as primary transportation conduits for agricultural producers and rural society. CFA encourages the establishment of national standards for rural road networks. Federal tax dollars raised from fuel sales should be applied to the maintenance and construction of the rural road system. CFA also suggests the establishment of a rural infrastructure partnership, with a sharing of the responsibility and costs divided between federal, provincial and municipal levels of government. c) Waterways Many agricultural producers rely on Canada‘s waterways as a major transportation conduit. In recent years the federal government has been transferring responsibility for ports and waterways to locally-based governing authorities. CFA believes the federal 65 government should make renewed, firm commitment to maintaining ports and water transport systems to support commerce. d) Air Air transportation also remains important to the agriculture sector. The federal government must work to ensure the maintenance and improvement of accessible and competitive air services. 4.2 Telecommunications Infrastructure All farm producers should have access to modern communications technology, equal in price to services in urban areas. Farmers should have access to: • Private lines with the capacity to handle faxes • Internet access • 911 service • Competitive long distance and cellular service • Touch-tone and other customized services The federal government should invest in the development of new and emerging telecommunications technology, and ensure that rural Canada is included in these developments. 4.3 Health Infrastructure and Services Health infrastructure and services in rural Canada are on the decline. It is becoming increasingly difficult to attract health professionals to rural areas, and the availability of extended health care is shrinking. The federal and provincial governments need to make a renewed investment in providing full, accessible health care to rural Canada. 4.4 Education Infrastructure and Programs a) Access to Education Access to quality education is important for maintaining the viability and vibrancy of Canada‘s rural communities. Rural school closures and school board amalgamations are impacting negatively on the infrastructure of rural areas. Federal, provincial and municipal governments must work to ensure that rural families have equal access to education for their children. Internet and other emerging technologies are valuable tools for rural students. Governments at all levels must work to ensure that they are available in all rural schools b) Education and Training In terms of technology, agriculture is one of the most rapidly advancing industries in Canada. As well, the need for more sophisticated management and leadership skills in the agricultural sector is apparent. Canada‘s education system at all levels, from primary 66 to post-secondary, through to continued education, must develop programs to meet the needs of agriculture. The federal government must make a renewed commitment to human resources management training for agriculture employers. Examples of different educational components are academic training, leadership training, as well as skills- based training. 4.5 Child Care Infrastructure Rural Canada needs child care programs that recognize the unique character and needs of the rural community and the agriculture sector. These programs must follow standards which incorporate the four pillars of child care: affordability, accessibility, flexibility and quality. Programs must accommodate the differing seasonal demands of the sector, and the frequent need for services outside of standard working hours. 4.6 Energy Infrastructure Energy availability and cost is of vital importance to rural communities and businesses, including farms. Considering the importance of energy costs to the profitability of farm businesses, all forms of energy, such as farm fuels, natural gas, electricity, propane, etc., need to be accessible at reasonable rates in rural areas. As one way of promoting this, the CFA recommends that the excise tax be abolished as it applies to agriculture. 4.7 Farm Safety CFA continues to promote safer farm environments through regular awareness campaigns and activities. CFA welcomes the partnership of government departments and agencies, and encourages the federal government to maintain its involvement and support of varied initiatives promoting safer agriculture in Canada. As one example, CFA recommends that farm machinery manufacturers develop a standardized, universal shut- off system for motorized equipment. 4.8 Farm Transitions The agriculture sector is witnessing significant transitions of many different types: diversification of production, expansion of farm operations, transition of farms to the next generation, and even transition from agriculture to other career sectors. The federal government needs to provide information and consult with stakeholders on appropriate policies. As well, to assist all these different transitions, the federal government should look at such issues as: • Allowing the assets of unincorporated family farms to be divided and/or exchanged among siblings on a tax-deferred basis, and; allow assets of family farm corporations owned by siblings to be divided on a tax-deferred basis • Agricultural stakeholders must be involved in any discussions on the creation of options for a dignified transition from the agriculture industry 4.9 Insurance 67 The needs of agriculture are unique, different from the needs of other sectors in many areas including insurance. Insurance industry programs for agriculture should create an environment of stability where producers can engage in good risk management. CFA asks the insurance industry to recognize risk management programs that have been developed by the agriculture sector. CFA encourages the insurance industry to develop policy packages that meet the unique needs of agriculture. For example, policy options like environmental insurance should exist to protect farmers who have exercised all due diligence and respect for best management practices, but find themselves caught by circumstances beyond their control. 4.10 Labour If Canadian agriculture is to prosper and grow, it must be built upon the efforts of a skilled, well paid, secure and satisfied labour force. The federal government can promote a healthy employment climate for Canadian agriculture by developing programs to help farmers offer competitive salaries. Employment insurance must recognize the special nature and needs of agriculture particularly with regards to seasonal, short-term employment in agriculture. Regulations for payroll deductions should be amended to recognize the needs of agricultural producers employing short-term labourers. Governments at all levels must work to ensure an adequate labour supply to meet the needs of all agriculture sectors, which can include adequate off-shore worker programs. The federal and provincial governments should work together to harmonize labour standards, practices and codes to allow for the free movement of agricultural labour across Canada. 4.11 Agricultural Awareness CFA supports the promotion of the industry by highlighting: • Its economic contribution • Its impact on rural and urban areas • Agriculture and agriculture-related careers • The broad range of issues that agriculture encompasses One example of promoting awareness is the partnership between CFA, Human Resources Development Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to develop agriculture career awareness programs for students. CFA expresses its hope that the federal government will continue this strong commitment to promoting agriculture through education in the years to come. The federal government needs to use and promote more initiatives like it. 4.12 Adaptation Councils The funding provided through provincial adaptation councils has become an important resource for farm organizations and their memberships in adapting to changing expectations with respect to markets, economic, social and environmental responsibilities. CFA supports the continuation of the adaptation council model with an 68 enhanced funding commitment as one important avenue to attaining the goals set out for the Canadian agricultural industry by Canada‘s new agricultural policy framework. 69 FOOD SAFETY POLICY STATEMENT Introduction The Canadian agriculture and agri-food industry produces safe, high quality and environmentally sustainable foods. Since the early nineties Canadian farmers, in partnership with governments, have taken leadership in developing national systems to strengthen our food safety commitment. In 1997, Canadian farmers proactively led and designed the Canadian On-Farm Food Safety Program that would help them set up a system that could be nationally recognized and would allow them to demonstrate due diligence in food safety. Later through the broader Canadian Food Safety and Quality Program (CFSQP) Canadian producers, CFA and national commodity organizations, continue to work in partnership with AAFC and CFIA to develop the Canadian approach to on farm food safety. The Canadian approach entails the development of national commodity specific programs, developing strategies and necessary tools to educate producers and to implement national on-farm food safety initiatives consistent with the Codex Alimentarius' Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) definitions and with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's On-Farm Food Safety Recognition Program. Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada has co-funded and assisted in the development and implementation of the national on farm food safety programs since 1997. It is a primary goal of CFA to ensure the continued development of strong, sustainable, industry-led food safety, traceability and animal health systems for the greater public benefit of Canadians. 1.0 Sustainability Canadian farmers have taken leadership in developing national systems for food safety but their implementation and on-going management are costly. These initiatives contribute to the public good and greater welfare of Canadians but have returned little to no value from the market place. With already extremely low incomes the sustainability of these food safety systems is strained. In order to support the continuation and strengthening of these systems, on-going financial commitment and partnership from the public and from governments are required. The CFA also advocates for government support for enhancing Canada‘s reputation as a provider of high quality, safe food through a government funded communication plan that raises awareness at domestic and international levels on the strong food safety and quality systems that Canadian production has implemented. The plan would aid in achieving marketplace value for the initiatives the industry is putting in place and support the competitiveness of Canadian agriculture. 2.0 Industry Leadership, Industry-Government Partnerships First through a program called the Canadian On-Farm Food Safety Program (1997 to 2004) and later through the Canadian Food Safety and Quality Program (CFSQP) Canadian producers, in partnership with AAFC and CFIA, have proactively led and designed the Canadian approach to on-farm food safety. It is through this industry leadership 98 per cent of all Canadian production has now completed or is completing the development phases of its HACCP based on-farm food safety systems. 70 Producers, continuously wary of increased costs in a very competitive marketplace, are extremely concerned about government downloading of costs, administration and regulation. Producers, however, are also keenly aware of the need to ensure the safety of their production. It is for these reasons industry must continue its leadership in on- farm food safety and its development be a strong industry led partnership with governments. Through CFA, the national commodity organizations and the Canadian On-Farm Food Safety Working Group, development of on-farm food safety systems has been a success, efficiently allocating funds, conducting industry research, building buy-in from producers through their own organizations and maintaining accountability to Canadians through yearly third-party financial and compliance audits. Without that partnership, the CFA believes the strong progress, producer buy-in and ultimately, success in developing strong on farm food safety systems would not have occurred. CFSQP has been an excellent example of how industry-government partnerships can be a very effective tool in delivering services while saving costs to taxpayers. 3.0 On-Farm Implementation The CFA believes it is imperative to have a strong On-Farm Implementation program providing valuable tools for national producer organizations and provincial counterparts to implement developed food safety systems. The on-farm implementation component of the first APF requires increased incentive-based systems for the food safety component. Encouragement through incentive-based systems will increase buy-in from producers and improve uptake successes at the development phases. Moving from the APF to the Next Generation of Agriculture Policy, CFA supports an enhanced version of this program and recommends amendments including: • Streamlining the approval, processing or agreements to improve the ability to obtain contracts or extensions in a timely fashion and, • Much greater flexibility for use of funding in the areas of training, human resources, purchase of equipment and full audit cost recovery. • Clearer language on equivalency that will make it more incumbent on countries to allow imports where the food safety protection afforded by exporting countries‘ inspection programs is at least equivalent to that of the importer, even if the modus operandi is different in certain respects CFA welcomes such incentive-based systems for food safety initiatives. CFA strongly believes flexibility and incentive-based programs are much more effective at achieving progress compared to inflexible regulatory approaches. 4.0 Traceability Traceability, the ability to track movements of animals and goods throughout the supply chain, is an important tool for agriculture. There is a significant public good in the development and implementation of traceability systems, in the areas of the protection of plant and animal health, and food safety. Many initiatives are currently underway to implement traceability systems at farm level and throughout the chain. It is important for there to be leadership and dependability from government support to ensure the various traceability initiatives work and are able to communicate with each other. The government roll will benefit industry in the event of an incident with trade loss or when 71 receiving compensation. Clear communication between the various stakeholders will ensure an effective total system, and serve to minimize duplication. CFA welcomes the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Agriculture‘s decision to develop and implement a National Agriculture and Food Traceability System (NAFTS) in Canada. CFA calls for a system comprising all food production (including primary production) and along the value chain, building on national standards. A national identification and traceability system would constitute a risk management tool that can greatly improve the competitiveness of our industry as it would allow for identification of contamination sources, reduction of response time in the event of a crisis and minimizing the economic impacts of a foreign animal/plant disease outbreak or a food safety crisis disease outbreak in Canada. This system would also allow the industry to see opportunities for reinforcing our domestic and export market access while responding to the growing need of consumers across the globe to know the origin of their food, support Canada‘s on- farm food safety systems, aid efforts of eradicating domestic animal/plant diseases and elimination of foreign animal disease incursions. CFA supports a national traceability system that is compatible across the country, across commodities, along the value chain and technologically compatible with international standards. 5.0 Animal/Plant Health systems Canada enjoys an excellent animal and plant health status. Despite this success it is imperative Canada be ever vigilant and prepared. Threats to animal and plant health can have tremendous impacts on producers, their operation, the agriculture and agri-food industry as a whole, and on Canadians from coast to coast. Incidence of animal / plant diseases appears to be the potential for market disruption and loss of capital. Solid biosecurity approaches and pro-active contingency planning is critical. CFA urges the government to ensure Canada has a strong emergency response system in place with clear roles and responsibilities, and mechanisms for disaster compensation. The approaches must be coordinated through a national plant and animal heath strategy paying special attention to bio-security systems, emergency preparedness, animal care and zoning. 72 SECTION THREE Policy resolutions Each year, CFA members develop and debate policy resolutions at the Federation‘s Annual General Meeting. These resolutions establish CFA‘s official position on specific policy issues and serve as a basis for planning future activities. They also form the basis of CFA‘s Standing Policy statements. The following pages contain resolutions passed during the last three years. They are grouped by category and sorted by year, with most recent resolutions appearing first. 73 74 TRADE 2010 National Sugar Beet Policy THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the CFA lobby the federal government to adopt a national domestic sugar policy, that provides a level of production that enables growth within the industry. (CSBPA) 2010 Meat and Livestock Inspection THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the CFA study the implications of federal and provincial governments implementing integrated provincial regulations across Canada that allow for the interprovincial movement of killed livestock and processed meat, and that the CFA report this study to members at AGM 2011. (APAS) 2010 The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT CFA lobby the federal government to have trade negotiators reinstate the square brackets around Article 3.a.iv in Annex K of the December 2008 revision of the WTO draft modality on Agriculture, regarding the use of state trading enterprises; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT CFA lobby the federal government to oppose any change to the Canadian Wheat Board‘s single desk marketing system until Western Canadian farmers are consulted and a majority of Western Canadian grain producers agree to a change. (KAP) 2010 Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) — Dispute resolution proceedings THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Canadian Federation of Agriculture oppose the adoption of the person-to-government dispute resolution mechanism and implement every necessary means to ensure that only one government-to-government dispute resolution mechanism is retained. (UPA) 2009 Country of Origin Labeling BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture requests that the Government of Canada, in consultation with industry, investigate and document the injury to the livestock industry resulting from Country of Origin Labeling (COOL); and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that CFA requests that the Government of Canada continue a trade challenge and continue to document that US COOL has an impact on Canada‘s livestock industry. (KAP/WRAP/APAS) 2009 Port of Churchill BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the Government of Canada to support, develop and encourage the expanded use of the Port of Churchill for exports and imports of products. (KAP) 2009 National Food Security Policy BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and its membership lobby both the federal and respective provincial governments to establish a viable national farm and food security policy governing agricultural input supplies for producers as well as the supply of basic food items for Canadian consumers. (OFA) 75 2009 State Trading Enterprises BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the federal government to • Strongly defend farmers‘ rights to determine the future of their marketing structures, including the right to operate a central desk selling agency; and • Formally oppose the removal of the square brackets from the December 2008 WTO draft modalities text that reads ―by 2013, the use of agricultural export monopoly powers for such enterprises‖ and the footnoted exemption to Zespri – New Zealand‘s kiwi grower single desk; and • Reject a WTO deal that prevents farmers' rights to operate a central desk selling agency; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CFA submit a formal letter to the Government of Canada to reiterate CFA‘s marketing structure policy and to call on them to reject the December 2008 change to the use of export monopoly powers of State Trading Enterprises. (WRAP) 2008 Impact of Final NAFTA Implementation for Canadian Sugar & Sugar Containing Products BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture recommends that the government of Canada: • Exercise its right to participate in any negotiations that lead to possible changes in trade in sugar and sugar containing products under NAFTA; and • Ensure that Canadian interests are protected in any NAFTA reconsideration of trade in sugar and sugar containing products; and • Oppose any changes to the US Farm Bill that add further restrictions on Canadian exports of refined sugar and sugar beet thick juice; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CFA ask the House of Commons and Senate to hold committee hearings to identify the state of NAFTA after full implementation for the objective of identifying benefits and shortcomings of the treaty so Canada will be prepared in case the US and Mexico are successful in getting the agreement re-opened for negotiation. (CSBPA) 2008 Competitiveness with Other Jurisdictions BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture investigate how other countries deliver programs and programming such that their producers have a competitive advantage over Canadian farmers. (KAP) 2008 Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America BE IT RESOLVED the Canadian Federation of Agriculture embark on a study of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America to determine how Canadian farm trade may be affected. (OFA) 2008 Reciprocity of Production Regulations BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the federal government: • To require that imported foods and products have production and processing standards and regulations that match those in force in Canada; and 76 • To institute border controls with a view to assuring consumers that imported products and foods satisfy the same standards and regulations imposed on Canadian products; and • To allocate sufficient funds to the CFIA and ensure that the human resources are assigned to the appropriate tasks so it can effectively control imports; and • To make the necessary representations to the federal government so it will demand the harmonization of production regulations for imported products. (UPA) 2008 Ministerial Exemptions BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the Government of Canada: • To ensure that the groups of producers in question be consulted in the same way as the complainants during consultations carried out under the Agreement on Internal Trade; and • To keep in place the ministerial exemptions that support orderly provincial marketing; and • To support the actions taken by the groups of producers in question for the integral preservation of ministerial exemptions. (UPA) 2008 World Trade Organization (WTO) and Supply Management BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the federal government: • To ensure, as stated in the motion unanimously adopted in the House of Commons on November 22, 2005, ―That, at the end of the current round of negotiations, Canada obtains results that ensure that the supply management sectors are subject to no reduction in over quota tariffs and no increase in tariff quotas and also ensure an agreement that strengthens the market access position of Canada‘s agricultural exporters so that all sectors can continue to provide producers with a fair and equitable income.‖; and • To ensure that producers under supply management can continue to obtain all their revenue from the marketplace, based on their costs of production, including a fair return on their labour and the capital they have invested in their business; and • That the CFA urge the government to not negotiate for one sector at the expense of another. (UPA) 2008 World Trade Organization (WTO) and Non-Supply Management BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the federal government to: • Continue support for our standing policy respecting WTO negotiations applicable to export-oriented and non-supply managed production to achieve the maximum possible access for agricultural exports, including aggressive tariff reduction, elimination of export subsidies and decreases in trade distorting support; and • That the CFA urge the government to not negotiate for one sector at the expense of another. (CPC) 2007 Proactive Competitive Policy BE IT RESOLVED that the CFA work to explore and develop proactive competitive policy for Canadian Producers to successfully compete in the international marketplace. (APAS) 77 2007 Agricultural Special Safeguards (SSG) BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture reiterate its support for the maintenance of the SSG in the current round of WTO negotiations; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CFA insist that the Canadian government immediately render the SSG operational. (CEMA/DFC) 2007 Control of Imports for products under supply management and other products with TRQs BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the Government of Canada: • To set up effective measures for limiting allocation import permits for supply management products under tariff rate quotas (TRQs) at levels that match the current commitments for access to the Canadian market under the WTO and NAFTA agreements. (UPA) 2007 Trade Remedy for Seasonal Horticultural Products BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture explore trade remedy alternatives to the current processes under the Special Import Measures Act; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CFA explore specifically the establishment of a workable anti-dumping emergency tariff for imported seasonal horticultural products, that will effectively stop dumping before it happens. (BCAC) 78 BUSINESS RISK MANAGEMENT 2010 Cash Advance THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the interest free portion of the cash advance programs be increased from $100,000 to $300,000. (APAS) 2010 Improvements to AgriInvest THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the PEIFA and CFA lobby the Federal Government to reinstate the option for participants to deem their eligible contribution to AgriInvest as previously allowed in 2007. (PEIFA/APAS) 2010 Beneficial Management Practices Funding THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT CFA lobby the federal government to increase financial support for Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) funding programs so that more farmers may implement BMPs on their farms. (KAP) 2010 Bee Farming Disaster Program THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT CFA lobby the federal government for a disaster program for leafcutter and honey producers in disaster affected regions, recognizing that these are labour intensive farms that are valuable to local economies. (KAP) 2010 Federal Income Support Programs THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the Government of Canada: • To revise the criteria of AgriStability to deal with the shortfall in payments to producers facing serious financial difficulties, especially in the livestock and horticulture sectors, and • To allocate $1 billion per year in the AgriFlexibility program and allow those funds to also be used for BRM programming; and • To improve its AgriRecovery program to provide better protection for farms facing a disaster situations. (UPA) 2010 Advance Payments Program (APP) — Duration of stays THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the Government of Canada to extend the stay for APP reimbursements as a matter of urgency. (UPA/PEIFA) 2010 Extension of Advance Payment Program Repayment Options for Milling Wheat THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the PEIFA and the CFA lobby the federal government to extend repayment options under the Advance Payment Program without penalty for that portion of the milling wheat crop that did not make grade. (PEIFA) 2010 Compensation in the event of a reportable disease THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Canadian Federation of Agriculture take the necessary steps with the federal government to ensure it develops and funds specific compensation programs that will compensate producers for their actual losses related to reportable diseases. (UPA) 79 2009 Land Restoration Assistance BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government to have the Agri-Recovery Disaster Program pay for land restoration due to wet harvest conditions and the resulting soil damage as required by crop insurance programming. (KAP) 2009 AgriFlex Program BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture take the steps needed to have the Government of Canada implement the AgriFlex Program with an annual budget of $1 billion, and that this amount be available for use in both BRM and non-BRM programming. (UPA) 2009 Livestock Industry Enhancement BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture adopt the following policy positions for advancement to other farm organizations and the federal government as potential solutions to the crisis in the Canadian livestock industry: 1. Sufficient payment on either a per acre or productivity basis to encourage producers to retain livestock, forage and grass. 2. Change Business Risk Management programs to treat livestock producers equitably with grains and oilseeds producers. 3. Rollback community pasture rates. (APAS) 2009 Crown Land Pasture Rates BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the Government of Canada to put a hold on the lease rates for Crown land that are used as pasture for livestock producers until such time that the industry has stabilized and returned to profitability. (KAP) 2009 Equity Loss due to BSE BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, considering the more severe rules in Canada for SRM, lobby the government so it absorbs the costs related to SRM material so that further costs directly attributed to BSE are not downloaded to the industry. (NSFA) FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the funds that were announced in the last federal budget for the slaughter sector be increased to meet the needs and be direct investment, not loans, into slaughter facilities. (UPA) 2009 Historical Base Period Support Payments BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture asks the federal government to include an adjustment factor for the ANS coverage for new farms that recognizes the scaling up needs for these new farms; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the CFA lobby for the implementation of a process to correct design flaws in those programs that leave out a portion of producers. (OFA) 2009 Inward Inspection & Weighing BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in the event that the current inward inspection and weighing is eliminated, lobby the federal government for 80 the inward inspection and weighing to be done by companies accredited and audited by the CGC and that the service be optional. (KAP) 2009 Changes to BRM Programming BE IT RESOLVED that CFA lobby the federal government for changes to the existing business risk management programs to counteract the effects on producers for events beyond their control, such as BSE, COOL, etc. (KAP) 2009 Farm Inputs Price Index (FIPI) BE IT RESOLVED that CFA lobby the federal government to integrate the farm inputs price index (FIPI) into reference margin calculation for the Agri-Stability program to better reflect the realities in the primary agricultural industry. (KAP) 2009 Cash Advance Program BE IT RESOLVED that CFA lobby the federal government to increase the producer cash advance program from $100,000 to $150,000 for the interest free portion and an increase in the total cash advance. (KAP) 2008 Agricultural Policy Framework—Federal Business Risk Management Suite for Farmers BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the Government of Canada: • To materialize the notion of flexibility for the risk management programs by allocating $1 billion annually to the funding of provincial programs through AgriFlex; and • To distribute this $1 billion based on the relative size of each province‘s agricultural sector; and • To offer to the supply management sectors, through the new AgriStability program, 100 per cent coverage of the reference margin when the annual margin declines by more than 30 per cent (as was offered by the CAIS); and • To allow the AgriRecovery program (disaster relief framework) to be specific in its application and provide coverage for losses and assist in the recovery of affected businesses; and • To carry out the reform of the APF in the context of a genuine dialogue with agricultural producers. (UPA) 2008 Mustering Fee for TB Testing BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government to support livestock producers in the Riding Mountain Eradication Area and Riding Mountain National Park region with compensation in the form of a mustering fee for TB testing, and if necessary, further compensation for other losses associated with TB testing that are not covered by the federal Health of Animals Act. (KAP/APAS) 2008 Competitiveness of Slaughterhouses — Recovery of Specified Risk Materials (SRM) BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the Government of Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC): • To cover the cost of the new July 2007 SRM regulation so as to maintain the competitiveness of the Canadian ruminant supply system; and 81 • To assess the appropriateness of removing from animal feed only the SRM on the short list (brain and spinal column of animals 30 months of age or older); and • To help the affected agricultural organizations file their claims. (UPA) 2008 Agriculture Policy Framework Program Funding BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture work for a change in policy that will ensure that unspent funds in existing contribution agreements be rolled over as a credit to the program initiatives under the negotiated extension agreement for APF programming in 2008/2009. (BCAC) 2008 Ad-Hoc Payments BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government to continue to provide the $1 billion in addition to the funding under the business risk management pillar of Growing Forward (APF2). (KAP) 2008 Compensation For Reportable Diseases BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the Government of Canada: Until the government has fixed the deficiencies in the Compensation for Destroyed Animals Regulations and put in place a reliable and effective production insurance program for the animal sector: • To adjust AgriStability so it can act specifically on behalf of the affected business sector (while disregarding the overall margin variation); and. • To eliminate AgriStability‘s 30 per cent threshold (supply management) given the inability of the new Compensation for Destroyed Animals Regulations to adequately compensate the losses incurred in some production sectors. (UPA) 2008 Seed Registration BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture continue to support, along with other participants in the seed sector review, the tier-one registration system which requires merit assessment of proposed lines. (WRAP) 2008 Divisibility of Farms for Government Programming BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby that diversified farm units be allowed to separate individual enterprises in order to qualify for any benefits available through government programming. (WRAP) 2008 National Farm Planning Initiative Funding BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the Federal Government to maintain funding to the Government of Canada‘s National Environmental Farm Planning Initiative at necessary levels. (WRAP) 2008 Livestock Support BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government for an equivalent level of support for the livestock industry, since it is impacted by the development of the government-supported ethanol industry, paid in such a manner as to not attract trade challenges. (KAP) 2008 AgriInvest Program - Contribution Rates 82 BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government to increase its share (60 per cent) of the contribution to the AgriInvest to at least 2 per cent and increase the ANS cap to $3 million; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CFA encourage provincial members to urge their provincial governments to increase their own contributions (40 per cent) to AgriInvest to at least 2 per cent and increase the ANS cap to 3 million dollars. (OFA) 2008 Tobacco Crisis BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and its members urge the federal government to immediately implement the recommendations made in the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers‘ Marketing Board Exit Strategy to help producers in their adjustment out of tobacco production and provide assistance to minimize economic hardship faced by communities where tobacco is produced. (OFA) 2008 Advance Payments Program BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada: • To work in close cooperation with the federations now working to develop and implement an APP for their producers by showing flexibility and discernment in the administration and application of the program so as to reduce the costs and maximize the benefits for producers; and • To ensure that cereals consumed on the farm are also eligible under the program. (UPA) 2008 Fair and Equitable Payment for Lost Livestock Equity BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture support representation being made to government for a fair and equitable payment, recognizing livestock equity lost on farms, forthwith, based on cattle inventories currently available since the time of BSE. (NSFA) NOTE: Livestock unit equivalent is an internationally recognized scientifically based equivalent per 1000 lbs, adjusted and correlated to the feed intake required to maintain & keep alive the various categories of growing & adult cattle. It is a common sizing number used to determine feed requirements to keep them alive (farmers did this without compensation). 2008 Impact of Stronger Canadian Dollar on the Agricultural Sectors BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the Government of Canada to set up an emergency action plan that will compensate the adverse effects of the stronger Canadian dollar on the Canadian agricultural sector. (UPA) 2008 Disaster program for Agriculture BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture insist that governments ensure that in the case of a disaster, supply management producers have access to compensation that is equivalent to that for which they were eligible under the former CAIS program; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the AgriRecovery component of the Growing Forward BRM suite cover business interruption costs and annual revenue losses resulting from a disaster. (DFC) 83 2007 Focus on the Future BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture take to government the message that farm incomes are not at a sustainable level. (KAP) 2007 Business Risk Management Advisory Committee BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the Minister to establish a new advisory committee to review policy issues relating to safety net and business risk management programs. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the committee includes democratically elected representatives from all major farm and commodity organizations across Canada to ensure accountability and strong representation from grassroots producers. (Safety Nets Committee) 2007 Fertilizer Prices BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the Competition Bureau to investigate the price of fertilizer. (KAP) 2007 National Insurance Program BE IT RESOLVED that the CFA investigate the development of a national insurance program for agriculture producers that would insure their operating expenses rather than their production. (APAS) 2007 Companion Programs BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture support the existence of companion programs to provide provinces with the ability to have cost shared Federal/Provincial programs to meet regional problems. (APAS) 2007 APF II Consultations BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture urge the Federal Government to review the business risk management pillar, including the potential for companion programming, during the APF II consultation process. (KAP) 2007 Disaster Component of National Program BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture support the development of a disaster component of the national program that is designed to deal with disasters like BSE, flooding and AI etc. contingent on details of funding agreement between governments, management body, criteria for qualification is all worked out and made transparent and agreeable to agriculture producers. (APAS) 2007 Farm Support Programs BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture continue to lobby the Federal Government to increase its financial contribution to farm support programs. (APAS) 2007 CAIS Administration BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture request that the Office of Auditor General investigate the Canadian Agriculture Income Stabilization (CAIS) Program Administration to see what happens to producers‘ records after they are sent to the Administration. (KAP) 84 2007 Inventory Calculation BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government to transfer any unused portion of funds from the Family Farm Options Program to the CAIS Inventory Transition Initiative for the benefit of producers. (KAP) 2007 Consulting on Programs BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture urge Federal ministers to consult with CFA, general farm organizations and commodity organizations when developing programs and do so prior to establishing the value of such programs. (KAP) 2007 Deadlines for CAIS Administration BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the Federal government to implement deadlines on the CAIS Administration to complete applications and pay producers a penalty plus interest. (KAP) 2007 CAIS Inventory Adjustment BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture pressure both the Provincial and Federal governments to provide adequate money to cover the remaining 70 per cent coverage that has not been paid to livestock producers for which they should receive full coverage. (PEIFA) 2007 Recognition of Supply Management as a Business Risk Management Program BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture insist that the Federal government and Provincial governments clearly define supply management together with its three pillars, as a program, under the Business Risk Management pillar of the next generation of agriculture and agrifood policy. (APAS/DFC) 2007 Advance Payment Program BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the Government of Canada: • To adapt the terms and conditions of the application of the new Advance Payments Program so they are compatible with the production systems in the various systems. • To give preference to offering the program to producers through collective marketing systems. (UPA) 2007 Transitional Assistance BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the Government of Canada: • To put in place transitional or special assistance until such time as profitability is achieved to Canadian farmers by means of the implementation of the new APF. (UPA) 2007 Production Insurance Program BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture request that the Federal and Provincial government include coverage for business interruption and revenues from all commodities that need to be covered in the new production insurance program; and 85 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CFA request that the new production insurance program be accessible to supply management producers. (DFC) 2007 Compensation BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the Government of Canada: • To adequately compensate, without delay, all losses and costs caused by reportable diseases and other risks (animal diseases and plant diseases and other risks); and • To adhere to the criteria retained by the Federal Court in the recent judgment when reviewing the compensation. (UPA) 86 ENVIRONMENT AND SCIENCE 2010 Research Scientists Succession Planning THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government to put in place a succession planning process to replace retiring agricultural research scientists. (WRAP) 2010 Research Funding THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government to support and increase public funding dollars spent on primary and applied agriculture research. (WRAP) 2010 Climate Change Adaptation THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the federal government provide support and funding for agricultural adaptation to climate change. (BCAC) 2010 Bio-Mass Energy Production THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT CFA lobby the federal government to develop policy and programs that will encourage the use of agricultural by-products and other appropriate feedstocks for bio-mass power generation. (KAP) 2010 Flax and Farm Saved Seed THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT CFA lobby the federal government, and the flax industry to revisit the market access agreement and to retain the right of farmers to save their seed if it passes necessary purity tests. (KAP) 2009 Own Use Importation BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) to maintain the own use importation (OUI) program. (KAP) 2009 National Environmental Goods and Services BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture renew efforts to lobby the federal government to develop a comprehensive, nationally integrated, program to facilitate the payment for the provision of ecological goods and services and the development of natural capital resources. (KAP) 2009 National Farm Stewardship Program BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby for the renewal of the National Farm Stewardship Program which was terminated on March 31 of 2008. (WRAP) 2009 Producer Based Research BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture and its member organizations urgently request that AAFC reconsider the recommendations that have been made by the Scientific Advisory Committee as they relate to the restructuring of both research priorities and infrastructure. (NSFA) 87 2009 Regional, Multidisciplinary, Primary Production Research BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture request Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada to maintain and enhance the regional, multidisciplinary, primary production research infrastructure, to include intellectual capacity, human resources and facilities, to support primary producers and their economic viability; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CFA lobby the federal government to continue and expand regionally relevant research at Federal research stations. (NSFA) 2008 Weather Forecasting BE IT RESOLVED that the CFA should lobby the federal government to ensure Environment Canada has the necessary funds to improve their forecasting and warning systems. (KAP) 2008 Management Practices BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government to include double disks, heavy harrows, fine cut straw choppers and other equipment as appropriate as eligible equipment as Beneficial Management Practices under the National Farm Stewardship Program. (KAP) 2008 Registration of Novel Traits BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture request that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency revisit its definition of novel traits in consultation with agricultural stakeholders including primary producers, to ensure that the registration process reflects current conditions in today‘s market. (KAP) 2008 BRM Stakeholder Advisory Committee BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby AAFC to quickly establish and mandate Stakeholder Advisory Committees for ―Growing Forward non- BRM Programs.‖ (OFA) 2008 Beneficial Management Practices BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the Government of Canada to ensure that: a) Portable handling systems, portable feeders, and portable scales; and b) The construction of dugouts and other water-related beneficial management practices are eligible for funding under the National Farm Stewardship Program or its equivalent. (KAP) 2008 Environmental Farm Planning BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government to have adequate funding in place to continue Environmental Farm Planning programs in the next round of the Agricultural Policy Framework. (KAP) 2008 NAFTA and OECD Joint Registration of Crop Protection Products BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the government of Canada to truly harmonize pesticide registration requirements so that Canadian producers have equal access to NAFTA and OECD joint registrations. (BCAC) 88 2007 Market Exchange Mechanism for Ecological Goods and Services BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture work to develop a market exchange mechanism for ecological goods and services as well as other environmental services, whereby producers will be able to market at an offered price. (APAS) 2007 Own Use Imports BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture investigate the proposed changes that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) is considering to OWN USE Import (OUI) with the proposed Grower Requested Own Use (GROU) program to ensure the changes are beneficial to farmers; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CFA lobby the government and more specifically the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) to maintain the issuance of Own Use Import Permits until the alternative program proves to be financially superior through sustained use by producers. (OFA) 2007 National Farm Stewardship Program BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the Federal and Provincial governments‘ for an extension of five years to the NAtional Farm Stewardship Program which is to be terminated on March 31 of 2008. (WRAP) 2007 Importation of Agricultural Veterinary Products BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby Health Canada and the Veterinary Drugs Directorate to allow for the importation of veterinary products for own use from the United States that are approved for use in Canada using a permit- based program similar to that for pesticides. (OFA) 2007 Renewable Fuel Policy BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the Federal governments to develop a renewable fuel policy with incentives comparable to our U.S. neighbours. (KAP) 2007 Farmed Animal Health Strategy BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture endorse the National Farmed Animal Health Strategy as developed by the Canadian Animal Health Coalition. (Food Safety Committee) 89 FOOD SAFETY 2010 Food Safety THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Canadian food safety standards serve as the minimum standards for all imported food. (APAS) 2010 Traceability THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT CFA lobby the federal and provincial governments to acknowledge and commit that the long term funding for the development, operations, and ongoing maintenance of mandatory animal traceability systems will continue to be a shared responsibility. (DFC) 2009 Canada’s Food Safety System BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture encourages government to reinforce the food safety system by ensuring both adequate and competent resources are available, enhancing transparency, and continuing to base the system on outcome- oriented, CFIA and operator-accountable science-based HACCP approaches. (CPC) 2009 Food Safety Procedures BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government to put in place a refundable tax credit to compensate producers for extra efforts in completing on-farm food safety procedures. (KAP/WRAP) 2009 On Farm Food Safety (OFFS)–Federal/Provincial Support BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, along with its members, lobby federal and provincial governments to provide the necessary funding to support the development, implementation and maintenance of On-Farm Food Safety Programs. (NSFA) 2009 On-Farm Food Safety Traceability Liability Mitigation BE IT RESOLVED that Wild Rose Agricultural Producers urge the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to encourage the Government of Canada to pass legislation which would provide protection and limit liability that could be incurred through On Farm Food Safety traceability programs. (WRAP) 2009 A Canadian Food Inspection Service BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government to have it maintain a neutral and effective pan-Canadian food safety inspection system for food and seed processing, to have it allocate the resources required for this system to function well, and to have it assume all costs of inspection services. (UPA) 2008 Programs for Canada’s Bee Industry BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government to increase surveillance of imported honey and honey products by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. (KAP) 2007 Food Safety Programs 90 BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture promote the contributions producers provide in the implementation of food safety programs of Canada and seek remuneration for their services. (APAS) 2007 Traceability system BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the Federal and Provincial governments to set up a complete traceability system, from incoming material to the consumer. (Food Safety Committee) 2007 COFF Initiative BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture request that the Federal Minister of Agriculture intervene and over turn the decision of AAFC to exclude industry from management of the program and reinstate Canadian Federation of Agriculture as the manager of COFFS on behalf of the industry. (Food Safety Committee) 91 TRANSPORTATION 2010 Transportation THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the CFA actively promote direct involvement of general farm organizations in monitoring and decision-making by governments, agencies, and boards related to agricultural commodity transportation infrastructure, service, and costing. (APAS) 2009 Transport Canada’s Discontinuance Process BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby Transport Canada to change the legislation concerning payment under the discontinuance process to have CN and CP pay the amount which is currently $10,000 per mile per year for three years to affected communities, whether the rail line is sold by CN or CP, either for salvage or to a short line buyer. (KAP) 2009 Transport Canada’s Discontinuance Process BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government to review the compensation paid under Transport Canada‘s discontinuance process and adjust it to reflect today‘s true costs. (KAP) 2008 Freight Revenue Cap Costing Review BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture build upon the 2007 resolution to include lobby efforts to ask the Federal government for a full costing review of the freight revenue cap; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this full costing review begin in 2008. (KAP/APAS) 2007 Freight Revenue Cap BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the Federal government to implement reductions to the revenue cap; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that CFA lobby the Federal government to ensure the proper maintenance of the hopper car fleet to an acceptable loading standard. (KAP) 2007 Strapping Down of Round Bales BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture work with the appropriate federal transportation officials to develop reasonable guidelines that most importantly ensures the safe transportation of farm products but at the same time allows for the convenient and efficient movement of materials by farmers without requiring overly excessive regulatory burden. (PEIFA) 2007 Container Freight BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture work toward changes to the Federal cabotage regulations that cause competitive disadvantages for container freight out of Canada as compared to the US. (APAS) 92 TAXATION 2010 Capital Gains Tax Provisions for Family Farm Transfers between Siblings THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the CFA advocate for provisions that would exempt family farm transfers between siblings from capital gains taxes. (BCAC) 2010 Drainage Improvement THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT CFA lobby the federal government to enter into a cost share agreement with provincial governments to assist with necessary drainage improvement in all regions. (KAP) 2009 Tax Deferral BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government to allow tax deferral on income from sales from herd liquidation due to weather related events. (KAP) 2009 HST/GST Repayment BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby Revenue Canada to stop the practice of withholding HST/GST repayment at the commencement of a routine audit selection process and instead adopt an Innocent until proven guilty policy. (AANB) 2009 RRSP Borrowing BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture request the Federal Government to amend the Home Buyers Plan (HBP) to allow young and beginning farmers the opportunity to cash in their RRSPs, tax free, to enable one-time capital purchase for their farm. (OFA) 2009 Revenue Canada Claw Backs BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and its members lobby the appropriate levels of government to ensure that government policy and/or tax law is changed to prevent Revenue Canada from treating a portion of loan write-offs between farmers and lenders as tax claw backs after the fact; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that existing scenarios under these circumstances be corrected retroactively for a period not less than five years. (PEIFA) 2008 Tax Incentive Program for the Protection of Agricultural Land in Canada BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture urge the federal government to amend the Income Tax Acts to provide for tax credits and exemptions to donors of farmland for which donors of ecologically sensitive lands now qualify; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the federal government be requested to consider other farmland conservancy tax concessions to ensure that farmland remains in agriculture. (OFA) 2008 Federal Agriculture Policy BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture work closely with the Provincial and the Federal Governments, to ensure that programming is developed, implemented and accelerated through APFII, that will ensure the sustainability of the Canada‘s agriculture sector. (PEIFA) 93 2007 Capital Cost Allowance Rates BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture seek changes to the Capital Cost Allowance Rates for farm equipment. (WRAP) 2007 Farm Transfer BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the Federal government to implement measures that facilitate the transfer of farms, including increasing and indexing the capital gain exemption provided under the Canada Revenue Agency regulations. BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby for an RRSP type program for farm transfers. (DFC) 2007 EI and Social Assistance Deductions for Seasonal Agricultural Workers BE IT RESOLVED that persons receiving monetary benefits under EI and Social Assistance be allowed to earn a reasonable amount of income related to wages for the harvest of crops within Canada, with no reduction of EI and Social Assistance benefits. (BCAC) 2007 Federal Fuel Tax BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the Federal Government for refunds or rebates for the Federal Excise Tax paid on farm fuel; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CFA lobby the Federal Government to exempt farm fuel from GST at point-of-sale. (OFA/APAS) 2007 Investment Tax Credit BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the Federal government for the return of the Investment Tax Credit system for all Canadian farmers. (OFA) Note: Farmers in other jurisdictions of our country have access to Investment Tax Credits. See Income Tax form T2038 - for the Maritimes and Gaspé Region. 94 FOOD LABELLING 2008 ―Product of Canada‖ Labelling BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, with respect to the Product of Canada labeling currently under review by the Government of Canada, will advocate for stricter and clearer requirements for the usage of Product of Canada labelling and this may include the introduction of a new category ―Processed in Canada‖. (DFC/BCAC/UPA) 2008 Honey Labeling BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture vigorously lobby the federal government to have effective grading and labeling regulations for honey sold in Canada. (KAP) 2008 Organic Products Regulations and National Organic Standard BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the Government of Canada: •To promptly invest the resources required for doing the work to be done before the coming into force of the Organic Products Regulations in order to meet the deadline of December 31, 2008; and •To entrust to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) the management of the national ―Canadian Organic Production Systems Standards: General Principles and Management Standards‖ and sufficient resources to facilitate its deployment and application during the coming years; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the CFIA to collaborate with the organic sector and inform it of developments in the work on the Organic Products Regulations and support the Organic Federation of Canada in its endeavours. (UPA) 2008 Designations BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the government of Canada to revise the grading designations for the quality of food products (Canada A, Canada Fancy, Canada Choice, etc.) in order to make impossible to use the word Canada on imported products and to explain to consumers the definitions of these new designations. (DFC/BCAC/UPA) 95 RURAL 2010 Age Verification THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in working with the Canadian Cattlemen‘s Association, urge the Government of Canada to accept age verification over dentition at the packers. (WRAP) 2010 Leadership Program Development THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Canadian Federation of Agriculture work with the Human Resources Sector Council to promote the development of a leadership program that is adapted to the needs of the agriculture industry, so that all provinces can count on a national program that will guarantee the ability for current producers to capitalize on their business and their organizations successes to ensure a seamless succession in support of the sustainability and prosperity of agriculture. (WRAP) 2010 Temporary Foreign Workers BE IT RESOLVED THAT the CFA, as a national organization, is kept informed by CHC and collaborates with them on any issues arising from other sectors that access the SAWP program, and BE IT RESOLVED THAT the CFA becomes involved in the negotiation and follow-up of the NOC-CD. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT CFA requests that Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council (CAHRC) pursue a project through Human Resources and Skills Development (HRSDC) to assemble all of the information on all offshore worker programs and make available to Canadian farmers. (UPA) 2010 Farm Business Development Initiatives THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the CFA urge the federal government to broaden the eligibility criteria of the Farm Business Development Initiatives within Growing Forward to include people who will be employed by farmers as business managers. (APAS) 2010 New Entrants to Agriculture THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT CFA and its members work with the Federal and Provincial Ministries of Agriculture on a strategy to immediately improve communication and coordination among all stakeholders directly supporting programs to attract new entrants to agriculture. (APAS) 2010 Rural Post Offices THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the government of Canada to maintain, expand and improve postal services that are provided to the rural communities of Canada by the Crown Corporation of Canada Post. (OFA) 2010 Canadian Agricultural Skills Service Program THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby for National and Provincial program funding to support non-farm re-training for those in the agricultural industry who want to further their career options. (OFA) 96 2009 Affordable Internet Service BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government to ensure access to high speed internet at a reasonable cost in rural areas of Canada including the farming community. (KAP) 2009 Farmers’ Time Reimbursement BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the appropriate government departments or agencies to reimburse farmers for their time spent completing forms for government statistical purposes or due to regulation requirements, at the provincial average wage paid to an executive. (AANB) 2009 Farm Input Pricing BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government to investigate the pricing practices of farm input manufacturers; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that if the marketplace and prices are being manipulated, the Federal Government modify the Competition Act to ensure fairer pricing. (WRAP) 2009 Measures promoting occupational reintegration BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the Government of Canada to take steps to ensure that agricultural producers can count on support and accompaniment measures, especially training, including financial assistance for their subsistence so as to foster their reintegration into agricultural or other professional activity. (UPA) 2009 Intergenerational Transfer Programs BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby for improved intergenerational transfer programs to attract young people to agriculture. (APAS) 2009 Access To Seasonal Labour BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture work closely with the appropriate federal and provincial regulatory agencies to remove the impediments to the availability of seasonal labour; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that such workers be encouraged by the Provincial and Federal Governments through the provision of a $3,000. non-taxable income allowance for these workers. (NSFA) 97 STRATEGIC GROWTH 2010 Agriculture Industry Promotion THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the CFA continue to urge the federal government to promote agricultural supports as strategic investments in the national economy. (APAS) 2009 Sustainable Livestock Industry BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture work with industry and develop a consensus vision and an action plan for a sustainable livestock industry and then lobby the federal government for the necessary resources. (KAP) 2009 Input Price Study BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to update their input price study (originally published June 12th, 2008) to include years 2007 and 2008. (KAP) 2009 New ―Product of Canada‖ guidelines BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture: • Develop a joint strategy for representation to raise the awareness of the federal government about the issues surrounding the new guidelines; and • Develop, with the other contributors to the food chain (processors, consumers), a joint strategy for representation that seeks to have the federal government change the regulations for ―Product of Canada‖ labelling; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the CFA ask the federal government: • To review and increase the limit of eligible foreign content in a product labelled ―Product of Canada‖ to 15 per cent if and only if the principal food that is labelled is made of 100 per cent Canadian ingredients; and • To ensure the CFIA has sufficient resources to rigorously enforce the labelling regulations; and • To support the coming into force of the new requirements with a consumer information campaign; and • To replace the origin claim ―Made in Canada‖, which can be confused with ―Product of Canada,‖ with the labelling ―Prepared in Canada‖; and • To prohibit the use of other claims such as ―Packaged in Canada,‖ ―Processed in Canada,‖ ―Roasted in Canada,‖ etc., as they create confusion about the origin; and • To apply this guideline to all agricultural and food products. (UPA) 2009 Revenue Cap and WGRF BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture support the regulation governing payment of overcharges and penalties related to the grain revenue cap to the Western Grains Research Foundation. (KAP) 2008 National Local Food Day BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, working in collaboration with provincial members, lobby respective levels of government to designate the Friday before Thanksgiving to be a national 'Local Food Day'. (OFA) 98 GRAINS AND OILSEEDS 2010 Bill C13 THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the CFA express to Parliament‘s Standing Committee on Agriculture, the Minister of Agriculture and AgriFood Canada, and the Minister of State (Agriculture) our concerns about the potential negative impact of the re- introduction of a Bill C13-like legislation and the need to have producers‘ interests protected. (APAS) 2010 Additional Crops under the Canada Grain Act THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT CFA ask the Canadian Grain Commission to undergo a consultation with producer groups to see if other crops should be included under the Canadian Grain Act. (KAP) 99 OTHER RESOLUTIONS 2009 Continued Access to Fair and Sufficient Credit BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the government of Canada to ensure that Canada's lending institutions continue to make sufficient credit available to Canadian farmers at the lowest possible cost so that farmers can continue to fulfill their role in the provision of the safest food for Canadian and International consumers. (OFA) 2009 Intergenerational Transfer of Corporate Farms BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture confer with the major accounting firms to determine a suitable policy for addressing this issue. (NFSA) 2009 Revenue Canada Financial Guidelines BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby Revenue Canada to update its financial guidelines to reflect current dollars (2008) values. (AANB) 2008 Canadian Grain Act BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the Canadian Grain Commission and the Government of Canada to hold extensive consultations with General Farm Organizations on the proposed changes to the Canadian Grain Act; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the specific changes such as the bonding requirement being removed for Grain trader or companies should only be done when the impacts are assessed and workable alternatives are developed; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the changes should only be made with clear support from Western Canada‘s General Farm Organizations representing the interest of Grain Producers. (WRAP) 2008 Drain Maintenance Approval Process by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture open discussions with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans concerning the drain maintenance approval process to establish reasonable timelines for the drain maintenance approval process to provide predictability to farmers. (OFA) 2008 CFIA Fees BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture lobby the federal government for the removal of fees charged by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. (KAP) 2007 Mandatory Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification Program and Detection of this Disease in the Slaughterhouses BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ask the Government of Canada: • To make the Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification Program mandatory in Canada for all Canadian cervid producers. (UPA) 2007 CWB - Gag Order 100 BE IT RESOLVED that Canadian Federation of Agriculture request Minister Strahl to remove the "gag order" imposed upon the Canadian Wheat Board. (KAP) 2007 Improvement to the Seasonal Agriculture Worker Program (SAWP) BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture work with the Canadian Horticultural Council (CHC) to consider revising the SAWP to allow other agriculture sectors to qualify. (PEIFA) 2007 Foreign Traveler Work Visas BE IT RESOLVED that foreign travelers from certain countries be provided access to temporary work Visas, after arriving in Canada, to allow them to harvest perishable crops in Canada. (BCAC) 2007 Bill C-257- Labour Code Policy BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture should immediately start lobbying to amend Bill C-257 to: 1) allow management, superintendents, or foremen to perform operational duties during the period of a strike, and 2) expand the wording about essential services to include the prevention of economic and social strangulation of the country's well being, or at the very least prevent an immediate and serious danger to livestock populations. (BCAC) 2007 An Integrated National System For The Fresh Produce Industry BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture support the Canadian Horticultural Council working closely with the Federal / Provincial / Territorial Working Group involve the establishment of an integrated federal provincial territorial licensing system to assist their deliberations and offer clarification where needed. (CHC) 101