Conservative MP John Barlow brought forward Bill C-275, “an Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms),” as a private members bill. It arrived before the Commons standing committee on agriculture and agri-food on Sept. 28.

Barlow, the Conservatives’ shadow minister for agriculture, agri-food and food security, and MP for the southwestern Alberta riding of Foothills, had also put forward the previous version, Bill C-205, in 2020. The new bill takes up roughly where it left off.

It states: “No person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, enter a building or other enclosed place in which animals are kept, or take in any animal or thing, knowing that or being reckless as to whether entering such a place or taking in the animal or thing could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them.”

It applies fines up to $250,000 or up to two years’ jail time for individuals, and fines up to $500,000 for organizations.

While not explicitly mentioned, Barlow indicated the bill is in reaction to actions of activists, such as those who snuck into a turkey farm in his riding — likely a reference to a 2019 incident in which a group of activists broke into a turkey barn on a Hutterite colony north of Fort Macleod.

Barlow told the committee the bill applies existing penalties in the Health of Animals Act to people who trespass on farms in ways that contravene biosecurity practices and increases penalties to groups who encourage these actions.

While a few provinces have similar laws, “I think it behooves us as the federal government to have a national program in place that will cover all provinces and territories because that is not happening now,” Barlow said.

He added that while trespassing laws might apply to these scenarios, they only applied small fines that would not be enough to deter groups who he said fundraise off protests.

“There has to be teeth to this,” he said.

Barlow said the act would not limit people’s rights to protest, or target whistleblowers who lived or worked on the farm.

“This bill does not limit an individual’s rights to peaceful protest on public property,” he said. “This bill also does not prevent whistleblowers from coming forward when they are witnesses to practices that jeopardize our food security, our food safety or the welfare of animals. Canadian farmers and ranchers have a moral and legal obligation to look after their animals.”

Barlow also argued that the bill would help protect the mental health of farm families who feel targeted and attacked by activists.

Bill C-275 incorporates some of the amendments made to C-205 but drops a previous amendment that dropped “without lawful authority or excuse.”

When questioned about this, he told the committee that stakeholders saw this as redundant, as the bill had already been carefully worded to protect whistleblowers.

That amendment had been made by NDP agriculture critic Alistair MacGregor, who argued that references to trespassing must be removed as trespassing laws are not federal jurisdiction.

“If you are a farmer or farm employee, if you are a transport driver or if you are a protester, if you violate the biosecurity protocols in place on a farm, this law applies equally to you. That’s the main essence of my putting it forward,” he said in a committee meeting in June 2021.

In a meeting Thursday, Barlow said that on Oct. 16, the Commons ag committee would consider the bill clause by clause before returning it to the Commons to be voted on.

— Geralyn Wichers is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator.

The post Anti-activist bill back before Commons committee appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Witnesses from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) spoke to MPs’ concerns about livestock diseases at a committee meeting last Wednesday afternoon.

Biosecurity preparedness has been a relevant issue recently, with rising concerns over African swine fever (ASF), foot-and-mouth disease and highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), which saw 13 outbreaks in Quebec alone in April, and killed over 50 million farm birds in the U.S. in 2022.

Dr. Mary Jane Ireland, executive director of CFIA’s animal health directorate, told the Commons’ standing committee on agriculture and agri-food that the agency has ‘playbooks’ for every disease they are aware of, and that hazard-specific plans are updated as diseases evolve around the world.

Given recent outbreaks, avian influenza has been of particular concern. Ireland said CFIA has plans in place for its quick detection.

“When avian influenza is suspected, a sample is taken, and it is sent to a lab, that can be a provincial lab as (an) initial first step,” Ireland said. “To confirm the disease formally, the sample will be tested at the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease (NCFAD) in Winnipeg.”

“We take early action based on early findings of the provincial labs.”

CFIA is also committed to dedicating personnel to HPAI response and containment. VP of operations Philippe Morel said “up to 10 per cent” of the agency was deployed to respond to outbreaks last fall.

Priority would be placed on depopulating infected areas, he said.

Global communication continues to be key to biosecurity preparedness, Ireland said.

“We need to continue to… monitor global events and trends. What are the diseases we’re seeing emerge, where are they? They inform our policy; they inform our regulatory approach. And they inform our import controls,” she said.

CFIA, she said, “has worked extensively with other federal departments and with industry and governments to ready ourselves, to be ready for an incursion, to prevent an incursion of a foreign animal disease.”

CBSA director general Shawn Hoag spoke to the importance of border control to Canada’s biosecurity preparedness.

All importers must provide information about their goods prior to entry, he said. CBSA agents have the authority to inspect shipments and hold them until they are either released or destroyed as necessary.

Options to better gather import data are being explored, he added, such as an increased number of x-rays and detector dogs.

Tom Rosser, assistant deputy minister for AAFC’s market and industry services branch, said the department is planning response simulations to ASF later this week.

— Jonah Grignon reports for Glacier FarmMedia from Ottawa.

The post MPs get assurance on Canada’s biosecurity preparedness appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

C-234, a private member’s bill sponsored by southwestern Ontario Conservative MP Ben Lobb, appeared before the Commons’ standing committee on agriculture and agri-food on Monday and was reported back to the Commons.

According to Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO), the bill — which had its first reading Feb. 7 and second reading May 18 — is now expected to come up for third reading during the House’s winter session before moving on to the Senate.

C-234 carries amendments to the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act which expand that legislation’s definition of eligible farming machinery to include grain dryers as well as barn heating and cooling systems, and which extend the exemption for farming fuels to include farmers’ purchases of natural gas and propane.

“This exemption is needed to reflect the realities of the entire Canadian agriculture industry and the undue financial burden the carbon tax places on all the necessary practices undertaken by farmers and ranchers like drying grain, irrigating crops, or heating and cooling livestock barns,” Conservative MP and opposition ag critic John Barlow said in a release Wednesday.

The standing ag committee on Monday did pass several amendments to Lobb’s bill, tightening its scope.

Those include a sunset clause — which Barlow said is a reflection of Canadian farmers’ confidence that new and sustainable technologies will come forward to replace the gas- and propane-fired options they now use to dry grain and heat barns.

That sunset clause will see the exemption brought back in a set period of time for review, allowing whatever government is in place at that time to let it lapse — or to amend or extend it if the available technologies don’t yet warrant ending the exemption.

Barlow’s original amendment called for a 10-year sunset clause, but committee members later voted to shorten that period to the bill’s eight-year anniversary — citing testimony the committee heard suggesting such technology would be available sooner rather than later.

Another approved amendment will limit the exemption’s use in farm buildings, to only include those structures directly involved in crop or livestock production, such as barns or greenhouses.

‘Critical issue’

Grain and livestock producer groups have since lined up to cheer the bill’s return to the Commons, urge MPs of all parties to approve its passage and call for Canada’s Senate to do the same.

“It is clear that (ag committee) MPs understand the lack of current alternatives for grain drying and the need to provide an exemption until viable technological solutions are developed,” GFO chair Brendan Byrne said Tuesday in a separate release.

With “no viable fuel alternatives” available for the practices covered in C-234, imposing carbon pricing on those activities “does not provide a signal to lower emissions from these sources,” Grain Growers of Canada said Wednesday in another release.

Instead, GGC said, C-234 “will put money back into the hands of farmers so that they can continue to invest in practices that drive innovation, further efficiencies and reduce fuel usage.”

“With rising input costs, inflation and supply chain shortages, carbon surcharges on necessary farm activities adds an additional burden and pulls capital away from critical investments,” GGC chair Andre Harpe said in the same release.

The Agricultural Carbon Alliance, a body representing the GGC and 14 other national-level grain, livestock and general farm groups, said Wednesday that with the bill approaching third reading, it now plans to launch a public advocacy campaign “that will call for a bipartisan consensus on this critical issue.”

Fram group representatives appearing before the ag committee echoed many of the same concerns. “We understand that the carbon price is a market signal for producers to adopt low-emission energy alternatives wherever possible, but over the past year that signal has been dwarfed by skyrocketing costs for inputs such as fertilizer, gasoline and diesel,” Canadian Federation of Agriculture vice-president Todd Lewis said at the committee’s Oct. 24 meeting.

“Even when fuel prices aren’t at record highs, farmers constantly seek to increase fuel efficiency wherever possible.”

However, another speaker, University of Saskatchewan associate professor Tristan Skolrud, cautioned the committee at the same meeting that C-234 runs the risk of further drawing out the timeline for development of viable alternatives.

With “limited changes in producer behaviour, there will be limited reductions in (greenhouse gas) emissions from grain drying before greener alternatives become available,” he said.

“The development of greener alternatives will require significant private capital, and if grain drying is unregulated, the signal to private capital will be lost. Previous testimony on this amendment suggests that sufficient alternatives are at least 10 years away.

“Keep in mind that this estimate is a function of the carbon price. A higher price will shorten that time frame if private capital senses a profitable opportunity.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post New farm fuel carbon tax rule to return to Commons appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“It is very important, very vital, and very urgent that we hear the perspectives from the CEOs at these companies and get the full picture of why prices have gone up for consumers and down for ranchers,” Scott, a Democrat from Georgia, said in a statement.

“In addition to this panel of CEOs, we will be convening a panel of ranchers to hear what consolidation in the beef industry has done to their bottom lines and viability,” he added.

Increased prices and profits for meatpacking companies have threatened to amplify Washington’s scrutiny of the U.S. meatpacking industry, as the Biden administration has criticized a lack of competition in the sector.

U.S. President Joe Biden announced a plan in January for new rules to bolster competition and stop “exploitation” in the sector amid concerns that a small group of meat packers was capable of dictating beef, pork and poultry prices, adding to inflation pressures caused by rising labour and transportation costs and by COVID 19-related supply constraints.

In January, the chairman of the House of Representatives subcommittee on economic and consumer policy sent a letter to major U.S. meat processing companies, seeking information on rising prices and profits.

— Reporting for Reuters by Kanishka Singh in Washington, D.C.

The post CEOs of four large U.S. meatpackers to testify in Congressional hearing appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The committee approved three pieces of legislation, which from 2023 will govern spending from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) — a scheme that will spend 387 billion euros (about C$579 billion) from the EU’s 2021-2027 budget on payments to farmers and rural development.

The rules are the result of a three-year battle between EU countries and lawmakers over how to make the policy greener, which ended when negotiators agreed a deal on reforms in June.

The committee approved the rules with a comfortable majority, but Green lawmakers rejected the proposals saying they failed to align agriculture with EU climate change targets.

The full EU parliament will vote on the rules later this year. Member states’ ministers must then formally approve them.

The EU is overhauling its policies across all sectors to cut greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change.

Agriculture produces around 10 per cent of EU emissions, and the new farming policy will attempt to shift subsidies from environmentally-damaging intensive farming practices to protecting nature.

Farmers’ payments will be tied to complying with environmental rules, while countries will be obliged to spend 20 per cent of payments to farmers from 2023-2024, and 25 per cent between 2025-2027, on “eco-schemes” that protect the environment.

That could include restoring wetlands to absorb CO2, although the rules do not define what counts as an eco-scheme.

Campaigners and some EU lawmakers have said the environmental rules are weak or voluntary, and lack a firm target to cut emissions. They are calling for lawmakers in EU parliament to reject the rules.

The rules also aim to halt the decline of Europe’s small farms, introducing requirements for countries to redistribute subsidies to smaller businesses — an attempt to stop large businesses sucking up money.

— Reporting for Reuters by Kate Abnett in Brussels.

The post EU parliament committee approves farm subsidy reforms appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Since November, MPs have heard from more than 50 witnesses on the matter — including representatives from the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, whose president Bob Lowe and executive vice-president Dennis Laycraft testified at a committee meeting Tuesday.

In the CCA’s accompanying brief, seven recommendations on how to “create an environment that will support an optimal Canadian packing system” were provided:

• Establish a Red Meat Industry Export Development Fund;
• Support North American integration by harmonizing Canadian and U.S. shipping requirements for beef to South Korea;
• Extend livestock set-aside program availability into 2021-22;
• Update Canada’s specified risk material (SRM) removal requirements;
• Implement the recommendations of the Labour Workforce Action Plan;
• Support automation in processing plants, and
• Place vaccination priority on agri-food processing workers.

The CCA made clear to MPs that about 77-79 per cent of Canada’s total beef processing has taken place in Western Canada, averaging 56,249 head per week, with an 86 per cent utilization rate over the last five years.

COVID-19 seriously screwed that up: last spring, “temporary slowdowns effectively halted just over two-thirds (70 per cent) of Canadian beef processing capacity over a two-week period and resulted in the first half of 2020’s cattle slaughter being down 11 per cent compared to the same period in 2019.”

A since-processed backlog out west of about 130,000 head ensued, creating millions in feedlot losses.

The CCA contends Eastern Canada’s federally inspected packing capacity flirted with full capacity even prior to the pandemic. Figures provided show utilization rates at eastern packing facilities being above 90 per cent since 2017, and rising each year.

(In 2020, weekly slaughter capacity was 12,550 and the use of it was 100 per cent. The year prior, capacity for 13,250 was used at 98 per cent.)

“This resulted in longer feeding periods, increased costs and lower prices for producers,” read the submission. “This capacity shortage has been particularly acute during the fall and winter months where producers are experiencing delivery and processing delays and a negative price spread to other regions.”

The submission notes that while Ontario’s packing capacity was “keeping pace” during the pandemic, a December 2020 closure at Cargill’s Guelph facility resulted in an estimated backlog of 10,000-15,000 head of cattle during the two-week period.

A set-aside program put in place by the federal government during the pandemic helped bring “stability to the market” but a backlog of 10,000-15,000 head of cattle remains, according to the CCA.

Across Canada in 2020, Canadian federally inspected slaughter capacity averaged 57,681 head per week with a utilization rate of 89 per cent.

But packing capacity taking place in Canada is becoming more and more concentrated in large facilities. Those big packers are highly efficient competitors that proved capable of enduring the pandemic, the CCA said.

Small- and medium-sized packers in the past 10 years have had difficulty competing, and the CCA contends that’s because of efficiencies of scale and regulatory burden.

“Creating the right conditions for small, medium and large packers is essential to a resilient Canadian beef sector,” the group said. “Additionally, the integration and thinning of the U.S. border for live cattle and meat trade will further build resiliency within the Canadian beef supply chain.”

Testimony on the matter at ag committee meetings last week also came from representatives for Maple Leaf Foods, Novalait, Canards du Lac Brome and Fraser Valley Specialty Poultry.

— D.C. Fraser reports for Glacier FarmMedia from Ottawa.

The post Beef cattle sector weighs in for federal food processing study appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Though Democrats retained control of the House and therefore will again chair the committee, Peterson’s exit could shift U.S. spending away from a region hammered by U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war with China, they said.

Ruling parties take seniority into account when selecting committee chairs, providing an opening for senior House Democrats such as Reps. Jim Costa of California, David Scott of Georgia and Marcia Fudge of Ohio to lead the agriculture committee.

Midwest farmers raise pigs and grow the bulk of soybeans and corn in the U.S., while California is known for fruit and vegetable crops and southern states like Georgia produce chickens.

For Minnesotans, “the clout that he had on the ag committee is lost to us,” said Laura Lemke, executive director of the Minnesota Grain and Feed Association.

The House agriculture committee has jurisdiction over a vast range of agriculture and rural issues, including the Farm Bill, renewable energy, disaster assistance, nutrition and crop insurance. The latest Farm Bill, passed once every five years, expires in 2023 and mandates spending of about US$428 billion.

Discussion of the bill starts years in advance.

Former U.S. Senator Heidi Heitkamp, a North Dakota Democrat, said Peterson’s defeat was “devastating” because he understood intricacies of the legislation. He has long worked with Republicans, who will likely retain control of the Senate.

“Colin knew more about the Farm Bill than anyone else in Congress,” Heitkamp said.

Republican Michelle Fischbach beat Peterson and will seek a seat on the committee, her campaign said.

The next job for Peterson, age 76, could be at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, said Joseph Glauber, senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute and a former USDA chief economist.

“I would think that if Biden wins, Peterson would go right to the top of the list for USDA secretary,” Glauber said.

Peterson did not respond to requests for comment.

— Reporting for Reuters by PJ Huffstutter and Tom Polansek in Chicago.

The post U.S. House ag leader loses election, unsettling Midwest farm sector appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

While the true results won’t be known until Monday night, most pollsters are speculating either a Conservative or Liberal-led minority government.

One scenario could see the Conservatives win the most seats, but only by a slim margin. That opens the door for Liberal leader Justin Trudeau to court the support of others — likely the New Democrats or Green Party — to stay on as prime minister.

Similarly, Scheer could seek support from other parties to prop up his government, a situation that may be less plausible given the NDP’s stated reluctance to help Conservatives.

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has outlined conditions of his support to the Liberals, focusing on items such as climate change and a national pharmacare plan.

Vancouver Island MP Alistair MacGregor, now in a dogfight to keep his Cowichan-Malahat-Langford seat, served as the NDP’s agriculture critic in the last Parliament. Days before the election, he outlined what role the NDP would play in supporting agriculture as part of a coalition government.

“In a minority situation, if we were able to have some influence over government policy as a condition of our support, I would certainly like to see that, starting off with supply management that we actually honour the promises that we make,” he said, referring to concessions made in trade deals involving the European Union, the U.S., Mexico and Pacific nations.

The NDP would also push to compensate industries impacted by those deals, similar to the $1.75 billion over eight years dished out to Canada’s dairy farmers this August.

The last Liberal budget also promised $3.9 billion to dairy, egg and poultry farmers to support producers who lost farm income because of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the EU and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

MacGregor said honouring supply management would be an “absolute condition” for NDP support of a Liberal government.

He also said the NDP would push the Liberals to effectively deal with climate change and reconsider business risk management programs.

“We have to do a full-scale review, of the whole suite of programs, to make sure they are flexible,” he said, noting uncertain global markets and climate change-associated risks may create a need for more dynamic support options. “Farmers may start having to need those programs more often.”

The NDP has stated it has no plans to prop up a Conservative-led minority government, and it is less clear what such a scenario would entail for Canadian farmers — but a Conservative government would mean there are new players with significant sway over the industry.

The Conservative Party did not respond to interview requests for this story, but did commit in its platform, released late in the campaign, to revamp the Canada Grain Act, address labour issues and improve available risk management programs. Like the NDP, the Conservatives support compensation to farmers affected by free trade deals.

Agriculture tends to be one of the less partisan issues, with many of the parties sharing priorities.

“(Every party has) representation in rural ridings and we’re there to work for all of them,” MacGregor said, pointing to the relatively co-operative nature of the Commons’ agriculture committee.

But that committee, known formally as the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, will have significant changes to it after Monday; at least four of its 11 incumbent MPs are at risk of losing their re-election bids.

Liberal MP Marie-Claude Bibeau, the minister of agriculture in Trudeau’s government, is also at risk of losing her seat in Quebec’s Compton-Stanstead riding.

Despite the election, it is also realistic to expect a time lag between the results and a clear direction of agriculture policy in Canada being formed.

No matter which faces — old or new — are shaping that policy, their work likely won’t begin for several weeks, if not months, after the election, because Parliament is not expected to reconvene immediately.

— D.C. Fraser reports for Glacier FarmMedia from Ottawa.

The post Future of ag policy remains unclear ahead of election appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

China’s action against two Canadian pork companies, announced by Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau on Wednesday, widened a diplomatic rift between the countries.

On Thursday, Gary Stordy, spokesman for the Canadian Pork Council industry group said the problem centered on labels that contain information about a shipment’s contents, weight and place of origin.

Bibeau confirmed that the labels were the problem.

“So it’s an administrative issue and I am confident that we will be able to solve this situation,” she told reporters in Ottawa.

Tensions have grown between Ottawa and Beijing since the December arrest in Canada of Meng Wanzhou, Huawei Technologies’ chief financial officer, on a U.S. warrant. Asked about a link between Meng’s arrest and China’s trade actions against Canada, Bibeau told legislators on a committee that she would not make that connection.

Stordy of the pork council, which represents hog farmers, could not say what the specific problem was with the labels on shipments from Olymel LP and Drummond Export, the two suspended Canadian companies.

“All of our industry has to make sure it’s meeting China’s import requirements,” Stordy said. “There’s extra scrutiny, and the information needs to be correct and accurate.”

Since Meng’s arrest in December, China has arrested two Canadians and halted canola imports from two other Canadian companies. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government on Wednesday offered financial assistance to Canadian canola farmers who have been harmed by China’s ban.

Although Trudeau’s government is under increasing pressure from opposition legislators to retaliate over China’s various actions, Bibeau told the House of Commons’ agriculture committee on Thursday the situation was “very delicate,” and that Ottawa did not support the idea of escalation.

A federal government source, who requested anonymity given the sensitivity of the situation, described the pork export suspensions as things that happen “in the normal course of events.”

“I wouldn’t want necessarily to put that in the same category as canola, which is obviously a very serious issue,” the source added.

All other Canadian pork processing facilities remain eligible to ship to China, said Katie Hawkins, a spokeswoman for Bibeau.

But Canada’s Global Affairs department has warned exporters of the need to meet all of China’s export requirements, Stordy noted.

Drummond Export, which operates a single meat plant at Drummondville, Que., received notification this week of its suspension, said Bruno Mussely, the company’s international development director. It is still waiting for a clear explanation.

“We’re just waiting here to find out the reasons why,” he said. “It’s unpleasant for sure.”

Drummond sells pig feet to China, one of the company’s key markets. In over 20 years of shipping to China, Mussely said Drummond has never been suspended.

The other Quebec-based company targeted by the suspensions was Olymel LP, whose Red Deer, Alta. pork plant had its export permit suspended. Company spokesman Richard Vigneault said Olymel was assessing the situation and had no further comment.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency last week said some Canadian pork shipments to China had been delayed because exporters used outdated forms that certify the cargoes meet Chinese requirements.

The agency could not immediately comment on Thursday.

Stordy said the suspended companies now need to correct the labeling on shipments of their pork products and explain to authorities in China as to what preventative actions they are taking to see their export permits restored.

— Reporting for Reuters by Rod Nickel in Winnipeg and David Ljunggren in Ottawa.

The post Label problem caused China’s suspension of two pork shippers appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The questions come amid growing trade tensions between the U.S. and its top export markets. Earlier on Thursday, the Trump administration outraged allies by moving ahead with tariffs on aluminum and steel imports from Canada, Mexico and the European Union.

Canada’s questions also point to more potential trouble brewing at the World Trade Organization, where the U.S. has vetoed new judges for disputes. Analysts say Canada is seeking clarity on what steps the White House might take to protect farmers whose support helped Donald Trump win the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the White House and Canadian officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

Canada submitted the request to the WTO’s agriculture committee, where negotiators meet several times a year to examine each other’s farm support programs and challenge eye-catching spending by their rivals.

Canada’s written question asked the United States to explain the U.S. Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, in which Congress lifted certain restrictions on the U.S. Agriculture Secretary’s authority to use Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds.

The CCC has broad authority to make loans and direct payments to U.S. growers when prices for corn, soybeans, wheat and other agricultural goods are low. The White House is looking at ways to use CCC funds to offset farm income losses in a trade war with China or others, according to media reports.

“Canada understands that the CCC can borrow up to $30 billion from the Treasury Department at any one time to stabilize farm income such as assisting farmers through loans, purchases, payments and other operations,” Canada said.

“Could the U.S. please provide the reasoning for lifting restrictions on the USDA’s authority to use CCC funds, and name the programs that will be eligible for these new funds?”

Canada also wants to know if Washington can use CCC funds to buy domestic surpluses, such as dairy products, or corn and soybeans.

Canada’s formal request for information does not necessarily imply a dispute is brewing. But WTO committee questions are often a sign of friction. If no satisfactory answer is supplied, pressure for a negotiated solution — and the risk of a full-blown dispute — is likely to rise.

— Reporting for Reuters by P.J. Huffstutter in Chicago and Tom Miles in Geneva.

The post Canada to U.S.: Explain that farm spending war chest appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.