News - July 2008                    Previous Month         Following Month

The headlines for current month's news items are listed immediately below. Click on the headline of your choice to see the entire text of the article.

CFIA Fair Labelling Practices and Food Safety Inspectors:

Back Pay Grievances Update

Requesting permission or leave to be a political candidate –

including municipal elections

Agriculture Union article in high-profile famers’ publication

refutes attacks on CGC

CFIA Fair Labelling Practices and Food Safety Inspectors: Back Pay Grievances Update

(Posted July 18, 2008)

On October 17, we will be proceeding to a final level hearing for the back pay grievances of the Fair Labelling Practices and Food Safety Inspectors.

This hearing will be conducted before Cameron Prince, CFIA Vice-President of Operations.

Requesting permission or leave to be a political candidate – including municipal elections

(Posted July 17, 2008)

This autumn will see many municipal elections held across the country.

Before either seeking a nomination or being a candidate in a federal, provincial, territorial or municipal election, employees must request and obtain permission from the Public Service Commission (PSC).

It is essential that employees who wish to be candidates in an election submit their requests to the PSC no later than 30 days before the date a decision is required from the PSC.

Given the stakes involved, any Agriculture Union member considering throwing his or her hat into the municipal ring should investigate this further.

For more information, please click HERE.

Agriculture Union article in high-profile famers’ publication refutes attacks on CGC

(Posted July 11, 2008)

Bill C-39, proposed Conservative legislation that would gut the workforce and role of the Canadian Grain Commission, is currently ‘backburnered’ in the House of Commons. While that’s good news, the Agriculture Union has no intention of letting down its guard when it comes to the defence of our CGC members.

Attacks on the role of the Commission continue to be launched by such groups as GrainVision, a stalking horse for big agri-business and right-wing privatizers.

So, we’re pleased to reproduce below the text of an article that appeared earlier this month in the The Western Producer, the most widely-read and authoritative publication for western grain farmers.

CGC bill fundamentally flawed
By Bob Kingston

Kingston is the first national executive vice-president of the Agriculture Union - Public Service Alliance of Canada, which represents Canadian Grain Commission staff.

          GrainVision would have us believe Parliament’s failure to diminish the Canadian
Grain Commission as proposed in Bill C-39 is the result of some sort of conspiracy to frustrate progress.
           The facts suggest quite a different story.
           It’s true that changes to the Canadian Grain Commission continue to languish on the House of Commons agenda with no hope of progress for several months now that Parliament has broken for the summer.
            And it’s clear that without some miracle about-face on the part of the government, there seems to be little hope that Bill C-39 will win enough support in the, minority Parliament to be passed into law.
           Why is this so? At the most fundamental level, the bill is flawed.
           In drafting the bill, the government failed to do its homework, ignored the unanimous advice of an all-party committee of the House of Commons and seems intent on pursuing a partisan agenda that has little to do with protecting the interests of producers.
           In a minority Parliament, this is a recipe for gridlock. So it’s not surprising the bill has not progressed far in the process. Had the government taken the advice of the House of Commons Agriculture and Agri-Food Committee, things might be different.
           Perhaps most importantly, the government ignored the committee’s recommendation that protection of producer interests not be lost in changes to the CGC.
            Instead of heeding this advice, the government’s proposal in C-39 significantly dilutes this key principle.
           After studying the CGC, the Commons committee concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a specific course of change. As a result, the committee recommended pilot projects and cost benefit analysis of the significant reforms to the commission some advocated.
           This prudent course of action was rejected out of hand by federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz.
            Bill C-39 would immediately gut important regulatory oversight functions and services that protect producers without any understanding of the potential impact these cuts would have.
            The committee also recommended increased funding for the CGC to ensure grain quality and producer protection.
            Minister Ritz’s response? Slash grain commission spending by up to 70 percent in some areas.
In the midst of all of this, Minister Ritz appointed his one time boss, former Reform MP Elwin Hermanson, as chief commissioner of the CGC. With the ink just dried on his order-in-council appointment, Hermanson was advocating in favour of Bill C-39 before the bill had even been approved in principle by the House of Commons.
            Let’s not forget that Gerry Ritz chaired the Commons agriculture committee’s study of the grain commission whose recommendations he later ignored as minister. This level of hypocrisy can hardly be expected to inspire confidence and cooperation among the opposition parties.
           Most producers would be hard pressed to support this legislation because Bill C-39 would:
1. Kill the commission’s mandatory ‘inward’ inspection and weighing service, leaving producers newly disadvantaged in their dealings with grain companies when it comes to determining grain weight and grade. Currently, the CGC routinely revises upward grain grades and corrects quantity measurements, resulting in higher and fair payment to producers.
2. Eliminate the requirement for grain buyers to post security bonds and expose grain producers to financial harm in the event of a grain buyer bankruptcy or refusal to pay.
3. Do away with the Grain Appeal Tribunal that protects producers and the Canadian Wheat Board from unscrupulous behaviour by grain companies. In Vancouver alone, it’s not uncommon for dozens of appeals to be launched in a single day.
           There is good reason to be concerned about the safety and quality of the grain Canada exports if Bill C-39 became law.
            Inward inspections conducted by the CGC before grain gets into the terminal elevator system identify dangerous contaminants like mercury and fungi such as ergot and fusarium – biohazards that are dangerous to human health – as well as grading or insect infestation problems.
            This allows grain with these problems to be identified, isolated and remedied before being mixed with non-contaminated product. Risk of contaminating clean product with problem grain is increased with elimination of the CGC’s mandatory inward inspection service and this carries potential costs.
           There is also an elevated risk that contaminated or lower grain will be shipped to our customers.
           For inspectors and others handling the grain, the presence of these hazards raises serious questions about possible violations of the workplace health and safety laws.
           The CGC is a mature institution and no one in their right mind would oppose reforms to improve the commission and the work it does on behalf of the producers and in protection of Canada’s international reputation for quality.
            Unfortunately, Bill C-39 doesn’t meet this test and that is the reason it remains stuck in Parliament.
            As for commission employees, these dedicated women and men have great skill and knowledge that makes their work competitive with any other supplier when it comes to price and quality.