 |
|
|
 |
|
  |
|
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Mandate |
| Legislation |
| The Council |
| History |
| Role in Supply Management |
| Role in Promotion&Research; |
| Publications |
| Regulatory Business |
|
Beyond the legalistic work, the NFPC also helps to strengthen the four industries for today and tomorrow. You'll read more about this kind of work under the section Promoting the Strength of the Sector.
Forwarding Federal-Provincial Agreement RenewalA project for all four of the orderly marketing agencies was to renew their Federal-Provincial Agreements. A renewed FPA, with its appended Marketing Plan and Operating Agreement, is the document under which the parts of a national orderly marketing system come together and operate. The systems, the industries and the markets for the four commodities have changed much in the past years. So, too, then, must change the FPAs. In 1998, ministers of agriculture charged the four industries to renew their FPAs. Each FPA requires 19 or more signatories: from Ministers to provincial government supervisory agencies to provincial or territorial-level commodity boards, depending on the agency. Serious differences in the chicken industry complicated progress towards a renewed Agreement on chicken. That said, at the end of 2000, the chicken FPA was the most advanced of the four. The Chicken Farmers of Canada led the drafting, with the NFPC lending strong advice on format, giving regular legal and language feedback, plus looking to see that the provincial government supervisory boards and provincial governments were being kept in the loop. By 2000 year-end, the egg industry had reached accord on some of its serious disputes and it, too, would be turning attention to renewing the egg FPA in 2001. The turkey and broiler hatching egg industries did preliminary FPA work in 2000, holding Working Group meetings in March. The Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency's Working Group met on March 23, with an NFPC representative attending. NFPC Chairperson Cynthia Currie and another NAASA member rep sat in on the Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency's meeting on March 31. Through 2000, both of these agencies looked to the chicken FPA renewal process as a model. By the end of 2000, with the chicken FPA renewal entering its final stages, CTMA and CBHEMA declared they too would be tackling their FPA renewal in 2001.
TurkeyThe Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency (CTMA) was created in 1973 to manage the supply of turkey in Canada. Its Board of Directors has eight provincial producer members, two primary producer members and one further processor member. The core work of the Council with any of the four orderly marketed agencies is to consider an agency's levy and quota orders. During 2000, Council members assessed and approved three turkey quota orders and two levy orders. Beyond quotas and levies, Council members and staff kept in steady contact with the CTMA through the year. Our representatives were at CTMA's meetings in March, June, September and November, and gave updates on NFPC activities. We also heard the latest news on CTMA's projects, such as the completion of the study on benchmarking and results from the producer-processor 'Turkey Tuesday' marketing campaign. The NFPC was especially interested to mark the difference made by CTMA's recent new quota allocation methodology to supply more flexibly the needs of the two types of market for turkey meat in Canada. The CTMA came to the NFPC too, to the June and December Council meetings. In December, the CTMA reviewed its actions and issues in 2000, presented to the Council members the CTMA's action strategy and budget for 2001, and looked ahead to projects for the new year. At the end of 2000, we were looking forward to working closely with CTMA on the renewal of its Federal-Provincial agreement. CTMA's technical committee of its FPA working group was to begin drafting in the new year and we were readying ourselves to work with them.
EggsThe Canadian Egg Marketing Agency (CEMA) has managed the supply of eggs in Canada since its creation in 1972. Its Board of Directors includes representatives from the ten signatory provincial and the Northwest Territories (NWT) commodity boards, three representatives from the Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors' Council and one from the Consumers' Association of Canada. The egg industry continued to face quota allocation problems in 2000, but by year end the NFPC was pleased by the industry's progress towards solving these problems, with more progress expected in 2001. The national egg industry could not agree on how to allocate quota. This had been a problem for many years. Early in 2000, the NFPC agreed to a special extension of the CEMA's quota orders until the end of February 2000, holding the system in stasis at 1999 levels, to give CEMA more time to find agreement on the 2000 production year. Agreement was long and tough in coming. CEMA presented orders to the NFPC for prior-approval in February and March. The Council did not take decision on them, but asked CEMA for more supporting information. On March 24, the Manitoba and Saskatchewan signatories to the national egg agreement lodged a formal complaint with the NFPC. As will be described later in this Review, the NFPC held hearings, heard arguments and ruled on the complaint. The Council approved the CEMA quota order to keep the egg system operating and give the industry an opportunity to develop an acceptable allocation methodology. Council member and egg complaint hearing panel member Raymond Cloutier:
As described later in this Review, CEMA worked hard to find a solution that the CEMA members could agree to and which could be the starting point for work on the renewed FPA in 2001. The NFPC approved CEMA's 2001 quota order late in 2000, noting that the solution would indeed have to be enshrined in a new, negotiated FPA in 2001 which all the needed signatories to a national egg agreement could sign onto. Another job CEMA took on in 2000 was to update its Cost Of Production formula. The NFPC has been encouraging work on 'COP' and had produced COP guidelines for the national agencies. In 2000, we challenged the egg agency to develop a defensible COP formula. At the end of 2000, Council was awaiting the outcome of this exercise.
ChickenThe Chicken Farmers of Canada (CFC) was created in 1978 to manage the supply of chicken in Canada. Its fourteen-member Board of Directors is made up of farmers appointed each year by provincial marketing boards, which are signatories to the federal-provincial agreement that created the CFC. Non-farmer directors (one from the restaurant industry, one from the further processing industry, two representing the processing industry) are appointed for two-year terms by their respective national associations. In 2000, the NFPC approved six chicken quota orders and three levy orders. Three other big topics held the NFPC's attention during 2000:
By the end of 2000, the chicken FPA renewal was more advanced than the egg, turkey or broiler hatching egg FPAs. The Chicken Farmers of Canada had agreed on a draft new FPA and was next seeking approvals from federal legal counsel and from the provincial signatories. The CFC expected to get agreement from all in the first part of 2001. During 2000, the NFPC worked intensely with the Chicken Farmers of Canada on its draft Federal-Provincial Agreement, lending expertise, drafting support and legal advice. The NFPC also pushed steadily to have the provincial government supervisory agencies kept connected to the drafting process. The NFPC had regular consultations and updates from the CFC throughout the year on its progress. At the beginning of 2000, Alberta had served notice of its intent to withdraw from the chicken FPA, to take effect on December 31, 2000. This was prompted by uncertainty over whether B.C. would continue to participate in the national chicken system, the result of conflict between B.C. producers and processors, and a B.C. Supreme Court ruling. The province had the right to call back its notice of withdrawal at the end of February. It did not. At the end of 2000, the NFPC was remaining in discussions with the CFC on Alberta's withdrawal and on the agency's efforts to negotiate service contracts with Alberta and B.C. During 2000, staff were part of a team advising the Department of Foreign Affairs & International Trade on the development of a domestic supply program to meet the needs of manufacturers of chicken products that are not included on the Import Control List (ICL). Under federal Import Controls policy, only a certain volume of chicken is permitted to come into the country under a lower tariff rate. The CFC had been aiming to supply this need with domestic chicken instead of imports. The Ministers of Agriculture & Agri-Food and of Foreign Affairs agreed this was a good aim. They challenged the CFC to work with the industry to develop a domestic supply programme. The CFC charged its Market Development Committee to undertake the task. The Minister of Agriculture & Agri-Food charged the NFPC to act as an observer on this Committee, to monitor its progress and to report regularly to him. At the end of 2000, substantial progress had been made and the CFC was aiming to have a new programme in place by mid-year 2001. The NFPC also worked with the chicken industry on projects such as the Poultry Meat Export Working Group, described later in this Review.
Broiler Hatching EggsCreated in 1986, the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency (CBHEMA) manages the supply of broiler hatching eggs in Canada. The seven member Board of Directors includes representatives from the five provincial commodity boards (Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, and British Columbia), and two representatives appointed by the Governor-in-Council (positions vacant since 1996 and 1998 respectively). The broiler hatching egg industry started the year 2000 without having quota, levies or orderly marketing orders in place. By the end of 2000, the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency had brought forward and gained NFPC approval for four quota orders, two levy orders and one orderly marketing regulation. The industry could not agree how to account for imports when allocating production quota among the member provinces, while staying within the total national production quota. This was a problem. Without agreement, it couldn't settle on any orders, couldn't bring any forward to the NFPC, couldn't put any into effect. The NFPC knew well the importance of getting orders in place to a national orderly marketing system for broiler hatching eggs, but knew the solution to the problem had to come from the industry itself. The industry members, too, knew the importance of getting a solution, but hadn't been able to find one all through 1999. The NFPC had worked steadily throughout 1999 to help CBHEMA keep at the search for a solution. The NFPC had conducted a complaint hearing about the methodology and then prepared a report on its findings. The Council had urged CBHEMA to adopt its report recommendation for professional mediation, which CBHEMA had done; mediation took place throughout autumn 1999. The NFPC had encouraged and facilitated meetings and discussions. And yet, by the end of 1999, the industry had still found no solution. But the industry held firm into 2000. Knowing the value of a national orderly marketing system, the industry did not want to abandon it. And the NFPC held firm too, steadily pressing the industry to keep working to save the system. Then, on January 14, 2000, all these efforts bore fruit. CBHEMA's Board of Directors alerted the Council that it now had agreement on the way to treat imports in its quota allocation. At the February Council meeting, Council members prior-approved CBHEMA's preliminary 2000 quota regulation and 2000 levies order, reminding CBHEMA it had to amend its Marketing Plan to reflect the new allocation methodology. More orders followed, covering the 2000 final allocation and preliminary quota and levy orders for 2001. CBHEMA was able to turn to its other tasks, such as amendments to its own orderly marketing regulation for the NFPC to prior-approve. One amendment allowed broiler hatching eggs to be sold from New Brunswick (which is not a party to the national orderly marketing system for broiler hatching eggs) into Québec (which is) under a special contract. Another amendment removed expiry dates from the regulation, allowing it to stay valid unless changed, without having to return every year to the NFPC for renewal. Another task to which CBHEMA could now turn its attention was the renewal of the broiler hatching egg Federal-Provincial Agreement. During 2000, CBHEMA held one meeting in March of its FPA Working Group, with an NFPC representative attending. CBHEMA decided it would watch progress by the chicken agency on its own FPA renewal first. At the end of 2000, with the chicken FPA renewal entering final stages, CBHEMA told the NFPC it was readying itself to tackle the broiler hatching egg FPA in 2001.
Other Parts of the IndustriesThe NFPC keeps in regular contact with other organizations in the poultry and egg industry. Council members invited representatives of the Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council and of the Further Poultry Processors Association of Canada to meet with them at the Council meeting of February 2-3, 2000. In turn, NFPC representatives attend meetings of the CPEPC and FPPAC. Representatives attended the CPEPC's special 50th Anniversary Annual General Meeting in Ottawa in June. The FPPAC invited the NFPC's Executive Director to its February meeting to give a presentation on the 1999 Poultry Meat Export Awareness Mission to Asia. The NFPC also was working jointly with both organizations on projects such as following-up on the Asia poultry mission and the resulting Export Working Group, or work on a new poultry database. The NFPC was connected to other related organizations too, and kept informed of their activities. Council member Anne Chong Hill, for instance, is also a member of the Canadian Agri-Food Marketing Council and brought updates on CAMC developments. The Council members continued to invite guests from various parts of the agriculture industry to speak to them at Council meetings - as with the Canadian 4H Council representative at the December Council meeting. As mentioned in the Chairperson's Message, Council members made on-site visits to a producer, a research centre, a further processor, and its provincial regulatory agency counterpart in British Columbia on the occasion of their September Council meeting.
WORKING WITH THE PROVINCES AND TERRITORIESThe NFPC, as always, kept in touch with players at the provincial and territorial level, whether to share ideas or to consult over specific issues as to how the orderly marketing systems are running. One of the more structured ways the NFPC does this is through membership in the National Association of Agri-Food Supervisory Agencies. The NAASA links the federal NFPC and its counterparts in the provincial and territorial governments. Consulting and Sharing Information The NAASA meetings were a good venue for government representatives to alert each other on upcoming developments, to get a feeling for the atmosphere in the different regions during disputes within the orderly marketing systems, or to get feedback on things such as the NFPC's Strategic Vision for 2000-2003. The NFPC participated in the many NAASA meetings: the teleconferences in January, April, two in May, June, October and December, plus the face-to-face meetings in Ottawa in March and in September (before the NAASA meeting with the Chicken Farmers of Canada on the draft chicken FPA). FPA The renewal by the four agencies of their Federal-Provincial Agreements was the biggest issue NAASA members dealt with in 2000. As mentioned earlier, the Chicken Farmers of Canada was tackling renewal of its chicken FPA and this was a strong focus for the NFPC and its fellow NAASA members. NFPC worked intensely with the CFC on the draft. The NFPC kept an especially close eye on how the provincial supervisory agencies and governments were being kept in the loop and led several of the NAASA discussions on the chicken FPA. The NFPC was also able to update the other NAASA members on the status of work by the other three national orderly marketing agencies on their FPA renewal.
RULING ON AN EGG COMPLAINT HEARINGThe Hearings In 2000, the NFPC conducted an inquiry into a complaint received against the national egg agency's decision on quota allocation. The complaint arrived at the NFPC's office on March 24th. It came from Manitoba and Saskatchewan signatories to the national egg agreement. The complainants were the two provincial agricultural ministers, the two provincial government supervisory agencies and the two provincial egg boards. They complained against the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency's proposed 2000 quota allocation among the member provinces and territory. The Chairperson of the NFPC, upon receiving the complaint, appointed Vice Chairperson Ron O'Connor to chair a three-member Committee to inquire into it. The Committee held hearings in Ottawa on May 3rd and 4th. It heard economic, policy and legal arguments from the two complainants, from CEMA, and from others in the industry who were involved in setting the quota allocation, or who would be affected by it. Council member Lorraine Arnett:
The Findings Following the hearings, the Committee made its report. The report presented its conclusions on the arguments raised, presented observations on the scope of the discretion with which the agencies applied their criteria, noted the limits to this discretion, and acknowledged that the complainants had several strong and valid points that needed to be addressed so that the egg system could continue strong into the future. The Committee concluded by dismissing the complaint. Council then approved CEMA's proposed quota allocation order. However, in transmitting this approval, the NFPC made clear to CEMA and the egg system members its serious concerns on how CEMA was applying its criteria and the methodology by which it set its quota allocation. The Results CEMA and the egg industry took this issue seriously and instructed its Quota Allocation Committee to work out a new quota allocation methodology acceptable to all signatories of the National Agreement. A new methodology was hammered out and agreed to by the CEMA's Board of Directors in the autumn of 2000. Late in 2000 CEMA presented for NFPC approval new quota and levy orders covering the 2001 production year based on this new methodology. The NFPC prior-approved CEMA's 2001 quota order based on the positive direction of work completed to date.
Letter from the NFPC Chairperson to CEMA,
Promoting the Strength of the IndustriesRECOMMENDING A PROPOSED NEW BEEF AGENCYFor many years, beef cattle producers had been working on a proposal to create a new type of national agency: a promotion-research agency. In January 2000, their proposal arrived at the NFPC. The beef producers had been finalizing their proposal during 1999, consulting the various parts of the beef industry across the country. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association had the lead on drafting and taking expert advice from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. This special type of national research-promotion agency was allowed for under Section III of the Farm Products Agencies Act. The Act permitted this type of agency to be funded by a levy on product sales across provincial and Canadian borders, and it could permit this levy to be mandatory. The Act also named the NFPC as the federal body that would review the creation and operation of any such agency. No agency of this type had ever yet been created. But now, beef cattle producers were ready for one. The CCA presented a proposal to the NFPC, acting on behalf of ten other beef cattle associations across Canada. Then it was over to the NFPC. The Farm Products Agencies Act sets out the course of action for the NFPC. The NFPC must conduct an inquiry into the merits of establishing a research-promotion agency, see what benefits it might have, see what negative impacts it might have, gauge what support it has from the industry itself, and look at how it might realistically function. It must conduct at least one public hearing and call for submissions and comments. The Council Chairperson appointed three Council members to conduct public hearings into the merits of establishing a research, market development and promotion agency. These hearings were held in May and June in Calgary, Alberta, Etobicoke, Ontario and Pointe-Claire, Québec. The NFPC received and considered many comments and submissions. It carried out its own research and thinking. It wrapped together its findings in a Report on the Inquiry. The Report was formally adopted by the Council at its December meeting. Council member and beef hearing panel member Sandy McCurrach:
The National Farm Products Council concluded that there was merit in creating this agency. The Council sent its recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, namely that:
At the end of 2000, the NFPC was readying itself to work with the industry to build the operating details and legal requirements needed to make this agency a reality.
LOOKING AT INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTSIf you know what's over the horizon, then you can move towards potential opportunities or prepare a strong defence against potential problems. The NFPC aims to strengthen the industries with which it works, and part of that is keeping aware of what might be over the horizon that could affect the industries, and sharing that information with them. Council members and staff attend international conferences, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture Outlook Conference in February 2000 and the U.S. National Chicken Council meeting in Washington in October. During 2000, our work fell into two main areas:
We closely watched the WTO negotiations during 2000. We were included in de-briefings from Canada's negotiators and kept contact with the agricultural team based out of the International Trade Policy Division at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). Council members had regular updates on developments. We also carefully watched developments following the WTO decision on Canada's dairy export policies, with attention to possible implications for the poultry and egg orderly marketing systems and their programmes. We discussed the implementation of the decision with the Canadian Dairy Commission, the Department of Foreign Affairs & International Trade (DFAIT) and AAFC. On June 12, the Chairperson and Executive Director took part in a meeting at AAFC with DFAIT, the national egg agency and the national chicken agency to discuss the WTO dairy ruling and Canada's poultry and egg programmes. On the export awareness and readiness side, we followed up on the Poultry Meat Export Awareness Mission to Asia in 1999, which we had initiated and coordinated, and on the decision late in 1999 to form a Poultry and Egg Export Working Group. The Poultry Meat Export Working Group had its first meeting on January 31, 2000, bringing together chicken and turkey producers, processors, further processors, traders, the NFPC and officials from AAFC's Market Information and Services Branch. As mentioned earlier in this Review, our Executive Director was invited to the February 18 meeting of the Further Poultry Processors Association of Canada to give a presentation on the mission and seek FPPAC participation in the working group. On May 25, the NFPC and the Canadian Poultry & Egg Processors Council (CPEPC) co-hosted a meeting in Toronto to bring together poultry processors once again for a look at the approach to exporting. At that meeting, Council outlined the actions taken in the beef industry through the Canada Beef Export Federation as it moved into an export orientation that has resulted in positive increases in Canada's beef trade. On October 30, the NFPC invited some 20 industry leaders to a meeting of an expanded Export Working Group. Some successful poultry meat exporters shared their experiences. The participants talked over different perspectives on developing export markets. The Canada Beef Export Federation spoke about the beef industry's success in increasing the quantity and value of its exports, and offered to work cooperatively with the poultry industry in export markets. Information on this meeting was circulated in the NFPC and CPEPC newsletters. Following this meeting, we began to develop an action plan with industry input to effect the next steps in export marketing of poultry and egg products. One of the tasks was to research appropriate international food shows. One popped out from the rest: Tokyo's Foodex 2001, March 13-16. At the end of 2000, the NFPC had begun work on organizing poultry representation at the show at the Canadian government pavilion. The NFPC is part of Team Canada Inc., the 'virtual' trade agency that coordinates export development programmes, exporter information and other services to exporters offered by the government members and private sector partners. Our representatives attend the regular TCI Management Board meetings, where the members update each other and review progress on joint TCI activities. As a member organization, we took part in a consultant's survey on TCI governance. Another project in 2000 aimed to strengthen the industry by increasing export readiness and by opening export opportunities. This was to update poultry and egg listings on the federal SourceCAN directory. SourceCAN is a free e-business network operated by Industry Canada, where foreign and domestic buyers can directly find companies that provide Canadian products and services. We began a cooperative campaign with Industry Canada and the poultry and egg industry to make all industry companies aware of the directory and make sure that any company who wants to be listed has an up-to-date and complete profile.
GUIDING FARM PRODUCT GROUPS THROUGH THE APMAIt's not just about poultry and eggs, or even beef for us... ... the NFPC's work touches on other farm products as well. Wood, canola, flax, alfalfa, hogs, - all had APMA orders that the NFPC staff worked on in 2000. Sheep, potatoes - these industries had advice from the NFPC on the APMA during 2000. The 'APMA' is the Agricultural Products Marketing Act. It lets the federal government grant a farm product group certain powers over the marketings of a product across provincial or Canadian borders so long as a provincial government has already granted that group those powers over marketings within the province or territory. A farm product group has to get the process started by making an application under the APMA to the NFPC. The NFPC then guides the order through the federal evaluation and approvals process, coordinating with the sectoral group, other federal agencies and often a provincial government or two. The application has to provide the right kind and detail of information. The NFPC assesses the application's content and prepares it for legal review and approval, including evaluation of the client's legal powers under their provincial governments. At the same time, policy issues are evaluated by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Once an order receives approval, the NFPC prepares it for publication in the Canada Gazette, which puts it into effect. In 2000, the NFPC 'gazetted' six APMA orders, with another five in the works for 2001, as well as giving advice to other sectoral groups on the APMA, what it can do, what is needed for an application, and what the process is. To help make the APMA process simpler for sector groups, the NFPC launched an initiative in 2000 to produce a better, more convenient guide to the APMA. It also continued discussions with the Departments of Agriculture & Agri-Food, and of Justice, on better APMA administration, notably on regulatory requirements for publishing orders and regulations. The NFPC website, too, was turned to good use, with a new reference section on the APMA application process, so that sector groups could quickly get oriented no matter where they were in the country.
Improving Council OperationsVISIONING AND PLANNINGWhere will the NFPC be in three years? What will the industries be like? What will the orderly marketing systems be like? What about the other types of agencies within our mandate? What issues will be important for the industries with which we work? What will our work be like? And where do we want to be in three years - and what can we do to get there? These were the questions for our Strategic Vision exercise in 2000. It began with the Council members, widened through consultations with our partner groups in the government and in the agricultural sector, continued with full NFPC staff discussions and resulted in a Strategic Vision document. The Strategic Vision document was circulated throughout the industry and served as a good anchor point for our planning in the immediate and mid-term. On January 31, the exercise began with a two-day retreat by the Council members. They brainstormed on such questions as: What more could the NFPC do to make dispute resolution mechanisms in the industry more effective? What were the impacts of globalization on the industry and the orderly marketing system, both pressures and opportunities? Did our perception of this differ from that of the industry? Was there a rise of regionalism in the national orderly marketing systems and, if so, how ought we to respond to it? Some of the answers were pulled together in an action plan. This action plan, fused with the regular annual work planning, grew into our Strategic Vision document. The Strategic Vision set out the priorities for the NFPC for the following three years and the line of action we would take to address those priorities. The document was widely circulated through a mailing, publicized through our own outreach and industry newsletters, and was posted on our website in an updated Priorities section. The Strategic Vision and the long-term action plan could then frame our annual planning and priority setting. They would also help structure our accountability reporting. Every year, the NFPC makes two reports to Parliament - and 2000 was no different. The first, in early spring, is the Report on Plans and Priorities. It is based on the NFPC's annual strategic planning and it outlines plans, key target results and the needed associated resources for the following three-year period. The second is in the fall: a Performance Report on the previous year's accomplishments. The NFPC reports for 2000 appeared in the same publications as reporting from the Department of Agriculture & Agri-Food.
INTEGRATING EFFORTS WITH FEDERAL PARTNERSThe NFPC works within the federal agriculture portfolio with the other portfolio agencies, as well as with other federal agencies whose work coincides with our own. The idea is to coordinate, rather than duplicate or leave gaps in the value we bring to the public and the commodity groups Council deals with. The National Farm Products Council is very conscious of its responsibility to fulfill the duties and role assigned to it by Parliament. There is also the recognition of a responsibility to serve the needs of citizens. The Council is an integral and active member in the government's agriculture and rural portfolio supporting the initiatives and programs of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The NFPC has a close administrative relationship with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). As mentioned in an earlier section of this Review, the NFPC reports to Parliament are included in the AAFC's reports. The NFPC receives various administrative support from AAFC. The NFPC also relies on the technical staff at the AAFC to keep our website functioning, and functioning well, for our web visitors, plus two-way linking between the AAFC and the NFPC to direct visitors to the information and contact coordinates they need from either organization. The Council's members and staff draw on their intimate knowledge of the operations of the four national agencies and developments in the various farm product industries to provide briefings, advice and analysis to other government departments and agencies as requested throughout the year. The NFPC participates in planning and policy discussions connected to our mandate, providing the other portfolios with briefing notes and advice on policy or speeches. NFPC representatives take part in regular meetings with AAFC and other agriculture portfolio officials on management, administration, informatics and communication outreach. Special to 2000, and mentioned earlier in this Review, the NFPC worked with the AAFC, along with Justice Canada, to streamline the APMA approvals process, to simplify and speed up the turnaround to the commodity groups. The NFPC also explored with Justice Canada and the Privy Council Office ways to streamline the processing of orderly marketing agency orders and regulations. The result: a more convenient, less expensive process for the national agencies was to be put in place during 2001. Tracking WTO and international agriculture developments is another area of joint effort. As mentioned earlier in this Review, AAFC and NFPC stayed close on the WTO negotiations, and both met with the Canadian Dairy Commission during 2000 on the WTO's ruling over the dairy export programmes. The NFPC also contributes to the programmes of foreign agricultural delegations coordinated by AAFC. This year, delegations from Poland and Costa Rica had presentations from the NFPC on Canada's orderly marketing systems and government policy. The NFPC joined the portfolio on specific project initiatives, such as the Youth Opportunities Programme, including publicizing the programme with the industries closest to us and joining in to produce a pamphlet and special website where young people could get more information about the programme. Another project linked the NFPC, AAFC and the broiler hatching egg agency to begin construction of a more accessible poultry database, which will help to ground decisions, and thinking, on a more common basis. The NFPC also joined in federal-wide meetings, and worked on wider federal issues and projects with other federal agencies. Some examples have been described earlier in this Review: how the NFPC brought its expertise to the team led by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade on chicken imports. Or how the NFPC is an active member of Team Canada Inc. on export awareness and services to exporters. Or the NFPC's work with Industry Canada on the SourceCAN exporters' directory. The NFPC joins, too, on government-wide initiatives, such as the Government On Line initiative to make more complete use of new technologies to deliver services, or the Common Look & Feel initiative to help web visitors navigate better through federal government web resources.
EXPLAINING OUR ROLE"Does the National Farm Products Council look after all farm products?" "What is orderly marketing?" "How does the orderly marketing system work - and what does the NFPC have to do with it?" "How will what's going on internationally affect how these systems operate at home?" "I'm looking to sell several tonnes of soybeans - are you buying?" "I'm looking to buy pine nuts - can you sell me any?" ...and "Are there really such things as green eggs?" These are only some of the questions that came to the NFPC during 2000! Some came through regular meetings and contacts by the Council members and staff. Some came by FAXed or mailed letter. And some came through the NFPC website. The NFPC puts great importance on providing value-added information: information that is not being provided elsewhere, or direction to where to find the right information. The NFPC uses many tools to explain what our role, who we are, what it does and what it all means. These include: the website; the biweekly FOCUS newsletter; the monthly updates to the Minister of Agriculture & Agri-Food and to the other agriculture portfolio members; media interviews; articles in industry press; guideline booklets; and presentations both at the NFPC headquarters and farther afield. In 2000, the NFPC steadily improved its website, notably with new sections on the beef cattle agency proposal, on the legislation under which we work, on the APMA and application process, and on promotion-research agencies in general. In the autumn, Council also launched a quicker web report on the outcome of Council meetings. Work also began on planning and implementing the design and functional changes required under the new federal Common Look & Feel campaign for federal websites. We also improved how web visitors were led to our website by improving how the Internet search engines found and featured our site. We made it easier up-front for visitors to understand what our site was about, and offered quick and easy links to redirect their questions to sites more likely to have the answers they were looking for. Thanks to these improvements, the number of lost web visitors or misdirected questions dropped dramatically. This freed up network resources, saved staff time redirecting visitors and saved lost info-seekers much frustration. The website featured several documents that were also distributed and made available in paper format: the Strategic Vision document; notices and information about the beef agency hearings and evaluation process; and the Agrifacts info sheets that give an overview of the poultry and egg industries and good sources of data. The website also featured our speeches and presentations through 2000, often with the accompanying visuals. These presentations were a big part of the NFPC outreach in 2000. Council representatives went out to most of the provincial-level orderly marketing commodity annual meetings across the country. And several were invited to make presentations, including at the national agency annual general meetings in the spring. As has been mentioned earlier in this Review, the NFPC organized special presentations to the industries on exporting, on the Poultry Meat Export Awareness Mission to Asia in 1999, and on WTO developments. We also made presentations on the orderly marketing system to foreign delegations to Canada. One other large presentation was to the combined Canadian and U.S. bankers' associations at their conference on agriculture, held in Winnipeg at the end of September. This was at the request of the American bankers, who had heard much about this Canadian 'orderly marketing' and wanted to know more. It was also a good orientation for many of the Canadians there. After the presentation, several of the U.S. bankers wanted to know how they could get some orderly marketing systems in place in the U.S., too! These were some of the ways the NFPC answered these questions of who the NFPC is, how the orderly marketing systems benefit Canadians, where to get information on buying and selling various farm products - and the whole range of questions put to us. Including the fact that, yes, there really are green eggs...
OPERATING BETTERAs part of the NFPC's planning, and aim to provide value, we looked at ways to improve the effectiveness and value of its own operation. Budgeting 2000 saw a better link to the financial planning services provided to us by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, following an agreement in 1999. Corporate Services Branch now provides this service, giving the NFPC a direct link to the central budgeting branch and more direct access to central planning information. Review of Vote Status The NFPC completed its review begun in 1999 of the route by which the Council receives its budget from Parliament, otherwise known as its 'Vote Status'. The decision was to continue the existing arrangement, with the NFPC receiving its budget through AAFC rather than separately from Treasury Board. NFPC-AAFC MOU During 2000, we began work to develop a Memorandum of Understanding with AAFC to set out clearly what services and service levels AAFC provides to the NFPC. This work will continue in the next year. NFPC-PSC MOU Another MOU the NFPC was working on in 2000, was one with the Public Service Commission on issues of accountability during staff hiring. The PSC is entering into agreements with all departments and agencies with respect to accountability to PSC and Treasury Board of delegated staffing authorities. It was expected that the NFPC would enter into an MOU with the PSC in 2001. Staffing Actions For the first part of 2000, two NFPC staff members were finishing job exchanges with the AAFC to increase their knowledge and tighten working relations with the Department. One was with the AAFC's poultry policy division and the other with the AAFC's informatics team. Another staff position was regularized from a long-term acting status to a permanent basis. Throughout the year, several people were selected and brought in to keep the NFPC up to full contingent during temporary vacancies.
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
 PUBLICATIONS
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
