Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2010/02/16/12895161.html

before long they'll be asking for another 300m saying they can't afford to go on. tobacco is giving the rest of ag a bad name with their hands always out. time to let them find other crops on their own.

Ontario tobacco growers who took federal buyout money are exploiting loopholes to keep growing the crop, an anti-smoking lobby charges.

While virtually every Ontario producer took the buyout last year, the province still produced the same size crop in 2009 as it did in 2008 before the incentive to get out of the business kicked in.

If the program isn't getting growers out of the industry, it's "a colossal waste of money," says the federal Liberal health critic.

"Even if it follows the letter of the law, it's not the spirit," said Toronto MP Carolyn Bennett, a doctor. "I don't think the auditor-general would be happy with the way the government is spending this money."

Tobacco farmers were paid $286 million in compensation last year when the tobacco production quota system was scrapped and replaced with a new licensing system.

All but 18 growers took the buyout, averaging about $275,000, agreeing never to grow tobacco again.

But 118 growers were licensed last summer under the new system and an estimated 22-million-pound crop was produced, the same as in 2008.

Many people who hold the new tobacco licences struck deals with experienced growers who took the buyout, said Neil Collishaw of Ottawa-based Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada.

"Licences have been issued to non-farmers, sometimes living in distant communities, who provide legal cover to tobacco farmers who have been paid to stop growing tobacco, but are continuing to farm the same quantities on the same land," he said.

Collishaw said people have told him about tobacco farmers growing the crop for relatives or friends who are tobacco licence holders.

The Free Press was contacted by a former grower and a neighbour of a grower who confirmed Collishaw's claims about loopholes.

But Fred Neukamm, chairperson of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Grower Marketing Board, said the buyout program wasn't aimed at eliminating all tobacco production in Canada.

He said growers who took the buyout are legally allowed to work for a licence holder.

With a major investment in tobacco land and equipment, he said, many growers had no viable alternative crop.

"People are stuck with debt and stranded infrastructure with no viable transitional opportunities, so they are forced to seek employment," Neukamm said.

Last May, an Agriculture Canada deputy minister sent a letter to the tobacco board advising that farmers who took the buyout could work for a licence holder if the relationship was at "arm's length" and any payments for services were at "fair market value."

Agriculture Canada's Patrick Girard said the quota buyout program was put in place "to assist those farmers exiting the program to pursue new opportunities in agriculture."

He said any farmer who breaches the buyout program's conditions will have to repay the assistance they received, plus interest.

Last April, federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz moved to tighten up the buyout program by requiring licence holders to sign a declaration saying they're not receiving money from the quota buyout program.

Farmers who took the buyout couldn't be a partner or shareholder in a licensed tobacco operation.

But Collishaw said former growers still have the chance to get lucrative salaries from licensees to grow the crop.

The tobacco licensees were also eligible for a federal interest-free advance payout program offered to agricultural producers.

Neukamm said the tobacco board is working "rigorously" to prevent any abuse of the system, requiring full disclosure from licence holders who rent land or equipment from a farmer who took the buyout.

The tobacco marketing board, which once served the interests of thousands of tobacco growers, is now a small government-appointed agency that oversees and enforces tobacco licensing. Its employees have shrunk from 15 to two and its Tillsonburg headquarters has been sold.

Neukamm said Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada appeared to be on a "witch hunt" for tobacco farmers and should devote more effort to urging the federal government to curb the growing market for untaxed contraband tobacco.

Collishaw said the number of tobacco licences granted in Ontario is likely to grow next year.

Neukamm said more licences are possible because the production of Ontario tobacco lags behind the demand by manufacturers serving the Canadian market.

Views: 386

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

what happened here will make it difficult for a good longterm planning for the futhure of all agriculture supported by our prov. and federal treasures.
any program will need a clause to protect the programs from legal abuse of the system.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

2025-2026 Year in Review Showcases Impacts of Beef Producer Investments

What have your investments in the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off accomplished for the industry lately? The Beef Cattle Research Council’s 2025–2026 Year in Review highlights how producer investments and input are advancing research, addressing industry priorities and delivering practical value back to Canada’s beef producers. “The BCRC continues to enhance coordination across the broader beef system, bringing researchers and industry groups together so we can make the best use of limited resources and move solutions and benefits to producers more quickly,” said BCRC Executive Director Tracy Herbert. “The BCRC’s collaborative approach is essential as we address complex challenges and position the Canadian beef industry for long-term success.”   The 2025-2026 BCRC Year in Review provides a broad funding overview by program area and source. In the past fiscal year, the BCRC received on average $0.66 (unaudited) of every $2.50 of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off collected by provincial

Pre-harvest products and how to use them

Canola growers have three primary reasons for a pre-harvest spray application: Weed control ???????Desiccation Manage uneven crop ??????????????Use scenarios for pre-harvest spray Weed control Pre-harvest can be a good time to manage weeds, especially when straight combining. The act of swathing and curing can also provide weed control. Effective control is challenging on big weeds: apply product at the recommended rate with high water volumes to penetrate the crop canopy and achieve thorough coverage. Note: Set reasonable expectations on preventing seed set. Charles Geddes, weed management scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Lethbridge, Alberta, says: “There is no easy way to tell if weeds will have mature seed, but in my experience, it happens earlier than one might think. I suggest that the latest a weed should be left is until it is flowering. Once it starts to flower, then some of the seed can mature on the plant after it is terminated. From a weed management p

Pre-harvest glyphosate staging tips help produce market-ready crops

As harvest approaches, Keep it Clean is reminding Canadian canola, cereal and pulse growers to follow proper staging practices for pre-harvest glyphosate application to help protect crop marketability and preserve access to domestic and export markets. Applying pre-harvest glyphosate for weed control too early can result in unacceptable product residues in harvested grain. Keep it Clean’s Pre-Harvest Glyphosate Staging Guide provides visual examples to help growers identify when grain moisture content in canola, cereals and pulses is less than 30 per cent – the only stage at which pre-harvest glyphosate may be applied. Where allowed, glyphosate is registered for pre-harvest weed control and is not to be used as a desiccant. Pre-harvest glyphosate may only be applied when grain moisture content is less than 30 per cent in the least mature part of the field, including any areas of regrowth that may produce seed. “Glyphosate is an important tool in the grower’s toolbox for crop manage

Safeguarding Cereals Against Allergens

Maintaining a reputation for clean, safe grain is essential for both domestic and international markets. Shipments contaminated with allergenic grains can lead to costly rejections, recalls and long-term damage to market confidence. Unintentional mingling of allergenic grains with cereals is a concern for export markets and must be actively managed.  Certain crop types can be allergen sources in our export markets. When these crops are unintentionally mixed with cereals, they can pose serious food safety and market access risks.   Common allergen sources in grain exports include:  Mustard   Soy   Buckwheat   Buckwheat is considered highly allergenic, and even very small amounts mixed into wheat, barley or oats can cause severe reactions in some markets. Because of these risks, many export markets apply strict limits for allergenic material in cereal shipments.  How allergens can contaminate grain  Allergen contamination most often occurs through shared equipment and handling system

Canada Launches First Private Forest Owner Survey in Over 20 Years, Farmers Invited to Participate

Canadian farmers who own woodlots or private forests are being asked to participate in the first national survey of private forest owners in more than 20 years.

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service