The Rural Voice, 2001-08, Page 65BRUCE
Ema brute@ofa.on.ca
website: www.ofa.on.ca'bruce
County Federation of Agriculture NEWSLETTER
Agricorp crop insurance - forage insurance
446 10th St., Hanover, Ontario N4N 1P9
519-364-3050 or 1-800-275-9551
• The Rural Voice is provided to Bruce
County Farmers by the BCFA.
On May 10 and II, 2001, on
behalf of 38 farmers from Grey and
Bruce Counties, Harriet Ellicott, and
myself (Allan Smith) with the
assistance of Gertie Blake, OFA
Field Service Representative, entered
into a class action appeal under the
Crop Insurance Act for hay and
forage for the 1999 crop year.
This was heard according to
regulation by Ontario Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Appeal Tribunal with John Taylor,
Vice Chair, Murray Cardiff and
Ralph Huckle members.
Documentation of allowable evidence
of approximately 130 pages was
provided on behalf of the claimants
showing the numerous inaccuracies
of information used by AgriCorp
including the measuring of fields and
weighing of hay on co-operative
farms, or where the data for Symfoy
came from. In one instance, sunshine
hours were obtained from Sudbury
for one whole month. With all of the
errors shown in our appeal, it appears
as if the Tribunal, while sympathetic
to our problems with AgriCorp,
continues to uphold AgriCorp's
statement that "NO FARMER HAS
EVER WON AN APPEAL ON
FORAGE INSURANCE-.
Comments from the Tribunal
Decision:
• "The Tribunal recommended in
May 1999 that AgriCorp standardize
the use of common rain gauges for all
clients tied to the same main station.
It is reprehensible that to date, no one
from AgriCorp can verify that this is
now a present practice".
• We also objected to the way co-
operator farmers' yields were taken.
This accounts for 50 per cent of first
cut yield. The Tribunal remarks were:
"The appellants objections regarding
these practices are consistent with the
recommendations in the excerpt of
the Provincial Auditors Special
Report".
• "The Tribunal finds that the
maximum of two soil samples taken
for each county at the beginning of
the growing season is too few for
such a large area. The Tribunal is
62 THE RURAL VOICE
concerned that soil sampling on this
scale would not accurately represent
the moisture -holding capacity of the
variety of soils that may be found in
such a large area."
• In regard to the failure to notify
clients of the change from the Paisley
Main Station (closed in October
1992) to data substituted from the
Tara Main Station — "The Tribunal
agrees with the appellant that the lack
of notification regarding the station
change is indicative of negligence on
the part of AgriCorp".
• "While the evidence in this hearing
does not support an order changing
the settlements made with the insured
or the decisions to make no
settlements, nevertheless we do find
that the appellants mounted a serious
challenge to AgriCorp. This
challenge not only emphasized the
serious shortcomings of the forage
crop insurance plan, but it became a
very effective challenge to the data
that AgriCorp was gathering to make
the determination as to whether there
was an insurable loss to this area."
After all this we come down to the
Tribunal decision which was to deny
our appeal for the following reasons:
1. Though AgriCorp continued to
identify Paisley and its corresponding
number as a main station from which
data was recorded, even after its
actual closure in 1991, the Tribunal
does not believe that this action
constitutes a breach of contract.
2. AgriCorp administered the plan
consistent to the explanation given to
clients at the time the plan was
purchased and as explained by the
AgriCorp Sales Representative and
published leaflet and brochure.
3. When an error was found,
AgriCorp took steps to correct it and
did not request a refund for any
BRUCE COUNTY FEDERATION OF
AGRICULTURE
DIRECTORS' MEETING
MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2001
8:00 P.M.
Sprucedale Agromart
R.R. #2, Walkerton
25th sideroad Brant (north off of former
Hwy #4 - east of Walkerton)
MEMBERS ARE WELCOME TO ATTEND
monies overpaid on claims.
4. The administration of the plan
for the Grey/Bruce group of
appellants, was no different than for
other clients in Ontario.
The Grey -Bruce 1998 Drought
Committee requested many of our
municipalities to declare areas of the
region a disaster in an attempt to
obtain financial assistance. The
municipalities were very co-operative
and most of the Grey -Bruce region
was declared a disaster area.
However, when we approached our
politicians for assistance their
remarks were that there was crop
insurance coverage available. This
prompted many area farmers to take
out forage insurance coverage in
1999. The number of clients in the
forage insurance program in Grey
and Bruce increased from about 26 in
1998 to approximately 200 in 1999.
As can be seen, the Tribunal
appeal decision confirms kk hat we
pointed out to our elected members.
that the forage insurance program
does NOT serve the needs of our
farmers and must'be changed.
After attending the two days of
hearings and providing proof of
numerous errors of computer input
into the program by AgriCorp, and as
a member of the 1998 Grey -Bruce
Drought Committee, I myself am
completely disillusioned by the
OMAFRA appeal tribunal process
and decision.0
- Submitted by Allan Smith
OFA Regional Director Bruce North
BRUCE COUNTY FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
60th Annual Meeting
and Banquet and
OFA Regional Meeting
Friday, October 26, 2001
Bruce Township Community Centre
(Underwood)
Social: 6:30 p.m. Dinner 7:00 p.m.
Guest Speaker:
Honourable Eugene F. Whelan
Former Federal Minister of Agriculture
and Food
NOTE: OFA Regional Directors,
Delegates and Alternates for OFA
Convention, and GCFA Presidents will
be elected at the meeting.