As one of the newer kids on the farm lobbyist block, Grain Growers of
Canada has had quite a year.
It has established itself as an effective Ottawa lobby. It has been the
engine
driving one of the hottest farm issues around these days – the call for
a federal trade injury compensation program.
And it has seen other well-established farm groups signing on as allies.
Politicians, like other farm leaders, have taken note. Not bad for a
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
one year old.
In April 2001, the newly formed national coalition of grain groups
opened its Ottawa office.
Like all new organizations, it hoped for visibility, credibility and an
issue or two to set it apart from the rest.
All of those came in spades, aided in large part by an Agriculture
Canada decision last November to use the GGC annual meeting to unveil
some analysis indicating foreign subsidies play a significant role in
depressing grain prices.
The grain growers’ lobby saw its opportunity.
It did its homework, attached a number to that “trade hurt” and
demanded that Ottawa pay for it, since it is responsible for trade and
foreign affairs.
“We have stayed focused, stuck to our issue,” says GGC executive
director Kevin Muxlow, an articulate and energetic promoter of the
cause. “And we have succeeded in making it an issue in this place, an
issue that I don’t think the government can ignore.”
Indeed, by February the Canadian Federation of Agriculture realized the
trade injury compensation proposal was a good one. The CFA had been
spending most of its time working on the government’s emerging
long-term strategy. But there were growing concerns the government
would use extended negotiations to avoid more immediate farm income
needs.
The trade compensation proposal was an attractive vehicle to demand
short-term aid without becoming mired in the government’s opposition to
“ad hoc, passive” subsidies. This was a trade issue.
At the CFA annual meeting in Halifax, Agricultural Producers
Association of Saskatchewan worked hard to win convention approval for
the idea. APAS, also a new lobby kid on the block that has had a decent
first year, then worked hard to get CFA and GGC leaders together.
On April 11, CFA president Bob Friesen formally announced his
organization’s partnership with GGC to promote the idea. It was a
credibility coup for the nascent grain growers’ lobby.
It did not end there. On April 26, Canada’s supply managed sectors
publicly endorsed the proposal. “Those are unlikely allies,” noted
Muxlow.
The irony in that alliance is that one of the reasons grain growers
felt they needed their own national organization was their belief that
CFA undermined its credibility in fighting for freer trade for export
sectors by also defending protectionist rules for supply management.
GGC members such as Western Canadian Wheat Growers and Alberta barley
growers also will want to press for a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board –
an orderly marketing issue that will divide GGC from its new-found
allies.
But that is an issue for another day.
For now, the lobby group can bask in the fact that after just one year,
it is driving the agenda in the agricultural debate.
