Farmers and other grain industry players can now go on-line to put in their two cents’ worth on the future of the Canadian Grain Commission.
The consulting company hired by Agriculture Canada to conduct a review of the commission has posted a questionnaire on its website looking for feedback on issues involving the grain industry regulator.
The questions cover virtually every aspect of commission operations, including grading, quality control, varietal registration, licensing, producer cars, liability, dispute resolution and governance.
“Everything is on the table,” said Tom Askin, director of Agriculture Canada’s grain policy division.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
One of the consultants involved in the review urged farmers to participate by filling out the questionnaire.
“I would hope that producers take a keen interest in it,” said Tom Halpenny of Triticum Management Consulting in Saskatoon.
He said the commission establishes the regulatory framework and quality assurance system for the grain industry and producers bear the costs associated with its policies and programs.
“It may seem distant from the farmgate and other pressures that farmers are facing, but the impacts are substantial and real and they relate directly to our competitive position in the global marketplace.”
Blair Rutter of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association said it’s time the commission and the federal legislation that governs it were overhauled.
“This review is long overdue and we certainly need to make sure the commission is acting in the best interests of producers,” he said.
The questionnaire results will be the basis for a discussion paper identifying key issues and concerns, which will be released around the end of May.
In June, the consultants are planning to hold 10 public meetings across Canada, including two in each prairie province, to obtain more feedback, before submitting a report and recommendations to the federal agriculture minister.
The commission and its governing legislation have been criticized in recent years. Grain companies complain about outdated regulations that stifle innovation and efficiency, and cost everyone in the system money.
A number of farm groups say the commission has been paying too much attention to the interests of the grain trade and not enough to protecting farmers.
The questionnaire is available at www.compas.ca/grain, the website of Compas, a Toronto public opinion research company that is conducting the review with Triticum.
Last year Parliament passed a bill requiring Agriculture Canada to organize an independent review of the grain commission and the Canada Grain Act by Aug. 1, 2006.
Compas has held face-to-face meetings with major stakeholders such as the Western Grain Elevators Association and the Canadian Wheat Board and e-mailed notices to a number of farm organizations inviting them to participate in the questionnaire.
It hasn’t publicized the site directly to farmers, but Halpenny said their input is welcome.
Many of the survey questions are open ended, asking participants to express their views on broad issues such as whose interest the commission should serve, challenges facing the industry in the coming decade, Canada’s role in world grain markets and how the commission can be improved.
It also asks users to grade the performance of the commission, the act and the grain industry in specific policy areas.
Askin said consensus on most issues is unlikely.
“Where there isn’t consensus, Compas will have to come up with recommendations on what to do,” he said.
In its meeting with Compas, the wheat board emphasized that the commission’s primary mandate should be to protect farmers’ interests through its management of the grain quality assurance system.
The board also said adequate government funding is crucial to enable the commission to focus on quality assurance and farmer protection issues, rather then continuing the shift toward revenue-generating activities.
It said the commission must be closely involved in varietal registration and grain grading.
The board supported several changes, such as altering the governance structure from government appointed commissioners to a chief executive officer and board of directors, and allowing certain services, such as inward inspection and weighing, to be farmed out to private grain inspection companies that have been certified by the commission.
Rutter said that while the guiding principle must be for the commission to operate in a way that meets the needs of producers, that doesn’t mean always siding with farmers in the event of disputes with grain companies.
“It has to meet the needs of producers and the industry as well,” he said, citing the example of cases where farmers have willfully misrepresented grain.
Among other things, the WCWGA wants bonding and licensing to be made optional, the elimination of kernel visual distinguishability from the grading system and an updated governance system.
