Donna Welke has one major concern as she prepares to leave her job at the Canadian Grain Commission- and it’s not about her own future.
It’s about the farmers she will leave behind when her 12-year tenure as assistant commissioner in Saskatchewan ends Dec. 12.
“My major disappointment would be if no one replaced me because I think there’s value in this position,” she said in a recent interview.
A vacancy in the Manitoba office wasn’t filled after it came open in December. And a report released last month has recommended a grain farmer advocacy office replace provincial assistant commissioners.
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
But Welke said the workload is increasing beyond the capacity of an advocate.
“Only the real entrenched problems came to me in 1994,” she said, estimating the number of those at 100. “Last year, there were 1,619 issues.”
The number of producers involved would be much higher because she tracks issues or concerns rather than farmer numbers.
The escalating workload is likely a result of industry changes that happened during Welke’s term.
She was the first female appointed as an assistant commissioner in 1994 by then agriculture minister Ralph Goodale.
Since then, grain elevators have tumbled and rail lines have been abandoned. Producers who usually worked things out with their elevator agent or grain company member relations’ officer could no longer do that.
Trucking distances increased and many switched to commercial truckers.
“As the elevators went down, the understanding of producers, the ability to access their rights at the elevator, changed,” Welke said. “The delivery system changed. They weren’t handling their own grain. The sample has to be agreed upon on the driveway. The producer wasn’t there.”
Sometimes the grain company hired the trucker. Other times, the farmer did. This put truckers on the spot when it came to agreeing on the sample.
The end of the Crow freight subsidy led to questions about who owns dockage. It wasn’t an issue when the grain companies owned it and cleaned grain at port, but it became one when cleaning on the Prairies became more common. Farmers still pay freight on the gross amount of grain but get paid on the net, Welke said.
These things vastly changed Welke’s role, and there was no manual to fall back on.
Calls poured in from groups considering buying elevators or establishing short-line railways. They wanted to know if the CGC could help.
“I learned more about producer cars than I ever thought I would,” Welke said.
She and farmers found that they didn’t necessarily understand the grain delivery system as well as they thought.
Contracting pulses presented other challenges. Farmers who previously conducted business on a handshake learned they needed to write protection for themselves into the deals. Welke developed a presentation on producer rights and responsibilities.
“I’ve become absolutely convinced that farmers would be at a disadvantage if they had to market wheat and durum by contract,” she said.
Farmers are not on a level playing field with grain companies and if there is a dispute, any method of resolution is expensive, she added.
