One of Ontario’s most influential farm lobby groups has lobbed a
broadside at Agriculture Canada’s style of consulting with farmers,
suggesting it is making too many decisions unilaterally or with too
narrow a group.
“Where can we go from here?” asked the Ontario Corn Producers’
Association in the February issue of its magazine Ontario Corn Producer.
“Will (Agriculture Canada) and its minister get back to the proven
formula of meaningful consultation with producer representatives chosen
Read Also
University of Saskatchewan experts helping ‘herders’ in Mongolia
The Canadian government and the University of Saskatchewan are part of a $10 million project trying to help Mongolian farmers modernize their practices.
by producer organizations where no one national general farm group
dominates the process? Or must we revert to an even older formula where
the main role for farm groups is to criticize from the outside and
throw stones?”
It was a shot both at the federal department and its close ties to the
Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
In Ottawa, a representative of the new lobby kid on the block, Grain
Growers of Canada, agreed there is a problem with the department’s
consultation process.
“I think the government has retracted some of the consultation
tentacles it had and they are doing a lot more policy discussions
in-house,” said GGC executive director Kevin Muxlow. He said he would
not comment on Agriculture Canada’s reliance on the CFA for advice.
Muxlow said his group, formed in 1999 as a national voice for grain
growers outside the CFA and including the Ontario corn producers as a
member, has had good access to the federal department.
It also is one of many groups with a representative on the federal
safety nets advisory committee.
But he said the federal government appears to be coming to farm groups
more frequently with detailed proposals that call for endorsement
rather than development.
He said agriculture policy consultations appear to be including a much
broader array of interests.
“It’s almost like Agriculture Canada might be pulling out of its old
consultation ways with producers and then will throw it out to broader
consultations and that has serious implications for us,” said Muxlow.
The Ontario corn producers used as its evidence of Agriculture Canada’s
changed attitude the decision in the late 1990s to quit funding the
National Agriculture Environment Committee and a narrowing of producer
group representation on the safety nets committee.
In the past the government consulted broadly with the farm sector, said
the Corn Producer editorial.
“But this approach appears to have lost favour within (Agriculture
Canada), with recent federal agriculture policies either being set
unilaterally in Ottawa or after token consultation, often with
individuals chosen directly by the minister or departmental staff,
rather than by the industry itself.”
Corn producers say a prime example is Ottawa’s proposal for a new
national risk management program linked to environment and food safety
but with no link to the damage caused by United States subsidies.
“There was no pre-consultation with the provinces or producer groups or
even with the CFA,” said the editorial. “And the new program ignores
the special needs of grain and oilseeds producers.”
