There’s only one way to know whether farmers are benefiting from changes to the grain handling and transportation system, say a number of prairie farm groups.
Ask them.
But it’s unclear whether the federally appointed grain monitor is prepared to survey farmers about whether those changes are putting more money in their pockets.
“At the end of the day we might find the only way is with a survey,” said Mark Hemmes, president of Quorum Corporation.
“But we’re not sure we’re there yet.”
Read Also
Federal government supports soil health strategy
Sophie Beecher, director general at Agriculture Canada, said at a soil conference in Winnipeg that the feds support the idea of a national soil health strategy.
The federal government hired the Edmonton consulting company last summer to gather information on how well the grain system is working.
One of its jobs is to assess the extent to which efficiency gains and savings are being passed back through the system to farmers.
Many farm groups think that calculating what is being called the “producer netback” is perhaps the most important part of the job.
“We were promised as an industry by the federal government that they were going to monitor whether in fact farmers are better off,” said Ian McCreary, a Canadian Wheat Board director who has been involved in discussions on the issue.
Farmers were told last year that the railway revenue cap would reduce costs by $5 a tonne. Meanwhile, the maximum freight rate scale increased by 3.5 percent Aug. 1.
Information about freight rates and handling tariffs is made public, but in many cases those numbers don’t reflect the actual rates paid by producers.
At the same time, there are no data on items such as farmers’ grain trucking costs or new investment in bins or equipment.
“We feel the only way to get that is to get information directly from farmers,” McCreary said.
Jim Hallick of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities said most farmers are aware of how much their grain handling and transportation costs have gone up in the last few years.
If the monitor’s report doesn’t reflect that on-farm reality, he warned, the credibility of the entire exercise will be undermined.
“When the report comes down, I as a producer have to feel confident that they’ve looked at all the numbers and this is in fact my true netback,” Hallick said.
Quorum has completed a draft report on the netback issue and will soon submit its findings to the federal transport minister, Hemmes said.
The company has held extensive consultations over the past couple of months with farm groups and others in the industry and Hemmes said opinion is divided on whether a survey is needed.
One side says farmers are sick and tired of being surveyed and the monitor should find other ways to get the data. The other says the only way to get the true picture is to look at producers’ ledger books.
Under its terms of reference from the federal government, Quorum isn’t authorized to carry out surveys. However, Hemmes said that has to be balanced against the monitor’s mandate to collect valid and accurate
information.
“At the end of the day the federal government will set the design,” he said. “It’s their call.”
Glenn Annand of the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers Association thinks the monitor’s terms of reference can be interpreted to support a farmer survey.
“They were supposed to give us the answer whether producers are better off or worse off,” he said.
“If they don’t come out with good information, then that question won’t really be answered and I think they realize that, too.”
Hemmes agreed it’s vital that the monitor’s report have credibility with farmers, but he cautioned that no matter what method is used, the numbers that come out at the end of the day are bound to differ from particular farmers’ situations.
“Trying to find a total composite number that’s going to apply broadly to the producer, you’re looking for a utopian measure that just does not and will not exist.”
