LONDON, Ont. – A three week round of public consultations into a possible revamp of the Canadian Grain Commission and its legislation kicked off in Ontario June 12 with a small crowd but some strong opinions.
The commission should contract inspection work out to private individuals to reduce costs and increase efficiency, the group told Compas research company president Conrad Winn, hired by Agriculture Canada to lead the consultation.
“I think competition would be good for the commission,” said Goderich terminal operator Don Henry. “I think it could reduce costs and improve service.”
Read Also
Land crash warning rejected
A technical analyst believes that Saskatchewan land values could be due for a correction, but land owners and FCC say supply/demand fundamentals drive land prices – not mathematical models
And the politically appointed assistant grain commissioner position should be abolished, said the group.
Ron Campbell of the Ontario Agribusiness Association that represents elevator interests as part of its membership said the grain commission needs a more modern and accountable management structure to replace the existing commissioner system.
The assistant grain commissioner for Ontario, a political appointment, serves little function, he said. There also are assistant commissioners in Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
“I guess they are supposed to be a liaison between the commission and the industry but frankly if I have a problem, I will go directly to commission staff,” Campbell said in an interview. “In modern governance we need accountability and I don’t think having a political appointment as part of the process contributes to accountability.”
The most contentious issue was a proposal in the discussion paper that the section of the Canada Grains Act giving the commission the mandate to act “in the interests of producers” be removed so that the commission understands it acts in the interests of the entire grain industry.
Henry said highlighting only producer interests in the legislation is a problem.
“There is a perceived bias,” he said. When grain is graded in the country, the most optimistic grade can be assigned because it benefits the producer, but then that grade can be reduced at the terminal because the export customer must be satisfied.
“I’m not sure a bias toward the farmer is helpful to the farmer, the industry or the customer,” he said. “I don’t think there should be bias one way or the other.”
Kevin Marriott, a corn and soybean producer from Petrolia, Ont., jumped in to argue that rather than a pro-farmer bias under the legislation, producers have lost some power over the years as grades are set in terminals hundreds of kilometres from the farm rather than at a country elevator close by where it could be challenged.
“If anything, I think we have lost some sway in the past decades and I don’t see the farmer bias,” he said.
Later, grain commission chief executive officer Gordon Miles said in an interview the commission does not see the legislation as requiring a bias toward farmer interests but rather recognizing that it is in farmers’ interests to have a healthy industry.
“I think as a third party we are balanced.”
Just eight producer and elevator company representatives turned up for the sole Ontario meeting of the three-week series of public meetings. This week, Winn heads west where attendance and passion over the issues are expected to be higher.
Walkerton area producer Jim Gowland said the low attendance was a sign that grain commission reform is not a pivotal issue in Ontario, where its reach is far smaller than on the Prairies.
However, Winn expects it is in part reflective of industry skepticism that reform really is in the cards.
