FARMERS should be happy about proposals for updating the grain industry’s cop on the beat, the Canadian Grain Commission.
Like the beat cop of old, the commission has patrolled the grain industry, a crowded street where farmers, brokers, buyers, elevator companies and exporters interact, often with some mutual distrust.
The CGC cop was there to uphold standards, settle disputes and look out for the little guy, namely the farmer.
Over time, the street gained complexity, volume and speed, but the increasingly ill-equipped CGC, whose founding legislation dates back 100 years, fell behind.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
So the CGC review, now referred to the House of Commons agriculture committee for study, is welcome. The report identifies a need for more accountability, enforcement power, defined responsibility, consultation and money at the CGC. Its 102 recommendations would create an agency better able to patrol the grain trade and facilitate dialogue to reduce the distrust that sometimes stymies industry advancement.
Its call for greater CGC accountability and liability are important because as regulator and licensor, the commission must act with integrity and responsibility or lose ethical authority.
Also worthy is the call for more CGC enforcement power, including more situations where it can levy fines, such as when an individual or company misrepresents grain quality.
The National Farmers Union has criticized a recommendation to end the general instruction that the commission act in the interests of grain producers.
But the blanket support would be replaced with a defined commitment, a producers’ bill of rights, providing the right of delivery access, third party grade and dockage verification, access to producer cars, third party weighing and inspection and security in commercial grain transactions.
This seems a fair compromise that maintains support for farmers. But to be safe, a proposed Office of Grain Farmer Advocacy, designed to replace assistant commissioners, should be permanent.
Also controversial is the proposal to contract out most grain inspection services in response to complaints about inflexible work hours of government staff. Such a move would require that the reputation inherent in the stamp of government inspection would not be endangered. Contracted services would have to be certified and held to the same high standard.
Contracting might reduce CGC costs, but the report is not focused on cost cutting. It accurately argues the need for more funding for general operations and particularly for a sorely needed renewed commitment to research.
The CGC has strayed too far into burdensome fees for services. All Canadians benefit from the CGC core services and should pay for them through their taxes.
Generally, the report points the way to remaking the commission into a well equipped, modern watchman for the grain industry.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
