THE END of grain inspection services at primary elevators and the decision to close three regional Canadian Grain Commission service centres present a subtle change to the landscape of the country’s grain handling system.
Taken individually, the changes are unlikely to be a focus of mass protest.
But when combined with the overall trend of downloading expenses onto farmers while reducing services, they give rise to many questions about the continued erosion of support to farmers.
The CGC recently announced it would end grain inspection services at primary elevators beginning this summer. It means the commission will no longer grade grain on shipments from the Prairies to terminals or on exports to the United States. It is a service that provided farmers with some protection when disagreements arose with grain companies over grades assigned at elevators.
Read Also
Determining tariff compensation will be difficult but necessary
Prime minister Mark Carney says his government will support canola farmers, yet estimating the loss and paying compensation in an equitable fashion will be no easy task, but it can be done.
Farmers who want independent weighing and grading will have to ask private companies for assessments.
Grain companies that want to continue on-site testing in country elevators will also have to hire private companies, sparking doubt from the Western Grain Elevators’ Association, which has expressed nervousness about the plan.
As well, grain commission service centres in Brandon, and Saskatchewan centres in Melville and Moose Jaw will be closed, which will reduce farmer contact with the commission in those areas.
In announcing the changes, commission chair Elwin Hermanson said producer service will continue but the money will be spent on higher priority areas. There was no further elaboration.
Further changes are possible in new amendments to the Grain Act now wending their way through Parliament.
The federal government says grading changes and future amendments will improve system efficiencies without diminishing quality assurances in the system.
The government would be wise to outline how that will work because currently, the plan seems to be a pure cost-cutting move, more detrimental than beneficial to those who depend on the system.
When cost-cutting simply passes costs on to other players in the system, it is counter productive. It forces farmers and grain companies to pick up extra expenses that were once spread among many.
The federal government’s decision is based on a directive that the CGC limit itself to providing services it is required to do by law. Optional services, such as weighing and grading at country elevators, are viewed as expendable.
But what service is more valuable than farmer protection? To pull away from grading services is to deny farmers one more key protection in a highly concentrated corporate environment.
Future amendments, if passed in Parliament, could further erode protections by doing away with the requirement that buyers be bonded.
While the changes are unlikely to be so onerous as to run farmers out of business, they represent the latest example of how farmers are again being asked to accept fewer services and bear more costs that were once deemed the responsibility of government.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
