A much anticipated parliamentary report on competitiveness in agriculture has been filed and it contains many recommendations that cry out for further action.The House of Commons agriculture committee submitted its report to Parliament May 6. Although there are key disagreements between opposition party members and Conservative MPs, there are also many areas of agreement.The report’s time has come. Competition, or lack thereof, in agriculture has been hotly debated for years.Among the top concerns:* the fertilizer industry’s ability to control prices by limiting production;* concentration of grain companies on the Prairies, limiting crop buyers and input sellers;* mergers among machinery dealers;* mergers among international machinery manufacturers;* packer concentration in beef and pork;* packer ownership of cattle;* lack of competition among railways;* seed company control of biotech seed requiring farmers to buy new seed each year.These developments have eroded farmers’ position in the market over the years.Although committee member opinions differed on ways to address these issues, they did agree on the need to clarify the role of the Competition Bureau. The bureau has been loath to take action on matters affecting concentration in agriculture in the past, perhaps because its mandate is too limited. In its assessments, it often notes that concentration of ownership by itself does not constitute reason to step in.Perhaps the bureau needs review, with a goal of developing rules that better define what constitutes unhealthy market concentration.If such a step were taken now, it would coincide with a United States Department of Justice review also studying concentration in agriculture. What we do in Canada doesn’t depend on what is being done in the U.S., but acting at the same time could allow Canada to maintain a level playing field. Corporations will find it harder to complain of restrictive actions if both countries act simultaneously.The report also expressed partial agreement on further examination of beef industry practices. The majority report called for a review of packers’ ability to own cattle, while the Conservative members called for a review of the entire beef chain to look for ways to improve producer income. If packer ownership of cattle does indeed give packers too much control over pricing, then the full review suggested by the Conservatives would unearth that. And the wider review has the additional advantage of examining retail profit share.Other suggestions about making generic chemicals available sooner, and relaxing import regulations on chemicals, other crop inputs and veterinary drugs accepted by previously selected foreign countries could also provide additional competitive factors and give farmers more options in the marketplace.It would be a shame to lose these recommendations in the political tussle that has become common on the agriculture committee. MPs must, in the end, overcome partisan bickering and act on behalf of those who elected them.The level of corporate acquisitions in agriculture during the past two decades has been historic. Yet the money-saving efficiencies that were supposed to have been realized by such deals have brought few benefits to farmers.It is time governments give serious consideration to policies that will restore better balance to the marketplace.Recommendations contained in the agriculture committee reports offer a good starting point.
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?
