Basic HTML Version
CHANGESWITHIN THE LAST YEAR spell greater responsibility
at a fargreater cost tofarmers
Since the single desk ended
,
the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC)
has been undergoing reforms. In particu-
lar, it moved to a full cost-recovery model
with additional user fees as of Aug. 1, 2013.
Before, the federal government shared
50 per cent of the cost of operations with
industry. Now, however, the government is
lowering its contribution to less than 10 per
cent. (In the U.S., by comparison, the Fed-
eral Grain Inspection Service receives 37
per cent of its funding from government.)
This means a farmer cropping 5,000 acres,
producing one tonne per acre, and deliver-
ing most of it to the grain elevator, will see
costs jump from about $5,000 to almost
$7,200—an increase of 44 per cent.
Under the current funding model, fees
on grain exports fund the bulk of CGC op-
erations, including services for the domes-
tic industry and grain quality-assurance
functions. Essentially, we have all of our
eggs in one basket, and we expect exports
from port to pay for all CGC operations.
This is not an ideal setup for the CGC or
for farmers. We need a new funding model.
A more representative model would be able
to charge all those who use and benefit
from CGC services across Canada.
This may mean a new check-off struc-
ture. But from Grain Growers of Canada
discussions, it appears there is zero appetite
for that among farmers or farm groups.
Important CGC changes we hope to see:
• Installing a more accountable govern-
ance structure: If farmers are paying
the majority of costs, then they need
more of a voice at the table. A new
governance structure would assist in
further streamlining CGC operations
and better align CGC’s services with
grain industry requirements.
• Extending the “subject to inspector’s
grade and dockage” repeal provision
to process elevators: This would allow
producers to challenge the grade they
are given at a flour mill or crush plant.
Currently, there is no recourse for
farmers who disagree with the grade
they receive.
Recommendations the Grain Growers
are currently reviewing:
• Increasing co-operation between the
Canadian Grain Commission’s Grain
Research Laboratory and the Canadian
International Grains Institute’s lab in
the hope of achieving cost savings or
better service options.
• Broadening the CGC mandate to
include “all Canadians” rather than the
Canada Grain Act’s current stipulation
that the CGC act “in the interests of
the grain producers.” This could help to
more accurately describe to government
and the public the importance of the
CGC’s role in serving the public good.
GrainCommissionReform
By JANET KRAYDEN
CAPITAL
GAINS
• The Canada Grains Council is suggest-
ing we should shift the responsibility for
issuing Phytosanitary Certificates from
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
to the Grain Commission, which would
be more in tune with the needs of the
grain industry than Health Canada.
This follows the shift of responsibility
for the CFIA from Agriculture Canada
to Health Canada.
Now that farmers market their wheat
and barley, they are seeing how the work
of the CGC is needed in the international
markets. Since farmers are paying the bill,
they need to think through what works for
their crops and farms, take control of their
own destiny, and communicate their ideas
to their local farm leaders regarding the
CGC and other issues they are facing.
Janet Krayden is the public affairs
manager at the Grain Growers of Canada.
grainswest.com
AD INDEX
Alberta Agriculture and
Rural Development......................31
Bayer CropScience.................... IBC
CAP............................................31
DOW........................................ IFC
SeCan. ...................................... 47
Seednet..................................... 37
Syngenta................................OBC
Viterra. ...................................... 37
WBGA....................................... 03
WCWG...................................... 03