Basic HTML Version
About three years ago, we
started hearing determined rumblings
about the end of the Canadian Wheat
Board. Tensions amongst farmers were
running high, but the government’s
agenda was clear: It was time to open up
grain marketing in Western Canada.
Since then, we’ve had a couple of in-
teresting years: One record crop and one
crazy weather year. We’ve had terrible
transportation issues, an ongoing debate
on plant breeders’ rights, and a host of
backroom discussions on end-point roy-
alties and a permanent, non-refundable
regional check-off.
With the government’s push on inter-
national trade agreements, combined
with a move to implement UPOV 91, the
message for Canada’s agriculture trading
partners is that we are open for business.
Yet real problems continue to exist on the
home front, from getting grain on trains
to agreeing on how best to manage the
variety registration system.
For the record, although UPOV 91 still
hasn’t been signed onto by Canada, the
path forward is clear due to amendments
to the
Plant Breeders’ Rights Act
under
Bill C-18, the
Agricultural Growth Act.
Bill C-18 has many complexities, but one
simple truth is that its amendments will
bring Canada under UPOV 91, and subse-
quent regulations are likely to establish a
mechanism for the collection of end-
point royalties.
Through my work on international
trade, I have come to believe that UPOV
91 isn’t just inevitable—its implementa-
tion is necessary in order to grow Cana-
da’s status within international markets.
That said, although farmers may never
agree on all issues, it’s time to put past
rivalries aside and start working on the
future of Canadian agriculture.
For too long, government and
industry have been able to push
forward their own agendas with
a divide-and-conquer mentality.
If you have farmers on the right
and farmers on the left, and nei-
ther is talking with any intent
to compromise, it’s much easier
for others to move their policy
agendas forward.
But on the issue of funding
variety development—on whether
or not there will be an end-point
royalty or a permanent, non-refund-
able regional check-off or some other
collection mechanism—it’s time for
farmers to come together, consider the
options and decide what is really needed.
It’s time to get down to business and
determine what farmers want and expect
in a future funding model. This includes
asking: Do you need an end-point royalty
to be competitive? Or don’t you? At what
cost? And, at what reward?
No matter how you answer these
questions, it’s clear that we need to have
an answer that works at the farm level.
Choosing to do nothing—to see where
the chips may fall—means the decision
will be left to those who are more organ-
ized, have stronger voices, make better
connections and simply know the right
people. A system built in this manner—
without the buy-in and support of the
farmers who are going to pay for it—sim-
ply doesn’t make sense.
This past year, Alberta Barley held the
first-ever Farmer Model meeting in Cal-
The farmermodel
By lisa skierka
Tall
WISHES
gary to get direct input from farmers on
what they want in a future research and
breeding system. In holding this meet-
ing, we learned that government and
industry have a real reluctance to discuss
a new funding system for crops research
in Western Canada without first knowing
what it will look like. In my mind, this
defeats the purpose of engaging in an
open discussion about what farmers want
and need in the future.
In the coming weeks and months, let’s
take the time to engage in a thorough
discussion. Let’s debate and refute and
argue and converse. Let’s chat and hash
out and confer and deliberate. Let’s talk
about what farmers want, and consider
that discussion the real Farmer Model.
Lisa Skierka is the general manager of
Alberta Barley.
Winter
2015
grainswest.com
9
Whodoyouwant inchargeof your pocketbook?