Marcel Groleau UPA President, Quebec Farmer’s Advocate, June 2017
A recent article in La Presse+ referred to a report by the Institute for Governance of Public and Private Organizations (IGOPP) that suggested that the UPA exerts “inordinate influence” over the decisions of the Financière agricole du Québec (FADQ). I was not misquoted: UPA representatives have always been a minority on the board of directors, in accordance with the Act respecting La Financière agricole du Québec, and they provide crucial information throughout the decision-making process.
Their contribution is furthermore aligned with the founding principles of the institution. As then-minister of agriculture Rémy Trudel said in December 2000, the presence of the UPA allows the FADQ to “develop products and services by offering the expertise of agricultural producers.” The IGOPP report shows a rather poor understanding of the institution and underlying legislative intentions.
I would point out that the UPA representatives are the only ones with such specific knowledge of the issues facing the various production sectors, and are therefore able to assess the impact of FADQ decisions on farmers.
Would the general interest, as well as the interests of producers, be better served by farmers appointed by the minister based on political allegiance? Let’s not forget that farmers bear 30 to 40 per cent of the cost of insurance programs, and that their contributions to the FADQ coffers currently top $400 million. It is therefore utterly appropriate that the UPA, which represents all Quebec producers, partake in monitoring the management of those funds.
La Presse+ also refers to various reports and events at which “the UPA threw its weight around.” Unfortunately, the article does not include my response to that comment. The Gagné report offered maple syrup producers the option of going back to a time when they were paid whatever was offered based on seasonal volumes. Collective marketing has provided producers with negotiating power, which the Gagné report sought to undermine. The producers rejected the report, having already lived through an unhealthy dependence on maple syrup retailers.
The farm property tax reforms undertaken by former minister of agriculture Pierre Paradis, meanwhile, overlooked negative financial consequences for the vast majority of farms. Those administrative changes would even have allowed for compensation to landowners who do not produce crops or rent their land to producers—$5 million to non-producers!— while cutting compensation for professional producers. The UPA rejected this flawed reform proposal. Once again, the involvement of producers made all the difference.
As for the Conservative Party of Canada leadership race, it is disingenuous to blame the UPA for Maxime Bernier’s defeat. It was Mr. Bernier himself who attempted to hitch his campaign to the Union and to its producers, despite calling them economically illiterate.
The UPA had nothing to do with it. Maxime Bernier reached out to farmers himself. The UPA is a big organization, built on the engagement of producers and its directors. For 93 years, the UPA has been as strong as the sum of its members’ involvement in the organization, supported by rigorous analysis and sound and timely proposals. Looking ahead to the challenges to come, collective engagement isn’t a threat, but rather the solution for society as a whole.