What We Heard Report - A proposal to revise the Grain Standards Advisory Committees

Introduction

As required by the Canada Grain Act, the Canadian Grain Commission has established a Western Standards Committee and an Eastern Standards Committee. The standards committees recommend standards and specifications for grades of grain.

Given the technical nature of this work, the standards committees seek the advice of experts to ensure that scientific research and practical experience guide any of their recommendations. To provide this necessary technical and scientific advice and support, the Canadian Grain Commission has established 4 commodity-specific Grain Standards Advisory Committees: (1) Wheat, (2) Barley and other cereal grains, (3) Oilseeds and (4) Pulses.

Consultation process

From January 15, 2025, to March 15, 2025, the Canadian Grain Commission conducted a consultation process to collect stakeholder feedback on its proposal to replace the current Grain Standards Advisory Committee model with a Grain Standards Advisory Forum model. The proposal's objective was to ensure a more inclusive stakeholder discussion on potential grain grading and quality concerns on Canadian grain in advance of the Western Standards Committee and Eastern Standards Committee meetings.

The proposed changes:

  • open participation to any
    • grain sector organization, such as producer or commodity organizations
    • producer or interested respondent
    • Canadian Grain Commission licensee
  • replace the 4 current advisory committees with a single open advisory forum
  • organize advisory forum agendas by grain type
  • hold advisory forum meetings virtually, at least twice per year prior to the standards committee meetings
  • document and record participant input for distribution to participants after the meeting and for sharing with the standards committees
  • eliminate voting on items discussed at advisory forum meetings
  • retain participation by Canadian Grain Commission grain inspectors and research scientists

The consultation document was posted on the Canadian Grain Commission's website and shared with grain sector stakeholders by email. This included producer and commodity organizations, industry associations, Canadian Grain Commission licensees, and other relevant government organizations. Additionally, the consultation process was highlighted during various stakeholder engagement events and shared in posts on the Canadian Grain Commission's social media channels. The document provided instructions for participating in the consultation process. For more information about the proposal, refer to the consultation document.

Respondent submissions

Overall feedback

The consultation received 19 submissions from producer groups, industry associations and other government organizations. 90% of submissions preferred the current approach over the advisory forum model proposal. These respondents expressed concerns about the risks of moving to a single advisory forum and that this model could undermine the effectiveness of the process, dilute technical crop-specific discussion, marginalize producer input, and result in less effective decision making. They noted that an advisory forum model could lead to reduced representation for certain crops and regions if those perspectives and details became lost in a larger forum. They emphasized the importance of preserving commodity-specific committees to ensure informed decision making.

Similarly, some of these respondents emphasized that any advisory committee modernization efforts should not compromise the quality of the information and guidance resulting from the advisory process. Respondents also suggested various process adjustments to improve membership representation, committee engagement and communication protocols, and administrative efficiency.

Although not in favour of the full proposal, 5 submissions also acknowledged and expressed appreciation for the Canadian Grain Commission's efforts to modernize engagement and enhance transparency in the advisory process.

Feedback themes

Process improvements to the Grain Standards Advisory Committee model

18 submissions advocated for retaining the existing advisory committee structure but with some process enhancements that could better serve the needs of the grain sector. 10 of these respondents provided specific recommendations on how to enhance and improve administrative efficiency, communication, and engagement. Recommendations included adjusting meeting timing with respect to standards committee meetings with a view to ensuring better participation, improving agenda procedures, and standardizing reporting with more concise summaries and technical information. The Canadian Grain Commission was encouraged to request input from committee members well before meetings and to promote greater participation. There was also a recommendation to engage and communicate directly with technical experts, particularly from eastern regions.

Committee membership and representation

13 submissions spoke about the importance of balanced representation in both the current Grain Standards Advisory Committees and in the proposed Grain Standards Advisory Forum model to ensure that all grain value chain voices are heard. Respondents said that advisory committee membership should reflect the regional realities of Canadian agriculture. 2 respondents explicitly emphasized the need to include perspectives and grading issues specific to eastern Canada in the advisory process, highlighting the unique challenges faced by the eastern sector. In this context, corn, which is predominantly grown in eastern Canada, should be represented in the advisory process.

Many of these respondents also emphasized the importance of maintaining a producer voice and ensuring balanced representation in the advisory process. In addition, respondents made specific recommendations to streamline the current nomination and appointment process, modify membership to ensure representation and engagement, promptly fill vacant seats, formalize observer roles, and review voting procedures on the advisory committees.

Importance of scientific integrity

4 submissions emphasized the importance of keeping scientific integrity in the advisory process and suggested that the proposed advisory forum model may put this at risk. Respondents stressed that decisions should be based on objective data rather than views. Some expressed concerns about the potential for non-objective input to influence decisions and dilute the technical aspects of discussions.

Next steps

All feedback received during the engagement process will be considered and next steps will be discussed at the fall 2025 Eastern Standards Committee and Western Standards Committee meetings. We will also communicate any changes that come from these meetings. Thank you to all those who gave their feedback and suggestions.