Questions linger over wheat board's transparency

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

by BETTER FARMING STAFF

Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner isn't likely to investigate how the province’s wheat board released member information to a third party organization.

Bob Spence, a spokesperson for the commissioner’s office, says an initial review shows the board doesn’t fall under the three privacy laws that the office monitors. “If an organization is not covered under the legislation then we can’t look into a privacy complaint regarding it.”

But “the fight’s not over yet,” says Sunderland farmer Bruce Pearse, who is among a group of farmers that has asked the commissioner’s office to look into the situation.
Pearse, who has been handling the request for the group, says they plan to compile and submit reasons why they think the issue falls under the jurisdiction of the commissioner’s office before September 26, the deadline the commission has given for a response to the review. 

The group filed its concerns last month, reacting to the Ontario Wheat Producers’ Marketing Board decision to release member information to OnTrace Agri-food Traceability, a non-profit industry organization that is developing a database to track provincial agricultural products through the food production chain. The request was filed jointly by four groups: The Food Chain, The Grass Roots Farmers, producers in Glengarry County and producers in the board’s district 10. Another request to look into the issue came from board member John Vanderspank.

A resolution brought forward by Glengarry County growers during the board’s annual meeting in August was what brought the issue to light for many growers. The resolution called for the dismissal of the board’s general manager, Larry Shapton, for having given information about members to a third party without first obtaining approval from the board.

The board refused to accept the resolution and last week it reaffirmed a commitment to work with OnTrace to develop an emergency contact database. The decision to do so may not have been unanimous around the board table and behind closed doors, but “when you emerge from that meeting, you emerge united,” says Dave Whaley, the board’s chair.

He adds that the board fully supports its staff and explains that the decision was made not to allow the Glengarry resolution because it was “very destructive” and contained personal attacks. However, those attending the meeting had an opportunity to address the decision about the resolution under new business, he says, noting support and objection to the decision was split evenly among those who spoke.

Whaley says the board had tried to put together an emergency response plan for its members two years ago but it wasn’t adequate. Working with OnTrace will help improve the plan, which he says is needed to address situations such as a sudden border closure. He describes the names, phone numbers and addresses released to OnTrace as public – not private - information.

Yet for many growers, it’s not just the decision to release information to OnTrace or Shapton acting before obtaining board approval that linger as concerns but also the decision to suppress discussion about the issue during the annual meeting.

“There are definitely growers that have a very large concern over the privacy of it,” says Chad Anderson, who farms south of Sarnia. “It may be merited but unfortunately we never got to hear that side of it – never got the chance to hear the side of the growers, never got the chance to hear the side of the board,” because of the decision to shut down discussion, he says.

The way the whole situation was handled “reflects how the organization is run,” is how Todd Charlton puts it.

Even though the idea of sharing the information with OnTrace had been discussed around the board table, that Shapton would go ahead and release it without obtaining clear board approval shows board members “don’t have control of their affairs,” suggests Middlesex producer Don Foster.

All three say that the incident is symptomatic of a lack of transparency in the board’s operations.

Foster points out that he’s familiar with the idea of giving up personal information for the sake of food safety. As a chicken producer, he was asked to do so to meet the production certification standards introduced by Chicken Farmers of Ontario a few years ago. But in that instance, “we were well aware that we were going to have to meet certain specs to satisfy the wishes of export,” he says.

He can’t say the same thing when it comes to the release of information concerning his wheat production activity: “I became aware of it the day of the annual meeting, the same as everybody else.”

Brian Sterling, CEO of OnTrace, suggests that because the livestock sector has had to deal with higher profile emergency management issues, it may be more attuned to the need to develop the kind of database OnTrace is developing than grain and oilseed growers. With recent contamination problems south of the border, fruit and vegetable growers are also sensitive to the need for such safeguards, he adds.

He emphasizes that OnTrace is an industry organization (it received $10 million in provincial funding in 2006). So far, it has worked with several industry organizations to obtain data that is cross-referenced with publically available information about land packages in Ontario. The organization will eventually assemble similar details on others involved in the provincial food production system ranging from feedlots, trucks and distribution points to retailers.

The approach will ensure more reliable information and quicker access to it during an emergency than that which could be obtained through government sources or individual commodity organizations, he says.

OnTrace will also eventually use the database to generate income by offering services that would advance industry interests, such as providing certification of a product’s origin. Sterling is adamant that the corporation would never directly sell the information it maintains. “We’re not in the business of going out there and saying, for instance, selling a mailing list to somebody.” In fact, the organization is “specifically obliged not to do that,” he says.

Despite assurances, growers’ uneasiness lingers.

Why didn’t OnTrace approach the committee working on the merger of the wheat, corn and soybean commodity groups – which would have been a more efficient source of information? asks Foster. And is the organization’s activities an expensive overlap of a service the province’s commodity groups – especially those in the livestock sector - have already completed?

Staff who act without the board’s direction don’t exactly foster trust that the only information released was names, addresses and phone numbers, notes Pearse.

Whaley emphasizes the board is transparent. “Unlike other people in the wheat business, we have an annual meeting every year in late August where we are fully transparent – we have our audited financial statements, the auditors are present, people are allowed to ask questions of the statements; we are a transparent board.” He suggests those who may want to know more details should consider becoming a board member.

Meanwhile, still other growers dismiss the issue as a tempest in a teapot.

“I find it so frustrating that in a year where we faced a major crop issue with mildew in wheat-that cost growers millions of dollars in grade discounts, that we are preoccupied with a frivolous dispute over growers lists,” writes an anonymous grower in response to a poll recently conducted on this website. “We have a very inequitable two tiered grading system for wheat growers and instead of doing something useful we spend our time and energy on nonsense instead.”

The informal poll asked whether farm organizations should have the right to release member details to other bodies without first consulting their members. Of the 49 who responded, 73 per cent said no, eight per cent said yes, and 18 per cent said yes, under certain circumstances agreed upon ahead of time with members. BF