The missing link in Ontario, says George, is an all-powerful general council.

Originally designed as a "farmer parliament in 1969, the current OFA board of more than 100 directors is too large to be effective, he said. What’s more, a plethora of farm groups have evolved over the last 30 years, some of them quite powerful. The consequence is that under the current system, often characterized by conflicting voices, farm organizations are muddling along and are not particularly effective.

The umbrella organization, based on the Quebec model, would elect 40 per cent to 50 per cent of its directors from general farm organizations with commodity boards holding the other positions. The format should be negotiated by farm leaders. Commodity groups would maintain their independence on matters concerning their areas, but the political thrust would come from the umbrella organization.

The report says this type of organization has provided a superior research and planning capability in Quebec. However, it goes on to say that the interface between politicians and farm groups is entirely different than in Ontario. That’s an understatement. The UPA and the Quebec government have joined together in a nationalistic system to promote home grown food industries as part of the province’s self-sufficiency philosophy.

That philosophy doesn’t exist in Ontario, which is far less socialistic than Quebec. Whoever recommended in the report that the Premier should continue to lead discussions with farm groups must have been eating magic mushrooms. Premiers in Ontario show up for photo ops at farm gatherings.

The report goes on to say that no Fortune 500 company would send out the conflicting message agriculture sends out. Yet agriculture is an $8 billion per year industry. However, the analogy doesn’t work. Agricultural organizations don’t produce. They lobby and negotiate and provide service. A farm produces food.

The time is short, the report says. The barbarians, to use a metaphor, are at the gates. It recommends that farm organizations create a memorandum of understanding to co-ordinate activities. Further, farm organizations should determine their core business. Related commercial ventures should be pursued by forming a separate corporate entity.

Gerry Carey, a member of OFA who tackled the 1969 organizational problems, says the structure is not what’s wrong with present day agricultural organizations. Put the right people on the branches and the job will get done, he says.

The report tackles about every issue in the farm community, though it seems to have bought into government direction and programs. And here is where the report is weak. It says that if Canada becomes an environmental goodie, people in foreign lands will buy our products. We’ll be able to ask a premium because everyone has a nutrient management plan or because we have traceability. The federal government has only provided wishful thinking as proof that foreign consumers will pay more. Besides, only the U.S. and Europe have the money to buy designer foods. At one point, the report notes that Europeans told the Odyssey exec that organic can only be profitable if subsidized.

The report doesn’t believe Canada will be able compete with U.S. and European subsidies in the future. Therefore, Canada must look for niche markets because we can’t compete with bulk exports. There goes corn, wheat and soybeans.

The report says the solution is to go toward branding on a country-wide scale and cites New Zealand lamb as an example. But maybe New Zealand lamb is popular in Canada because Canadian producers can’t fill the market. Maybe there is a lingering taste of World War Two mutton.