Province holds off on review of farmers institutes

VICTORIA – The province is holding off on a proposed review of the Farmers and Women’s Institutes Act.

A review was announced in the legislature earlier this year in response to long-standing concerns over the Salmon River Farmers Institute (SRFI) near Prince George, which has effectively become a closed, family-run society.

“[We] are looking to modernize the legislation,” BC agriculture minister Lana Popham told the legislature on March 31. “This is on my workplan list for this year.”

But with the year coming to a close, ministry staff have confirmed to Country Life in BC there are no immediate plans for a review.

“A start date for the review of the Farmers and Women’s Institute Act is still being considered,” a statement from the ministry says.

The legislation governing the province’s 45 farmers institutes has not been updated since 1940, according to Popham, who said conversations with farmers institutes last winter indicated a need to undertake revisions.

The need for improvements to accommodate newer farmers institutes was a focus of a roundtable discussion at the National Farmers Union Region 8 (BC, Yukon and the Northwest Territories) convention, held online September 7.

Speakers included Nick Neisingh of the Cowichan Agricultural Society and Farmers Institute, Katie Underwood of the South Island Farmers Institute, and Barbara Johnstone Grimmer of the Pender Island Farmers Institute.

Neisingh and Underwood both reported challenges in obtaining bank financing and grant funding due to the unique status of farmers institutes.

However, this was not the experience of Johnstone Grimmer, whose presentation outlined various building projects and other initiatives undertaken by the Pender Island institute for the benefit of community members.

“We haven’t had any problem getting a business number or applying for any grants or anything,” she says. “I don’t know why other people have.”

She urged people to be careful what they wished for in any review of the legislation.

“Opening up the act may be a bit dangerous,” says Johnstone Grimmer. “There may be unintended consequences.”

Speaking from her long experience with District A Farmers Institute, Janet Thony notes that past attempts to modernize the legislation have been contentious.

“This is not the first time that the ministry has taken a run at the act,” she told the meeting. “Depending on the era and the critical subject matter of the time, the ministry looks at our group of very disparate, varied types of farmers, and we’re a problem for them. We create difficult problems to legislate because we’re so varied.”

A big danger is that the current act, which uses fairly plain language, could be lawyered up beyond the comprehension of most farmers.

“It gets to the point where the legislation gets so complicated that you can’t understand it,” she says. “One of the strengths that our Farmers Institute Act has in its current state [is] it’s simple, it’s easy to underst­and.”

She also said farmers institutes as a whole should not be subject to changes designed to address troubles at a single farmers institute – troubles that are easily addressed under the existing legislation if the province adhered to it.

“That was not caused by a deficiency of the act,” she says of the SRFI’s troubles. “That was caused by a passive complicity of the community members, and the superintendent of farmers institutes and the ministry not doing their jobs in enforcing the act.”

A civil challenge of the SRFI by the Salmon Valley Community Farmers Institute was scheduled to come before BC Supreme Court at the end of October. The action seeks removal of the current SRFI board and reopening membership to the community at large.

However, the case does send a clear message to other farmers institutes to set a better example.

“We all should show good fiscal practices and governance, so there is no justification to make it more difficult for us,” says Johnstone Grimmer.