32 workers at Indian Head and Scott could face job losses, the union says
The union representing agriculture workers in the public sector is concerned an MOU to keep two research farms in Saskatchewan open will ultimately result in job losses.
The Agriculture Union, which represents more than 770 workers in federal agencies like the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Canadian Grain Commission, also represents the 32 workers at the Indian Head and Scott Research Farms.
Earlier in July, federal Agriculture Minister Heath MacDonald and Saskatchewan Agriculture Minister David Marit signed an MOU to transition the federal research farms to provincial control.
But an AAFC memo indicates the workers at the Sask. research farms won’t be retained.
“AAFC is continuing the required disposal process at Scott and Indian Head,” the memo says, according to the Agriculture Union. “The agreement allows AAFC and the province of Saskatchewan to explore temporary arrangements that support agricultural activities while that process moves forward. The MOU does not affect workforce adjustment decisions and AAFC will continue with the planned relocation and wind-down of research activities at Scott and Indian Head that are already underway.”
The losses of shutting down these two farms are “incalculable,” the union adds.
This move would also go against committee recommendations.
In May, the House Agriculture Committee released a report calling on the government to reverse course on the planned closures of seven research sites across the country.
The decision to do so, paired with 665 job cuts across AAFC, was in line with Prime Minister Carney’s goal of reducing overall spending by 15 per cent over three years.
But the union urges now isn’t the time for cuts.
Canada needs more ag research to ensure farmers have the tools and information they need to remain competitive.
“In an age of climate insecurity, food inflation and economic unpredictability, we simply can’t afford to abandon these pillars of Canada’s food security and sovereignty,” the union said. “An MOU to keep a productive asset is not enough. It is simply window dressing to cover a loss to the agriculture community.”