Consultants hired by Agriculture Canada to review projected benefits of the agricultural policy framework found exactly what skeptical farm leaders predicted they would – APF proposals live up to their federal billing as a better farm policy structure.
Federal agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief touted the results as proof that proposals now being implemented are good for farmers, despite the criticisms of farm leaders.
“I think this should without question give farmers a lot of comfort,” Vanclief told reporters April 28. “There’s been more work put into the development of this (business risk management package) than any other program in the history of Canada. The third party assessment has made it very clear … that it is better than the programs we’ve had in the past.”
Read Also
Stock dogs show off herding skills at Ag in Motion
Stock dogs draw a crowd at Ag in Motion. Border collies and other herding breeds are well known for the work they do on the farm.
Farm leaders said they were disappointed but not surprised by the results of a three-week assessment completed by economists from the George Morris Centre and Nancy Brown Andison.
They complained that with the limited time and mandate given the “third party” consultants, they had no time to do independent research and little option but to merely pass judgment on government analysis already done.
“The third party assessment toed the line of the limited government mandate,” said Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Bob Friesen. “It did not answer the questions we posed. There still are high levels of concern about some of the aspects of this program.”
Cam Dahl, Ottawa-based executive director of Grain Growers of Canada, said the report delivered April 24 appeared to be an exercise in hiring consultants who would endorse Ottawa’s analysis. “I think a lot of farmers will be saying that, looking at the evidence.”
Vanclief suggested the critics had not taken a “balanced” view of the report.
The third-party review was supposed to help settle the argument between Ottawa’s claims that APF promises more benefits and farm leader complaints that its benefits remain unproven.
“This really settles nothing and it’s disappointing but not surprising,” said Ontario Federation of Agriculture vice-president Bill Mailloux. “The government seems determined to press ahead no matter what. They received the analysis they paid for.”
The review concluded that based on the goals set out by federal and provincial ministers in 2001, it is a good package. “We conclude that while the proposed new package has advantages and disadvantages compared to the current program, on balance it is clear that the proposed new programs better achieve the six objectives of business risk management as agreed to by federal and provincial ministers in Whitehorse.”
However, it noted that it did not have time nor scope to conduct independent research on the competing program models, had only limited time to study an alternative farmer safety net model but found it too expensive and did not examine farmer complaints that the new federally proposed programs could be liable to trade challenge.
The consultants noted that Ottawa’s proposals are not meant to deal with the impact of long-term price depression because of foreign subsidies or agriculture policies.
And the review dismissed farmer complaints that the end of provincially designed and federally supported companion programs would eliminate an important farmer support.
Instead, it concluded that the end of provincial-specific programs would support the federal goal of treating all farmers equally.
Then, instead of accepting the demand by supply management sectors that their principal pillars be recognized as part of the safety net system, the consultants insisted that including supply management in the proposed new-Net Income Stabilization Account program would be better for the sectors.
Supply management farmers say they do not want to be included in NISA, new or old.
“It is bizarre that farmers who want improvements to the system are being ignored and farmers who want to stay out of the new NISA system are being forced in,” said Friesen.
