The next Canadian agricultural policy framework to be signed late this month likely will allow for the first time regional or provincial flexibility in how national program benefits are delivered, says federal agriculture minister Chuck Strahl.
But despite pressure from some provinces and farm groups, it will not include reintroduction of provincial companion programs co-funded by Ottawa. Companion programs were phased out under the 2003 agricultural policy framework.
“There is a consensus that a framework is desirable and a growing consensus that flexibility is desirable in program design, but that overall national objectives are essential if you are going to keep us all moving in the same direction and not get jurisdictions warring among themselves,” he said.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
A reintroduction of companion programs is not universally endorsed by provinces and is opposed by the federal government because it fragments programs, the minister said.
“What I’m talking about is designing flexibility in a way that brings better program delivery in local regions but is not 10 separate objectives in 10 separate provinces,” said Strahl.
“But there is no use saying ‘we’re going to have one national program for the wine industry’ when guys in B.C. say what they’re doing there is so different from what they do in Ontario. One size doesn’t fit all and there was a bit of a straitjacket under the old rules.”
The new framework is expected to be signed during a federal-provincial-territorial ministers’ meeting in Whistler, B.C., June 28-29.
Consultations on program design will continue into the autumn. When some farm leaders heard that ministers are planning a document signing in Whistler before consultations end, they worried that decisions are being made before the industry can agree.
Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Bob Friesen said this round of consultations leading to a new policy framework has been a better experience for farmers than the 2002-03 consultations that led to the first APF.
“My sense is they are listening better,” he said. “But that will only really be evident when we see the details. We are not nearly ready to see anything concrete signed.”
Strahl said the agreement will be on general principles and in many cases, specific program details have yet to be worked out.
“There obviously is a difference between policies and principles and I think we need a general accord that will give us general direction,” Strahl said. “I cannot move ahead on final program design without federal-provincial agreement.”
Meanwhile, Ottawa and many of the provinces are still at an impasse over funding arrangements for a disaster program for the new policy framework.
Strahl said he can be flexible on how the money is spent, but he is insisting the formula for disaster funding adhere to the 60-40 federal-provincial cost sharing tradition.
The federal minister said one problem is that smaller provinces are worried about the cost implications if a multibillion-dollar disaster hits.
He said the key will be to have clear rules in place on payment, definition and cost sharing so governments can move quickly.
