April 1 marked the understated and largely unheralded birth of new farm support programs that were missing key elements and appeared to leave farm leaders under-whelmed.
The Growing Forward farm program, which is designed to replace the agricultural policy framework, was announced with little fanfare.
AgriStability, the margin-based replacement for the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program, was launched.
AgriInvest, a reinvention of the Net Income Stabilization Account program to cover the first 15 percent of margin decline, was also launched.
But the promised expansion of crop insurance to include livestock was nowhere to be seen.
Read Also
Land crash warning rejected
A technical analyst believes that Saskatchewan land values could be due for a correction, but land owners and FCC say supply/demand fundamentals drive land prices – not mathematical models
The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association recently reported that attempts to design a long-promised livestock insurance policy have not moved beyond the pilot project stage.
And the AgriRecovery program, meant to be a disaster compensation scheme, still lacks definition and rules on which level of government pays what percentage of the cost.
Meanwhile, April 1 brought only a commitment from provinces that the non-business risk management aspects of national farm policy are being extended in the same form as the last five years as bureaucrats work on new details.
While all provinces have said they support extension of funding for programs such as farm environmental plans and farm food safety programs, only Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland had announced agreements by April 1.
“From the farmer side, there is just no excitement about it, no coffee row talk,” Dawson Creek, B.C., grain producer and president of Grain
Growers of Canada Ross Ravelli said March 31.
“To farmers, it looks like the same old thing, but less. Where are the new programs that were promised? Changing the name doesn’t change a program and they weren’t even able to roll out all that they promised.”
Liberal agriculture critic Wayne Easter said the announcement of the new farm policy structure was less than it seemed.
“There is nothing new there, nothing to blow about,” he said.
Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Bob Friesen said the fact that governments said more consultation with farmers is necessary before final program details are announced is a good sign.
“Let’s make sure we have credible programs and that includes farmer input,” he said.
Friesen said that while there have been delays in announcing new long-term programming, much of the fault lies with provinces.
“I understand there is a reluctance to commit to programs that may have costs that cannot be predicted.”
The CFA president said Ottawa has made clear it is willing to spend more on new farm support programs but some provinces are reluctant to commit.
For its part, the federal government issued a vague announcement that progress had been made in the March 28 federal-provincial ministers’ conference call and more work would be done before the annual ministers’ meeting in July.
On March 31, communications officials in his office said Ritz was too busy to comment on the launch of the new farm programs, meant to replace the APF programs that were rolled out in 2003.
“I just think there is little to announce,” said Ravelli from Grain Growers of Canada, a group normally supportive of Conservative government policies.
“It looks from the ground like more of the same with new names.”
Meanwhile, farm leaders said they plan to continue their campaign for program amendments.
Livestock producers want to extend the crop insurance programs to include production insurance, a promise made by politicians for years.
And Friesen said the CFA will continue to press for inclusion of an “AgriFlex” component that allows provinces to receive federal co-funding for programs that respond to local needs.
Ottawa and some provinces have opposed the idea. Ontario and Quebec have supported it.
Ravelli said Grain Growers support the concept only if it involves how to spend dollars already allocated to provinces.
If it allows richer provinces to create programs that attract federal co-funding that poorer provinces cannot afford, that is a problem.
“We can’t have farmers in richer provinces getting more with federal help,” he said. “That goes against the principle that all farmers in this country should be treated equally.”
