An agricultural think tank is warning the new Conservative government that a report issued by Liberal MP Wayne Easter calling for greater farmer power in the marketplace falls far short of providing a blueprint for a new national agricultural policy.
The George Morris Centre based in Guelph, Ont., vows to lead an effort to craft a replacement for the Agricultural Policy Framework, one that is more industry and market oriented than Easter’s proposals.
“Any successful strategy must involve all players in the industry working together to produce products the market wants,” report co-author Al Mussell said Feb. 17.
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
“What I’d say is that Mr. Easter’s report presents almost a cynical review of Canadian agriculture and food, farmers against the others. Our perception is different from that.”
The centre, whose supporting members’ list is dominated by agribusiness firms and banks, plans focus groups with industry players next summer for completion of a plan to present to governments.
It will be presented as “a representation of what is needed to fulfil our vision,” said a statement from the centre. “We see it as a comprehensive replacement for the APF – the blueprint for the future of Canada’s agrifood sector.”
Easter, who wrote what has been dubbed the Easter Report while he was parliamentary secretary to the agriculture minister under the previous Liberal government, said the George Morris Centre was reflecting the agribusiness views of its members.
“They must be trying to drum up some business,” he said.
“They seem to be taking the approach that what we need is more of the same that we’ve had for 30 years, more of the same that has driven two-thirds of farmers out of the business and produced record low prices and incomes.”
He warned the new government that “the last thing farmers want is to see this report shelved.”
Easter’s July report concluded that the main reason for low farmgate prices is that input suppliers and output buyers have more market power than do farmers.
Trade deals allow companies to exploit farmers by depressing prices, said Easter. Among his recommendations were “fair trade” rules, regulatory reform, a strengthening of Canadian competition laws and government support for co-operatives.
Easter is expected to be opposition agriculture critic when the new Parliament sits April 3.
Several national farm groups, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union, embraced the basic Easter conclusions.
In late 2005 during the election campaign, NFU president Stewart Wells called for the next government to consider the Easter report “the foundation for an agricultural policy that pits realized farm incomes as a priority.”
The George Morris Centre analysis, written by its chief executive officer Larry Martin and researchers Mussell and Martin Gooch, said that would be a bad idea.
While it said Easter’s call for regulatory reform in Ottawa is positive, if undeveloped, much of the analysis was unflattering. In the centre’s report, Easter was accused of lacking a vision for the growth of the industry, of presenting unbalanced and incomplete information, unsubstantiated conclusions and support for policies that are not supported by the facts he presents.
The centre’s report was critical of Easter’s complaints about corporate concentration, arguing that he did not prove his case of an anti-farmer effect, does not see the value of collaboration and proposes new government rules and powers that would further stifle the industry.
“There is nothing about building trust and collaboration, nor would his proposal create any when he seemingly seeks to pit farmers against everyone else in the industry,” said the study. “Without a positive perspective for all the elements of the sector, it would seem clear that a policy based on Mr. Easter’s report would create additional costly conflict.”
Researchers said the Liberal MP and former NFU president underplayed potential benefits of a World Trade Organization deal that reduces trade barriers and subsidies while offering a one-sided analysis of the benefits of retaining the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly and supply management.
Supply management has been good for those holding quota “but there is a disturbing lack of discussion about the potential benefits of more market access and reduced subsidies in other countries for the larger number of farmers who don’t own quota,” said the report.
While Easter cited studies that show income advantages from the CWB monopoly, he did not reflect the fact that academic and economic opinion on that question is mixed, according to the analysis.
Easter said the George Morris authors approached the issues with their own agribusiness biases and selected use of information.
“They look at the whole industry and if money is being made, all is well, but one link is under tremendous stress,” he said. “It’s not unbalanced. I looked at the farmer problem because that’s where the problem is. The other links are all making money.”
