The House of Commons agriculture committee has called for an extensive review of agricultural programs.
Chair Larry Miller tabled the report March 24, the day before the government fell and two days before an election was announced.
There were the usual partisan splits in recommendations, but all parties found common ground in recommending:
• Agriculture Canada officials should review how reference margins are calculated, including considering whether the current Olympic average calculation should be extended to a 10-year comparison or some other configuration of years and whether cost-of- production should be part of the calculation;
Read Also
Final crop reports show strong yields, quality
Crops yielded above average across the Prairies this year, and quality is generally average to above-average.
• Ottawa and the provinces should find a way to speed up processing times for claims under Growing Forward business risk management programs;
• AgriInsurance should be expanded to offer insurance for livestock producers facing losses because of animal disease;
• Federal and provincial ministers should recognize that disparities in support levels between rich and poor provinces can create trade distortions between provinces. “The committee believes it is essential to improve the programs created by Agriculture Canada, including the business risk management programs, in order to improve support for the agriculture sector,” said the report.
“The ability to endure the difficult circumstances facing certain industries, especially most recently the beef and pork industries, serve to gauge the effectiveness of these programs.”
However, opposition and government MPs on the committee then parted company.
The opposition majority recommended that AgriStability’s viability test, which requires positive margins in two of three reference years, be changed to reflect multi-year slumps and that the government reconsider its refusal to fund provincially designed income support programs.
Conservative MPs on the committee filed a minority report that insisted that the opposition’s recommendations were misguided. Ottawa cannot change program design unless two-thirds of provinces representing at least 50 percent of farm production agree.
“Unfortunately, many of the recommendations made in the main report are suggestions that do not respect the role of the provinces and the territories,” they wrote.
“Conservative MPs do not support recommendations that direct the federal government to dictate farm programming to the provinces without seeking co-operation.”
They recommended that Ottawa and the provinces work to create “a set of trade-compliant AgriInsurance price options like the Alberta Cattle Insurance program.”
In response to the majority recommendation that Ottawa co-fund provincially designed income support programs, the Conservatives said the government should “not fund any BRM programs that can potentially put Canadian farmers in jeopardy through countervail or other trade actions.”
The report said federal and provincial governments paid $7.043 billion to business risk management programs betweenApril 1, 2007, and Jan. 6, 2011.
