For optimists, the June 29 agreement by federal and provincial agriculture ministers on the principles of a new framework to guide agricultural policy for the next five years was solid, if unfinished, progress.
For critics and skeptics, it was simply an agreement to keep doing what governments have been doing for two decades – agreeing to a policy framework that works for all links in the agrifood chain except farmers.
Bureaucrats are working over the summer to develop detailed programs to implement promises that government will create disaster, stabilization, insurance and co-funded farmer-government investment programs.
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
Farm leaders are insisting that producers be part of the negotiation on program details but there is not farmer unanimity about what is required.
Ministers meet again in September in Ontario to review program details. Without an extension, the existing range of agricultural policy framework programs expires March 31, 2008.
Last week, representatives of several national farm organizations said the agreement was an important breakthrough since federal-provincial squabbling had made a deal uncertain.
“The Growing Forward document presented by the ministers proposes a new suite of business risk management programs that follows the proposals (Canadian Federation of Agriculture) has advanced, including an accounts-based program, an income stabilization component, a disaster recovery component and expanded crop insurance,” CFA president Bob Friesen said in a statement.
“I believe Growing Forward represents a solid foundation for building the next generation of agriculture policy in Canada. It has the flexibility to build the kind of programs farmers are looking for,” he said. “I know all CFA members are eager to get working with the federal, provincial and territorial governments as soon as possible to put the meat on the bones.”
Friesen stressed that adequate funding will be necessary.
Richard Phillips, executive director of Grain Growers of Canada, said the new framework has “some positives” for his members.
“I think there is a real potential that programs will emerge that are more predictable and bankable although obviously a lot of details have to be worked out.”
However, Phillips said his group is concerned that the new AgriInvest program aimed at covering the top tier of income losses through a farmer-government contributory plan will have diluted coverage because it will allow supply management farmers to join for non-supply managed commodities on their farm.
“That would add tens of thousands of farmers and potentially dilute the benefits,” said Phillips.
Ryder Lee, Ottawa-based policy analyst for the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, said the main issue for the industry is getting a workable disaster program that delivers timely relief: “I think they’re moving forward but lots remains to be done.”
The critics were harsh.
National Farmers Union president Stewart Wells said any new five-year policy framework must include targets to increase farm income or it is irrelevant.
“They say APF has been a success because of the dollars that went out but we have to ask, a success for who?” he said July 6. “Farmers have had their worst series of income years since the APF in 2003. They set targets for agricultural exports and met them. Why can’t they set targets for farm income? Shouldn’t that be the goal of farm policy?”
Liberal agriculture critic Wayne Easter said the new framework does not address farmer marketplace power and farm profitability.
“It’s the same old crap that we’ve been doing since Growing Together in 1989 under the Conservatives,” he said.
