The chair of a review committee that has prepared a report for federal and provincial agriculture ministers on the Agricultural Policy Framework says the program had a fatal design flaw from the start.
It has been trying to accomplish two incompatible goals.
“In essence, the fundamental problem that prevails throughout the APF but in particular the business risk management leg is the idea that it would be a long-term strategy while also dealing with the short-term income crisis,” economist Ed Tyrchniewicz from the University of Manitoba said in an interview.
Read Also
Interest in biological crop inputs continues to grow
It was only a few years ago that interest in alternative methods such as biologicals to boost a crop’s nutrient…
“When you mix long-term and short-term, you achieve neither.”
The APF review committee, comprising industry, federal and provincial representatives and chaired by Tyrchniewicz, completed its report last week and is expected to present it to governments soon.
It will be part of the fodder as officials work on potential Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program amendments to present to federal and provincial ministers when they meet in Newfoundland in late June.
Tyrchniewicz said he was speaking as an academic who had spent time analyzing the CAIS issue rather than as chair of a committee whose report is still confidential.
“But since both levels of government are on the committee, they will not be surprised by our recommendations or our conclusion that the CAIS design was flawed,” he said.
He said the conclusion is that disaster compensation should be separated from normal stabilization programming, a promise the Conservatives made during the election campaign.
“I think that could help,” said Tyrchniewicz. “But that (the Conservative promise) is not why we are making that recommendation. It just makes sense.”
Although federal agriculture minister Chuck Strahl has backtracked from a campaign promise to scrap the unpopular CAIS program and now says it can be improved, he is sticking to the promise that a separate disaster fund will be established.
“They’re going to have a public consultation on CAIS,” Tyrchniewicz said. “That’s good but the fundamental question that has to be asked is how do we manage to deal with agriculture and deal with the hurt out there on a risk management basis.”
He said part of the debate about safety nets must revolve around how competitive Canadian agriculture is in a modern world of low-cost production in many other countries.
