A new era in national agricultural policies officially launched April 1, even though the new design has few details, divided provincial approval, no legal standing and little farmer support.
In the House of Commons March 30, federal agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief said the launch of the agricultural policy framework began an era of predictable programs and stable five-year funding, even though all the details have not been worked out.
“We have time to continue to develop the business risk management aspect of the APF,” said the minister. “…when that is completed, any federal-provincial agreement that needs to be signed, because they do cease on March 31 of this year, will be retroactive to April 1 of 2003.”
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
When the dust settles, Ottawa wants two national programs cost-shared with provinces – a new super Net Income Stabilization Account plan that covers
stabilization in the event of small income drops and disaster coverage, as well as a national production insurance plan.
Provincial programs supported with federal money will be phased out over three years.
On March 31, Progressive Conservative agriculture critic Rick Borotsik called it “the biggest April fool’s joke perpetrated on Canadian farmers.”
Canadian Alliance Saskatchewan MP David Anderson said the country was entering a “policy vacuum.”
In Toronto March 31, Ontario agriculture minister Helen Johns said the launch of the APF under such controversy is bad news for farmers.
“I feel worse today that a timeline has come and gone (without agreement),” she said. “We have no resolution and there seems no avenue to move forward.”
In Winnipeg, Manitoba minister Rosann Wowchuk urged Vanclief to call a federal-provincial minister’s meeting to try to find broader agreement. He has not responded.
On Parliament Hill last week, Canadian Federation of Agriculture vice-president Laurent Pellerin said it was an insult to farmers that Ottawa was refusing to extend existing programs for a year to satisfy farmer complaints about the design.
By any standard, it was a chaotic “launch” of a new farm policy era that started with wide federal-provincial agreement in principle in 2001 and included a well-received federal announcement in June 2002 of $5.2 billion in federal spending.
Some of the points of confusion and disagreement littering the policy landscape as the sun rose April 1 included:
- Without agreement from at least seven provinces, the existing NISA program cannot be changed, so for the moment, old NISA rules apply although they will change mid-year if agreement is reached.
- Old crop insurance rules continue to apply, although they will change in mid-year if agreement is reached.
- No provinces have signed implementing agreements and several, Quebec and Ontario among them, say they will not until Ottawa changes its design proposals.
Last week, Saskatchewan’s Clay Serby indicated he will not sign implementing agreements now, although he recently signed the APF in principle.
- Most farm lobby groups continue to call for a one-year extension of past programs, including the Canadian Farm Income Protection program, until the details of the new program are acceptable to farmers. Vanclief has refused, so the year begins with no disaster relief program.
- The Canadian Federation of Agriculture last week presented analysis to Vanclief and rural Liberal MPs that suggested proposed new programs would provide less support to farmers at a higher cost, contrary to Agriculture Canada arguments. Vanclief agreed to hire third-party analysts to test the outcome of both sets of policies on typical farms.
Despite Vanclief’s insistence that April 1 was not a deadline and there still is time to negotiate program details, farm leaders and critics say farmers are negotiating with bankers now with no idea of what program support awaits them.
“The minister has no deadline, no plan and no program,” said Borotsik.
