Saskatchewan agriculture minister Clay Serby finds himself under intense pressure to sign onto the agricultural policy framework, as much from other provincial capitals as from Ottawa.
But if he’s feeling the heat, the election-bound minister is not showing it.
“We have not signed the APF yet because there are still two or three things that are inadequate,” he said at the end of a federal-provincial agriculture ministers’ meeting in Ottawa Sept. 22.
At that meeting, the federal government turned the vice tighter by insisting any new money for the cattle industry, which has been stricken by disappearing markets after the discovery of one case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, must come from the APF. Other provinces pleaded with Serby to sign, since Saskatchewan’s signature would be enough to get the new program going.
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
Serby remained defiant.
He told the meeting that while APF funding is set at $1.1 billion in annual federal dollars, in every recent year the demand and resources have been greater.
And the APF does not include trade injury compensation, despite the fact that foreign subsidies will continue to depress prices.
“In Western Canada, although BSE is a big issue today, we’ll be back to the issues of grains and oilseeds immediately when you look at where grain prices are today,” he told reporters. “The trade wars are back but the transition money is ending.”
Later in the House of Commons, federal agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief told Saskatchewan New Democrat MP Dick Proctor that if he “really wanted the farmers in his province to benefit from the money that is there to help farmers across this country, he would go back home and convince the provincial minister in his own province that they sign the agricultural policy framework.”
Some provincial ministers used the Sept. 22 meeting to make that pitch directly to Serby.
They argued Saskatchewan and other reluctant provinces – Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island – should sign on so the program can be launched nationally.
Two weeks ago, British Columbia agriculture minister John van Dongen wrote a letter to other provincial ministers urging them to sign, as he did.
“If we’re going to have a national program, there’s only one way and that’s to join the APF,” he said Sept. 22. “I can’t encourage my colleagues more strongly to join. I’m not saying it’s perfect but it’s the best attempt we have at a five-year program to at least give farmers the tools to manage risk.”
Alberta agriculture minister Shirley McClellan emerged from the meeting with the same message. She has signed and wants the program to be national.
“Until you sign the program and get it started, how can you know whether it will work?” she asked the critics.
To take effect, the APF with its Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program replacing the Net Income Stabilization Account program must have the signatures of six NISA provinces representing at least half the country’s eligible net sales. Alberta has signed but it was not in NISA so it does not count toward the trigger.
To date, the program needs one more provincial signature to take effect. As well, the signers fall far short of representing 50 percent of eligible net sales.
It will require either Saskatchewan or Ontario to meet those conditions.
Ontario is in the midst of an election campaign so signing is not possible until after the Oct. 2 vote. Ontario farm groups are demanding changes to the APF before the province joins and both the governing Conservatives and the opposition Liberals – leading in the polls – say they won’t sign until farmers demand it.
Saskatchewan is likely to enter an election campaign within weeks, setting any talk of signing aside until after the likely early November vote. The opposition Saskatchewan Party says it also opposes signing without changes.
