Ontario has moved from being an enthusiastic supporter of the federal
agricultural policy framework and a key summertime ally of Ottawa to
being an autumn APF skeptic and a critic of the federal performance.
Ontario agriculture minister Helen Johns will go to a Dec. 4
federal-provincial meeting on safety nets wondering what game Ottawa
has been playing and why so little progress has been made in designing
new farm safety net programs since the APF was signed in June in
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
Halifax.
At the time, Johns was the first provincial minister to pledge a 40
percent share of Ontario’s portion of the federal $600 million
transition fund.
Now, she sounds disappointed and a bit betrayed.
“It is embarrassing for all of us that we’ve made so little progress in
five or six months,” she said in an interview from her Toronto office.
Johns will be going to the meeting to support farm groups in their plea
that existing safety net programs be extended for a year past March 31,
2003, to avoid new programs that aren’t guaranteed to be better than
existing ones.
“To rush and to put a program in place that could risk the livelihood
of the agriculture community in the province and in Canada is a crying
shame,” she said.
Federal agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief has said he will not agree
to a program extension. He is convinced a new program design can be in
place by next spring and that consultations with farmers and provinces
are producing results.
Johns has a different version of events since Halifax in June.
She recites a litany of complaints that includes lack of sincere
communication from Ottawa, a dollop of federal arrogance, a refusal to
provide details and some promise betrayal by Vanclief.
There were, for instance, the two letters to Ottawa from Johns and
Manitoba agriculture minister Rosann Wowchuk asking for meetings with
Vanclief on APF safety net issues. Neither letter was answered.
Suddenly, Ottawa called a federal-provincial meeting for Dec. 4.
“I think not having two ministers’ letters answered is problematic,”
she said.
Then there is the issue of farm groups that asked for details about how
programs might be changed but received no federal details or analysis
to prove that better alternatives exist to what is now available.
“I think not to have good consultation with farm groups is a problem.”
She also said it was arrogant of Ottawa to distribute its $600 million
in 2002 transition funds through the Net Income Stabilization Account
program, over the objections of farmers and provinces.
But Johns’ most serious complaint is that in Halifax, Vanclief promised
her national APF standards and equitable treatment for all provinces.
Since then, Ottawa has been holding bilateral negotiations with each of
the seven provinces that have signed, offering some better deals than
others. In one case, Quebec was offered a deal even though it has not
signed, Johns said.
“The federal minister promised me there could be companion programs in
the province, but we would have to look at how to make those programs
work,” she said.
“All of a sudden, we’re told no companion programs in Ontario, but
Quebec gets to keep its companion program. That is not acceptable.
There has to be equity.”
She said there is no way a new set of programs can be in place for the
next fiscal year if Ottawa continues to act as it has. And a set of
programs imposed by Ottawa on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, as many
provinces fear, would not be acceptable.
Johns, who is a Progressive Conservative, said she is hoping the
federal Liberal rural caucus will convince Vanclief and his senior
bureaucrats to be more flexible.
