The long-promised review of the controversial Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program was launched last week with the April 25 announcement of a 37 member national CAIS committee to conduct the review.
Critics were under-whelmed, complaining the review is less than was promised and offers future changes rather than corrections of the current rules.
In fact, those critical of the program, its support levels and the timeliness of its payouts should not expect quick recommendations for CAIS changes, a government official said.
“You don’t want to make changes too quickly without analyzing the potential for unexpected consequences,” said Ellen Funk of the Agriculture Canada farm income programs directorate in Winnipeg.
Read Also
Ag in Motion speaker highlights need for biosecurity on cattle operations
Ag in Motion highlights need for biosecurity on cattle farms. Government of Saskatchewan provides checklist on what you can do to make your cattle operation more biosecure.
“There could be some short-term recommendations but this is a very complicated program and much analysis needs to be done before detailed recommendations for changes can be made.”
She said the committee, chaired by assistant deputy agriculture minister Mary Komarynsky, will meet for the first time in May and will look at the the CAIS deposit, which federal and provincial ministers have said they want to end if an alternative can be found.
However, Funk said the May meeting will not produce substantive discussion about changes to CAIS.
“Many members of the committee will be new to this and will need some time to get up to speed on many of the issues,” she said. The committee is scheduled to meet twice a year but there could be conference calls between formal meetings and the May meeting will discuss the frequency of future gatherings.
Grain Growers of Canada president Jim Smolik of Dawson Creek, B.C., said the current review proposal appears to be aimed at fixing flaws for the next generation of CAIS.
“There are serious flaws in the current program and we were promised by minister (Lyle) Vanclief that the new program would be equal to or better than the suite of programs that existed at the time it was brought in and it is not,” Smolik said. “We also were promised a review to fix it. This looks to me more aimed at the future than the problems we have to live with now.”
