Sometime in early May, Newfoundland is expected to become the first province to sign agriculture policy framework implementing agreements with the federal government.
On April 11, Prince Edward Island agriculture minister Mitch Murphy became the ninth provincial agriculture minister to sign onto the APF in principle. Only Quebec has not signed in principle and a new Liberal government expected to be elected April 14 may be more co-operative.
On April 17, Ottawa receives a “third party” assessment of the government’s proposals for new farm programs that even critics expect will endorse the Liberal analysis.
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
And in provincial capitals across the country, discussions are ongoing between federal and provincial bureaucrats on designing implementing agreements for the APF.
“All the provinces are involved in discussions,” Saskatchewan assistant deputy agriculture minister Hal Cushon said April 14.
Recently, federal agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief reaffirmed from Treasury Board that $5.2 billion in federal funding is available for five years, but only if there are federal-provincial implementation agreements.
“The money is there and it has been confirmed,” Vanclief press aide Donald Boulanger said April 14.
“For business risk management, it does not flow until agreements are signed. We expect agreements with all the provinces. The minister has been encouraged by what he has heard.”
What he has heard seems to be a provincial concession that even if they oppose the federal proposals for a new Net Income Stabilization Account program, production insurance and the end of provincial companion programs, they have little choice but to sign if they want federal money.
P.E.I. is an example.
Murphy has been one of the holdouts in signing the agreement-in-principle because his farm groups told him the new deal may not be as good as the old deal and at the very least, should be better explained and analyzed.
By last week, with Ottawa intent on forging ahead and unwilling to consider extending existing programs for a year as requested by farm groups and many provinces, Mitchell decided to bend.
“The province held out because the minister’s farm advisory group told him to,” said Murphy aide Wayne MacKinnon.
“The farm groups have not changed their minds, but the minister decided he had to go ahead to get federal dollars.”
Boulanger said Vanclief has not set a deadline for completing federal-provincial signatures on bilateral deals to allow safety net, food safety, environmental, research and renewal funding.
However, he noted that funds usually begin to flow from Ottawa by the fall.
Meanwhile, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture remains one of the main dissident groups holding out for a better deal.
It has had independent research done on program proposal comparisons, preparing to offer alternative views if Ottawa’s April 17 report simply endorses the federal analysis.
CFA safety nets committee chair Bill Mailloux said farmers still believe a year’s extension of existing programs would have been a wise course.
“We continue to encourage provincial ministers to hold out for an extension,” he said.
He accused Vanclief of delaying announcing details of the rules for the 2003 $600 million “transition fund” distribution until provinces sign onto APF.
“He’s using it as a club, as far as I can see.”
Meanwhile, the CFA accused Vanclief of lying to the House of Commons when he suggested farmer proposals for alternate safety net designs were delivered in late March, days before the April 1 launch of the APF.
In fact, the safety nets advisory committee made a proposal in February, the CFA said.
And in early April, the CFA appealed to trade minister Pierre Pettigrew to become involved because it thinks Vanclief’s proposals would make Canadian farm support programs trade vulnerable.
By April 14, Pettigrew had not responded.
