RED DEER – One of the chief authors of a third-party review that largely endorsed the government design of new farm safety nets insists he was not paid to give the federal government the answer it wanted.
Larry Martin, chief executive officer of the Guelph, Ont.-based George Morris Centre, said in an interview May 1 that his analysis of the agricultural policy framework was largely unfettered by the federal mandate.
“I like the design,” he said.
“Whether I had more time or a different mandate would not have changed my view. I think this is a better design than what we have now.”
Read Also
Agri-business and farms front and centre for Alberta’s Open Farm Days
Open Farm Days continues to enjoy success in its 14th year running, as Alberta farms and agri-businesses were showcased to increase awareness on how food gets to the dinner plate.
On April 25, the George Morris Centre and IBM consultants presented a commissioned report to Agriculture Canada that endorsed the government’s controversial business risk management proposals. It said these offer farmers more stability, more equality between provinces and better coverage of losses.
Agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief and other Liberals quickly latched onto the report as proof that the farmer campaign against the government plan is wrong.
In the House of Commons last week, agriculture committee chair Paul Steckle asked if the report “give(s) credence to farmers’ concerns or does it portray a positive program for farmers as we move into the future?”
Vanclief was quickly on his feet to answer the planted question.
“The third party review did determine that the new program design would be a major improvement over the status quo,” the minister enthused. “It concluded that the new program would better stabilize producers’ incomes across commodities, better direct funds to areas of need, treat producers more equitably across the country and across commodities, be simpler for both producers and administrators and help producers in their long-term planning.”
That was too much for the farm critics.
“We are certain that the consultants will state that they were only following the terms of reference given to them by the federal government,” wrote Ontario soybean grower and Grain Growers of Canada president Ken Bee. “While this may be a factual observation, it underscores the dangers of using terms of reference that have been designed to uphold a certain point of view, rather than examine legitimate concerns brought forward by farmers.”
GGC said the consultants were wrong to accept government arguments that the new programs will be more affordable for farmers. They were wrong to endorse the government view that new stabilization programs could not deal with foreign trade injury.
And the study conclusions were undermined by its failure, dictated by the terms of reference, to examine farmer fears that the new programs would be vulnerable to trade challenge.
They said farmers see the consultants’ report as “a public relations exercise” to sidetrack concerns.
In the report, compiled in just over three weeks, Martin and the others acknowledged they did no independent research and simply examined program details and analysis prepared by the designers.
They looked at a farmer counter-proposal but decided it was too ill defined to fully assess and too costly to fit into government APF budget limitations.
They agreed with government that trade injury compensation could not be a part of APF programming.
“In our view, the bottom line is that the systematic trade injury issue is not one that can be resolved with a stabilization program,” said the consultants.
“All a stabilization program can do is assist those affected with a transition to some other production opportunity if foreign subsidies remove those opportunities one is currently pursuing.”
Bee said that was not an answer.
“The consultants’ suggestion that grains and oilseed farmers should produce commodities that are not negatively impacted by foreign governments will be met with more than a little cynicism, given the fact that virtually all of our markets are severely distorted,” Bee said in a letter to Vanclief.
Martin said he thinks the prolonged battle between farm groups and the government is one of concept rather than design.
“I think governments want to design a system that sends money to need,” he said. “Farmers are promoting a program based on entitlement.”
