Some farm groups say five pillars aren’t enough to support the weight
of a new federal-provincial agricultural policy. They want a sixth one
erected.
“We’re not sure that the agricultural policy framework addresses the
trade issue,” said Canadian Canola Growers Association general manager
Ernie Doerksen.
His views were echoed by Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association
president Art Enns, who said that was a major disappointment during the
recent framework consultations.
“I think some of the groups, ours included, really had some concerns
Read Also
Canola support gets mixed response
A series of canola industry support measures announced by the federal government are being met with mixed reviews.
that trade was not one of the topics that was really open for
discussion,” said Enns.
“A number of us thought this should have been an issue all by itself.”
The idea for a sixth pillar surfaced during a series of country-wide
consultations on the proposed new agricultural policy. The framework
was agreed to in principle by provincial and federal agriculture
ministers last June at a meeting in Whitehorse.
The proposed federal-provincial policy’s five pillars are food safety,
the environment, renewal, innovation and risk management.
Consultations about the framework were closed to the media, but
interviews with some of the main western-based commodity and farm
groups that attended meetings revealed the issues they want addressed
in the proposed new policy.
Business risk management was the most hotly debated of the five pillars
discussed at the consultations. Food safety and science and innovation
were the other two that farm and commodity groups seemed to want to
talk about. The renewal and environment pillars were not high on
anybody’s list of priorities.
A call for immediate, short-term subsidies was the strongest single
message delivered to Agriculture Canada policy officials who attended
meetings held across the country over the past month.
The Canadian Wheat Board, numerous farm groups and Saskatchewan
agriculture minister Clay Serby all support a proposal by Grain Growers
of Canada for governments to pay a $1.3 billion annual “trade injury”
subsidy to put Canadian farmers on a “level playing field” with
American and European Union farmers.
But that demand was not shared by the livestock representatives.
Cattle and hog groups expressed concern that short-term, ad-hoc safety
net programs could be perceived as trade irritants in the livestock
sector. They had other suggestions of what to do with what has been
deemed the business risk management pillar.
“We have proven that an industry development fund is the better
investment than individual income support programs,” said Rob McNabb,
assistant manager of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association.
He said the Beef Industry Development Fund is a prime example of why
research, market development and product development are more important
objectives than short-term, “unsustainable,” income support programs.
Martin Rice, executive director of the Canadian Pork Council, said the
biggest business risk management threat for the livestock industry is
avoiding foreign animal diseases like foot-and-mouth. The federal
government has a big role in ensuring adequate protection, response and
compensation if there is an animal health disaster.
“We’ll need major government leadership and resources there,” said Rice.
Saskatchewan Pulse Growers executive director Garth Patterson said the
proposed new framework is a “real good fit” for the pulse industry.
He said pulse growers are particularly interested in the science and
innovation pillar of the framework because it ties in with the
industry’s new national pulse research strategy.
Patterson said he would like to see the federal government adjust its
matching investment policy, which directs money toward Agriculture
Canada researchers and ignores institutions like the Crop Development
Centre where a lot of pulse varieties are developed.
Pulse growers would also like to see the government change its policy
on intellectual property because the benefits of publicly funded
research are monopolized by one company rather than shared with primary
producers.
Science and innovation was also a hot topic for the livestock sector.
Rice said Ottawa has a long way to go to provide livestock’s
appropriate share of research and extension dollars.
Wayne Bacon, past-president of the Canadian Canola Growers Association,
worries about the costs of implementing food safety and environmental
programs in the grain and oilseed sector.
“Who is paying for all this? It seems that everything is being passed
down to the producer,” said Bacon.
He cited Lindane as an example. The pesticide was withdrawn from the
market because of environmental concerns.
“It’s going to cost producers another three bucks an acre by not having
Lindane out there as a control of flea beetles,” said Bacon.
The Canadian Wheat Board said it wants the federal government to
protect access to wheat and barley markets by not allowing the
licensing of genetically modified wheat and barley until the market
accepts them.
The board also wants Ottawa to maintain or increase public funding for
research and to make the transportation system more economical for
farmers.
National Farmers Union executive director Darrin Qualman said
agriculture policy over the past two decades has been “extremely
destructive” to the family farm, and he hopes this framework represents
the dawn of a new era.
“If there is a real change afoot here, that would be welcome, but
there’s a big ‘if’ there.” He said the first step governments have to
take is injecting more money into safety net programs.
“The current funding just isn’t enough,” said Qualman.
