HALIFAX – Farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia will
receive proportionately less “transitional” special government funding
this autumn and next year than farmers in other provinces, agriculture
ministers from those provinces have indicated.
The federal government is spending $600 million this year and next year
to help farmers cope with income pressures. It is supposed to be a
“transition” into the new long-term agriculture policy in which
additional or ad hoc payments will be ended.
Read Also
VIDEO: 2025 pulse and special crops convention kicks off in Whistler
Western Producer reporter Sean Pratt is in Whistler, B.C., covering the 2025 annual Pulse & Special Crops Convention. Follow along…
Ottawa said provinces should add 40 percent to bring the special
payments to $1 billion for each of two years, but the federal money
will go to farmers whether their provinces join or not.
On June 27-28 during a federal-provincial agriculture ministers’
meeting, ministers from the three provinces said they will not add 40
percent. Their farmers will receive just the federal share.
For British Columbia’s John van Dongen, it is a question of not having
the money in a slimmed down agriculture budget.
Saskatchewan and Manitoba said they should not have to share the costs
because the federal government is compensating for the impact of the
United States farm bill, which should be a federal responsibility. They
maintained their support for an earlier farmer demand for $1.3 billion
in federal “trade injury” aid.
Manitoba minister Rosann Wowchuk was the most adamant in rejecting the
call for provincial co-funding. She said Minnesota, North and South
Dakota farmers will receive $1.3 billion annually in subsidies from the
U.S. farm bill and that is what the federal money is meant to offset.
“We recognize this as trade injury and it is the responsibility of the
federal government,” she told reporters. “Right now, it is off-loading
federal responsibility on the provinces. It is (president) George Bush
that signs the cheques and pays the bills. It is not the states.”
Even though it was not formally on the agenda, the issue of the special
federal payment and the demand for provincial co-funding was a bitter
issue hanging over the two-day ministers’ meeting.
It led to a word dance.
Most provinces insisted the federal fund was to counteract the impact
of foreign subsidies and therefore is a federal “trade injury”
responsibility. “Only Mr. (federal agriculture minister Lyle) Vanclief
doesn’t recognize that,” said Saskatchewan’s Clay Serby.
Vanclief denied it.
“That is to assist in some of the stresses that have been out there for
some time, be they too much water, be they too little water, be they
the actions of other governments that are ongoing,” he told reporters.
“There have been a lot of challenges out there and we recognize as a
government that we have to help in that transition to get to the
agriculture policy framework from where we are. It is not directly
linked (to the farm bill).”
Ottawa fears that admitting it is compensating for foreign policy
impacts would open the floodgates of demands from other sectors,
including softwood lumber.
The federal government refused to drop its demand for provincial cost
sharing or to increase its share.
Meanwhile, federal and provincial officials begin working this week to
figure out how the money will be distributed.
Vanclief has said it will be targeted to areas and sectors most hurt by
income-suppressing factors, rather than by the traditional distribution
formula.
He has promised provinces more detail by mid-July, with the aim of
getting rules written and money flowing by autumn. Ottawa’s preference
is to funnel it through the Net Income Stabilization Account program
but some provinces are wary.
Serby said if distribution is according to “hurt,” Saskatchewan should
get 40 percent of the federal money or $250 million. Other provinces
have their own competing claims for “hurt.”
For Bob Friesen, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture,
the fighting should stop and the money should flow.
“We’d like them to get in a room, set politics aside and work this
out,” he said June 28.
“Let’s get the money out to where it is needed as quickly as possible.”
