Federal agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief has set a deadline for the provinces to settle their differences over how future farm safety net money should be distributed.
By February, if there is no compromise among the deeply divided provinces, he will impose a solution.
“I think February is the critical time,” Vanclief said in a Sept. 23 interview. “I think it has to be settled and I suppose if it has to be settled, it probably comes down to me to settle it.”
It would be a controversial move, since the provinces pay 40 percent of the safety net bill and agriculture is a shared jurisdiction between Ottawa and the provinces.
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
At issue is a long-simmering dispute between the Prairies and the rest of the country over how safety net dollars should be distributed.
A so-called “gang of seven” led by Ontario and British Columbia and including the five eastern-most provinces insist that the present distribution formula is too risk-based. It gives Saskatchewan and Manitoba too large a share of the safety net fund.
The seven insist that the next long-term program move toward dollars distributed based on the relative size of the provincial industry.
East cries discrimination
Last week, Ontario premier Mike Harris waded into the fray, alleging that because of the present distribution bias, Ontario farmers have been receiving $22 million a year less than their rightful $126 million share, based on the relative size of the Ontario farm economy.
“If Ontario farmers were treated the same way by the federal government as Saskatchewan farmers, in a year of low prices it would mean an additional $6,500 for an Ontario grower with 3,000 acres,” he said in a statement distributed at the International Plowing Match at Dashwood, Ont.
Vanclief, appearing to be annoyed by the ongoing dispute, indicated that if he has to impose a settlement, he will not be on the side of the majority.
“I personally feel that no matter what we do, there’s going to have to be some recognition of the fact that there may be varying levels of risk in different parts of the country.”
He said with changing weather patterns, farmers in reliable production areas who are demanding a reduction in distribution-by-risk may find themselves victims of a future disaster.
He noted the traditional prairie dust bowl was under water this year. “We don’t know where the next hot risk will be, or for what reason.”
Mainly, Vanclief was annoyed by the uncompromising nature of the provincial debate, which has been going on for two years.
“I don’t see a consensus (emerging), no,” he said. “What I see is people saying ‘yes, I understand but we want it this way.’ “
