I HAVE always thought the name given of Canada’s agricultural stabilization program, CAIS, should be pronounced chaos.
Now, Canada’s auditor general seems to have a similar feeling about the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program.
The goal of the program, back in 2001, was to build an Agricultural Policy Framework with five pillars:
- Business risk management
- Renewal
- Food safety and quality
- Environment
- Science and innovation
Those are all important goals but combining them leads to a complex program.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
The situation reminds me of a cartoon I saw some years ago, expressing several important principles. First, keep your eye on the ball. Second, keep your ear to the ground. Third, keep your shoulder to the wheel.
The picture showed the individual doing those things, half-lying on the ground with a twisted body.
Final statement: “Now, try to work in that position.”
Income security plans are hard to develop. There are various groups – agricultural, agri-food and government – with all the rivalries involved. Then there are national and international issues, like trade rules and commodity prices, that are beyond any farmer’s or government’s control.
Despite extensive consultation, the result was disastrously complex, resulting in a high number of overpayments and underpayments.
Auditor general Sheila Fraser complains of that complexity, lack of transparency, conflicts of interest with government employees, too much emphasis on collecting overpayments and too little interest in underpayments.
Many government officials who were to help people with the plan went “above and beyond the call of duty.” These officials moonlighted by preparing forms for clients. It’s like Canadian Revenue Agency employees completing your tax forms for pay.
Is it a conflict of interest? Fraser says yes and I agree. Is it understandable? Absolutely. Given the complexity of the program, who better to help the producer than someone who understands how to get through the complexity?
If a program is going to help people, it must solve a problem and be clear enough that people understand it and participate in it confidently.
Which brings me to Allan Gregg’s comments at the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan Agrivision Corp. Gregg, of the Strategic Council, is an opinion-gatherer and consultant to major Canadian organizations. He understands how people think.
He spoke about peoples’ understanding of agriculture, particularly food safety, and how the agricultural sector needs to work with the public to combat major concerns.
While Gregg did not refer to farm support programs, they crossed my mind, in terms of working with the public that is largely unaware of agricultural issues. The same concerns came back when I read Fraser’s comments. How will non-farm people respond to this boondoggle?
The federal Tories, ever eager for political gain, say the program needs to be replaced. Agriculture minister Chuck Strahl says that he is working on the solution.
Can the Conservatives actually do any better? I doubt it, but I would be very happy if I am wrong.
Rob Brown is a former agricultural writer and broadcaster now doing studies in ethics. He can be reached at moral.economy@sasktel.net.
