THE Conservative party election campaign promise of regionally sensitive farm program funding always had the feel of back-of-the-envelope policy making.
It followed a Liberal announcement that if elected, they would restore the companion program co-funding that they eliminated when last in power, budgeting $564 million over four years.
That announcement was well received in rural Ontario and Quebec where the Conservatives were looking for seats.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario-Quebec Grain Farmers’ Coalition quickly praised the Liberal announcement while complaining that it was not much money for a national 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?
“Support for farmers representing hard-hit regions and those in specific struggling commodity sectors, such our livestock producers, is key,” said Laurent Pellerin, CFA first vice-president. “We are encouraged to see that this is addressed in the Liberal platform.”
Late in the campaign, the Conservatives responded in their own platform with a $500 million four-year commitment “to work co-operatively with provinces and territories to implement an agricultural flexibility program.”
But what did that mean?
The platform said it would be available for programs that address issues of production costs, innovation, environmental sustainability and marketing issues.
But farmers heard ‘agri-flex’ and reacted as if it was a business risk management (BRM) companion program.
Many Conservative candidates encouraged, or at least did not discourage, such an interpretation. Prime minister Stephen Harper and agriculture secretary of state Christian Paradis confirmed to Ontario and Quebec farm groups that the money could be used for BRM programming.
But agriculture minister Gerry Ritz was never on that page. Almost immediately after the announcement, he made clear he was uncomfortable with the idea of funding provincial-specific business risk programs.
He raised fears of countervail challenges and a patchwork quilt of farm programming across the country that treats farmers in rich provinces better than farmers in poorer provinces.
But Ritz never ruled out BRM funding and particularly money for the Risk Management Program now available to Ontario grain and oilseed producers with Ontario-only funding.
Now back in office, Ritz says he will consult on how the Ontario government and farmers want the federal cash used in their province but he remains reluctant to commit to the risk management program.
Last week, that brought a rejoinder from OFA president Geri Kamenz.
“Agri-flex is a business risk management program that would complement and fill identified gaps in the proposed suite (of programs) on a province-by-province basis,” he said. “That is all we are asking from the federal government.”
All of which means that Ritz will have a delicate line to walk this winter.
Does he follow his instincts and reject the calls for funding? That would give opposition politicians ammunition to campaign in the countryside on the slogan: Conservative promise made, promise broken.
Or does he set aside his personal position for the sake of minimizing political damage? Rural voters are watching.
