THE recent report from the Saskatchewan ombudsman is refreshing in its frankness. It rebukes the government and raises points relevant to farmers.
Ombudsman Barbara Tomkins from the Regina office emphasizes that there is a difference between what is legal and what is fair. She accuses the government of sometimes ruling by the first and ignoring the second.
She uses the example of a farmer who was charged interest on an overdue premium for crop insurance, but wasn’t paid interest on insurance money that was owed to him.
Read Also
Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality
Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.
The government can do this, legally speaking. But the provincial ombudsman’s office ruled it isn’t fair.
The ombudsman demanded that Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation pay the interest to the farmer, and that SCIC “develop a consistent practice respecting claiming and paying interest.”
But Tomkins is disappointed the corporation has not changed its policy to pay interest to other farmers in similar circumstances.
This is not the first time the provincial ombudsman has raised the point about insurance claims and premiums.
“In each case, our conclusions and recommendations were the same,” points out Tomkins.
Statutory provisions exempt SCIC from paying interest on disputed crop insurance claims.
Is it a bureaucratic problem, or is it an intentional method to augment government coffers?
Hopefully the report will stir people to demand action. If enough of them asked for change, or reported cases like this to the ombudsman’s office, government agencies will be forced to be fair in their dealings.
The government’s attitude, as presented in the report, is troubling.
“In some sense, government does not always view an unfair decision in the same light that it generally views an unlawful decision,” Tomkins wrote.
“One gets the impression, sometimes, that government sees unfairness as something less important and less demanding of rectification.
“There are no degrees of unfairness, just as there are no degrees of unlawfulness. The severity of consequences may vary but an action or decision is either unfair or it is not. … Lawfulness and fairness are two different but equally important requirements …. Fairness in government decisions and actions has been legislated as a requirement of lawfulness. If so, an unfair decision is also, by virtue of that fact, an unlawful decision.”
The report concludes: “Unfairness simply cannot be in keeping with the objectives or philosophy of a fair and lawful government program.”
The government must do what is fair. In this particular case, it could mean farmer dollars in times when every penny is needed.
