THE federal Conservative plan to develop a stand-alone disaster aid program for farmers is a welcome direction for recent agriculture policy.
There are no details, but at least the Conservatives acknowledge the need for such a program.
It offers a refreshing change from Liberal governments of the past 15 years that repeatedly attempted to set up universal, one-size-fits-all programs to address all farmer needs.
Those programs proved grossly inadequate in getting money to farmers in times of disaster, be they caused by floods, drought or BSE. Programs such as the Agricultural Income Disaster Assistance program, the Canadian Farm Income Program and the present Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program have proven to be slow and ineffective. It has become clear that a disaster program, separate from whole farm income stabilization programs, is necessary.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
However, federal agriculture minister Chuck Strahl’s claims of a major breakthrough following a recent meeting of federal and provincial agriculture ministers in Calgary are premature.
The provinces and Ottawa agreed to an outline for a program at the meeting, but Strahl’s claims of success would be better supported if there were details to report. The provincial ministers at the meeting were decidedly less enthused about the progress than was Strahl.
The framework remains largely a mystery and key questions must be answered before victory can be declared.
Perhaps the largest obstacle will be getting federal and provincial governments to agree on cost sharing. The so-called traditional cost-sharing arrangement, in which Ottawa pays 60 percent and the provinces 40 percent, has proven unfair. Provinces most dependent on agriculture are harder hit proportionately in times of disaster compared to provinces that have a smaller percentage of their economy derived from farming. Thus, the agriculturally dependent provinces are forced to pay more to help their farmers through disasters at times when they can least afford it. It makes more sense to spread disaster funding more broadly over a national tax base.
There are other unanswered questions as well: how would a disaster be defined under a new program? How would aid be triggered? Who would decide when a region qualifies for aid?
Some involved in the negotiations have voiced suspicions that Ottawa is interested only in creating a plausible cover story so it can tell voters that it is living up to election promises.
The federal government must get busy or risk that rumour gaining the appearance of truth if an effective stand-alone farm disaster program is not rolled out in time for the next growing season.
Toward that end, the provinces too must live up to their responsibilities and ensure the focus of the negotiations remains on how to best benefit farmers.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
