IT’S HARD to believe that it’s nearly time for the promised one year review of the agricultural policy framework. The APF was devised in 2001, then solidified, modified and vilified, mostly in that order, over the last three years. It limped into effect in late 2003, following reluctant endorsements by the necessary contingent of provinces. Worry about farm program funding was the clincher that eventually got provincial pens put to paper.
The birth of the APF, in particular the farm safety net element, has been an arduous process to say the least. And what made it so difficult?
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?
Looking back to July 2001, when agriculture ministers from across Canada met in Whitehorse to discuss the APF, the mood was upbeat. Ministers applauded a plan that would provide stability to the nation’s farmers. Then-federal agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief agreed it was “essential that producers have a stable safety net environment to make their business decisions.”
The government was on track to move farmers “beyond crisis management,” as the catchy phraseology proclaimed. But when it came to the details, progress was hobbled primarily by one major error: the planners stopped listening to farmers and the farm groups through which they speak.
In the government’s rush to implement the APF’s risk management pillar, the wishes of farmers were not given their due. In consequence, the users of the program are among the most skeptical of the APF’s ability to improve farmers’ lot.
Are we soon to see a reprise of this sad chapter in farm policy planning as a one-year review is in the offing?
Farm leaders say federal and provincial bureaucrats want to keep farmers at arm’s length in the review. A committee is proposed to which farmers could offer advice but would not be integral to the process.
Hello? Who better to have direct input than the farmers for whom the safety net is designed? Who better than those who have investigated the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program, the offspring of the APF, and found it wanting? Who better to explain the urgency of establishing a workable program than those suffering from negative farm incomes?
Involving more bureaucrats in any process does not typically speed things up. And at this point, Canadian farmers and ranchers cannot afford delays.
Naturally it will take some time for the new federal agriculture minister to get up to speed on the APF file. But when he does his homework, he can take different lessons from each of his two recent predecessors.
From Vanclief, he can learn the perils of ignoring farmer advice and of pretending any one program can address the ills of Canadian agriculture. From Bob Speller, he can learn the value of listening to farmers and taking a conciliatory attitude when pondering their stated needs.
For good or ill, we’ve come too far with the APF to start over again. The feds must make farmers an integral part of the review.
