LAST month’s tsunami disaster in the Indian Ocean basin has focused attention on federal food aid procurement policies.
As they stand, 90 percent of international food aid funding must be used to ship food purchased in Canada. This has hindered the country’s ability to provide quick food aid to the tsunami victims, because shipping food from Canada takes about six weeks. As well, a substantial portion of money raised through charities and government matching funds is used to cover transportation costs, reducing the total available for food purchases.
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?
Canadian farm groups and their affiliates, among them the Grain Growers of Canada, Canadian Federation of Agriculture and National Farmers Union, say the rules should be waived in the face of this disaster so that Canadian aid agencies can buy food that is closer to the affected regions and deliver it more quickly, efficiently and cost-effectively.
That’s as it should be. The millions of dollars donated by Canadians in the past month are ample evidence that all of us understand the magnitude of this disaster and the urgent need to provide help. As CFA president Bob Friesen said, this is no time to be playing politics over aid programs.
Once Canada’s tsunami response is finalized, however, the political debate over food aid will continue.
And it should.
The current food policy was developed with both humanitarian response and domestic food surpluses in mind. If Canada could provide international aid while also helping farmers by reducing surplus product, so much the better.
Thus the policy addressed international aid obligations while also providing a “selling point” domestically for the value of foreign aid.
Today, several decades after this policy was formed, food aid supplied by Canada accounts for less than one percent of Canadian grain production, according to figures provided by the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. Domestic grain surplus is not as much an issue; certainly not to the degree that it can be fully blamed for depressed commodity prices.
Today, Canadians more readily see themselves as citizens of a compassionate country that has a desire and even an obligation to help the less fortunate around the world.
No longer must a foreign aid policy be “sold” to the electorate. The debate lies more in the scope of the aid, not its existence in the first place.
The foodgrains bank, along with Oxfam Canada, has for years been lobbying the federal government and the Canadian International Development Agency to change the 90 percent rule.
They make a compelling case, particularly in light of recent events where the policy is adversely affecting Canada’s ability to help those in need.
The two groups suggest that the 90 percent requirement be reduced but not removed, and that the rules be changed to allow food purchases from another country Ñ if the needed commodity is not produced in Canada, if the purchase is cost efficient and if it will provide aid in a significantly more timely manner than would be possible through shipping from Canada.
The two charities further state in their proposal that Canadian grain donations, and their proceeds, would continue to be sought and delivered internationally to people in need.
Canadians would thus continue to see images of food marked “Product of Canada” being delivered and used by people in need. Such proof is important to farmers’ continued support of the foodgrains bank program in particular.
International co-operation minister Aileen Carroll has said her department has begun a “consultative process with agricultural producers” on food aid.
Once the tsunami response has been quantified, this process should be expedited. The food aid procurement policy is overdue for a careful examination and quite probably overdue for change.
Carroll must make good on her promise of consultation with farmers. No market for Canadian grain, however small, can be taken lightly in this economic climate.
Changes to the policy must have no impact on Canadian agricultural commodity markets.
As well, changes must be considered in light of World Trade Organization negotiations, where food aid policies are likely to be an issue.
As the international co-operation minister asserts, there is no urgency to change the food aid policy once tsunami relief is adequately addressed.
That means there is ample time to do a thorough review and devise a new policy acceptable to farmers and to all other Canadians.
