THE Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program is now in effect and will be available to farmers for 2003 and 2004.
That much we know.
But what isn’t as commonly known is that the CAIS program in place is the original version, not the amended version that finally encouraged Ontario to sign on last December, thereby enacting CAIS across Canada.
No, CAIS as it exists now does not have the more favourable deposit changes, does not have provisions for the coverage of negative margins and has a cap of $975,000 instead of the $3 million that Ontario negotiated.
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?
Only Ontario, Alberta and Prince Edward Island have signed up for the amended CAIS. To invoke it across Canada, even in those three provinces, four more provinces have to sign on to the amended version.
Thus the confusion about the Agricultural Policy Framework and its risk management component continues.
Provinces that haven’t yet signed are being encouraged to do so by federal agriculture minister Bob Speller and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
“It is imperative for provincial governments to sign on to the amendments to the CAISP as it represents an important step in building a better program for producers,” said the CFA in a Feb. 27 News release
news.
Of course, there’s a simple reason for some provinces’ reluctance to endorse the amendments. It’s money.
An amended CAIS will be more expensive than the original version. Provinces are expected to cover 40 percent of the cost and some governments, Saskatchewan and Manitoba among them, say they cannot afford a richer program.
Considering the need in agriculture today, surely it is time for the federal government to rethink its insistence on a 60-40 cost-sharing arrangement for agricultural assistance programs. When a high percentage of a provincial tax base is affected by agricultural disaster, it seems counter-intuitive to develop programs that put an additional burden on provinces struggling with the fallout from failing agricultural fortunes.
Some with oil wealth or more diversified economies, like Alberta and Ontario, can afford the extra burden that a 60-40 split requires. Others, like Saskatchewan, cannot. The result is unequal distribution of funds that do not necessarily get to where the need is greatest.
At time of writing, rumours were rife of a new federal plan to provide a financial bridge for farmers who are struggling in these difficult times. All farmers doubtless hope these rumours are true. The effectiveness of such a plan would be greatest if it were fully funded by the federal government and not tied to provincial contributions. Then it could truly be a bridge to bear the weight of farmers working toward more profitable times.
