The caller to the CBC radio phone-in show last week succinctly stated what many farmers may be thinking after the federal agriculture minister visited Saskatchewan and Alberta.
“The federal minister of agriculture doesn’t have it yet. I don’t know if he’s ever going to get it,” stormed a frustrated farmer from Rockglen, Sask.
Few people believed Lyle Vanclief would announce disaster relief during a visit to Saskatchewan and Alberta.
However, they hoped this would be an opportunity to let him know how bad things are in the fields, teach him the shortfalls in safety net programs and elicit even moral support from him. They wanted him to understand the challenges they face, and get his commitment to represent their best interests at the cabinet table back in Ottawa.
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
To his credit, he toured drought areas and met with some of the farmers, farm groups, media organizations, and the provincial agriculture minister during his visit.
But people were disappointed for several reasons after his visit.
The main one: it appears Vanclief made up his mind about the drought not requiring emergency aid prior to stepping off his plane. “I have no intention of changing my mind at this time,” Vanclief declared in a radio interview at the beginning of his trip. “The programs are there.”
Farmers were prepared to present the facts on what was the impact of the various programs on their income. They wanted the minister to understand factors beyond their control, mainly insultingly low commodity prices, have left some of them extremely vulnerable.
Instead, Vanclief chided the farmers for not buying crop insurance, not accessing their Net Income Stabilization Accounts, and unbelievably, for bad “water management” practices.
The federal agriculture minister should learn more about dryland farming in the prairies before he offers unsolicited agronomic advice to farmers who have spent decades adapting as they toiled in dusty fields.
True, more farmers should buy insurance. Whether it is financial constraints, disgruntlement for its shortcomings, or a pure business gamble, when one farmer buys crop insurance and a neighbour doesn’t, it isn’t fair for both to expect equal government support later to cover their crop losses.
But farmers want Vanclief to understand that crop insurance and NISA aren’t enough. They are still left struggling after a year like this one, and emergency aid is critical.
If there was one thing farmers hoped that Vanclief would “get” from this trip, it was that he would cultivate enough understanding of the crisis to seed at the cabinet table serious consideration of a fair and much-needed drought assistance package.
