THE NEW federal farm plan, alias the agricultural policy framework, is a major success in one area. In a sector fraught with divisions, it has established unity among the nation’s major farm groups in expressing a single emotion – worry.
For all the meetings, discussions and plans that surround it, the framework still has only the shakiest support from the people it is designed to help. No major farm group has endorsed it. Provincial support has been a see-saw, with Quebec firm in its refusal to sign.
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
Even so, federal agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief insists the five-year plan will be implemented April 1. His hammer is his assertion that federal money available for agricultural programs will disappear after April Fool’s Day.
Few projects would be completed without deadlines, but the supposed concrete nature of this one is confusing. Why is it so hard and fast, when the federal government seems all too willing to delay or postpone decisions in other sectors?
If Vanclief, the rest of cabinet and the federal government truly want to develop a workable farm program, why don’t they build it on a firmer foundation of funding?
And if Vanclief can’t get cabinet approval to safeguard the funding until an acceptable plan emerges, what does that say about federal government commitment to the agriculture sector?
Farm groups and individuals have made their concerns known about the proposed policy. They wonder if it will be flexible enough to address years of exceptional need. They want to know if it will make the agriculture sector more vulnerable to trade action.
Will it make Net Income Stabilization Accounts a less useful tool? Will it increase producers’ cost of coverage? If so, will that coverage be greater than they have now? Will it allow for province-specific programs? Will it address the problem of chronic low prices for ag commodities?
Most importantly, is the proposed plan better than what currently exists?
Even if there were satisfactory answers to all those questions, the wisdom of making a five year commitment to an unproven program is a gamble few seem willing to take, transition period notwithstanding.
Vanclief says there has been an unprecedented amount of consultation involved in the formation of the new policy. Yet as farm group opposition indicates, officials designing the program may have confused the act of listening with the act of actually hearing what was being said.
The government intends to begin implementation of the new plan 40 days from today.
Producers and farm groups will likely use that time to reiterate worries about the proposal and discuss it with their provincial agriculture ministries.
The federal government should use it to change the program, change the deadlines, and build support among Canadian farmers.
It’s too bad that is unlikely.
