Under any other government, the buildup to the Growing Forward 2 agriculture ministers’ meeting in Whitehorse would have proved un-promising.
For starters, farm groups across Canada complained that agriculture minister Gerry Ritz did not consult with them before redesigning the business risk management programs such as Agri-Stability and AgriInvest.
Then, before catching his plane, Sask-atchewan agriculture minister Lyle Stewart issued a news release outlining his concerns.
“Quite frankly, our position differs from other provinces on potential changes to BRM programs,” Stewart said.
However, Saskatchewan had to sign the new agreement to access federal funding for other initiatives including research, water infrastructure, market development and farm business development, he noted.
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?
It turned out that the other provinces had agreed to changes to AgriInvest but did not bother to call Saskatchewan for its point of view — a bad start to a new “agreement.”
Furthermore, the timing of this meeting was imperfect. All four western ag ministers were, to varying degrees, newcomers. Stewart, although a competent minister and farmer, has had the ag portfolio since the end of May. Manitoba minister Ron Kostyshyn has plenty of ag background — he is a cow-calf producer — but has been in his ministerial job since January. Alberta’s new ag minister, Verlyn Olsen, was also appointed in May. He is a lawyer.
In British Columbia, Norm Letnick, who holds a bachelor of commerce degree and is taking a PhD in health economics, was appointed two weeks ago. Showing up at an ag ministers’ meeting with about a week’s experience had to be daunting. That’s not even enough time to be thoroughly briefed.
In addition, there was no Quebec ag minister because of the recent election. Does no one in the federal government keep track of election dates?
Further reducing the ranks, Newfoundland’s ag minister was forced to turn around for home because of bad weather.
Timing be darned, this GF2 package had to be, and was, driven through. The old programs expire March 31, and because the current program was a year late in implementation, the feds were likely determined that nothing would cause delays this time around.
That’s not a good enough reason to walk into talks without enough direct consultation with farmers and without enough strength on the ag ministers’ bench.
A possible answer to the consultation confusion is that farmers and farm group leaders were not informed that they were being specifically consulted on BRM support when they spoke to, for example, the Senate or Commons ag committees. How else can one explain why Ritz continues to assert that he consulted widely, while every farm group says differently?
But GF2 is signed, and time will tell whether it works for Canadian agriculture.
What appears to be positive is the additional funding for research, although it is coming at the expense of BRM programs.
Reducing AgriStability may work in a strong agriculture climate but raises the spectre of ad hoc funding down the road. The change to AgriInvest will likely upset many farmers, with the government’s contribution reduced to one percent from 1.5 percent of allowable income.
There is also a clear shift to putting the onus on farmers to buy private insurance for protection of all kinds, which sends a strong message that this government is disinterested in future BRM programs.
Whether GF2 proves generally beneficial or not, farmers — and all the ag ministers — should have been given opportunity for more direct input.
And while there was little outward opposition at the meeting, the federal government created the environment for following its way, or taking the highway.
