IT IS a question that has left farm group leaders and uneasy MPs scratching their heads in bewilderment.
Why is the government so adamant, so determined to start implementing the five-year agricultural policy framework April 1 over the objections of most farm groups and some key provinces?
Why can’t the government accept the strong recommendation of many, including farm lobby leaders, that another year of existing programs would leave more time for negotiation and more time for farmers to become familiar with a massive change in farm policy direction.
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
The farmer demand for a one-year delay would not cost Ottawa more money. It could produce a higher farmer comfort level and more credit for the government’s farm policy commitment.
So what’s the rush, House of Commons agriculture committee chair Paul Steckle mused last week? “If we get this wrong, we will have to live with it for a long time.”
The explanation from agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief is that new federal funding begins April 1, existing federal-provincial agreements end March 31 and in the absence of new programs, hundreds of millions of dollars in farm supports would be lost.
The critics are skeptical about the explanation. After all, Vanclief has not even asked provinces or his cabinet for permission to extend existing rules.
Why is he insisting it is now or never, even though most farmers still are unwilling to buy into a program?
Why would the government force a new agriculture policy onto an industry that has raised legitimate questions about the design? After all, a successful program would be a major government accomplishment, establishing for the first time a five-year funded farm policy.
Why not take time to get it right?
One of the nastier theories floating around Ottawa is that the April 1deadline has more to do with political legacy and personal ego than good public policy.
Start at the top.
A one-year delay to April 1, 2004 would mean prime minister Jean Chrétien would not be around to claim credit. He retires next February.
Last June, Chrétien invited himself along to an Ottawa Valley farm to personally announce $5.2 billion in agricultural funding for a long-term policy. He has since bragged that his government is the one that decided to put agriculture onto secure ground. He’d undoubtedly like it to become reality on his watch.
Next comes Vanclief, who is widely considered unlikely to be agriculture minister in the government that takes over when a new Liberal leader is sworn in next February. This could be his last chance to have the APF on his resumé.
And even deputy minister Samy Watson may not be around to share the glory if implementation is delayed, since rumours continue to circulate that a major deputy minister shuffle is coming this spring. If the APF was already in place, Watson would have closed his major file and be available for a promotion within the bureaucratic ranks.
So there may be personal reasons why the main promoters of the plan are wedded to an April 1, 2003 implementation, come hell, high water or farmer opposition.
Of course, good public policy is about much more than personal agendas, isn’t it?
