THE Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program has been reviled by farmers, the very people it was created to help.
The federal Conservative party took note of their ire, and the program’s elimination became part of its election platform. That was the easy part.
Now the politics surrounding the issue of whether to revise or replace CAIS has become almost as complicated as CAIS calculations are said to be. Semantics are getting in the way of progress toward a better farm program.
Mixed messages from federal agriculture minister Chuck Strahl haven’t helped, although it appears he is steadfast in one thing: the need for vast improvements to the agricultural safety net.
Read Also
Worrisome drop in grain prices
Prices had been softening for most of the previous month, but heading into the Labour Day long weekend, the price drops were startling.
Strahl arrived at last month’s meeting with his provincial counterparts ready to reiterate the Conservative promise to eliminate CAIS and devise a new and improved program. Instead, the provinces told him to retain CAIS and revise it.
Have the provinces been hearing a different message from farmers regarding CAIS inadequacies? That seems unlikely, to put it mildly. More likely is provincial concern that any new farm program will cost more, and they would prefer to deal with the proverbial devil they know. It might be a short-sighted view.
The election of a Conservative government with a stated goal to replace CAIS gave the provinces, particularly those in the Prairies, what they’ve long wanted: an ally to reform the safety net portion of the agricultural policy framework. They’ve came perilously close to squandering that opportunity.
An Alberta government News release
news speaks of the need to “transform” CAIS, to make it simpler, more bankable, more responsive and more predictable.
“Obviously, the revamped program will need to be made more user-friendly so that it better responds to the concerns and expectations of agriculture producers,” said Alberta agriculture minister Doug Horner.
“Revamped” is starting to sound like “brand new,” if we are to give credence to farmer complaints that CAIS is complex, unresponsive and unreliable. A silk purse does not evolve from a sow’s ear.
If CAIS is “transformed” to a degree sufficient to address its myriad inadequacies, it may well become an entirely new program. The provinces, however, say CAIS or its offspring should retain the principles employed in the original program’s development – things like the Olympic average, whole-farm calculations and a margin-based structure.
These are the very things farmers dislike about CAIS.
For his part, Strahl seems to believe the separation of disaster payments from the stabilization program will mould CAIS into something new. Maybe the provinces will agree, so long as the federal government commits to footing the entire bill for any future payments.
If the provinces want to call it a CAIS “transformation” and the federal government wants to call it a new program, it matters little – so long as all parties take responsibility for devising and funding a responsive, useful program for farmers.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
