Western Producer staff
It seemed like such a simple, risk-free political promise at the time. In 1993’s famous Red Book of election promises, the Liberals promised to move farm income safety nets to a national “whole farm” model.
Almost three years later, it remains an elusive goal, only half accomplished.
How we got here from there is a vivid illustration of what a difficult, complicated, decentralized country this is to govern. Promises of national programs that involve several levels of government and a diverse industry are much easier to make than to fulfil.
Read Also
Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality
Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.
At first, it did seem like a promise easily converted from rhetoric to program.
The Liberals had the Net Income Stabilization Account program to build on, a legacy from the Conservative government that had wide farm sector and political acceptance.
Farm-specific accounts supplemented by government money proved popular with farmers. NISA was popular with governments as a safety net that would not distort production decisions.
It was popular with the trade lawyers who determined it would be “green” under the world trade deal reached in late 1993.
In fact just this summer, the U.S. commerce department issued a preliminary ruling confirming that NISA for the Canadian hog industry is not considered a subsidy that can trigger American countervail action.
A key reason is that is does not promote production of a particular crop and it is “generally available.”
Yet Canada still does not have a national safety net with the production-neutral NISA whole-farm as its core, applying in all the provinces. It likely will not before the next election.
Why? In part, it is the nature of federal-provincial bargaining. In part, it is the nature of the Canadian industry.
Quebec remains outside because it wants to negotiate a less visible federal presence in the scheme. Alberta will be in, but it wants the right to drop out.
Supply management does not want in, preferring its tariff protections and cost-based pricing. The Alberta cattle industry does not want in, fearing any form of government assistance could trigger U.S. retaliation. Cattle producers in most other provinces do not share that fear, but they are not as dependent on U.S. markets.
Meanwhile, to entice the provinces, Ottawa agreed to a third tier of support – provincial “companion programs” – that already are raising fears of production distortions and interprovincial subsidy wars.
The end result is that Canada remains with at best a partial whole-farm income support scheme. As before, there is a patchwork approach to safety nets.
And federal trade experts are uneasy that with so many provinces and commodities not taking part, the Americans or other competitors could decide Canada’s program is not really production neutral and “generally available” after all.
That would usher in a new era of trade disputes. If only “whole-farm ’96” was as simple and accessible as the “whole-farm ’93” promise seemed to be.
