The Hill: Changing the name doesn't change a program
Sunday, May 18, 2008
That's the verdict of producers on the new set of national farm programs announced on April 1. 'To farmers,' said one, 'it all looks like the same old thing but less'
by BARRY WILSON
The April 1 launch of the much-hyped next generation of national farm programs was a low-key, modest affair. And, indeed, there was much to be modest about.
The irritatingly named Growing Forward, with its too-cute-by-half component programs AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery, was supposed to be a new and improved version of the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program (CAIS), the reintroduction of the Net Income Stabilization Account (NISA), an expanded crop insurance program to include livestock and a new disaster program.
Instead, limping out of the gate were AgriStability, which is a barely improved version of CAIS and AgriInvest, NISA redux.
The long-promised, expanded insurance plan is not close to moving beyond traditional crop insurance and negotiations over rules, definitions and cost-sharing arrangements for a disaster program are far from complete.
On key non-business risk management (BRM) programs, such as environment and food safety programs, research, innovation and transition, the best federal and provincial ministers could do was agree to extend old agreements until new ones can be worked out during the next year, and even the extension was not nationally approved by April 1.
Each province was signing the agreement on non-BRM programs and announcing it for their own jurisdiction.
Announcement of the new "suite" of farm programs, meant to last until 2013, was so low-key that, after a March 28 federal-provincial ministers' conference call (a substitute for a planned and then cancelled meeting in Calgary), only a communiqué was issued that announced the partial launch of the program in language so vague that its message was unclear.
Federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz refused repeated requests for an interview to discuss the new program launch.
Contrast that with the 2002 extravaganza, when the Liberal government of the day announced launch of the last five-year program, the Agricultural Policy Framework (APF). The event was held south of Ottawa on the farm of Geri Kamenz, now president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
It featured prime minister Jean Chrétien, agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief and a bevy of Liberal MPs and farm leaders.
The APF turned out to be a program with many irritating flaws, but still a funnel for billions of dollars in aid to often-unappreciative farmers. It may have turned out to be less than it seemed, but at least the Liberals knew how to hype a multi-billion dollar program launch.
This time, despite Conservative claims that new programs are better and more responsive to farmer needs, the launch was unheralded, the promise muted.
In part, it reflected the fact that the new improved version bears a remarkable resemblance to the old flawed version - still margin-based, still bureaucratic and still unresponsive to producers who have had three bad years, since payouts are based on historic profit margins.
In part, the low-key launch reflects the fact that Ritz and his provincial counterparts knew the deadline and yet ended up falling far short of being able to launch a comprehensive new five-year safety net program.
Much still remains to be decided. British Columbia grain producer Ross Ravelli, president of Grain Growers of Canada and a natural ally of the Conservatives, summed up the mood.
"From the farmer side, there is just no excitement about it, no coffee row talk," he said.
"To farmers, it looks like the same old thing but less. Where are the new programs that were promised? Changing the name doesn't change a program and they weren't even able to roll out all that they promised." BF
Barry Wilson is a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery specializing in agriculture.