Those murky political promises on support programs

Sunday, April 3, 2011

The OFA wants a clear answer from the politicians on federal support for Risk Management Programs. But so far it is not getting it either from the Conservatives or the Liberals

by BARRY WILSON

When the next federal election launches (and that may almost coincide with this
Better Farming issue landing in the mailbox), federal support for the Risk Management Program (RMP) will be a key issue in rural Ontario.

Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Bette Jean Crews seems determined to make sure it is.

"Farmers are going to be out in droves to vote this time, so I need some answers for my members," she told federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz when he appeared before the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) in late February. "I would like to tell them that this government is willing to work with the farm community to develop some very flexible programs that will address needs differently from one province to another."

Based on the responses she got from Ritz and the next day from Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, it appears Ontario farmers will have a stark choice at the ballot box, at least on that issue. But, later, the issue and political promises became a bit murkier.

First came Ritz's response. He agreed with the need for more regional flexibility in the next national food policy being negotiated now and scheduled to launch April 1, 2013. "In the next suite of Growing Forward, there will be more flexibility built into it to allow for companion programming."

So far so good. But what he meant was that provinces should be allowed to spend their own money on provincially-designed farm income support plans. Ottawa will not, however, chip in its 60 per cent contribution that Ontario is demanding.

"We do that in the vast majority (of cases), but when it comes to provincial stand alone, we don't," Ritz said. Later, he told reporters that provincial payout programs based on cost-of-production would easily be subject to trade action by trade competitors.

Okay, once you get past the stuff about being happy to support regional flexibility, the Conservative position is clear. Not a federal dollar will go to RMP.

The next day, Ignatieff was equally clear. A Liberal government would co-fund provincial Business Risk Management programs if that's what provinces want. "Let's put the flex back in AgriFlex," he told CFA delegates. "Let's make sure we have federal assistance for agriculture."

So that seems like the makings of a classic political clash with two main contenders on opposite sides of a clearly defined divide.

But later, the Liberal position became a little more confusing. During an interview, it was pointed out to Ignatieff that one of the criticisms of the original federal policy of paying 60 per cent of provincial farm income support programs was that it made Canadian agricultural support less equal across the country.

Richer provinces could afford to put up $104 million for their farmers if they knew Ottawa's 60 per cent would add $156 million. "Poorer provinces could not afford that level of spending so the disparity in support levels between provinces would grow. History shows that richer subsidies encourage production share to migrate to where support is higher, essentially buying an industry."

That's not what the Liberals are proposing, said Ignatieff. "I'd only be prepared to have differential responses if it had an equalization effect," he said. "You don't want to have rich provinces triggering payments. The role of federal leadership is to equalize, to give every farmer a fair chance."

He did not explain how a 60/40 split could be "equalizing" and any attempt to change that formula or make it more flexible would require federal-provincial agreement, an unlikely prospect.

So what does the Liberal promise really mean? It would be a good question to ask candidates during the election. BF

Barry Wilson is a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery specializing in agriculture.