'The cuts really have gone too far'

Monday, April 6, 2015

That's the message of agricultural leaders to the federal political parties as they vie for the farm vote. Moreover, they say, the consultation process has to be improved

by BARRY WILSON

Whichever political party wins the 2015 federal election, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) is serving notice that it will be lobbying hard to reverse many of the safety net cuts imposed two years ago when the current Growing Forward framework kicked in.

At the time and over the objections of the CFA, federal and provincial agriculture ministers changed the rules for such mainstay farm safety net programs as AgriStability and AgriInvest, significantly reducing coverage levels and potential benefits.

As early as this summer, when ministers gather in Prince Edward Island for their annual meeting, discussions will begin on details of the rules for the next Growing Forward programs to take effect in 2018.

This time, CFA wants a different outcome and leaders will be in P.E.I. to make that point. At its annual meeting in Ottawa in late February, delegates vowed to make improvements to Growing Forward programs a key priority. "We need to get at least a partial reinstatement of benefits lost," says Ontario Federation of Agriculture past-president Mark Wales. "The cuts really have gone too far."

Among the most significant changes were a reduction in the AgriStability trigger threshold to a 30 per cent decline in eligible income and a significant reduction in government matching funds to the AgriInvest program.

CFA vice-president Humphrey Banock says that on his Camrose, Alta., farm, there is a serious debate about whether it is worth staying in AgriStability at its reduced level of support. "We truly are looking at whether it is worth paying the $600 and doing all the paperwork needed to participate," he said. "The writing is on the wall for us. The only way we would benefit would be an absolute disaster."

CFA president Ron Bonnett complains that, in the lead-up to the 2013 program, farmer impact on final government decisions was limited. "The consultation process has to be better."

He said in an interview that robust farm incomes and a low Canadian dollar in the past two years have meant that most farmers have not had to use the safety net programs, so the effect of the cuts are not yet evident from "hard evidence. But it is a cyclical industry and in the next downturn, what will be there for us?"

During the meeting, representatives of the three major parliamentary parties were invited to offer a glimpse of their 2015 election offerings to the agricultural sector and opposition representatives as expected promised farmer-friendly policies.

Deputy Liberal leader Ralph Goodale promised a "thorough review" of the effects of Conservative government cost cutting on agricultural services, including business risk management programs.

New Democratic Party leader Thomas Mulcair touted his party's National Food Policy, announced last year to praise from the CFA, and promised support for supply management and the farm economy. "Farmers and producers are the backbone of our country."

Mulcair endorsed the idea of compensating farmers for the ecological goods and services they provide to society.

As for agriculture minister Gerry Ritz, he used his time to highlight government efforts to expand trade, encourage more investment in agricultural research and deal with grain transportation backlogs on the Prairies. He noted Agriculture Canada projections that farm net cash income in 2014 was at a record $14 billion, with 2015 projections to be lower but well above historic levels.

"It's a great time to be in agriculture," said Ritz. BF