by BETTER FARMING STAFF
Ontario’s agriculture minister and commodity leaders are keeping the details of proposed changes to national business risk management (BRM) programs under their hats until after next week’s federal, provincial and territorial agriculture ministers meeting in Whitehorse.
But those who attended a Tuesday information session with Agriculture Minister Ted McMeekin in Toronto confirm that there’s more than one proposal on the table on how to cut costs from the next round of Growing Forward federal-provincial agriculture policy framework programming. The five-year policy framework takes effect in 2013.
One of those proposals takes aim at AgriStability. Currently, AgriStability releases support when a whole farm’s program margin (determined by subtracting eligible expenses from eligible income) drops below 85 per cent of its reference margin. Dropping the program trigger to 70 per cent of the reference margin is what’s being proposed. The program accounts for 32 per cent of the nearly $10 billion that Growing Forward has paid out in business risk management support since 2007.
Another proposal is to change the contribution proportions in AgriInvest, intended to handle smaller drops in farm income. Currently, government matches a producer’s deposit of up to one per cent of eligible annual net sales into their AgriInvest account. The program accounts for 18 per cent of Growing Forward’s business risk spending to date.
McMeekin says there is also a “hybrid model” spearheaded by British Columbia and “there is some good discussion going on around that - designed to mitigate some of the negative impacts of what we might do. There are of course the non-BRM side of the federal provincial programs as well having to do with innovation and working towards productivity enhancements, so there will be some discussion at Whitehorse on that.”
McMeekin did not elaborate on the B.C. proposal or say where Ontario plans to throw its support or what ideas the province will offer. “It would be probably inappropriate for me to prejudice discussions that the ag ministers have said they want to have together,” he says. “The B.C. proposal - there’s likely to be hybrids off of that as well - is yet to be determined and/or discussed. So we don’t want to cast our lot entirely with any proposal; we have an obligation to share with our colleagues and our federal minister what we’re hearing from our people.”
He did note that, after the Parti Quebecois ousted the Liberals in Quebec’s provincial election this week, it’s doubtful anyone from Quebec will attend the meeting. The lack of Quebec representation won’t negatively affect Ontario’s negotiating power, he says. “We have worked hard at building relationships across the country.”
Mark Brock, a Grain Farmers of Ontario board director who attended the meeting, says McMeekin asked attendees to maintain confidentiality about proposal details until after the Whitehorse meeting.
“We all know that cuts are coming,” he says. “I would say there’s no surprises.” He says Ontario’s commodity groups have asked for the ministers to consider taking “a little bit from everywhere, not just one deep cut in one spot.”
He says a commitment remains to maintaining agriculture business risk management programming. “We need to ensure that these programs are viable and effective in what they’re trying to accomplish or there won’t be much producer uptake.”
Mark Wales, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, attended the meeting and says his organization recognizes that the federal government is “driving the agenda towards cuts. No one’s happy about that. Fundamentally, cutting the programs is going to affect individual farmers in years ahead.”
He called the proposed cut to AgriStability “probably the biggest part of the cuts that are likely to be made next week.”
In a recent OFA commentary, Wales pointed out that cuts to AgriStability would put a disproportionate amount of the risk involved in food production on farm families, which ran counter to the program’s original intention. It would also result in “overshooting” the government’s goal for reducing agricultural spending because farmers would be less likely to enrol if they felt the program could no longer offer adequate risk protection. Such cuts would also “increase the pressure on governments to distribute one-time assistance to producers facing sector-wide or regional challenges,” he wrote.
That said, Wales points out some funds will be reinvested in innovation and some of the discussion during Tuesday’s meeting focused on what commodity groups would like to see. There’s flexibility in the policy framework for provinces to customize such programming, he says.
Amy Cronin, chair of Ontario Pork, says if cuts are going to happen, “let’s make sure that the cuts don’t affect one sector of agriculture more so than other sectors.” Ontario Pork is willing to work with the province “to make sure that the programs that farmers need in the future are there and if they’re not developed now, we really want to have input into the development of them.”
She notes that her organization was never invited to any federal consultations about the new policy framework. McMeekin’s meeting “is our only way to have input into the process.”
In March, the federal government announced plans to reduce Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s annual budget by $310 million over the next three years. During an August media information session, a senior AAFC official said he could not speculate about savings targets in connection with Growing Forward 2’s business risk management programs because they would be under discussion by politicians in Whitehorse next week.
The meeting takes place Sept. 12. BF
Comments
Why don't people face reality and admit that hog and livestock farmers need an ethanol injury assistance program, and that all non-supply managed farmers need assistance to counter the steam-roller effect supply management receives through 200% tariff barriers not available to anyone else?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The inequity between supply managed and non supply managed farm continues to divide rural communities. Ethanol is the real culprit to the non supply managed livestock farms unprofitability .. I don't think we have seen the worst yet ! We can see the intense liquidation that is happening in the hog sector now . The red ink will continue to flow on non supply managed livestock farms for while yet.
Mike
The only thing supply management has ever accomplished, and the only thing ethanol is ever likely to accomplish, is to pit farmers against one another. Yet farm groups continue to deny reality (as well as ignore a substantial portion of their membership base) by promoting the falsehood that "we're all in together", when the truth is that, thanks to legislative entitlements for only the chosen few, we're not, and never have been.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
You hit the nail right on the head,Stephen
The Practical Farmers of Ontario, will be advocating to end all BMR programs as there is ZERO evidence that these programs have in any way helped small or medium sized farms.
We will advocate for cost share programs that help to fund on farm projects, such new barns, hay storages, grain bins, fencing, greenhoues, cold storages, and other such items, We want to see the government work with farmers on a cost share basis, to ensure Ontario farmers have the essential tools they need to be as productive and as profitable as they can be.
subsidies that are directly linked to a commodity, never work in favor of small to medium sized farms. 85% of farm subsidy money annually goes to 15% of the largest farms.
Our programs will work for farmers and for the greater rural community from the first day a shovel goes into the ground. Just think how much more power and control farmers would have if they had sufficent on farm grain storage, or better cattle handling facilties to process their calf crop or how much more profitable green house growers would be by upgrading their heating systems or how much more livestock farmers would benifit from up graded fencing or new corraling systems.
We need to really re-think 25 year of BADLY thought out farm subsidy programs that have all basically failed the family farm and made the rich far more richer.
Sean McGivern
President, Practical Farmers of Ontario
A career in the auto industry is about 20 yrs, and farm generation is more like 40 yrs and a farm families life span maybe as long as 100 yrs. Each requires careful thought and planning for short intermediate and long term planning and financing.
Politically a two term 8 yrs MP or MPP is a full career headed for cabinet while proud of the change he left behind with no consequence of good bad right or wrong. 25 - 40 yrs of revolving door policy and programs all the while herding us towards a global economy with little or no market clout has not made for a pretty or particularly sustainable agricultural picture.
Was the amount of money allotted to agriculture and the growing forward program too much and now should be scaled back? or is the fiscal debit from bureaucratic wanton waste a debit that should be born only by farm food producing families?
The mantras of the early programs were to be dependable, timely, bankable, predictable etc. and there was also the principal of cost based, something no bureaucrat that has never had a repayable operating loan could comprehend.
Where is the financial study to say this program should be cut at the expense of farm families only, before the wages and pensions of the agricultural bureaucrats and politicians who are also part of the total agricultural budget?
That wont work cause the farmers will then big farn rnts higher an purchase land at $20000 / A . On top of that FCC will continue farmer intrest only payments, what.
Young man leader we heard the same talk you say 35 years ago and you see what leaders did
Mr
President, Practical Farmers of Ontario Put on paper how you pay the mortgage princ every year on $13000 land when the next down turn in farming should we bail out these high rollers? Never do yiu see todays omafra or bank people how you can pay your yearly Mort Princ and still pay Income tax after interest expensed for income tax. FCC interest only loans is a Ponzi blowout looking to happen, a long term rental havent we learned from the 80s bailouts!!!
.
Thats what I been saying all along the big farms get all the money and the rest get the big pat on the back and told they are not doing such a good job like the big guys.
It will never change.
Post new comment