In the last few months, government and industry alike have committed extensive effort to evaluating the current state of Canadian agriculture and developing potential solutions for an industry that most agree is in serious need of new direction and focus. MP Bob Speller chaired the Prime Minister’s Task Force on Future Opportunities in Farming, a group that released an interim report this past spring.

Summer saw the release of both “Canadian Farmers at Risk”, a report of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and “The Future Role of Government in Agriculture” from the House Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

These reports, based in large part on input gathered from farm and other stakeholder groups, share many common themes, not the least of which is the need for significant re-investment in Canadian agriculture in order to ensure its viable and prosperous future.

As this editorial is written, Ontario’s Agricultural Odyssey Group, a group of farm leaders representing a broad cross-section of Ontario’s agricultural diversity, has just released its blueprint for the evolution of the industry (see Newsletter in this issue). Although analysis of the report’s far-ranging recommendations will take some time, the premises on which it is based are indisputable. Among them: agriculture will increasingly be seen as a provider of general societal benefits (especially in the area of environment); renewed federal and political commitment to the industry is essential if it is to achieve its potential; and, when it comes to the development of sound programs, “there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to Canadian or Ontario agriculture.”

It’s this final premise that the new Agricultural Policy Framework (APF), to be implemented as of April 1, 2003, appears to ignore with its insistence on a single approach to government-funded risk management policies through ‘whole-farm’ programs such as NISA. Such programs make the assumption that all agricultural sectors operate in the same business environment – nothing could be further from the truth. Different sectors face different challenges, many of them the direct result of the agricultural policies of our major trading partners, particularly the U.S.

And yet the Framework Agreement for the APF signed by provincial, territorial and federal governments is adamant in its denial of the need for sector-specific or commodity-specific support programs for grains and oilseeds. At the same time, all levels of government aggressively defend the supply management system, which is recognized within the APF as a risk management tool even though many of the grounds upon which sector-specific companion programs are rejected could be applied equally as well. A recent meeting between OCPA representatives and AAFC personnel failed to resolve the apparent disparity.

If the APF is to achieve its primary goal – ensuring the prosperity and the competitiveness of the sector in “an increasingly complex global food market” (quoted directly from APF documentation) – it must first recognize that Canada’s agricultural policy cannot exist in a vacuum, but must instead embrace sufficient flexibility to respond to the pressures imposed by outside forces.

And for the grains and oilseed sector, that means companion programs that can offset non-production related risks outside the control of individual producers. A NISA-type program alone is insufficient: elsewhere in this issue, OCPA Economist and Market Analyst Brian Doidge evaluates the potential impact of sole reliance on NISA for the grains and oilseed sector and presents some possible solutions.

The potential ramifications of other political decisions must be evaluated as well. Prime Minister Chrétien recently announced his intention that Canada will sign, and ratify, the Kyoto Accord to reduce GHG emissions. President Bush rejected the accord more than a year ago, claiming that it would cost millions of American jobs. Although he also put in place a program of tax incentives to encourage voluntary action, attorney generals from 11 U.S. states now claim that current U.S. policies actually promote an increase in GHG emissions. Not our concern, you say? Will Canadian farmers face increased regulation and production requirements as a result of our Kyoto commitments? Such a likely outcome would increase the competitive divide between Canadian and U.S. farmers still further.

Canada’s expected ratification in the near future of the Biosafety Protocol raises a similar set of issues. The U.S. – which, according to recent estimates, accounts for more than 80% of our foreign trade - has not and will not sign the Protocol, an agreement designed to regulate the cross-border transport of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Should Canada ratify, can the U.S. reasonably be expected to meet the demands of the agreement in order to send their goods across our borders in what is theoretically a free trade environment?

There are issues of sovereignty and independence of course, perhaps even of moral right, and the sceptre of public opinion weighs heavily on political decision-making, but the need to maintain a viable business environment for agriculture must not be ignored either. With the enormous efforts expended to date – all that introspection and research, consultation and reporting – and with the near-universal recognition in work done to date of the unique challenges faced by Canada’s grain and oilseed sector as a result of outside forces, we would have hoped that message would attain greater resonance.