national
farmers union
national
farmers union
SWIFT CURRENT, Sask.-"The federal-provincial farm aid program must help those farmers who need help the most. It must make allowance, in its benefit calculation, for farmers who have suffered recent crop failures due to drought. And it must cover negative margins. Not covering negative margins is indefensible and bizarre," said Stewart Wells, NFU Saskatchewan Coordinator.
A farmer who has suffered through drought in one or two of the last three years will get little from a formula which tops his or her income up to 70% of a three year average. Farmers in north-west Saskatchewan, the Peace River area of B.C., and parts of Nova Scotia have been hit by weather-related crop failures over the last three years. "70% of too little is far too little," said Wells. ["70% of not much is not much at all," "70% of a loss is an even bigger loss," "70% of near-bankrupting returns will push farmers closer to the brink, not further away,"]
Government officials claim that the 3 year/70% formula is necessary to comply with the WTO agreements. Wells countered: "If trade agreements which the federal government signed are now preventing it from protecting farmers at risk, then farmers and the government should have a long and critical look at those agreements and the officials who signed them."
There is also no justification for not covering negative margins-a situation wherein the farm not only makes less money than usual but, in fact, loses money. "Negative margins will be very common. In Saskatchewan, Realized Net Farm Income for the entire province is predicted to be negative," said Wells. He continued: "By refusing to cover negative margins, the federal government is denying money to the farmers who need it the most."
Wells speculated that the governments' hesitancy cover negative margins and to adopt a formula which ensured adequate support for farmers in need is merely a cost-saving strategy. "Total federal aid for 1998 is slated for just $375 million," said Wells. (The federal government will provide the balance of the $900 million to cover losses during 1999 "if needed.") "The U.S. government is spending $22 billion in direct support of farmers in the 1998-99 crop year. Some of that money is already in farmers hands. By comparison, the Canadian program is miserly. The problem here is not trade agreements, lack of funds, or lack of need: the problem is lack of political will at the federal level," concluded Wells.
For More Information: