The federal minister of agriculture’s office has been in an ongoing fight with farm organizations over its $5.2 billion risk management program. So to get some credibility for the program the minister hired high priced IBM Consulting and the George Morris Center to review the government proposal.

The government set the guidelines for the report and guess what? The report proved that everyone of the planks in the government’s argument was true. The new NISA is simpler to use, there’s less paperwork, it responds more easily to income declines, and it will be better distributed.

But what the report suggests and the press release doesn’t is that the research is light weight, hardly big enough for valid conclusions. The report looked at nine farms: Three cash crop farms and two swine farms from Ontario and four cash crop farms from Saskatchewan. The data was taken from the NISA (Net Income Stabilization Account) between 1995 and 2001.

Bear with me a moment and I’ll explain the essence of the programs so you can see what else is amiss.

The new NISA, as the program is called, is based on price and yield minus the cost of inputs. It is strictly income protection. Under the old NISA a farmer could deposit three per cent of eligible net sales into an account matched by the federal and provincial governments and paid when income dropped. Some farmers used the account as a retirement fund. But that is gone as well as ad hoc disaster relief programs like AIDA.

The new program has advantages but what’s crucial to farmers is what the government doesn’t mention in the Morris Report. According to the report, no federal program addresses "the long-term systematic erosion" of markets "as the result of foreign agriculture and trade policies."

In short, since the new safety net program doesn’t address the United States farm bill, it could just as well have been formulated during the Boer War 100 years ago. The government press release, to use the Titanic as an analogy, tells us the band is playing superbly and the food is top notch. But it neglects to tell us the ship is listing 40 degrees to port.

The new NISA does treat everyone equally, as the minister’s office says. But equally is not the same as well.

The Morris report goes on to say that proposals put forward by the agricultural industry would have provided better support for some industries but the government is not supplying that kind of money. In other words, government needs to supply more money to protect grains and oil seeds from subsidies in other countries.

The report goes on to say that the federal program is "not financially viable within the safety net funding envelope."

A year ago, the federal government announced $5.2 billion over five years, with 40 per cent matching funding by the province. But only $2.2 million of that money would ever find its way into farmers’ pockets. What’s more, when the amount is broken down per farm it is minuscule.

Now we can easily conclude two things. Either the minister’s office is so thick- headed it wouldn’t feel a 2 X 4 wielded by Big Joe Mufferaw. Or it is deliberately trying to deceive the public with its "Alice in Wonderland" logic.

Then there’s a third thing. Career civil servants are running the minister’s office, and their focus is not the viability of agriculture but their own promotion and financial well being. They erroneously believe they are protecting the good of Canada and some mythical consumer.

The federal government over 30 years has turned Canada into a second rate country. We shouldn’t be surprised now if its programs are working to destroy agriculture.

It’s about time someone with some sense and responsibility considers that international competitiveness demands a program with more money than is currently offered. Someone with decency and common sense should realize that the people who depend on these programs are people with families who don’t need to be jerked around by dishonest reports.