Model farm shows AgriStability shortcomings.   Ottawa--Immediate changes to the Business Risk Management (BRM) programs are needed to keep farm losses from becoming devastating, says Erin Gowriluk, Executive Director of Grain Growers of Canada (GGC). A model Saskatchewan farm developed by the Canadian Canola Growers Association and the MNP accounting firm using actual prices and yield averages lost just under $130,000 in 2019, Gowriluk told the Commons agriculture committee. “Under the current BRM system, AgriStabilty would be triggered and there would be a payment of $31,000, meaning a loss of nearly $100,000 for this farm,” she said. Triggering losses at the former 85 per cent level rather than the current 70 per cent “would have triggered a payment of $111,000, meaning a loss of only $20,000. This is on top of a loss of over $76,000 in 2018 under the existing 70 per cent coverage. “The 15 per cent difference in coverage means that income is actually stabilized. It still results in a loss of $20,000 in 2019, which of course isn't ideal, but it's manageable; $100,000 losses year over year is simply not sustainable,” she said. “A functional AgriStability program keeps farms afloat during difficult times and the current system does not, and that needs to change.” GGC and most other Canadian farm groups have been calling for reforms to AgriStability and the other BRM programs for the last few years but may not find out what if any changes are forthcoming until the federal-provincial agriculture ministers' meeting in October. The agriculture committee has been meeting with farm groups from across the country to collect ideas on BRM changes that it will propose to Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau this summer. Gowriluk said “simple changes to the AgriStability program will not only support our entire industry and value chain, but strengthen the Canadian economy. The federal government needs to take a leadership role in this area to not just work with the provinces but to take decisive action to achieve immediate results. “If governments do not want to be responsible for letting any Canadian farms fail, especially when many sectors have aligned to tell you exactly what our industry needs right now in terms of support, this is the best opportunity that we have.” GGC Director Andre Harpe, said his Alberta farm has been enrolled in AgriStability for years and changes made in 2013 by the former Harper government have impacted him and his neighbours. “Since funding to the program was reduced, I have not once triggered a payment from this program. This is not because I haven't had bad years. In fact, the last few have been quite difficult.…That's why we need programs in place to stabilize income during challenging times. AgriStability should provide “some stability amidst all the unknowns involved with farming. But it is getting harder and harder to find value in it as it is currently set up.” As it is, it only helps in “a full-blown disaster. It seems that the program is becoming less about stability, and more about disaster compensation.” AgriStability also suffers from being “too complicated and unpredictable. It is well known amongst farmers that this program is only understood by accountants. So we have to pay to enter the program, then pay our accountants to help us navigate through it, usually at the end of that, we find out that we're actually not eligible for a payment. Not exactly appealing to the average farmer.” Alex Binkley is a freelance journalist and writes for domestic and international publications about agriculture, food and transportation issues. He's also the author of two science fiction novels with more in the works.