Needed: a debate about what and who really is a farmer

Monday, November 1, 2010

Without a clear definition of farmer and a clear target for farm policies, support programs will continue to be aimed at a fictitious average rather than farmers trying to make a living from the land

by BARRY WILSON

In 1988, Federal Court judge Barry Strayer ruled that Simmental cattle producer Peter Connell of Oxford Station, ON, was not really a full time farmer.

It meant that he could not write off all farm losses from his cattle operation near Ottawa against his off-farm income. And it was a court decision that led the finance department to change the rule about who was a real farmer eligible to write off losses.

Connell had argued through several layers of court hearings that he had a 10-year plan to make his farm profitable and that made him a full time farmer in the building process.

Between 1980 and 1986, he had claimed more than $150,000 in losses on the farm, reducing his taxable income off-farm by tens of thousands of dollars. Through those years, he had been deputy minister in the department of revenue and, after 1982, deputy agriculture minister who, by 1986, was earning $107,000.

Judge Strayer captured the absurdity of the situation. Connell was sincere in his dedication to his farming operation and hours spent on it, he wrote, but "it is hard to characterize the role of deputy minister in the government of Canada as an 'employment side line'."

Flash forward more than two decades when Statistics Canada insists there are more than 220,000 self-identified farmers, although 20 per cent of them produce most of Canada's farm output and the majority of them have a gross income of less than $100,000 – which surely after expenses would not be a living income for most families.

Average farm income statistics compiled by the government are dragged down every year by the inclusion of "farmers" who farm little and earn little and really make their living as doctors or lawyers or journalists but fancy calling themselves farmers because of their small country holding.

Consider government attempts to reform voting rules for Canadian Wheat Board director elections, trying to pass legislation that would limit eligible Prairie voters to farmers who have produced at least 40 tonnes of an eligible grain in the past three growing seasons, roughly equivalent to production from 40 acres.

Agriculture Canada analysts suggest that the change would take close to 50 percent of the existing voters' list off the rolls.

All of this means that Canadian agriculture policy often is decided by or designed on the assumption that there tens of thousands more farmers actually trying to make a living from the business than there really are. For most, agriculture is a connection to roots or a vanity or an expression of the inner-farmer inside a rich lawyer who loves to have a few sheep and horses.

Without a definition of farmer and a clear target for whom policies are intended for, farm support programs will continue to be aimed at a fictitious average rather than farmers trying to make a living from the land.

Enter George Morris Centre researcher Al Mussell, who argued in a recent report that government should recognize the disparity between people who are trying to make a living from agriculture and those for whom it is a sideline.

Business risk management programs should be designed for "commercial" farmers who produce most of the food in Canada, he suggested. Smaller"hobby" farmers are important but should be supported by a different kind of program, a program that supports smaller farmers for their environmental contribution.

It is a controversial proposal that will be attacked by farm lobbyists who insist that anyone who wants to "farm" should be able to do so, with support if necessary.

But Mussell raises an important issue of who is a "farmer" that should be debated. BF

Barry Wilson is a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery specializing in agriculture.