The federal budget - a turning point for agriculture?

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

The details were lacking, but some suspect the March budget is signalling less emphasis on support programs for farmers in trouble and more on insurance premiums which they will have to pay for

by BARRY WILSON

In the aftermath of the late March federal budget, the news cycle highlight about the impact on agriculture was deep cuts planned for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Finance minister Jim Flaherty announced that, by 2014-15, Agriculture Canada will have to live with 10 per cent less, a $310 million cut in its budget, including more than $56 million cut from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

So the post-budget chatter among those who care – farmers and Agriculture Canada employees among them – was about the budget cut effect on jobs, farm support and program budgets. Would there be a boost to agricultural base research or more cuts? Why, as in the Liberal budget-cutting exercise in 1995, did agriculture seem to carry more than its share?

Grain Growers of Canada president Stephen Vandervalk, supportive of the Conservative government on many issues, weighed in on the short-term debate. He said his members understand the need for government restraint in the face of multi-billion dollar deficits. "But it is important to remember that agriculture didn't cause this deficit and, in fact, we have been one of the consistent bright spots in the economy."

However, that short-term budget buzz may miss the real point. History may record this budget as the turning point in government relations with farmers – a change from the traditional emphasis on backstopping farmers when they need to cope with market and weather vagaries to stepping back and giving farmers more room to succeed but also less help when they are in trouble.

Of course, it is difficult to state baldly that the switch is underway because this government does not, if any government ever did, speak clearly about its intentions. They signal but in often dodgy language. After all, Flaherty called it a "jobs" budget as he announced at least 12,000 public servants will get their pink slips. Maybe the government doesn't think the thousands of people who work to implement its programs are "real jobs." Whatever.

So here are some signals of switched priorities from Budget 2012. The morning after the budget, agriculture minister Gerry Ritz told reporters a change is going to come, although he did not specify what it is.

"We know that yesterday's answers can't meet the challenges of today and tomorrow," he said.

"Just as farmers adjust their business practices to suit changing weather or market conditions, governments must have new approaches for a new generation of agriculture. The time is right to put greater focus on innovation, market access and improving government programs and services to meet the changing needs of the industry."

Later, Ritz said the government is looking across the board for savings. "We're looking for efficiencies across the department, nothing is sacred."  

Well, the four-legged denizens of Canada's dairy farms are "sacred cows," if you believe government pledges of undying support for supply management, but never mind.

Then came the unexpected words in the federal budget that ongoing Growing Forward federal-provincial negotiations over the next five-year plan will produce "a refocused suite of Business Risk Management programs." Refocused on what?

Lacking detail, some farm sector folks were speculating that it would "refocus" on insurance policies that will require farmer premiums and limit government exposure in programs like AgriRecovery.

The future, and the next farm crisis, will tell the tale, but this budget may have marked a turning point beyond its funding cuts. BF

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