opinion
Is Canadian agriculture, as some have suggested, a “subsidy sponge” perpetually draining away tax dollars from hard-working urban wage-earners? National agriculture minister Ralph Goodale vehemently denies that, and last week devoted part of a major speech to the topic.
A cynical observer could easily dismiss the remarks as motherhood comments to a sympathetic audience (Saskatchewan Wheat Pool delegates). After all, when there are so many touchy issues confronting Prairie farmers, what politician would not want to take refuge behind a flurry of words about the great contribution agriculture makes to the nation?
Read Also
Land crash warning rejected
A technical analyst believes that Saskatchewan land values could be due for a correction, but land owners and FCC say supply/demand fundamentals drive land prices – not mathematical models
But it wasn’t like that. Goodale also dealt with the sensitive issues, including telling Pool delegates bluntly that the method of paying the Crow Benefit rail subsidy is going to change, contrary to all their previously expressed policy resolutions.
So, if he wasn’t trying to lay down a smokescreen, why bother with such a fuzzy topic? The answer is simple – because catchy phrases like “subsidy sponge” could, in the long run, do more damage to Canadian farmers than even an ill-advised change in the method of payment.
Right now, Canadian policymakers are slowly – years too late – gearing up the courage to do something about obscene government deficits. (Ottawa spends $44 billion a year just to pay interest on its existing debt.)
That means there will be dramatic cuts in government support to thousands of industries and activities. Agricultural programs, among others, are on the chopping block. If the policymakers in Ottawa’s ivory towers see family farms as economically non-viable basket cases, they will eagerly slash funding to that sector.
Goodale’s message is straightforward and deserves reinforcement: farming and the related agrifood industry contributes heavily to the national economy, to employment and to export earnings; it is an innovative, efficient, high-tech economic sector that is well worth supporting; it is a sector that has already tightened its belt, energetically adopted change and diversified into many new value-added products.
Far from being a “subsidy sponge,” it can be one of the major economic engines helping regain prosperity for the nation – if excessive cuts are not made in such productive investments as basic research, infrastructure, and services to link research results to new entrepreneurial projects.
Although still shaky from bronchial pneumonia, Ralph Goodale staggered to a Regina podium last week to deliver that message. Farm organizations should make at least as great an effort to support his arguments.
