The federal government is talking earnestly about budget restraints with a plan to rein in Canada’s $55.6 billion deficit in slightly more than five years.
Federal finance minister Jim Flaherty recently announced the Conservative plan and informed all federal departments that their operational budgets are frozen at current levels.
As a guiding principal, it’s a reasonable measure being repeated in many western nations as governments attempt to bring budgets under tighter control after big spending infusions designed to ease people through the recession.
Read Also
August rain welcome, but offered limited relief
Increased precipitation in August aids farmers prior to harvest in southern prairies of Canada.
But in Canada, a special case can be made for giving agriculture a pass this time around, thanks to contributions it has already made to the cause.
While there has been no indication by the federal government that agriculture has been targeted for deeper cuts, the Conservatives have no doubt taken note of what is occurring in Europe.
The United Kingdom announced cuts to its Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which oversees agriculture, totalling $1.1 billion over four years.
The European Union is reviewing its system of agricultural payments and has suggested cuts to its Common Agricultural Policy.
But what fits for Europe should not form a basis for similar actions in Canada.
Farm subsidies in Europe last year accounted for almost $84 billion, more than 40 percent of the EU annual spending budget. Reformers have a strong case in that European agriculture has long been a staunchly protected sector.
Agriculture in Canada, however, has a much different story. It has already gone through deep cuts during the deficit cutting days of the 1990s. Crow Benefit transportation payments were ended, ad-hoc payments are largely a thing of the past, farm programs have been retooled to emphasize whole-farm, margin-based formulas, and public research funding has been slashed in favour of investment in projects with short-term, commercial goals.
In fact, many areas of agriculture now require governments to reinvest.
Science and high tech industries are generally seen as attractive sectors for public investment because they encourage innovation and economic growth. Agricultural research can be a big player in lifting Canada into leadership positions in both.
Genetic research to boost yields and limit disease is vital if we are to realize a new green revolution capable of feeding the world’s burgeoning population.
In addition to helping farmers while also feeding the hungry, public investment in agricultural research provides jobs in many levels of the economy as well as solid returns on the initial investment.
A policy brief prepared by University of Saskatchewan economists in 2007 found that returns on public investment generally ran high for wheat, pulses and other crops in which seed varieties are distributed freely with small royalty costs.
For example, in 2004 a summary of returns from agriculture research in Canada from 1978-2001 showed that in Western Canada, cost-benefit ratios ranged from 12.1:1 to 34.1:1 for barley, wheat and rapeseed and 37.1:1 for beef research.
The case to boost agriculture funding doesn’t stop at research. Consumers are more concerned than ever about food safety and more effective, efficient ways to deliver it are imperative. This could include more effective traceability, more food inspection, disease detection and emergency preparedness.
Safety net systems are showing major holes as well, and must be mended.
There is no shortage of work to be done and rather than cutting budgets, Canada should strategically invest and rebuild agriculture and ensure it is equipped and staffed to fill the roles Canadians expect of it.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen and D’Arce McMillan collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
