The federal government has all but closed the door on a series of
unanimous recommendations urging Ottawa to spend more money on farm
assistance programs.
In its response to a report prepared by the Liberal-dominated House of
Commons agriculture committee, the government either talked around or
rejected recommendations that called for:
- The creation of a permanent $1 billion natural disaster compensation
fund.
- A doubling of the lifetime farm capital gains tax exemption to $1
Read Also
Agritechnica Day 2: The future of tractor power, building quicker crop apps and large farms and tech
Agritechnica Day 2: The future of tractor power, building quicker crop apps with Syngenta and large farms and tech
million .
- A $1.3 billion annual fund to help farmers hurt by the
price-depressing impact of foreign subsidies.
The government response, which was tabled in Parliament Nov. 8,
suggested “the initiatives to be taken with the implementation of the
agricultural policy framework, as well as with other announcements made
by the government of Canada since June 2002, address many of the
recommendations outlined in the report of the standing committee.”
At least one opposition MP predicted committee members will not be
happy with the response when they reconvene on Parliament Hill this
week.
Manitoba Progressive Conservative MP Rick Borotsik said it is a slap in
the face for MPs who held months of hearings and traveled across the
country asking farmers what role government should play in agriculture
policy in the future.
In most cases, the answer could be summarized as “more support.”
“This is the same answer the government has been delivering for the six
years I have been here,” said Borotsik.
“But I have faith in the committee, including the Liberals on it, who
travelled, listened and reported that the government is not doing
enough.”
In fact, the committee report completed in June and endorsed by all
parties represented, was explicit on the point.
“Farmers often get the impression that the architects of the farm
income protection programs design those programs more to fit a budget
than to adjust the budget to suit farmers’ needs,” said the report.
“Bureaucratic resistance in acknowledging farmers’ true needs was a
recurring theme of the committee’s hearings across Canada and it
appears to indicate a certain lack of understanding on the government’s
part of the agricultural economic reality.”
Borotsik said the government response shows more of the same.
“This isn’t even (agriculture minister Lyle) Vanclief,” he said.
“It has the fingerprints of the department all over it, (deputy
minister) Samy Watson, (assistant deputy minister) Doug Hedley and
those guys. The problem is in the bureaucracy.”
Throughout the response, the government cited money and program
improvements promised under the ag policy framework as the way to help
the industry.
Environmental funding, food safety programs and “branding” Canadian
food products are all ways to meet changing customer demands, it said.
In response to other recommendations, it said the Pest Management
Regulatory Agency must be improved. It also mentioned a $175 million
commitment over five years for prairie grain road upgrades and
government support for the ethanol industry.
It said the motive behind the APF is to help “build a stronger and more
profitable” food sector.
“By having a stronger, more competitive sector in the future, Canadians
can be assured that they will continue to have access to safe, high
quality Canadian food products and that the sector will continue being
a valuable contributor to the Canadian economy,” said the government
response tabled by Vanclief.
Borotsik said he expects committee members to raise questions about
where farm profitability fits into the picture.
Last week, agriculture committee vice-chair and Liberal MP Murray
Calder said he had not yet read the report.
Committee chair Charles Hubbard did not respond to a request for
reaction.
