An all-party House of Commons committee has unanimously said that the
federal government has an obligation to increase its support for
agriculture across a range of policies and programs.
Strong support for an annual $1.3 billion payment to farmers to offset
foreign subsidies is the most urgent recommendation, coming in the
midst of government preparations for a farm program funding
announcement this week or next.
“Canadian farmers currently have no way of managing the risks induced
Read Also
Federal government supports soil health strategy
Sophie Beecher, director general at Agriculture Canada, said at a soil conference in Winnipeg that the feds support the idea of a national soil health strategy.
by the actions of foreign governments,” said the 92-page report tabled
in Parliament June 11. “If we truly want an agricultural industry as
contemplated in the agricultural policy framework, immediate action
must be taken so that we can have a foundation on which to build that
vision.”
But calls for more government support went far beyond the immediate
income issue. MPs on the Commons agriculture committee recommended a
permanent compensation fund of $1 billion for natural disasters,
various tax incentives, a doubling in the lifetime capital gains
exemption to $1 million and enriched crop insurance and Net Income
Stabilization Account benefits.
The government must consider production of food an issue of national
security, said the committee.
To achieve this, “the federal government should aggressively pursue a
course that ensures an appropriate monetary return to primary
producers.”
Grain Growers of Canada president Brian Kriz called the report “a
thoughtful and compelling” compilation of recommendations and analysis.
Committee chair Charles Hubbard said the report makes “sweeping
recommendations that would better equip Canadian producers to face …
challenges and embrace new opportunities.”
The report makes the point that farmers “are the foundation of the
sector.”
MPs used it to suggest bureaucrats do not always understand that 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.
“This attitude must change and government funds, particularly because
they are limited, must be used effectively.”
Elsewhere, the report says: “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.”
Then there was a comment directed at senior Agriculture Canada
officials who told the committee during one stormy meeting in Ottawa
that farmers are not working in their own long-term best interests when
they ask for subsidies and that farmers who leave the land are making a
business decision.
“Also advanced is the argument that all change is healthy because it
enables a sector to adjust and become more dynamic,” it said. “These
would be entirely valid arguments in a ‘normal’ agricultural economy
but not in the current context.”
Other committee recommendations included:
- More support for rural co-operatives, including tax incentives.
- More training funds for farmers and farm workers.
- Investment in western Canadian rural roads and protection of farmers’
rights to use producer rail cars.
- Compensation to farmers for policy-driven costs such as
species-at-risk legislation and incentives for farmers who adopt good
land stewardship practices.
- More money to educate non-farm Canadians about the food system.
The committee also suggested that Canada’s international trade
negotiators “maintain a firm position on Canada’s ability to maintain
supply management,” a position that contrasts with the committee’s
controversial proposal that the Canadian Wheat Board give up its
marketing monopoly on a trial basis.
