The Canadian food industry is hit every year with a $140 million cost recovery bill for government services rendered, according to a report being prepared by Agriculture Canada economists.
Brian Paddock, director of economic and industry analysis for the department, is leading a group that is studying the cumulative, cross-government impact of cost recovery on the industry.
He told the Canadian Federation of Agriculture annual meeting Feb. 27 that since 1994-95, the bill for cost recovery has risen 40 percent.
But he said when the report is finished in April, it will neither predict future cost recovery impacts nor offer an analysis of the value farmers get for the money they must pay on services ranging from inspection to ports and meat grading.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
Paddock said the political debate over whether fee-for-service charges are too high or too random will have to take place elsewhere.
“We want to lay a factual base for the discussion,” said the senior Agriculture Canada bureaucrat. “We expect a discussion will follow on what should be done.”
Treasury board president Marcel MassŽ has promised that if there are obvious problems, he will discuss changes.
Broader study wanted
For CFA speakers who have been complaining about the cumulative impact of cost recovery and demanding the government have an overall view of the effect that various charges have on competitiveness, say Paddock’s study is too narrow.
Tony Morris, past-president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, said the history of cost recovery escalation is interesting but irrelevant to the future. “The important thing is where it’s going to go.”
Paddock rejected the suggestion that he should be making predictions about future impacts.
He said it has been difficult enough to get co-operation from other government departments and agencies for his limited study of what cost recovery charges exist.
