The federal NDP has accused the government of reckless cuts to farm programs.
The issue received scant attention in the House of Commons last week as MPs returned to Parliament Hill, but agriculture critic Malcolm Allen said the recent federal-provincial agreement to significantly cut farm support budgets will leave farmers vulnerable when weather or commodity price collapses cause future problems.
“It really is reckless, and farmers are saying that,” Allen said.
“The government is saying you are more or less on your own, and that almost guarantees that there will be tractors on the Hill in future when farmers realize how vulnerable they are and how gutted the programs have been.”
Read Also
Supreme Court gives thumbs-up emoji case the thumbs down
Saskatchewan farmer wanted to appeal the court decision that a thumbs-up emoji served as a signature to a grain delivery contract.
He said farmers are correct to complain that they were not properly consulted before the changes were announced and would not have agreed if they had known the extent of the cuts.
Allen said that when the Commons agriculture committee plans its autumn and winter agenda, he will argue for committee hearings on the impact of the Growing Forward 2 deal.
The committee held weeks of hearings earlier this year, but witnesses were offering general comments without understanding the depth of cuts ministers and bureaucrats were negotiating.
“We need a more informed discussion about this because now that we know the details, this is not good for farmers,” he said.
In the Commons, deputy NDP agriculture critic Ruth Ellen Brosseau linked farm program cuts to the drought affecting eastern Canadian farmers this year.
“Why do the Conservatives want to make cuts to programs that support farmers at such a crucial time?” she said.
Ritz said she had it wrong because the new program rules will pay more as losses get larger.
“What we have done is beefed up the bottom end, taking some of the money from the top end and putting it back into a lot of new monies for contributions on the non-BRM side, that is for innovation, science and research,” he said.
“That is exactly what farmers need to move forward.”
