In rural ridings during this election campaign, farm voters will hear a stark opposition message – the Conservative government plans to cut agricultural spending by more than $400 million this year.
In an election year, a 14 percent decrease in projected federal agricultural spending to $2.6 billion, according to spending estimates presented to Parliament in March, is not a good news government message and opposition MPs have jumped on it.
“This should end any notion within the farm community that the (prime minister Stephen) Harper government was ever sincere about putting farmers first,” Liberal agriculture critic Wayne Easter has said. “They are trying to balance their budget on the backs of Canadian farmers.”
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
Agriculture minister Gerry Ritz said Easter got it wrong – these are just estimates and not real government spending intentions.
True, but they are government spending estimates sent to Parliament. So what is the average farmer to believe?
The critics have black-and-white numbers on their side. Agriculture Canada has told Parliament it expects to sharply cut spending.
It was part of a general Conservative message to Parliament and Canadians that it is cutting spending to deal with the deficit.
Government spending for 2011-12 will be reduced by more than $10 billion from last year, treasury board president Stockwell Day told the House of Commons March 1.
“It will be the first time in over a decade that a government has planned less spending in the present year than in the past year.”
So Agriculture Canada cuts must be seen as part of the government strategy.
Yet the department says it is not. It is a case of the department playing the role of good soldier to reinforce the government’s message when it really isn’t true.
At its core, the government estimate of annual spending is unreliable. It is the result of an arcane parliamentary tradition that has bureaucrats guessing months before the fiscal year begins what the costs of programs will be.
They never are correct. How can they be?
Supplementary estimates during the year seek parliamentary approval for unanticipated spending.
Besides, farm income support programs are legislated to respond to demand so it is impossible to estimate spending.
The departmental spending reduction projection includes a multi million- dollar assumption that with better farm income conditions, government losses on guaranteed advances on crop sales will fall.
Senior Agriculture Canada official Greg Meredith says the projection of lower departmental spending for the next fiscal year is a good news story because it assumes better industry conditions and less reliance on government.
But that was not the government message.
It was all about getting the deficit under control by cutting spending.
Critics and farm leaders could hardly be blamed for jumping on the number.
Will there be a 14 percent cut in agricultural spending? Probably not.
But it would have been helpful if Agriculture Canada had defied the Treasury Board to make it clear it really isn’t part of the deficit reduction solution.
Otherwise, critics are justified to allege that farmers are paying a price.
