Federal budget 2012 and its wide-ranging implications for agricultural bureaucrats and programming is a powerful statement from the majority Conservatives about unnecessary government and the power of the private sector.
In a nutshell: Ottawa and government over the years have taken on roles that should be turned over to private interests.
This has been the core of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative message since the anti-government movement came out of Alberta in 1993.
The federal budget and its agricultural cuts are just the latest manifestation.
How can the government justify research cutbacks at Agriculture Canada? Easy, since the private sector has been putting in just 25 cents for every 75 federal cents, says agriculture minister Gerry Ritz.
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
Besides, all that federal money was simply discouraging private investment in the next generation of primary research.
“We know that the private sector is more than interested in getting involved but we have to step back to allow that to happen,” he said.
Moving the celebrated PFRA shelterbelt program and community pastures out of federal jurisdiction over the next several years is simply a reflection that they are programs “the private sector could deliver in a much more effective way.”
Cancelling much of the federal support for co-operative development and support programs is justified because they are major players in the economy with hundreds of billions of dollars in assets.
They don’t need taxpayer help.
This is the on-the-ground transformation of the scope of government under the Conservative watch.
It follows the Conservative decision late last year to end the government-created Canadian Wheat Board in favour of a private sector grain sector.
It follows a budget decision to pull back Canadian Food Inspection Agency oversight of non-food safety product labelling.
And then there is the federal argument that the next generation of federal-provincial farm programs should limit government financial-support exposure.
This would happen in part by requiring farmers take more responsibility for covering market losses or natural disaster events through insurance.
These all are small pieces of a bigger agenda, a Conservative belief that government has too big a footprint in the economy and society.
It is based on a belief the state has become too big and that programs created decades ago should be reviewed to see if they are necessary in the 21st century.
It is based on a belief that government programs have become too imprecise, scattering money where it is not needed or not effective.
Sharp international aid funding cuts reflect that Conservative complaint.
Despite protests from the injured special interests, no one should be surprised.
The Conservatives under Stephen Harper have moderated from their Reform roots but the “government is too big” ideology has been a staple for decades.
True, Conservatives ran a record deficit and hired tens of thousands of new civil servants in their first five years of power but that was then.
Now they have a majority and the program is being implemented.
