THE first number to come out of last week’s federal announcement on
agricultural funding was $8.18 billion. It is a sizzling number by any
measure.
The next number was $5.2 billion over six years, the federal portion of
the total, with the balance expected to come from the provinces.
The number after that was $1.28 billion – the federal government’s
increase and commitment to agricultural base funding over the next five
years. That same number came up again as the federal amount to be made
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
available over two years for things like drought and risk management,
again with expected provincial participation
Then came a figure of $589.5 million over six years, to be spent on new
federal measures such as investment in agricultural innovation, export
opportunities and rural communities.
As the numbers were broken down into ever smaller amounts, it became
apparent that adding up the sizzle won’t necessarily result in a larger
piece of steak.
Don’t get us wrong. Federal money for agriculture, new and old, is
welcome. It recognizes that Canadian agriculture is needful and
deserving of federal support.
This federal plan stabilizes safety net funding for the next five years
and provides some bridge funding to help farmers through the next two.
As well, it includes money to get the Agriculture Policy Framework,
agreed upon in principle by all provinces, into place.
Debatable, however, is the actual amount of “new” money in the
announcement. And glaringly absent is the $1.3 billion annual trade
injury compensation most farm groups wanted to satisfy concerns over
international trade policy inequities.
The feds might argue the $1.2 billion bridge funding is the trade
injury payment in another guise. That way it avoids potential for other
sectors to use the same argument. But it’s not the annual $1.3 billion
deemed sufficient to level the playing field until better trade rules
are established.
Another fizzle in the sizzle is the cost-share expectation with the
provinces. The three prairie provinces in particular pressed Ottawa to
pay the entire freight for trade injury suffered by farmers. Last week,
Alberta realized the political and economic perils of refusing to pony
up a contribution. But Manitoba and fiscally-challenged Saskatchewan
are in the vise of federal expectation and farmer pressure.
Ottawa said it will provide its 60 percent even without a 40 percent
provincial contribution. That’s good but it might mean farmers who need
the money most, specifically those reliant on the grains and oilseeds
sector, will receive the least.
In any case, after interminable delay, the federal government has put
its figures forward and they’ve been largely embraced by Canadian farm
groups.
At a meeting this week in Halifax, it will be up to federal agriculture
minister Lyle Vanclief and his provincial counterparts to work out
equitable distribution – to put all the sizzle possible into the steak.
Farmers are hungry for the details.
