It was inevitable. Quietly, the line of farm lobbyists hoping to receive a slice of the federal government’s budget surplus is beginning to form.
It presents agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief, an honest and straightforward fiscal conservative, with a difficult political file to handle this summer.
He will have to figure out how to balance his support for the integrity of the government program of tight-fisted money management, which does not appear to count agriculture as a sector needing an injection of cash, with the demands of some of his constituents.
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?
It will not be an easy balancing act.
The demands for more money are coming from several directions. The most prominent is the safety-net file.
As he prepares to depart the Canadian lobby scene, Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Jack Wilkinson is turning up the heat on Ottawa.
Last week, in the wake of new federal statistics indicating real farm-based incomes are either stagnant or falling, Wilkinson demanded government action.
It should rethink its policy of loading more costs on farmers through cost recovery, he said. And it should recognize that safety-net funding has been cut too much and should be expanded.
The issue could come to a head in July when federal and provincial agriculture ministers meet to discuss a new safety-net system.
But the demands for spending will come from other directions as well.
As Canadian International Trade Tribunal hearings on tariff-free butteroil imports ended last week, it appeared unlikely the CITT will recommend that a tariff be slapped on the dairy-displacing foreign product. To do so would invite international retaliation.
So whatever choice the government makes on how to handle the issue, it seems almost certain to involve losses for the dairy industry. And that certainly will bring pressure from the powerful dairy lobby for compensation.
Oddly, Vanclief could also face unusual spending pressure from some factions of the Reform Party, which normally criticizes the Liberals as big spenders.
But there is a Reform faction which argues the government should do for dairy, poultry and egg farmers what it did for prairie grain farmers when the Crow Benefit subsidy was abolished – spend billions to buy out the value of quota.
And then, there is the constant pressure for Ottawa to be more generous with farmers who suffer losses from natural disasters.
So far, Vanclief has resisted most pressure for increased spending, preaching the gospel of farmer independence from government dollars.
Like the government in which he serves, the agriculture minister puts his faith in trade and open markets and competitiveness as the answers to farm income issues.
Government should act only as a last-ditch financial backer.
For some years, most farm lobbyists accepted those ground rules, supporting government deficit-fighting efforts.
Now, the lobby rules seem to be starting to revert to more traditional ground.
