Years ago at a social event, a finance department official vented about the insatiable appetite the agriculture department had for taxpayer dollars.
These were the Liberal days of big ad hoc payments and she made it clear Finance saw agriculture as the spoiled child of the economy.
The idea that Finance Canada is not a friend of Agriculture Canada (well, maybe these days are different since agriculture minister Gerry Ritz makes so few demands on the treasury) is old hat in Ottawa, a political truism that rarely needs proof.
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?
In federal terms, Agriculture Canada is hardly one of the big spenders but the industry’s pleas for help often are public and therefore a target for spending critics.
Still, finance ministers rarely stand up in public to confirm the assumptions about bureaucratic antipathy.
Last week, the veil of internal animosity was pulled back a little and it was fascinating. The venue was the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture where veteran Regina Liberal MP Ralph Goodale was a speaker.
The former agriculture and finance minister in the respective governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin has undoubtedly faced this question from both sides of the bureaucratic divide.
But he is a cautious fellow by nature and offered just a titillating glimpse of the internal tension.
Goodale told delegates he remembers government bureaucrats who “resented those pesky farmers” demanding help and a say in crafting government policy. He suggested the Conservatives played to that internal dynamic by cancelling the national farm safety net advisory committee.
Two well-connected political insiders offered a more detailed and acerbic account of the finance department view of agriculture.
Conservative senator Hugh Segal was an insider in Brian Mulroney’s government. David Herle was a highly placed political staffer for Liberal Paul Martin.
Segal told delegates that the financial ministries – finance and Treasury Board – are not fans of Agriculture Canada: “Don’t take it personally that they hate you,” he said. “They hate everybody.”
Herle begged to differ and as a product of rural Saskatchewan working with finance officials for a decade, he probably knows.
Segal got it wrong, he said.
“You should take it personally because they hate you specifically,” he said. “They see farmers as never happy. Finance has no respect for farmers and no respect for the department of agriculture.”
And there is public evidence. In the mid-1990s when finance minister Martin was preparing his deficit-fighting budget, finance officials targeted many agricultural programs including the Crow rate, dairy subsidy, departmental staff and research spending.
Goodale, then agriculture minister, used his longtime friendship with Martin to plead for a break. He won a Crow buyout over departmental objections.
But by most measures, agriculture took proportionately a greater hit than most. Research has never recovered. At finance, it likely was called payback.
