Agriculture cuts fodder for trade deals

Canada’s high-flying agriculture minster Gerry Ritz is in the news again over his sky-high travel expenses, beating out such high-flyers as Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

Apparently, Ritz has been regularly flying first-class within Canada this past year, with six flights costing taxpayers more than $2,000, while his staff fly economy at about one-third the cost.

But it’s on the ground where Ritz seems to be causing the most turbulence, with non-stop cuts to agricultural programs, like the Agroforestry Development Centre, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, farm safety net programs, and the federal Community Pasture Program. And some farm groups, like the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, are starting to get vocal about Ritz’s performance as agriculture minister.

“IT’S ONE THING TO BE A BOY SCOUT AND PLAY BY THE RULES WHEN EVERYONE ELSE AROUND YOU IS BREAKING THEM. IT’S QUITE ANOTHER TO GO INTO TRADE TALKS WITH YOUR POCKETS HALF EMPTY AND ASK FOR CREDIT.”

The changes to AgriStability and AgriInvest announced at the ag ministers’ meeting in Whitehorse are only the most recent example of the Harper government’s agenda of cutting spending on agriculture programs.

And the cuts to AgriStability are no small potatoes. According to one estimate, the federal and provincial governments will save over $400 million a year, or more than $2 billion over five years.

But the fiscal savings achieved are a convenient pretext for the real purpose of the cuts: to gradually dismantle state support for the agriculture sector in advance of some tough negotiations with its would-be trading partners.

The elimination of the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly — for which U.S. farm groups have been lobbying for decades — was just the first step.

The federal budget contained a host of cuts to agricultural programs — the Agroforestry Development Centre at Indian Head, the federal Community Pasture Program, and job cuts at the CFIA, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA) and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC).

In all, more than half of the 775 job cuts on the Prairies announced in the federal budget came from the agriculture ministry. Does anyone see a pattern here? The common theme of these programs is that they represent subsidies to agriculture, which could be stumbling blocks in achieving the government’s free trade agenda.

What Ritz and company are really doing is setting the stage for the complete overhaul of farm safety net programs, which will eventually see them wither away, much as the CWB’s marketing power will over the next few years.

It’s no accident that these developments are occurring as the Harper government embarks on an ambitious plan to sign trade agreements with Europe, through the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Trade and Economic Agreement (CETA) and the Asia Pacific region through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and a host of other bilateral agreements.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against liberalized trade. I’ve supported the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA in the past and continue to support rules-based economic co-operation and trade liberalization deals, such as CETA and TPP.

What I’m concerned about is the wholesale dismantling of farm support programs in advance of these trade negotiations. What kind of bargaining strategy is it where you give away your chips before you even sit down at the table?

So far, the Harper government has traded away a substantial chunk of our bargaining power, without receiving anything in return from our trading partners. It amounts to unilateral disarmament in the rough-and-tumble world of international trade.

It’s one thing to be a Boy Scout and play by the rules when everyone else around you is breaking them. It’s quite another to go into trade talks with your pockets half empty and ask for credit.

You might win plaudits from outfits, like the OECD, which recently praised the Harper government for getting rid of the CWB’s monopoly.

The same organization is calling for the end of Canada’s supply managed agricultural sector (dairy, poultry and eggs) and urged the government to get rid of “ad hoc’’ farm programs that compensate farmers in the event of flooding or drought. But the OECD study also points out that Canada’s current farm subsidies account for 16 per cent of farm income, well below the OECD average of 20 per cent.

Why should we be cutting more than our trading partners? Why should our farmers be offered up as sacrificial lambs on the altar of free trade?