Farming for Tomorrow
  • Top Stories
  • Advertise
  • Past Issues
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Email Us!
  • Featured
  • A Farmer's Viewpoint
  • Farming Your Money
  • Cover Story
  • Grain Market Analysis
  • Spraying 101
Sunday, Jul 20, 2025
Farming for TomorrowFarming for Tomorrow
Font ResizerAa
Search
  • Top Stories
  • Advertise
  • Past Issues
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Follow US
Farming for Tomorrow > Blog > Farming Your Money > Government Money in Agriculture
Farming Your Money

Government Money in Agriculture

Farming for Tomorrow
Farming for Tomorrow
Share
SHARE


Paul Kuntz

Now that we have had an election in Canada, I thought it would be a good time to discuss government funding in agriculture. As someone who farms and also makes a living from farmers, I want to make sure there is financial health in our industry. More government money is always better, or is it? 

First, let’s look at why the government supports agriculture. Does it give enough money? Where does it go? Should it go somewhere else?

If you search the history of the department of agriculture, you will see that it was formed in 1868, one year after Canada became a country. It was obviously very important, as it was one of the first ministries created. The main focus was on preventing and controlling livestock diseases. I think we can all agree that we need a federal mandate to have success in that area. We need to control what animals come in and the power to control movement of animals within Canada regarding an infectious outbreak. 

Since then, the role of government has evolved. On the website for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, they speak of long-term profitability, sustainability and adaptability. 

Many industries in Canada receive government funding, like the auto industry in Ontario or the airplane industry in Quebec. But many industries receive nothing. Your local restaurant gets no funding. The plumber you hire or the mechanic at the garage get no funding. Why does agriculture get money and other industries do not?

One reason might be because it helps the Canadian economy when agriculture is supported. Many jobs in Canada come from our industry, so it is in the government’s best interest to support an industry that creates wealth. But other industries, like mining, create wealth and they do not receive any funding.

Another reason might be because we produce food. Most of the agricultural production in Western Canada is exported to other countries. We do produce food, but most of it is not for Canadians. The livestock industry produces food for Canadians, but that industry receives less government funding than the grain production industry does.

What areas are we most likely to see government funding? For most farmers, the biggest influence is with crop insurance, AgriStability and AgriInvest. These programs are known as business risk management and heavily subsidized by public money. As someone who is an insurance advisor with Global Ag Risk Solutions (a private crop insurance company) and also as someone who sells hail insurance, I question why public money is being used to support a specific insurance. This product could be delivered by the private sector and partially paid for by the government. 

Another program that has government influence is the Cash Advance Program. This is a loan that producers take against their production, a portion of which is interest free. But more importantly, it is a “No Questions Asked” type of program. As someone who spent most of my life as a banker, this program is a very easy way to secure a lot of operating cash. 

There is government money that goes to research. Some of this is through our universities and some of it is direct with Agriculture Canada research stations. This money can help all of the industry and is a wise place to put public money. We can debate what type of research is being funded, but I believe most Canadians would support government funding in research.

If you are a livestock producer in Western Canada, there are very few government programs to help out. There is some infrastructure assistance with wells and dugouts. There is some assistance with cross fencing. Livestock producers have access to AgriStability and AgriInvest as well. 

The next area to look at is what farms are getting public money. Although it does not state any specifics on Agriculture Canada’s website, politicians often talk about supporting the “family farm.” Do we need to start defining what a family farm is? Does the tax-paying public care if their money goes to a family farm? We now have farms in Western Canada surpassing 30,000 acres. Some of them are still owned by a family farm. Some of them have multiple owners through corporate structures. Is the spirit of intention of public money in agriculture to support massive corporate entities? Is there a point when the taxpayer should limit support of an agricultural operation?

One of my original questions was: who should get government money? I think the livestock industry should be better supported. It is stressful to have a few million canola plants suffering in your field due to bad weather but to have 500 animals suffering because there is no rain is a whole other type of stress. Our rainfall insurance programs are weak and not accurate. The price protection programs are also non-relevant. More could be done to support the livestock industry.

Supporting the grain industry through a crop insurance program is good, but the administration of the funds should change. Producers should be able to select where they get their coverage from and use the subsidy where they choose. Maybe a producer just wants to buy hail insurance on their crops. That producer should be allowed to use government money to offset that premium.

I also think there should be tighter limits on how much government money can go to a farm. I am confident the spirit of intention regarding public money in agriculture was not to support a 30,000-acre farm. This way, more money could be spent in other areas.

It all comes back to what the original intention of the money is. I was once told by a farmer from England that the reason their farms are so heavily subsidized is because they want the city dwellers to be able to go for a drive in the country and see beautiful small farms. The intention of the money was to beautify the countryside. I am not sure if this is accurate. If it is, I do not think it is a wise choice of public funds, but it does prove the point that direction of policy can have many different motivations.

There is new leadership in our federal government and new ministers to manage portfolios. Where would we like to see public money in our industry? As fiscally responsible people, where would we get the biggest bang for our buck? 

Now is the time to contact government officials and our advocates to let them know. 

Share This Article
Facebook LinkedIn Threads Email Copy Link Print
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Ad imageAd image

You Might Also Like

Farming Your Money

Can We Have Win-Win Deals?

10 Min Read
Farming Your Money

Can We Control Our Fixed Costs?

11 Min Read
Farming Your Money

Can We Have Win-Win Deals?

10 Min Read
Farming for TomorrowFarming for Tomorrow
Follow US
Copyright 2025. Farmingfortomorrow.ca. All rights reserved.
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?