Farm Subsidies in Canada and the United States - The Pot and the Kettle

Updated September 2018

With it appearing that the Trudeau government is about to sign a new NAFTA deal with some changes to the manner in which dairy trade is treated, it looks like Canada's decades-old dairy supply management system is being threatened by American trade policies.  Let's look at a bit of background about supply management and then take a closer look at how the U.S. farm industry is being subsidized by Washington.  While I don't have specific data on how Washington is subsidizing its dairy industry, I think that you will find the information on overall agricultural subsidies to be food for thought (poor pun, indeed).

Supply management is a government-mandated program which was founded in 1971 under the Pierre Elliot Trudeau government.  The purpose of this scheme is to control the farming industry in Canada (and other nations) by controlling the supply of commodities, most particularly milk, cheese, eggs and poultry in Canada.  Through the imposition of production limits, prices remain higher and governments avoid the costly necessity of directly subsidizing farmers with cash payments.  In addition, supply management must entail controls on imports that would otherwise flood the domestic market, pushing prices down and reducing farm incomes.  Supply management gets mixed reviews; while farmers are in favour, and tout the fact that Canada's dairy products are of better quality, many consumers feel that they pay higher prices for dairy products than they would under a free-market system. 

Here's what the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the organization that represents Canada's roughly 17,000 member dairy farmers and acts as its lobbying and marketing force, have to say about supply management:

"Canada’s supply management system provides balance in the dairy sector by enabling Canadian dairy farmers to act collectively to negotiate price and adjust milk production to meet consumer demand.

While farmers around the world face unexpected and inexplicable wild market fluctuations, Canadian farmers sell their milk at constant and stable prices.

As a result, Canadian dairy farming is one of the few agricultural sectors that are self-sufficient – providing income security for farmers and requiring no government subsidy. This means Canadian farmers can invest in their farms, communities and Canada."

Here are some of the key facts as presented by Dairy Farmers of Canada:

Here is a graphic which shows how Canada provides more market access for imports of dairy and poultry products than either the United States or the European Union:

Dairy Farmers notes that, despite supply management, Canada imports a very substantial portion of its dairy products as shown on this table:

Roughly 8 to 10 percent of Canada's total dairy products are imported tariff-free. 

Here is a table showing the value and quantity (in kilograms) of butter imported into Canada over the past five years and the source nation of the butter:

Here is the same data for cheddar cheese:

Here is the same data for milk:

As you can see in each case, the United States is the primary source of Canadian imports of these three products.

Now, let's completely switch gears and look at how the United States government subsidizes American farmers.  Thanks to the Environmental Working Group, we have a complete database of all subsidies provided to American farmers since 1995.  

Here is a listing of the top farming industry recipients of USDA subsidies:

In total, 3,916,900 recipients shared in over $353.5 billion in USDA subsidies over the two decade period from 1995 to 2016. 

Let's break down the data and look at a key aspect of farm subsidies in the United States.  Here is a graph showing the commodity subsidies given to the farming industry on an annual basis in the United States between 1995 and 2016:

In total, over the two decades, commodity subsidies paid to the farming industry totalled $198.2 billion. 

Here are the programs included in the commodity subsidy payments:

Here is a list of the 20 largest recipients of commodity subsidies between 1995 and 2016:

The top 10 percent of commodity payment recipients were paid 77 percent of the $198.2 billion worth of commodity subsidies.

  

Lastly, here is a table showing the states which received the most commodity subsidy payments over the two decade period:

As you can see, Iowa, Texas, Illinois and Nebraska accounted for nearly one-third of all commodity subsidy payments.

After you've looked through this data, it's pretty hard not to draw the conclusion that both Canada and the United States governments play a heavy role in their respective farming industries through the use  of supply management and subsidies.  Gone are the days of the small, 100 acre mixed-crop family farm.  In the new economic reality, farms have become major industrial operations that rely on government intervention as part of their business model.  While the Trump Administration is pointing the finger at Canada's dairy industry, it need look no further than its own farming industry to see that it is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Subsidizing the Fossil Fuel Industry

Updated September 2015

With the increasing focus on the possibility of global climate change, I thought that the time was right to take a look at whether the current American administration has followed up on its 2009 promise to reduce subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in an attempt to mitigate global climate change.

Way back in 2009, the leaders of the G20 nations agreed to phase out subsidies over the medium-term for the oil industry and its fossil fuel peer group as part of a global effort to reduce the risk of global warming.  According to Reuters, back in 2009, about $300 billion was spent annually on a global basis by subsidizing fuel prices and offering enhancements to the oil industry such as preferential access to government-owned lands and reduced royalties.  By 2012, these subsidies were estimated at $775 billion with two-thirds of the total subsidies actually originating from the World Bank.

Here is a quote from the 2009 Pittsburgh Summit:

"We reaffirm our commitment to rationalise and phase-out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption, while providing targeted support for the poorest”

In the 2010 G20 Toronto Summit, 13 of the 20 participants provided their implementation strategies for the phasing out of fossil-fuel subsidies.  The remaining 9, including Australia, Brazil, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the United Kingdom claimed that they did not have inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies.

In their Untold Billions study, the International Institute for Sustainable Development's Global Subsidies Initiative looked at the types of subsidies available to the fossil-fuel industry and found that these subsidies fell into eleven categories:

A recent report by Oil Change International entitled "The Fossil Fuel Bailout" states that $88 billion is spent every year by G20 nations to subsidize the exploration for fossil fuels.  These subsidies fall into three main types:

1.) investments in the fossil-fuel sector by state-owned enterprises (SOEs) totalling $49 billion annually.  Countries with significant investments in fossil fuels through SOEs include China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, India and Russia.   Some nations have multiple fossil fuel-based SOE's, including Russia, China and India . Without these subsidies through SOEs, many projects would become sub-commercial.

2.) national subsidies delivered through direct spending and tax breaks totalling up to $23 billion annually.  These include depletion allowances, amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures and deductions for intangible oil and natural gas drilling costs.  The United States, Australia, Russia, China and the United Kingdom all have significant subsidies for fossil fuel exploration with the United States leading the pack in the overall size of the subsidies available to the energy industry.

3.) public finance from banks and other government-owned financial institutions totalling $16 billion annually.  Countries with significant support of this type include Canada, China, Japan, Russia and the Republic of Korea.

The economics of exploration for oil and natural gas is heavily reliant on government support, particularly since new reserves are found in more and more remote areas of the globe as the world's hydrocarbon age matures.  As shown on this bar graph, the amount spent on exploration for oil and natural gas has increased substantially since 2008 from under $60 million to over $85 million in 2013:

Despite the increase in spending, oil and gas reserves in G20 nations have barely budged over the six year period, rising from around 440 million barrels of oil equivalent in 2008 to around 460 million barrels of oil equivalent in 2013.

Without government subsidies, many of these new energy projects would be sub-economic.  It is estimated that around half of the oil industry needs crude oil prices in excess of $120 per barrel to generate free cash flow and that nations like Russia need prices near $110 a barrel to balance their budgets.  

Here is a graph showing how the break-even price for crude oil (the price required to cover the cost of production) has risen since the 1990s:

  

Here is a table showing the top ten undeveloped oil projects in the world that require oil prices of $95 or more to be economic:

Please note how many of these projects are located in the Canadian oil sands sector.

Let's focus on the United States for a moment.  The U.S. plays a central role in the world's fossil-fuel markets as the world's largest consumer of both oil and natural gas and the second largest consumer of coal.  It is at the forefront of emerging policies in the development of carbon capture and storage, clean coal technologies and unconventional fossil-derived fuels.  All of these involve substantial government subsidization. Keeping in mind the pledge made at the 2009 G20 meeting, we find that, in the case of the United States, approximately $5.123 billion in national subsidies was provided for fossil fuel exploration and extraction in 2013, double the level in 2009.  Here is a table showing how the United States federal government fossil fuel subsidies changed between 2009 and 2013:

  

In addition, many states provide additional exploration subsidies.  In total, the authors estimate that G20 nations subsidize exploration and extraction of fossil fuels to the tune of between $16.362 to $22.647 billion annually. 

According to Open Secrets, in 2014, the oil and gas sector spent $141.44 million lobbying in Washington as shown on this graphic:

...and that the energy and natural resources sector spent just over $115 million on campaign donations in the 2014 cycle, 79 percent of which went to Republican candidates as shown here:

...it would be a Herculean task for anyone in Washington to maintain a measured approach to the fossil fuel industry.  Perhaps this explains why the current President's 2009 promise to his G20 peers that he would cut subsidies to the fossil fuel sector have been such an abject failure.