IT IS one of the most irritating tricks in the political book – the cagey non-answer. “Never say never in politics,” is a typical political response to a demand for clarity.
Are you ruling out a campaign to become leader? As I’ve said many times, I have no intention at this time to run.
But are you ruling it out? Be clear. I have no intention to mount a campaign but who can predict the future?
Why can’t politicians ever talk straight?
Well, there actually is a reason politicians are reluctant to be definitive. Politics, like life and business, are unpredictable so why predict, particularly if people might think you know what you are talking about and make decisions accordingly?
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?
Canada’s recent loss of a World Trade Organization decision that effectively killed the attempt to expand dairy exports offers a fine illustration of the dangers of being definitive.
Little more than a year ago, Canada won a decision at a WTO panel and the government and industry reacted as if it had been written on stone tablets and carried down from the Mount.
“We won. It’s as simple as that,” said Dairy farmers of Canada executive secretary Richard Doyle in late 2001.
“This is the final decision in this case,” opined a senior government official briefing reporters.
True, the United States and New Zealand could launch another challenge “but anyone contemplating that should think long and hard and read this judgment carefully.”
Trade minister Pierre Pettigrew called it “a significant victory” for the industry that would end the controversy over the export program.
Dairy farmers listened and expanded their export sales.
A year later, a different WTO trade panel reached the opposite conclusion. Canada’s cheap dairy exports are being subsidized by profits from government-regulated high domestic prices and therefore are subject to WTO export subsidy controls, it ruled.
This time, it was the final word and Canada admitted it would lead to the end of a $250 million export program with another $160 million worth of sales slated to end if export subsidies are outlawed by the WTO, as Canada is proposing.
Some of those government and industry officials probably wished they’d been a little less definitive last year, a little more cagey in their predictions.
So it should have been a lesson learned.
What about this year, Mr. Minister? Will the agricultural policy framework start April 1 as planned?
“At this point in time, we have no reason to consider altering the timetable.”
Will the three dissident provinces sign?
“It is our intention to have signatures from all provinces and territories.” Does that mean you are predicting they will sign by April 1? “It is our intention to have all signatures.”
Finally, some advice for federal agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief, who recently was charged under provincial traffic laws with making an unsafe turn. The charge followed a two-car collision on a road near his Bellville, Ont., home. There were no injuries and only minor damage.
When possible, leave the driving to the government-provided chauffeur. It’s easy to get rusty when you’re out of practice.
