THE best interpretation of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture’s latest tactic in the debate over future farm policy is that it was a well thought out and calculated risk that could produce results for the farm lobby.
The worst interpretation is that it was a desperate gamble that may go seriously awry and damage the cause.
The “it” was an extraordinary letter sent Jan. 6 to the prime minister from 20 farm leaders affiliated with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, essentially complaining about the performance of agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief and endorsing the views of a rival caucus member.
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?
It was extraordinary because at a crucial point in federal-provincial-farmer negotiations toward an April 1 deadline, the CFA went over the head of the designated minister to complain.
It was extraordinary because of timing.
The CFA sent it to prime minister Jean Chrétien late on a Monday but did not immediately copy it to Vanclief, who was meeting his provincial ministerial counterparts on a teleconference the next day. He knew nothing about the letter.
It was extraordinary because it singled out MP Bob Speller, chair of the Liberal caucus agriculture task force, for getting it right when he warned there is a risk the government could lose farm support if Vanclief’s implementation path is not amended.
“Mr. Speller is very correct,” said the CFA letter.
With rumours of a cabinet shuffle swirling in Ottawa, it could be seen as an undercutting of Vanclief, despite attempts by CFA leaders later to say it was not.
It was a clear boost for Speller, a southern Ontario Liberal who wears his ambition for cabinet status on his sleeve.
What was the CFA thinking when it sent the letter? It was born out of frustration that the agriculture minister has not been heeding farm sector advice on key aspects of the Agriculture Policy Freamework, including the need for far more detail before the five-year phase-in starts.
President Bob Friesen insists it was not meant to undermine Vanclief, merely to let the prime minister know there are implementation problems that could undermine the benefits of the $5.2 billion funding commitment Chrétien made last summer.
And it was logical to quote Speller because he had been appointed by Chrétien to study future agriculture policy and pointedly told the PM about a growing gap between the department and farmers.
From Vanclief’s point of view, though, it can only look like betrayal.
Over the years, he has worked closely with CFA leaders. They have not always agreed but at least the federal farm lobby could never complain about lack of access.
Now, those same farm leaders have undermined him in a letter to the boss that included pointed praise of another ambitious Liberal MP.
The CFA gamble may work, of course. The prime minister may clip Vanclief’s wings and order him to be more flexible in meeting farmer and provincial complaints. He may even install a new minister in a rumoured winter cabinet shuffle.
But overriding ministers hasn’t been his style and if Chrétien leaves Vanclief in charge, the CFA will find the reception in the minister’s office chillier and access not quite so available.
That’s the risk in this gamble.
