Western Producer staff
There was a time, not so many years ago, when conventional Ottawa political wisdom had it that the Agriculture Canada bureaucracy was a captive of the farm lobby.
The theory went this way: The farm lobby shows up at departmental headquarters, makes its demands, and the bureaucrats or minister take it to other government departments.
Agriculture Canada was the farmer’s advocate in Ottawa.
Within agriculture, that is no longer seen to be true, if it ever was.
Just last week, assistant deputy minister Art Olson used a speech to fertilizer industry executives to try to shed that image of government.
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
Some farm lobbyists still think the only lobbying they must do is to convince Agriculture Canada of their case and then the department will carry the idea to other departments, he complained.
“They still think of us as the industry’s Ottawa-based lobbyist. We can’t do that. It’s not government’s role.”
In fact, if there still are vestiges of that “partners” attitude among some farm lobbyists when they think of the department, it is no longer mainstream.
In its place has grown a hostility between the mainstream farm lobby and the agriculture bureaucracy that at times is palpable and destructive.
It was evident last week when the Canadian Federation of Agriculture released its “report card” on the federal government.
While the department’s political leadership generally was treated well, a thread of hostility toward the bureaucrats ran through the document.
On supply management, there is political will but “bureaucratic support is soft.” Policy bureaucrats “consult but don’t listen” and in general, bureaucrats look to serve their department’s interests, rather than their farmer “clients.”
CFA present Jack Wilkinson said farmers often find themselves being lectured by bureaucrats when they show up to plead their case, being told their arguments are out of step with reality or government priorities.
On the other side of the veil, bureaucrats reacted to the CFA criticism with anger and in some cases contempt.
The CFA is out of line, assuming the bureaucracy is there to do its bidding rather than to work for the public good, several complained privately.
The department’s mandarins, often working with an economics background and a “market” vision of the world, sometimes see farmers who defend their support or marketing structures as old-fashioned and out of step with the perceived need to embrace the new world of less government and more competition.
Last week, two officials were overheard discussing the CFA report card.
“They’ve become so left-wing,” said one, referring to the CFA. He believed groups like the Western Canadian Wheat Growers have a better understanding of what has to be done in the new economy.
With contemptuous views like these held on both sides of The Divide, it is little wonder that some have come to view the Sir John Carling Building, housing the Agriculture Canada senior core, as more of a fortress than a meeting place.
