OPPOSITION politicians and farm group lobbyists often seem to confer on
the federal government and its ministers far more power and influence
than they actually possess.
The debate over what the Canadian government can or cannot do to
influence the American political debate over new subsidy-rich United
States farm legislation is a case in point.
Whether Canada’s government or farm industry agrees or disagrees with
U.S. farm policy matters about as much to American legislators as
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.
whether they need a declaration of war to invade a country.
Prime minister Jean Chrétien carries Canada’s fears of higher U.S.
subsidies to the office of president George Bush. “Nice to see you,
John. Let’s talk about our joint effort to fight terrorism.”
Deputy prime minister John Manley carries the same message to
vice-president Dick Cheney and makes little impression.
Agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief promises to go to Washington and
then is roundly criticized when the trip does not take place.
Amazingly, other people seem to take this all very seriously. In the
House of Commons, Progressive Conservative critic Rick Borotsik alluded
to Vanclief’s Keystone Kop proposal to go to Washington only to find
that he could not arrange appointments. He suggested the minister had
“dropped the ball.” That implies a trip to Washington would have
accomplished something.
Agricore United president Ted Allen picked up the same theme,
conferring on the minister and the government great international clout.
He wrote to Vanclief March 15, calling on the government to stop the
Americans from extending subsidies to pulse crops as proposed in
Congress.
“We urge your government to take whatever steps are necessary to avert
this possible trade-distorting action,” wrote Allen. Implicit is a
suggestion that Ottawa launch trade challenges but explicit is the idea
that Canadian politicians are actually heeded in Washington.
Here’s a guess: Chrétien, Manley and Vanclief could organize a hunger
strike to the death in the Canadian embassy in Washington, promising
not to eat until the farm bill was changed, and nothing would happen.
Perhaps they would score an appearance on Larry King Live. Capitol Hill
would carry on.
Still, Canadian politicians continue to make believe, promising trips
to Washington and lobbying efforts to change the opinions of foreign
governments.
It has ever been thus. In the early 1990s, a series of Progressive
Conservative cabinet ministers, including then-agriculture minister
Bill McKnight and finance minister Michael Wilson, travelled through
Europe trying to convince the European Union to support Canadian supply
management at upcoming world trade talks.
In the end, the EU and the Americans cut a deal that abolished Canada’s
supply management guarantees.
And of course, American politicians will listen to their
subsidy-addicted farmers rather than Canada when writing a new farm
bill.
So why do Canadian politicians continue to promise a foreign influence
they cannot deliver?
It is good domestic politics. Voters imagine their leaders are going to
bat for them. Thank you government for going into the lion’s den for us.
But it is largely futile.
Now, if only government critics would concede the point and recognize
that Canadian governments are weaker international players than
rhetoric suggests.
