THE ongoing federal Liberal leadership race offers the Canadian Federation of Agriculture a last chance to win changes in Ottawa’s safety net program design within the agricultural policy framework.
The CFA plans to try to get each of the three candidates – Paul Martin, Sheila Copps and John Manley – to admit flaws in the design, promise to fix them and engage in the debate.
There will be invitations to the CFA semi-annual meeting in July, this year in Manitoba. Good luck to them.
So far, agricultural issues have been as crucial to the debate as the Geneva Convention on prisoner of war treatment has been to American policy on holding Afghani prisoners at Guantanamo, Cuba for more than a year without charges and without legal rights.
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?
That is to say, not relevant at all.
To be fair, front-runner Paul Martin has produced a suite of agricultural policies that his handlers optimistically said would “renew Canada’s ailing farm sector.”
To be equally fair, they are thin gruel. Promotion of joint running rights on prairie grain rail lines, increased research spending on pulse crops and provision of more venture capital funding for value adding firms are not bad ideas but they are more than a bit under-whelming.
What does the prime-minister-in-waiting think about the adequacy of safety net funding or the controversial design proposals being forced onto farmers by the current government?
What solutions does he have, if any, to chronic low incomes in the grains and oilseeds sector, exacerbated by his 1995 decision to kill the Crow rate?
Does he have a view on the controversial topic of labelling for genetically modified foods? Would he side with most farmers and the food business that want labels to be at the discretion of companies or on the side of environmental activists and consumers who want labels to be mandatory so choices are transparent?
Does he support a Canadian Wheat Board export monopoly, or high tariffs to protect supply management?
These are a few of the bread-and-butter issues that Martin has not addressed. Joint running rights and venture capital will not resolve income and stability issues.
A campaign aide says the candidate does not want to undermine policies of the current government. That didn’t stop him from announcing he would vote for controversial aboriginal governance legislation as a loyal Liberal but not implement it as prime minister.
On agriculture, it is as if Martin has not spent much time thinking about the industry, although he has a weekend farm in Quebec and as finance minister dealt with many farm crises and triumphs.
It brings to mind an anecdote from the 1993 Progressive Conservative leadership race when Jean Charest was asked by an egg producer for his position on protecting supply management in world trade talks.
Charest responded, “now you expect me to have a chicken policy,” laughed and walked away.
No doubt that story made the rounds in farm circles. No doubt Charest won few delegates from agricultural constituencies. No doubt he lost the leadership to Kim Campbell. He probably would have anyway.
