This week, Agriculture Canada will fight back against the farmer campaign for more government support during this season of low commodity prices and precarious farm income prospects.
Number-crunching bureaucrats will be sent forth to put a better spin on income expectations and the strength of the safety net system. The Liberals figure they have been ceding too much public relations ground to Jack Wilkinson, the very articulate president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
This, of course, does not mean the government will not produce some money, as Wilkinson predicts. But at the moment, the government is in danger of losing control of the issue. It means the Liberals do not want the rules of the debate about when and how much to be entirely defined by the farm lobby.
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 also means the Liberals have learned one of the lessons of the Mulroney years – giving farmers money does not buy their political loyalty.
If it did, the rural Prairies still should be awash with Tory blue, instead of Reform green. Few governments in recent memory have lavished so much money on Prairie farmers.
Think back.
In December 1986, then-prime minister Brian Mulroney made a surprise appearance at the Agricultural Outlook Conference to announce a $1 billion aid package for farmers caught in the crossfire of a burgeoning grain trade war.
In 1988 just before an election, Mulroney appeared on a Saskatchewan stage with farm representatives to announce a $1 billion special package of drought aid.
That autumn, the rural West stuck with the Tories, as they had since 1957 and the Diefenbaker breakthrough.
Five years later, farmers once again faced low grain prices from the continuing subsidy war. In January 1993, they gathered by the thousands in Saskatoon’s SaskPlace to demand aid.
Then-agriculture minister Charlie Mayer showed up to take his fair share of abuse. By then, the Tory government was tired and unpopular, waiting for a new leader to revive them.
Spiritwood, Sask., farmer Roger Semegen put the day, and the issue, in perspective for the embattled minister. “All we ask for is a measly $1.2 billion,” he said. The answer was “no.” Nine months later, the Tories lost every Prairie rural seat, Mayer’s included.
It was a reminder of an old political rule of thumb – largesse does not buy loyalty but a lack of largesse can lose loyalty.
The Conservatives, because of their traditional generosity to the farm community, had raised expectations and then dashed them. Since most of those rural voters likely turned on the Tories for a complex soup of reasons, highlighting that day in Saskatoon as a turning point would be an exaggeration. Still, it may have been the final straw for many.
Factually, the Liberals may be wrong now to deny the depth of farmer fear over income prospects. But in a world where political considerations always matter, there would be little payback for a big-dollar announcement now. Just ask Charlie Mayer, one of the Tory cabinet ministers who fought for farm aid and was rewarded with political unemployment.
