IT WAS surprising a few years ago when Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Bob Friesen ran for the Liberal nomination in his Manitoba riding. One wouldn’t expect the leader of Canada’s national farm group, representing more than 200,000 farm families, to make such a public and partisan statement about his political affiliations.
While Friesen and anyone else is free to exercise his or her right to participate in the democratic process, it seemed a risky move; one that might brand the organization as Liberal in its political leanings.
Read Also
Rural emergency room closures continue to be vexing problem
Staffing issues are at the root of disruptions and closures in hospital emergency departments, both in rural and urban Canadian locations.
The safe bet for Friesen and the CFA would have been a politically neutral strategy, built upon the needs of farmers, that would enable the group to work with whichever party came to power.
Whether Friesen’s decision has come back to haunt the CFA in its dealings with the Conservative government is a matter of speculation.
Speculate no more. It now is fair to say the CFA-Conservative relationship has moved beyond speculation to unease as it has become known that CFA communications co-ordinator Kieran Green was a member of the Liberal task force on agricultural policy renewal and wrote the proposed Liberal policy strategy.
Though he did it on his own time and as a private individual, Green’s position with the CFA is well known. He is a designated spokesperson. Thus his participation in Liberal policy-making has likely reduced whatever traction the CFA had with the Conservatives.
Farm groups, the CFA among them, should certainly have whatever input they can into Canadian farm policy. Politicians can and do consult them and consider the information imparted. But consultation is different from writing policy papers for an opposition political party. Even though Green made clear he was not there representing the CFA, it is a difficult separation of private and public time to accept when, in both guises, he deals with the same issues and policies.
In the court of public opinion, a senior staffer writing proposals for an opposition party looks like a conflict of interest for the CFA, which represents farmers from all political factions.
In an ideal political system, good ideas would be welcomed by government regardless of political stripe. But the reality is somewhat different.
By the actions of its representatives, the CFA has likely hindered its own chances for an open-minded consideration of its ideas – by the government and by others who see it as being politically partisan.
And that is a shame, because the federation has many good ideas, along with a well-documented record of working for agricultural policy improvement.
It was and is steadfast in its demand for improvements to the agricultural safety net. It has developed a biofuel strategy worthy of consideration. It has lobbied hard for its position on agricultural trade policy, and it has developed a “Canadian Farm Bill” to succeed the Liberal-launched agricultural policy framework.
It will be wrong if the well-informed work of the CFA comes to be seen in a politically partisan light, but the organization has chosen to take that risk.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
