There is an abiding suspicion among many farmers and farm leaders that politicians prefer it when the farm lobby is divided and disorganized.
“If we bring different messages to government, it gives them a loophole to do what they want and that’s bad,” says Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Bob Friesen.
Manitoba farm leader David Rolfe has seen the effect in action.
“If there are mixed messages, it gives government a free rein to do what they want,” the Keystone Agricultural Producers president says.
Read Also
Farming Smarter receives financial boost from Alberta government for potato research
Farming Smarter near Lethbridge got a boost to its research equipment, thanks to the Alberta government’s increase in funding for research associations.
And even some with experience on the politician side of the ledger concede that the suspicion is not always misplaced.
“I don’t think this is how most politicians behave most of the time but there’s no question that if a farm lobby says you should do X and you want to do Y, you may cultivate a stakeholder to present option Y and you certainly will embrace someone who comes with that option,” says former Saskatchewan Conservative agriculture minister Lorne Hepworth, now president of CropLife Canada. “I can’t deny that that has happened.”
In fact, when Alberta Conservative governments in the 1970s and 1980s wanted to diversify the farm message to provide a counter weight to the then-powerful Alberta Wheat Pool, it encouraged checkoff-financed commodity commissions and alternate farm sector groups.
However, many politicians insist they do not care how farmers deliver their message and would just as soon see unity in the farm lobby than disunity.
“It is not up to me to decide how farmers should organize themselves,” says federal agriculture minister Andy Mitchell. “It is up to farmers to decide how they want to organize themselves and then I will listen.”
Saskatchewan deputy premier and former agriculture minister Clay Serby says farmers are losers when they have conflicting voices, even though a strong single voice can make life uncomfortable for governments.
“I am a strong advocate of having one voice even though it is sometimes a challenge for government,” he says from his constituency office in Yorkton, Sask. “If you have a lot of different voices and you aren’t pleased with some of the voices you are hearing, you can go elsewhere if they give you options. That is not necessarily good for farmers.”
At the University of Saskatchewan, agricultural economist and former provincial deputy agriculture minister Hartley Furtan suggests governments prefer clear direction from farmers because they largely are devoid of their own agricultural agendas.
“I think politicians and civil servants today are extremely reactive, without their own ideas or agendas,” he says. “They will react to whatever farm voices they hear that offer ideas.”
National Farmers Union researcher Darrin Qualman offers a more cynical view of the world. He says most agriculture departments have a corporate agenda. “Governments prefer consensus from the sector but if that advice is inconvenient, they will ignore it.”
At the federal level, the government appoints advisory committees that try to reflect most Canadian farm interests.
“But as far as the farm lobby, I will listen to whoever comes forward,” Mitchell says.
