Federal agriculture minister revealed to have little leadership leverage

Although agriculture has been a joint federal-provincial jurisdiction since 1867, history is replete with stories of strong federal agriculture ministers making their mark or being seen as the face of farm policy.

John Carling, Jimmy Gardiner, Alvin Hamilton and Eugene Whelan come to mind.

They fought to create a network of national research stations, farm loan programs, a government farm lender, a government grain exporter, domestic marketing systems, national farm income support programs and policies that make up the patchwork farm policy that is Canada.

Former Liberal minister Lyle Vanclief made his name (often taken in vain) trying to reform farm income support policies in the early years of this century.

Read Also

Increasing farmland prices blamed on investors

a major tax and financial services firm says investors are driving up the value of farmland, preventing young farmers from entering the business. Robert Andjelic said that is bullshit.

Current Conservative minister Gerry Ritz has made promotion of trade deals and market access a signature initiative through more than three years on the job. Trade is a federal responsibility so he has had something of a free hand.

But a series of fascinating exchanges at House of Commons agriculture committee hearings last week illustrated just how little leadership leverage current federal agriculture ministers seem to have.

They are constrained by trade agreements in the amount of support they can advocate, the committee was told. And now that provinces are expected to pay 40 percent of business risk management costs, the provinces get to call the shots.

At committee Nov. 25, several MPs questioned why Ottawa cannot accede to Ontario’s wish to have provincially designed farm support programs co-funded by Ottawa as they were less than a decade ago.

Trade deals and the threat of countervail action, particularly by the United States, won’t allow it, replied Greg Meredith, Agriculture Canada assistant deputy minister (strategic policy).

It does not seem to stop Americans from designing America-first support policies, but whatever.

Then agriculture parliamentary secretary Pierre Lemieux led Meredith to explain how the federal minister is just one among equals when designing agriculture policy.

Lemieux said some people want the federal minister to “just charge forward and say we are making changes (in farm support programs) and just tell the provinces.” Can he, Lemieux asked.

Nope, replied Meredith.

“The short answer is no, the federal minister can’t make these changes,” he said. “They are genuinely federal-provincial- territorial collaborations and there is no unilateral movement.”

Ottawa and at least seven provinces representing more than 50 percent of production value must agree to any business risk management program change.

So it looks like the national agriculture minister has a small area of real power that could translate into a national vision. For the rest, he is subservient to policy by committee.

Of course, he can cower behind the trade and provincial approval requirements to justify doing little. He also can articulate national visions, build support from the industry and dare provinces or trade competitors to resist.