Quebec farm leader Laurent Pellerin began a speech to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture last week insisting he did not see Quebec farm policy as a model for Canada.
But when he compared the two, the president of l’Union des Producteurs Agricoles clearly found Canadian policy lacking.
“The agriculture policy of Canada does not flow from a vision that states there should be an adequate income for those who have chosen farming as a profession,” said Pellerin.
Federal planning and promises are short term, he said. There is no connection between costs and income, and during the past eight years federal support for agriculture has been cut in half while expenses, production and living costs have increased.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
“It is hard for producers to make long-term decisions if they are uncertain about whether they will be around,” said Pellerin.
By contrast, the Quebec government and society have had a contract with the province’s farmers for more than a quarter century.
In 1974, it was agreed that in return for a stable farm sector and rural community and food production expansion, farmers would be guaranteed an income connected both to the cost of production and to the average industrial wage in the area.
“Farmers have some security in that system,” said Pellerin.
He also noted the American farm bill and the European common agricultural policy offer farmers long-term guarantees of what levels of support they can expect.
“We can have an agricultural policy as generous as they have in the United States and the European Union,” he insisted.
However, Pellerin also noted that in Quebec, the UPA is a well-financed, single lobby group for farmers. The farm policy landscape elsewhere in Canada is littered with competing farm lobby groups.
“In a number of provinces, you are envious of the UPA,” he said. “If you want to succeed and maintain an organization like ours, you have to be sure that farmers in all your provinces speak with one voice.”
Later, during a debate on the future of farm organizations, several leaders from other provinces conceded that divisions weaken farmer power.
Don Dewar, president of Manitoba’s Keystone Agricultural Producers, said his general farm organization co-operates with what he called other “single issue” groups. But once their issue is settled, “what will they exist for?”
In a debate about farmer tactics to lobby for aid, Wild Rose Agricultural Producers president Neil Wagstaff noted that while Alberta has a large farm economy and grains and oilseeds sector, it has one of the weakest general farm organizations in the country. Growing numbers of farmers are turning away from the idea that government can, will or should help them, even as Wild Rose argues for higher farm supports.
Lobbyist Gordon Garner, vice-president of Ottawa-based National Public Relations Inc., told the meeting that when trying to get the government’s attention, the mixture of farm voices, demands and solutions hurt the cause.
“Without a united voice, it is divide and conquer,” he said.
