THIS is a cautionary tale about the need to screen politicians’ words
for occasional shards of truth and full disclosure.
It is not about politicians who lie, for that is not the issue.
It is about the political tendency to tell just that part of the truth
that serves a purpose.
The topic is the cost of the federal government’s nation-wide
consultation on future agriculture policy.
As it turns out, Agriculture Canada has budgeted approximately $15
Read Also
Worrisome drop in grain prices
Prices had been softening for most of the previous month, but heading into the Labour Day long weekend, the price drops were startling.
million for consultations, public relations and message massaging over
two years.
In the context of how much the department spends on other things, that
is not a lot of money. It probably is money well spent.
But in the early days of planning this “consultation” in the face of
farmer complaints about being excluded from the policy planning
process, the department denied it would cost $15 million, even when it
knew otherwise.
That’s the rub.
Here are the facts, in sequence.
At the Canadian Federation of Agriculture annual meeting in Halifax
Feb. 28, federal agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief assured disgruntled
farm leaders that final decisions on future farm policy had not been
made and there would be broad consultations.
He was backtracking in the face of farm leader anger that decisions
were being made without their input.
Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Jack Wilkinson first raised
the issue of $15 million being spent on consultations.
Vanclief was asked later by reporters about the figure.
“It will be far less than $15 million,” he said. How much less?
“I don’t know the exact figure.”
Back in Ottawa, a figure was requested from the department.
If the minister knows it is less than $15 million, there must be a
budget.
Agriculture Canada communications director Janice Vansickle checked and
provided the real figure – $5.6 million through March 31, 2003.
Fast forward to April when government documents become available
showing there is indeed a $15 million budget.
On April 15, Vanclief was given a chance to explain why he denied the
$15 million figure when the figure was correct and he knew it.
He blamed it on the question.
“What I was in all honesty responding to was the cost of the
consultation in the original phase,” he said.
“When we take into account the cost of advertisements into the
newspapers, take the consultation and the estimated cost over a period
of two years, the total consultation over a period of two years or two
years plus will be closer to the $15 million.”
So Wilkinson was correct and you were misleading?
“But the question that was asked and the discussion that was taking
place in Halifax at that time, the way I understood the question, was
around the cost of the consultation that is taking place right now,” he
said.
Well, no.
As the reporter asking the question at the time, there is no doubt the
question related to the total cost of the consultation. It is doubtful
the minister did not understand that.
To put a narrow semantic fence around it in order to deny was, to be
kind, disingenuous.
It is a response that leads voters not to trust a word their
politicians say.
