AND the winner in the ‘best creative fiction’ category of 2002
government publications goes to … Agriculture Canada for its 2001-02
performance report tabled in Parliament in early November.
It is a report to MPs and the public about the successes and failures
of the agriculture department during the last fiscal year. What
happened, according to the official version?
Well, nothing short of a brave new world in agriculture policy making
that will produce “a comprehensive national approach for the sector
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
(to) ensure Canadians living and working in urban centres and rural
communities can compete internationally.”
It “seeks to simultaneously address the interests of citizens and
position the sector for long-term profitability. “
The result is a “comprehensive national policy agenda, with its common
national goals (which) addresses Canadians’ priorities and offers the
tools to ensure a viable future for the entire Canadian agricultural
and agri-food sector.”
Wow. These truly are the best of agricultural policy times, as the
bureaucrats of Agriculture Canada see it.
Funny, that. Reports from the field where the department’s agriculture
policy framework is supposed to be implemented, suggest a less certain
picture.
They may be the exceptions that prove the rule but these are recent
reports from the belly of the APF beast that did not get reflected in
the tabled report:
- Farm leaders increasingly think the chance of putting flesh on these
goals by next spring to create workable and better policies is minimal.
They want an extension of existing programs for a year because the
gestation period has been longer than government bureaucrats predicted.
- Provinces that have signed the APF are unhappy with Ottawa’s approach
to negotiating details of the APF programs. They are insisting on a
meeting with Ottawa to end the pattern of negotiating rules with each
province and offering different deals, even though the programs are
supposed to have national standards.
- Despite the implication in the report to Parliament of a
“comprehensive national agenda,” three provinces still have not signed
on.
- An insistence by departmental management that rules of APF must apply
to well-established exporters led to a tense meeting between
Agriculture Canada officials and exporters in late October.
- Many departmental employees are unhappy about what they see as
growing bureaucratic control at the centre of the department that
diminishes the experience of long-time officials and excludes farmers
from the formula. “I would also appreciate confidentiality in this
message as the Deputy Minister is noted for not liking any sort of
criticism,” said a note from one senior internal critic.
Obviously, a report to Parliament about progress and performance is not
going to expose all the department’s dirty laundry. Still, it seems a
tad disingenuous to suggest to Parliament that the principles of the
APF are accepted, the reality of the APF is being implemented and
agriculture is launching into a new world of success and contentment
because of the forward thinking of Agriculture Canada.
Doesn’t Parliament demand some truth in advertising?
