IT MUST be said at the outset that Saskatchewan New Democrat MP Dick
Proctor is not a politician who easily succumbs to personal attacks or
regional prejudice.
So it was jolting last week to hear him become personal about
agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief during a prolonged debate in the
House of Commons about agriculture.
First, Proctor argued that one of Vanclief’s problems is that he does
not have the support of cabinet and it shows.
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
“Despite the fact that farmers’ backs are against the wall, foreign
subsidies and the worst drought in memory having caused that, there was
basically no mention in last Monday’s throne speech of financial
assistance for agriculture.”
Then he moved on to his view of Vanclief’s obvious image problem in
Western Canada.
Earlier, Manitoba Progressive Conservative Rick Borotsik had noted that
during his five years in the House of Commons, there had been nine
late-night emergency debates allowed by the Speaker. Six of those had
been about agriculture because of lingering, perennial crises and
inadequate incomes.
Proctor, a former newspaper reporter turned NDP functionary and then
two-term Regina MP, speculated about one emergency debate that was not
held. There was no emergency debate in 1998 about the impact of the ice
storm on Ontario and Quebec farmers. Why?
“Because the government moved and moved quickly to assist Ontario and
Quebec farmers,” said Proctor. “That is not lost on people in Western
Canada and Atlantic Canada who are going through an extremely difficult
time.”
Ouch.
It is moments like that which make parliamentary debates on agriculture
so fascinating. True, they rarely produce quick results and for a
farmer watching his grain wilt in the heat or her cattle head off to
auction for lack of feed, it sounds like just so many words.
But debates like the four-hour gabfest that went late into the night
Oct. 7 do serve a purpose.
They clarify positions, expose flaws in arguments and occasionally
produce flashes of analysis that enlighten. They also plant seeds of
ideas that someday may find their way into policy if farm lobbyists and
politicians take up the cause.
After last week, for example, farmers have Canadian Alliance leader
Stephen Harper on record as supporting more government farm spending.
It will be difficult for the party to criticize future government
spending announcements, or to renege on that promise, if Harper ever
becomes prime minister.
They have the Conservative conviction that since not all provinces are
created fiscally equal, poorer provinces more dependent on agriculture
should not have to pay as much for federal-provincial programs as
richer provinces.
It was a direct challenge to Ottawa’s rigid insistence that 1990s
invention of a 60-40 federal-provincial split in program funding is now
non-negotiable.
Even more interesting was Vanclief’s rejection of the idea, based on
his belief that Saskatchewan could spend more on agriculture if it
chose but would rather starve agriculture and expect Ottawa to fill in
the gap.
It is a reaction sure to add to the West’s view of the minister as
unsympathetic to the differences between rich, diverse Ontario and the
resource-based Prairies with more limited options.
