A SURVEY released last week shows Canadian farmers do not consistently back national agricultural groups.
An Ipso Reid poll of 875 farmers found low support for national farm groups and, except in Quebec and Manitoba, no provincial or commodity group was supported by more than half those surveyed.
Quebec’s L’union des producteurs agricoles was mentioned by 70 percent of that province’s respondents as the organization best representing farmers’ needs. Keystone Agriculture Producers was identified by 52 percent of the respondents in Manitoba.
But respondents in Alberta and Saskatchewan showed much less agreement, with no organization getting more than 20 percent support and more than 40 percent of respondents either without or unsure of a favoured organization.
Read Also
Rural emergency room closures continue to be vexing problem
Staffing issues are at the root of disruptions and closures in hospital emergency departments, both in rural and urban Canadian locations.
It is perhaps understandable that an increasingly diversified farming community has trouble finding a group that represents it.
General farm groups that are by nature creatures of compromise seem inadequate to meet the particular needs of farmers. But the danger in this compartmentalization and narrow interest is that it can lead to impasse and gridlock.
Also, narrow interest groups are often so small and under funded that they can’t afford the research and analysis needed to authoritatively and effectively advance their cause. (Is it coincidence that the country’s most supported group, the Quebec farmers union, is also the best funded thanks to a broad checkoff?)
When farmers become disorganized and fractious, they expose themselves to manipulation by outside forces such as government, corporations and environmentalists.
But while farmers often focus on their differences, they forget that they have much in common.
They all desire a decent return from their labour and management, adequate services for their rural communities and to be free to produce food without undue regulation.
To forget this is dangerous when Canada is involved in world trade negotiations focused on agriculture. Decisions made at the trade table could fundamentally change Canadian agriculture, creating opportunities but also dangers.
Canada has already joined a World Trade Organization agreement that requires negotiation to end Ottawa’s underwriting of Canadian Wheat Board initial payments and borrowings, negotiation on supply management and a cut to average domestic farm support.
These changes will affect all farmers no matter what they do. Clearly, Canada’s negotiating position can’t be left to economists and bureaucrats who have little understanding of real farming.
A well supported and funded farm lobby is needed to transmit the common interests of farmers to Canada’s negotiators and politicians so that coming changes are managed to create the most benefit and least disruption to producers’ lives.
