Most days, Jack Gellner works relatively anonymously as an Agriculture Canada economist, a bureaucratic number cruncher.
Last week for one uncomfortable hour, Gellner became a bit player in the growing war between the federal department and the country’s largest farm lobby, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
He was sent from Ottawa to St. John’s, Newfoundland as cannon fodder to brief CFA board members on Agriculture Canada’s latest farm income estimates.
It was a no-win for Gellner.
CFA members are angry at federal reluctance to improve farm aid programs and they see the dismal Saskatchewan and Manitoba income projections as proof that their anger is justified.
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
Gellner was bound to be the butt of some of that anger. But it went further.
CFA board members challenged Gellner’s assumptions, suggested his income projections were too optimistic and scoffed when he conceded the projections did not take into account political developments like the recent American decision to slap anti-dumping duties on Canadian cattle heading south.
Strong livestock receipts were built into the departmental estimates. The American duties will depress those returns.
Economists cannot predict politics, Gellner said. At times, the questions were hostile. At times, CFA members snickered as Gellner struggled through his presentation, offering numbers his audience did not believe.
But the CFA challenge goes further than Gellner’s numbers. Underlying the hostility is a chasm that has grown between the department and the CFA. The two once were closely aligned.
Now, CFA members see Agriculture Canada as hostile to farmer interests, pandering to agribusiness, which wants cheap raw product and worshiping at the altar of liberalized trade even if tried-and-true domestic farm support policies are threatened.
They do not believe departmental predictions. They feel most projections have been infected with a “feel-good” public relations spin meant to hide grim realities.
And they do not trust the department to be an ally within government.
In fact, they often see the statistics issued by Agriculture Canada as ammunition for the urban enemies of farmers – statistics that argue most farmers are better off than they used to be.
Gellner walked into that controversy.
He showed the CFA board members a chart suggesting that in 1997, farmers were less vulnerable to failure than they were in 1991.
The federal bureaucrat noted that 1997 was a relatively good farm income year and 1991 was one of the worst.
But CFA members complained that when the chart circulates among farm critics, the context of the comparison would be lost and it would be more evidence that farmers do not need more help.
That’s the way the speech went.
It was brutal. It was a clear message to government that the bridge of credibility between Agriculture Canada and its largest client group has been vaporized.
So far, there has been precious little obvious work to rebuild it. Maybe Ottawa doesn’t realize it has been blown up.
