FOR anyone who has followed shifting agricultural politics in Canada over the past several decades, there have been few truisms. This is one:
The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association is government-skeptical, American-friendly, subsidy-allergic and as close as you can get to being the ranch branch of the Conservative party of the day.
CCAers seemed to enjoy looking down their noses at all those subsidy and government dependent grain producers. Government’s role, according to generations of cattle industry leaders, was to get lost.
The BSE crisis has changed that, of course, and for good reason. The continental market that the Canadian cattle industry was built upon turned out to be a myth.
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.
Cattle political beliefs aside, the Americans have turned out to be protectionist. In the face of collapsing markets and prices, government went from being “better lost” to “better found.” A partnership was formed.
Cattle industry leaders who several years ago considered the government a nuisance and danger, if not a threat, did a marvelous job of reacting to their new vulnerability and the new reality of the benefit of politics and public support.
But even with all that background and changed circumstance, it was amazing last week to hear the CCA accused on Parliament Hill of being Liberal lapdogs, too cozy by half with the government.
The context was a debate about government BSE policies and a decision by federal agriculture minister Andy Mitchell to cite the CCA as an ally. The lobby helped design the program and has defended it. Are you doubting the wisdom of the Voice of Cattlemen?
Yes, as it turns out. Many MPs, including some Liberals, consider the CCA to be too close to the governing Liberals and their fumbling attempts to deal with the BSE disaster. The decision by Canadian Beef Export Federation president Ted Haney to run for the Liberals in the last election did not diminish the perception.
“I think it’s fascinating that in the last 10 months or so, the criticism of the Liberal party by the CCA has declined substantially,” said Conservative agriculture critic Diane Finley last week. “Maybe they think they can get more money with honey …”
Ouch!
The CCA’s fall from grace in the eyes of critics nicely illustrates a real and constant dilemma faced by Canada’s farm lobbies.
To influence government and policy writers, you must be friendly, co-operative and collaborative with governments. The National Farmers Union’s principled status as a perpetual outsider has won a dedicated farmer following and media coverage but little insider influence.
Yet to be seen as government’s partner also is toxic. Farmers and outside observers wonder if support for the government position is in the interests of producers or of the partnership that offers continued access.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has long faced those questions and the decision by president Bob Friesen to contest a Liberal nomination this year did not diminish the questions.
All this is to say that there is a delicate balance between tainted collaboration and effective co-operation.
Perhaps after years of estrangement, the CCA and CFA now have a reason to make common cause over the issue of how close is too close and why producers benefit from government-friendly stances.
