HISTORY may prove otherwise but at first blush, the most significant moment in agriculture minister Chuck Strahl’s first sit down interview on agricultural issues after his appointment came when he was asked a reaction to a looming farm income collapse in 2006.
“Even amongst the misery that is here, there and everywhere in the industry, some people are doing well,” he replied. “But something we have to have an honest discussion about is what is the role of government in this …. what is the long-term prospect for agriculture in Canada and around the world?”
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Later, he mused that governments cannot fix long-term structural problems in the industry and do not have enough money to “fix” even short-term income problems.
“The farming community and the agri-food industry sometimes have to lead us,” said the minister. “They have to be innovators and chase down markets and do what private enterprise does. These are private enterprise folks that often have a private enterprise solution.”
To be fair, Strahl was in the early days of briefings on one of the most complicated files in Canadian government. He was also likely still reeling from the fact that he walked into the job with $755 million in farm support to announce and another $500 million in his back pocket and then was handed 2006 farm income projections indicating that will not come close to filling the hole.
It would lead any rookie minister with no preconceptions to wonder if the definition of agriculture policy insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, each time expecting a different result.
All of which makes the report from the George Morris Centre trashing Wayne Easter’s proposals for government aid in “empowering Canadian farmers” an absolute gift to the Conservative minister and the government.
At its core, the Centre analysis says free trade, deregulation and market forces are the answers, although it never acknowledges a farm income problem. Farmers should learn how to get along with their “partners” in the food chain and not think they are victims of an unfair marketplace filled with players who exploit them.
Supporters of the Easter report say ignoring market inequalities is to deny reality and to suggest supply management protections or the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly should be undermined is to suggest a further weakening of farmer power and income.
Strahl has not commented on the Centre’s report but it gives him the basis for telling Easter supporters that there are other ways to analyze farm income failure.
It will come in handy when Strahl faces the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at the beginning of March. Although the CFA has its own farm bill proposal in the incubator, it is a fan of Easter’s conclusion that the income problem is not farmers’ fault.
President Bob Friesen has actually implied prime minister Stephen Harper acknowledged the Easter report during the campaign.
What Harper said in Chatham, Ont., was: “Even the Liberal parliamentary secretary for agriculture called CAIS (Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program) a disaster and for once he was right.”
It was not much of an endorsement and now Strahl is able to say he has divided opinion to weigh.
