ON THE evidence, it is impossible not to notice a chill in relations between the Conservative government and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
The CFA still sees itself as the most legitimate national voice for farmers in the country with representation from every province and most commodity sectors. Over the decades, it has come to expect that governments will look to it for advice and expertise on policy development and intent.
The Conservatives clearly see the federation as just one of many farm voices and a voice often at odds with government policy.
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
It’s not that CFA always got its way in the past but gone are the days when governments at least made a show of praising CFA leaders as “partners” and having them on stage when major announcements were made.
Examples abound but here are two recent events that illustrate the point:
On July 27 while agriculture minister Chuck Strahl met in Saskatoon with friends of the government who support ending the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, CFA leaders at a conference in Newfoundland addressed by telephone hookup a rally across the street denouncing the government strategy.
Only one CFA affiliate attended the official meeting and the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan came across as pro-monopoly skunks at a Conservative garden party, arguing that farmers should be polled before the CWB mandate is altered.
On July 31, Strahl was on a stage in Winnipeg surrounded by invited local farmers as he announced a new $550 million government program to help low-income farm families. The CFA was not consulted on the need for or the design of the program. It was not informed that the announcement was coming.
In previous governments, even governments often at odds with the CFA, that lack of collaboration or at least consultation would have been unheard of, even if federation views in the end did not win the day.
After his role in the CWB rally, Friesen was asked if the CFA opposition to a core Conservative ideological objective of “freedom of choice” would not damage the federation’s ability to influence the government on other issues.
“We will not always agree with the government but that does not mean we are enemies,” he replied. “We still will be able to collaborate on other issues.”
Indeed, the government has not characterized the CFA as the enemy and it’s not that Strahl or the government does not still meet with the CFA, but there seems to be a disconnect, a message from the Conservatives that pleasing the national farm lobby is not high on its “to-do” list.
There was a flurry among Friesen’s CFA allies when Strahl said several months ago that in his criticism of the Conservatives, the CFA president has a “political agenda.” Some thought it was an unfair allusion to Friesen’s attempt in 2004 to be a Liberal election candidate.
Actually, it likely is less partisan, simply a reflection of changing ideological currents in the political pond.
The CFA and its affiliates are not necessarily a group to be placated since the Conservatives have their own allies in the farm community.
Whatever the reason, there clearly has been a decline in the CFA’s “go-to” status with the new government.
