IT WAS A remarkable moment in covering the Canadian Federation of Agriculture meeting in Ottawa where federal ministers feel obligated to appear to explain themselves, defend themselves, take abuse.
Almost a decade ago, a clearly tired, stressed and nervous Liberal minister Lyle Vanclief showed up to announce that he had convinced cabinet to spend an extra $500 million to deal with the latest farm income crisis.
He had spent considerable political capital in the cabinet room to get this latest dollop of money for his farmers.
Read Also
Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality
Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.
There had been strong push back from ministers tired of hearing about farmer income problems and anxious to get their pet projects on the agenda.
Still, the CFA crowd was not impressed, condemning him for failing them when the need was at least $1 billion.
Some said he should do the right thing and resign.
Some of the farmers who were most incensed at this half billion-dollar slight were in the audience last week as federal Conservative minister Gerry Ritz appeared.
The potential for hard-edged questions was large.
Why had a multibillion-dollar stimulus budget in February failed to provide any significant investment in agriculture?
Why had he proclaimed $550 million in agricultural spending when reallocation within the Agriculture Canada budget means new government investment was just $190 million over five years, a mere asterisk in a budget that projects more than $30 billion in deficit spending? The need is $1 billion annually.
Why had the minister appropriated the CFA-sponsored agri-flex idea and declared mission accomplished but given it little money and designed it in a way that does not coincide with what the CFA proposed?
And why had the minister, in his 2008 appearance at CFA, tell the country’s largest farm lobby that because it disagreed with him on ending the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, its view was irrelevant and then storm out without taking questions?
This came after subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle messages from the Conservatives in power after 2006 that the CFA was less than a go-to lobby voice because it was too close to the Liberals.
After his departure in 2008, CFA delegates were indignant and angry about what they perceived as an arrogant slight.
Why not confront him on the allegation of CFA partisanship?
But in Ritz’s presence last week, the CFA was all soft questions and effusive praise for his decision to grace them with his presence and stay to answer a few soft questions.
It was as if the Conservative message delivered both by Ritz and his predecessor Chuck Strahl that the Conservatives can take or leave the CFA as a voice of farmers cowed them, making them appreciative of attention, making them anxious to get back into Conservative good books.
New CFA president Laurent Pellerin has shown himself to be an aggressive defender of farm interests, taking no prisoners when confronting politicians whom he thinks are doing less than they should for farmers.
Last week may have been Ritz’s grace period as Pellerin tried to keep the door open or perhaps pry it open with the Conservative government.
History would suggest the agriculture minister, whoever it is, will not have such an easy ride next year.
