One of the most remarkable political transformations during the past two decades is the conversion of Conservative politicians into supply management true believers.
Reformers, ancestors to the present day Conservative caucus, arrived on Parliament Hill in 1989 never having met a protectionist tariff they liked because western farmers are free traders and protectionist dairy, poultry and egg policies sully the brand.
The conversion didn’t really begin to happen until the 2000 election when the Canadian Alliance party claimed unconvincingly to support supply management.
How things change.
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?
Since then, the party position has strengthened and developed legs.
Even as free trade evangelists, formerly the Reform party tribe, demand that Canada abandon its protectionist supply management tariffs as an affront to the free trade agenda, the Conservatives remain steadfast.
And they have walked the talk, protecting marketing boards in ways the Liberals never did.
Yet Canadian Wheat Board supporters who have lost the battle for their single desk insist that the Conservatives do not like farmer market power and supply management will be the next to go.
They present no evidence beyond their distrust of the Tories, and given the Conservative record, it is not a convincing argument.
Indeed, there are many reasons any government would support supply management. It is a controlled system of production, imports and price-setting that gives farmers some market power, does not (despite critic complaints) gouge consumers too much and gives involved farmers a decent living that is not dependent on taxpayer subsidies.
Politically, supply management is a powerful rural force in Quebec and Ontario and no party can ignore the more than 100 House of Commons seats that represents.
These are legitimate reasons to justify support for protectionism.
Of course, in their battle against the Canadian Wheat Board single desk, these same Conservatives used more extreme arguments: it was an affront to individual freedom, a distortion of the market and a violation of farmer property rights. No farmer should be forced to sell his/her produce through a mandatory selling system.
And that’s where their defence of supply management falls down. They are correct to support it but for the wrong reasons.
Bizarrely, Conservatives argue supply management is not a mandatory single selling desk.
Why can’t dairy, chicken and egg farmers have the same freedom wheat farmers want? Ritz was asked.
“They have that freedom now,” he replied. “They make a decision based on their own bottom line as to what and how much quota to buy.”
That is like arguing prairie farmers are not captive of the CWB single desk if they choose not to grow wheat or barley.
The other Conservative argument is that most supply management farmers support the system.
So what? A constant argument on the Prairies is that democracy is not the issue. Property rights are the issue and any farmer who wants to sell property has a right to do it.
Tell that to a dairy, chicken or egg producer who wants to work outside the system. Court awaits.
Conservatives need to adjust their arguments to justify their commendable conversion.
