Last week, the AIDA debate took some weird turns.
It was a week of growing divisions and unease inside the Liberal government amid open squabbling about farm aid details.
Liberal senator Herb Sparrow did everything but call agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief an insensitive lout who does not care about Saskatchewan farmers.
The minister dismissed the accusation, of course, and other Liberals came to his defence.
But Sparrow’s stinging letter did make many Liberals uneasily aware that what they thought was a major farm aid victory that would win points down on the farm has turned into a nagging problem and in Saskatchewan, a political liability.
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?
They wish the government’s reaction was a bit more spirited, a bit less rigid and bureaucratic, a bit more sympathetic.
What they see is a minister who seems indifferent to the politics of the issue.
In truth, Vanclief stands as something of an enigma on this. He is a former farmer who can be passionate about the need to give farmers the “tools” they need to prosper.
He went to bat late last year to extract a $900 million commitment of federal funds from a stingy cabinet to help farmers. Yet now, he seems unwilling to show sympathy for farmers who continue to say they are in trouble despite the program.
Vanclief and his defenders say he feels for farmers in a financial vice. So far, his body language and words have not shown it.
The week ended with a perfect example.
In the House of Commons, Ontario backbencher Ovid Jackson asked a sympathetic, pre-arranged question: When will AIDA money flow to his Bruce and Grey County farmers?
Vanclief used it as a chance to say he had signed all the agreements and assumed all the provinces would too. Then, both federal and provincial AIDA money will “flow to the farmers.”
The response was accurate but it lacked the passion and the individual farmer reference that would allow Liberal MPs to go back to their farmers with evidence that the minister understands it is a “farmer hurting” issue and not a bureaucratic process.
Bureaucratic answers may explain why the government so far has received little political credit for the biggest farm aid package in a decade. That is politically weird.
But the announced phantom appearance in Regina this weekend of two parliamentary committees anxious to hear farmer criticisms of AIDA is just plain weird. Last week, organizers of the earlier Bengough Rally announced that farmers should come to Regina June 5 with their stories.
“The Senate agriculture committee and the federal government House of Commons standing committee on agriculture will be in attendance,” said the notice distributed by organizers. “Ottawa wants to hear from you!”
Perhaps it does, but those committees will not be using the Regina meeting as their forum. The committees have no plans to travel this weekend.
Members were invited and a few may attend, but they will be there as individual politicians and not as official parliamentary delegations.
An invitation is not the same thing as an acceptance.
