LAST year, farmers were united in calling for a three-year federal
commitment of $900 million in farm aid.
Agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief announced $500 million for one year
and came as close as a minister can come to being booed for offering
only half a billion dollars. The government was denounced as stingy and
the universal farm leader reaction was that it was too little.
This year, farm groups have been almost unanimous in asking for a
multi-year federal program of $1.3 billion per year in trade injury
Read Also
Visit to Ag in Motion reveals agriculture’s economic clout
Sometimes you forget about the scope and economic clout of the agriculture sector when you’re sitting at home in your tiny office with a couple of dogs licking your toes.
compensation.
As part of a broader package, Vanclief on June 20 announced a two-year,
$600 million per year federal commitment. Proportionate to the farm
demand, it was less than last year.
The farm response has been almost unanimously positive.
What’s the difference? Primarily, it was packaging and sales, thanks to
the intervention of the slick and manipulative spin doctors from the
prime minister’s office.
Last year, Vanclief and his handlers kept the actual amount of money a
deep secret until the announcement. Speculation tended to assume more
was coming so the actual moment was a disappointing anti-climax. The
coverage immediately was captured by the critics.
This year, the good folks in the PMO, understanding media
susceptibility to promises of a “scoop,” began leaking details to
select urban reporters more than a week before the announcement. It
gave the government side exclusive play without those pesky critics
poking holes.
No fewer than four times, they were able to plant in the public mind
that $5.2 billion was coming.
Even if farmers eventually figured it was far less than that in real
aid, that big number is firmly planted in the urban mind.
To make sure, the day before the announcement, PMO offered exclusive
briefings to select reporters from The Globe and Mail and The National
Post. The Globe turned it down. The Post ran its second exclusive in a
week.
Sure enough, coverage the day after the announcement concentrated on
critics asking legitimate questions about how much of the money was
new, why the provinces are expected to pay part of the costs of
international subsidy wars and whether the numbers are as big as they
sound.
No matter, the news already was out.
Of course, the other big difference was that the federal government
announced funding for the five-year agriculture policy framework and
that drew high praise, although in truth it isn’t promising much more
than farmers have been receiving for the past three years.
Still, farm leaders realized they could not sound picky about a promise
of $5.2 billion. That kicked into gear another level of the federal PR
campaign.
For the first time in memory, Agriculture Canada used its
communications machine to send out third party press releases from farm
groups praising the government.
Before the announcement, deputy minister Samy Watson had wondered which
farm groups could be organized to publicly support the announcement.
The response had been, ‘not many’.
In reality, the government was able to highlight the supportive views
of many.
Mission accomplished.
