THE LATEST federal-provincial framework for the next generation of farm policies highlights once again an immutable truth about farm politics.
Farm leaders and their organizations always must strike a fine balance between support and criticism as they react to government initiatives.
Groups offering predictable praise for the initiatives of a government or a minister quickly attract questions about whether they are too close to one party to be an effective lobby in a multi-party system.
Besides, praise for an agreement-in-principle can come back to bite a farm leader if the implementation turns out to be a fiasco. Can you spell CAIS, Billy?
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?
On the other hand, consistent and predictable panning of government efforts can quickly lead a farm organization to the status of I-told-you-so moral victories with little influence on policy design.
Farm organization reaction to the policy framework announcement in Whistler, B.C., at the end of June covers the gamut of those possibilities.
The National Farmers Union panned the result as a betrayal of Conservative election promises to help farmers. But then, NFU support for a government initiative likely would lead Conservatives to do some serious soul searching about how they lost their way.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture was enthusiastic, claiming authorship of many of the principles, but withheld final judgment until details are developed.
Meanwhile, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has embraced provincial minister Leona Dombrowsky in her fight for federal financial support of provincially designed stabilization programs for grains and oilseeds producers.
“Federal minister (Chuck) Strahl was probably as astonished as some of the other provincial ministers with the degree of solidarity shown by Ontario’s agricultural leaders and their minister,” OFA president Geri Kamenz wrote.
With a provincial election approaching, opposition leader John Tory no doubt has taken note of that unequivocal embrace of Liberal Dombrowsky and the fact that Kamenz’s farm was the backdrop for the 2003 federal Liberal announcement of the agricultural policy framework. But clearly, the OFA president believes his organization is powerful enough to be respected by any party in power anxious to win farmer votes.
It is a “fine balance” decision enforced by confidence.
And then, in the “fine balance” debate, there is the Canadian Wheat Board and its obvious conclusion that in the battle against the Conservatives over the board monopoly, political neutrality does not work.
How else to explain the board decision to employ David Herle to announce farmer survey results that refute the Conservative government claim its plebiscite proves prairie barley farmers want marketing choice?
Herle is the most prominent Liberal pollster in the country and a key player in the Paul Martin camp through the 1990s. None of that refutes Herle’s pollster credentials. It does mean his conclusions will be viewed through the “he’s a Liberal” lens.
But the CWB decision to use him against the Conservatives surely is a sign that the board has decided the pretense of political neutrality is irrelevant.
Prairie Conservatives undoubtedly expected nothing less. They consider the CWB part of the Liberal party ag wing.
