Farmers threatened with shortage of ... politics?

Western Producer staff

Where have all the politics gone? There was a time, not so long ago, when political debate was marked by the clash of ideas. Canadians knew, or at least thought, they had options. Elections were about deciding which party offered the option closest to their hearts.

Once a government was in place, the political debate was not over, of course. Canadians still felt they had choices and considered it their democratic right to try to influence government, to take governments on publicly if they seemed to be heading in the wrong direction.

Read Also

Producers face the reality of shifting grain price expectations

Significant price shifts have occurred in various grains as compared to what was expected at the beginning of the calendar year. Crop insurance prices can be used as a base for the changes.

In the last quarter century of farm policy debate, there have been some magnificent, stirring and emotional debates over subsidies and programs, ideology and vision.

Through it all, farmers likely often wished they could spend less time worrying about politics and more time worrying about farming.

Still, those clashes helped define the rules of the game and the political debate gave farmers a chance to have a say in it, however limited.

These days, political choices are seldom offered and debate, such as it is, usually is limited to how government decisions can be implemented.

The government line is that with deficits, trade deals and market realities, many previously debatable courses of action are no longer possible.

Anything that smacks of government intervention, new spending or market force amelioration is frowned upon.

Farmers or farm groups that propose such old-fashioned solutions are humored, at best, and frozen out at worst.

Ottawa likes to talk these days about solving problems in a “Team Canada” approach, making it sound as if there can be no doubt about the best way to proceed. Another way of saying it is “you’re either on the team or you’re not, you’re either part of the problem or part of the solution.” What is sold as a co-operative, consultative approach really is a way to marginalize the dissenters.

This, of course, is not the way federal agriculture minister Ralph Goodale likes to portray his style of operation and that of his department. He is Mr. Open-minded Consultation personified.

But farm leaders seemed to have picked up the message.

Recently, a national farm group leader said relations between his group and Ottawa are troubled. But please don’t write about it, he pleaded.

“We have to work with the minister and his department. They don’t like to be criticized. We’ll be further ahead by keeping on their good side.”

It brought to mind the occasion last summer when Ed Benjamins of the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency was afraid to criticize Agriculture Canada bureaucrats in a public meeting.

A sympathetic MP, himself a veteran of farm group politics, said he understood. Criticize Agriculture Canada and “the doors are closed. You can’t represent your membership.” So where does that leave the farm community?

Essentially, it means the government will pronounce on the limited options available and leave farm groups to haggle over implementation details.