By definition, Parliament is a place where people talk, based on the French verb parler, to talk. From time to time, it would be helpful if the place was called Ecoutiament, based on the French verb ecouter, to listen.
There are times when the politicians who make their living with words seem unable to catch the drift of the words coming across the aisle of the House of Commons.
The debate about whether or not the federal government should or will provide special compensation to Peace River farmers rained off their land two years in a row is a classic example.
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?
Opposition agriculture critic Jay Hill, who represents part of the region, has been lobbying for weeks for federal aid, particularly to part-time farmers not covered by federal-provincial disaster relief agreements.
Hill likes to point out that Ottawa moved quickly to provide help to Quebec and Ontario farmers affected by the ice storm. He calls for fairness.
While always careful to sympathize with the farmers affected by the storm, Hill leaves the impression they were treated better because they live in Liberal country. If he listened more closely to the answers from agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief, even the Opposition critic might be willing to concede that insinuation is unfair.
The federal argument makes sense. The rules in the disaster plans make help available if a natural disaster is declared by the province, if private insurance was not available to hedge against the disaster and if asset damage occurred.
Those rules do not apply in the Peace River, where crop insurance would provide some coverage, insufficient as it is, and where asset damage was not widespread. Vanclief is playing by the rules and he is correct.
Hill, by suggesting money would come if only the provinces asked for it, is wrong, as the rules are now written. It is as if he has not heard or understood Vanclief’s explanation.
Yet the second half of Hill’s message is more appropriately fodder for political debate. If the rules do not apply, then they should be changed.
This time, Vanclief shows signs of not listening. For farmers hurt by a local natural disaster, the devastation is as complete as if they were part of a more dramatic disaster, Hill says.
He is playing his role as a constructive Opposition politician when he prods the government to re-examine the limitations of the existing rules. It is the kind of suggestion creative politicians take to heart, if they believe in the power of politics and governments to help.
Vanclief may be mulling it over but it has not been publicly obvious.
Instead, he plays by the rules, resisting any pressure these days to even hint at increased government spending.
It is the kind of issue that cries out for political give and take.
Both Hill and Vanclief are politicians with an interest in doing the best possible for their farm constituents. And there does seem to be an area where common ground could be plowed.
Bring on the Ecoutiament.
