THE decision by agriculture ministers at their recent Newfoundland meeting to begin broad consultations this autumn on the next generation of farm policies is sensible as far as it goes.
But alas, it is yet another limited consultation that will not answer the fundamental questions that require answers.
Of course, those fundamental questions first need to be asked and it is time the country organized a process – a Royal Commission, a Commission of Inquiry, call it what you will – that formulates the questions and then demands that Canadians answer them.
Read Also
Trump’s trade policies take their toll on Canadian producers
U.S. trade policy as dictated by president Donald Trump is hurting Canadian farmers in a multitude of ways.
What does Canada want of its agricultural sector and what is the country prepared to do to ensure that goal can be implemented?
Where, in Canada’s vision of itself and its place in the world, does agriculture fit? Almost as fundamentally, what is a farmer in this vision?
On the surface, it may seem that those questions are answered every time a politician intones that agriculture is at the root of our economy and our national ethos of hard work, independence and community.
It may seem the questions are answered when farm groups create self-evident slogans like “Farmers Feed Cities.” It may seem the questions are answered every time governments find more money to support the industry.
But they’re not, really.
All those statements and actions do is perpetuate a generations-old policy of getting along by going along.
Governments support farmers because they always have, because farmers are an important political constituency and an important economic sector, certainly when the profitability of the upstream and downstream industries they support is considered.
Public opinion poll respondents support farmers because, well, they should, and Grandpa was a farmer and everyone has to eat.
But those responses and reactions do not constitute a national agricultural policy that clearly understands where and how the industry fits into the national vision.
Decades of such reactive policies have produced less than robust results – a farm community in almost perpetual income crisis with record debt levels and an unclear understanding of whether society wants it.
Quebec farm leader Laurent Pellerin argues the government offers just enough support to keep farmers afloat but declining, to the point where they will decide themselves to leave. If that is the game plan, he says, tell us so farmers’ kids can move away and get a life.
The Canadian lack of agriculture goals within a broad national vision was evident during two weeks at World Trade Organization talks and travelling in Europe.
At the WTO, jurisdictions like the European Union, the United States, Japan and others articulated positions because of a national vision of agriculture’s role, whether as the foundation for food sovereignty or an industrial base, rural maintenance, employment or national self-identity.
Canada was defending sector self-interests – the right to trade for some and the right to be protected for others.
But despite what advocates for those two positions may believe, they do not constitute a national agricultural policy nor shed light on where agriculture fits into the 21st century Canadian national dream.
It’s time farmers knew where they stand so they can make their own decisions.
