Gov't plays a shell game - Opinion | The Western Producer

OPPOSITION politicians and farm group lobbyists often seem to confer on

the federal government and its ministers far more power and influence

than they actually possess.

The debate over what the Canadian government can or cannot do to

influence the American political debate over new subsidy-rich United

States farm legislation is a case in point.

Whether Canada’s government or farm industry agrees or disagrees with

U.S. farm policy matters about as much to American legislators as

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.

whether they need a declaration of war to invade a country.

Prime minister Jean Chrétien carries Canada’s fears of higher U.S.

subsidies to the office of president George Bush. “Nice to see you,

John. Let’s talk about our joint effort to fight terrorism.”

Deputy prime minister John Manley carries the same message to

vice-president Dick Cheney and makes little impression.

Agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief promises to go to Washington and

then is roundly criticized when the trip does not take place.

Amazingly, other people seem to take this all very seriously. In the

House of Commons, Progressive Conservative critic Rick Borotsik alluded

to Vanclief’s Keystone Kop proposal to go to Washington only to find

that he could not arrange appointments. He suggested the minister had

“dropped the ball.” That implies a trip to Washington would have

accomplished something.

Agricore United president Ted Allen picked up the same theme,

conferring on the minister and the government great international clout.

He wrote to Vanclief March 15, calling on the government to stop the

Americans from extending subsidies to pulse crops as proposed in

Congress.

“We urge your government to take whatever steps are necessary to avert

this possible trade-distorting action,” wrote Allen. Implicit is a

suggestion that Ottawa launch trade challenges but explicit is the idea

that Canadian politicians are actually heeded in Washington.

Here’s a guess: Chrétien, Manley and Vanclief could organize a hunger

strike to the death in the Canadian embassy in Washington, promising

not to eat until the farm bill was changed, and nothing would happen.

Perhaps they would score an appearance on Larry King Live. Capitol Hill

would carry on.

Still, Canadian politicians continue to make believe, promising trips

to Washington and lobbying efforts to change the opinions of foreign

governments.

It has ever been thus. In the early 1990s, a series of Progressive

Conservative cabinet ministers, including then-agriculture minister

Bill McKnight and finance minister Michael Wilson, travelled through

Europe trying to convince the European Union to support Canadian supply

management at upcoming world trade talks.

In the end, the EU and the Americans cut a deal that abolished Canada’s

supply management guarantees.

And of course, American politicians will listen to their

subsidy-addicted farmers rather than Canada when writing a new farm

bill.

So why do Canadian politicians continue to promise a foreign influence

they cannot deliver?

It is good domestic politics. Voters imagine their leaders are going to

bat for them. Thank you government for going into the lion’s den for us.

But it is largely futile.

Now, if only government critics would concede the point and recognize

that Canadian governments are weaker international players than

rhetoric suggests.

Your reading list