AGRICULTURE is an issue in every federal election for this newspaper’s readership, but this time around agricultural issues have risen to the top of the public consciousness.
During the campaign leading to the Oct. 14 election, we could see agriculture garner public attention on a national scale.
We might even see agriculture take its rightful place in election debate as an area of critical importance to the nation’s future. Or perhaps that’s wishful thinking.
Still, food safety issues surrounding the Maple Leaf product recall and months of attention on energy and biofuel initiatives, rising commodity prices and higher food costs brought attention to agriculture at a level seldom seen. It provides an opportunity for the country to have a vigorous discussion of agricultural issues.
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?
No one will dispute the importance of food price, food safety and energy sustainability as this campaign picks up speed. The public will be looking at party policies on these issues, as will agricultural producers.
And the issues are many.
The business risk management portion of federal agricultural policy is among the most pressing. It has major long-term implications for the ag sector and not every sector is flourishing in today’s environment. Maybe it isn’t possible for every sector to flourish simultaneously, but that’s what makes the risk management part of agricultural policy so crucial.
It remains to be seen whether the business risk management sections of the Conservatives’ Growing Forward policy, which is a replacement of the Agricultural Policy Framework of the previous Liberal government, are an improvement.
Farmers need to know the options that various parties are willing to provide for aiding the agricultural economy, in good times and bad.
The various parties’ policies on biofuel will also be scrutinized. In the early days of biofuel sector development, farmers saw advantages in alternative markets for their crops and opportunities for investment in renewable fuel production.
Higher commodity prices and questions about biofuels’ role in energy conservation have removed some of the bloom from the rose, but what further policies do the parties propose?
What lies ahead for international trade in terms of agriculture, now that World Trade Organization talks have faltered? Are more bilateral agreements in the offing and if so, with whom? And how do the various parties intend them to affect agricultural trade?
The future of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly is likely to be a source of debate during this campaign, and party positions on its retention are well documented. For some, but certainly not all, it will be a deciding factor when marking a ballot.
Other issues farmers will be watching: policies on food inspection and food safety; intentions regarding improved trade for Canadian beef; support for agricultural research; policies on environmental stewardship and related costs to farmers and ranchers; attitudes toward supply management; opinions on biotechnology and policies that might address the labour shortage.
Farmers and the public now have the opportunity to press politicians on their plans for agriculture’s future, and then hold them accountable at the ballot box.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
