IT is difficult to imagine a greater test by fire for a rookie agriculture
minister.
Twelve days after he was sworn in as Canada’s agriculture minister, Bob Speller found himself thrust into the centre of the first crisis of the new Paul Martin government.
The United States admitted to its first case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy Dec. 23 and, within days, was blaming Canada. The prospect was that the U.S. border will not open anytime soon to live cattle of any age.
The prospect was that the world will continue to view Canadian beef with suspicion.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
The prospect was that Canada’s animal health regulators will never forget how quickly their U.S. counterparts jumped the gun on the scientific proof they demanded of Canada in 2003 and yielded to domestic political pressure to point the finger at Canada before definitive proof was available.
It was bad enough that Speller was forced to be the political face of Canada’s claim that the nation’s beleaguered beef industry is safe and should be readmitted to world markets despite the latest incident. It was worse that he suddenly was thrust into the middle of two of Martin’s priority issues – improving relations with the Americans and reconnecting the Liberal government with the West.
As Martin vacationed in the Caribbean over the holiday, he was regularly briefed on the BSE issue and was in close touch with Speller. He has promised better co-operation with Washington and undoubtedly is viewing this issue through that lens.
Yet the rookie minister, whose backbench style suggested he believes relations with the Americans can be maintained simply by being open and reasonable with open and reasonable people, was the one who had to go before national media to accuse the Americans of being “premature” in their rush to judgment on the origins of the BSE cow in Washington state.
Martin probably should have made the same point but on the first major cross-
border issue involving a dispute with the Americans, he apparently decided it was better to let the minister lead with his chin.
The upside for Speller is that most Canadian farmers, and most Canadians, likely agree with him that the Americans exposed themselves as being more interested in domestic political damage control than in looking for conclusive evidence.
Although the minister’s statement was cautious, it likely will be remembered as an act of defiance from a government intent on cozying up to Washington.
The other side of the government and Speller dilemma is Martin’s suggestion in his days of campaigning against the last Liberal regime that he would have been more generous to cattle producers than the government of Jean Chrétien was after the May 2003 BSE case in Alberta.
In the summer, cattle producers flew from the West to plead for more government help. They passed Ottawa to appeal directly to Martin, who was then the prime
minister-in-waiting.
Several times at meetings with producers, Martin undermined the Chrétien government by suggesting it had come up short in supporting the industry.
What goes around comes around. Over to you, Mr. Martin.
Presumably, instructions will be sent to minister Speller to promise that generosity you suggested Chrétien should have shown.
