What images come to mind for most Canadians when they think about farmers?
If Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff’s so- called National Food Policy is a guide, farmers would appear to be a collection of onion, cabbage and carrot producers who live near major metropolitan areas and sell their crispy, fresh wares to eager urban folks at farmers’ markets.
It’s not a bad image. In fact, placing farmers front and centre before the public by encouraging the delivery of goods directly to consumers is savvy marketing. People want to know where their food comes from and they want to be able to put faces on the people who grow their food. It adds to the trust factor.
Read Also
Rural emergency room closures continue to be vexing problem
Staffing issues are at the root of disruptions and closures in hospital emergency departments, both in rural and urban Canadian locations.
The food policy is part of Ignatieff’s Rural Canada Matters plan, which is designed to attract rural voters to the party. But ironically, the strategy targets urban consumers while accomplishing little for the overwhelming majority of farmers.
Ignatieff’s plan as announced April 26 would provide $80 million to promote buy local programs and $40 million to help 250,000 low income children gain access to healthy food. It also includes $50 million for the food inspection system, new labelling standards and tougher restrictions on trans fats.
They may be sound policies, but few of them would have any effect on most farmers, who depend on export markets to sell their canola, wheat, barley, lentils, cattle, hogs and other goods.
Farmers’ markets, while providing an important source of income for some producers, are a drop in the large bucket that makes up agriculture in Canada.
According to Statistics Canada, agricultural exports totalled $35.2 billion in 2009. By contrast, a 2008 survey by Farmers’ Markets Canada estimated annual sales at farmers’ markets to be $1.03 billion.
In areas where the policy did address elements geared to rural voters, details were lacking. These include a review of farm aid programs and support for environmental initiatives (although without details, many rural people might view this as a potential extra cost they will have to bear, rather than anything helpful.)
The Liberals missed the mark on many key issues. A national food policy, if done properly, could have much to offer farmers:
* programs that aggressively seek international markets and defend Canada in agricultural trade issues such as those now affecting the beef, pork and canola sectors;
- research funding that helps give Canadian producers the edge over international competitors by developing higher yielding or disease resistance crops, animal vaccines and more efficient production practices;
- effective farm aid and risk management programs that compensate farmers when it is most urgent, rather than imposing a long wait for funds that is common under existing programs.
Ignatieff often raises the issue of Canada’s rural/urban divide in pointing out few urban politicians and consumers understand the needs of rural residents.
By this latest announcement, he has shown himself to be one of them. With the Liberals holding just one rural riding west of Atlantic Canada, is it any wonder?
The rise of foodies, people who live mainly in urban areas who are keenly attuned to the nutrition and production methods associated with their food, could prove a boon to Canadian farmers. Who else is better positioned to bring the greater populace the fresh, quality food it demands?
But given Agriculture Canada’s recently released projections for 2010 that predict net farm income will decline to a $516 million loss from $335 million in net income in 2009 in Alberta, decline 57 percent in Manitoba and 55 percent in Saskatchewan, a food policy better geared to helping those that produce the food is the greater need.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
