Liberal MPs condemn their party's rural record

After more than three years of Liberal government, a report last week on its rural policy record was far from flattering. “Recent federal policy action taken at the national level has had adverse repercussions for rural Canada … devolution of responsibilities from the federal level has resulted in a loss of federal presence and influence in rural regions. …

“Deregulation, government downsizing and restructuring have caused reduced access by rural residents to services which used to be available to all Canadians.”

Remarkably, this was Liberals talking.

It was the unanimous judgment of the Commons natural resources committee with its Liberal majority and a welter of evidence from rural witnesses that all is not well outside Canada’s metro areas.

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.

It was praiseworthy work by the committee, which included Manitoba Liberals David Iftody and Marlene Cowling. Unlike most Liberal-controlled committees in this very political year, it made no attempt to gloss over government failings.

The report is neither whitewash nor political spin. It is a balanced effort, filled with suggestions for how government can help, even in an era of diminishing belief in the power of government to do good.

The strategy’s centrepiece is a plea for a minister of rural affairs.

These suggestions likely will become part of the Liberal campaign in rural Canada. “Re-elect us and we’ll promote these policies.” Voters hearing that pitch should ask: why did the Liberals go through an entire term of office without a coherent or helpful rural policy?

From time to time, of course, the Liberal government made an effort to sound like a friendly patron for rural Canada. It started well by trashing the infuriating Tory policy of closing rural post offices.

Soon, though, the gap between friendly rhetoric and sparse, sometimes hurtful policies, was evident. Supportive policies were stripped away. Layers of user fees made life more difficult in the natural resource economy. Agriculture Canada’s rural secretariat withered. Why?

The logic of the committee report seems to be that while ministers were doing their deregulation, deficit-cutting thing, no one at the cabinet table was reminding them that a policy attractive to Bay Street and the bean counters could be hurting the rural economy.

The Ontario corn producers’ lobby blames prime minister Jean ChrŽtien for setting the tone by showing little interest in rural Canada. He put few rural representatives in cabinet and, unlike Brian Mulroney, rarely has met with farmers to discuss issues. “Except for the occasional photo op, ChrŽtien has shown almost no interest in agriculture,” the corn producers’ group says.

Liberal MPs insist ChrŽtien has shown an interest and has identified himself as a member of rural caucus. But it is true that he rarely speaks about the industry and when he does, it is with the air of someone speaking rehearsed lines rather than someone familiar with his topic.

It boils down to this: Liberals campaigning in rural Canada have an obligation to explain their government’s sorry rural record, as well as to spin their dreams about what they will do if re-elected.