SHOCKED by the lack of agricultural mention during the June 15 leadership debate? Hardly.
But even though we have low expectations about agriculture’s profile in political campaigns, we nevertheless have high expectations of a new government’s role in addressing agricultural issues, regardless of who is at the helm.
The vote is four days away. There are choices to be made. It’s worthwhile to consider what we know of party positions on major agricultural issues.
The BSE file tops any list. The campaign has brought numerous references, mostly from the Liberals, to a Plan B, the plan that will see cattle producers through a more extended period of border closure to Canadian beef.
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
Yet no party has elaborated on details of such a plan, if it in fact exists.
On June 11, the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association sent a letter to all party leaders asking for their positions on beef imports, the ability of existing farm safety nets to address major disasters of the magnitude of BSE, interest-free cash advances and of course, the infamous Plan B.
As of June 21, no party had responded to CCA queries. Silence from the leaders on the BSE file, which has had devastating effects on the national farm economy, is a glaring omission.
With regard to farm safety nets, the Liberals say they plan to carry existing programs forward and assess their effectiveness. The Conservatives say they support the use of safety nets, hint at enhanced support and say they will review the 60-40 funding scenario that has proven problematic for agriculturally reliant provinces. The New Democrats say they will raise funding levels for agriculture, compensate farmers for losses due to foreign subsidies and add $1.5 billion to the ag budget.
The Canadian Wheat Board, always a lightning rod for agricultural controversy, has generated a spectrum of plans from the three major parties. The Liberals propose the status quo, allowing farmers to decide on the board’s future. The New Democrats promise board preservation, in keeping with its long-standing position. And after some initial confusion about method, the Conservatives say they plan to remove the wheat board monopoly.
More details of party campaigns and platforms relative to ag issues appear elsewhere in this issue, but we mention these three as evidence that there are choices to be made by the farming electorate. Platforms are vastly different and each must be assessed on its merits.
It’s a close race, according to polls. In this election, like few others, western votes will likely make a difference.
We all know there is more to this election than agricultural issues and there are many considerations when casting a ballot.
In these days leading up to the June 28 vote, agriculture and its future must be one of those considerations.
