Western Producer staff
If you have something to get off your chest about how agriculture policy should evolve during the next four years, this would be a good time to speak up.
Within the next six weeks, the government has announced, there will be a special House of Commons debate on agriculture policy.
It will be a chance for Canadians to speak through their elected representatives before the government begins to make the major decisions that await on issues as diverse as farm supports and rural policy, trade strategy and environmental rules.
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?
It would be easy to be cynical about the exercise.
Surely the Liberals know roughly (or exactly) where they want to go. Surely a day of comments by MPs will have little real impact on government policy.
Surely the comments of individual farmers will have little real impact on the views or the speeches of MPs, most of whom view the world through the prism of their own ideologies and who receive hundreds of constituent opinions to consider.
There is truth in all of these points. The Liberals, while not yet revealing much of their plans, seem little more so far than Tories without ideology. With the possible exception of increased research funding, it is hard to point to a decision or speech in recent months that could not have been uttered by a Conservative minister (Charlie Mayer excepted in his latter, more driven days).
And the new crop of MPs have their own agendas and little real ability to influence a government with an agenda.
Still, it is how our system works and a parliamentary debate on agriculture policy this early in the term does offer a unique opportunity to at least make a point. MPs, particularly from the Reform Party, say they are tribunes for the people. Preparation for the agriculture debate offers a chance, then, to tell them and other MPs how they should think on:
- Crow Benefit: Is a change in the method of payment really needed as part of the adaptation to new trade rules or as an incentive to the railways to provide more grain cars? If not, why not?
- Safety nets: What is this bromide “whole farm support” anyway? There is a danger that a general, meaningless definition will give the Liberals a blank cheque to design what they want. Anyone with an opinion on farm support should keep in mind that the Liberals are unlikely to increase the size of the pot from the scaled-down $850 million in the budget.
- Trade rules: For all of their pre-election sniping, the Liberals have shown they basically accept the Tory free-trade ideology, with the strong accompanying message to Canadian farmers that they have to shape up and accept the real world. So why were they nitpicking before the election?
- Farmer input: The Tories consulted farmers to death but often didn’t seem to listen.
Inhabitants of the new Parliament claim to want consultation. This will be a good chance to see what they mean.
Don’t expect miracles, but if you have some ideas on how farm policy should be written, this is a good chance to give the politicians some free advice.
