LAST week, deputy prime minister John Manley, a recent convert to marathon running, described the launch of his hopeless quest for the Liberal party leadership as the beginning of a marathon. He’s a long-distance runner, not a sprinter. He’s in to finish, even if he doesn’t win.
Well, last week in Ottawa, another marathon began, a five-year marathon that will end with the government’s agricultural policy framework somehow crossing the finish line and becoming the agriculture policy law of the land.
It was an inauspicious beginning, cheered on by trainers Lyle Vanclief and Samy Watson, with a note of congratulations from the absent owner of the training gym, Jean Chrétien, who was there when the dream began and training started.
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?
The race began with the APF limping across the starting line on crutches with arms and legs in casts and an oxygen tank on its back.
The April 1 launch of the agricultural policy framework was one of the most anti-climactic big-ticket policy launches in recent Canadian history.
Even the controversial and much-hated national energy program was launched in 1981 with some political and provincial support. It certainly had a clear game plan and some pizzazz.
In contrast, the new national agricultural policy agreed to in principle in 2001 with such promise and funded in 2002 with such flourish was launched with few friends, little detail and almost no certainty of what it will look like when settled.
In the face of credible farmer and provincial questions, criticism and skepticism, the details have changed by the week. Mere days before the launch, Vanclief agreed to fund an analysis of farm lobby pessimistic predictions on support levels compared to optimistic Agriculture Canada projections.
Five days before the launch of a five-year program, the government admitted it did not have analysis that is credible for those who will be affected by this five-year program. That’s incredible.
So the APF limped into the race with its co-trainer Vanclief insisting there was time to negotiate the rules of the race while its provincial judges were mainly uncertain if the runner even qualified.
The farmer spectators were more interested in jeering than cheering.
A few weeks ago, a farm lobby official wondered somewhat plaintively how they had gone from listening in June 2000 to the prime minister announce a new day, a more stable future for agriculture, to a program launch that has farmers feeling uncertain about the future.
At the House of Commons agriculture committee last week, Tory Rick Borotsik captured the confusion when he wondered why the few farm groups supporting the APF would be willing to sign onto a program that offers 70 percent government coverage for losses with a $14,000 annual farmer premium when they had the same under the Canadian Farm Income Program with no premium.
Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Bob Friesen calls the new program “CFIP with a premium.”
And farmers head into a new year not knowing what support to expect.
In the dictionary beside the word “botch-up” is a picture of the APF.
