Policy stance needs more exploration - WP editorial

WHERE do the federal Conservatives stand on supply management? It’s a question that has likely been worrying dairy, chicken and egg producers since the morning after the party won last January’s election.

Producers who take politicians’ statements at face value have probably been sleeping easier because the Conservatives have adamantly supported supply management during the last few elections.

But producers who look past these kinds of campaign promises can be forgiven if they experience restless nights.

For starters, the political ancestors that make up today’s Conservative party have not all been friends of supply management. Only in the last few elections, as what eventually became the Conservative party began noticing the first sweet smells of potential victory in Eastern Canada, have “iron-clad” commitments to supply management been made.

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.

Producers in supply-managed sectors are justified in wondering if this commitment is real or politically expedient.

As well, farm leaders have been saying lately that while the Conservatives have been unwavering in their support of supply management at world trade talks, they haven’t been so unwavering when it comes to two of the three basic principles of supply management: import controls and market access.

Then there’s the Conservatives’ campaign to remove single desk marketing from the Canadian Wheat Board, which has some wondering what the party thinks about Canada’s other orderly marketing sector – supply management.

The Conservatives, mindful of vote-rich Eastern Canada and its powerful supply managed sectors, argue that supply management is different from the wheat board. They say that while wheat and barley growers in Western Canada have no choice but to sell through the wheat board, it’s up to producers to decide if they want to raise products that fall under supply management.

This isn’t logical. In the same way that a producer can decide not to produce milk, chicken and eggs, thus making supply management “voluntary,” so can a producer decide not to grow crops that fall under the wheat board’s jurisdiction, which would also make it “voluntary.”

The party’s illogical argument opens the door for more confusion.

Then there’s David Emerson, the federal trade minister who in late December told The Western Producer that Canada should no longer allow industries needing protection to dictate trade policy that denies competitive export sectors more market access.

This was perceived as a signal that the party is considering abandoning supply management, prompting Emerson to quickly backtrack. But the damage was done, especially when Emerson kept his job in the recent cabinet shuffle.

All of this should encourage dairy, chicken and egg producers to demand straight answers from the government. A good night’s sleep depends on it.