For Canadian Food Inspection Agency official Bill Anderson, it must have been a bureaucrat’s nightmare. Last week, he sat before the board of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in Fredericton, explaining to an unsympathetic audience why more federal compensation is not available to Quebec sheep producers ordered to destroy flocks because of presence or suspicion of scrapie.
Quebec farm leader Laurent Pellerin had just vigorously described the plight of one Quebec farmer ordered to destroy his flock, unable to get adequate compensation and forced to work off the farm to try to save it and to feed his nine children.
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?
Anderson explained the law.
The government must live by compensation levels set out in the legislation, he said. It is under review and farmers can suggest improvements. But for now, rules are rules. It is not a political question.
“You are hiding behind your act,” fumed Pellerin.
Manitoba’s Bob Friesen, CFA vice-president, had had enough.
“You have made it clear the government is not responsible,” he said icily. “The minister is not responsible. The act is responsible. And since the act comes from God, we have no recourse.”
Ouch. It was the kind of political anger more traditionally directed at a politician than a bureaucrat.
But it was a moment which captured the frustration which permeated much of the discussion around the CFA table.
There was a sense that the politicians have made themselves almost immune from farm politics. Issues are handled arm’s length from the minister.
Don’t expect a creative political solution to a problem. A tribunal will consider the options or a bureaucratic committee will massage a “compromise” that will be sent to the minister to announce.
Trade agreements, legislative limits, the fiscal framework – all are cited as reasons why politicians these days are not willing to risk wading into a farm problem to try to broker a political solution.
It leads farm lobbyists to mutter about the power of unsympathetic bureaucrats and bureaucratic agendas.
Friesen also was the source of another anecdote which had the delegates shaking their heads about the state of agriculture policy-making. He talked about a Montreal meeting on farm safety nets. More than 30 farm groups arrived at the meeting in agreement that the safety nets should be enriched with more government and farmer dollars. Only the Canadian Cattlemens’ Association dissented, arguing that a richer program could attract a trade challenge.
The “facilitator” appointed by Ottawa “did his best to unravel the consensus,” said Friesen. In the end, the report to agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief talked about “general” support for a richer program, rather than near-unanimous support. “It was much weaker in the report than it was in the meeting,” he said. “We were being manipulated. It was pathetic.”
So hostility to the officials grows.
And, once again, the minister is isolated from the political fallout of actions taken in his name, by employees of his department. Doesn’t this reinforce the political isolation farm leaders are condemning?
