A RECENTLY released report by the standing Senate committee on agriculture and forestry illustrates that its authors not only heard about the needs of rural Canada, but they listened.
Beyond Freefall: Halting Rural Poverty contains 68 recommendations that the committee believes will improve the quality of rural Canadian life.
Guiding principals include acknow-ledgement that rural policies need to help those willing to help themselves, that they can’t be built on a one-size-fits-all model, and that they must recognize rural Canada doesn’t necessarily want to be urbanized. These are principals espoused by many rural leaders and the committee has understood their value.
Read Also
Worrisome drop in grain prices
Prices had been softening for most of the previous month, but heading into the Labour Day long weekend, the price drops were startling.
Among the list of recommendations are several that farmers and ranchers likely suggested: compensation of farmers and rural landowners for preserving the environment; increased support for farm and rural small business succession planning, elimination of capital gains on farm property; and generally putting rural Canada back on the federal policy agenda.
As farmers have long known, and as the Senate committee reiterated, little of the wealth generated in rural Canada flows back to rural Canada. That wealth is considerable and it is growing.
However, only 19 percent, or about six million of Canada’s 32 million people comprise rural Canada and the percentage continues to shrink.
That shrinkage gives this segment ever-decreasing clout electorally and less attention paid at policy-making levels. To reverse the latter tendency, the report recommends creation of a department of rural affairs, which it believes would renew focus on rural issues.
It is a bold suggestion. At present the federal Rural Secretariat is tasked with responsibility for bringing rural issues to the fore. But the report notes that it operates from within Agriculture Canada, “creating the misleading impression that rural is synonymous with agriculture and effectively undermining the secretariat’s relevance and viability.”
Rural policy is not the same as agriculture policy. Indeed, the challenge with formation of rural policy is that it connects at some level with every existing government department: agriculture, forestry, finance, health, trade, international affairs, and so on.
Thus a department of rural affairs runs the risk of becoming a large and expensive bureaucracy designed to serve the needs of fewer than 20 percent of the population.
Is that percentage worthy of special treatment? We can certainly argue that it does and we wouldn’t be alone in making that argument. With today’s public emphasis on food production, food quality and protection of the environment and habitat, people are realizing the value of rural dwellers and their contributions as perhaps they seldom have before.
However, bigger government isn’t necessarily better or more responsive government. What matters most is whether government recognizes the value of a healthy rural sector and if so, whether there is the political will to protect and improve it.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
