Silly politicians don't know how to talk to farmers

Western Producer staff

For sheer Parliament Hill partisan silliness, it is hard to match the fiasco that has developed within the agriculture committee. What was to have been a forward-looking study into the future of agricultural policy for the 21st Century has become an old-fashioned exercise in political bickering.

The original plan was to have the Commons and Senate agriculture committees travel outside Ottawa, for the first time in more than a decade, to meet farmers on their own turf.

But a dozen or more grown men cannot seem to agree on how they should consult farmers, who they should talk to or when they should go.

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.

As a result, the committee has been grounded in Ottawa until the warring sides can work things out or until the Liberal majority decides to send the committee on the road, with or without Reform co-operation.

When the committee reassembles after the House of Commons gets back to work Feb. 6, it will be more divided and cranky than it has been for years.

And the screwy thing is that it is over tactics and process rather than ideology and ideas.

Reform MPs have said they will travel only if the committee agrees to consult the way Reform dictates it should – through randomly selected focus groups and later public meetings rather than emphasizing contacts with farm groups, institutions and uncontrolled public meetings.

Reform insists this is the only way to tap into the mood of “real farmers” (who presumably have not been made “unreal” by involvement in farm organizations).

Liberals have responded by accusing Reform of thwarting attempts to connect politicians with the farmers they are supposed to be serving.

Caught in the middle of all this is the original good idea – an extensive study by politicians of the kind of agriculture policy needed to serve the industry at a time of rapid change and instability.

For farmers, this is far from a life-or-death episode. It is fair to assume that farmers are not hanging on the politicians’ every word for signals about the future. Still, the study could be useful as a way to lay the groundwork for the future of relations between farmers and their government.

If done properly, it could give farmers a glimpse of the implications of such political realities as government bankruptcy and bureaucratic conservatism while offering governments a glimpse of the farmer outlook in these unstable times.

Instead, it has degenerated into a sandbox fight over political power, clashing egos and name-calling. Reformer Leon Benoit and Liberal chair Bob Speller will have to set aside some of the personal animosity that has built up if this band of political minstrels is ever going to stagger out of Ottawa and into farm kitchens.

In the background, there is one other odd aspect to this farce.

It is hard to shake the feeling that the powers-that-be in Agriculture Canada, including the minister, wouldn’t mind at all if the committee never does settle its differences. Could it be that the department doesn’t really want competition in the “agriculture vision” business?