RADIO DJs trying to pander to an aging, nostalgic baby boomer audience frequently proclaim this or that song to be the “anthem for a generation.”
Most are more pretentious or forgettable than anthem-like but for at least this baby boomer, two lines penned by Stephen Stills and recorded in 1966 by Buffalo Springfield still resonate.
The song For what it’s worth opens with lines that promise a story yet to be told, perhaps an ominous tale:
“There’s something happening here
What it is ain’t exactly clear.”
Read Also
Rural emergency room closures continue to be vexing problem
Staffing issues are at the root of disruptions and closures in hospital emergency departments, both in rural and urban Canadian locations.
As a political reporter, those lines often come to mind when confronted by announcements or events that seem to be more than meet the eye.
It came to mind the day last summer when federal agriculture minister Chuck Strahl announced the options program – two years of government help for low-income farm families on the condition that they take skills training or create a business plan that will make the farm profitable.
It wasn’t the program design itself, described as a Conservative government gesture to farmers who had “fallen through the cracks” of existing programs.
The “for what it’s worth” flag was raised in the use of the words “pilot project” to describe the program.
Here’s some speculation, based only on instinct.
The re-election of a Conservative government will see the continuation of the options program but with anyone eligible in 2005-06 not eligible for a repeat. Get profitable or consider your options that do not include government bailouts.
A subsequent program will target the next level of income-poor farm families. Temporary help is available but either to create farm profitability or exit the industry.
There has been no Conservative announcement of this strategy but it is highly unlikely that a market-oriented government and this former-businessperson agriculture minister would endorse continuing support for a business class that has routinely low gross sales and net income levels that normally qualifies for welfare.
Strahl is promoting Canadian agriculture as a vibrant business sector.
He is planning ethanol and value-added policies that will give at least a select group of farmers an opportunity to make money from investment up the food chain.
And he is shepherding safety net changes that will be designed to stabilize those who occasionally make a profit. Perpetually losing sectors are not yet part of his strategy.
Which leads back to the fact that the low-income farm family options plan is a pilot project, suggesting future programs with the same intent.
Economists at Agriculture Canada and in many sinecured positions at universities long have argued that Canada’s farm sector needs a restructuring to emphasize the successful and profitable.
They have argued that government support programs, often promoted by farm lobbies opposed to the idea that any policy should aim at reducing farmer numbers, have delayed restructuring that has happened in most other sectors. Governments have shied away from anything that could be seen as an exit strategy for farmers.
Unless the reaction to the pilot project is vociferous, a re-elected Conservative government may become the first to proclaim in farm policy: prove you can survive with the options you have or look elsewhere.
