WITH a federal election near at hand, the Speller report could offer voters a glimpse into the future of agriculture under continued Liberal rule.
At the least, the report contains key turnabouts in policy that could serve up tantalizing questions for voters to ask would-be members of Parliament.
Before becoming agriculture minister, Bob Speller chaired the committee, which in October 2002, released the report called Securing Agriculture’s Future. It explored sustainable agriculture, market opportunities and the merits of periodic farm policy reviews.
But most striking is the report’s comments on rural economic development and the important role small- and medium-sized farms play in maintaining healthy rural communities. When compared to past Liberal government farm policies, which focussed heavily on a get-large-or-die philosophy, this aspect of the Speller report was a surprise.
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?
Recommends the report: “In developing federal policies and programs, the government recognize the role of small- and medium-sized farms in providing agricultural products, environmental and aesthetic benefits, and vitality to rural communities.”
If we take this report at face value and the Liberals are serious about adopting this recommendation, a Liberal government could be about to change one of its most basic agriculture policies.
Even though 20 percent of Canada’s farms supply about 80 percent of the production, the report unabashedly states that the other 80 percent of farms play a critical role in maintaining viable rural communities.
It calls on the government to recognize these benefits by offering flexible programs and funding.
Policies like these sound strikingly similar to what the Europeans call multifunctionality. Canada, under the Chrétien Liberals, had been highly critical of multifunctionality, calling it little more than a means to deliver under-the-table subsidies.
Whether the Liberals would embark on such a course is unclear, given that the report was released 18 months ago and little has been done to acknowledge this aspect.
On the other hand, Speller was appointed agriculture minister only this December and he has vowed to implement all of the report if given the mandate in the next election and if he continues as agriculture minister.
Voters should ask:
- Do the Martin Liberals offer anything substantially different than the old Chrétien Liberals?
- How would a policy that supports smaller farms to boost rural economic development be viewed by Canada’s international trading partners?
Such fundamental changes to agriculture policy deserve a sound public airing. What better time than the days leading up to an election campaign?
