THE new year, 2002, will determine in large part whether the farmer
still has an important voice in the farm policy debate.
It will demonstrate federal agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief’s weight
in cabinet, assuming he survives the rumoured early year cabinet
shuffle. And it likely will set the tone for national farm policy into
the immediate future.
All of which sets up the new year as potentially one of the most
significant national farm policy year in a long time.
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
Vanclief, under attack from within his own Liberal caucus and within
his own Ontario farm base in the dying days of 2001, will be pushing a
new national farm plan that would radically change how farm policies
work in the country.
There would be one big policy including safety nets, environmental
funding, food safety initiatives and farmer incentives to retrain or
retire. Traditional programs like crop insurance, Net Income
Stabilization Accounts and farm income support programs such as
Canadian Farm Income Program would be rolled into one.
Farmers would be forced to buy into the entire package or opt out. The
possibility of ad hoc farm aid payments in the future would be
precluded.
To say the least, this long-term plan with substantial funding
commitments will be a tough sell in cabinet.
Add to that Saskatchewan cabinet minister Ralph Goodale’s unease about
the end of ad hoc possibilities and the cabinet sell becomes even more
difficult.
Within Liberal caucus, a growing number of MPs believe Vanclief is not
a strong enough advocate within cabinet. Prince Edward Island MP Wayne
Easter is the most willing to go public with his complaints but
privately, he is far from alone.
Then, the provinces become a tough sell as they struggle to commit to
long-term policy funding without a guarantee that farmers will be
content that they can pay their share or that it meets farmer needs.
Finally, the farm lobby will have to decide if it is willing to buy
into the view that Canadian farm supports should be purer than pure,
limited and tied to less trade-distorting measures like environmental
and food safety programs, while competitors in the United States and
the European Union continue to receive significant amounts of
government help without the restrictions.
Farm leaders will have to decide if they can commit farmers to giving
up the possibility of emergency payments.
It makes 2002 the most significant farm policy year since 1995. In that
year, farmers did not really have any say in policy changes that
overturned historic support policies and significantly changed the
economics of grain farming on the Prairies.
That year, without so much as a consultation, finance minister Paul
Martin and agriculture minister Ralph Goodale ended the $560 million
Crow Benefit. There was hardly a farm protest peep because grain prices
were good the next year.
It seemed like farm protest politics were dead and that God, like Ralph
Goodale, was a Liberal who created market conditions that let Liberals
off the hook.
Vanclief has been more hapless and less blessed than Goodale. The new
year, if he survives it, will be his testing ground where legacies are
created or lost.
