AS A CANDIDATE for the Liberal leadership and then as newly minted leader in late 2003, Paul Martin made a solemn promise to Canadian farm leaders.
He would “revolutionize” the relationship between the government and farmers, he said. Relations had soured after years of what farm leaders saw as abrasive behaviour by then-deputy minister Samy Watson and unsympathetic tough love from then-minister Lyle Vanclief.
Last weekend, Martin faced the Liberal party at its first national convention since his triumphant win in Toronto in November 2003. In a 2,600-word address to the convention, he did not mention agriculture.
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.
Sprinkled among convention delegates were farmers who illustrate the point that the Liberals are Canada’s “big tent” party that accommodates a wide range of views Ñ members of the National Farmers Union, Canadian Federation of Agriculture and Grain Growers of Canada.
So 16 months into his prime ministership, how has Martin done on that promise?
Many of the same old problems persist Ñ trade barriers, contentious world trade talks, brutally low farm incomes and market weakness. Do farmers feel that the government is working harder, being more attentive, being more open, being more revolutionary?
Liberal farmer delegates would be expected to say yes and indeed, they largely did when asked during the convention.
“I’m not sure conditions are better but I would say the government is more open to admitting problems and trying to deal with them,” said northern Alberta organic beef farmer, Liberal delegate, likely future Liberal candidate and former National Farmers Union president Cory Ollikka. “I think Wayne Easter’s exercise illustrates that.”
Ah yes, the Easter exercise (watch for a video coming to a cable channel near you. Next, the Easter Miracle Diet.) The Prince Edward Island Liberal MP and also a former NFU president is holding national hearings to look for causes and solutions to chronic low and falling farm incomes.
That truly is one of the changes with this Liberal government. Led by agriculture minister Andy Mitchell, it readily admits problems in the sector, concedes government programs have not always worked well and asks how they can be fixed.
It was not the style of the Jean ChrŽtien government to ever admit fallibility so that in itself is a revolution, although it is true that fallibility is admitted for programs inherited from the ChrŽtien regime.
Bob Friesen, Manitoba farmer, Canadian Federation of Agriculture president and a 2004 contender for a Liberal nomination, said last weekend as an observer at the Liberal convention that there has been a change in attitude. The agriculture department is more willing to listen.
But with the review of the agricultural policy framework showing little progress, efforts to improve the flawed Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program painfully slow and little change in farm prospects, the fruits of the revolution are far from obvious yet.
“We’re up the steps of the church,” said Friesen. “We’re not at the altar yet.”
The foreplay continues.
So far, the revolution has made it as far as having the physician acknowledge the patient is in pain, ask how it happened and wonder if there is a preferred treatment.
Whether the physician has an actual cure remains a medical mystery.
