|
|
 
|
Agriculture platforms short on content, short even on rhetoric
by Paul Beingessner (Friday, June 11, 2004 -- CropChoice guest commentary) -- It was quite a faux pas for the Leader of the Opposition. While on the
campaign trail in Saskatoon, in Canada's agricultural heartland, Steven
Harper refused to answer a reporter's question about agriculture, saying
he was not there to talk about his farm policies. The puzzled reporter
wondered how this might look to prairie farmers. Harper claimed he
didn't need to be concerned since prairie farmers were solidly behind
him anyway. There may be another reason the Conservative leader didn't want to talk
agriculture. This can be found in the official party platform, displayed
on the Conservative's website. Or, rather, it can't be found there,
because the only mention of agriculture in the entire platform is a
one-line promise to "support Canada's farmers, fishers, and forestry
workers". Another part of the website contains a list of "issues". The
"issue" of agriculture is explained like this: "The Conservative Party
will fight for farmers. We will protect farmers against conditions
outside their control and vigorously defend them in international trade
negotiations." Not exactly enough to fill a book. But, speaking of books, what does the
Liberal Red Book say about agriculture? Rather than describe its plans
for agriculture, the Liberal's official platform lists Liberal
accomplishments. It cites the aid packages for drought, BSE and avian
influenza, and SAYS the government has "worked steadily" to get the
American and other borders open to Canadian beef. This brief paragraph
is all the Liberal's 58-page platform has to say about agriculture, save
for a promise in another section to "strengthen the Prairie Farm
Rehabilitation Administration". (Granted, the Liberals can run on their
recent record.) Oddly enough, the party least likely to get much support in rural
western Canada has the most to say about agriculture. The New Democratic
Party devotes two full pages of its 66-page party platform to
agriculture. The NDP takes swings at NAFTA, claiming it is not working
for agriculture and other industries. It promises to protect the
Canadian Wheat Board and Canada's supply managed sectors, enhance safety
nets, increase farm support to counter American and European subsidies,
ban GM wheat and increase value-added processing for farm products. All this is stuff most farmers would agree with, but the NDP has been
unable to make substantial gains in rural seats in western Canada in
recent elections. The Conservative silence on agriculture is disturbing. Most western
farmers know little about what the party would do for agriculture, yet
may be poised to vote for it. The only specific Conservative policy
commonly known is the party's resolve to eliminate the CWB by ending
single desk selling. The silence is understandable though. The awful problem the
Conservatives face is rooted in their ideology. Conservatives believe
that freeing the marketplace to do its job is the best way to operate an
economy. For agriculture, this means more trade agreements and less
government subsidies. It means telling farmers to adapt or perish. It
means increased farm size and ever-greater reliance on technology. Now,
don't get me wrong. A Conservative government with seats in rural areas
would not likely abandon safety nets or cut the emergency aid to
farmers. A Conservative government would probably treat agriculture much
like Paul Martin has: hand over some cash and natter away at the U.S. The only problem with this is that we've tried it all before and it
doesn't work. Despite years of blaming European and American farm
subsidies, despite years of attempting to negotiate world trade deals,
despite vast monies poured into value-added enterprises and dumped into
fertilizers, chemicals, new machinery, improved seeds and every other
kind of technological fix, the farm crisis continues. Farms survive
because of one thing only: off-farm work. And lest Canadian farmers feel bad, their well-endowed American
counterparts are really very little better off. But, compared to farmers
in India, Korea, Russia and Afghanistan, Canadian and American farmers
live in luxury's lap. Those folks are just getting started down the road
of rural depopulation, increased mechanization and competition from
subsidized foreign producers. In only a few decades, they should have
farm economies as good as ours, with just as many farmers on the land! The problem for the Conservatives is that, where farming is concerned,
their ideology just doesn't work. Not only in Canada, mind you, but the
world over. Or does it? Agriculture fuels a huge part of the economy, quite literally. Because
farmers all over the world don't make an adequate living, consumers in
the rich parts of the world can have cheap and abundant food. Cheap food
allows people large amounts of leisure time, and money to spend in those
idle hours. An economy where farmers were well paid for producing food
might look quite different. It might also be politically more volatile.
(Consider how much fuss the Consumers Association of Canada regularly
makes over the price of supply-managed eggs and dairy products, the only
industries that consistently provide farmers with adequate returns.) Sadly, the agriculture policy of most governments around the world is
intellectually and morally bankrupt. It fits the oft-quoted definition
of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, expecting
different results. It is this way because it is set not by farmers or in
their interest, but by the vast array of folks that live off farmers.
Agriculture works just fine for the Cargill's and Louis Dreyfus's of the
world. In the current federal election, it doesn't look like that will change. (c) Paul Beingessner (306) 868-4734 phone 868-2009 fax | |
