Ag issues missing from election campaign
Thursday, August 27, 2015
by BARRY WILSON
OTTAWA Almost four weeks into what will be an 11-week marathon campaign before Canadians cast their ballots Oct. 19 for the next federal government, agricultural issues have not been a blip on the national campaign radar screen.
Leaders have been crisscrossing the country and sometimes making pitches for votes in rural ridings but no party has published an agricultural policy and no leader has made sector issues a priority.
For Ontario beef farmer and Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Ron Bonnett, that illustrates one of the problems with the campaign so far.
“I think the number one issue is that we have to raise the profile of agriculture,” he said during an agricultural policy panel hosted Aug. 26 by The Hill Times newspaper and supported by national marketing boards. “We have to raise the awareness of what agriculture does in rural areas, in the economy and across the country.”
He cited issues ranging from sector labour needs and consumer perceptions of the food industry to agriculture’s role in combating climate change.
But the core issue is to get agriculture noticed as a major economic and social force, said Bonnett. It is the backbone of the food processing industry that is Canada’s largest manufacturing sector.
“We need to get recognized.”
David McInnes, president of the Canadian Agricultural Policy Institute, argued that the election campaign is an opportunity to remind politicians and consumers of some of the strengths of the Canadian food system and to pose a simple but profound question: “Should Canada have the most trusted food source in the world?”
He said the Canadian food system has many attributes that could be sold as a marketing strategy at home and abroad.
McInnes argued that producers are subsidized far less than in many other countries including the United States, Canadian consumers spend less of their disposable income on food than consumers in most countries, Canadian agriculture leaves a smaller environmental footprint than many of its competitors and its food safety and traceability systems are robust.
“Consumers want to know how food is produced and what’s in it,” he said. “The sector has a great story to tell.”
However, the issue of trade negotiations and their impact on agriculture hovered over the debate and will play a role in the campaign as opposition politicians accuse the Conservative government of being willing to sacrifice supply management protections.
Canada is part of a Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiation and reportedly is offering some concessions on supply management protections.
A trade deal with the European Union negotiated in 2013 includes an increase in European cheese exports to Canada.
CFA president Bonnett argued that while the issue often is framed as protectionist supply management against agricultural exporter interests, it is a distortion. The two can co-exist.
“All farmers want a strong trade deal,” he said. “Supply management is important as are exports.”
Grace Skogstad, University of Toronto political science professor at the Scarborough campus complained that none of the campaigning political parties is being honest about the impact of trade talks on the sector. She does not expect that to change.
“What I find regrettable is that there is a perception that there are only winners in trade agreements,” said Skogstad. “CETA (the Canada-EU deal) proves there are costs with the promise of more cheese imports. We need trade agreements but there are going to be costs, sectors that are hurt, and governments should be more honest about that.”
However, she predicted there will be no TPP deal during the election or during the year, if ever.
Meanwhile, all the major parties will campaign on supporting trade deals while protecting supply management. “I just think that is dishonest.”
On Sept. 30, 18 days before the vote, the CFA will host an agricultural debate in Ottawa aimed at pinning parties down on their commitments to and plans for the agricultural sector. BF