The Hill: Rural votes lay behind the change of heart on regional funding

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Both the Liberals and the Tories dropped their opposition to co-funding regional or provincial farm programs. And the 70 seats in rural Quebec and Ontario played a big part in that decision

by BARRY WILSON

It was a triumph of strong farmer lobbying. It also was the result of being in the right place at the right time.

This autumn, as federal politicians crisscrossed the country looking for votes, Liberals and Conservatives both embraced the idea that federal dollars should be used again to co-fund regional or provincial farm programs designed to reflect local conditions or needs.

Provincial governments will need to add their 40 per cent to trigger federal payouts.

While details of how the new "agri-flexibility" funding will work are at best fuzzy, the principle has been enunciated and woe to any government that reneged once in office.

Farm groups affiliated with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture were quick to praise the political commitment, even if they thought the money promised over four years – $500 million by the Conservatives and $564 million by the Liberals – was too little.

Typical was the reaction of the Ontario-Quebec Grain Farmers' Coalition (OQGFC). "The amount the Conservatives and Liberals have pledged isn't enough to fully fund regional programs to the extent necessary, but it is a step in the right direction and a good foundation for the future." 

What was remarkable about the political road-to-Damascus announcements by the two parties was that, recently, both opposed the concept.

It was the Liberals under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief who ended what were then called companion programs in the early and midyears of the decade. They argued that regionally designed programs eroded the goal of national standards and national programming. The provinces were happy to go along because it was one less spending demand to fend off.

The Conservatives consistently opposed reintroducing regional flexibility into business risk management programming citing possible countervail actions by trade competitors. 

One of their main farm group allies, Grain Growers of Canada, agreed with that argument and still does, making the Conservative switch all the more astounding. So what happened on the road to the Oct. 14 election?

It is clear that the farm lobby was effective in its persistence and arguments. But it was greatly aided by the fact that the main pressure came from rural Ontario and rural Quebec, a vast and hotly contested political area which offers close to 70 seats, almost half the number needed for a House of Commons majority.

In Quebec, the Tories saw picking up some of those rural seats from the Bloc Québécois as a key element of their campaign for a majority government. In Ontario, the Conservatives scratched their way into a minority government largely by winning almost all Ontario's rural seats. The Liberals lost government by losing those seats.

While many political analysts focused on how the path to a majority meandered through urban and suburban territory where the Conservatives are weak, equally crucial was holding onto what they have gained.

"The key to a majority Conservative government really does lie in holding rural Ontario," said University of Calgary political scientist David Taras. Conservatives may take the rural Prairies for granted but the 13-year Liberal lock on rural Ontario until 2004 suggests it is much more in play.

A good lobby campaign is always helped if the object of the lobby needs you to like him. BF

Barry Wilson is a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery specializing in agriculture.