And Policy Making Goes Round and Round...

Despite the varied topics, a common thread linking the sessions was that policy is important to Canadian agriculture. Whether policy was identified as lacking, needing to be developed or simply not meeting industry's needs, comments from speakers and participants alike circled back to the relevance of policy.

When it comes to moving the policy agenda forward, several comments at the conference alluded to the notion that producer organizations are the weak link in the chain. For example, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CCA) was criticized for not representing all sectors of the beef industry in negotiating both domestic and international policies around BSE and other factors; lack of pressure from producer groups was cited as one reason why governments do not work harder to enhance railway competition; and the seeming inability for producer groups to work together to develop cohesive policy positions was suggested as the reason why governments often take no action on policy at all.

A contrary perspective provided at the conference, however, suggested that the finger should not in fact be pointed at producer groups, but that governments need to take greater responsibility for ensuring policy objectives are being met.

These comments raise the question - are representative organizations best equipped to dictate the policy environment required for the agriculture industry to succeed? Certainly given the history of farm organizations in Saskatchewan (see Farm Organizations... is a Future Futile?), the structural issues producer organizations face seem to leave them ill equipped (and perhaps ill focused) to tackle the larger task of policy development.

A perspective from outside Canada is perhaps useful on this point. Conference speakers from the United States indicated how producer organizations and policy makers work together to develop policies and programs in that country, often by together setting objectives that meet their mutual needs. The United States model is able to achieve this cohesion because farm organizations are taken seriously. And they are taken seriously because they have money available to spend on lobbying. A U.S. National Farmers Union representative admitted that their farmers and politicians both understand that lots of money and/or lots of people are the means by which policy is developed.

In Canada, a different model exists, one that is focused on consultation, often between representative organizations and civil servants; this latter group often takes on the role of synthesis and analysis, and ultimately advises policy makers. The Canadian-ness of our approach to policy making (i.e., through consensus-building) has left the industry unclear about what our policies (both domestically and internationally) hope to accomplish. Other than broad-based objectives, and feel good descriptors (see AAFC's Growing Forward Strategy), there is no clear picture of what Canada collectively hopes to achieve with agriculture policy.

Given this model, is it fair to look toward producer groups to better articulate their wish list, when the wish list falls on ears that are often not capable of putting together anything more than broad outlines? Or is it the case that government is able to get away with putting forward only broad objectives precisely because producer groups are ineffective at collectively enunciating anything more specific?