Opinion
It has been a fascinating winter of talking to audiences across Canada and the United States during this period of political wrangling and dramatic shifts in trade policy and economics. The United States is setting out on a new 4-year administration under Donald Trump, while Canada edges ever closer to a federal election in 2025.
I am so intrigued by where agriculture fits into the priorities of a government. There is no doubt that a government of any political stripe will say that “farmers and ranchers are the heartbeat of the economy,” but how a government crafts policy and regulations is the important question.
I show a slide to audiences in both Canada and the U.S. that showcases the flow of information and the role that the (Canadian) minister or (U.S.) secretary plays as the liaison. Talking through this slide resonates with many when we discuss which direction the information should flow.
Traditionally, we think of the communication flow being from farmers to the minister/secretary to the government (first line of the graphic). The minister/secretary’s job is to converse with farmers, listen, and then bring suggestions or demands to the head of government (that being the prime minister or president).
I have two examples that show how it works in practice:
Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz pushed Prime Minister Stephen Harper for the 2012 dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board’s single desk sales model, using as much political capital as possible to satisfy the will of the western Canadian farmers who wanted marketing freedom. Harper had campaigned on this policy change, but had many policies to focus on, Ritz made it a priority.
An American example would be USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue showing up at the Oval Office with maps to show President Trump where his votes came from in the 2016 election and how cancelling NAFTA all together would negatively impact key people — the farmers that voted for him.
Both of these examples show the minster or secretary not falling in line, not caving, but instead fighting for the farmers and ranchers that they represent.
As government decision-making centralizes in Canada with the Prime Minister’s office or in the Oval Office of the White House, farmers and ranchers are seeing a flipping of the communication flow (to the second line of the graphic).
If the minister/secretary’s role is to be the liaison from government to the farmers and ranchers instead of vice versa, agriculture is at a major representation disadvantage.
Whether you think this transition of flow has totally happened or is in transition doesn’t really matter, it’s happening all over the world. It reminds me of the evolution of the bank account manager. Your farm banker used to be the person who sat on the same side of the table as you when dealing with the bank. They assisted you in your financial management and — most importantly — fought for you with the bank when times were tight and you needed an ally. Now in most situations an ag banker is a your account manager who communicates on behalf of the bank and holds extremely limited pull and influence when you need it most. The communication flow and who they answer to has flipped from the traditional model.
Whether an agriculture minister or secretary is left or right politically has no bearing on this transition in communication flow in my opinion, but whether they are informed and aware of agriculture’s value probably does.
With farmers and ranchers representing such a small percentage of the vote, its critical that agriculture have leaders in government that fight, claw and drag their governments towards policies that are in the best interest of the sector and away from decisions that put it at risk. Governments need to respect agriculture as a key driver of the economy and the true heart of a nation.
