<b>Government policies historically protective of market realities</b>
By Barry Wilson
GUELPH, Ont. — At age 66, Larry Martin has seen enough elections and enough political agricultural debates to be a bit cranky.
He raises a fundamental question: is the political fixation on farm support programs and protection for supply managed sectors doing the sector a disservice? Is there a more productive agricultural debate to be had?
The senior research fellow at the George Morris Centre thinks so.
His farm sector critics, who see him as a shill for corporate agriculture, won’t be surprised.
Martin uses as his touchstone the disconnect between what politicians and farm leaders debate and what the young farm leaders who take management courses at the centre see as relevant.
“When we have our last week of courses about living in the policy environment and what the policy environment should be, not a single session has talked about business risk management policy and how to improve it,” said Martin, a market-oriented analyst with industry credentials earned over decades of research and reports.
Instead, he hears about the need for better management skills, competiveness, more markets and the negative impact of burdensome regulations.
“They are so divorced from the public debate and these are the emerging industry leaders.”
This year’s Outstanding Young Farmers award winners are graduates of the program.
So what should politicians be debating in this election?
Martin thinks the main debate issues should be how to increase market access, what policies would make the agriculture and food industry more competitive and how to reverse the decline in competitiveness in Canada’s food processing industry.
“Exporting pork rather than live hogs brings a lot more back to the Canadian economy,” he said.
“And a little bit of access into Asia would be worth more to the industry than all the BRM programs in Canada.” Yet what does he hear?
Mainly, he hears politicians promising policies to strengthen farm income support policies, protect protectionism, be skeptical about technology and promote local production while downplaying the global nature of the food system.
“I just think the real issues are under the surface,” he said. “It’s easier to debate simpler issues even if they are debating issues that were relevant maybe 10 or 15 years ago.”
As the Ontario election debate became fixated last week on which party will put money into a risk management program, Martin offered a theory about why the farm policy debate is so government-support oriented even as market prices are rising for many commodities.
“I think it is history,” he said. “Until recently, we had more than 200 years of declining prices and a government preoccupation with protecting farmers from that market reality.”
In modern times, said Martin, that government priority has been perpetuated as agriculture policy mixed with social policy and debate centred on policies to help the farm majority that accounts for a minority of production.
“I think that is the history in Canada,” said Martin, who predicted that his views will get him in trouble.
“It is easier to extract money from the government than it is to extract it from the marketplace. Our political culture has taught people to ask for this, so they do.”
And based on the debate so far in election 2011, Martin doesn’t see any change on the horizon.
By Barry Wilson
GUELPH, Ont. — At age 66, Larry Martin has seen enough elections and enough political agricultural debates to be a bit cranky.
He raises a fundamental question: is the political fixation on farm support programs and protection for supply managed sectors doing the sector a disservice? Is there a more productive agricultural debate to be had?
The senior research fellow at the George Morris Centre thinks so.
His farm sector critics, who see him as a shill for corporate agriculture, won’t be surprised.
Martin uses as his touchstone the disconnect between what politicians and farm leaders debate and what the young farm leaders who take management courses at the centre see as relevant.
“When we have our last week of courses about living in the policy environment and what the policy environment should be, not a single session has talked about business risk management policy and how to improve it,” said Martin, a market-oriented analyst with industry credentials earned over decades of research and reports.
Instead, he hears about the need for better management skills, competiveness, more markets and the negative impact of burdensome regulations.
“They are so divorced from the public debate and these are the emerging industry leaders.”
This year’s Outstanding Young Farmers award winners are graduates of the program.
So what should politicians be debating in this election?
Martin thinks the main debate issues should be how to increase market access, what policies would make the agriculture and food industry more competitive and how to reverse the decline in competitiveness in Canada’s food processing industry.
“Exporting pork rather than live hogs brings a lot more back to the Canadian economy,” he said.
“And a little bit of access into Asia would be worth more to the industry than all the BRM programs in Canada.” Yet what does he hear?
Mainly, he hears politicians promising policies to strengthen farm income support policies, protect protectionism, be skeptical about technology and promote local production while downplaying the global nature of the food system.
“I just think the real issues are under the surface,” he said. “It’s easier to debate simpler issues even if they are debating issues that were relevant maybe 10 or 15 years ago.”
As the Ontario election debate became fixated last week on which party will put money into a risk management program, Martin offered a theory about why the farm policy debate is so government-support oriented even as market prices are rising for many commodities.
“I think it is history,” he said. “Until recently, we had more than 200 years of declining prices and a government preoccupation with protecting farmers from that market reality.”
In modern times, said Martin, that government priority has been perpetuated as agriculture policy mixed with social policy and debate centred on policies to help the farm majority that accounts for a minority of production.
“I think that is the history in Canada,” said Martin, who predicted that his views will get him in trouble.
“It is easier to extract money from the government than it is to extract it from the marketplace. Our political culture has taught people to ask for this, so they do.”
And based on the debate so far in election 2011, Martin doesn’t see any change on the horizon.
I write under my own name @CarolHusband so register and be a follower if you'd like. Or not.
Comment