The Hill: Another government failure to deliver the straight goods

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

When 'investment' turns out to be loans and open borders turn out to be still closed, public confidence in government announcements is lost

by BARRY WILSON

Governments, including the current Conservative gang, often seem to have a difficult time giving their citizens the straight goods when it comes to announcing policies or developments.

Of course, they work to put the best spin on things and that is part of the game of politics.

But, often, that spin can verge on the misleading. Last winter's budget announcement of a $50-million "investment" for packer capacity expansion was a classic.

Budget documents talked about the intention to "invest" $50 million over three years, with "contributions" to match private investment. Initial farm leader reaction was to grouse that, in a multi-billion dollar stimulus budget, $50 million over three years was pocket change.

The grousing turned to anger when they discovered it was not investment at all but loans.

Canadian Federation of Agriculture vice-president Ron Bonnett, a veteran Ontario farm leader, would not suppress his rage when he found out six weeks after the budget that this was a go-into-debt offer.

"The budget documents, the minister's comments after the budget, his comments to our convention never suggested this is a loan program," he said on March 20. "Betrayal might be too strong a word, but a lot of farmers will now be looking at other government budget commitments and wondering.

"It is about honouring commitments."

Oddly, the government continues to talk about "investment" money as it uses the summer in encouraging groups or packers with a business plan for construction or expansion to make a proposal.

Bonnett warned of farmer "distrust" in government announcements. Fast forward to early July. They were at it again.

The issue this time was a statement from trade minister Stockwell Day and agriculture minister Gerry Ritz proclaiming victory in efforts to get Russia to drop an embargo on imports of Quebec and Ontario pork because of fears of the H1N1 virus. "Ministers Day and Ritz pleased with Russia's decision to lift import bans on Canadian meat products," said the headline on the ministerial announcement.

The ministers had worked hard to promote border openings and condemn governments that used the misnomer "swine flu" to close borders. Day had raised the issue in Moscow just days before.

On the surface, the announcement appeared to indicate that the border is open and Russia had accepted the science that pork does not transmit H1N1.

But one sentence was curiously worded. Day talked about a letter "informing me that the bans on pork and pork products originating from Quebec and on other meat products from Ontario are essentially lifted."

A telephone call was made enquiring what other Ontario meat products in addition to pork now could trade. It turns out that Ontario pork, which constitutes the bulk of Canadian pork shipments to Russia, is still banned. Russia lifted the embargo on Quebec product originating before June 2 and after July 1, but it only accepts product from two Quebec plants.

Besides, Russia did not accept the science. It still targets Ontario because that is where most flu cases are.

At best, the government announcement leaves a false impression of broad success to the casual listener. What would be so difficult about a straightforward announcement: "We made some small progress but must still fight to open up the most important province and to convince Russia of the science."

What is gained by this less-then-fulsome approach? What is lost is confidence in communication.

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