The Hill: The anti-farm crusade by urban newspaper columnists

Saturday, March 1, 2008

It is one thing to rage at the unfairness of their arguments. But it is also necessary to prove them wrong

by BARRY WILSON

Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Bob Friesen had it exactly right.

He began a letter to the National Post in late January with the opening line: "I continue to be absolutely mystified by the ongoing crusade of the National Post and its columnists against Canadian farmers and our national agriculture industry."

He said that national columnists will "pounce on any factoid and torture any statistic to paint an entire industry as irrelevant and worthless."

Friesen was reacting to a column by Montreal economist William Watson, which argued that Statistics Canada data show agriculture to be a far smaller economic actor in Canada than its political clout, public profile or subsidy support should justify. The provocative National Post headline on the column was: "Close more farms!" At least its layout editor has a sense of humour.

Friesen argued that newspapers contribute far less to the national economy than do farmers, so the country could do with fewer newspapers.

As someone who for close to four decades has depended on the existence of newspapers for a living, I admit Friesen almost lost me there. But he had a point.

Whether in the National Post, Globe and Mail or any number of urban newspapers, the decision by a columnist to write about agriculture or the rural economy is to expect a drive-by smear.

The Post regularly carries columns that depict farmers as coddled relics of a socialist 19th century when rural Canada mattered and consumers couldn't get whatever they need to eat from a supermarket with access to the world. Farmers with their protections and their subsidies are the buggy whip manufacturers of the 21st century, afraid to move on.

The Globe regularly disparages the economics of supply management while deriding rural areas as yesterday country, an impoverished economic, social and cultural country cousin to the vibrant cities that are Canada's economic engine. Forget the resource economy. Manufacturing, service and growing populations are the future!

As a professional farm leader, Friesen is paid to call that a lie and he also believes it as a very successful farm entrepreneur from rural Manitoba.

But in a way, it is easy to see where the urban rural attackers are coming from in their criticisms. Many of them are economists, whose classroom models disdain protection and reject the idea that stability and predictability are good. The only certainty is change, they have been trained to believe.

They write for a population often struggling to save their jobs, to keep afloat, to deal with indifferent bosses and owners who value them only as much as the next quarterly profit and dividend report. There is no residual social and political nostalgia for troubled autoworkers or close-to-the-edge minimum wage workers, no government bailout packages.

And Statistics Canada reports that the average farmer has net assets of more than $1 million, far more than the average urban working stiff, while still crying for help.

It does little to attract the economic columnists' sympathy.

Friesen did a good job of making the argument that food production, with all its downstream value added, is a key Canadian economic component.

But the critics' argument that, with or without Canadian farmers, there would be food without the billions of dollars in domestic subsidies is an issue farm leaders must address, unfair as they think it is.

It is fair to rage at the critics. It is necessary to prove them wrong. BF

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