PUBLICATION: The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon)

DATE: 2002.06.27

EDITION: Final

SECTION: News

PAGE: A2

COLUMN: Straight Talk

BYLINE: Randy Burton

SOURCE: The StarPhoenix

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Goodale conspicuous in silence on farm aid

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ralph Goodale, the man with so much to say about nearly everything, is strangely silent on the topic of farm aid.

As Saskatchewan's sole member of the federal cabinet, you would expect the man to have an opinion about the issue dominating the provincial agenda this week.

If the package announced by Prime Minister Jean Chretien last week is such a boon to the Prairies, then surely a career politician like Goodale would like to claim some credit for it. After all, he did help to bring together other high-profile members of the federal cabinet with Prairie premiers and farm groups here in Saskatoon on the issue a couple of weeks ago.

Under normal circumstances, cabinet ministers go out and sell the packages their governments present. In this case, it's almost as if Goodale is embarrassed by this one.

If indeed, there are shortcomings in the package, then Goodale is the man with the influence to try and change the prime minister's mind about it. If he intends to seek amendments, then you would think he would want to let people know that he's still working on the file.

However, if Goodale has made a public utterance on the issue since the $5.2-billion package was announced last week, I haven't seen it.

"The master of the four-minute clip," as he is known in Ottawa, has become the Invisible Man in Saskatchewan.

Inquiring minds would like to know where he stands on the issues. For example, does he support the notion that even though Saskatchewan has 40 per cent of the country's arable land and is suffering the most from the troubles afflicting the grain market, that it should get only 22 per cent of the available aid dollars?

Farmers would also like to hear a concise explanation of why Saskatchewan should have to pay 40 per cent of the cost of emergency payments related to international trade issues.

And someone in the know really should explain to we thick Prairie types just who speaks for the Canadian government on the critical issue of cost sharing.

All along, Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief has said that if Saskatchewan wants any piece of the $1.2 billion in "transition money" made available, then it will have to come up with 40 per cent of the money on its own.

Yet when Prime Minister Jean Chretien was asked about it following the official announcement at a farm south of Ottawa last week, he contradicted his agriculture minister by saying the provinces would still get the federal money even if they chose not to make a contribution themselves.

This is no small matter, particularly in Saskatchewan, where the cost split is a major political issue. Agriculture Minister Clay Serby's office believes that Chretien's version is official, although farm groups are still unsure.

"We're trying to second guess whether it was a slip, a mistake or whether it was a planned thing. I'm not sure," says Terry Hildebrandt, president of the Agricultural Producers of Saskatchewan.

The difference is significant. If the money does not have to be cost shared, then pressure on the province is reduced. If Serby could simply convince Ottawa to increase the total amount available, or revise the distribution formula, perhaps Saskatchewan could stay out of the program altogether. If so, our farmers would get some money and it wouldn't cost the province anything.

The danger from the farmers' point of view is that the result won't be enough to satisfy anyone.

The suspicion amongst farm groups is that Serby will use Chretien's assurance to bail out of any provincial commitment to the aid package and thereby reduce what the farmers will ultimately receive.

Does Goodale know what the prime minister really meant to say? Does he support the so-called "Fredericton formula" that fails to recognize that grain farmers have borne the brunt of the economic chaos in international markets?

Finally, to what degree is Goodale's caution dictated by the leadership war now under way in the federal Liberal caucus?

It's well-known that Chretien will brook no dissent from his cabinet ministers and he is now pressuring caucus members to declare their support for him.

He reportedly spent hours on the phone last weekend complaining to MPs who found their names on a list of Paul Martin supporters published in Ottawa's Hill Times newspaper.

In spite of the fact he has a long history as a Martin supporter, Goodale subsequently asked the Hill Times to strike his name from the Martin list.

The logical conclusion to draw is that Goodale is under serious pressure from Chretien over the leadership issue.

He would certainly not be doing himself any favours with the PM if he were to be seen having any public reservations about the new farm plan.

For whatever reason, Goodale's silence on this issue is deafening.