The destruction of the family farm and of rural communities, based on the sick economic theories of "get big or get out", has been a top agenda for all the world's governments for 50 years. This is what the EU and the NAFTA etc. are about.

Even now all levels of Canadian governments are working hard to wipe out rural communities and force people into the already overcrowded and horrible cities, to destroy any degree of self sufficiency, so that people must buy everything, and rely on the mercy of big business for their survival.

It also jacks up the fraudulent GDP and Productivity figures. Which in the miseducated brains of economists and governments owned by the multinational corporate mafia, is the most important thing .

Ed Deak.

A few things really struck a chord when I first read this report, most that the senators “got it” and did understand the challenges facing rural residents and communities. This was best outlined by the Guiding Principals that are proposed as a guide to future policy decisions.
Respecting rural diversity, help those who help themselves, one size does not fit all, Rural Canada doesn’t want to be urbanized, there is no Magic Bullet. Then further in some of the observations reinforce that they really got to the nuts and bolts of the issue.

One such thing was Rural Transportation.
The fact that for rural Canadians ownership of a vehicle is a necessity, there is no other option, even for those in a small village where there may still be a local store trips to town will still be necessary for health and government services, banking, etc. And there is no public transportation even on major routes throughout rural areas, so fill up that car with gas. As for our youth (or for that matter any of us) holding down a job (if we can find one), a reliable vehicle is simply a must. A part time, minimum wage job in town is not an option, the cost to drive into town for 3 or 4 hours is as great if not greater than the take home!

Another item was the need for Rural businesses.
With the ever increasing pressure from the multinationals even small operations in town are finding it hard to compete, imagine then how hard it is to make a go of it in less populated areas. Out here in the “boonies” we have much lower expectations than the “big boys” but we still have to make enough to live and must try and keep our small businesses going so that everyone does NOT have to drive to town for every little thing or service.

These and several other things convinced me that they clearly saw the problems. But as for the solutions proposed I remain unconvinced. More government departments and bureaucracy will do nothing to change things, I do think that their core suggestion of a Rural Affairs Minister at the cabinet table would at least give us a little more “clout” when decisions are being made that affect the “rural minority”. The gradual removal of government services from small town Canada must stop however, and yes, by all means let us move some of those steady, well paying government jobs to rural areas. We do have telephones out here you know and empty school buildings looking for tenants! Those help lines to India or some “central” switchboard in Toronto would work just as well in just about any rural community.

From my point of view it was a good report that clearly outlined some of the problems and offered some possible solutions, I am less optimistic about the report actually making any difference to government policy, be it with this particular bunch of arrogant partisans or any other of our elected representatives.

Rural....The biggest problem is the brainwashed priesthood of economists, mostly in the service of big business, who are telling politicians that rural life and farms are "inefficient". Especially, because rural people are usually self sufficient do a certain degree, which cuts into their beloved GDP idiocy.

Also, it has been proven time and time again that the family farms are the most efficient forms of food production, yet governments are still hooked on the support of agribiz to take them over. When Poland joined the EU, it was estimated that 4 million farms will be wiped out, something not even the communists could achieve.

The result is worldwide food shortages and hunger. All to fill up the pockets of outfits like Cargill, now in total control of Canada's meat supplies, screwing producers and the public at the same time, while politicians are smiling with joy.

All around us ranchers are going broke and all because the governments permit monopoly and oligopoly control of food production, with all the anti cartel and trust laws ignored.
Again, on the advice of economists, to "become more globally competitive".

Ed Deak.

Well Ed upon reading the report more fully it seems that the senators agree with you somewhat, commenting upon past policy, they say:-

The federal government’s first serious attempt to address rural disparities emerged in the form of the policies introduced in the 1960s under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act (ARDA) and its successor, the Agricultural and Rural Development Act(ARDA II). {These policies}, while less focused on industrialization and urban investment per se, were premised on the belief that agricultural consolidation was important for the long-term sustainability of the farm sector and THAT INDUSTRIALIZATION WAS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF ANY SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC FUTURE. …………
In other instances, the federal government put in place policies more EXPLICITLY AIMED AT ENCOURAGING AND ACCELERATING THE RURAL DEPOPULATION that was already taking place. …………
In addition to these technical, theoretical and administrative concerns, the various programs and policies intended to promote economic equality have often been shaped by a mismatch between fiscal need and fiscal capacity: whereas local and provincial governments have traditionally had the financial needs, the financial means were often found at the federal level.
Finally, the historical record shows that FEDERAL REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY HAS OFTEN BEEN CHANGED FOR LARGELY POLITICAL REASONS rather than theoretical or economically expedient ones.

{I also found this rather interesting and typical of government!}

{Some programs are}delivered by the Rural Secretariat, a small group housed in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). The Rural Secretariat is charged with three broad policy objectives, namely providing leadership and coordination for the Canadian Rural Partnership; facilitating liaison and creation of partnerships around rural issues and priorities; and promoting dialogue between rural stakeholders and the federal government.


The Secretariat’s efforts to fulfill its mandate are hampered, however, by three
constraints. First, the Rural Secretariat’s influence over the policy process at the federal level may not be as consequential as it could be. Under the current process, {it vets}all pertinent policy proposals destined for Cabinet. The minister of the sponsoring department has final say, however, over whether the Rural Secretariat’s analysis appears in the final memorandum to cabinet.
In other words, THE MINISTER CAN CHOSE TO IGNORE THE RURAL SECRETARIAT’S COMMENTS, THUS EFFECTIVELY DENYING CABINET THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHAT THE POLICY PROPOSAL MIGHT LOOK LIKE FROM A RURAL PERSPECTIVE.

The committee believes that ministers from other departments should not have
the option of omitting the Rural Secretariat’s rural lens analysis from their memoranda to cabinet (MCs). All MCs should include both the Rural Secretariat’s analysis, which we believe should be called the “rural fairness lens,” and the department’s response to that analysis.

{Lets give credit where credits due, unfortunately I strongly suspect the Senators various recommendations will sit on the shelf gathering dust}

{Then there is this regarding a fund that is suppost to help with rural infrastructure!}

The committee was surprised to learn that, despite the fund’s ostensibly rural focus, The Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund defines “rural” as communities with fewer than 250,000 people – a definition at odds with both the Statistics Canada rural definitions: census definition (communities with fewer than 1,000 people) and the rural and small town definition (communities with fewer than 10,000 people). Yet, even under the program’s very broad concept of rural, 20% OF MRIF FUNDS ARE DESTINED FOR COMMUNITIES WITH MORE THAN 250,000 PEOPLE, A STRANGE ALLOCATION RULE FOR A FUND DEVOTED TO RURAL COMMUNITIES. {And} the application process for the Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (COMRIF) was expensive and complicated, AND THAT IT WORKED AGAINST SMALL COMMUNITIES.


There is lots more “good” stuff, in point of fact as a long time rural resident both in Canada and in Great Britain I found little to disagree with. It is a shame that it will be totally forgotten, even here in this rural community there was little or no reporting on this and it would seem no discussion on its merits. I am sure by now the fools in Ottawa have completely forgotten about it, if they ever were even aware that it came out!