The Union paysanne really got on my nerves when Roméo was president! I felt that each time he spoke and on any subject whatsoever, it was always a done deal. Demagoguery, endless and meaningless speeches just aren’t my style. Today, things aren’t so cut and dried. But Maxime Laplante, the new president, and Benoit Girouard, the secretary general, are made from different stock. And yes, I do have a penchant for militants, intellectuals and people committed to a cause. Going against the flow takes a lot of courage.

So, occasionally, and out of curiosity and a yearning for inspiration, I glance at their press releases. Perhaps they see things, that I, with my nose pressed to the window, can’t? But alas, over and over I am disappointed.

I think it’s their tone that gets to me. You’re probably thinking: get over it, content is what counts. Well not quite. For example, just the other day, Maxime Laplante admonished reporter Michel Vastel, who had the effrontery of supporting farmers who were victims of the ‘mad cow’ fiasco, and stated that the reporter misunderstood the reality of Quebec agriculture.

“Is it unhealthy, he wrote, to want to re-implement (an idea promoted by Union paysanne) processing and marketing on the local level instead of pushing everything towards exportation.” Pushing everything towards exportation? Excuse me, Maxime, what the heck are you talking about? The biggest agricultural industry we have, the dairy sector, has long given up any exporting ambitions. The same applies to poultry and eggs. Beef, lamb, grain, corn, fruits and vegetables are pretty much in the same boat. Overall, this represents three quarters of our total production. And that, to me, is a lot.

All that’s left is pork production, which is determinedly committed to being part of the international market. But this industry’s interest in exportation is not a recent phenomena, it’s been a reality for the past 35 years!

Pushing for exportation? On the contrary, for several years now, smaller, local cheese makers have been multiplying. The Isle-aux-Grues cooperative, with its Mi-carême and now famous Riopelle, provides its residents with a sense of hope and pride. Meanwhile, lamb from Charlevoix, ice cider, and organic products are gaining ground. Nonetheless, this incredible diversity is surprising in a country where there’s a scarcity of good land and winters are particularly cruel!

Then a little further into his critique, Mr. Laplante complained about a lack of fairness in the attribution of agricultural subsidies. And in Robin Hoodish fashion, he proposed ending all subsidies to bigger companies and reallocating to small ones. A valid ethical debate, what is better, a universal plan or a size-specific plan? In short, if a choice must be made, who makes it? And what is it based on? In my opinion, and beyond any controversial debate, the idea is not necessarily to redistribute subsidies, but rather being able to live without them! I really liked what this farmer in Wendover had to say the other day on TV, he said that he had no intention of becoming a government freeloader.

Finally, concluded M. Laplante in predictable fashion, this is all the UPA’s fault, that dreaded monopoly. This belief, deeply rooted in Union paysanne thinking, reflects an unhealthy obsession. Yet, North American figures – regarding next generation farmers, net incomes, ability to pay off debts, number of full-time farmers, family farm sizes – indicate that Quebec is the leader in each category. So how is this monopoly so utterly destructive? Is it really a scandal to be distinctive and strong in a world where buyers and vendors wield increasing power?

I know, Maxime, I’m absolutely dreadful, but let me tell you something I know you won’t like. For any and all militant organizations, size is not what counts, credibility and potent discourse is what makes the difference. And honestly in this respect, Quebec farmers (and your fledgling organization) deserve better than your annoying dissertations that border on lunacy.