10
MAY 26, 2011 | WWW.PRODUCER.COM | THE WESTERN PRODUCER
WPEDITORIAL
OPINION
Editor: Joanne Paulson Phone: 306-665-3537 | Fax: 306-934-2401 E-Mail: joanne.paulson@producer.com
HIGH FOOD PRICES | PREVENTION MEASURES
CRAIG’S VIEW
Providing farmers with tools will help assure food security
R
ising food prices and food shortages are again gaining notoriety worldwide. They are blamed for inciting rebellion in the Middle East and have sparked panic buying and panicked reactions as countries try to maintain their slippery grips on dwindling food stockpiles. It’s no wonder that food prices have attracted the spotlight at the United Nations as countries scramble to come up with ways to limit the fallout. U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton recently warned that rising food prices represent widespread destabilization. She told members of the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization that the consequences of inaction would be grave. Clinton’s call “to blunt the negative impacts of rising food prices and protect people and communities” is something most, if not all, of us agree with in principle. The effects of high prices on developing nations can be significant as food becomes more sparse and less affordable to those who are most in need. The international community must be ready to help ease the harsh impacts of high prices to those most affected. In 2008, a similar blip sparked riots and fears about international stability before prices fell back to more sustainable levels. At that time, a few countries adopted rash actions such as export bans on particular commodities in efforts to protect domestic stocks, but, overall, calmer heads prevailed and more people benefited in the end. Trade protectionist measures are counterproductive in that they lead to hoarding among buyers and can also keep a lid on domestic prices in countries with export bans, which discourages farmers from seeding the following year, and that in turn further shortens supplies and drives prices higher once again. For the supply-demand equation to work itself through, farmers must be provided with the proper market signals about how much of which crops to grow. So what can be done? Targeted and immediate food aid to
regions in desperate need is, of course, a top priority. Beyond that, delivering the proper tools to lift farmers up in less developed regions is paramount. “Teach a man to fish…” as the proverb says. To do that, we need a multi-pronged approach: • agronomic outreach to spread the word of best management practices in terms of yield improvements and long-term sustainability (not necessarily organic); • make technology available to developing countries including machinery, precision farming tools, chemicals, fertilizers and the latest higher yielding seeds; • improved storage facilities and distribution networks in developing nations. A recent UN report said 1.3 billion tonnes of food is lost or wasted worldwide. That equals about one-third of all the food produced in the world. Of that amount, 630 million tonnes occurred in developing nations, with the largest losses occurring at storage, transportation or processing facilities. In setting international food strategies, we must heed arguments about conventional agriculture not being a friend to Third World producers in the past. However, to encourage only small, local production vastly underestimates the potential of people living in those areas to reach higher. Empowering local farmers to produce plentiful food efficiently and profitably is the nub of the issue. But that can only be achieved by ensuring farmers have access to the best in seed genetics, seeding technology, fertilizer, pesticide controls, storage and distribution. The international community would do well to attack the food shortage through comprehensive policies that address these myriad problems and avoid kneejerk reactions. Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Joanne Paulson collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials. access=subscriber section=opinion,none,none
SENATE | HARPER APPOINTMENTS
Harper’s Senate appointments will be remembered if not a prelude to reform NATIONAL VIEW
BARRY WILSON
M
ay 18 dawned in Ottawa as a cold drizzly day on the 45th anniversary of what could have been the most deadly and murderous day in Canadian political history. But in a town with much political oxygen but little political memory, no mention was made of May 18, 1966. Instead, the attention was on appointment of Stephen Harper’s
new cabinet and the makeup of the first Conservative majority government in almost 20 years. Briefly, let’s return to May 18, 1966. That day, a disturbed and disillusioned Albertan named Paul Joseph Chartier planned to heave a bomb onto the floor of the House of Commons to protest the partisanship and corruption of politicians in an age of bitter fights between Liberal prime minister Lester Pearson and Progressive Conservative leader John Diefenbaker. It was a time of government scandal and national disgust at politicians. Chartier had prepared a speech to read from the speaker’s chair. That day, the House of Commons was packed with two generations of political leaders who could have been wiped out if Chartier’s plan had
worked and the bomb had exploded between the front benches — Pearson, Diefenbaker, T.C. Douglas, Pierre Trudeau, John Turner andJean Chretien were all there that day. But an inexperienced clerk in a hardware store in Hull, Que., made a mistake that morning. Chartier asked for a slow-burning fuse that would take three minutes and the clerk sold him a 30 second fuse. Chartier sat in the visitors’ gallery of the House of Commons, slipped into a nearby washroom to light the fuse on the bomb he would throw and then blew himself up. Ironically, he died in the arms of Alberta Conservative MP Hugh Horner, a physician who had answered the call of whether there was a doctor in the House. Fast forward 45 years and another
disgruntled Albertan threw another bomb into Parliament Hill, not the deadly kind but of the political variety. Moments after announcing his cabinet and answering a few questions from journalists, Harper’s office announced that three recently defeated Conservative candidates were being given taxpayer-funded jobs as senators. Even worse, two of them had been senators, resigned to run for Parliament, were rejected by voters and still ended up getting secure jobs for at least eight years. Fabian Manning (Newfoundland) and Larry Smith (Montreal), come on down. Even many of Harper’s usual supporters ran for cover. As a Reformer, he opposed Senate appointments and advocated Senate elections.
Even by the patronage standards of the Liberals who never passed an opportunity to stuff Liberals onto Senate seats, government boards or courts, this seemed egregious. The prime minister’s office did the best it could. These appointments give Conservatives the Senate majority they need to pass Senate reform legislation that the Liberals had blocked, the senators agreed to stay no more than eight years and to run when senators are elected …blah blah blah. Of course, Harper realizes that these odourous appointments will not be remembered 53 months from now when he is up for re-election again. But if he does not use this newly created majority to really change the Senate … that will be remembered. access=subscriber section=opinion,none,none