Manitoba should think twice before banning pesticides - Opinion - Macleans.ca

Manitoba should think twice before banning pesticides - Opinion - Macleans.ca

Oh Macleans. How is it that your editorial board, which cares for Canada's most notable weekly news publication, failed so strikingly to understand its subject before making comment? It's not that I have issue with your comment per say - there are reasonable arguments for the use of, and for the restriction of certain agricultural and horticultural chemicals. However, please spend just a measure of time with a dictionary to ensure you understand the difference between a "pesticide" and an "herbicide", because the difference is significant. Sure - they're both organic (ie. carbon-based... not hippy-based) chemicals used in horticulture or agriculture. But one, namely pesticide, is designed to kill animate critters, like beetles, worms and flies, while the other, herbicide, is designed to kill specific forms of plant life, like those unwanted plants we call weeds. You might also use fungicide on your plants which is for... well... you get the idea. While people have all sorts of unsupported ideas and fanciful theories about the effects of certain chemicals on human health, those in agriculture who handle and use all types of chemicals, treat pesticides with a much different protocol than most herbicides. Pesticides present a very different level of risk than do most herbicides.

My concern is that urban dwellers and those who govern them tend to confuse their terms when engaging in passionate but ill-informed tirades respecting what their neighbours are putting on their lawns. The Maclean's editorial staff suggested that a pesticide ban resulted in weeds: that is not likely. An herbicide ban might result in more weeds. A pesticide ban would result in more pests... and, perhaps, certain plant damage caused by those pests. The results of an herbicide ban are very different from those of a pesticide ban. If governments are going to make policies respecting the use of such chemicals, it would do us all well if the politicians and bureaucrats who make the policies, and the journalists and commentators who inform the public debate would all spend five minutes with a dictionary to ensure they understand the most basic information necessary to develop an informed policy. For the weed-worried Maclean's editorial staff, I'm not sure a pesticide ban should cause them such concern. But an herbicide ban... that's something to be feared from their weed-weary perch.

Aside from ensuring no-one suffers an ill-informed restriction on that sack of Weed-N'-Feed in the garage, this particular editorial is, perhaps, indicative of the level of misinformation that informs most public debates. When the editorial board of Canada's most notable weekly can't get the basic meaning of two words correct, where does that leave us on more important issues? Do we really know what we're talking about?

The Paper Chase: When Less is More

I'm a little confused. Or perhaps, perplexed. I thought the world had changed significantly since June 30th, 1975. For starters, I wasn't born yet. But that year saw The Thrilla in Manilla, the first episode of Saturday Night Live, and, perhaps the first ever "school shooting" committed by a young man named Robert Poulin in Ottawa. It's 2012, and we still have professional fighting (although a little more violent), we're still watching Saturday Night Live (although it's a little tired), and, unfortunately, that school shooting wasn't the last we'd see in our lifetimes.

In the deeper annals of history, rest the thoughts and words of a man named George Pake, head of a Xerox research facility in Palo Alto, California. A 1975 Business Week article entitled The Office of the Future, cited Pake's vision as follows:

Pake says that in 1995 his office will be completely different; there will be a TV-display terminal with keyboard sitting on his desk. "I'll be able to call up documents from my files on the screen, or by pressing a button," he says. "I can get my mail or any messages. I don't know how much hard copy [printed paper] I'll want in this world."

It seems that Pake was onto something. While not all of us had a fully functioning network terminal at our fingertips in 1995, we were all using localized systems for word processing, accounting and maybe even a little electronic communication (what ever happened to ICQ?). Today, as I sit at my desk with my keyboard, in front of my TV-display terminal, calling-up documents on my screen, I think to myself, "I'm not sure how much of this paper I want in my world." Yet, here it is, choking me and my shiny TV-display on all sides. Reams and stacks of hapless tree-guts. Colourful folders ripe with file opening sheets, conflict searches, invoices, letter copies, and faxes: it’s all here in its fibrous glory. When will the needless killing stop?

This came to mind recently when a colleague forwarded a copy of some presentation notes he received respecting the ease of going paperless: it was a five page paper hand-out. At a hundred hand-outs for the session, you’ve got one standard package of bleached white paper. It was like David Suzuki drove to a tar sands protest in a Hummer with the doors off and the air conditioner running. Was the handout intentionally comic, or just a tragic commentary on the unending and painfully mythical quest for the paperless office?

Most statistics suggest that the per-capita consumption of paper, at a minimum, doubled between the early 1980’s and the early 2000’s. Statistics Canada found that per-capita consumption of paper by Canadians rose 93.6 percent between ’83 and ’93. This, despite that the adoption of digital technology and digital communication devices rose rapidly at the same time, such that virtually all workplaces were connected to the internet by 2003 when our paper usage reached is highest. I suspect paper consumption is positively correlated with declarations from career managers that the office is "going paperless", and I feel those declarations are on a steady rise.

It seems most likely that Jerven's Paradox is at work when it comes to paper use. You see, the first step in the improvement of our office systems was to improve our production of paper documents, which led to an increase in demand for paper, which led to a subsequent increase in efficient supply of paper, which also benefited from new production technology, and which, altogether, led to a cheaper supply of paper. Apparently, when it's easy and cheap to use something, well, humans tend to use more of it, whether it’s good for us or not. Think Ryan Seacrest, or high-fructose corn syrup.

You see, making such grand paper-reduction declarations ensures you get a round of fancy technology and the latest gimmicks in the name of "efficiency" and "cost savings". Never mind the African children who we enslaved by warlords to extract the rare-earth elements required to power your mighty paper-replacement widget - you're doing it to save the planet, and to save your clients time and money.... except, of course, the money your office spent on your new widget, and the additional time you now spend on Facebook... and shopping for more widgets to improve your current widget. If you could just find the damn charger and a case that was actually practical you really would be able to go paperless... that is, if everyone else would cooperate. If all those other people would just committ to going paperless, you wouldn't have to worry about their need for hard copies and you really would be able to commit to going paperless. And management just isn't following through with a good system for electornic documents - if it was just easier to store them efficiently, peolple would do it - but it takes, like, 5 clicks at this stage. That's a lot of waisted time. And of course, you'd probably need a new widget, because, if you were fully paperless well… let's face it, this one just isn’t working out.

You know what, you should probably just cc your assistant with that email for now and get her to throw it on the file, becaue, well - you never know. Hell, just print it out now and write a little diary date on it - that'll just be easier.... for now… until management gets serious about committing to going paperless. Where was that hand-out on going paperless anyway?: It’s somewhere around here. You should really get a copy for management. Hey - Facebook alert!

My reply to Mr. Taint

Glenn Taint recently responded (September 30^th “Unworkable idea”) to my Sepetember 22^nd opinion in the Starphoenix, suggesting that apart from the political focus of my article, which was apparently “stupid”, I’m an “otherwise intelligent person”. I appreciate the commendation. I would return your approbation in the due course, but I harbour some concern respecting your interpretive read of my Opinion. At no point did I defend, support or offer comment on the viability of a parallel system that includes a CWB option. Mr. Taint closed by asking if I “support the interests of the majority of farmers”. I’m mildly confused by this proposition. In fact I tend to agree that it probably won’t work in the long run. I’m no economist, but the CWB, itself, says it’s not viable without a monopoly. Fair enough. My Opinion did not address the merits of either system, but the politics and methodology of the CWB vote and the Conservative’s subsequent reaction.

If you dial back the clock to 2007 following the barley plebiscite, the CWB sang a strangely similar tune when it declared, “Barley plebiscite meaningless with three options.” The CWB was none too happy with the result, and expectedly, it challenged the design and methodology of the plebiscite. And, perhaps, rightfully so. The inherent problem with plebiscites is that it’s nigh unto impossible to draft a clear, concise question devoid of bias, and, generally, the parties who design and conduct them—be it the Conservative government or the CWB—have no interest in making them so. We could generate plebiscites and interpret their results for the next ten years, and we’d continue to arrive at different conclusions. That is neither productive, nor helpful.

In this particular context, the Conservatives are choosing to put the matter to the ultimate plebiscite: the next general election. Producers on the prairies will then decide if this issue warrants enough consideration to turf their Conservative MPs. I suggested that the Conservative MPs have clearly reviewed this matter for some time and are comfortable that they will continue to enjoy the support of producers, despite the CWB plebiscite – otherwise they wouldn’t do it. You might consider why they continue to support supply management in the dairy industry dominated by producers in Quebec and Ontario? It’s probably not politically popular to alter those inherently anti-free-market systems in those regions the Conservatives hope to make gains. But on the prairies, I suspect the Conservatives enjoy sufficient support to move on the CWB.

Mr. Taint closed by asking if I “support the interests of the majority of farmers”. I will admit that in the fog of my political stupidity, I’m confused by his question. I’m not in the business of supporting farmers (except those to whom I provide professional services, whom I value dearly as clients), nor did I purport to represent farmers in any fashion. If he intended to ask whether my opinion coincides with the opinion of the majority of producers, I could better understand the question’s potential relevance. However, I never stated my opinion on the merits of the CWB. My Opinion was that, based on several considerations, I suspect the majority of producers actually concur with the Conservative government’s position on the CWB. I’m pretty sure that the Conservatives have thought this one through. But then again, I say some stupid things when it comes to politics. Perhaps Mr. Taint can advise us on the intelligent things one might say, respecting politics, to get one’s self elected to office.

Reply to my WB Op-Ed in the Starphoenix

Unworkable idea

 

By Glenn Tait, The StarPhoenixSeptember 30, 2011

I often wonder why when politics is involved otherwise intelligent people say such stupid things.
A recent example was the viewpoint, Savvy politics to end monopoly (SP, Sept. 22). Devin Dubois wrote that the federal government wants to simultaneously maintain a viable Canadian Wheat Board and take away its single desk authority.

Dubois supports the notion this is possible. Even former Conservative agriculture minister Chuck Strahl's own task force on the subject concluded the CWB could not continue if it was not a single-desk seller.

Dubois suspects that Stephen Harper and Gerry Ritz are right when they say that the majority of farm voters share their free-market ideology.

However, ending the CWB single desk was rarely, if ever, mentioned and was certainly not the lead point in the 2011 election campaign.

The promise of lower taxes and the end of the long gun registry - and perhaps the abundance of signs advertising Economic Stimulus spending - seem to be what carried the Conservatives here.
Farmer voters trusted that the fate of the CWB was in their own hands, as they know the Wheat Board Act requires a vote before any change to the single desk is made. When the question is solely on the CWB, farmers support the single desk by a 2: 1, 3: 1, or even 4: 1 ratio. In fact, pro-single desk candidates in the last CWB director elections were only a scant 31 votes from a clean sweep.
Is Dubois supporting the interests of the majority of farmers?

Glenn Tait Meota

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

Read more: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Unworkable+idea/5480743/story.html#ixzz1a28HH6Qj

The Voice (of a few) Farmers

The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) recently released the results of its plebiscite. While the results of the CWB plebiscite certainly warrant consideration, the results do not carry the weight that has been assigned to them by the CWB. Furthermore, the results to not accurately reflect the opinion of “the majority of farmers” that a number of media outlets have continued to report.

First, the plebiscite was designed and conducted by the CWB. The CWB is not a union, a trade association or a lobby group for farmers: it is a legislated marketing monopoly. It is not the voice of farmers, nor does it represent them in any legal or political sense beyond its legislated role as a grain marketer. The CWB’s primary concern is its own preservation. This was evident in the CWB’s broadly inclusive definition of eligible voters, that provided a vote to anyone who had made a delivery to the CWB in the preceding five years, and which included: “… as well as an actual producer, any person entitled, as landlord, vendor or mortgagee, to the grain grown by an actual producer or to any share therein.”

As an example, this definition includes one of my relatives. She lives in the city and has lived in the city for several decades.  She has a profession unrelated to farming. She inherited a quarter section of land from her family many years ago.  She leased it to a producer on a crop-share basis and, certainly, some deliveries to the CWB would have been made under her name. She was entitled to vote in the CWB plebiscite, despite that her livelihood is entirely unrelated to the production or marketing of wheat or barley.  Reason suggests that many of these small “producers” are the most likely to support the CWB, which, regardless of its economic merits, makes selling grain simple for those less inclined to involve themselves in the true business of agriculture. It is not likely coincidence that the CWB cast its net to include as many of these “producers” as possible.

Looking to the ballot, the CWB did not present a choice to voters that accurately reflects the government’s intended action on the CWB. The government intends to remove the CWB’s monopoly, but has committed to maintaining the CWB as a viable marketing agency for those who wish to use it.  The two options on the CWB ballot asked the voter if he wished to:

a) “maintain the ability to market all wheat (barley)… through the single desk system”; or

b) “remove the single desk marketing system and sell ALL WHEAT (barley) through an open market system” (my emphasis added).

The government’s proposal is to eliminate the single desk system, but to maintain the CWB as a marketing option.  The language on the ballot implies that there will be no CWB option if the farmer chooses to remove the single desk.  The language of the pro-CWB option is also worded in an affirmative fashion, asking voters if they wish to “maintain the ability to market…”  The current system is a legislated monopoly imposed on all wheat and barley producers in western Canada.  It is not a circumstance in which producers are “maintaining an ability” to market through the CWB. This language implies producers, in marketing through the CWB, are exercising choice. The idea of choice is entirely contrary to the legislated mandate of the CWB.  A more objective question would have simply asked whether the voter supports the single desk marketing system, or opposes the single desk marketing system.  No more words were required.

Furthermore, of the designated eligible voters, only 55% of eligible wheat producers, and 47% of eligible barley producers participated in the vote. In the case of barley “producers”, only 51% of those who voted favoured the single desk system: this is hardly a majority to begin with. Of the wheat “producers” who voted, roughly 62% favoured the single desk system.  However, since only 55%  and 47% of eligible voters participated, the 62% and 51% majorities in the plebiscite results actually reflect the opinions of roughly 34% and 24% of CWB defined “producers”, some of whom are not actively engaged in production or marketing of grain. This hardly resembles support from “the strong majority of farmers” the CWB continues to espouse. Arithmetic suggests it does not even resemble the opinion of a majority.

The CWB has attempted to cast the shadow of the overall voter participation rate of 56% as being “on par with the last three federal elections and higher than many municipal and provincial elections”.  In this effort, the CWB has attempted to suggest that its plebiscite results should carry the same weight as actual election results.  This represents a significant inflation of the CWB’s mandate.  Our electoral system is the very foundation of our democracy, and is comprised of a number of legally binding laws, rules, regulations and customs that have been designed and are monitored by trained professionals and have been honed and developed through more than a century of experience.  This CWB plebiscite has no legal effect: it was, without question, a “straw poll” that was designed, marketed and executed by the very organization that was relying on its results.

If you visit the CWB web page today, you will find that, contrary to its actual mandate, which is the effective marketing of wheat and barley, most of the CWB effort is directed toward conducting this plebiscite, helping to organize “farmer meetings”, circulating petitions in favour of its continuation, and generally, convincing voters, the general public and politicians that the CWB is necessary.  Self-preservation and self-promotion seems to have become the CWB’s raison d’etre.  How much money, and how many employee resources has the CWB dedicated to self-promotion and self-preservation?  Advertising, legal battles, organizing support and, now, conducting and marketing the results of its plebiscite.  It will have consumed millions of producers’ dollars.  When a government agencies primary focus becomes self-preservation, it deserves significant scrutiny. If the CWB was truly as effective and financially beneficial to producers as it purports to be, it would not be subject to its current scrutiny.

Every successful politician understands one thing, beyond all others: getting the vote. Certain media personalities and CWB supporters are now busy casting aspersions on the Minister of Agriculture, Gerry Ritz, and the Conservative government, that they are ignoring the will of farmers. Inherent in their aspersions is the assumption that the Conservative Party, a veritable campaign machine fueled by slow, consistent and measured gains over a number of years, is jeopardizing its core support in the heartland of modern Canadian conservatism. Please—don’t be naïve. The Conservatives campaigned on eliminating the CWB from the start, and their support only grew on the prairies, especially among rural farming communities. The Conservatives know their voters. Perhaps they know something the CWB refuses to recognize about that 60%-70% of eligible producers who either voted against the CWB monopoly, or refused to participate in the CWB’s plebiscite.

To suggest that the elimination of the CWB monopoly is some personal ideological crusade launched by Harper and Ritz, without the support of their western farm voters, is not rational.  If blind free-market ideology was at play, the worst offenders in Canadian agriculture are the dairy, poultry and egg industries, not the CWB.  Of course, it’s not advisable, from a political perspective, to turn your guns on those supply-managed industries when they enjoy tremendous support in southern Ontario and Quebec: a place the Conservatives wish to curry favour. Although free-market ideology may be informing the government’s decision to end the CWB monopoly (ideological perspective informs most government actions at some level), it’s an ideology that, from the government’s standpoint, the majority of its prairie farm voters share. Based on the CWB’s plebiscite results, and the Conservative’s election record, I suspect they’re right.