by BETTER FARMING STAFF
Your vote on May 2 may not change much down on the farm, partly because federal parties are letting farm organizations do the thinking for them and focusing on safety nets and local food when they should be thinking globally and on a very large scale, according to researchers at the George Morris Centre. The Guelph-based agriculture sector independent think tank has published an analysis of federal party platforms on agriculture and food that finds federal parties are only advocating policies that support the status quo.
Al Mussell, a senior research associate at the centre and one of the authors of the report, said we face the challenge of feeding seven to nine billion people and “our federal politicians are talking about safety nets. That’s all they can agree on, safety nets and local food.”
He said we should be pulling out all the stops to supply growing world demand for food.
“We need to be talking about capacity,” he said. “How do we leverage our capacity in terms of technology, innovation, research and development?”
Mussell said we can help meet world demand by working together. “We need to increase output, increase efficiency, improve quality, improve coordination in our value chains, focus in more on some of the health attributes in some of the products we sell.” These are things talked about “around the margins,” in party platforms, he said, but not directly.
“There is clearly no intent to be provocative or rock the boat here,” Mussell said. “Here we are sitting with all this wide open space, all this water, all the things that we probably take for granted. We’re going to have this unprecedented opportunity and our politicians are talking safety nets . . . Let’s just think of ourselves as an agricultural nation for a moment. We’ve got a huge opportunity here.”
The authors of the report did identify a couple of policy “hits.” They include the Conservative Party’s proposal for a $50 million fund for the development and commercialization of local farm-based innovation and the Liberal Party’s $80 million Buy Local Fund. However, the authors said both policies would benefit from more detail “including specifics on the longer term goals, measures, and program criteria to determine if such initiatives would substantially alter the current national farm policy landscape.”
They also laud “similar positions advocated by the five parties on Environmental Farm Plans.” Commentary on international trade policy also got hit status, although they noted “slight differences in approach” and questioned “the effectiveness and focus on some issues.”
The authors – Bob Seguin, Janalee Sweetland, Kate Stiefelmeyer and Mussell – conclude that party platforms need to be improved. We should “expect far better,” the authors wrote, “with more proactive policies and electoral platforms which recognize the realities of the Canadian marketplace and do not just gloss over the ‘hot’ issues of the day.” BF
Comments
A perennial independent candidate running mostly on the "more rights for divorced fathers" platform, and who got slightly less than 300 votes in the last election, is being polled at getting about 1,500 votes this time around.
It's unlikely there are 1,200 more angry divorced men in this riding than during the last election. Therefore, could his increased polling numbers be due to the fact that during a recent all-candidates meeting sponsored by the Huron Federation of Agriculture, this candidate stated he was opposed to both RMP and supply management because they were "welfare"?
If his polling numbers translate into votes, and if in the next election he drops his divorce rhetoric and just sticks to his anti-RMP and anti-supply management platform, he might just be a serious contender, or enough of a contender to cause some serious credibility issues within the ag platforms of the major parties.
Or then again, he could end up with even fewer votes than he got in the last election - but his vastly-improved polling numbers, ostensibly because of his stance on one issue alone, is interesting to watch.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton, ON
Post new comment