While Ontario worries about drought and soil health, Ottawa shrugs
Thursday, May 2, 2013
At the same time that Ontario's environmental watchdog was citing the importance of research into soil health, the Harper government was pulling Canada out of the UN convention on drought, the only nation to do so
by BARRY WILSON
The contrast could hardly have been sharper.
The same week that a senior Ontario environmental watchdog issued a strong plea to protect and replenish Ontario farm soil, the federal government became the first United Nations country to pull out of a low-cost international study into the causes, impacts and solutions to drought and the spread of deserts.
The provincial report came after extensive public consultation. The federal decision (never formally announced) came after no public consultation and with no obvious recognition of the fact that Canada is a drought-prone country that is expected to become more vulnerable as climate change progresses.
In the 1930s, Prairie Canada suffered years of drought, vast tracts of land became barren and soil drifted away, leaving tens of thousands of farm families destitute.
In the decades since, soil conservation efforts have been a success – the devastated Palliser Triangle in the southern Prairies has been restored and Canada has lessons to teach the world.
This federal government apparently is not interested in passing on those lessons and trying to figure out how the spread of deserts in Africa and elsewhere, creating tens of millions of refugees that consume many millions of Canadian aid dollars, can be reversed.
But first, consider Ontario's recognition of the importance of productive soil as the foundation of the rural economy. At the end of March, provincial environmental commissioner Gord Miller issued a report that forcefully called for more investment in the health of Ontario farm soil.
The health of Ontario soils is the future of the province's agricultural, food and economic future, he said in a report outlining the results of a consultation with industry, scientists and consumers on the issue.
"The subject is too important to remain under the radar, as has long been the case," he wrote.
Miller cited Ontario Federation of Agriculture vice-president Don McCabe on the need for long-term research investment in soil health. "These research programs must be long term if they are to be worthwhile – they can't be the first target of every round of budget cuts."
Fast forward to the federal justification for pulling out of the United Nations convention on drought impact assessment and mitigation, which Canada and every other UN nation joined in the mid-1990s.
The justifier was none other than Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose base city of Calgary was devastated by the 1930s drought.
It was about the money, he said, because only 18 per cent of Canada's funding went to programming.
"The rest goes to various bureaucratic measures," he said in the House of Commons. "That is not an effective way to spend taxpayer money."
To be clear, Canada's contribution has been in the $300,000 annual range, chump change for a government that spends sums approaching $200 billion annually and many millions of dollars promoting itself.
It is a fallacious argument. This past summer, areas of Ontario felt the effects of drought and reduced production. Soil didn't drift, but farm productivity suffered.
The Ontario environmental commissioner says protecting the health of soil should be a priority.
The federal government seems to be saying that spending a relatively small amount of money on drought analysis, soil erosion and possible solutions is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Put your money on the Ontario environmental commissioner. BF
Barry Wilson is a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery specializing in agriculture.