The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHuron Expositor, 2016-06-15, Page 44 Huron Expositor • Wednesday, June 15, 2016 I I I ilr www.seaforthhuronexpositor.com ikon Expositor PUBLISHED WEEKLY — EST. 1860 P.O. Box 69, 8 Main Street Seaforth Ontario NOK 1 WO phone: 519-527-0240 fax: 519-527-2858 www.seaforthhuronexpositor [p] POSTMEDIA NEIL CLIFFORD Advertising Director neil.clifford@sunmedia.ca SHAUN GREGORY Multimedia Journalist shaun.gregory@sunmedia.ca DIANNE MCGRATH Front Office seaforth.classifieds@sunmedia.ca NANCY DEGANS Media Sales Consultant ndegans@postmedia.com SUBSCRIPTION RATES 1 YEAR $50.00 (47.62+2.38 GST) 2 YEAR $95.00 (90.48+4.52 GST) SENIORS 60 WEEKS $50.00 (47.62+2.38 GST) 120 WEEKS $95.00 (90.48+4.52 GST) Publications Mail Agreement No. 40064683 RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 69 Seaforth ON NOK 1 WO For any non -deliveries or delivery concerns: phone: 519-527-0240 Advertising is accepted on condition that in the event of a typographical error, the advertising space occupied by the erroneous item, together with a reasonable allowance for signature, will not be charged, but the balance of the advertisement will be paid for at the applicable rate. In the event of a typographical error, advertising goods or services at a wrong price, goods or services may not be sold. Advertising is merely an offer to sell and may be withdrawn at any time. The Huron Expositor is not responsible for the loss or damage of unsolicited manuscripts, photos or other materials used for reproduction purposes. Seaforth Huron Expositor is a member of the National Newsmedia Council, which is an independent ethical organization established to deal with editorial concerns. For more information or to file a complaint go to www. mediacouncil.ca or call toll free 1-844-877-1163. We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Canadian Periodical Fund (CPF) for our publishing activities. Canada editorial Grits' bungling root of wind farm friction It's been almost 10 years since the first wind tur- bines began to sprout in rural Ontario, and at first they had few if any detrac- tors. Wind represented a clean future; Ontario would pattern itself after northern European countries like Denmark and generate elec- tricity in a benign and friendly fashion. What could possibly go wrong? Turns out a lot. Seven years after the Green Energy Act was introduced, and a decade after the first tur- bines were erected, the prov- ince's citizenry is in sharp disagreement over wind energy. A new Mainstreet/Postme- dia poll finds 43 per cent of the survey's 2,537 respond- ents have a positive view of wind energy, while 43 per cent have a negative view. Those who don't like wind energy are very much opposed, while those who like wind power "are only somewhat OK with it," according to Mainstreet's David Valentin. He says part of the reason for the weak support is rising electricity bills, as well as mishandling of contracts and reports of disputes involving wind energy developers. Indeed, the poll found more than 60 per cent of respondents believe wind energy has contributed to higher electricity bills, and 59 per cent expect charges will continue to climb over the next year. If there's good survey news for governing Liberals, it's greatest acceptance of wind energy in Ontario comes from Toronto, where most of the Liberals' political sup- port resides and where, per- haps not coincidentally, only one wind turbine is located. But the Liberals shouldn't have to depend on one part of Ontario's geography for political sup- port. Because it is clean, because it is benign, wind energy should be a unifying force. That it's become a source of division is mostly fault of the government, which has bungled the pro- ject from the start. That began with the Green Energy Act and its central- ized planning. All develop- ment decisions are still made in Toronto, but the projects are sited almost exclusively in rural Ontario, no matter the views of resi- dents and their elected municipal councils. That Soviet -style approach might have been grudgingly accepted had the GTA shared in the proximity of energy infrastructure. But when even a whiff of opposi- tion against natural gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville was detected, the Liberals quickly intervened and cancelled those projects. If there's any shared bur- den, it's rising electricity bills. Ontarians are reminded about green energy with every bill. But that's a unifying force that creates little comfort for the Liberals, and even less for Ontario's citizens. Peter Epp Bernier's milk stance well worth cryin' over Maxime Bernier is sticking with his principles, even if those principles would require dismantling an agri- cultural system that has mostly served Canadian pro- ducers and their consumers well. Bernier is a federal Con- servative leadership candi- date who does not agree with his party's support for Canada's supply -managed agriculture sector. He says he can't reconcile his free-mar- ket principles with supply management. He says the marketing board system for dairy, poultry and egg producers is "inefficient and funda- mentally unfair." He further calls it a "government cartel." Bernier is correct about supply management being unfair -- if he believes that, in contrast, the free market is always fair. He's also correct supply management operates as a cartel, a deal that seeks to control prices and exclude competition. But supply management can hardly be described as inefficient. The system matches supply with con- sumer demand, while giv- ing, in the case of milk production, Canadian dairy farmers the ability to earn an adequate income. In Ontario, milk prices are generally higher than in the U.S., but prices are stable, and quality and integrity of the product is assured by the marketing board. Supply management for milk was introduced into Ontario 45 years ago to provide stability for pro- ducers and consumers. The result has been an exceptionally strong and domestic diary industry. But its strength comes from its government -man- dated protection. Poten- tial fragility of that strength was revealed last September when the fed- eral government sug- gested Canada's unique system of managing dairy products was being used as a bargaining chip in negotiations for the Trans -Pacific Partnership trade deal. The revelation provoked uproar among farmers and consumers. No doubt Bernier wasn't part of that protest. And that's fine. And it's also fine to have principles. But he leaves no room for exceptions, and one would argue that our sup- ply management system is exceptional. Some countries have dis- mantled their protected milk industry, only to see supply overwhelmed with imports and domestic dairy destroyed or subsidized by government to stay afloat. In Canada, dairy production is supported entirely by consumers. It's interesting all main political parties continue to support supply man- agement. The system has earned that support because it's recognized as a practical solution to maintaining a domestic source of dairy products. Principles are fine, but economic ideas that work are better. Peter Epp SEAFORTH HURON EXPOSITOR — HOURS OF OPERATION MONDAY: 9:00 - 5:00 • TUESDAY: - CLOSED • WEDNESDAY: - 9:00 - 5:00 • THURSDAY: - 9:00 - 5:00 • FRIDAY: - 9:00 - 5:00 • SATURDAY & SUNDAY: - CLOSED ADVERTISING DEADLINE: FRIDAY AT 2:00 • PHONE 519-527-0240 • FAX: 519-527-2858 www.seaforthhuronexpositor.com