There are some interesting points to ponder in the recent war of words between agriculture minister Ralph Goodale and U.S. senator Kent Conrad.
First is the depressing fact that politicians like Conrad seem to thrive despite using blatantly untrue statements to whip up prejudice against foreigners and gain domestic votes.
It’s bad enough that Conrad rejects the legitimacy of Canada’s ban on imports of U.S. durum wheat. The presence of karnal bunt disease in U.S. durum is ample grounds for Canada to take protective measures. Nevertheless, honest people can disagree about the extent of measures needed to keep Canadian wheat free from the disease.
Read Also
Kochia has become a significant problem for Prairie farmers
As you travel through southern Saskatchewan and Alberta, particularly in areas challenged by dry growing conditions, the magnitude of the kochia problem is easy to see.
What was outrageous was Conrad’s threat to propose legislation banning all imports of Canadian beef and cattle because he claimed there is a risk of mad cow disease. Even Conrad himself later indicated he did not believe such a risk exists, but he felt justified in making the threat in retaliation for Canada’s action against karnal bunt.
A more interesting element in this controversy, however, was the way agriculture minister Goodale fought back. Goodale abandoned all pretense of diplomacy and publicly called Conrad a “dingbat.” Other terms included “grossly irresponsible” and “mindlessly anti-Canadian.”
It’s heartening to have an agriculture minister who will speak out forcefully when Canadian agriculture is slandered. And Goodale’s comments were certainly effective in bringing Conrad well-deserved ridicule.
At the same time, there is room to wonder if the attack might have been too harsh and personal for a federal minister to make in public.
Conrad did indeed act like a dingbat, as have various Canadian politicians on assorted occasions. But, among democracies, representatives of governments are expected to refrain from direct attacks on other nations’ politicians.
Canada has in the past shown extreme sensitivity at any perceived U.S. meddling in the Canadian political process. U.S. cabinet ministers have drawn criticism by simply expressing hope that Canada will remain a strong united country. How would Canadians feel if U.S. ministers publicly attacked individual MPs with terms like dingbat? Such foreign attacks could generate sympathy for the MPs.
But perhaps the most important point in this odd situation is how it was resolved – U.S. cattle producers’ groups went to Conrad and told him to back out of their business. He obediently promised not to carry out his threat against Canadian beef.
If producers in both countries understand each other, they can keep the politicians in line.
