by SUSAN MANN
The agricultural industry was unjustly ignored in the provincial government’s 2016 budget brought down Feb. 25, says New Democratic Party agriculture critic John Vanthof.
“Overall this government talks a lot bigger game about agriculture than they actually deliver,” says Vanthof, the MPP for Temiskaming-Cochrane.
Vanthof questioned Premier Kathleen Wynne in the Legislature Monday about why the government didn’t raise the cap on the Ontario business risk management program as commodity groups have requested. The Ontario Agriculture Sustainability Coalition had asked the government to increase the $100 million annual cap by $25 million a year over three years starting with this year.
The risk management program is the “one program that will directly ensure the growth of jobs in the agri-food sector in Ontario,” Vanthof says. The premier has challenged the agri-food industry to create 120,000 new jobs by 2020. “If you want to create jobs in agriculture, you need a solid base and farmers are that base,” he notes. “Farmers have consistently told us, and told the premier, to take the cap of the risk management program.”
Vanthof says he’s also concerned about the cut to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) budget. It’s being chopped by $27 million, or three per cent, to $916 million from $943 million.
OMAFRA is running a “pretty bare bones ship,” he says. “There’s not a whole lot of fat out there. If you’re going to take $25-$30 million out of the budget, it’s going to hurt somewhere.”
And he’s disappointed the government chose to not continue offering the Local Food Fund. The three-year, $30 million program designed to support innovative local food projects wrapped up this year.
Vanthof says there were lots of press releases and photo opportunities when the Local Food Fund was announced three years ago. Usually governments will continue programs that are working and that have proven value, he notes. However, the Local Food Fund was discontinued because “the government is more interested in the show than in actually doing the work.”
He also didn’t see any additional money in the budget to extend production insurance to commodities that currently aren’t eligible for insurance under the program. Vanthof says the NDP fully supported the government’s passing of the Agriculture Insurance Act last year.
However, “to actually make this program have any benefit to farmers, there has to be some money put into it so you can actually insure other commodities,” he explains. BF
Comments
At least you can depend on John to not have his rose coloured glasses on unlike the two biggest general farm orgs . Sigh
Thanks Susan for getting John's comments . He is a true farm representative .
Mr. Vanthof forgets or does not realize that farmers are bad at allocating capital. He claims that more jobs will be created by raising the RMP cap, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Raising the cap will only lead to farmers willingness to pay for more rent, quota or land which does absolutely nothing for job creation.
If anything, raising the cap for RMP would create less jobs in the area since aspiring young farmers would face these higher costs and simply say 'f*** it', throw in the towel and move away.
Up and coming young farmers don't want to spend their lives working for large farmers for mediocre wages. They have better things to do.
Raube Beuerman
Mr Vanthof demonstrates that the NDP exists in order to give a neat, simple, socialist and mistaken voice to avowed protectionists and everyone else who does not understand basic economic principles or even human nature.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Raising the Cap is not the problem . How the program works and pays out is . Classic case of double dipping by livestock farmers getting money twice from the same program while shorting others who need the support . The total dollars are not near enough to make the program what it should be . If any thing there should be a limit to the amount that any one can get from the program . Should not be allowed to have multiple enterprises in the program .
An increase in funding would give young farmers the support and stability they need to access loans for starting a farming enterprise . Actually any one who takes ACC loans has to participate in certain gov support programs .
Older and established farmers use any support they get to bid up land and pay higher rent.
"An increase in funding would give young farmers the support and stability they need to access loans for starting a farming enterprise"
Land and rent would be far lower than it is today if many of these support programs would just go away.
How would the anonymous posters feel about an age restriction on any support programs? Maybe 30 years old and under.....
Given the average age of farmers today I bet that would stir the pot.
Why does an established farmer with significant equity need to use any sort of program at all?
Raube Beuerman
Glad you agree that the program and the CAP being raised is not the problem .
I am not sure setting an age limit of 30 and younger would help since many any more don't buy their first farm until they are done school which is about age 28 or so any more . Heck more and more parents complain about their kids not leaving home until they are 30 or more .
As far as why an established farmer with significant equity needs to use any sort of program at all is because farmers with the exception of SM & livestock compete in a global market with farmers from other countries who support their farmers with huge subsidies .
Of course I realize that no such thing would happen, I was just throwing it out there for the fun of it and to make a point.
Looking into the future I see a world gradually moving away from subsidies, although very slowly. Another wrench thrown into the mix is the chance that Trump may become president and is already talking protectionism measures. There is some hype behind this talk, but I think Trump is for trade in general, but FAIR trade-not dumping.
A lot of your so called "older and established farmers" that you and I might be concerned about have a few under age 30 sons and daughters that they are helping to outbid their neighbors. Now what? Perhaps have a strong look at how the individual program caps work or don't work? There are ways to plug the loopholes but no political will. IMO, the optics of the fact that anyone that is capped out at $1.2 million in all grain commodities, then also collect another $1.2 million per EACH livestock commodity is rather disgusting. The other issue is TRANSPARENTCY. All commodities should be required to reveal what is being paid out to each commodity. To date only a few RMP commodities do this. Why the lack of transparentcy? What are some trying to hide? Maybe cross border comparisons?
Why would some one come on here with common sense and reason .
You must be a real farmer !
Such garbage,such negativity, you probably would be one that says any raise in the Canadian child tax benefits would lead to more casino time for parents and extra money for cigarettes and beer... Of course on the other hand always claiming the poor poor consumer when it comes to dairy produce.
Exactly how do you think young farmers decades ago got their start at farming, by working for bigger farmers! Why do we somehow think nowadays young farmers should be given their startups on a sliver platter?
Take a pill there sunshine !
I don't know Raube but don't think he was advocating for silver platter start ups for young farmers . If he was I would be down his neck also .
I think what you are missing is the fact that some on here have a real hate for any thing SM ( which I agree with ) and OASC related . Likely because they are not participating in , supporting and benefiting from the programs .
The other thing is that some will say any thing to try and get some ones goat . Looks like yours has been gotten .
Just yesterday I had some one go off on me for asking questions about GLASI funding . Got told that farmers are getting so f*%#ing much money that they should not even question any thing . I think it was a case of family jealousy and not really knowing much about agriculture that set the person off . Seems the mindset is that 4 million dollars a year for three years is going to save Lake Erie from the big bad farmers who are polluting on purpose . The funny part is it is the same as before with no teeth to make sure those who get funding comply after three years .
Post new comment