Audit shows more investigation needed says farmer

by BETTER FARMING STAFF

“Maybe that’s all an auditor’s report can do is show the deficiencies, says Bruce Pearse of the 34-page report released by Ontario’s agriculture minister, Leona Dombrowsky, Tuesday. “But now, what’s the address?”

Pearse is a member of a province-wide group called Grassroots Farmers that, along with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and other farm groups, lobbied for an audit of the provincial agency. He says he spent about two hours studying the report after its public release and stresses that he thinks there’s value in its 17 recommendations.

They show “there was a real need for an audit,” he says.

But the recommendations all address future operations – “there’s nothing about getting things sorted out in the past.”

And when the agency’s own internal audit of its CAIS (Canadian Agriculture Income Stabilization) files reveals half required payment adjustments, that kind of batting average is just plain unsettling, he says. “I don’t think Wal-Mart or any other Fortune 500 company would want an audit report like that coming back and thinking that the department was working well.” Especially when the internal audit only involved one per cent of the CAIS files the agency handles, he notes.

This is one example Pearse uses to suggest that a more far-ranging investigation needs to take place, pointing out his group had initially wanted to see audits of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission. He says he wonders if it may be too convenient to blame Agricorp for its deficiencies “right off the bat,” suggesting these could be an offshoot of a systemic problem within the province’s agriculture infrastructure.

Dombrowsky, on the other hand, is upbeat about the report. She tells Better Farming that its recommendations will be “helpful and supportive as we go forward as in my ministry we have come to understand that we need to make some investments in new technology in Agricorp.”

“There are a lot of things that the auditor has identified in terms of areas that perhaps should get our attention,” she says. But the report highlights some positive aspects as well, she notes, pointing out that when it comes to processing applications for risk management programs, Agricorp spent about $230 less than the national average for processing a CAIS application.

“On its face, that suggests to me that from an administrative perspective, we’re doing not a bad job,” she says. “Particularly given the volume of applications that we’re dealing with compared to the applications that the federal government would be dealing with from other provinces.” She points out that Agricorp not only administers CAIS but several other programs. It’s “a great deal more than” what’s being administered by the federal government in other provinces, she notes.

So does that mean the province will keep Agricorp for now?

Dombrowsky declines to comment.

Nevertheless, she does note that she had asked the auditor general to compare Ontario’s delivery of risk management programs to those of other provinces. (In some provinces these are delivered directly by the federal government). No recommendations were made to adjust the method of delivery, she says.

“At this point in time I believe that the report that we have here would suggest to me that we’re getting good value for dollar at Agricorp,” she says.

Dombrowsky says she is inviting response from the Ontario agriculture community about the report. “There were a number of our partners in agriculture in Ontario who really did want to know if they were getting the best value for their dollar with Agricorp.”

Pearse says he is planning to respond.

Those interested in providing feedback can mail it to Dombrowsky at Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Public Archives Building, 77 Grenville St., 11th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1B3. BF

Related story:

Agricorp audit results released