by MATT MCINTOSH
With a provincial election scheduled for June, Grain Farmers of Ontario published five “smart growth” policy recommendations for provincial election candidates earlier this week. Ontario’s Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties, however, only partially support the five recommendations as laid out by the commodity organization.
In a May 14 press release, Grain Farmers of Ontario called for:
- An adequate level of funding (or a higher cap) for the business risk management program
- Investment in a specialized soybean refining facility in Southwestern Ontario
- The Processor Retention and Investment Attraction Program (PRIAP)
- A sustainable solution to pollinator health and a commitment to a national science-based approach
- And continued public research investments in longer-term issues facing Ontario farmers so that we may remain competitive with our larger acreage competitors
In response, Gabe De Roche, a member of the Liberal Party’s central campaigns media team, told Better Farming via email that Ontario’s Liberal party will continue supporting the Risk Management Program; the Liberals, he says, have continued to work with Grain Farmers of Ontario to implement a “redesigned program which includes . . . an industry-managed premium fund which offers access to support beyond the capped amount in years of need.”
Roche adds the Liberals invest $40 million annually to a food processing stream under the “Jobs and Prosperity Fund,” but does not say whether or not the party will support a soybean refining facility in southwestern Ontario. Similarly, no specific mention was made of the Processor Retention and Investment Attraction Program, which, as Grain Farmers of Ontario’s website explains, is a program proposed by the Alliance of Food Processors that will work to attract other businesses while providing capital for Ontario’s current food processing industry.
Roche also says the Liberal Party “understands the importance of research and innovation” to the success of Ontario’s agricultural sector. That understanding, he says, is shown through the renewal of a research partnership between the government the University of Guelph, and continued support for crop research stations across the province.
On the topic of pollinator health, Roche says the province supports and looks to the federal government, “the regulator of pesticides in Canada, to provide evidence-based direction on a national approach to neonicotinoid use.”
Ernie Hardeman, MPP for Oxford and the Progressive Conservative’s agriculture and food critic, says in a recent phone interview that his party also supports a risk management program, but does not agree with the idea of a system based around a funding cap. Instead, he says the Progressive Conservatives are in favour of a “dedicated fund” where a set amount of money is allocated every year and surpluses – accumulated when not all of the program’s funding is used- can be banked for subsequent years.
When it comes to funding a southwestern Ontario soybean processing facility and the Processor Retention and Investment Attraction Program, Hardeman says his party is apprehensive.
“We have concerns about giving to one business and not the other,” he says. “We want to help all businesses by eliminating red tape.”
For pollinator health and agricultural research, Hardeman says his party is committed to finding sustainable solutions that help Ontario farmers compete with larger competitors, and says the Progressive Conservatives support cooperating and working with other public and private partners.
John Vanthof, MPP for Timiskaming-Chochrane and the provincial New Democratic Party’s agricultural critic, did not respond to Better Farming’s request for an interview. BF
Comments
The 5 "smart growth"policy recommendations, money,more money,some more money,lot more money and of course a whole lot more money!
Yep...that's about what it adds up to.
I guess they can get right in line with all the public employees...welfare recipients and every one else that depends on the public purse.
There are more worthy recipients of government money than GFO...maybe they haven't heard that the Liberals have doubled our debt in their reign of power.
Time to ask for and expect less not more...and that's what we need...less government not more.
Is there a little irony in asking for less red tape and at the same time asking for more money?
We farmers seem to feel its the gov'ts mandate to solve our problems and on the other hand the gov't is the root of all our problems. If we truly think that we are "free enterprise" then should the public be paying too build a soybean refinery,ethanol and a mandate and higher RMP caps? I do know that most farm programs pay out the biggest percentage of funds to a very small number of producers who in turn use that money to expand or buy out there smaller competitors . Agri invest, like the program before it rewards the ones least needing the funds > I am nearing the end of my farming career and would rather see a larger percent of the "subsidy" funds go too young or beginning farmers as in good conscious should we be giving more monies too established farms with say $5-10 or more million in equity?As a whole with all our programs we have been a pretty fortunate group. Is a realistic cap on payments wrong? Do we want 1 farmer per township or maybe 1/2 dozen per county? And lastly any funds for any group is borrowed money from our kids as Provincial Gov't is essentially bankrupt. kg kimball
The government is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand they want agriculture to lead Ontario to the promised land, yet on the other they don't want to make the required investment as the E.U. and the U.S. do to get us there. There are two caps you refer to. The main program cap of $100million stifles the overall bankability of the original program design. However, I do agree with you that the cap for individual farmers has become way too high. In fact I suggest if true transparency of the program was involved there would be several hog and beef farmers who have scooped up well over a million per farm. Would also be interesting (embarrassing) to see the number of individual farms at a million plus per farm, it doesn't take too many of those to use up the $100 million does it? Don't expect too much help from the OFA or CFFO or NFU on the individual cap issue.
I should have made it clear I was speaking about individual farm caps ,not program caps . It may embarrass some of us some but I would not oppose having gov't farm payments be part of the public record same as the Sunshine list or EWG list in US were you can see a lot of farms got over $1 mil. US a yr. If you have had a 40 yr. farming career on a average scale it is pretty easy too get $1 mil. in gov't money as NISA alone was $20k a yr. and Agri Invest can now be $15k + any other programs , ad hoc payments ,ect. Just thinking out loud that maybe some of our supports which I appreciate is part of the reason land is in the 5 digits and rents are you know were. kg kimball
Ahh a realist or at least some one who can think a little too . Back in 05 and 06 when farmers were doing the rallies they were asking for $120.00 per acre . Many were even prepared to have a cap on that too . It was many times said that the average farm size was 500 acres . So 500 X $120 = $60,000.00 . Pay the tax on that and you have a reasonable living . The cap should not be what it is for many of these programs . It should be smaller . These programs are meant to help not give a whole new enterprise a life !
I am in favor of doing some thing for beggining farmers . As long as I get what I should have got TOO !!
Improve basis in Ontario by abolishing supply management, which will create more demand for grains in Ontario and Quebec. The increase in exports will boost economic activity across Canada, but especially Ontario and Quebec and will end the pathetic provincial trade disputes and imbalances. Raube Beuerman
Post new comment