by SUSAN MANN
Ontario Agriculture Minister Carol Mitchell refused to sign a statement of principles for future Growing Forward programs issued today from the federal, provincial, territorial agriculture ministers meeting in New Brunswick.
In a written statement, Mitchell says Ontario farmers want the federal government to support the province’s risk management programs. The federal government said no.
“I did not sign on to this flawed agreement on future programs because Ontario farmers told me it would take us in the wrong direction and not provide our family farms what they need to continue to bring quality, locally grown foods to Ontario tables,” she says in her statement.
David Spencer, executive director of Mitchell’s office, says she didn’t sign the communiqué or the St. Andrews Statement of Principles, “which is where they go from here in terms of the next round.”
The minister will still work with the federal government and the other provinces to “put forward Ontario’s position on the need for greater flexibility,” he says. “We’re still going to be talking to them but the Statement of Principles that came out of the FPT (federal, provincial, territorial agriculture ministers’ meeting) and that the federal government is supporting is not one Ontario can support for now. That doesn’t mean we don’t continue to push.”
Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz didn’t mention Mitchell’s refusal to sign the statement during his comments at a press conference in St. Andrews by-the-Sea Friday morning.
Ritz told reporters ministers “set out a strong foundation for the next Growing Forward framework through the St. Andrews Statement.”
He called it a significant step in setting the right conditions for farmers and processors to grow their businesses and prosper in the years to come.
Ritz says the St. Andrews statement outlines the vision and direction to guide officials during the coming years as they work with industry on further discussions on Growing Forward 2. “The goal is to ensure that Growing Forward 2 builds on the best of the first Growing Forward while working to ensure an even stronger sector and more responsive programs into the future.”
To date more than 400 farm leaders and other value chain stakeholders have outlined their ideas on what should be in the next round of programs. The current Growing Forward programs expire in 2013. Ritz says based on agricultural industry input the statement reflects the need for:
• continued emphasis on innovation for competitiveness and sustainability;
• more work to reduce red tape, making the regulatory system more efficient while keeping Canada’s food and environment safe; and
• continued emphasis on global markets, easing barriers to trade and promoting the domestic market.
During a question period after his statement, Ritz says there’s “a growing recognition that some of the programs aren’t as bankable and predictable as farmers would like them.”
Mitchell says in her statement farmers and agri-food industry officials told her in a time when many farms and farm businesses are just starting to recover from losses, “we cannot cut support to programs like AgriStability as is being proposed by the federal government.”
Provincial farm leaders support Mitchell’s position. Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Bette Jean Crews says they support Mitchell in her decision to not sign the St. Andrews statement. “We’re behind her 100 per cent.”
The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario is also supporting her. President Henry Stevens says he congratulates Mitchell. “It shows that she was listening to her constituents and I was hoping that was exactly what she would do.”
Stevens adds he thinks every farm group in Ontario is behind Mitchell on this matter. It’s time someone stood up to the federal government. “They have to recognize that a one-size-fits-all program doesn’t work in Canada and we need regional flexibility.”
Stevens hopes the federal government will get the message that they’re not going to push Ontario around any more.
Joe Dama, National Farmers Union Ontario coordinator, couldn’t be reached for comment. BF
Comments
In an inadvertent way, Gerry Ritz just saved us from a greater disaster - by staying out of RMP it means that just the provincial portion of RMP premiums will become worthless when RMP is clawed back by AgriStability.
In addition, there's enough stupidity in this whole RMP thing for everybody to shoulder some blame - the clawback issue and non-refundability of RMP premiums in the event of a clawback, means that RMP will be, at best, a mediocre program, and at worst, something farmers would be better off avoiding completely, and it would all be just that much worse if the feds were to participate.
How can Ontario farm groups, and even our Provincial Ag Minister, be so completely obtuse about something so simple to figure out?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Does anyone have more info on the " proposed AgriStability cuts" Carol makes reference to?
AgriStability currently is simply "mini CAIS" with all its faults and now they want to make it even worse. Perhaps they could then rename it "Micro CAIS"
Fire the farm leaders fire the minister
and call for a complete no holds left management audit of OMAFRA agricorp and Farm products marketing commission
How can Stephen know that Ontario farm groups, and even our Provincial Ag Minister, be so completely obtuse about something so simple to figure out , but he wont give a list in public of solutions to FIX? Ontario farmers problems?
Is it not noticed when solutions are given, the solutions are belittled by some posters. but they never give something to work on to get results, only find fault ?
The gospel of farming needs has been preached. exposed
Easy - eliminating the rule that RMP is an advance on AgriStability would immediately change RMP from being a mediocre program, into an acceptable program.
RMP will never be a good program because of the reason Ritz won't support it - any support program based, even in part, on a cost-of-production basis, is eventually self-defeating in that the benefits get capitalized into asset values, as well as being seen as trade distorting by others.
The biggest trouble with any so-called "gospel of farming" is that it usually contradicts the "gospel" of economic truth.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Looks like OFa and GFO designed the progarm wrong?
Stephen you say it wont work but you dont say what kind or what program could work. Give a solution or simply say there is no Canadian farm soluton. Stepen if you have the solutons please state them, If you have cause why the farmers marriage to agriculure with solutions can not supply farmers needs , speakup as the wedding preacher says OR OR
Farmers would worship your name placing it for nomination for the Order of Canada and hall of Fame!
I've been asked to submit a guest column in the August edition of the Blyth-based "Rural Voice" - I've already submitted it, and it should answer all.
The premise is that farmers and government have both ignored basic economic and business sense for so long that nothing but dismantling everything and starting over again will suffice.
For example, the first thing people learn in business school, is to avoid going into things where there's only one buyer, and to avoid like the plague anything which is based on legislation, rather than economics - yet, pretty-much everything farmers like to invest in, (supply management, ethanol, pigeons, hog loops) violates either one, or the other, of these principles, and sometimes as in the case of wind and solar energy, both.
In any other sector but agriculture, RMP, as designed, would never have seen the light of day, firstly because of the claw-back flaw, and secondly. because anything based, even in part, on a cost-of-production formula, is self-defeating - yet the supposed best-and brightest in agriculture can't seem to see either flaw, and it scares me to death to think the people we elect to supposedly lead us, are so-completely unable to understand even the most basic accounting, economic, and/or business principles - yet, it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt during the P2/P2 fiasco that farm leaders are just that totally incapable.
Threfore, what farmers "need" more than anything, is a basic understanding of both economics and business - alas, apparently not in my lifetime!
As to what would work, scuttling both supply management and ethanol would be a good start (especially if one happened to be a hog farmer)
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Granted there are flaws in existing programs (so lobby to fix them as with P2/P2). However, if competitive support programs are bad for farmers because they get capitalized into assets as Mr. Thompson suggests, then why did he spend so much time in trying to correct the P2/P2 flaws in AIDA/CAIS, as well as, lobby hard for "Equity with the U.S. farmers"?
The bottom line is, as any economist will admit, it all comes down to keeping us competitive with other provinces and countries which continue to develop programs to give their producers a competitive advantage over us.
What you are saying is probably correct, but you are not the only MBA or what ever in Ontario Canada. All these educated people in government omafra,lawyers, accountants , FARM ORGANIZATION STAFF of Ontario. Something doesnt add up with all these educated people running things that they would allow agriculture to exist like this. Or was it that if farmers were so dumb and foolish that the others and powers allowed it and the rest prospered? Were was the ethics of all these leading people
The powerful educated people will never admit or agree to your thinking on resulting change for farmers of agriculture. In your lifetime how are you going to get this change that is needed, protesting doesnt work, lobby doesnt work,
OFA Policy Advisory Council you are a member of so why are they and OFA board not listening to your ideas???????????????>?>?
The premise is that farmers and government have both ignored basic economic and business sense for so long that nothing but dismantling everything and starting over again will suffice.
Do you think agr-business , voting power politics will allow their own economic harm to better a class of people called farmers?
Using magic wont get support to make government change, past farm leader sinners will resist admitting whatever,
WHAT IS YOUR WEDGE factor that will cause or force enough people to get on side TO START CHANGE?
Hi
You may be right that a complete "re-setting" of the playing field in rural Ontario (and Canada) is required to base agriculture on sound economic (read: a truly free market) prinicples.
However, such an event is highly unlikely unless the entire country found itself on the the brink of economic collapse.
By way of example, it happened in New Zealand and those few farmers who emerged on the other side are sharp businessmen. But their frame of mind is substantially different, and it is hardly based on true free market principles. They work together on a global level. You cannot ship milk in New Zealand unless you own shares in a processor (supply control through a different means than our own supply management, but supply control none the less.) Their local prices are comparable to ours, but their export prices are ready to cut the legs out from anyone. Necessity (economic collapse) forced a new way of thinking there.
In Canada, we are not really on the brink of such a disaster, making a re-set a very remote possibility. Instead, we will continue to build onto the existing framework, augmenting where we can. In the long, we may find that we have built our house on stone and it will stand the test of time, or we may find that we have built it on a house of sand and collapse.
Regarding subscription to RMP, yes, the flaws identified are matters that must be dealt with - the claw back being more critical than the advance treatment in my opinion. However, the continued high price of grains is definitely a factor in their decision-making. Let's not forget that US ethanol policy is the key driver there and ending it would drastically change the landscape again, makign RMP much more attractive to producers.
In conclusion, what you are advocating for is simply not realistic given the actual conditions that exist. Safety nets will continue to exist and be needed (even if flawed) until either broad economic collapse occurs, or all jurisdictions agree to reduce support to agriculture... and accept that it will drive food prices higher and broad discontent higher.
What you say is true Rmp has flaws
What is you backup plan?
It is not hard to say "no deal" to a federal deal that is no deal. It is simply the moves of the political game to save ones assets down the road and blame the Conservative feds.
It is hard to fathom the exception to the rules for Quebec and ASRA but it is unlikely Ont will ever be allowed to have exceptions or a made in Ont. program like Quebec.
Maybe the effectiveness of farm programs and food security for the foreseeable future would be better measured by farm debit as a measure of sustainability for food sovereignty. Many businesses are measured by retained earnings ... novel idea!
McGinty has had 4 years to get a made in Ont. program first promised by Leona and as his tenure closes he has failed agriculture and rural Ont.
Now starts the blame game just like the Liberal feds did after 14 years of failure. We can only hope McGintys just reward is the same near annihilation the Lib feds got.
Mitchell will not support the new ag support programs by throwing 'down the gauntlet'.
RMP is a advance on AgriStability. The province pitches in 40% and charges us a fee to be part of a program that is clawed back in the federal program.
How does the minister think that a program with 100% claw back is a good program for farmers? That program is good for the government because it captures production, marketing fees and ensures Premise ID.
The minister is totally misguided in her assessment of the fatally flawed RMP program.
misguided by chance or DESIGN ???
I sent the following e-mail to Agricorp on June 29 -
"Are RMP premiums refunded either in part, or in entirety, to the farmer when, in any given year, a farmer's RMP benefits are clawed back, either in part, or in entirety, by AgriStability?"
No question could possibly be simpler - yet the answer I got speed-wobbled all over the place, boasted about how the 2011 premium is free, and advised me that when the 2012 year is finished, then they'd review things.
Therefore, they never did answer my question, and it's obviously because they already more than knew the clawback issue was entirely in their favour, and they were deliberately trying to avoid telling me the truth.
I responded by telling them they didn't answer the question at all, and pointed out that if the 2012 premium was to be refunded, for any reason at all, they would have fallen all over themselves to boast about it - but they didn't.
I'm not going to say they're being sneaky, duplicitous, SOB's, but if somebody else was to say it, I wouldn't disagree.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
A grand design or simply devolution of intelligence?
The minister tried to explain she is looking to the future viability and bankability of farm programs.
I think we should be looking to the future of the new minister for agriculture.
What does the PC and NDP have to say about Ontario support programs?
There are about 30,000 grain growers and less than 6000 applied for RMP.
4/5 of grain farmers know what a bad program RMP is. What does the new ruling party (in Oct.) in Ontario have to say about RMP?
This Rmp could be the straw that breaks the back. Rmp idea started in 2002, Has RMP been messed up by our farm leaders and altered by govt. The program we have today that gets 5 or 6000 subscribers out of 30000 farmers, seems to show it is not popular
Sounds like it goes back to OFA and GFO being to agreeable to allow govt to water down the rmp.
Decades have gone by and still the farm problems are not solved by our "stable Funded" farm organizations. Logic would say there is no way this farm problem should not have been solved in 3 decades.
Logic would say we need change in how our farm organizations function with yearly and decade of bench marks thatforce accountability of farmleaders and staff.Your organization wages would depend on your record and RMP not rolled as benefits that get capitalized into asset values,
Post new comment