by SUSAN MANN
The heavy criticism being leveled against supply management by urban media outlets and others hasn’t shaken Premier and Agriculture Minister Kathleen Wynne’s solid support for the system.
“I have a lot of respect for the farmers who have built up the supply management system,” she said during a telephone interview with Better Farming Tuesday afternoon. “It is a very stable mechanism for agriculture and the supply managed sectors. I am and will continue to be a big supporter of supply management.”
Wynne was asked to comment on a number of matters in addition to her support for supply management, including the farm business registration review, AgriRecovery for flooded farmers in the Bradford Marsh and Chatham Kent areas, and criticisms that she doesn’t have enough time to devote to agriculture because of her other jobs – premier, intergovernmental affairs minister and MPP for Don Valley West in Toronto.
Recommendations as part of the farm business registration review will be out sometime in November, she says. “Feedback from the stakeholders is going to shape the final recommendations.”
Earlier this year, the province announced it would ask the federal government to launch a formal assessment under the AgriRecovery framework for vegetable farmers who lost crops after the Horlings Dyke in the Bradford Marsh broke twice this spring and flooded their fields. Wynne says the AgriRecovery assessment request does include the Chatham Kent area too. Fields in that area were flooded from excessive rain. “Production in those areas is very important to us so we want to make sure they get the support they need,” she says.
Wynne says ministry staff and officials with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada are working on the assessment and recommendations but she couldn’t say when an announcement would be made on what help the farmers will get.
In response to criticisms against her for not having the time to devote to the agricultural industry that it needs, Wynne says she took on the job of agriculture minister in addition to being premier because “I believed that it was so important that we raise the profile of agriculture and the agri-food sector in the province.”
Individual farmers, food processors and their organizations that she meets within Ontario are “very supportive of having that kind of profile,” she says. “They’re really keen on having any profile in this provincial government that will help the people of the province to understand that we see agri-food as a real driver of the economy.”
Wynne says naysayers need to look at how important the agricultural industry is to the provincial economy, and adds that when she became premier she said she would also be agriculture minister for one year. “My hope is by the time that year is up I’ll be able to demonstrate some of the changes we’ve made and the directions we’ve put in place that will allow the sector to grow.”
Asked how she juggles her various jobs along with being MPP for Don Valley West, Wynne says she works long days and “I work a lot of days.” She also tries to balance attending agricultural events with going to more general government functions. “I find that I can blend the issues. The fact is agriculture is an important part of what we do as an Ontario government and I don’t find that there’s a conflict there at all.”
As for opposition to the Liberals in rural Ontario because of wind farms, Wynne says she wants people to know her government has changed the process. There needs to be better consultations and work with communities at the start of a turbine project being introduced into an area. “We’re working to fix that now,” she says.
Despite Wynne’s support of supply management, challenges to the system continue. Sean McGivern, president of the Practical Farmers of Ontario, plans to dispute Chicken Farmers of Ontario’s authority by growing 2,000 pasture-raised broiler chickens without quota. Chicken Farmers only allows farmers to raise 300 birds annually without quota.
McGivern says he is acting on his own in this challenge and not as the president of Practical Farmers. He’s written to Chicken Farmers and told them of his plans.
“I don’t believe CFO (Chicken Farmers of Ontario) has the jurisdiction that they think they do and on paper that they say they do,” he says.
Practical Farmers and others have been trying to convince Chicken Farmers of Ontario to increase the number of birds farmers can raise annually without quota to 2,000. Chicken Farmers has refused.
Practical Farmers plans to appeal the limit with the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.
Michael Edmonds, Chicken Farmers director of communications and government relations, couldn’t be reached for comment. BF
Comments
Waiting for Wynn to make any measurable leadership change is much like the movie story.
So far her biggest accomplishment might be lowering the tax on wheelbarrow tires.
Making changes to future GEA does not heal or rectify errors and omissions already alienating rural Ont.
With the resumssion of Queens park Wynn's threats of an election might be a little suicidal for her political career if she is looking for rural Ont support.
Their are currently 68 "Not a Willing Host" municipal councils against wind turbines in Ontario and the list is increasing. That is the vast majority out of approximately 80 potential turbine communities. Municipalities have done their research and agree with the auditor general and U of Guelph economist Ross McKintrick . We simply don't need this type of intermittent, expensive, non dispatchable, non storable, community divisive power. The Liberals have just admitted we don't need the wind power by shutting them down at times, yet still paying 13.5 cents for the power plus we get charged for the many extra unnecessary grid upgrades.. Furthermore, contrary to Wynn's suggestion a wind turbine with needed gas backup does not result in significantly less C02 and will NOT make our already improved clean air, significantly cleaner for our children. Certainly begs the question then why build more?
It was in McKitrick's study that they could have out fitted the coal plants with scrubbers for $35 million and had almost the same air quality as their target with green energy . It might have actually been better since the gas palnts on idle and the emissions that going into the air to build wind turbines is not even factored in .
The first time any major political party states that supply management is a mill-stone that gouges consumers, and pits farmers against each other, they'll win every rural riding, even if they do support wind energy.
Wynne is missing a chance to connect with rural Ontario by continuing the political tradition of being a running-dog lackey of dairy and poultry farmers.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Watching the Comber-Tilbury wind farm construction the real issues may be a few years down the road when drainage work,roads or other infrastructure needs to be built or upgraded .I don't understand that when I drive on a road that has turbine transmission lines all you can get on a AM radio is bad static . Personally I would not want those turbine power lines running across my front yard or any wheres near where I had to reside . What is also noticeable is the farms that had high voltage towers put through them by Ontario hydro long ago and have had too farm around them and there right of ways have opted out of signing a wind lease . kg kimball
Perhaps part of the reason you don't see many turbines near the 500kv tower lines is that Hydro One currently recommends a 500m setback. Unfortunately, the MOE, the ERT and the OEB seem to turn a blind eye if the turbine company decides to ignore the recommendation. One could conclude public safety is not one of either the government or some companies stronger points. To further confuse the issue, at least one company Capital Power does adhere to the recommendation of 500m setback to the 500kv hydro towers. Not sure why any company would want to risk taking out a good portion of Ontario's grid and risk a province wide brown out but that is apparently what some companies want to risk with an out of control blade throw disintegration. A simple setback adherence by some ethical engineers would eliminate such a catastrophic event, even though the turbine power is not needed.
Minister Wynne, seems to be out of touch with rural Ontario, she seems to not realize that when she says she supports supply management, what she is saying is that she doesn't support the the vast majority of farmers the other 90% who are not supply managed, you can't love 2 master and serve them equally, its the perfect soap box speech for a lazy premier to make, its a lazy approach to resolving the really issues. So she has so far only been an Ag Minister of Photo Shoots, She has not delivered anything that will really help Ontario Farmers. The liberal's Local Food Act, is a waste of time if they don't cut the red tape and over regulation that is ruining local food production and value chain potential. We need a Premier and an Ag Minister who is focused on investing in the provinces food and farming sectors so that we as farmers can go forward and be successful. So far i haven't seen a single innovative solution come from her government.
The problem we have is that far to many farmers only complain to their friends and family, what they need to be doing is writing those complaints down and mailing them to there MP and MPP's and get involved in some of the various farm organizations and work to change these issues, as much as the government is to blame for the situation agriculture is in far more blame needs to be put back on to the farm community it self for not taking action to improve our plight. Take an organization like the Ontario Land Owners, when they feel they have been wronged, they make things happen and they get results by showing up and being active. I am glad i can be apart of that organization and the Practical farmers of Ontario, because these 2 organizations see the value in standing up for their rights.
Sean McGivern
Its not about winning. The feds are calling for a "consumer first" policy and naturally a few less informed people start screaming about SM.
If you want SM gone, then other products will lose protection. Some car models are $10,000.00+ cheaper south of the border.
Forget, cheese and milk savings. I buy very little of those items to make a difference, but I could have saved thousands if the car tariffs are lowered.
If you want farmers' SM to go, then you must say the same for auto SM.
Wynne knows that and this province will go the path of Greece.
It's all about the regressive effect of consumption taxes on the poorest group of consumers, as well as the pitting of farmer against farmer. Anyone with enough money to buy a car expensive enough to actually have a $10,000 price differential, just doesn't get the point.
Your argument is exactly like rich people lamenting they can't get good servants any more - and, if car tariffs were 200%, the way they are with dairy and poultry products, you might have a point, but you don't.
In addition, anyone who understands economics knows that supply management, and the high cost mentality associated with it, is leading us down the Greek path, not away from it.
Furthermore, everyone who subscribes to your convoluted logic, conveniently, and incorrectly, ignores the obvious point that nobody goes to the US to buy pork, beef, fruit, and vegetables.
Finally, it is truly tragic that farmers are so welded to protectionist nonsense, that they actually believe, as you seem to believe, supply management opponents are less-informed, and few in number, when it's actually the other way around. General Custer learned this lesson the hard way - supply management supporters seem fiercely-determined to repeat his mistake.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
A 25% tariff on a $30,000 vehicle has a greater negative impact on consumers than a 200% tariff on a $2.60 item.
You can bring milk and cheese over the border without duty to save 45 cents but you can't bring over a vehicle to save thousands without getting nailed at the border.
Get your priorities straight. A consumer is a consumer.
Economic disadvantage is measured in comparative terms - anything with a 200% tariff barrier is, by definition, more harmful to the economy, and to consumers, than something with a 25% tariff barrier, if for no other reason than the multiplier factor of jobs, and economic activity thwarted by the higher marginal tariff.
Sorry, but it's basic economics which isn't open to either discussion, or debate.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
You just dont get it. You keep claiming that SM is a tax against the disadvantaged. The disadvantaged that drink milk or eat cheese, and a great portion of this country do not eat cheese or drink milk, are paying 45 cents more because of a 200% tariff.
People that work and need a vehicle to go to work are disadvantaged because of a tax against vehicles. A 25% tax could be $10,000.00+.
A tax is a tax and it doesnt matter who is paying taxes on what consumer product. Taxes are a barrier.
If you want the dairy taxes removed then all tariffs must be removed.
Your arguments arent consistent.
lots of Canadians don't have cars, but they have to eat. In addition, out of what portion of thin air did you pull the belief that Canadians pay 25% more than Americans for cars, across the board? In addition, what poor consumer is going to pay $40,000 for a car?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
You quote tariff rates for dairy but cant be bothered to check tariff rates for vehicles. People that dont have access to publicly funded transit most likely need a car. So rural people need to buy cars that have a high tariff rate to protect the auto industry plus pay for the urban transit users. double wammy.
Every one eats but not everyone eats dairy. If you dont eat dairy, then your tariff quote is a worthless argument.
Right On . Look at the price of fuel or car parts here in Canada, or the hydro, where you read that they sell the hydro they don,t use here to other places like New York, at a big loss. I guess that's fair as farmers have nothing to do with gas. Guess the farmers or rural people can buy a bike and use it to get your parts and needs at the stores.
"The problem we have is that far to many farmers only complain to their friends and family"
I don't hear any of my family or friends complaining. They work hard and do the best they can. Many of them had really tough times in the pass.
Close to 42% of my income goes to some sort of taxation. I complain about that! Small wonder Ontario is losing business. Its too expensive to open shop here.
The Premier can be pretty confident with her commitment to Supply management simply because it is not an election issue with any of the 3 major Parties and never will be, however her changes in the Wind Turbine situation have yet to be seen.The GEA will always draw Urban votes,its kind of like out-of-sight-out-of-mind,anything but those dirty black evil coal-burning things!
The Premier does not understand how saying changes have been made to the process does not relate to changes for all of the new and recently approved projects . Gov was pushing these approvals through at an alarming rate this spring . If she wanted to show concrete changes she would have put a stop to any new project approvals . To think that consultation is going to make things any better for her and her party in the future is all out insanity . Consultation is nothing more than a fake we asked your opinion and your opinion matters thing . It does not relate to changes in the end result . Many times it is viewed as an insult to the rural people of this province . You can bet that the decision was made before the consultation process even started . Con sultations should take place first before any thing else happens . Many times it likely does but not with the people who are on the ground . It happens with our representatives that are looking for their gov. appiontment after life .
Put the wind turbines on the crown land up north if it is so good and does not harm any thing or in the cities where the power is needed .
We have to all realize for the Premier and her Party to back off on their commitment to Green Energy at this point would cost so much money it would make that 500+ Million lost on the Gas plant closures look like loose change!
l certainly know in our community the Energy company has spent a lot of money preparing for the go-ahead with the Turbines, they will not take no for answer at this point.l am sure many others are the same.
Do you really believe what you posted ?
It is not a fact of the gas plants scandle looking like loose change it is the fact of how bad an idea the whole GEA really is and how gov can not spend money properly and do most things under a sound financial umbrella .
If the companies spent money and now you are going to feel sorry for them you must be getting your income from them or from a gov cheque . Truth is that the irresponsible and lack of accountabilty of our gov is driving manufacturing out of this province and all we are going to be is a place for old people who the gov will keep with no income to keep them with .
Any business knows they are going to spend dollars before they even know if the business will even start . That does not success make for a business . They spent dollars because they knew they were going to get cushy easy dollars from the gov to rape the rate payer in this province better than any where else in the world because of poor leadership that they feed a snow job that gov bought .
Sorry dude but some times you just have to put the brakes on and say enough is enough . Turn off the tap and stop the wasting of tax payer dollars . Unless you work for a Windy !!
69 out of a potential 90 municipalities say "No Turbines"! And the list is growing daily. Wynne still doesn't get it.
See also: Skinner and Tim Martin throw turbines under the bus at: http://london.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1010369
The majority of farmers in the province are do not sell their products through a supply-management system. And supply management groups works against this the best interests of this majority in many ways.
It is high time that farmers and consumers who value marketing and purchasing freedoms and resent the detrimental effects of the S-M tyranny get together and do something about it.
With virtually every Politician in the Country supporting Supply Management and the majority of Canadians in full support of the Home-Grown food movement your "do something about it" is not only ill-advised its a waste of time and energy.
The non-supply sectors of this Country will never admit it but their Agr-industries have a history cycle of ups and downs,of making money in the good times and whining about SM in the bad! l have always found it tiresome and so predictable!
Wynne, her party, and every other major Canadian political party, are in denial about supply management, and local food, for that matter.
They studiously ignore 150 years of economic reality which dictates that tariff-based systems, such as supply management, are always net-negative for jobs and economic activity.
They studiously ignore the increasingly-obvious fact that supply management pits farmers against one-another, a fact made glaringly-obvious by the 68-13 resolution, passed at the 2013 Annual General Meeting of Ontario Pork, to urge government to place trade ahead of protectionism.
They studiously ignore the increasingly-obvious fact that supply management has created an aristocracy in the farm community, a fact made glaringly-obvious by the very existence of the Practical Farmers of Ontario
They studiously ignore the increasingly-obvious fact that supply management gouges consumers, a fact made glaringly-obvious when the Dairy Farmers of Ontario released data, in late 2010, which showed that Ontario consumers were paying almost 38% more for milk than US consumers, and that the Ontario farm-gate price of milk was within a few pennies per liter of the US retail price.
They studiously ignore the fact that, at the moment, nobody, regardless of financial ability, can get into either dairy farming, or egg farming, both because of artificial restrictions on the purchase of quota, which is an artificial entity itself.
They studiously ignore the fact that local-food is little more than thinly-disguised protectionism because it tries to thwart the basic economic principle of comparative advantage, and the trade benefits generated because of it.
The only thing predictable in Canadian agriculture at the moment, is the lengths to which the protected will go to justify their continued protection at the considerable expense of everyone else.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Post new comment