by SUSAN MANN
The $100 million cap on the Ontario business risk management program for agriculture could be put to the test this year as it takes effect for the first time.
Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Mark Wales says with the real drop in corn prices “everybody will be figuring out you won’t get what you were expecting based on the program design.”
The working groups for the participating commodities – grains and oilseeds, beef, pork, veal, sheep and horticulture – have to work out how payments to farmers will be pro-rated “if there’s not enough money, especially given there’s more than one pay-out period,” he says.
Wales says the challenge facing the working groups was likely the reason Oxford MPP Ernie Hardeman, the Progressive Conservative agriculture critic, asked at Queen’s Park earlier this week for the government to explain how it can tell farmers there’s no money for them yet increase agriculture and rural affairs ministries’ salaries and wages.
Hardeman says in a Nov. 4 press release that he was referring to a 2012 Liberal budget pledge to freeze public sector employee wages and salaries and to government figures that suggest the ministry will spend more on salaries and wages this year than it did last year.
Ontario agriculture ministry spokesman Mark Cripps says the cap was negotiated with the participating commodity groups. The agriculture ministry is very efficient and ensures “as much money as possible within our total budget allocation goes to the programs that support farmers.”
But he acknowledges that “maybe there’s some pressures with the cap this year.”
Cripps also says management salary ranges across the public sector have been frozen since 2009 and there has been no wage increase negotiated with other employees’ union representation. However, employees’ salaries can still move up through existing pay grids, “while staying within the overall compensation envelope,” he notes.
Hardeman based his assertion of an increase in wages and salaries on a comparison of the ministry’s actual 2012/13 expenditures of $86.2 million for salaries, wages and employee benefits to a 2013/14 estimate that the two ministries will spend nearly $92 million on the same categories, an increase of 6.7 per cent. (Agriculture, food and rural affairs became two ministries earlier this year but the ministries continue to share one administrative budget).
Cripps questions the fairness of comparing estimates to actual expenditures. He notes last year’s actual total expenditure for ministry salaries and benefits was $86.2 million – 6.2 per cent less than the fiscal year’s estimate.
“We fully expect that in 2013/14 we’ll again come in below the estimate,” Cripps says.
Actual expenditures will be known at the end of the government’s fiscal year, March 31, 2014. BF
Comments
Mr. Cripps is singing the goverment song to a T . If they don't in this day and age have the people and the equipment to project what the cost of the program and payouts are going to be then there should have been no payments for any commoditty until all figures and payments were figured out . Who is going to get pro rated and who clawed back ? It really seems Gov can't work with figures and always looks for excuses as to why the figures or projections don't match up . Does the Gas plant scandal come to mind !!
The negotiated cap line is a cop out . It is hard to negotiate when you are told take it or else and have one of your group not from a commoditty working on behalf of Gov and not farmers , maybe even sticking their nose where it does not belong . Then you have to wonder why farmers are not all enrolled in the program . It also would not be because 40% does not cut it . Give all of the Ag ministry and their leader 40% of their wages and see what happens .
Maybe it is time for an other audit but this time do the whole of Ag and not just Agricorp . It seems the audit of AgriCorp did not do much to get things fixed .
Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed
Just wanted to check in quickly - how many other provinces even have a risk management program?
1. Who are are nearest competitors and 2.what are their programs in comparison.
Answer ... 1. Mostly the U.S.
2. Bags of $$$$ for grain growers ...very little goes to U.S. livestock
Quebec has ASRA , other provinces have used adhoc programs .
The problem is that not only do we have to compete with other provinces programs but also other countries programs .
Alberta has a feedlot program, they claim it is all producer money. I am not sure that Manitoba needs a program, they have crop insurance and they get Agri-What is-the-next check; full and drought in the same year. RainyRiver had same flood , but mot a penny did they receive.Ontario has a drought not a penny was seen by most of us. (this is the because the province first has to declare your area a disaster, and pay out some cash. Our gov't was busy wasting our cash on other things. but that is a different topic)
The real problem with RMP, and always has been, is that RMP is an advance on the Provincial portion of AgriStability, which means that the worse the year, the less beneficial RMP is going to be.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The Agristability program was completely neutered when they reduced the coverage to 70%. So, almost zero chances of getting anything significant from it ever again.
Therefore, that literally makes RMP payments a cash cow or a cash pig or a cash SDRM. Simply ask some of your clients who enrolled in the livestock programs even though you probably advised them not to.
RMP was always a flawed program, and became not better, but just slightly less-worse when the AgriStability margin went down to 70%.
In addition, getting rid of ethanol mandates would do more for livestock farmers than RMP, even without the cross-compliance clawback, ever could.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The Livestock RMP has pushed prices higher than ethanol ever affected any thing . Record prices for stocker cattle and calves . Wait till they figure out they are not going to get a payment or will be clawed back .
Further OCHHP was not for any thing else other than Gov trying to buy votes and spend money because their programs were so disfunctional and now they want their money back . Big problem is you can't fix any thing with a gov that does not listen which means you can't fix stupid .
RMP was well on it's way to being what could have been a good program till some one got the bright idea that they could get all of the commoditties in the program and screwed it up . Grain Farmers should have their ass kicked all over the province for allowing others to come in and screw it up with no transparency of the numbers . All these livestock people want to try and hide their payments so that the US does not come after them which they will do .
US payments are for crops and not direct to livestock . We need to do the same here as well as having the same ethanol mandate .
G & O have always shown their numbers even in the days of MRI. In fact their numbers are easy to find on the Agricorp web site. Now try to find the same numbers for Livestock RMP or even for SDRM. Yep, everyone wants their share of the capped program but G & O are the only ones willing to be transparent.
You are so right Stephen,
The livestock industry would be so much better off without the ethanol mandate.Ethanol is killing the cow/calf sector, and has pretty much nailed the pork industry coffin closed.
I know there have been other factors , but ethanol sure has pushed the end along.
Kim Sytsma
The 100 million comes from taxpayers, SM farmers recieve price support from consumers. Who gets more? 100 million works out to less than $20 dollars per Ontario taxpayer considering that less than 50% of the population are taxpayers. On eggs alone we know that a dozen would cost at least $.75 less if the price was determined by the market. The population of Ontario is 13.5 million, so we will be conservative and say there are 3 million families of four on average. If a family used a dozen eggs per week, we would have $.75x3 million x 52 weeks per year, so over 100 million dollars of consumer price support per year for egg farmers only. I haven't even included chicken and dairy, those numbers would be horrifying. It couldn't possibly be more clear who gets by far, the most support. Why does the government see this as acceptable? Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
Only in Canada ( O-I-C )do you get the cheapest food in a developed country but have farmers complaining that we are paying too much for food .
O-I-C do you see farmers trying to tear down another commoditty because they are profitable .
O-I-C do you get farmers trying bring other farmers down to their level of yo-yo profit and loss income .
O-I-C do you have farmers who say "we can compete" when they are competing to be the lowest cost producer in a country with the most regulations , higher gas fuel and hydro , higher taxes , higher machinery and parts prices , higher crop chemical and animal medication prices , clothing car and electronic prices that are almost double what they are south of the border .
O-I-C can you have the cheapest food while still having tobacco and alchohol included in the gov survey numbers which is taxed to about make the price double to south of the border .
O-I-C can you have a proclaimed economist complain about the price of cheese on a pizza when the price of the pizza is not lower than the price of pizza south of the border .
O-I-C do you hear complaints of consolidation of a commoditty by another when their own is running down the same road with more people exiting their own than even thinking of getting in .
O-I-C can you have farmers who had a gov buy out program , ad hoc dollars and farm assistance programs complain about those who have not and get their dollars from the market place .
Fear not because only in Ontario can farm representation have policy on class 1 , 2 and 3 land for agriculture use only , but never say boo when Gov proposes to take 25,000 acres for wind turbines to produce greed energy that is not needed , wanted , unsustainable with out subsidies , will be paid to not produce and even sold at a loss or paid to be taken .
Can you say smart like fence post !!
I'm not sure you read your posting before you pushed "send" because you have made a fundamental error which renders your posting absurd.
You are claiming that the price of Canadian pizza is "not lower than the price of pizza south of the border", which is, thanks to the price gouging by Canadian dairy farmers, my point exactly.
In addition, there's a frozen pizza in my fridge at the moment which was made in Detroit, and which was sold to me as part of a local school's fundraiser. Therefore, it would appear that even with cheese priced at import levels, Canadian frozen pizza makers still have competitive obstacles - if they didn't, the school would have used Canadian frozen pizza, not US pizza.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
What is not needed is dairy poultry and egg quota for the same reasons you said about the windmills which are also not needed
The price of the pizza doesn't Matter the pizza in the us is slathered ib cheese and in canada you can't see the cheese
Post new comment