by SUSAN MANN
With the Ontario New Democratic Party saying today it won’t support the Liberal minority government’s budget, Ontario will be heading to the polls just as farmers are trying to finish planting.
Premier Kathleen Wynne announced this afternoon the election is on June 12.
Mark Wales, Ontario Federation of Agriculture president, says “it’s disappointing that we’re going to have an election campaign during planting time. We’re in a cold, late spring and that means it (the election) is going to be smack in that early to mid-June time period when farmers are going to be trying to wrap up planting.”
On Thursday, the Ontario government released a budget calling for $130.4 billion in spending. Farm leaders’ reaction to the budget was mixed while the Progressive Conservatives have said they will vote against it.
NDP agriculture critic John Vanthof says “we were incredibly disappointed with the budget” as it pertains to the agricultural industry.
Although Wynne, who is also the agriculture minister, challenged the agricultural sector last fall to double its growth rate and create 120,000 new jobs by 2020, Vanthof says she hasn’t given the industry any tools to meet that challenge. About the $40 million annually for the next 10 years for the food processing sector as part of the Jobs and Prosperity Fund announced in the budget, he says there were no details.
“We’ve given the premier the benefit of the doubt that as the premier of the province she had the ability to really move the sector forward and from our perspective she has completely failed on that,” he says.
Wynne says by email sent by her agriculture ministry spokesman, Mark Cripps, that by voting against the 2014 budget, the NDP and PCs are saying “no to the progress that has positioned Ontario’s agri-food sector for success.”
She adds that she is “disappointed both parties are indicating they will not support our budget. They are putting their own political interests ahead of the progress we are making to position our agri-food sector as one of the key drivers of our economy.”
Despite the inconvenient timing of the election for farmers, Wales says the federation is prepared. “We’re ready to go and we’ve prepared a lot of election material,” Wales says. “We’ve prepared a lot questions to go to all candidates in all ridings so we’re going to be talking to urban candidates as well.”
Wales says what the federation is looking for from the political parties includes: a commitment and plan to extend natural gas infrastructure to rural Ontario, improvements to the farm property tax system and funding for infrastructure in rural municipalities.
Increased funding for the risk management program is also high on the agenda.
That program needs to go back to being funded “based on program design,” he says. Currently there is a $100 million cap but the amount needed in any given year varies with “one year $100 million might be enough, while another year it might take $200 million and another year it might be $122 million,” he says. BF
Comments
About time too get the Liberals out, that being said Prov. gov't has been a lot kinder and generous with "cash too farmers" than our Federal Gov't -kg kimball
With all ag prices incredibly strong at the present time, I am not sure why increasing risk management funding would be "high on the agenda". Raube Beuerman
Quote: "With ALL ag prices incredibly strong at the present time,".
IF your focus is primarily on livestock prices , then you would be correct. However, for those who grow cheap corn below the current 2014 $5.16 RMP cost of production price, then I would suggest your vision of ag commodities is somewhat narrow. Furthermore, seems the 2013 $100million cap is going to limit the payout for 2013 corn growers insured at $5.62. Having said that, there still seems to be NO figures available for the RMP COP numbers for livestock either for any of the previous years or moving forward. Why the lack of transparency for livestock verses other commodities? Some suggest it is because livestock subsidy payments would be countervailed by the U.S. if they weren't hidden. This means the playing field is tilted in favour of Canadian Livestock exports.
If corn growers cared about a $5.16 RMP cost of production for corn, they wouldn't be falling all over themselves to offer $325 per acre to rent land in Central Huron to grow it.
Therefore, to those who are offering to pay $325 per acre to rent land to grow corn, corn prices are incredibly-strong at the present time.
The real problem, as always, isn't with RMP, it's farmers with too much testosterone in their wallets.
Even though the buses are going to be empty the next time supply management holds a rally in Ottawa, they're going to be just as empty the next time grain farmers hold one of theirs.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
It seems the resident economist ( self proclaimed at that ! ) does not know how things work in the real world .
A quick lesson is that a hog farmer buys/rents more land to grow more corn to feed more hogs to buy/rent more land to grow more corn to feed more hogs .....
And YES hog farmers are paying $325 and more in Huron to do just that .
The University of Guelph proclaimed me to be an economist when, in 1972, they granted me a degree in Agricultural Economics. As an economist, I have the obligation incumbent on every economist which is to point out the false half of half truth, and in modern-day agriculture, half-truths are the order of the day.
Therefore, I get incensed by people who, for example, claim supply management doesn't harm consumers and/or who claim (as did corn farmers) that ethanol doesn't adversely affect livestock feeders.
If hog farmers are paying $325 and more to rent land to grow corn, it's simply because that's what they have to pay to match the ethanol gravy train given to grains farmers and the 200% tariff-barrier gravy train given to supply managed farmers - why would anyone get on the bus to support any of them?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Since some are making so much of it, let's put the economist title in context.
Guelph Aggies will tell you that the Ag Econ program at Guelph was usually a place for people that couldn't pass the BScience programs required chemistry courses. Instead of going back home to the farm, they slipped into Ag Econ.
Many readers here went to Guelph and will remember how things work.
From the real economics faculty stream at that time at Guelph, the Ag Econ students only had to take four economics faculty courses - introductory micro and macroeconomics, and intermediate micro and macroeconomics. This is really just the basics of economics. Most could not handle the calculus of the required Math Econ course so they could substitute a much easier Ag Econ Linear Programming course. They then had to take five other fairly simple Ag Econ courses to become "economists".
A real major in economics from Guelph at the time required 16 specialized economics faculty courses - including at least four advanced 400- level courses. These graduates are economists and the others are Ag Econ grads.
All "economists" are obviously not created equal.
I encourage the many other Aggies out there to comment on or refute my points
It is my understanding that Mr. Thompson also has a Masters in Business from Western, which would most likely trump anything that any other poster on this site has, especially most anonymous posters. Raube Beuerman
Comment will be published if signed and resubmitted.
Why are you so quick to need to say someone here "trumps" others?
Since few of us need to try to impress others through our academic qualifications, you may be mistaken, Rube.
As a Guelph alumni, I found the Ag Econ comments were 100 % accurate.
I've been reading this site for a couple of years now, and his comments, by a country mile, make the most sense. That's why.
Some others are good, but its rare to see an anonymous post that makes much sense.
As for you, well, you can't even spell my name correctly.
Raube Beuerman
Comment will be published if signed and resubmitted.
Aggies and bad grammar seem to go together - unless you are two people, you are an alumnus, not one Guelph can be proud of, but an alumnus all the same.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
At the time, I qualified for an honours degree in ag economics, as well as a general degree in economics - I took, among other things, labour economics, intermediate macro and micro economics, money and banking, international trade, and probably others which, after close to 45 years, I simply can't recall.
Furthermore, even with the equivalent of a general degree in economics, I am able to call myself an economist. However, the jewel in the crown of the ag economics program was Ag Econ 400 - Agricultural Policy which, for many years, was taught by Professor T.K. Warley. That course alone was the equivalent of any four advanced economics courses anywhere else.
In addition, the poster has things completely backwards - in my day aggies went into crop science and/or animal science after they bombed out of ag economics, not the other way around - most bombed out of ag economics because they couldn't pass Calculus 101. I passed it when many others couldn't.
Furthermore, chemistry, soil science, animal science, and other so-called production courses were "bird courses" when compared to linear programming, statistics, managerial accounting, business finance, and whatever else the ag economics department and the mainstream economics department were offering.
The crux of the matter is that if you knew anything about the matter at hand, you wouldn't be afraid to identify yourself - but since economists are, by definition, never cowards, you are not just a coward, but you also simply don't know what you are talking about.
Penultimately, as pointed out in another posting, I also have an MBA from the University of Western Ontario - the economics courses taught there were completely complimentary to the ones I took at Guelph.
Therefore, it is completely incorrect to claim that all economists are not created equal - basic economic truth is universal, except, of course if you are an aggie who because you received an inferior education taking animal science, still believes that supply management and other forms of protectionism are good public policy.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I guess with the Great education issues people out there that has a list of credits to their name that they can stand on a pedestal and look down on the ones who had to work and could not afford to go to school for years. I think that I should not do any comments on the issues on BF website because I for one do not have that high education , so does that mean I should believe in everything that is said by an highly educated person is true and right I do not think so.
In the REAL World every thing does run on a text book ideas.
Economics is, if nothing else, real world common sense which can be understood by those with even the most-modest educational background.
Economics does have basic truths in the same way that physics has basic truths - yet farmers seem to delight in not just ignoring basic economic truths, but denying them. A classic example is the basic economic truth that systems which rely on tariffs for existence, such as supply management, are always net-negative for jobs and economic activity.
High education can also be bad education. My case in point is all of those anonymous aggies who use bad grammar to defend supply management, a wasted education on all counts.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
It is kind of funny to see you attack a poster for “bad grammar” when it is really bad diction. Diction - the choice of words.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
So then it is even funnier that your previous post uses complimentary when you the correct word would be complementary - “the economics courses taught there were completely complimentary” – unless the courses at Western were given or supplied free of charge. LOL Perhaps complimentary would have been a fair price.
Let he who is without errors cast the first stone.
I normally would ignore a simple diction error in a post given the quick and informal nature of forums, but since you set yourself up, I could not resist.
Yes indeed, the University of Guelph should NOT be proud.
Can degrees be recalled?
One of the risks about not being anonymous is being called on a mistake - mea culpa - but then, if you're so smart, why are you insisting on being an anonymous smart-ass?
However, the argument started when some anonymous twerp tried to cast aspersions on economists, claiming that I was "self-proclaimed" when, by definition, and by education, I definitely am not.
More to the point, even though I do make minor errors in spelling, I have never made any errors in economics on this site, and unlike 99% of the aggies, nebishes, and dweebs posting on this site, I'm at least not ashamed to sign my name to all of them and take my lumps when I must.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Does a signed letter makes it right , its all in the eyes of the beholder. Most of the people could not give a Rats A@@ about if the person write the letter signs their name unless they are trying to run for Office, its nice to read some comments what other people thinks and not have someone who signs their name and try to shove their ideas down their throat.
Signing your name adds creditability and adds some reasoning too why you think a certain way or that you are not just a jealous neighbour . One time long ago Agris Co-op had a chat forum and there was no sign in or registry , infighting took over ,people signed bogus names and made derogatory comments about others .It ended up that administration was spending so much time policing the site as it was not approved posting like here but whatever somebody typed showed up right away and then had to be removed. If name calling and unfounded accusations continue here I expect this site will get closed down . Must be very difficult for any farm organization too represent and bunch of infighting farmers who really wants no other farm sector to get more or be better than them too ask for Gov't support programs . Maybe its been too good in Ag. since 2007 as jealousy now reigns supreme. At least be nice to your Mother on her special day.Now should I sign this???
I think there is a few that sign their name is Jealous of the SM board ?
Our own anonymous arbiter of good grammar seems to be able to dish it out, but doesn't seem to be able to proof-read his/her own posting.
As a case in point, our anonymous grammarian wrote the following ......."your previous post uses complimentary when you the correct word would be complementary" which, is of course, gibberish unless the "when you" is deleted.
While my oversight may be funny, my observation that confusing alumnus and alumni is a horrifyingly-basic mistake, still stands - and is just as bad as when, like in the above posting, people write gibberish and post it before proof-reading it.
As an aside, I took the Ontario Institute of Agrologists to task a few years ago for producing a print ad which read something like "Our members are people that......."
Anyone who went to elementary school in the 1950's knows that the ad should have read ....."Our members are people who", but the dumbing down of even the association which tries to advance aggie professionalism, seems to be well underway, and effectively unstoppable.
What's worse is that the Agrologists stupidly tried to defend their choice of words, thereby guaranteeing that anyone who values good grammar would never willingly be a member of the Ontario Institute of Agrologists.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Confusing alumnus and alumni is a horrifyingly-basic mistake but confusing complementary and complimentary and mixing up grammar and diction are funny oversights? Really? Wow.
I think the real point was that we should stick to cogent arguments and not digress into picking at grammar, spelling and diction. Or constantly introducing new tangents and switching topics. Take the high road, even occasionally, you might like it.
Anne Onymous
Well, if they can, then I expect they will be recalling those degrees soon.
I wonder if they came with "complementary" frames?
Strange definition of economist you have there....
The Oxford Dictionary says...
economist, noun - An expert in economics.
Doesn't mention: never cowards......
Strange eh? Where did that come from?
And all economists are equal?
Milton Friedman, Karl Marx and John Maynard
Keynes all equal? Really? Want to reconsider that position?
I was at Guelph around 1970 and think you recalled it perfectly.
The first four Aggie terms featured four chemistry courses: Chem 100, Organic Chemistry and then two Biochemistry courses. Failures usually meant the option was to transfer into Ag Econ or head home to the farm early. It was nearly impossible to transfer the other way, I knew a few guys that tried but none that pulled it off. The introductory calculus (17-104) was actually pretty easy - basically a repeat of Grade 13 calculus.
Prof. Mike Jenkinson was undergraduate advisor at the time and I remember him saying that handling these transfers into Ag Econ was his most predictable task every semester.
Reality sucks sometimes, but that is the way it was in the 70s and 80s.
That was then, don't know about now.
Yep, most trickled into the program as a Plan B after tanking in too many required science courses.
I was there is the late 70s an early 80s.
It may help some egos to pretend Ag Econ was tough but most grads will know better.
I had two nephews at Guelph recently and they say this aspect has not changed.
Over the past dozen years, I have steered a number of prospective students away from Guelph because it seems to have lost its "brand"
I couldn't be happier that my son graduated last year in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo, rather than attend Guelph, for anything. Hey, people, this is 2014 - agriculture at Guelph is a weak brand, engineering at Waterloo is as strong a brand as there is, and getting stronger all the time. Furthermore, the OAC "old-boy" network is a joke when compared to the Waterloo engineering network - believe me.
The biggest problem with Guelph is regionalism and the lack of focus on important issues of the day - I, as an economist, am truly horrified that people seem to be able to graduate with a degree in Agriculture without ever having to take even the most basic accounting course, and without ever learning anything about the evils of protectionism - I consider that, in the environment in which modern agriculture functions, to be an inferior course of study, and a good part of the reason why primary agriculture, and the people who represent it, doesn't/don't command the respect it/they once did.
More to the point, several years ago, a University of Guelph/OAC alumni publication featured an article about several Animal Science grads of my generation who were "working to save supply management" - I was one of a number of people who objected to this article, pointing out that every U of G economics grad, and cetainly every ag economics grad, was, by definition, working just as hard to get supply management abolished because it was net-negative for jobs and economic activity.
As an aside, Guelph's most famous alumnus, John Kenneth Galbraith, once noted, in a Time magazine interview, that when he attended Guelph in the early 1930s, it was "not only the cheapest but probably the worst college in the English-speaking world". Galbraith later backtracked, but only slightly, claiming that he would allow that Arkansas A&M was no doubt worse, although there was some question whether English was spoken there.
For those "Aggies" on this site who've never heard of Galbraith, I rest my case about why, when it comes to "big-picture" economics, the OAC really hasn't changed much since Galbraith's day.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
You are ignoring the original point and trying to change the channel as usual.
You claimed your program was the top dog in 1970s and it has been said repeatedly by several posters that it was known widely as a weak program.
When anonymous posters offer opinions which are pure conjecture because they have no first-hand experience with the matter, their opinions can be, and should be, ignored.
It's like this - those posters who claim ag ec was a weak program in the 1970s are all anonymous, and obviously not ag ec grads.
What's the problem with people on this site anyways? Anonymous postings have, by defintion, no evidentiary value at all - therefore why does anyone pay any attention to them?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
What's in a name any way ? I am sure that many good thoughts and answers have come to be the right answers for many things from people whose name could not be remembered !
In todays society a number means more . A name means nothing these days unless your mother is calling for you . Some pof the best names are when a husband and wife are arguing . Most of the best meaningful names are the ones that an exwife calls out when calling the kettle black or a spade a spade !
It was the other way around - chemistry, of all types, was a snap compared to Calculus 101, the follow-up course to Calculus 100 which all aggies took. Calculus 101, a required course for Semester 3 Ag Ec students in the fall of 1969, reduced the size of Ag Ec/72, by 50%, as those who bombed it either went home, or went into Animal Science.
Furthermore, Jenkinson is wrong about who transferred in what direction - in the four years of my undergraduate life in the early 1970s, and during the three years in the late 1970s when I taught a 300 level course in the Ag Ec department, I was the only student I ever knew who late-transferred into Ag Ec, and I did it because I was horrified about what I wouldn't learn if I stayed in Animal Science. There were oodles of people who transferred from Ag Econ to Animal Science after failing Calculus 101, but absolutely nobody transferred to Ag Econ after failing BioChemistry - it simply didn't happen, and it couldn't happen because of the way the courses in Ag Economics were configured.
In addition, Jenkinson didn't have anything to do with late transfers into Ag Econ. I should know because I transferred into Ag Ec at the start of Semester 4, after taking, and passing, the first biochemistry course. I had to take extra make-up courses when I transferred, because courses, especially Calculus 101, I should have taken in Semester 3, and didn't because I was in Animal Science, were pre-requisites for stuff in Semester 4, and my transfer was completed, not by Jenkinson, but by Professor Phil Wright of the Ag Ec department. Jenkinson had absolutely nothing to do with getting failed Animal Science students into Ag Economics, but may have had a lot to do with getting failed Ag Ec students into Animal Science, especially the 50% of my class who, because of Calculus 101, got washed out of Ag Ec after semester 3.
Therefore with as little respect as I can muster, your version of "reality" at Guelph, especially in the 1970s, is completely-incorrect. Or, to look at it another way, I was a late transfer into Ag Ec, I graduated from Ag Ec, and I taught Ag Ec. - I think I know what I'm talking about.
I don't regret my decision to get out of Animal Science and into Ag Economics where I learned about the evils of protectionism, probably the most-important lesson almost every OAC grad outside of the Ag Ec department never learns, even today.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The rest of us simply must have gone to a different Guelph.
Indeed, the rest of you did go to a different Guelph, a Guelph where you obviously never learned the value of signing your name to your ideas - that's a "weenie" Guelph, a Guelph I detest, and rightly so.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Heres hoping that Tim and his team can win a majority . I have my signs ordered already .
Its funny how rural Ontario residents are always so Pro Conservative, i think one doesn't need to look to hard to see that almost all Ag funding programs have always come from Liberal governments yet some how the Conservatives are touted as the voice of rural Ontario. Any one with an ounce of political knowledge can quickly see that the PC's are the party of Big Business, which is working against farmers to hammer prices down and profit margins up for the multinationals not the farmers who do the lions share of the work and end up with the least.
I can also say that in the past I have voted Liberal, Green, PC and Independent so this isn't a show of support for any one party its just an honest observation.
Sean McGivern
Last election Industrial Wind Turbine opposition kicked the Liberals including the Ag ministers butt. With respect, I suggest that issue has not lessened, let alone gone away as the Liberals continue to rape rural ag land and "bully" rural municipalities and their voters. Over 5000 new wind turbines are on the Liberal agenda. You don't have to be a rock scientist to know how rural Ontarians are going to vote.
If we vote in the liberals again it will be a absolute embarrassment.That gas plant garbage cost us a fortune for years to come.That alone should give any government the big boot
Dennis Valenta has his name in the for the election in the riding of Huron-Bruce .
Go Dennis !
Post new comment