by SUSAN MANN
The George Morris Centre’s announcement that it’s dissolving the organization later this year was greeted by a mixed reaction from Ontario’s farming community.
“They will be missed,” says Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Mark Wales. “They were an economic think-tank looking at agricultural issues in Ontario and that’s needed.”
But Barry Senft, Grain Farmers of Ontario CEO, has a different view than Wales about the centre’s relevance. The closure announcement “is not surprising. I predicted this a while back, especially when they started to peel out the educational component.”
In 2013, the centre completed the divesture of its farm management programs and spun off its Value Chain Management centre as an independent entity under the guidance of Martin Gooch.
Senft says the centre’s closure won’t leave a void in the agricultural industry. It was set up originally to be a think-tank and look at policy matters. But he says he believes a think tank must look at all sides of an issue. “In the last number of years, the centre clearly in my mind took more of a consultant type of approach to its existence and moved away from that think tank basis.”
The centre has moved away from the “think tank that raises issues on both sides of the equation,” he says, noting for example the centre took a single position on ethanol to outline the negative aspects instead of raising some of the benefits of an ethanol policy.
Funding difficulties led the centre in the direction of taking narrow views on issues, he says. “I think they just started to have to chase the dollar. There was some money set aside by George Morris but with returns on money not being as plentiful as it used to be, I think they needed then to start acting as purely a consultant.”
Wales says some of the issues the centre raised along with studies it released “were certainly controversial. But the only way that you look at issues and examine them and get to a better place is by actually doing that.” Wales says “hopefully there’s some continuation of that examination and that process of looking at issues in the future.”
In a June 19 press release, the centre says it will transfer its net assets as a gift to the University of Guelph’s Ontario Agricultural College (OAC) “in accordance with the wishes of the late George Morris.”
Ontario Agricultural College dean Rob Gordon says the gift will help support programs in the food, agriculture research economics department. “The plan is there is going to be a transition team established” made up of people from the centre’s board and the university. “Our role is going to be to identify what are the opportunities for the university to assume some of the activities that have been previously delivered by the George Morris Centre.”
The team will also be looking at “what we will do with those remaining assets as well. That will clearly be focused on making sure that we’re highlighting the legacy of George Morris,” he says.
It still has to be decided if the university will be hiring any of the centre’s staff, he notes.
Centre managing director John Scott says currently it’s business as usual. “It’s going to be a migration more than really a dissolving.” From now until the end of the year “we’ll kind of migrate over to OAC and that’s in accordance with the wishes of George Morris. It’s just a sensible direction to take.”
Asked why the centre is taking this step, Scott says there are a lot of organizations now that are doing the kind of work the centre was set up to do, such as the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute in Ottawa, Ivey School of Business at Western University in London, the Canada West Foundation and other organizations, whereas when centre was first set up almost 25 years ago it was the only one looking at agri-food policy. “It’s a much more crowded field.”
It’s difficult to keep a small centre going in that field without access “to a lot of resources,” he notes. The board looked at it and decided “this is the best way to go to preserve what George (Morris) wanted.”
Scott says they don’t know yet how much funding will be transferred to the university’s agricultural college. The transition team “will work through all of the details over the next several months.”
Al Mussell, centre senior research associate, says he found out about the centre’s upcoming closure Thursday at noon and doesn’t know yet what he will do. “My concern and hope is that we can retain some of the capacity of the centre in some form because it’s a loss of research capacity if the centre just dissolves and everybody goes their separate ways.”
Mussell, who has been with the centre for about 15 years, says “I think everybody here is still a little bit stunned. This is still very new to us. It’s disruptive, disturbing and distressing.”
For the past five to six years, the centre has had a tough go financially, he says. “It’s been a difficult situation. The research institute business is not an easy business.”
The centre’s 2013 annual report says that for the 2013 fiscal year the centre finished the year with $475,837 in expenses over revenues and for the 2012 fiscal year the expenses over revenues was $516,877.
The centre has been an integral part of the agri-food landscape and has made a significant contribution to the farming industry’s research and policy discussion over the past 15 years, the centre’s release says. “In returning to University of Guelph, the vision of the centre is going home, as it was domiciled with OAC for its first 10 years.” It became a separate organization 15 years ago.
The centre’s significance is it is independent, Mussell says, adding he intends to continue to get a lot of good work out during the next six months.
Morris, an Ontario beef farmer, cattle buyer and Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame member who died in 1999, founded the centre in 1990. It offers research, consulting and custom education to the private sector, government, producer groups and organizations that have a commercial interest in agriculture, food and related policies.
Bob Funk, chair of the centre’s board, says Morris bequeathed about $2 million to establish the centre. The money “was to sponsor research that was not funded by someone,” he notes. “It was intended to develop agricultural policy for the future.”
Wales says there are other think tanks in Canada but they don’t necessarily focus on Ontario issues and they don’t focus on agriculture. “There are plenty of economic think tanks out there that barely know that agriculture exists. The George Morris Centre was focused around Ontario agriculture and they sometimes took some contrary viewpoints on subjects, supply management being one of them.”
Former centre executive director Bob Seguin, who is now the director of Niagara Region’s economic development department, says the centre, which is a national group even though it did a lot of Ontario work, had “a number of financial and marketing challenges over the last several years and have been trying to address it.”
Seguin says the new management team and board have tried to find solutions “and have come to what they believe is the most appropriate solution given the financial outlook and the market outlook.”
The marketplace has changed, particularly there has been a decrease in the demand from both levels of government for outside economic analysis and research in agriculture, he explains. Also, there is more competition from other groups offering some of the same products as the centre does. “There is a different demand structure out there.”
The 2008/09 recession and the years after the recession “highlighted the amount of change and what that has meant to the financials for the centre,” he says.
Funk says since that time it has been more difficult “to get sponsorship for activities that were funded. It made it a little more difficult to keep a critical mass of business in the centre. It’s got to the point where we said this is better positioned with the university.”
Seguin says it wasn’t the centre’s financial difficulties that caused him to leave his executive director’s job there. “I had promised that three or four years would be my tenure.”
As for whether the centre’s closure will leave a hole in the agricultural industry across Canada and in Ontario, Seguin says other groups will try to “fulfill some of that (research work),” such as the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute and Western’s Ivey
School of Business. In addition, there are other, broader think tanks, such as the C.D. Howe Institute, Conference Board of Canada and the Fraser Institute that look at broader economic policy matters.
The centre’s lasting legacy is it raised “some different ideas” and provided educational products for the farm and food community along with different analysis and thinking on matters, he says. BF
Comments
The George Morris Centre, quite appropriately, pointed out that as long as ethanol was mandated and/or subsidized, it would be net-negative for jobs and economic activity - a basic economic truth welcomed by hog and livestock producers, but detested by the Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO)who, in turn, produced wretchedly one-sided studies by the boat-load in increasingly futile attempts to defend ethanol.
Therefore, for Barry Senft of the GFO to claim the George Morris Centre was one-sided about ethanol, is one of the most-blatant examples of "the pot calling the kettle black" agriculture has ever seen, and demonstrates the tremendous benefit the George Morris Centre provided by pointing out the "false half of half truths" proffered by organizations like the GFO.
I'm told that of the most-prized possessions of the George Morris Centre is a framed full page ad the GFO took out in a major daily newspaper denouncing the George Morris Centre for its position on ethanol - I'm also advised that an Ottawa-based think tank noted, at the time, that anytime an organization like the GFO takes out a full-page ad to claim its innocence, "it's guilty as Hell" and congratulated the George Morris Centre for its work.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Apparently being a truly unbiased economic think tank does not pay the bills.
Looks like the GFO will have the last laugh on this one.
At the end of the day, the George Morris Centre (GMC) set an example for those of us who detest half-truths coming from vested interests.
With the exception of suppply management, no farm organization goes to greater lengths than GFO to promulgate half-truths - and the GMC skewered them all.
However, in one instance I beat the GMC to the punch - several years ago, GFO paid a consultant to produce a report claiming that since ethanol hadn't increased the adjusted basis for corn, then ethanol hadn't harmed livestock producers. I pointed out to GFO that if ethanol hadn't altered the adjusted basis for corn, then ethanol had been of no benefit to corn producers, meaning that corn producers had no reason to defend ethanol - this report promptly disappeared from sight, and GFO has never cited it again.
It is exactly this wasting of producer money on baised studies which offends me and the GMC. The GMC will be missed because organizations like GFO will now be able to produce even greater numbers of biased pro-ethanol "reports" with only people like me to point out the logic and methodology flaws.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The truth be told that GMC got in trouble when every report they did for a group was in favor of the group even when deemed wrong or with miss information . To many times they were not showing both sides of the issues and it got to the point where their groups who were paying the money for them to survive dried up . There should be a good lesson in this with other farm rep groups who also have never done the studies and ooked at both sides of an issue . They too will be short lived organizations once their gov legislated funding runs out .
GMC also looked to have a very select group of high priced members . This too is a real one sided way to have things squewed in favor of some . The high cost of some help any more comes to make things unaffordable .
Controversy is one thing , not looking at both sides of a sitation or policy and taking the route of fence sitting is even worse . It means you just pee'd in your own boot while some one was watching but will argue that you didn't .
Stephen, I couldn't agree more with you, well said....
Sean McGivern
Yep, Sky high prices for Beef and Pork and corn at half the price it was a few years back really makes it tough eh? In fact one pork producer told me corn is so low priced that he can't afford to grow it if it weren't that he had to grow it in order to comply with his nutrient management plan. Besides he had so much free N in his pits his only choice was to grow more corn to feed more hogs to make more money to buy more land to grow more corn to feed...well you get the picture. Then there is another pork/beef producer who purchase two new livestock farms to grow more corn for the newly acquired livestock in the barns. Lots of shiny new equipment too. Yep times are tough.
A corn farmer with a ethanol mandate working a few weeks a year complains about livestock guys that struggle hard for every dollar they get.If Beef and Pork is so great then you should be buying-building barns as beef and pork has no quota,open markets and all you need is some ambition to make the BIG BUCKS
Corn has no quota either, open markets also, except competing against "corn dumping subsidies" from USA. Meanwhile, Ontario Pork and Beef get tons of camouflaged non transparent subsidies that U.S. livestock don't get.
Livestock fought the corn countervail now they don't want anything else that might increase their feed cost even a few pennies with ddgs as a side benefit.
Remember 2006 when corn farmers asked for a $125 an acre "emergency payment" and received gov't monies and I was at a meeting were corn reps said "After we get our money if there is anything left over then the livestock guys can have some" . All livestock guys growing corn got O on grains fed and had soy meal-prepared feed purchased deducted from any grain sales payment subsidies . Why would corn growers want to slap there best customer in the face? You do realize ethanol is just a temporary fuel and is not going to be used long term as an energy source
If I recall back in 06 most livestock organizations were still extremely paranoid and right so about countervail and dumping charges against Ontario livestock exports because of subsidies . Seems they have an extremely short memory as verified but Ritz who claims RMP payments (to exported livestock) are deemed to be most likely countervailable (even though those subsidies and others are currently well camouflaged). Why countervailable? because they tend to increase export market share against unsubsidized U.S. livestock. Furthermore, some GMC people were never shy about suggesting Ontario corn growers should sell Ontario corn at an adjusted price below the Michigan price to facilitate livestock exports. In short, they wanted Ontario corn growers to subsidized the livestock export freight to the U.S. at Ontario corn growers expense. In the same breath, they admitted (rather reluctantly and quietly if pushed) that Ontario corn growers should have pursued countervail and or that a MRI like program should be restarted. As for ethanol possibly being temporary, time will tell with these gas prices.
E85 engines would help counter the ever increasing mid east gas prices by allowing an individual to effectively take control of the mid east price gougers. Switching to E85 when gasoline gets to be "stupid prices" and back to E10 when gas gets priced reasonable would make common sense.
I just bought a new gas-powered water pump to fill my sprayer - clearly marked on the engine was a sign warning against using this so-called E85 fuel.
I suggest it makes no sense whatsoever, at any price of gasoline, to ignore labels warning against the use of E85, even on brand-new engines.
And when it comes to "price gougers" I see absolutely no difference between the Arab oil-sheiks who control OPEC, and blue-eyed corn farmers who hide behind ethanol mandates in order to gouge their traditional customers.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
E85 can only be used in E85 or flex fuel engines. Furthermore, most new small engines such as Kawasaki say that "oxygenated" fuel such as 10% ethanol is fine to use. On the other hand, most small engines such as Kawasaki don't recommend methanol at more than 5%. As far as price gougers goes, when the GMC suggests corn growers should take a price less than Michigan farmers receive to facilitate (subsidize Ontario livestock) I would call that a form of gouging. Furthermore, for livestock groups to oppose the corn dumping countervail action is price gouging.
It's not gouging if Ontario corn farmers take a price less than Michigan farmers in order to facilitate Ontario livestock, it's simply good business and the GMC's suggestion is, therefore, entirely appropriate.
Ontario corn farmers don't seem to ever understand, or even want to understand, that giving a price break to livestock farmers increases sales and thereby prevents the Ontario/Michigan price spread from widening even further. And, after all, livestock feeding gravitates to those areas with the lowest corn prices - thereby generating more demand, and higher prices.
In addition, it is definitely not gouging when livestock producers oppose corn dumping countervail action - they are simply responding to price gouging by corn farmers who are hiding behind the countervail.
The fact of the matter is that subsidies and mandates for ethanol give corn farmers the ability to gouge their traditional customers - and that's the point the GMC has always tried to make, much to the disgust of corn farmers who simply can't handle the truth which is that they are the guilty parties in the ethanol farce/fiasco.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The simple fact remains. In an integrated export market, how does Ontario compete against USA Farm Bill Subsidy Policy dumping?
In order to have a chance of ever being competitive in any ballgame you have to have the same tools as your competitors. For the GMC to suggest that Ontario corn growers sell at a loss without the subsidy tools to do so is simply bogus policy, bad economics and receives a fail as a balanced position.
You're missing the point - any business person, except of course, Canadian corn, dairy, and poultry farmers, looks at the market and ask themselves - "Am I willing to produce for what the market is prepared to pay?"
The market simply doesn't care if anyone is selling at a loss - that's the producer's problem for having costs that are too high. In addition, subsidies simply increase, rather than mitigate, the so-called selling at a loss problem. And, as well, the easiest way to lower our costs of growing corn would be to get rid of supply management and their proclivity to drive land prices into the stratosphere.
Furthermore, you're missing the point that the George Morris Centre is simply following good economic policy, and good business policy, which is that if you find yourself in a position where you may not be covering your fixed costs, you sell at as slight a loss as you can, in order to avoid losing even more by losing your customers completely.
Therefore, it is Canadian corn farmers, who, by adhering to a "screw everybody" policy created by ethanol mandates and subsidies, and not the economists at the George Morris Centre, who are advocating bogus policy, bad economics, and un-balanced positions.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
"good business policy, which is that if you find yourself in a position where you may not be covering your fixed costs, you sell at as slight a loss as you can, in order to avoid losing even more by losing your customers completely." WOW now that is original eh, even if it isn't sustainable think-tank policy.
Get a grip Stephane, we as livestock farmers are doing just fine and dandy in expansionary mode bidding up farm prices to grow more corn to feed more livestock ....to make more $$$$ to buy more farms etc. etc. Last I checked our livestock prices were sky high and livestock subsidies were still rolling in.
As for the corn dumping and countervail, several livestock producers supported the countervail action and one well respected hog farmer in a farm leadership position admitted corn farmers should have won the corn countervail except that U.S. /Canada ag politics got in the way.
As well, he would definitely agree with you that current livestock subsidies may simply cause livestock prices to tank in the next few years getting us back into the livestock buyout programs once again. Unfortunately, his biggest fear before that happened was a livestock countervail action coming from the U.S.A.
That is bs no livestock producer is worried about countervail the only countervailable Canadian product in the agri business is sm product
Ask Ritz about good chance of livestock countervail because of livestock subsidies on exported livestock that aren't subsidized in the U.S.
In some areas livestock farmers (Pork and Beef mostly) are indeed bidding up land! Must be using all the old NISA plus Agri Invest plus Livestock RMP, plus Agristability plus high livestock prices to bid up the price of land.
The way it is and not twisted logic is that the GMC is no more . And that they did to themselves .
As people continue to eat less meat ( pork & beef ) we need to find other uses for corn . Guess we should be glad that chicken consumption is on the rise and the Small Flockers are trying to increase corn consumprion but chickens don't eat a whole lot before they are butcher size . So we should be glad for the SM meat chicken and egg market as it grows to be a larger part of the corn user along with higher gas prices and the use of ethanol as an alternative fuel .
We should not be glad for SM meat chicken production as a means of increasing corn usage, because supply management, by definition, restricts the amount of corn which would otherwise be sold - sorry, my anonymous friend, but your economics are entirely backwards.
In addition, as long as ethanol is subsidized and/or mandated, we should not be promoting it either because it restricts, by virtue of an artificially higher price, the amount of corn which would otherwise be sold to non-ethanol users.
Therefore, when it comes to having an understanding of basic economic principles, I'm sorry, but you are batting zero for two.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The USA was "guilty as Hell" in the corn countervail action, yet political decisions intervened to the allow the "dumping because of USA subsidies" to continue to this day much to the joy of Canadian livestock producers. The point is livestock producers don't care about a level playing field for corn producers, their job is to buy corn as cheap and as below cost of production as possible. Meanwhile, Canadian livestock producers have and continue to receive buckets of camouflaged subsidy payments which could be deemed as "dumping subsidies" subject to countervail.
Who can expect a think tank to be profitable if you're only given a penny for your thoughts?
Here is the full sunshine list. Name is followed by salary ranking in the organization, position, salary and benefits. These non-profit organizations are profit indeed. They create a small entity simply because they are dissatisfied with government salary, where the pay is fairly reasonable. And, then they ask grant from the government (tax-buyers money). And, then the big bosses decide their salary. Indeed source of income inequality and resource wastage.
Name Salary Ranking Position Salary Benefits
TRAVIS BANKS 11 Principal Investigator, Bioinformatics and Gene Technology $104,537.02 $9,425.26
JAMES BRANDLE 1 Chief Executive Officer $282,871.47 $55,410.28
MICHAEL BROWNBRIDGE 4 Research Chair, Discovery and Adaptation of Ornamentals $170,117.30 $15,235.00
RUMEN CONEV 9 Principal Investigator, Horticultural Crop Breeding $112,910.92 $9,905.41
LANA CULLEY 8 Business Development Officer $116,053.72 $10,283.04
BERNARD GOYETTE 7 Research Scientist, Post Harvest Science $116,751.36 $10,436.29
ISABELLE LESSCHAEVE 5 Research Chair, Sensory and Consumer Sciences $160,732.05 $13,795.61
GARY MOFFATT 6 Chief Operating Officer $153,832.45 $13,834.22
VALERIO PRIMOMO 10 Research Scientist, Vegetable Breeding $107,597.04 $9,591.53
DARYL SOMERS 2 Research Director, Department of Applied Genomics $172,023.47 $15,174.02
JOHN VAN DE VEGTE 3 Project Manager, Robotics and Automation $170,301.37 $15,451.72
I would say they are just trying to catch up with OPA , OPG , Hydro One , OMAFRA and a few others .
Top Guelph employer, George Morris Centre, is gone for good?
Post new comment