Election 2015: The Tory grip on rural Ontario still looks solid

Sunday, October 4, 2015

Good economic times have encouraged a generally optimistic mood in the farm community and that may translate into continued support for the Conservatives. But opposition leaders and some farmers maintain that the Tories have taken rural Ontario for granted and that ag minister Gerry Ritz has been 'missing in action'

by BARRY WILSON

As politicians troop through rural Ontario looking to harvest seats during the longest federal election campaign in 143 years, they are campaigning for votes in agriculture-influenced rural constituencies that have had some good economic times in recent years. That could have an impact on results in a good chunk of Ontario seats that are the Conservatives to lose on Oct. 19.

It has led, according to economists, farm leaders and farmers, to a period of farmer optimism even though there are seeds of unease over volatile weather, weakening commodity prices, doubts about eroding protection for supply management and worries about urban agendas being imposed on rural rules.

But those are next-year country concerns. This year country has been generally positive in rural Ontario.

"You would have to go back to the 1990s to find a precedent for how well things have been going, particularly in the grains and oilseeds sector and by extension horticulture, but even in livestock recently," says Al Mussell, research lead at Guelph-based Agri-Food Economic Systems.

During the past four years since the last federal election, Ontario net cash farm income has not dropped below $2.2 billion after years of wild fluctuations over the previous decade. University of Guelph agricultural economist Alfons Weersink sees the same economic data and figures the result could be a positive attitude toward the government, despite some storm clouds and uncertainty.

"I think the general view will be positive and, after years of good results, whether the government can claim credit or not, I think some credit will be given," he said. "I think farmers are optimistic now and the long-term view of the sector is very positive. That rubs off on their neighbours and their political attitudes."

Elmwood beef producer Ken Schaus, 49, operator of Schaus Land and Cattle Co., reflects that optimism as he considers the state of his industry. "For the cattle industry, I don't have a lot of problem with how things are going," he says. "The government's work on country-of-origin labelling has been good for us. Trade deals have been good at opening markets."

Schaus is also a self-proclaimed supporter of supply management and credits the Conservative government with its strong backing for the system, despite pressures to undermine it. "In this neighbourhood, I see a lot of progressive dairy operators and they support local communities."

Owen Sound-area beef and cash crop farmer Sam Luckhardt worries about farm debt and is not as supportive of supply management, but agrees times have been good. "We've had some pretty good years," he says. "I don't think rural Ontario really should be at play in this election. Farmers really have little to complain about."

With the election campaign dragging on since early August, political promises have been flying, photo ops involving politicians in suits feeding cows, hugging cowgirls and smiling in grocery stores are rampant and political hopes of seat gains spring eternal. But are rural-influenced southern and eastern Ontario seats really in play?

Since 2004, rural southwest and eastern Ontario increasingly has become a Conservative fiefdom after a decade of Liberal dominance. It has delivered close to 40 seats that form a solid and predictable base for Conservative election planners.

Opposition politicians insist that rural Ontario is up for grabs. "The Tories have taken rural Ontario for granted," NDP leader Thomas Mulcair said in an interview as the campaign began. "They didn't work hard on rural issues. Those rural ridings are ripe for the picking."

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau campaigned early in southwest Ontario seats, aiming to reclaim seats the Liberals held a decade ago with promises of more aid and support for supply management.

"I really believe rural Ontario is up for grabs for a party with a good rural policy," says former Guelph Liberal MP and agriculture critic Frank Valeriote, who did not run for a third term. "I think some of the issues that hurt the Liberals like the gun registry issue are a diminishing echo and rural Ontario has broadened its appreciation of issues and jobs."

Defensive campaign
For his part, agriculture minister Gerry Ritz sees the election as a defensive campaign that is well within Conservative dreams. "We've gained in every election and we have all those seats in our sights," he said in an interview. "They are rural and agricultural seats we hold and we hope to continue to do so. They are ours to lose."

And he sees rural optimism after robust income years as a good sign for Conservative fortunes. "I've had the opportunity to travel through a lot of Ontario and deal with my provincial counterparts on a week-to-week and day-to-day basis. I would say the optimism is extremely strong and I think that reflects well on the policies we have put in place."

Still, veteran Conservatives like Larry Miller, four-time MP for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound and a former agriculture committee chair, are taking nothing for granted. He notes that almost a decade in power can lead some voters to consider change. "I think it will be a tough slog, even for myself, and I try to do a good job," he said.

Veteran London-area MP Bev Shipley (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex), chair of the House of Commons agriculture committee in the last Parliament, said he senses a change in farmer expectations of politics and politicians over the past decade of Conservative government.

"I believe there has been an industry attitude change," said Shipley. "They know they can compete. Now they want government to give them the same tools their competitors have. That ranges from technology and regulations to market access. That is what we offer."

So, after a decade of loyalty to the federal Conservative Party and a long history of rural support for conservative parties (provincial Liberal conservatives under Mitch Hepburn and Robert Nixon and conservative Conservatives under Mike Harris), is the great swath of southwest Ontario rural seats really up for grabs?

Elections Canada calculates that rural votes are a factor in 41 of the 121 seats in Ontario Oct. 19. "I hope rural Ontario is at play in this election," Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Don McCabe says. "I hope no party assumes any demographic will vote a certain way, no matter what.

That really is a formula for being taken for granted. I want parties to work for their rural votes."

Toronto-based public opinion analyst David Herle, a former rural Saskatchewan boy, doesn't think McCabe's hope will be realized. He sees rural Ontario as a Conservative bastion yet again.

Herle is principal partner in the Toronto-based Gandalf Group with expertise in public opinion research, a track record of crisis management in the food industry (he advised Maple Leaf Foods after the tainted meat listeria episode) and deep ties to the Liberal Party.

"I don't think rural Ontario seats are at play," Herle said in an interview. "It's largely a question of culture and I think you'll see the Conservatives concentrate on rural with a token campaign in urban and opposition parties the reverse.  For the Conservatives, it is a huge base to start from."

Safety nets reduced
Ailsa Craig farmer Steve Twynstra – chair of the Agricultural Credit Corporation and a third-generation farmer with 3,000 acres of crop and 1,500 acres custom-farmed – reflects an ambivalence about political choices available to Ontario farmers this time around.

In an interview on his London-area farm, he complained that, under the Conservatives, safety net supports have been reduced while American competitors continue to receive strong government support. Federal program costs have been downloaded to the province, Ottawa has refused to co-fund the provincial Risk Management Program and federal minister Ritz has, Twynstra feels, not been a strong Ontario presence.

"I think the Conservatives have taken rural Ontario for granted. I hate to say that, but it's true," he said. "I think Ritz has been very responsive to Western Canadian interests and he thinks supporting supply management is his eastern policy. In Ontario, Ritz has been missing in action."

He is critical of government cuts to research funding and research infrastructure. But then he begins to recount the federal policies that have helped. Up to 40 per cent of his production is exported. "The main critical issue I have is maintaining the trade focus and I give the Conservatives credit for that," he said.

Conservative government support for strengthened plant breeders' protections under UPOV 91 has been positive for his seed business, while increases in advance payment limits have helped. He appreciates government support for ethanol that has helped stabilize crop prices.

"I guess there isn't another party that recognizes that rural Ontario exists and what we do," said Twynstra. "So I don't see much change in rural Ontario this election, perhaps in more urban ridings." Then he gets to the election issues at play in rural Ontario this year. "Really, the biggest issues are provincial." In fact, many of the campaign issues are either "maybe" issues or provincial concerns.
Supply management and its fate under a proposed Trans-Pacific trade agreement likely won't be clear before the election. All parties are pledging support for the system, while the Conservatives are signalling that some changes may be necessary but the main pillars of the system will be preserved.

The Conservatives could be vulnerable on cuts to farm support programs agreed with the provinces in Growing Forward 2 but, since it took effect in 2013, farm incomes have generally been high enough to avoid triggering AgriStability or AgriInvest, both of which emerged from the federal-provincial negotiations with lower levels of support.

"I think the government dodged a bullet on that, because the program would have to kick in before farmers really saw what was lost and that won't happen before the election," said ag economist Weersink.

Ontario Liberals will be pressing the point that Ottawa has refused to contribute to the province's Risk Management Program and federal minister Ritz insists he won't back down on that issue. "At the provincial level, I understand there is still some support for the program but, at the federal level, farm groups tell me 'don't do it. It would be a flashpoint for countervail from the U.S.,'" he said. "So I think it is an unworkable program, completely countervailable, and I'm not about to get into that when we are winning the battle with the U.S. over country-of-origin labelling."

But many of the issues on rural minds in these election days have little to do with federal policy. "I would say the biggest issues around are provincial, not federal," said Larry Miller.

A hot-button agricultural topic throughout the province is provincial restrictions on use of neonicotinoids on crops because of complaints about their impact on bee health. "The biggest issue I hear from farmers is the neonic one and I have to remind them that it is provincial and it is the triumph of fear politics over science," said Miller.

Added Ritz: "The biggest concerns I heard in Ontario aren't federal at all. At the core is concern about the right to farm – city encroachment, bylaws at municipal levels about noise and fertilizing, smells. All these rules and regulations seem to be driven out of Toronto and federal can't deal with that."

However, Ritz said Ottawa can work with the province in promoting education programs to help farmers win the 'social license' of societal approval they need to continue to operate. "A big challenge we will be facing is education," he said "It's not necessarily federal, but certainly there is a role for us to play in financing some of these groups that are trying to get the message out. That is going to be key for the future." BF

Rural Ontario has long had an affinity for Conservative values and it was Ed Harper who opened the door in Simcoe Centre for the Tories to wrestle rural ridings back from the Liberals
by BARRY WILSON

The successful decade-long assault by the Reform/Canadian Alliance/Conservative Party on the hearts and minds of much of rural Ontario began with a Harper. No, not THAT Harper – Ed Harper. In 1993, he became the first Ontario Reform MP from the urban/rural riding of Simcoe Centre, joining the first wave of more than 50 Western Reform MPs intent on shaking up the federation with the slogan, "The West wants in."

Ed Harper was the Central Canadian forerunner and, when he retired in 1997, rural Ontario became a total Liberal fiefdom aided by a divided conservative vote  – until 2004, when the Reform grandchild Conservative Party began to eat into what had been a Liberal domain.

Since 2006, rural southwest Ontario has been almost uniformly Conservative country. Two federal Liberal agriculture ministers were among the early collateral damage. The rural Ontario assault by the newly-united Conservative Party began in the 2004 election and one of the first casualties was 16-year veteran Liberal MP Bob Speller, Haldimand-Norfolk MP and recently minted agriculture minister. In 2006, his replacement and four-term veteran MP Andy Mitchell fell to the Conservatives in Parry Sound-Muskoka.

"I think part of it was that now the right had a single voice after the merger of Alliance and Progressive Conservative," Mitchell reflects now. "And I think part of it was historical. Traditionally, Conservatives have been strong in rural Ontario and the 1990s, with a divided right, and Liberal dominance in the 1990s was an anomaly."

Ed Harper, a genial Barrie businessman and local politician, started it all in a riding that was dominated by urban Barrie but included significant rural areas. He credits strong support from the farm and rural parts of the riding in 1993 for his slim victory in that watershed election. It didn't hurt that the Liberals were divided and a disgruntled disqualified Liberal candidate polled more than 600 votes that helped Harper win.

But the rural vote was important. "I was in the tire business and sold a lot of tractor tires to farmers," recalls the 84-year-old Harper. "With my 100-vote margin, I would say strong support from farmers and the rural areas put me in office. At the time, I was impressed by (Reform leader) Preston Manning and tired of the direction the PCs were taking. I would say rural Ontario has come home."

For the past decade, that has been part of the Conservative Party's formula for success – a base of 30 to 40 rural or rural-influenced seats that the party has been able to count on in southwest and eastern Ontario.

David Herle, principal partner in the Toronto-based Gandalf Group with expertise in public opinion research, a track record of crisis management in the food industry and deep ties to the Liberal Party, argues that the rural Ontario affinity for Conservative politicians is based on history and values.

"There is a real divide between rural and urban values, and urban is seen as driving the agenda," he said in an interview. "Rural Ontario people are, by a country mile, the most unhappy about how things are going. Conservatives tap into that. Canada is increasingly urbanized and the split in values between urban and rural is profound, with suburban as a bridge."

Mark Sholdice, a PhD student at the University of Guelph and Liberal activist who wrote a master's thesis on the United Farmers of Ontario government (1919-1923) and rural politics, argues that rural Ontario sensibilities on social issues, values and political instincts are instinctively conservative.
"Rural Ontario is tough ground for the other parties," he said in an interview. "I think the period of Liberal support in rural Ontario (1993-2000) was really an exceptional period with special circumstances. It is exceptional to see rural support for the Liberals."

And when Liberal provincial governments ruled the roost in Ontario, particularly under Mitch Hepburn (1934-1942), it was a very conservative Liberal government. BF

Conservative ag minister Gerry Ritz seems a cinch to keep his job if the Tories win power again, but views are mixed on the legacy he leaves behind
by BARRY WILSON

In the days following the Oct. 19 federal election, Gerry Ritz will know exactly where he wants to be and what he wants to be doing – re-elected in his Saskatchewan riding, part of a re-elected Conservative government and poised to become agriculture minister again.

While his re-election for the seventh consecutive time in his rural Saskatchewan riding is hardly in doubt, even as the fate of the Conservative government is uncertain after three consecutive terms and more than nine years in office, Ritz's claim to the job he wants if the Conservatives win seems a cinch.

On Aug. 14, a week before his 64th birthday, Ritz marked eight years as agriculture minister, the sixth longest among the 32 ministers who have held the office since 1867. In less than a year, he would be number four.

"There's never a dull moment in agriculture and I guess that's why these eight years have gone by so quickly," he said in an interview days before his anniversary. "I still feel challenged."

Ritz said he has discussed the issue of his portfolio with prime minister Stephen Harper. "He says, 'You know, I generally like to move my ministers around every two or three years, but if it ain't broke don't fix it. So you keep doing what you are doing and if you want a different challenge, come talk to me,'" said Ritz.

"Well, I've never felt the need to talk to him. Hopefully, on Oct. 20 we're back in government in Ottawa. And if the prime minister asked me to remain in this position, I'd be happy to."

Ritz began his tenure as a Western MP with a background in grain and ostrich farming, little knowledge of Ontario agriculture and a Reform Party view that he had never seen a tariff barrier he didn't want to see blown up. Then he went on to become a solid defender of supply management.

He led federal-provincial negotiations that resulted in a reduction in farm safety net supports but then saw years of generally positive farm incomes that did not test the impact of the cuts on farm supports and farmer attitudes.

Ritz also created a generally good working relationship with provincial agriculture ministers of all political stripes that moved beyond the acrimony that often has infected federal-provincial relations in a shared jurisdiction.

He says he has presided over a time when farmers look more to their own ingenuity and self-reliance and less on government support. And he sees it as a time when agriculture and food sectors became recognized as important economic drivers and not a diminishing, yesterday industry.

"In my eight years, we have proven agriculture is a major player. It's the third largest contributor to our GDP (gross domestic product). The processing sector is the largest manufacturing sector in Canada and that falls under our purview," Ritz said when asked to describe what accomplishment of his years in power most satisfies him. "It's proving to people that it's not just dirt farmers anymore. These are exciting 21st century businessmen."

One of the challenges during another term in office will be to educate urban consumers "that agriculture matters, that food production should not be taken for granted," he said. "That work is never done. We're inundated with a lot of misinformed people who don't understand why things are done in a certain way."

Not surprisingly, political and farm voices differ on the impact of the past eight years of agriculture minister Ritz on Ontario farm policy and welfare. New Democratic Party leader Thomas Mulcair said in an interview that his party sees opportunities to gain ground in rural Ontario.

"In those eight years, Gerry Ritz has rarely come to Ontario and doesn't show an understanding of its issues," he said. "Every time this government has had an opportunity to help agriculture, it has failed to do so and Gerry Ritz must wear that."

Former Guelph Liberal MP and agriculture critic Frank Valeriote said Ritz deserves credit for working to open up export markets but has been weak on defending marketing boards, farm support programs and research.

"The ugly side is his role in cutting staff and resources for research and innovation," he said. "The other ugly side is food safety. He was in conflict defending farmers and food safety and his response to food safety incidents was unacceptable."

Farmer opinion, not surprisingly, is split on the Ritz legacy so far. On the Prairies, supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly abolished by the Conservative government led by the agriculture minister continue to see Ritz as a four-letter word. Supply management leaders recognize him as a strong defender of the system but question his government's support.

Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Ron Bonnett, a former Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) president, said Ritz has tried to pursue policies that stabilize the industry. "From an Ontario perspective, he's been good on stability for the agriculture industry," said Bonnett. "On the cuts to support programs, the jury is still out but I think the general view is that he has promoted stability in the sector. I think he is viewed as a solid minister that knows agriculture."

For current OFA president Don McCabe, it is a mixed record. The Conservatives have not been great at consulting farmers when program changes are being made and the changes to support programs have made them less reactive to farm income fluctuations, he said.

As to rating the Ritz tenure during the past four years of good crops and high prices: "I've got to give Mother Nature and markets an A+ from 2012," said McCabe. "I'm waiting to see what marks ministers get when times are getting tougher." BF