Ontario objects to 'flawed' farm support proposals
Monday, October 3, 2011
It used to be the Prairie provinces at loggerheads with Ottawa over farm policy. But this time it's Ontario, which argues that federal plans are heading in the wrong direction
by BARRY WILSON
For a veteran of more than three decades of reporting on federal-provincial agricultural negotiations, it is startling to see Ontario as the dissident at the table.
It's true that, during the years of Progressive Conservative rule under Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, Ontario ministers like Helen Johns often clashed with federal Liberal ministers, particularly Ontario-based Lyle Vanclief.
But those were years when federal-provincial discord was par for the course, often led by Prairie ministers who resented federal intrusions (Alberta) or a lack of federal attention (Saskatchewan).
These days, federal and provincial ministers gather once or twice a year and largely sing from the same hymn book with federal Conservative agriculture minister Gerry Ritz seemingly having figured out the formula for making provincial ministers believe they are all in the same choir.
Where once there were often-tense end-of-meeting news conferences when provincial ministers would speak to their own voters to voice their objections to federal policy, these days the news conferences could easily be replaced with a bonfire and ministers in a group hug singing Kumbaya.
But this year there was an asterisk in the final communiqué from the meeting in St. Andrews, N.B., signalling Ontario dissent.
Election-bound Ontario agriculture minister Carol Mitchell refused to endorse the Business Risk Management (BRM) portion of the joint statement that embraced a common intent to move forward to a new Growing Forward suite of programs taking effect April 1, 2013. And it wasn't just because the federal government refuses to co-fund provincially designed farm support programs like Ontario's Risk Management Program.
Mitchell said later that her objections to the direction of BRM discussions went much deeper than just her own pet project which is supported by Ontario farmers. The Ontario minister said she objected to a change in rules that will make programs such as AgriStability less responsive to farmer needs.
"We're not supportive of any cuts to our current suite of programs," she said in a post-meeting interview. "There is a consensus around the Ontario (agriculture) table that the current suite of programs is not meeting our needs and to bring forward cuts to programs that already are not meeting our needs is just compounding the problem."
She issued a statement to Ontario farmers arguing she would not sign "this flawed agreement" because Ontario farmers believe it heads in the wrong direction.
Enter federal minister Ritz, never one to sidestep a scrap. He accused Mitchell of pre-election politicking and not paying attention during the meeting, although he did not directly respond to her contention that the programs will become less farmer-friendly.
"It's truly disappointing when elected officials put the political pressure of upcoming elections ahead of what's best for farmers," he said. "If Ms. Mitchell had been fully engaged in the meeting, she would have seen that every government around the table expressed a willingness to work together in developing the next suite of programs in the best interests of farmers."
Mitchell may get the final word in this Toronto-Ottawa spat during the autumn election campaign when she will surely campaign in rural Ontario in an effort to associate the provincial Progressive Conservatives with what she believes are the inadequate responses of their federal Conservative cousins.
In the May 2 federal election, those rural areas voted overwhelmingly for those very Conservatives. BF
Barry Wilson is a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery specializing in agriculture.