That is not an easy thing to do. Results are often a long time coming and difficult to distinguish clearly. Benefits to individual corn producers are sometimes hard to quantify. Imports of U.S. corn to ensure consistent supplies to processors raise the ire of some producers. Some policy advisors question the urgency of stimulating rural economic development compared to the need to reduce debt, control expenditures, and spend more on education and health care. Corn and corn issues do not resonate with the urban electorate.

One key area for expansion of domestic industrial corn processing is ethanol. Ethanol has been promoted for a long time at all levels of government on every occasion possible. Ethanol is good for your lungs, good for the environment, good for rural economic development, and creates new demand for corn at processing facilities located in rural Ontario. None of that garnered much wide spread interest from those in power; that is until Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Suddenly, a way had to be found to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments. Ethanol became a valid part of the solution to a problem the federal government had to resolve. Ethanol became a link to urban voters. Corn ethanol could help solve a problem. Ethanol's message resonated.

Perseverance pays dividends. On October 20, 2003, the federal government announced details of its promised investment and incentive package aimed at achieving Kyoto commitments through the Canadian Climate Change Program. The next 60 days should see the fruit of more than a decade's worth of effort to promote corn ethanol. Applications from ethanol construction projects to the federal government's Ethanol Expansion Program (EEP) were due by November 19. Awards to successful projects are to be announced no later than December 17. Successful applicants will have 90 days thereafter to finalize financing and commence the project. Federal awards appear to be in the form of forgivable grants; but program details are evolving. Regardless, with $60 million available in this initial phase, the ethanol processing landscape in Ontario could change dramatically in a very short period of time. It is possible that at least four proposals for assistance were submitted from Ontario corn ethanol projects. Ethanol might now look like an "overnight success", but it took more than a decade to get here.

The work of promoting grain-based ethanol is far from done. The EEP, although certainly welcome as a means to cultivate additional ethanol production, has some built-in biases in favour of cellulosic ethanol projects. Canada will need all the ethanol it can produce from all available sources to meet targets by 2010 and beyond. Corn can benefit from development of commercial cellulosic ethanol technology that could utilize all parts of the corn plant, not just the kernel. But, one particular ethanol process should not enjoy preferential treatment merely because Natural Resources Canada (which is also the Department implementing the EEP) has invested heavily in research and development of cellulosic ethanol technology. For example, the federal government has contributed $11.6 million over the years to logen, the Ottawa-based enzyme developer and marketer heavily involved in promoting cellulosic ethanol technology. Petro-Canada has $12 million invested, and Royal-Dutch Shell recently took a $46 million interest. That's a lot of funding generating a lot of political momentum preferentially favourable to cellulosic ethanol.

But that is a longer-term issue; we have to expand ethanol production now. Here's a suggestion. The EEP is totally federally funded thanks to the excellent work of the Federal Rural caucus and ethanol supporters among Federal MPs. However, timing would seem to be ideal for providing additional support at the provincial level in order to leverage expansion of ethanol production in Ontario. Other provinces are taking advantage of EEP to expand ethanol production. Saskatchewan legislated a mandate requiring ethanol in all gasoline sold in the province, and provided support for ethanol produced and consumed in the province. Manitoba is considering a similar mandate and incentives. Quebec's provincial road tax exemption is 15.2 cents per litre versus Ontario's 14.7 cents per litre (which is the lowest support provided of any surrounding jurisdiction). A new 40 million gallon (150 m litre) ethanol plant has just been announced in southeast Michigan, only 90 km from the Windsor/Detroit border. Ethanol from this plant could very easily be imported into Ontario to help meet the expanding demand in this province. Imported ethanol enjoys the current tax exemption without providing additional processing jobs or corn demand here. All three parties in the recent provincial election promised a mandate requiring 5% ethanol in gasoline by 2007 and 10% by 2010. The Provincial government might consider taking advantage of the EEP stimulation by introducing the promised ethanol mandate now. If additional support were to be considered so as to avoid larger imports of ethanol, perhaps the Provincial government could match Quebec's tax exemption as part of its own incentive package. The idea is to ensure construction of the five new corn ethanol plants in this province that will be required to meet the government's own ethanol usage targets set for 2010.