Agricultural Scorecard
for the Ontario Government

OCPA has provided an evaluation of previous governments, both federal and provincial, as they approach re-election. Here are comments on the performance of the Ontario Progressive Conservative government.

AGRICULTURE AS A PRIORITY – B-
Premier Mike Harris has met with farm groups at the plowing match each September and has generally shown that rural Ontario is important to his government. However he has not demonstrated that he considers agri-food to be the “engine of growth” for rural Ontario, despite the claims for such made by farm groups. Harris has generally spent less time with farm groups than did his predecessor, Bob Rae, but more time than David Peterson before him. Harris has given good support to Agriculture Minister Noble Villeneuve, and agriculture has had some other good friends within the cabinet, including the deputy premier, Hon. Ernie Eves. However, one would scarcely know by many statements and actions from Queen’s Park that both the agriculture and food sectors of the Ontario economy (including agri-food exports) are far larger than for any other Canadian province.

AGRI-FOOD SPENDING – B-
It’s doubtful that the Harris government kept its 1995 election promise to ensure agriculture would “regain its fair share of government support.” The core budget has been reduced significantly with more money being transferred to special short-term programs which are generally of less long-term value. And money has been transferred out of agri-food to fund new rural initiatives. The Harris government record is superior to that of the previous government when spending on agri-food plunged even as total government spending grew rapidly. The budget for agriculture and food peaked during the days of the Peterson government.

SAFETY NET PROGRAMS – A
The Harris government kept its promise to offer Market Revenue Insurance at the 85 per cent level (as had been the original program design), and has maintained this program even as equivalent GRIP programs have been unwisely eliminated in most other provinces. NISA has been offered in Ontario at the four per cent (government contribution) level for a wider range of farm commodities than in many other provinces, and features needed to make NISA more suitable for Ontario farmers have been funded using Ontario government funds and the Ontario share of federal companion dollars. It’s too early to judge whether the decision to transfer crop insurance responsibilities to the new crown corporation, Agricorp, will prove beneficial, but the government’s continued commitment to crop insurance is appreciated. Good marks for the speed with which the government introduced the Whole Farm Relief Program, last December. OCPA considers the Ontario program to be well designed, including its recognition of the importance of NISA benefits and crop insurance.

EQUITY FOR ONTARIO – D
Premier Harris has generally shown the political will to fight for more equitable treatment for Ontario in federal funding allocations – including allocations in agriculture. However, Mr. Villeneuve has shown the same tendency as most of his predecessors, to be low-keyed as the Government of Canada continues allocating low-scale funding for Ontario agriculture – relative to the provincial scale of agriculture (not to mention agri-food) – compared to the rest of Canada. This inequity is likely to become worse once terms of the new federal disaster relief program are sorted out.

RURAL AFFAIRS AND MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING – C
The current government continued a policy decision of its predecessor to give more attention to rural affairs and to do so through the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). The Harris government has stumbled attempting to define its agenda for rural improvement. We give a black mark for this government’s decision to remove rural responsibilities from OMAFRA in Northern Ontario, and transfer them to another ministry. While the need for municipal government restructuring was obvious, the way it has occurred has been rather chaotic. It’s too early to draw conclusions but the downloading of provincial responsibilities in road and bridge maintenance could have serious negative consequences. And the net property taxes paid by many farmers and rural agri-businesses have generally increased.

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION ACT – A
While the effectiveness of the new act in protecting farmers from nuisance complaints and municipal councils remains to be seen, it does represent a genuine attempt to address a real problem for farmers in heavily-populated Ontario.

ENVIRONMENT – B-
Although the Harris government has been under attack from many left-of-centre environmental groups since its election in June 1995 – many still angered over their loss of influence (and government appointments) compared to previous governments – this government’s commitment to environment exceeds that of most Ontario citizens. The government has been slow to implement some environmental initiatives and has done a poor job in explaining its environmental agenda. The Harris government has not implemented a pre-election promise for greater harmonization between federal and Ontario pesticide regulatory processes. Good marks for separating the ministries of environment and energy. The shotgun marriage never worked.

FUEL ETHANOL – A+
This government, led by Mr. Villeneuve, has been unwavering in its support for fuel ethanol. Good support has come from other cabinet ministers such as the Hon. David Johnson, a former Imperial Oil employee. To be fair, other Ontario political parties have been equally strong in their support for renewable fuel development.

CONSULTATION AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH FARM GROUPS – B-
Although a close working relationship continues to exist between OMAFRA and most farm groups, and Minister Villeneuve is recognized as an individual strongly committed to the well-being of farmers and rural Ontario, the minister has shown a reluctance to meet with larger coalition groups such as the members of the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council. This is unlike most recent ministers. There has also been a cool relationship between the minister (indeed, the entire Harris government) and the leadership of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture – in contrast to the very warm relationship which existed with the previous minister – and this has affected relationships between some other farm groups and the current government. However, the Ontario Corn Producers’ Association has met with Mr. Villeneuve on many occasions and has been well pleased with his approachability and responsiveness to the issues raised. His personal support for the corn seed research contribution, which came as a direct result of such consultation, is greatly appreciated.

RESEARCH – B
The Government of Ontario contributed $1 million to the creation of Ontario Agri-Food Technologies and has generally been supportive of public agri-food research. However, total financial support for agri-food research has remained relatively stagnant, despite the growing recognition of its importance. The review of the “OASCC” system completed in 1998 was superficial and too restricted in mandate. It’s too early to judge the merits of the transfer of colleges of agricultural technology to the University of Guelph. In principle, this should make the OMAFRA-university relationship more like that in “land-grant” agricultural universities in the United States, and that’s good. But the proof will be in the pudding – and the cooks are still in the kitchen.

PRO-BUSINESS ATTITUDE – A
The Harris government set the creation of a strong positive environment for business investment in Ontario as one of its primary goals. This effort has been largely successful, and will be a major benefit in attracting new value-added agri-food investment to Ontario. Reduced income taxes and good provincial research tax credits have helped.

OVERALL RATING – ?
We’ll leave this to corn farmers themselves to decide.

1