Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

Do you agree with Bill Murdock MPP: Toronto Mentality hurts rural Ontario?

The media in Toronto is all over Bill Murdoch.....Toronto vs rural Ontario....I don't hear them disagree that they put Toronto issues first and are not interested in rural issues....

 

Here is some info I clipped from another site....

 

Bill Murdoch says he doesn't have to try to explain the "Toronto mentality" anymore.

The Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound MPP, who made headlines this week for suggesting Toronto become a province on its own, said in a news release Thursday that "the attitudes" of people such as Toronto Star columnist Rosie DiManno and Warren Kinsella, a "Toronto-based Liberal advisor and strategist to Premier Dalton McGuinty," explains it for him.



www.olg.ca/lotteries/games/howtoplay.do%253Fgame%253Dlottomax%26erq...">
Murdoch said at a Bruce County Federation of Agriculture roundtable discussion on the weekend that "the province is run totally by the mentality that is coming out of Toronto."

He blamed that mentality for problems keeping the coyote population in check and cited the way the province handles First Nations affairs -- specifically the largely hands-off policy on the sale of tax-free cigarettes -- and restrictions on developments along the Niagara Escarpment as other examples of urban domination of rural Ontario.

His news release Thursday included an entire DiManno column that appeared in Wednesday's Toronto Star and a couple of paragraphs from warrenkinsella.com.

"A lot of people ask me what do you mean by a Toronto mentality. I say it's hard to explain but that Rosie DiManno and that other guy, they explained it for me quite good. There it is, there's what they think of people in rural Ontario," Murdoch said in an interview.

"That's the problem, when they have attitudes like that . . . they overtake the government of the day in Queen's Park and that's why we don't get some of the things we think should be right in rural Ontario."

Murdoch denied being thin-skinned about some of the response to his weekend comments, which were reported across the province and became fodder for columnists and editorials and radio talk show hosts.

"I'm not even upset," he said. "I just said there it is . . . The Toronto mentality. They don't understand rural Ontario and they think they're God. Our stuff's crap, they call it. Our complaints are no good . . . The Bruce County Federation of Agriculture, they think it's some kind of gay-commie group. There's no tongue in cheek stuff with that. That's the attitude we're up against."

DiManno's column read, in part that "Bill Murdoch, who represents Bruce-Grey-Owen- Sound, which I think is somewhere due north, made his comments this week at a meeting of the Bruce Country Federation of Agriculture, which sounds vaguely gay-Commie to me."

Views: 445

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Bill Murdoch says it like it is. From what I have read and heard I honestly dont think he is out of line. Playing politics to try to get what you need done seems almost hopeless in this day and age. The people in power are simply out of touch with the grassroots and seem to insulate themselves from our reality. So much could be accomplished if the rule makers honestly cut the crap and did the right things. As producers we are experts in our field and know the challenges that face us. The last thing we want is another bandade cheque so we can survive for another 4 months with no clear improvements to the wrongs that still lay ahead. There are numerous highly qualified people within the grassroots that have answers to most of the problems that we face. Attitude is a huge problem within the government and arrogance. Fix those two issues and things will become better for everyone in Canada.
I believe there is merit in Mr. Murdoch's statement and a well rounded unbiased discussion should take place in my opinion. After all Nunavut became a separate territory in 1999. Ruperts Land was a distinct territory at one time and boundaries do change over time. How long will it be before the American Union changes boundary lines again? I suspect very shortly.

As for Toronto as a separate province/territory... there are some strong arguments for such a creation.

Years ago, I had the same discussion with the former Mayor of York, Mr. Alan Tonks. Mr. Tonks is the current MP for York South-Weston. Mr. Tonks argued that Toronto is distinct from the rest of the province and quite self-sufficient. (he had a myriad of points).

The idea of Toronto becoming autonomous is not a new nor novel idea. Its been floated for years and Wild Bill has been around almost as long. If Mr. Warren Kinsella truly thinks Mr. Murdoch is a crazy hick, then he is being selective in his criticism.

Shame on Mr. Kinsella for such juvenile ridicule.
http://warrenkinsella.com/ I HAVE A BETTER IDEA

Point of matter.... we are a have-not province today. Are we better or worse off if Toronto secedes? Is it time to cut urban Toronto from Ontario's apron strings and let them stand on their own?

I rather like Mr. Murdocks remarks and think the time is appropriate to further investigate the options. It has become painfully obvious that rural issues are being completely ignored and our rights trampled on by Queens Park as they cater to the distinct area we call the GTA.
No mention of agriculture in Ontario's 2010 budget. Toronto agenda? Jobs for the North but not farmers?

Read transcript
Agriculture is buried in the budget with some very ominous statements... but you are right.... McGuinty did not feel we are important enough to mention in the budget speech.

Table 28 shows an actual expenditure for OMAFRA in 2007/08 as $731M, 2008/09 as $877M BUT projects 2010/11 for a whopping $1,288.1M. Considering Leona returned $82M a few months ago.... how on earth does the government expect to nearly double the expenses next fiscal period? What is the government passing through farmers budget accounts to make it appear as agricultural expenses???????? That includes the expected $346M revenue from slots going to agriculture.

Table 29 shows Time-Limited Investments in Infrastructure for OMAFRA in 2010/11 for $1.898 BILLION when there was NONE in 2007/08 or 08/09. Where is agriculture designated money going????

there of course is a temporary clause for farm related tax relief.

How can the government slide nearly $2 BILLION in OMAFRA account for time-limited investments???? Small wonder the public has no sympathy for farmers. Look how much we are getting!

I'm gonna run out and buy a bigger mailbox cause it sure looks like us farmers have hit pay dirt.!!!!



AgOntario said:
No mention of agriculture in Ontario's 2010 budget. Toronto agenda? Jobs for the North but not farmers?

Read transcript
Joann
If you dig into the budget you will find that it seems like the government is assigning close to a third of a billion dollars from racetracks and charity casinos as OMAFRA income and taking spending out for fixing racetracks and the like as agricultural spending. It seems a bit like a game of three card monty and I am really hoping some enterprising reporters really dig into what is going on.

I think most people would not consider this agricultural spending or designated to farmers, especially not a broad cross-section of farmers. If I am reading the documents right, than it looks like someone is up to something and may even be trying to hide actual cuts through creative budgeting. Even if I am not reading the numbers right, it sure seems odd putting casino and racetrack spending into the OMAFRA budget process.
The remark about the mailbox was tongue-n-cheek on my part but I do agree with your thoughts.

I just don't understand what $2.7401 BILLION for 2009/10 and 2010/11 for Time-Limited Investments in Infrastructure penciled in the OMAFRA budget. It sends a clear message that farmers have a huge chunk of change coming our way.


then there is the line: "To further support Ontario farmers, temporary restrictions on certain input tax credits will not apply to farming businesses" What's that suppose to mean?

Grant said:
Joann
If you dig into the budget you will find that it seems like the government is assigning close to a third of a billion dollars from racetracks and charity casinos as OMAFRA income and taking spending out for fixing racetracks and the like as agricultural spending. It seems a bit like a game of three card monty and I am really hoping some enterprising reporters really dig into what is going on.

I think most people would not consider this agricultural spending or designated to farmers, especially not a broad cross-section of farmers. If I am reading the documents right, than it looks like someone is up to something and may even be trying to hide actual cuts through creative budgeting. Even if I am not reading the numbers right, it sure seems odd putting casino and racetrack spending into the OMAFRA budget process.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

2025-2026 Year in Review Showcases Impacts of Beef Producer Investments

What have your investments in the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off accomplished for the industry lately? The Beef Cattle Research Council’s 2025–2026 Year in Review highlights how producer investments and input are advancing research, addressing industry priorities and delivering practical value back to Canada’s beef producers. “The BCRC continues to enhance coordination across the broader beef system, bringing researchers and industry groups together so we can make the best use of limited resources and move solutions and benefits to producers more quickly,” said BCRC Executive Director Tracy Herbert. “The BCRC’s collaborative approach is essential as we address complex challenges and position the Canadian beef industry for long-term success.”   The 2025-2026 BCRC Year in Review provides a broad funding overview by program area and source. In the past fiscal year, the BCRC received on average $0.66 (unaudited) of every $2.50 of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off collected by provincial

Pre-harvest products and how to use them

Canola growers have three primary reasons for a pre-harvest spray application: Weed control ???????Desiccation Manage uneven crop ??????????????Use scenarios for pre-harvest spray Weed control Pre-harvest can be a good time to manage weeds, especially when straight combining. The act of swathing and curing can also provide weed control. Effective control is challenging on big weeds: apply product at the recommended rate with high water volumes to penetrate the crop canopy and achieve thorough coverage. Note: Set reasonable expectations on preventing seed set. Charles Geddes, weed management scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Lethbridge, Alberta, says: “There is no easy way to tell if weeds will have mature seed, but in my experience, it happens earlier than one might think. I suggest that the latest a weed should be left is until it is flowering. Once it starts to flower, then some of the seed can mature on the plant after it is terminated. From a weed management p

Pre-harvest glyphosate staging tips help produce market-ready crops

As harvest approaches, Keep it Clean is reminding Canadian canola, cereal and pulse growers to follow proper staging practices for pre-harvest glyphosate application to help protect crop marketability and preserve access to domestic and export markets. Applying pre-harvest glyphosate for weed control too early can result in unacceptable product residues in harvested grain. Keep it Clean’s Pre-Harvest Glyphosate Staging Guide provides visual examples to help growers identify when grain moisture content in canola, cereals and pulses is less than 30 per cent – the only stage at which pre-harvest glyphosate may be applied. Where allowed, glyphosate is registered for pre-harvest weed control and is not to be used as a desiccant. Pre-harvest glyphosate may only be applied when grain moisture content is less than 30 per cent in the least mature part of the field, including any areas of regrowth that may produce seed. “Glyphosate is an important tool in the grower’s toolbox for crop manage

Safeguarding Cereals Against Allergens

Maintaining a reputation for clean, safe grain is essential for both domestic and international markets. Shipments contaminated with allergenic grains can lead to costly rejections, recalls and long-term damage to market confidence. Unintentional mingling of allergenic grains with cereals is a concern for export markets and must be actively managed.  Certain crop types can be allergen sources in our export markets. When these crops are unintentionally mixed with cereals, they can pose serious food safety and market access risks.   Common allergen sources in grain exports include:  Mustard   Soy   Buckwheat   Buckwheat is considered highly allergenic, and even very small amounts mixed into wheat, barley or oats can cause severe reactions in some markets. Because of these risks, many export markets apply strict limits for allergenic material in cereal shipments.  How allergens can contaminate grain  Allergen contamination most often occurs through shared equipment and handling system

Canada Launches First Private Forest Owner Survey in Over 20 Years, Farmers Invited to Participate

Canadian farmers who own woodlots or private forests are being asked to participate in the first national survey of private forest owners in more than 20 years.

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service