GEORGE BLACK
WES SPARLING
BRIAN MILNE
GREY ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRACY AND GROWTH
CONTENTS
Wednesday 25 August 1993
Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993, Bill 42
Ontario Chamber of Commerce
Don Eastman, vice-president, policy
Ross Procter, member
Ellen Lowry, member, agricultural committee
Fred Taylor
George Black; Wes Sparling; Brian Milne
Murray Gaudreau
Glenn Coates
Grey Association for Democracy and Growth
Janette Mazur, member
Harry Brander
John Clark
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
*Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)
*Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L) for Mr Conway
Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND) for Mr Waters
Murdoch, Bill (Grey-Owen Sound PC) for Mr Turnbull
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND) for Ms Murdock
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Agriculture and Food:
Burak, Rita, deputy minister
Stratford, Louise, director, legal services
Villeneuve, Noble (S-D-G & East Grenville/S-D-G & Grenville-Est PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1007 in the St Clair/Thames Room, Macdonald Block, Toronto.
FARM REGISTRATION AND FARM ORGANIZATIONS FUNDING ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSCRIPTION DES ENTREPRISES AGRICOLES ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES AGRICOLES
Consideration of Bill 42, An Act to provide for Farm Registration and Funding for Farm Organizations that provide Education and Analysis of Farming Issues on behalf of Farmers / Loi prévoyant l'inscription des entreprises agricoles et le financement des organismes agricoles qui offrent des services d'éducation et d'analyse en matière de questions agricoles pour le compte des agriculteurs.
The Chair (Mr Bob Huget): If we could call the committee to order, it is 1007. In absence of the third-party members, we will commence in any event because we have a tight schedule today and it is not fair to witnesses who have travelled to be here to sit and wait.
ONTARIO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: I will call the first witness, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. Good morning and welcome. You have been allocated one half-hour for your presentation, and I know the committee would appreciate at least half of that for questions. Identify yourselves and then proceed with your presentation.
Mr Don Eastman: Thank you for allowing us to offer our comments on this important legislation. I'm Don Eastman and I'm vice-president of policy for the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. That's a volunteer job. In my other life, my wife and I have been grape farmers for the past seven years. That's a relatively short time in agricultural terms. With me today are two people with substantially more farm experience: Ellen Lowry, a farmer from Kincardine and member of our agricultural committee, and Ross Procter, a farmer from Brussels, Ontario.
The Ontario Chamber of Commerce is the largest business organization in the province. In fact, with over 200 local chambers of commerce and boards of trade, and representing some 65,000 businesses in the province, we may be the only truly general business organization in the province.
We represent the complete breadth of legitimate businesses in Ontario. Our membership encompasses the entire geography of the province, from Quebec to the Manitoba border, from Pelee Island to Hudson's Bay. It includes all sizes of business from sole proprietorships up to the largest companies in the province. It includes all types of business: retail trade, manufacturing, services, farming, you name it.
I mention that because when we look at Bill 42, there is initially a part of us that says, "Wouldn't that be wonderful." We are currently overworked and understaffed. If we could somehow force every business in the province to provide, even temporarily, a reasonable level of support, just think of all the additional wonderful things we could do. We could broaden our education programs; we could be even more vigorous in opposing damaging legislation; we could do a better job at being proactive on legislation.
Free riders are a major annoyance. There are, regrettably, still a lot of businesses in the province that benefit from the Ontario chamber's activities to promote a healthy, dynamic economy while at the same time they keep their hands in their pockets and let others foot the bill, both in terms of money and effort.
Even if many demanded their money back, we would get to keep it for a while, apparently indefinitely, and they would have to make an active decision to unjoin, despite our best sales efforts, instead of a passive decision not to bother joining in the first place. Fortunately, on reflection, there is a more dominant, larger sense of responsibility that says it would be fundamentally wrong to try and solve our financial challenges in that fashion.
I'd like to share some statistics with you that may not initially appear to be very relevant: cold, hard numbers with a powerful message. They're gross domestic product per person in US dollars for the year 1990, and GDP per capita is a crude measure of living standards in each of the following countries: China, $313 -- that is for the entire year per person; India, $337; what was Czechoslovakia, $3,075; what was the Soviet Union, $2,626; Brazil, $2,297; Nigeria, $226; Ethiopia, $126; Canada, $22,172. The number for Ontario would be higher yet. It is difficult for us to even comprehend what those numbers mean for living standards in those countries.
It's important periodically to step back and put things in perspective. We, in this province, in this country enjoy a quality of life and standard of living that is the envy of most of the rest of the world. We didn't achieve that quality of life because we work harder than people in those other countries or because we are somehow more deserving. Our resource base has been helpful, but it's not inherently superior to that of some of the other countries that I listed.
The critical difference is that we have worked "smarter." Our work has been dramatically more productive than the work done in most other countries. Our quality of life and living standards have recently been diminished. There is a serious and very legitimate concern that we are entering what may be a long-term decline.
In our view, personal freedom and material wellbeing depend critically on the personal empowerment made possible only by a true working democracy in conjunction with the individual decision process of a market-driven economy.
True democracy is not a tyranny by the majority. It is a process that respects all individuals and their right to make their own decisions, except in those limited areas where there is an overwhelming public interest.
Every time legislation takes away our right to choose, it diminishes us. Every time legislation diverts work from productive activity to unproductive paper-pushing, it reduces the ability of the economy to maintain our standard of living. You can't have more by producing less.
It is entirely legitimate for each of you, as individuals, to believe that every farmer in the province should support one of the three listed general farm organizations and that it is not enough for the individual farmer to belong either to a more narrowly based farm organization or to a more general business organization. However, it is fundamentally wrong to abuse your power by trying to force it with legislation.
Bill 42 forces each farmer to complete forms and provide a cheque to one of the three approved GFOs. The alternative is to apply for a religious exemption or to forgo the refund of farm property taxes, taxes that should never be collected in the first place, and access to other ministry programs.
Unlike the initial stable funding proposal, there is a provision for the farmer to fill out even more forms in order to eventually get a refund, but many questions remain: When will the reform come? If the cheque is sent out on January 1, will the money come back in time to help pay the spring planting bill, in time to pay for spray materials, harvest costs, or even later? Who pays the interest? Or is this going to be a free loan?
What is a religion? Does a profound belief in true democracy qualify as a religious exemption? What option is available to those who prefer not to give their name and address to any of the three GFOs? And what about the powers of the independent tribunal? Is this bureaucracy really necessary?
There is a quote from a Japanese movie that is relevant here. I've never seen the movie and the title escapes me, but the lines spoken by a government official were brought to my attention and made a lasting impression: "Our crime is that we steal time from the people. We talk and talk. We put them off with forms, with debate and with reorganizations. We think we are not corrupt, that we are working for the people. But we steal from them every day by wasting their time."
Who will pay farmers for the time taken away from doing productive work to fill out the forms? And where will that money come from?
There is one more major problem. One of our major roles for the chamber of commerce as a provincial business organization is to have an impact on Ontario's legislation, to advocate and support legislation that we believe is positive for the economy, to attempt to modify and if necessary oppose legislation that is negative for the economy. That role requires objectivity and independence.
If we were to become dependent on a piece of provincial legislation for our funding, it would seriously handicap our objectivity and our independence. We would not be able to properly fulfil our responsibilities to our business members.
The GFOs would face the same problem. If they are to become a branch of government, make them a branch of government. If they are to independently represent the interests of farmers to the government, then let them be independent.
The Ontario Chamber of Commerce sympathizes with the financial constraints and frustration at free riders faced by the GFOs, and we share those same problems. However, Bill 42 is a fundamentally flawed solution to that problem. We ask you to step back, look at the issue in a broader perspective and let it fade into oblivion for the bad idea that it is.
Ross, would you like to make some comments?
Mr Ross Procter: Thank you, Don. First I'd like to say thanks for the opportunity to meet with this group.
I bought a book a couple of weeks ago and in it I read, "It's prudent to spend less time trying to figure out who's right and more time trying to figure out what's right." I think sometimes in these kinds of deliberations we get personal conflicts and not ideas, and I think we're here to discuss ideas and not who's right.
Yesterday I sat in, as some of you will remember, and it seemed to me that there was some serious consideration about a vote. There was even more serious discussion about having a vote three years down the line after there's a track record. So I would ask you, would you be happy if I were to propose that three years after Audrey or Jean or Kim or Preston or Mel -- I don't know how we'd quite choose who that person should be, but after they had been in power for three years, would you people vote with me to refer that to the Senate to decide whether there should be a vote to keep one of those people in power? It's almost laughable, isn't it? I see some people laughing. That's what you're proposing for this.
On the issue of a vote, I believe it's a saleable proposition. I understand -- I've been in small politics in the local township -- and I know people come and lobby you and they want you to do this and they want you to do that and it's pretty hard to ride the fence. It's pretty hard to know what you should do.
1020
Some of you will know of George Morris, a friend of mine. He says, "If you want to know how fast the river is flowing, you better ask the person who's in the river, not the guy standing on the bank." A vote asks the person in the river. Plainly, who's to say how the vote will turn out?
I was reading Hansard and it was kind of jumbled, the facts that I got, and I had difficulty, but I'd suggest to Mr Villeneuve that if this proposition is as good as he suggested it was in Hansard, I think he should come with me and propose a vote because he'd have to win. However, if the vote is held and if the vote is held at the start, it's much easier.
Another little thing that I read in this book I have is that it's a whole lot easier to let a cat out of the bag than to put it back in. So we have the vote first and we let the people in the river decide who we are, not the people standing on the banks. Looking at it from the proponents of the bill, if they win, terrific; they know they've won and they have backing like the Union des producteurs agricoles had in Quebec. If they lose, well, they have to go back and redo it. Is there anything wrong with that? If I lose, I will abide by the decision of the people on the back concession.
I think a vote held before this legislation is enacted is saleable from a politician's point of view and would satisfy all opponents.
Mrs Ellen Lowry: I've come with two questions which I would like answered from the committee if it could, and the first one is, who is lobbying government for this registration?
The second one is, based on Bill 42, the legislation itself in the setup of this tribunal seems to have given it fairly broad, sweeping powers and it's left independent. For instance, the tribunal starts making decisions that are impacting negatively on farmers. Who is accountable for it? Those are my two questions.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): Thank you. We'll go to questions from each of the caucuses. You have about three or four minutes each. Ms Fawcett.
Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Thank you for coming today and putting forward a very thoughtful presentation.
If I could refer to the paragraph at the bottom of page 2, where you say, "Bill 42 forces each farmer to complete forms and provide a cheque to one of the" two "approved GFOs," do you have a real problem with filling out a registration form? I know that you have a problem with the cheque going to one -- well, I guess it's one of two of the general farm organizations, but do you have a problem with registering with the government so that you can then access provincial programs? To my knowledge, farmers do have to fill out forms for other programs.
Mr Eastman: If I might, I think there's already an immense burden of forms out there. In terms of changing what's currently required of farmers to simplify that and incorporating that registration as part of that, I think we would be in agreement. But if this is going to be simply an additional piece of paper on top of everything that's already being done, there's got to be a better way.
Mrs Fawcett: Now, have you seen the draft registration form? Do you know what is being required on that?
Mr Eastman: No, I have not, but it strikes me that it is something that should be possible to incorporate into such things as the farm tax rebate program.
Mrs Lowry: One thing I'd like to comment on is the fact that the tribunal can change the registration as it deems necessary and change what's needed in that registration. There seems to be --
Mrs Fawcett: Under the regulation part of the bill.
Mrs Lowry: -- a list under the regulations. So you know those regulations. Farmers have seen this before. You sign up into a program and then the government gets to change the rules.
Mrs Fawcett: Yes, I know that has happened.
Mrs Lowry: Who is asking for this registration? Who's lobbying the government for this registration? That has never been answered.
Mrs Fawcett: Possibly we could get clarification.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Yes, I can give clarification of that. I guess before I became an elected representative for the great county of Huron, actually I was lobbied. I know that many farmers have brought this up. In fact, it was an election issue in the last provincial election, so I think there have been lots of people talking. Some have disagreed, some have agreed, but it has been actually asked by many farmers and farm organizations and individuals who said government should look at some form of stable funding for farmers of Ontario.
Mrs Lowry: No, I'm not asking about stable funding; I'm asking about the registration. Who's lobbying for that registration?
Mr Klopp: That was something that we, as elected officials, realized, that we don't have a handle on just how many farmers there are. One of the things that some of the people say who think there are no farm problems -- and I don't know if you think there are farm problems or not but I do believe there are farm problems. They say, "Well, there's lots of farmers out there," and they pull numbers: 116,000, 50,000, 30,000. We want to get a handle on how many farmers there are out there so we can help.
Then, it also helps to spend money properly and a lot more wisely. I think that is a fair thing. That's why we think this is a nice way to do it, to get registered so that we can have a better handle on things.
Mrs Lowry: So it's the government's decision; it's the one which is forcing this registration? Is that what you're saying?
Mr Klopp: I think it is a wise move to know exactly how many farmers there are so we can have a better handle on things.
Mrs Lowry: You mean I can get information from publication 20, this new census?
Mr Klopp: Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. Elmer made the quote the other day. He asked how many farmers there are, and we really couldn't say how many farmers there are in Ontario who are producing food, big, small or whatever.
In fact, I think in the last few days we've seen numbers from 116,000 to 70,000 to 20,000, so this will allow us, I think, to get a fairly simple and cost-effective way to get it through this registration.
Mrs Lowry: So the information in publication 20 isn't accurate? It breaks it right down.
Mr Klopp: This will make it more accurate, ma'am. We're always trying to get things more accurate.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Cleary, one minute.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): How big a board is the Ontario Chamber of Commerce policy section? Do you have representatives, and I'm sure you do, from all over the province on that board?
Mr Eastman: The Ontario Chamber of Commerce works essentially as a federation, so we have direct business members but primarily we have over 200 local chambers of commerce that are affiliated through the chamber. It's our responsibility at the Ontario chamber to represent the chamber movement on provincial issues. It's largely a volunteer activity. We have limited staff. It's difficult to add up the total number of volunteers who are active on provincial policy issues. So there are a number of active committees.
Mr Cleary: Another question that you had in your brief, and it has come up many times before, about the cheque: When will that be transferred back to the farm organization? I know there have been a lot of complaints over the years about government cheques not getting out in time for spring planting and everything, so I really know where you're coming from.
After the cheque is mailed in to the government, how many days do you think should be on that before it be transferred to one of the farm organizations? What would you see as a time frame?
Mr Eastman: You're talking about the time from when the application for refund is made by the farmer to the time that should come back. We maintain that cheque should never have to go in the first place.
Mr Cleary: Oh, okay.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Offer, one brief question.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Mr Cleary asked my question. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Mr Villeneuve.
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I'll try and be brief. Article 33 says that everything's in the hands of the minister. Could you accept the fact that in three years' time the question would be returned to a committee of the Legislature, and if indeed there has been wrongdoing by the GFOs, by the board that controls them, that it comes back to this Legislature? Could you agree to that if this bill is going through?
1030
Mr Eastman: It's not a question of wrongdoing; it's a question of forcing people to do things that they would not do voluntarily and what role that has in our democratic society.
Mr Villeneuve: The chamber is a very highly respected organization throughout Ontario. I belonged to the chamber at one time. You represent a spectrum of many businesses. Could you state me a business other than farming that purchases retail and sells wholesale with no say on the value of the product at the store door?
Mr Eastman: In the first place, let me suggest that while that problem is true of some parts of farming community, it's not true throughout the farming community.
Mr Villeneuve: Not many farmers sell retail.
Mr Eastman: Even those who do not sell retail, there are some who have some influence on the price side. I won't claim that's a lot. Let me suggest that, for instance, most of your resource farms are not able to set their own prices. They're set on world markets in the same way that the farm products are. It doesn't matter if you're producing nickel or selling lumber; the individual producer has no say in how much that lumber is going to be sold for.
Mr Villeneuve: But being a large oligopoly where we have either 35,000 or 110,000 individual producers, quite obviously -- and I can't think of any other business that's in the kind of dichotomy that agriculture is in. Therefore, would you agree that we're dealing with a somewhat unique type of production: production of food, perishable, a very inelastic demand? And yes, we have to compete.
Mr Eastman: I think that every industry has its own unique problems. That's why in addition to the general business organizations there are more specific ones. We're not opposed to the OFA at all. I think they do a tremendous job, but that's not the issue.
Mr Procter: I think this is a good point. I was a feed salesman for 17 years and we asked a price. How often have you paid what the guy asked you? How often have you paid what the list price was on the car? We happen to be farmers now. We sell breeding stock, we put a price on our animals and we don't always get it. The ones that we sell freely we take to a public auction.
I think what you're talking about is gobbledegook. Think about it. It's just business and, except under something like this, no one I know is guaranteed a particular price. What's a rebate on a car of $1,000 if it isn't a lowering of the list price?
Mrs Lowry: I think the point of this legislation is that government is dictating who's going to represent farmers. Where is the value to the farmers? I see the value to the government and I see the value to the GFOs. Where is the value to the farmers?
Mr Villeneuve: I can tell you the grain producers in 1980 were getting more for their grain than they were getting in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and it may be --
Mrs Lowry: So that's the fault --
Mr Villeneuve: -- gobbledegook in someone's idea, but I still think it's a very real fact of life that farmers have had to tighten their belts.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Food cut back its budget 10% last year and 10% again this year. I'm not sure exactly what's happening there, but there's got to be a better way. I say that in three years down the road we look at this rather unique animal that will be travelling the rural routes of Ontario, as the GFOs, and we say, "If you're not doing your job, then whoever sits on a committee elected by the public will say: `Hey, that's enough. We vote or we dismantle.'" I think we should look at it in a somewhat more positive light.
Mrs Lowry: Is the fact that this legislation is going through going to increase the price of grain?
Mr Villeneuve: It would bring pressure to bear on governments. No other ministry has suffered a 10% reduction in the last two years.
Mrs Lowry: The OFA has given scads of documents to this government showing the discrepancies and where agriculture is leading and it's been the government's initiative not to act on it, or not to set up a long-term policy to support agriculture. It's been the government's decision not to act on it, not the OFA's or whatever group it was.
Mr Villeneuve: Too bad we only have half an hour.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Mr Murdoch.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): You point out in your brief that the farmer has to complete a form. Are you opposed to the forms we complete to get a farm tax rebate? We fill out a form there also.
Mr Eastman: We fill out lots of forms.
Mr Murdoch: I know, and that's what you're saying. This shouldn't have to happen.
Mr Eastman: I'm saying that when we wind up taking time from people, we need to understand what we're doing, that it isn't a free ride and that unless it's really absolutely necessary --
Mr Murdoch: What I was really getting at is that the form I have been shown -- it's a draft form, mind you -- is not any worse than the form that we fill out basically to get our farm tax rebate. Maybe there's a little more to it, but not a lot. I don't think that should be an issue at all, because we do fill out forms all the time as farmers, and then we wouldn't have to fill out the other forms.
Mr Eastman: If you don't have to fill out the other form, if there is some form of integration to reduce the overall paperwork burden, that's another issue.
Mr Murdoch: Okay. We don't have any more time.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Do any of your members belong to any farm organization at the present time that you're aware of?
Mrs Lowry: Yes.
Mr Eastman: I'm a member of the grape marketing board.
Mr Procter: I'm actually pinch-hitting for Joe Maxwell, who was not able to be here. He's a member of the OFA. He's also a member of the chamber of commerce. I can only speak for him.
Mr Wood: I've noticed in your presentation, in the final wrapup you're saying you feel the legislation is flawed and should be forgotten about, abolished or whatever, not to proceed with it.
Do you not feel that people are actually voting with their chequebooks? There's a voting procedure that if they send in a cheque for $150, they will get a rebate within a 30-day period, or promptly, as they say. Some have suggested 30 days would be a reasonable time. Do you not feel that this is a proper voting procedure that is being held, and they're registering at the same time so the government would know how many farmers, legitimate farmers, there are throughout the province. At the same time, it would be helping out the communities.
Mr Eastman: In terms of voting procedure, I think the correct one is the one we've got right now, which is that if you support the organization, you ante up and pay your membership fee, and if you don't, you either support another organization that you feel reflects your interests better or you represent yourself or you keep your hand in your pocket. That's true of all of the volunteer organizations that we currently have in the province. This represents a fundamental change from that process.
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Listening to you, Don, possibly the chamber of commerce could be one of those other general farm organizations if people aren't happy with the two organizations there. Have you ever thought of that, the number of farmers you possibly could be representing which we call small businessmen out there? I mean, in three years maybe you'll come along and say: "We're an alternative here. We'll have an arm to wind up being a general farm organization." Have you ever thought of that?
Mr Eastman: I have thought of it, and that basically is what I was hoping I had addressed in this paper, which says, hey, that's the wrong way for us to proceed because it would seriously affect our independence and what we want to do with government. It also infringes, in our view, on what's happening to personal rights.
In terms of the straight financial end of it, frankly I think we could make some hay if we sat back and simply let this thing go through and then said, "Hey, farmers, when you get your 150 bucks back, support an organization that does help you more, the local chamber of commerce." That's not where we're coming from.
1040
The Vice-Chair: Our time's up. Mr Eastman, Mrs Lowry, Mr Procter, thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedules and presenting this morning.
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, while you're calling someone forward, can I use some of the committee's time to ask a question of the ministry staff?
The Vice-Chair: Sure. I'll call forward Mr Fred Taylor, the next presenter.
Mr Offer: I don't want to take up the deputant's time, but I'm wondering if the ministry can in the next few days report back as to whether the administrative framework is in place.
The registration is done on a calendar, it's done, for instance, on a January 1 date as opposed to a staggered type of approach. You have that type of situation, for instance, with licences. Licences are now staggered by way of birthdate. Here we're going to have this one massive wall of registrations coming in which are going to provide a further massive amount of work for the farm organizations, which may in fact provide a massive amount of work for tribunals, in a very short period of time. I don't want to take their time, but --
Mr Klopp: We can answer that right now, I think.
Ms Rita Burak: We've been doing quite a bit of thinking and planning, Mr Offer, on how, once the bill is passed, this could be implemented. In doing so, we've been discussing the feasibility of different approaches with the farm organizations. What we can do, if you would like, is perhaps give you another presentation on what the options are. But I can assure the committee that we are administratively prepared and are very conscious of the potential for administrative difficulties and we believe we can handle that.
Mr Offer: I appreciate that suggestion. I don't want to take from the deputant's time, but maybe that could be a matter that we could discuss in the adjournment.
FRED TAYLOR
The Vice-Chair: Mr Taylor, good morning. As you're aware, you have up to a half-hour for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd leave some time during your presentation for some questions and answers from each of the caucuses.
Mr Fred Taylor: I'm sure there will be plenty of time. I'm from Grenville county, down in Noble Villeneuve's territory. Hi, Paul.
Mr Klopp: How are you doing?
Mr Taylor: I milk 60 cows with two partners in eastern Ontario. We're both in the 34 age group.
Actually, I feel kind of lonely compared to the platoon that was here just previous to me. The one fellow was speaking sort of in forms of aphorisms, and I think the one thing he was saying, if I can remember, was that if you want to ask a person the speed of the water, ask the person who's in the water.
At the tender young age of 34, I'm deeply in the water. We're hanging in there and we're doing okay, but I'll tell you there's nothing more important to us than knowing we've got a professional and well-funded farm organization out there to assist us in the things that we're doing.
I guess at the outset I'd like to thank two people. I was also reading Hansard and Ms Joan Fawcett and Noble were very positive on the farm funding act coming up and I really appreciate your comments.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak to your committee about this subject of really great importance. I should apologize for some of the typos; we were dead deep in some fieldwork this past week and I kind of rushed this through. I did go to school. I can write, but I can't type worth a damn because I didn't take grade 9 typing, and that's to my discredit.
The agriculture community is aggressive and forward-thinking people for whom change and the expectation of change is not to be feared, it is to be managed. This is in essence and practicality what Bill 42 is about, developing the proper self-sustaining financial environment for farmers to self-manage change.
As dry and raw as numbers are, we need a few of them to set the stage: 68,000 census farms in Ontario, 274,000 farm tax rebates, 120,000 individuals filing federal farm tax returns. Obviously there are some conflicting numbers since nobody has truly identified who the bona fide farmer is. Understandably, this can cause problems in the effective focusing and delivering of programs, in addition to the analysis of needs for the development of policy to meet agriculture's long-term goals. Indeed, this is one of the main challenges facing farm organizations and governments and farmers as we look to the future.
Bill 42, farmer registration, is a concept ready for reality. We need proper funding of agriculture organizations to do quality broad-based as well as fine-tuned research and analysis. Thus, we will be able to meet and identify needs and opportunities on a regional basis but also on how they fit into the national and international milieu. These opportunities could range anywhere from niche markets to being effective participants in national agricultural policy formulation, at the same time relieving governments from the burden and worry of political ramifications of rural issues as we would be speaking as a unified industry voice, and there's no underestimating the value of that.
That all sounds somewhat grandiose. Are there contrary opinions? They range anywhere from McCarthyism throwbacks who call this a communist plot to those just too cheap to pay their way.
Their concerns can be answered in five simple points: The fee is 100% refundable; religious groups, such as Mennonites, are respected; 25% of the fees will be returned to the local level; democracy comes in the form of a signed cheque; and the funds can be directed to the farm organization with an Ontario charter of the individual's choice.
Clearly Bill 42 is both democratic and roots-based legislation. One would think this close to ideal.
We can't underestimate the challenges or expectations the qualifying farm organizations will be confronted with with the passing of the farmer registration act. It no longer will be acceptable to run to government with our hands out demanding something be done about our plight. Our responsibility will be to develop sound socially, financially and equitably delivered and administered programs in cooperation with other farm groups and government -- no small undertaking, as I'm sure you realize. However, it will be farmers working with farmers and we have only ourselves to blame if it doesn't work.
The term "social contract" is probably somewhat familiar to all of you. Bill 42 represents our social contract to the people and government of Ontario. It is our intention through this bill to be a total participant in the renewal of Ontario's economy.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Time for questions, just over 10 minutes each.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you, Fred, for coming all the way from eastern Ontario to be with us this morning.
Mr Taylor: I was real happy that Toronto traffic was light this morning.
Mr Villeneuve: Good. You operate a dairy farm with your brother.
Mr Taylor: No, with a partner.
Mr Villeneuve: In the financial end of things, how important is the farm tax rebate to your operation?
Mr Taylor: Well, it's really pretty important. Coming up with the numbers, it's probably worth a few thousand dollars a year to us.
Mr Villeneuve: I tend to agree with the previous people that indeed that probably should never be paid. However, that's in the system now, and to charge agricultural operations on the land and buildings to fund the school system is certainly not fair. It's a matter of registering, at this stage of the game, if you want to participate in that and some other specified agricultural support through the government of Ontario.
You are under a supply-managed operation.
Mr Taylor: That's right.
Mr Villeneuve: Many people think that is a situation where the consumer is being gouged. Could you just expand on that a little bit? Supply management in the dairy business has been here for over 25 years, and I'm not saying that it couldn't be to some degree improved. I know GATT negotiations are going on. We're maybe getting a little bit away from the GFO, but indeed GFOs have been lobbying federal government and provincial government, and I think to some degree successfully. I think GFOs were primarily responsible for a very large demonstration in February 1992 on Parliament Hill. I'm sure you were there. I was there.
Yet we also have farmers who are saying that supply management should be done away with, and therein is the dichotomy and the problem with attempting to represent agriculture.
What's good for you -- we had a prime example yesterday that if indeed we didn't have tripartite, this stocker-feeder could get his livestock a lot cheaper but in so doing the cow-calf man would go broke and then he'd probably have to go to the States to get calves. We don't know. But I think we have to work together. I want some comments from someone who is in the river. I don't know whether you're swimming up current or down current, but you're in the river.
1050
Mr Taylor: I think we're treading water right now. Boy, where do you start on that particular one? I think it's intensely important, first of all, that we have farm organizations that represent us effectively everywhere, from the national to the international scene. I mean, whether farmers like it or not, we are part of the international and global environment, and the economic environment, and we have farm organizations competing against us in other countries around the world that are getting pretty doggone good deals out of their governments. If we're going to compete in the global marketplace, no matter what the product is, then we need effective farm lobbies in our own country to implement plans to counter the plans they're getting in their countries
On a smaller basis, consumers are not being gouged in their food dollar, or they're not being gouged by the dairy farmers. What did we take? A 15% cut over the last few years in our market share quota. The last one we had probably cost us $6,800 off the top of our income. That doesn't put you out of business, but it makes you sure rationalize what you're doing. As you were saying, cutbacks are nothing new to the farmers.
I had this argument with my uncle one day. The people out there calling for the end of the milk marketing board or the supply management system, that's fine with me if you're also willing to give up your right to collective bargaining. Whether you're working for the government, GM or whomever, if you're prepared to give up the power of that collective bargaining approach, fine, I'm willing to work in that environment too, and may the best man or woman rise to the top.
But that isn't reality. The reality of it is that in today's marketplace we need to have the power of collective bargaining. I don't mean to put that in terms of we're all going to get together and we're going to pounce on the consumer and get every little last bit that we can, because we have to be extremely market-sensitive, and we are. We can see that the way the quota is being adjusted. But it's a unified approach that we need in developing policy. You talk about tripartite; I see this as a tripartite thing too, farm organizations and farmers and government working together.
Mr Villeneuve: I don't want to monopolize here. I'll yield to my two colleagues here, both of whom are cow-calf producers.
Mr Taylor: I was in Alberta for a week about two weeks ago.
Mr Murdoch: One of the complaints we're receiving about the bill, or putting the bill in, is that there are farmers who would like a vote. I have some difficulty as to how we would do that. Do you have any ideas? What do you think of this vote concept?
Mr Taylor: I'd like to know how you're going to get all the ballots out there. I mean, we just went through three different sets of numbers and we don't even know -- and in addition to that, I think we have the right to the refunding of the $150. If a guy doesn't want to be a member of the farm organization, he doesn't send the cheque in. I don't think there's anything too complicated about that.
Mr Murdoch: I don't know the answer to that.
Mr Taylor: Well, I do.
Mr Murdoch: Yes, we don't have it, but there are people who come here who are going to tell us that they think this is the way it has to be. Of course, we're here to listen to them, but they've got to find a way of doing that. Unfortunately, we did have a vote at one time, and I think it got messed up. A lot of people voted who shouldn't have voted.
Mr Taylor: That's not the first time there was a vote. There was a general farm organizations vote going back a long time and it caused considerable division in farm organizations, with one particular farm organization fortunately coming out on top of that one.
Mr Murdoch: One of the things about this bill is that I think farmers have always been very independent but we've never had a strong voice at Queen's Park that we could get unified. We have strong voices by different organizations, but it was never unified. You had the OFA or the Christian Farmers going their different ways. This would be one way of sort of putting everybody together so that government is going to maybe have to listen.
Mr Taylor: In addition to that there is going to be some rationalization in what particular issues farm organizations handle. They're handling issues pertaining to the commodities and you will also see that develop within the general farm organizations too. I think the Christian Farmers organization has a certain direction that it likes and there are issues that maybe it would be most effective and most interested in hand-ling.
Mr Murdoch: I'm sure you don't, but I'll ask you this: You don't have any trouble with the forms you have to fill out now and things like that?
Mr Taylor: That's a fact of life. Probably one of those forms takes about five minutes to fill out.
Mr Murdoch: As long as it isn't too complicated, and we've been assured it won't be -- we do have a draft now. I've looked at it and it's not much different from the one we fill out to get our tax rebate, which isn't too bad.
Mr Taylor: No.
Mr Hansen: Are you a member of the OFA or the Christian Farmers?
Mr Taylor: The OFA. As a matter of fact, both partners pay the 150 bucks, so we're actually paying $300 a year to the OFA.
Mr Hansen: I find that a lot of farmers who are in one of the marketing board areas feel that they're protected by the marketing board and haven't joined one of the general farm organizations. They feel the protection's there, but I think what we have to take a look at is that there are over 200 products raised here in Ontario. One could be bee-keeping, which is a very small commodity. If you put all the bee-keepers together, there's a very small voice if they're talking to government. But do you agree that with the general farm organizations there would be a bigger voice for some of these small commodity farmers?
Mr Taylor: Absolutely. The bee-keepers have their organization, but I believe they also have representation on the OFA board as well. I think -- well, I can't speak for the bee-keepers.
Mr Hansen: I just threw one out that's not a large commodity like the milk marketing board.
Mr Taylor: Certainly, for the smaller organizations, finding a voice that will be listened to and effectively responded to within the confines of a greater organization, adding a power base to that, would add to their ability to get things done for themselves.
Mr Hansen: Do you feel the farm organizations, with sufficient funding, will find out what's going on in, say, the United States or Europe or new technologies involved that sometimes maybe government could be missing? Do you think they would be possibly more advanced than maybe sometimes government is?
Mr Taylor: The best way, I think, to drive research is by having a grass roots saying to you, "We need to know this." I know farmers out there who have gone off and done their own research work and probably found out things and ways to operate their business that had never been thought of by the government. The corollary to that is if you have this real good roots-based organization getting feedback from the farmers and that sort of thing, it could go and more effectively lobby or effectively do research work and that kind of nature. I think what we're looking at in this whole process is farmer organizations being better funded, being more self-reliant and doing their own policy development and research work very well connected to their needs.
Mr Hansen: Do you feel some farmers who are opposed to it have never joined an organization and don't know all the benefits? Could you tell me one benefit that you received in the last maybe six months for being a member of the OFA -- not the milk marketing board, but the OFA.
Mr Taylor: The allusion to the farm tax rebate is a pretty obvious one. That's the most obvious one, the one we work the hardest for. There are a whole range of other benefits that are available in terms that you don't see immediately. You don't go to your mailbox and see a cheque there as a result of that or an addition to your income, but it's sort of a holistic thing. They're looking at all the issues.
Mr Hansen: Do you think the 40,000 farmers who converged on Ottawa in February 1992 -- I was there also; I didn't see Noble; there were too many us there, I guess -- but do you feel that rally would've taken place to demonstrate the feeling of farmers if everyone were an independent farmer not belonging to a GFO?
Mr Taylor: It would've been a real problem gathering people together to get that done. No, it would never have been as effective. I just don't see how we could've gotten those thousands of guys -- and women, sorry; thousands of people -- on the hill without the coordinating activities of the various farm organizations.
1100
Mr Hansen: Were you a graduate of the agriculture alumni?
Mr Taylor: Do you mean the University of Guelph?
Mr Hansen: No, the advanced studies in agriculture.
Mr Taylor: Oh, no.
Mr Hansen: No, I just thought, because you seem to be quite up on all the agricultural issues there, so --
Mr Taylor: I have no other choice.
Mr Wood: Just briefly, it's good to see the excellent presentation you've brought forward, with a positive reaction to Bill 42, compared to the previous one, which was a very negative thing, that it should be scrapped and we shouldn't be talking about it.
Just getting back to the procedure of the $150, you made a comment, I believe, along the lines that you felt that this was a voting procedure, that people were voting, that they had a chance to ask for a refund, or, if they didn't want to vote at all, they just don't bother sending in the $150 or filling out the registration forms.
Mr Taylor: Well, yes.
Mr Wood: I just want to see your reaction or if you wanted to elaborate further on that.
Mr Taylor: The whole concept here is that we have a situation where I think -- because I have been involved with OFA a little bit, though I am speaking on my own behalf here or on our farm's behalf -- we have a situation where there's a farm organization there that has in and around a 20,000 membership base. But any policy that the OFA goes to work on, all farmers are beneficiaries of that but they didn't all pay their fair shake.
It's a real problem with me when somebody sits here and says that they're worried about getting the $150 cheque back in time to put their crop in. If $150 is going to make the difference between whether or not you can put your crop in, then I think you'd better find another area to work in.
Mr Wood: They shouldn't be in farming.
Mr Taylor: No. Let's face it: I know people whose wives are nurses and they would laugh at the $150 fee that they pay in terms of their union membership. As I said, we're paying $300 a year out of our farm. That doesn't bother me, because I think we're getting some pretty effective lobbying efforts as a result of that.
Mrs Fawcett: I thank you for your kind remarks and I also want to say that in my other life as a teacher you don't have to apologize in any way for your brief.
Mr Taylor: I always hoped I'd get graded on my content instead of my grammar.
Mrs Fawcett: That's right. That's what counts. Other presenters have said this bill creates undue force on people to join a group. Do you feel you are really being forced here?
Mr Taylor: Absolutely not, no.
Mrs Fawcett: That's very interesting, because there are some who would really say that democracy isn't being served, and it's nice to hear somebody from the other side. But we must listen to both sides.
Mr Taylor: Yes.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much for your brief. I think it really did bring out from your perspective some of the aspects of the bill. It's certainly, I want to tell you, going to be very helpful when we deal with the bill in the clause-by-clause portion of this process.
There's no question that you've thought about this for some time. When it says the fee is 100% refundable, under the bill it just says that the cheque should be promptly refunded. From your perspective, there's no time period put in there, so "promptly" is sort of in the mind of the person who's refunding, who might be different from the person who's receiving.
Do you think we should be thinking about putting a time period in there instead of "promptly," some more definite period of time?
Mr Taylor: I haven't thought of it, but I suppose that's a bureaucratic thing that you could put in there. If it doesn't get back, does the guy get paid interest on his $150, for all that amounts to? From my perspective, it's in the farm organization's own best interest, whatever it might be, to be sure that it is gotten back to the farmer in the most rapid time, because we're not into this discussion to generate any additional bad feelings. Is it important to have a time limit in there? I don't know. I honestly don't think so.
Mr Offer: Right. Thank you for your presentation. It was quite helpful for me.
Mr Cleary: Mr Taylor, it's always good to see someone in Toronto from eastern Ontario. You have been pretty positive on this bill. As you know, this committee is having some problems because one of the farm organizations has pulled away now. We have some other groups throughout Ontario that are not happy, that would like to see a vote on this legislation. Being you're so positive on it, what advice might you have for the committee and for those other residents of Ontario who have some concerns?
Mr Taylor: My advice? Listen to me and ignore everybody else, I guess.
Mr Cleary: When were you elected?
Mr Taylor: Is that autocratic enough? I understand the process and that you need to listen to everybody. I think you have to be really careful about groups that claim they are -- why not speak straight? There is an organization that calls itself the Silent Majority, and I think you've got to be really careful of that, because I honestly do not believe that it is the silent majority. What's the concept here? Not to be specific, the concept here is that there are a lot of people out there and there are organizations that give themselves titles that don't necessarily reflect what is going on and the thinking of the people whom they claim to represent.
What does that mean to you as a committee? What it means to me, as I say it, is that the organizations and the farmers to listen to are the guys who are paying the bills and the guys who have the most at stake.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Taylor, thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule and giving us your presentation today. I hope you keep yourself apprised of what's going on in the committee.
This committee will take a five-minute recess to give our next presenters, who have just arrived, time to catch their breath.
The committee recessed from 1107 to 1117.
GEORGE BLACK
WES SPARLING
BRIAN MILNE
The Vice-Chair: Our next presenters are from the Grey County Federation of Agriculture. Welcome. You're allowed up to a half-hour for your presentation; the committee would appreciate it if you'd allow time for questions from each of the caucuses. Please identify yourselves for the record and then proceed.
Mr George Black: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and good morning to all the members of the committee. My name is George Black and I am the president of the Grey County Federation of Agriculture. I am a beef and hog farmer in the centre of Grey county, a cow-calf operation, and run a family farm with my father and the rest of my family. I have brought with me today two other farmers from Grey county and I'll let each of them introduce themselves.
Mr Wes Sparling: I'm Wes Sparling. I'm a sheep and cow-calf farmer from the north of Grey. I'm also the director for OFA representing Grey north.
Mr Brian Milne: I'm Brian Milne. I'm a hog and beef farmer from Grey county. I farm 300 acres with my father. Thanks for inviting me.
Mr Black: We don't have any written presentation today for the committee. We are here in support of Bill 42, the farmer registration and stable funding act. I'm speaking on my own personal behalf. I'm not here representing the Grey County Federation of Agriculture, although I am president. I'm speaking as a farmer.
I'm very much in support of Bill 42, the farmer registration and stable funding act. I think it's long overdue; we've needed something like this. The farm lobby requires a strong lobby at Queen's Park or at Ottawa, wherever it might be. Without sufficient funding, we can't be a strong lobby. The way I look at this, as a farmer, I feel that I personally can't go and lobby, but I can send somebody on my behalf. Those people who have to go and lobby have to be able to finance the research and finance the people at Queen's Park or at Ottawa to lobby on our behalf. This farmer registration mechanism gives us an avenue to have a predictable source of income. As a farm lobby -- I'm not speaking on behalf of the OFA -- any lobby group that represents the farmers of this province, we are there, the lone voice lobbying against all the other forces: environmental, animal activists, you name it. They're there lobbying, and they're there lobbying with big budgets. The farm community hasn't got the finances behind it. To me, this bill would allow us to have some sort of stable, predictable funding for our efforts.
I also feel very strongly that there are a lot of people out there requesting a vote on this issue. I personally don't think we need a vote. Our time could be far better spent looking at the issues and dealing with the farmers of Ontario rather than up and down the roadsides in a vote. I feel that by having the refundable clause in the legislation, that's an adequate vote. Each year, as the farmer renews his registration, he is able to request his refund. To me, that is ample avenue for showing your pleasure or displeasure.
Maybe at this point I'll turn it over to Wes and Brian. I feel more comfortable answering questions than I do speaking off the cuff, so I'll turn it over to Wes and Brian and maybe they could add a little bit and then we could have questions.
Mr Sparling: I'm in full support of Bill 42, the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, for a number of reasons. I feel the OFA has achieved many rights and gains for farmers, including the farm property tax rebate, credit policies, safety nets and many, many more; I'm not going to go on about those.
The farm property tax rebate has the biggest impact on most farmers. In fact, for myself it means about $1,800 a year. At this time the rebate is even more important since the termination of Red Meat II, because it has meant a loss of nearly $2,000 in incentives for ration formulation, herd health and weighing calves and lambs. I think most farmers are finding that this rebate is really more important these days than what it was maybe three or four years ago. Pretty well all farmers benefit directly from this rebate, but only about a third are willing to pay to help keep the OFA working for benefits likes these for our farmers. I feel it's only fair for anyone who's going to benefit from the gains made by the organization that they should also be willing to pay.
By having all farmers registered, I think farmers might be more likely to speak with one voice and hence be a more effective lobbying group. Having been a member of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation from 1970 until 1988, I'm well aware of how a well-funded organization is able to gain regular increases in salary, improved benefit packages and better working conditions such as lower pupil-teacher ratios. I feel that if everyone paid into a farm organization, it would be just as able to do similar things for farmers as what the OSSTF has done for teachers.
At the present time, with the government cutbacks to many programs, the increased taxes and even uncertain weather in the province, I think it's extremely important that we have an organization working for us, that it be strong, that it be well funded to be able to fight for the best interests of all farmers.
I realize there's been a lot of talk about a vote, but as George has said, since it's refundable I really see no reason for a vote. I think of the analogy of the husband and wife going into the grocery store, picking up all sorts of groceries and then coming to the cashier and holding a vote as to whether they're going to pay or not. If these farmers are going to take advantage of the benefits that OFA has gained for them, I think they should be willing to pay for these. For these reasons I'm in full support of Bill 42.
Mr Milne: I'm in full support of this bill as well, aside from the economic and financial reasons. We were talking on the way down today about various things. One thing that stuck in my mind was farm safety. There are a lot of farmers in our communities who don't have a lot of contact with OMAF or any government agencies and these people maybe aren't aware of some of the issues that are arising. They're not aware of how they can affect them. They have no idea that GATT could directly affect them nor do they care. Maybe they should care.
I think the farmer registration would give us a direct link to those people. Up to now they've ignored us, for one reason or another, but I think we need a link with those people and I think the farmer registration would give it to us.
The farmer safety thing: There are a lot of safety issues. Farm children -- there's a horrendous toll taken on the children on farms. There are people who -- shall we call them, for the sake of argument, lifestyle farmers who moved from the city into the country. They have no idea of the risks they're taking with some of the machinery that they buy at the machinery dealer. He doesn't care whether they know what the shield's for. He sells it to them and they're not aware of the risks they're taking with themselves or their children. We've got to get to those people and I see this as a direct link to them. The sooner we get this registration in place the sooner we can start making some improvements in the countryside as far as safety and a lot of other issues.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thanks very much for your presentation. Even though it's off the cuff, as you put it, it was very informative and certainly thought-provoking.
As you pointed out, you're members of the county federation of agriculture through the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I'd be interested to hear what your motivation was in joining the federation.
Mr Black: I've been a member since 1979 and I at that time was out of Centralia College of Agricultural Technology, two years in agriculture diploma there. When I had the general farm organization approach me about becoming a member, I felt very strongly at that time, and I still do, that the farmers need a strong voice on their behalf. I felt that myself as an individual, or any farmer as an individual, would not have the clout that the group of farmers together would have. So I felt by joining forces with all the rest of the farmers in the province that maybe my one voice could be heard. I guess that was the one reason why I joined and why I've continued to be a member for 14 years.
Mr Gary Wilson: Mr Sparling, you've made some claims for the benefits of belonging to the OSSTF, as you say you're a member of that. Do you foresee the GFOs having the same kind of effect on the benefits to farmers?
Mr Sparling: It's pretty hard to compare them. There is a comparison there, but the farming situation is so much more complex than a group of teachers joined in a federation. What I'm saying is, the teachers were able to speak with one voice. They held the idea of a strike over the boards. I don't see it happening with farmers, but if they could speak with one voice, they can pull together. I think of the Quebec farmers who seem to hold a lot of clout because they're under a mandatory membership and they all pay into it. Of course, it gives them a much larger budget than we have in Ontario here.
But I think the registration would tend to at least pull farmers together and increase interest and maybe the knowledge of these different farmers, because they'd all certainly be getting the mail from the farm organization. I just feel that it would help them to gain a bit of clout by speaking with one voice.
They're not going to do exactly the same things, but I'm sure they improve working conditions and profitability for farmers. We can all work towards these things. I wouldn't say that things would change all of a sudden; it would be something that would happen over a period of time.
Mr Black: If we didn't have a strong farm lobby, where would the farm community be today or 10 years from now, without a strong farm lobby? That's the way I look at it. We have all these other lobby groups at Queen's Park and in Ottawa continuously, and a lot of the things they're lobbying for are to the detriment of the farm community. Without a counterforce there, where would we be? That's where I see the strength of the general farm lobby, as we call it.
Mr Milne: If I could answer Mr Wilson's question of why I joined the federation, I presume it was probably for the same reason a lot of you folks became members of Parliament. I presume it was for the reason that you thought you had something to offer and it wasn't the fringe benefits because, I can tell you, there are no fringe benefits financially to being a member of the federation. It's strictly an opportunity to get some of your ideas across and think that you can do some good. That's the reason I joined and I think it's a good reason.
Mr Hansen: Mr Black, was your dad a farmer?
Mr Black: Yes, he was.
Mr Hansen: Did he belong to the OFA?
Mr Black: Yes.
Mr Hansen: Oh, he did also, because you said you joined in 1979. I find that a lot of farmers in, let's say, the second generation, third generation, now are starting to join the OFA, finding that farming's different than it was, say, 50 or 75 years ago.
There are benefits of belonging to one of the GFOs. I know with the OFA there are health and welfare benefits for farmers, a dental program, life insurance, which are not available as an individual; they're available but at a higher price. So actually the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is saving farmers money on some of the benefits they have to buy. Is that correct?
Mr Black: It certainly is. That plan you're talking about, that extended health plan, is only available to OFA members and, because it's a group plan, there is significant savings to our members.
Mr Hansen: So there's a lot, not just the lobbying, but the family benefits and, as I say, that your voice is heard.
I was up to Owen Sound there just last week on a farm visit to Bluewater Feed and at Tara which is in Grey, I guess, and then it goes into Bruce there. Sitting on this committee this particular week, I know the feelings in my area. I haven't had any opposition and I did ask at least 10 or 12 farmers who came into the mill to find out whether they supported this particular bill and I found no one who was against the bill. I talked to some who were not members of any organization, but most of the ones who were in Tara were Christian Farmers who didn't oppose.
The one question I'd like to ask you: There was a comment made here that the membership was falling away from the Christian Farmers organization. At least one comment was made by one of the presenters that the membership loss has been because of Bill 42. Have you seen a loss in membership in the OFA in your particular area because of Bill 42?
1130
Mr Black: Actually, it's been the contrary in Grey and across the province in OFA membership. We had a membership drive in March, which is a normal time for us to do it, in the slower time of the year on the farm. We increased our membership in Grey by 135 members. Across the province, we have increased -- now it fluctuates month to month -- 700 to 800 members. Maybe Wes could correct me if I'm wrong, but our year begins September 1 and since then we've had an increase in membership.
To add to that, doing personal membership work in my own township, I've talked to a lot of people who have been members and who have dropped their memberships. The reason they give me is their neighbour is receiving the benefits without being a member, "I'm paying my membership to get the same benefits, so I might as well keep my $150 and get the same benefits as he has," those being any government programs that the general farm lobby for on his behalf.
Mr Sparling: I think farmers are quite concerned, because in our own little township we had about 40 members. This past spring we signed up 36 more, so we pretty well doubled our membership. People are concerned when they see the government clawing back the tax rebate, going from 100% to 75%, you know. It could go to 50% or it could go completely off the board. I think a lot of these farms are very concerned.
Mr Cleary: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. It's great to see three individuals who are making their living from different sectors of farming. I guess the one thing that I should ask you: The draft registration form, have you people seen that? Are you happy with that?
Mr Black: I haven't seen it personally. I've been told what it looks like. It's a general questionnaire: name, address, generic information; and then type of farm: beef, dairy, pork; and your income with ranges, say, 10 to 20; 20 to 50; 50-plus -- you know, very general. If it's the way I've had it explained to me, I agree with that. I understand that it takes five minutes maximum to complete it. So, there again, it's very simple. I would think it's probably pretty straightforward if it's the way I had it explained to me.
Mr Cleary: Mr Black, you had mentioned that you didn't think it would be necessary to have a vote on this, that you feel very strongly it's a good piece of legislation and that most farmers should be happy with it. If there was a vote -- and I say if there was -- do you think there would be any problem with it passing?
Mr Black: I would be pretty much assured that it would pass. My fear is that the money that would be spent to have a vote could be far better spent doing something else. That's the way I look at it. I could go up and down the roads to my neighbours and convince them to vote yes. I can find my neighbours who would vote yes. I think that our money and our time could be far better spent working for the farmers instead of operating to have a vote.
Mr Milne: If I could just add: What would be the point of the vote? The legislation now says you can have your money back if you want it. You can ask for it back, so you're voting that way. How much easier can you make it without going to the expense and time and trouble of having a vote? Lord knows what this committee's costing the government now. If we went to a vote, heaven knows what it would cost. It would just get a lot of people pretty ticked off. It would cause, you know, rumours and things like that to go flying in every community. The farmers are no different. They just love to gossip at the coffee shop like everybody else.
Something like this would cause a lot of trouble, I think. I have no doubt in my mind it would pass, but at the same time, we don't need it. You have the opportunity to get your money back; vote with that.
Mr Cleary: I can't believe that about the farmers gossiping there.
Interjection: Only in Grey.
Mr Cleary: Only in Grey, that's what I thought.
Mr Milne: You haven't been to Grey lately.
Mr Cleary: Anyway, there are many farmers who have spoken to us, good farmers who don't feel this is the democratic way to do it. We're just trying to come up with something that will satisfy many in Ontario.
Mr Offer: I have a question. In your presentation you were talking about some of the important issues, as members of the OFA, that are being brought forward such as worker safety; you know, all of those evolving issues. They're changing and they really do affect people on the farm. The OFA, through publications and what not, is trying to bring these issues out to its members as best it can. Would you see this bill as a way in which the OFA, as one farming organization, would potentially be able to increase its membership, therefore being able to bring forward the very important issues that you raise to more people?
Mr Milne: No question. There have been various numbers thrown around as to what our membership would rise to, but there are obviously a lot of farmers out there who don't belong to any of the farm organizations for one reason or another. I myself think a lot of those reasons are because they just don't know what the organization could do for them, what information they could get from it and what services would be available.
As it stands now, the federation, as an example, almost acts as an ombudsman for some people. If they have problems with bureaucracy, who do they turn to? A lot of the farmers can't afford a lawyer, Lord knows that. So they come to the federation, and by virtue of having a lot of farmers together, the same as a group insurance, we can keep lawyers on staff or at least hire them to look into these things for us. That's a tremendous advantage or benefit to anyone who's having trouble for things like that.
The same reason with the safety issues. There are a lot of issues that should be addressed and brought to the broader farming community that just aren't now for lack of funding or lack of having a direct link. Who is a farmer?
Mr Offer: There would be other associations apart from the OFA. I know we talk, in many cases, about the OFA, but there are the Christian Farmers and what not. I've also heard that the hog farmers' association, a particular group of individuals dealing with hog farming -- and they will have a representative most likely on the OFA. They'll have their own body dealing with their own issues, but they'll also have a representative on the OFA board. Hearing what you're saying, if the hog farmers, for instance, want to become accredited, will the mere fact that they have a member on the board of another accredited organization disentitle them?
Mr Klopp: The answer to that is they can't be entitled to this program. The simple answer is no. If you look at the accreditation, how this has been looked at, that book says in there -- it'll be in the regulations, the rules that you are to have for a general farm organization -- one of them is that you talk about general issues, not just specific issues, ie, chicken producers, cattlemen, all the way through. It can't be a specific, one-issue group.
Mr Murdoch: I want to thank you guys for coming down and making the trip. I was getting a little worried when you weren't here on time. Normally, it's me that is late, so I'm sure they're used to somebody from Grey just coming in right in the middle but, as I say, I'm glad to see you here to make your presentations.
I was just going to ask you, as a lot of the questions have been asked, you had a booth at the Markdale Fair on the weekend. What were the people of Grey saying to you in the booth? I'm hearing what I hear, but I don't know whether you're hearing the same thing.
Mr Black: I was talking to a couple of people in the booth. One was surprised there weren't any farmers at the fair. All the farmers were home harvesting their crops, so he didn't get a feel for what the farmers thought because he wasn't confronted with any farmers.
Mr Murdoch: Just normally, what are you hearing out through Grey and Bruce?
Mr Black: I personally am hearing that we do need a strong farm lobby, not necessarily the OFA but a general farm lobby, to deal with general farm issues. To have that strong lobby, you need a well-funded organization. As you well know, you can't operate without funds. People out there realize that we need this, but they also at the same time realize that we have to have all farmers supporting it. It's the only fair thing. You can't have half or a third of the people supporting it for the other two thirds. The way I hear some of them that I talk to, it's the fairness issue and also the fact that we have to be there to counter some of these other forces that are there.
1140
Mr Murdoch: I guess, in your estimation, the vast majority of the farmers think this is a good idea, because I know there are some in Grey and other places who don't like the idea and then they get into the vote thing and you hear them talk about that.
Mr Black: Oh, I realize it, and I'm not pretending to say that 100% support this. I know there isn't and I don't know what percentage is opposed to it, but there is definitely some opposition out there, and that's fine. But to those people I would say, "Become involved and work from the inside."
Mr Murdoch: The way the bill is set up right now it's much better than it originally came out, isn't it? It does allow this, as you say, vote with your cheque because you want your money back.
Mr Black: I'm glad they removed the fine portion of it and I can certainly support the refundability of it.
Mr Murdoch: I think most of the questions have been asked, but again I thank you for coming down. I think Leo has a question.
Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I would like to ask you regarding section 33 of the bill, which says, "After three years have elapsed since the coming into force of this act, the minister may have a review of the act to determine whether it is advisable that the act continue in force," are you satisfied that it should be in the ministry's hands or should it be in the hands of a committee of the Legislature, mandatory that a committee review it after three years to see if in fact it is functioning as we expected it to?
Mr Black: I certainly agree with a review, and there's always room for improvement, I guess. Looking three years down the road, we quite possibly could have a different government and we might not have the bill at all. But I think it should be done --
Mr Klopp: You think you're going to get rid of us?
Mr Black: I didn't say that. I think it should be done in consultation with the groups that are accredited, the minister and his staff, and it should be a joint effort.
Mr Jordan: Would you prefer it come to a committee such as this rather than be done just by the minister's decision? We're thinking of proposing an amendment there, that the minister wouldn't have the sole --
Mr Black: It states the minister has the sole --
Mr Jordan: Yes.
Mr Black: I would probably feel somewhat more comfortable if it was a committee, maybe not a committee this size but more than one person.
Mr Jordan: With some farm representation.
Mr Black: Yes, farm representation.
Mr Jordan: Right. My other question refers to the responsibilities that the general farm organizations would be taking on as a result of this bill and the increased funding. As you know, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has already withdrawn services in the county, such as the ag rep in my county is gone. Now we come under a labour bill which is going to bring in some new regulations on farms. We come under the building code which is going to bring in some new regulations for using ungraded lumber on farms. We're looking at the land use, we're looking at the Sewell commission report, we're looking at waste management.
Do you see a further withdrawal of government through OMAF of its services and passing them over to this general farm organization along with the costs that go with it so that in fact even though our involvement becomes more, our expenses become more for services that used to be provided through OMAF? Do you have any concerns about that?
Mr Black: I don't see government responsibility being passed to a general farm organization and the expense that goes with that. I can certainly see government cutbacks, and that's another need for this bill to go through and to have a strong general farm lobby.
As for the reallocation of responsibilities, we're not there to do the government's job. We're there to represent the farmers. So I can't see government responsibility put into a general farm organization. We're there to put the farmers' point of view across and to put ideas across to replace some of these programs that maybe you've talked about that have been there in the past, to come up with alternatives or solutions.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Black, Mr Sparling and Mr Milne, thank you for taking the time out from your busy schedules and giving us your presentation.
MURRAY GAUDREAU
The Vice-Chair: I call our next presenter, Murray Gaudreau. Good morning and welcome. You'll be allowed up to half an hour for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd allow time for questions and comments. Please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.
Mr Murray Gaudreau: I am Murray Gaudreau, the national youth vice-president of the National Farmers Union. I was elected this past January.
I'm not here representing region 3 of the National Farmers Union and I'm not here representing the National Farmers Union executive or national board. I am here because I'm a young person and I would like to get into farming some day and, talking with young people, I feel that this bill has insights into it that the youth should be concerned about and they are concerned about. So I'm bringing forward things that I've heard from young people, their questions or their comments to me, and I'm bringing them forward today. I've kind of compiled them.
First of all, my father owns a farm in Romney township near Tilbury, Ontario. For those of you who don't know where Tilbury is, I'm in Pat Hayes's riding, he's my MPP.
First of all, I'd like to tell you a little bit about the NFU. We are a voluntary membership organization of farm families. We are democratically structured to provide direct member control over policy and leadership from the local to the national level. We are funded through the payment of annual membership dues. We are incorporated under a special act of Parliament of Canada. No other farm organization in Canada has this designation.
We are non-commercial and non-partisan in politics. We are also free from racial, religious and political discrimination. We are an organization in which men, women and youth have equal status. That's why we have a president, a vice-president, a women's president, a women's vice-president, a youth president and youth vice-president all at the national level.
When we go down to our regional and our local and district levels, we also have availability for youth, women and the presidents or the district directors, as we call them, or regional coordinators. We try and make sure that everyone has a say because on a farm it's not just one person who runs that farm, it's the family together, working together.
There is no other national farm organization in Canada designed to enable farmers to organize as farmers and learn to live with one another rather than off one another. The NFU constitution is the guarantee to members that they shall always retain full control of the NFU's policy objectives and leadership.
I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak in front of this committee today, although I am a bit upset about the location. Maybe someone could explain to me why Metro Toronto was chosen. Perhaps the number of farm families drastically increased within the city limits since the last census that I did not know about. But besides that, I feel that if this committee was truly interested in hearing what the farmers were saying, it would be going out to the farmers, to the counties, to the different regions of Ontario, listening to them.
It usually takes me two and a half hours in the summer traffic; it took me four and half hours to get here this morning. So it is not a pretty drive up from southwestern Ontario to Toronto. I feel that the committee, if it was truly interested in hearing about what the average farm families had to say, would not have limited the hearings to Metro Toronto because Metro Toronto is not the major farm centre of Ontario and it doesn't have very many farm families in the city limits, that I know about anyway.
1150
First of all, this bill has great importance for farmers in Ontario. What this bill virtually is doing is taxing farmers in order to give the moneys taxed to general farm organizations. The reason this is a tax is because the farmers are not being allowed to decide. The government is imposing this situation and tax burden on them and is not letting the farmers speak through a democratic vote.
This leads to a very serious question on whether or not we live in a democratic society that truly believes in democracy. I think that all parties in this Legislature do not, because all parties have voted in favour of the first and second readings of this bill. They are not looking at the aspects by which democracy works. In a true democracy, the people are constantly asked questions and then give back answers. Those answers, whether or not the politicians agree with them, are taken as being law because the people will then have spoken. Currently in Canada, our system of democracy includes taking your voters out of the closet every four to five years, dusting them off and asking them to pick a person, and then after they pick a person, throwing them back into the closet until the next election. In true democracy, the way people vote is almost irrelevant to the fact that the people have voted and they have done their part in helping build and shape their society.
However, I did not come here just to criticize. I do not believe in criticizing something without giving a solution to what I believe as being the problem. Therefore, the rest of my presentation will be giving you a system in order to make Bill 42 a truly democratic bill that has the best interests of farm families in mind.
There are a few facts that I believe should be put forward before I go into my proposal. The facts are:
-- There was a farm group formed to oppose Bill 42 and the concept of stable funding. This group is called the Silent Majority.
-- The Ontario region of the National Farmers Union, at its regional convention held July 25 and 26 of this year, voted to have its name withdrawn from the proposed legislation.
-- There are roughly 10 different general farm organizations in Ontario. Those 10 general farm organizations represent only roughly 30% of all farmers in Ontario. Therefore, the other 70% of Ontario farmers don't support any general farm organization.
There are many reasons why farmers don't support general farm organizations. They may not be happy with the organization and choose not to send it funds. They may disagree with the policies of a certain GFO. They may also think that an organization has not done its job and has not been able to attain the goals that it may have set out to accomplish. Whatever the situation or excuses for farmers to not support general farm organizations, they are legitimate because the farmers truly believe this to be true. Understandably, they might feel that way. They might have grudges.
Therefore, the feelings felt by the farmers can't be corrected by having government legislate farmers to support Ontario's general farm organizations. The only way to combat the problem and to correct the feelings is if the respected GFOs were to go out and face the criticism head on and try to work out their differences with the farmers they are supposed to represent. I don't believe that having government legislate farmers to support a general farm organization will work. The only thing that will be supported by farmers is a hatred towards the government for forcing them to pay their hard-earned money to a GFO that they don't feel is speaking for them.
If the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food would like to help farmers and encourage the collectivity of farmers, it would not bring forward a bill that has divided the farm community and has turned farmer against farmer. It would also not make only three general farm organizations part of the stable funding process; it would include all Ontario general farm organizations.
The system that I am proposing is one that is derived from the Rand formula, a formula which is based entirely on democracy and the "majority rules" theory. My system would be quite simple to implement after OMAF has instituted its farm registration program. My system would then have a coming together of the general farm organizations to discuss the issues of the day. This would be similar to the setup of the Ontario Federation of Labour.
Firstly, I must state that I have no problem with the registration of farm families/businesses in Ontario. My proposal will now follow.
One year after the government has introduced its farm registration program, it would then use the data collected to make a list of all farm families/businesses eligible for a vote. The criteria for eligibility would be decided with all the general farm organizations at the table, one vote per GFO. The ministry would distribute the voting cards to each eligible voter. The vote would be on one question: Do you feel that all farmers in your county should support a general farm organization?
My plan would be on a county-by-county basis; you'd have votes county by county. If 51% of the eligible farmers voted yes to the question in that county, then that county would be deemed to be a mandatory membership county. If 51% of the eligible farmers voted no to the question, then that county would be deemed to be a voluntary membership county.
If a county is deemed a mandatory membership county, then all farmers would have to pay the membership fee to any of the general farm organizations. No GFO would be excluded from the list unless that was its choice. Also, there would have to be a space for people who, because of religious purposes, could not support a farm organization.
If farmers in a county wanted to change its designation, they would have to get the signatures of 51% of the eligible farm families or businesses on a petition and the petition would then have to be submitted to OMAF or to an all-party committee designated for this so that the ballots for a vote could be distributed to the county. The same question would then be used in the ballot process, with the same percentage needed for the proper designation to be awarded for the county. Therefore, if that county was deemed mandatory and if 51% of the people signed a petition saying, "We don't want our county to be a mandatory membership county," the petition would be given to the branch or the all-party committee. They would then look at it and distribute the ballots, if actually 51% were there. Then the vote would be taken and 51% of the farmers would have to support the question, "Do you want your county to be a mandatory membership county?" If not, the vote would lose and the county would be a voluntary membership county.
In order to bring all general farm organizations together to discuss farm issues, we would then need a forum. I propose one that would be similar to the Ontario Federation of Labour. Each GFO would have a number of delegates to this forum of general farm organizations proportional to the farmers' support from the counties.
I believe that an Ontario Federation of Labour forum will help the coming together of GFOs to discuss the pertinent issues that face agriculture. This forum would also help the GFOs work together collectively in order to achieve common goals for all farm families and to make sure that farm families continue to be the focus of agriculture, and also the focus to be the preservation of our rural communities.
I'd like to thank you for your time and I'd be happy to answer any of the questions that you might have.
The Vice-Chair: Before we start, I'd like to apologize about the meetings being held here in Toronto. It was at the discretion of the Chair and the clerk to decide, from the advertisements that went across the province, on whether meetings should be held outside of Metro, in, say, Bruce. We did not get a large number of people from that area saying they wanted a meeting to be held there, so it was financially better to have the meetings held here. You can submit your expenses for the cost of coming here. It was cheaper than sending the committee out on the road.
Mr Gaudreau: How was it advertised? In the daily papers or the weekly farm papers?
The Vice-Chair: In the daily papers.
Mr Gaudreau: As far as I know, in most areas farmers receive the small weekly papers, so they might not have known about the process if it was not in the weekly papers. We only saw it in the Chatham Daily News and the Windsor Star. There are also 12 other small weekly papers between Chatham and Windsor, so a lot of the farmers did not see that.
The Vice-Chair: One of the problems the committee was faced with was a short time line between the time the House rose and when we were allowed to advertise. That's why didn't have time to get into the weekly papers. Our apologies.
Mr Gaudreau: I understand.
1200
Mrs Fawcett: Thank you for a fine presentation. I congratulate you. You certainly have given some negative aspects that you consider Bill 42 has, but then you've also very clearly given us food for thought on a proposal and your ideas as to how to make something better and make it work. I really appreciate that.
One thing that has concerned me is the fact that the NFU has pulled away from being one of the accredited farm organizations. Did the youth support that?
Mr Gaudreau: Yes, they did. I was not at the regional convention because my mother passed away and I was not able to attend.
Mrs Fawcett: I'm sorry to hear that.
Mr Gaudreau: From what I heard from our Ontario youth adviser, who was just appointed -- I used to be the Ontario youth adviser before I was elected national youth vice-president -- she supported it and the youth at the convention did support pulling away from Bill 42.
Mrs Fawcett: I know and certainly have read about some of the reasons, but I always think, is it the best way, to pull away and then not have a voice there? Are the negative aspects really going to balance the positives of actually being there to voice your concerns rather than now? You want to maybe focus in on other aspects of agriculture; there's nothing wrong with that. But this is really a major piece of legislation. It's maybe your pipeline into the ministry. I'm just concerned about that.
Mr Gaudreau: I understand what you're saying, but there's a bit more to it than that. We are a national organization. If we were to follow this legislation, we would have to change considerably our constitution, which would change the intent of our organization. I don't believe a lot of the people at that convention were willing to change our organization.
We were provincial organizations back in the 1960s, to 1969. Then we came together because we decided that what happens in Ontario does affect Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, BC, Quebec and every other province. So if we were to have a national focus where the farmers in Canada collectively came together and spoke about their problems and their differences and worked together to try and solve them and not pit one province against the other, that is the only way we're going to keep the farmers of Canada together, working together and working collectively. That's why we did not feel that going down to a provincial scope again is something that we want.
Mr Cleary: I want to clear up something. Are you speaking on behalf of your youth organization or are you speaking on behalf of the National Farmers Union?
Mr Gaudreau: I'm speaking on behalf of myself. I'm taking what the youth have told me. I guess you could say I'm speaking on behalf of the youth wing, but I am not speaking on behalf of the national or executive body or on behalf of region 3, which is the Ontario region of the National Farmers Union. I am not speaking on their behalf; I'm speaking on behalf of myself and of the concerned youth who have spoken to me about this.
Mr Cleary: Do you think the parent body is supportive of what you are doing this morning?
Mr Gaudreau: I think it is. Part of our problem with it was a vote, yes. Basically, this is democracy, a "majority rules" democracy. Coming together in a forum after the democracy, after a vote, the coming together of farm organizations for discussion I believe would be attainable and I believe the farmers' union would support that. I know, talking with my youth president, Chris Tait from Manitoba, and some of the other youth, that they are for it just because it's the democracy, it's the majority rules.
The numbers could be changed a bit to 55%, 56%, whatever. But in each province before that, there was a certain percentage, and this is the way it was, the vote part of it, not the federation of labour part of it. Back in Ontario in 1967, I think it was, when we had the one GFO vote, that's the way it was. It wasn't 51%; I think it was up to about 65% or 60%, if I remember correctly. Then a year later, it happened in Quebec. They had a vote in Quebec. It wasn't legislated by government. They had a vote in Quebec and 68% of the farmers supported it. That's why it was put through, because the farmers decided.
Mr Cleary: In your opinion, the only way to bring them back would be to have a vote. Is that correct?
Mr Gaudreau: I think not just a vote; I cannot speak for the whole region, but I know that they had a lot of problems. They had problems with the tribunal; we had problems that -- changing our constitution. There are a lot of flaws in here that would make us change our constitution, change our organization in order to make it a provincial organization again, which we had for 10 years and we changed it to a national.
There are many things, but I think if you went by the process that I have stated, the organizations would not have to be just provincial in scope. If they were national organizations and if they had provincial representation in the province, then I think they should be allowed.
But what has to happen is all ten, or I think there are nine, general farm organizations would have to come together and sit down and draw up the terms of what the regulations and the rules should be.
I guess what I'm suggesting is keeping the farm registration, scrapping the stable funding part of it and having all farm organizations sit down and work it out among themselves. I think the ministry should stay as far back from it as possible.
You asked one of the members of the Grey county federation about the farm programs going to an organization. If the ministry were to drop programs on to a general farm organization, that's very scary because you have the farm organization becoming an arm of the government. How could they be effective lobbyists? If they said no to the government it would cut their funding.
Whatever happens, whether or not it might happen, there is the possibility that this might happen, that the government might control that farm organization.
Mr Murdoch: Just a quick question. I take it, though, that you would like to see registration, people registering as farmers but without any pay, without the compensation.
Mr Gaudreau: I think they could register, yes, but I'm saying they should not be forced to send a cheque when they register or anything like that. Whatever the minister wants to use that farm registration for, maybe the parliamentary assistant or the deputy minister would be able to clarify that; it's a bit wishy-washy to me what exactly he wants to use that farm registration for. I cannot think of any program right now that they might need it for, if that could be clarified.
Mr Murdoch: We do register when we get our tax rebate.
Mr Gaudreau: That's right.
Mr Murdoch: I believe, and I've seen some draft forms, there's not going to be much difference in the form for this than that. Then we go on. If they do register then you're saying that -- we know the NFU has dropped out of this process and that to me is wrong, because now it's not there to give its opinion. You brought yours to us, which is good. But that's how you sort things out, and not being there, then your voice may be lost somewhere in the line of everything. But if they register, and you're saying they just sort of register and then get together without the stable funding --
Mr Gaudreau: Yes, right.
Mr Murdoch: We sort of looked at that, because if we're going to register now the way the bill is set up now, there will be a registration fee and it will go to the GFO that they want. But if you look at the clause Leo was talking about, and in three years the minister or a group like this will look at it, would that not be the time to sort of try to implement some of your ideas? You have to get something going and it takes time to do that and that's why I think that part's in there. Whether or not we change the minister to a committee is up for debate, but by dropping out now, we lose your voice. Do you not think that is wrong?
Mr Gaudreau: I don't think it's wrong, because the membership had spoken. As a leader of a farm organization, I have to listen to the membership. The membership speaks. Because I'm elected by them, they pay the annual general membership fee for the farm organization. If the membership felt that they had and we should have dropped out and we dropped out, then I'd have to support their decision on it.
Mr Murdoch: I agree with you there.
Mr Gaudreau: What I'm saying is that, in my own opinion, I really don't know because I was not at the eight-hour marathon debate we had in order to discuss this. I'm not sure what would have been brought in or what might have been said. But dealing with the part of the bill, I think it's section 32 or something.
Mr Murdoch: I don't have the bill.
Mr Gaudreau: Section 32 or 33, I think it was. I think why I said to do the farm registration at first was because when we constantly asked the minister for a vote, he stated, "We don't have a list to use in order to let the farmers decide." Do the farm registration, then let the farmers decide. That's what I'm saying.
I think you have to bring in -- if you start something and if you don't start it democratically, then you're just going to be working and working and trying to keep fixing it until you make it democratic. It's going to waste a heck of a lot of time.
I'm just wondering if the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has thought that if everyone has to send it a cheque, okay, 20,000 stay members and the other 48,000 want their money back and that's going to cost it $15 for each returned cheque. It might end up costing them that whatever many million they made.
1210
Mr Murdoch: That's true, but that's the democratic process of it. They are giving the vote indirectly. It may not be a vote like some people are asking for, but at least that is a vote. If you want your money back, you're not being forced. I take exception to the rule, "They're forcing," because nobody is forced to pay. You send the cheque and you can have it sent back to you. In that way at least you get some credibility into the system.
Mr Gaudreau: Except that the tribunal has the power to make it mandatory at any time.
Mr Hansen: I really don't have too many questions, but there was one thing that came out that I don't think the NFU had explained, or maybe it just passed me by: the national policy. With the policy you have, you couldn't wind up really coming aboard after reading your policy of being a national, not a provincial any longer. That was one of the big stumbling blocks. Some of the other reasons that we heard, one of the biggest ones was that it just didn't fit in at this time.
Mr Gaudreau: That's right. We have a huge policy book but it's our constitution that -- I think I forgot to bring it with me. Our old executive secretary, who was with us for 35 years back when we were a Saskatchewan farmers' union and then a national farmers' union, who helped to write the original constitution for us, criticized the way it was laid out in the bill, and what we had to change -- as far as I know it would have been too hard, plus we wouldn't have been able to give you an answer anyway because we would have had to take it to a national body, which is in January, and then we would have had to have a vote of our delegates through our national convention. Whether or not they would have passed it, that the Ontario region become part of it and passed all their resolutions and the amendments, that would have been hard to do, considering the members of the Ontario region of the National Farmers Union do not want to make those changes to the resolution. So it was a hard process and yes, a big part of it was changing our constitution.
Mr Hansen: Do you think that your organization will lose membership over this or do you feel that the other two farm groups, if they ask for a refund, will become members of the National Farmers Union?
Mr Gaudreau: I think they might become part of the National Farmers Union. In May and June we had an organizational drive where we picked up 78 new members in six weeks, and that was just going around and talking to local people and doing a little bit of work there. Most of those were new members. One of those groups that joined with us, a huge majority of them, was called the Line in the Dirt. You might have heard them. They have joined with us. We have a local of 40 members, up in the Markdale area, of the Line in the Dirt, the old Line in the Dirt people who are now National Farmers Union members.
Mr Hansen: Were these people members of another farm group or was this before you decided to pull out?
Mr Gaudreau: This was before we decided to pull out, but they were members of another farm group. Well, a lot of them were members of the federation and they decided to change and to come with us, but I don't really like to say that because that's really not important. The importance is that with people contacting us and calling us -- in November, any time, I could swing out to any part of Ontario and do some meetings and get some new members, and I know that, and probably a lot of them are going to be the two thirds of farmers, but it's just the amount of time that we have.
Mr Hansen: That was before July 25, though, too.
Mr Gaudreau: Yes, but right now I have locals who want me to come out and do meetings.
Mr Gary Wilson: I found your plan here fascinating. You mentioned the Rand formula; I assume that means the membership fee that you mentioned in one of the sections.
Mr Gaudreau: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: Is that non-refundable?
Mr Gaudreau: It would be non-refundable, but that depends on if the county voted in favour of whether or not they wanted to be a mandatory-membership county. The membership fees would be non-refundable, but that depends on the county. If the majority of farmers voted for that county to have it, then of course it would be non-refundable.
Mr Gary Wilson: So you would have to pay that in a county even thought the adjacent counties voted against the plan. It seems to me to be quite a patchwork here. There could be a patchwork of representation that would certainly undermine the effectiveness of the plan.
Mr Gaudreau: I don't think so, because -- in a way it might, but it might not, because the other counties would be deemed voluntary memberships, so you would have people who might want to become voluntary members of the nine or ten general farm organizations of Ontario. All it would do is the farm organizations could see where they are not supported, and why aren't they supported there, and talk and try and work out the differences. The farm organizations in Ontario are going to have to work collectively together with the farmers in order to try and make sure that the farmer's voice is heard, because they're representing him. If a majority of the farmers in Ontario don't support the general farm organizations, then there is a problem, and it's up to the farm organizations to find out why there is a problem and try to overcome those problems.
The Vice-Chair: A point of clarification, Mr Klopp.
Mr Klopp: Yes. Thank you for your comments today. I'm glad you've taken the time to come out. You made one comment, and maybe it was misinterpreted, that the tribunal may decide to make this a mandatory, non-refundable program. The tribunal has not those powers; it's actually section 20, it's the government through the legislative process which states the refund, and that's in the bill. I wanted to make that clarification.
Mr Murdoch: It would have to be an amendment to the bill.
Mr Klopp: Yes.
Mr Gaudreau: I'm sorry, excuse me. I misinterpreted it.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Gaudreau, for taking the time out and coming into Toronto today.
The committee will start promptly at 2 o'clock.
The committee recessed from 1218 to 1402.
GLENN COATES
The Chair: The first witness this afternoon is Glenn Coates. Proceed with your presentation. You have one half-hour, and the committee would appreciate at least half of that for questions from members.
Mr Glenn Coates: Good afternoon, committee. I'd like to thank those members who made committee hearings possible on this issue. It has certainly been a controversial issue with a lot of discussion but without a proper venue for discussion on this issue perhaps for the past year and a half.
I have some general concerns as to the nature of this bill and the direction that it takes. I don't think it's the best answer for farmers in this province, and when I read through the Hansard from second reading, I guess it was, and read through the comments between the comments on the prices of cherries, it seems that members from all parties expressed this concern about having a strong farm voice. I'd suggest that although the concept of a strong farm voice may be important, it may be difficult to achieve in Ontario.
I'll read some of my comments that I made to the Stable Funding Steering Committee a year ago:
"During the past year I've discussed the stable funding proposal with numerous farmers from across Ontario. Some are in favour; some are not. Views are well considered on both sides and strongly held. The one conclusion that is obvious is there's no clear consensus on this proposal.
"If the proposal were to be enacted in its present form or in a somewhat modified form, many of the 30,000 farmers who do not now belong to GFOs would feel imposed upon. There would be continuing debate. Those farmers who do not feel fairly represented by the GFOs would probably turn to their commodity boards for representation and we would once again have conflict between commodity groups and the GFOs.
"Some within our farm community think that agriculture would be better served with a single, stronger voice. Twenty-five years ago we had general farms. All the farms on my street were very similar. They almost all, without exception, milked a few cows, grew a few acres of tomatoes, kept a few pigs. They were all in the same situation. They all understood each other. A single farm voice may very well have adequately expressed their common concerns.
"Today we don't have general farms. We have larger, commodity-specific farms. I don't really understand my neighbour's dairy operation and I'm sure she really doesn't understand mine. Between commodities, we are in many respects competitors. Ontario's agriculture is characterized by its diversity. Farmers produce a variety of commodities in a wide range of social, economic and physical environments. A single farm voice can no longer adequately express our concerns."
When you drive across this province, the difference in physical environments that people have to farm in is tremendous. The social and cultural traditions of those areas are vastly different, our experiences are different, and to expect that now we are going to have a single strong voice, I think, is unrealistic.
I think the basis of this Bill 42 proposal, to generate a strong farm voice -- and much was looked at by the success of the Union des producteurs agricoles in Quebec, which was established some time ago and was established with a mandate of a vote of the producers. But in Quebec they have this thing called language. It makes them a far more homogeneous farm community. Perhaps they aren't so much so today, but at the time that it was established, they were. That model really doesn't fit Ontario. Some of my good friends from the Grey-Bruce area, we have vastly different views on life. We both farm in Ontario, but there are regional differences of opinion.
"If it is unreasonable for us to expect to have a single common voice for all of Ontario's agriculture, then let us at least have a common meeting table where all farmers and farm groups can come together to discuss their concerns, common interests and differences."
I think it's unreasonable that we're going to have a single, strong farm voice, but I think it would be very reasonable if we did have a single table where all producers, all commodities, all farm groups came together to discuss their problems, not expecting that a single message would necessarily come from that, but it would be a table where things would be worked out.
We already have that experience to a degree in Ontario through the agricultural commodity council, which is just a group of farm commodity groups plus the GFOs that come together to work on various issues.
When you talk to Terry Daynard, who is, I guess, the chief executive of the corn producers, who also has somewhat been the chief executive of this commodity council, when you talk to him and you listen to the spirit of cooperation between farm groups when they sit down and allocate who's going to work on which problem, to me that's the direction we ought to be heading: kind of an inclusive, cooperative model. So we already have this experience.
Perhaps based upon this experience we could develop a broad-based Ontario agricultural council which could provide the leadership format that our diverse industry needs. This council needs to be inclusive with respect to its membership. The farm women, the Franco-Ontarians, the GFOs, the commodity organizations, the government of Ontario and others -- everybody needs to be at that table to put input into our farm programs.
This council should not create a new bureaucracy to replace our existing organizations, but rather should be a coordinating and funding body. Financial resources should flow through the council to its members.
On the issue of money, money can come from a variety of sources, both from within government and from within the industry, from registration fees and a number of things. If that council, which includes everybody, decides where the money gets spent, I'm sure all groups will come to the table because the money will get redistributed through their table. And if we went back to the issue of, you know -- if we're going to use the $150 fee, there's $7.5 million that such a council would have to redistribute.
1410
I think that's a much better reflection of the reality of agriculture in this province than the single, strong farm voice. If such a council did develop a unanimous consensus opinion on something, that would be a very strong statement.
That was my submission to the Stable Funding Steering Committee. Those ideas were developed in discussion with other people. I don't claim ownership to any ideas. A lot of it was through discussions with a fellow called Tony Morris, who's on the executive of the OFA. Although we disagree quite a bit on things, we do discuss agriculture in this province and looking for solutions.
The response to this idea that I got from Roger George last year: You raised once again the concept of a central council. This is the concept that eluded us in the 1969 GFO. This is the concept that Quebec picked up and built the UPA around. It's a wonderful concept. Those are Roger's comments on that.
If it's so wonderful, then why aren't we working towards it? The fear I have is that if we implement this bill, everybody will see it as being the bill and the structure to solve our problems. Nobody is going to be looking for any other solutions, and certainly I don't think any government in the next few years is going to want to come back and stick its finger in the farm organization pie. So I just see that when this bill is implemented -- and I suspect that will be the case -- it will preclude us from having what I see as being a better answer, which I think is unfortunate for agriculture in this province.
One of the concerns I have on this single farm voice issue is the exclusionary nature of this bill. I'm not surprised that it ends up being exclusionary, because the process by which it was developed was quite exclusionary. It was all developed in a back room. It wasn't developed in the public venue. Often when government wants to develop something, it goes and has consultative meetings across the province. I remember a number of meetings that the government held on rural planning that OMAF people -- I believe there were 14 consultative meetings which were held before a position was drawn up. The only meetings we had on this were the presentation of a position that had already been drawn up.
To me, what really highlights the exclusionary nature of the way this bill was developed was an item from the agenda of the stable funding working group, which were the people from the organizations that were sitting down doing the nuts-and-bolts work on this, and this was their agenda from July 16, 1992. It still flabbergasts me that this item is on the agenda. It's the documentation for excluding other groups: women, natives, UCFO -- that's the franco-Ontarians -- Catholic rural life and Old Order Mennonites.
To me, it's unbelievable that in 1993, somebody would want to exclude women, Catholics, francophones, natives and Mennonites. They're the people we want to include. Instead of having documentation as to why we're excluding them, we ought to have had on that agenda documentation as to why we're going to include them, and more. That to me just highlights the exclusionary nature of the development process, and that's why I think somebody wants to exclude everybody; somebody wants to have the voice and they don't want to share the power.
I have some specific concerns with the legislation. That's my general concern: It's the wrong approach. It's the wrong approach because it was developed in the wrong process. If we'd had a better process, we would probably have had a better answer. But I think we're probably too late for that now, when we've got this piece of legislation.
Dealing with the bill, one of the concerns I have is that when you ask about budget allocation for handling the administration of this, Rolly says, "We're going handle it with existing staff." Well, there's half a million dollars or million dollars worth of expenditure on shuffling paper and handling cheques. Is this government really so slack that there are those resources sitting there not doing anything now?
One of the major concerns I have with the legislation the way it's written is that there's no financial liability. The named GFOs will not have any responsibility for the millions of farmer dollars which they will handle and have a legal liability for refund. If a GFO is not able to make a refund, farmers will only be able to get their refund through federal bankruptcy legislation.
I think there ought to be an amendment to the bill. Either the government guarantees the liability for refund or the GFOs have to demonstrate bonding or financial responsibility for the amount of money that they'll have to refund. I don't think it does our general farm organizations any benefit to have this liability for refund hanging over their heads. Our general farm organizations are already in a very tight financial situation.
I'm sure some of them, or GFOs yet to be formed perhaps down the road, will operate under financial lines of credit from a bank, and a bank's going to say, "Well, Jeez, you've got $2 million there. Is it yours or not? Can we lend you money? Is that your asset or not?" It makes it difficult. The fact that the GFOs have to accept the liability may make it difficult for them in their financial operations, so that one way or the other, either they have to demonstrate the financial responsibility for the refund or the government has to guarantee the refund. As it's presently being stated in the bill, I'm being asked to lend the OFA $150. But there's no guarantee I'll get it back. It may or may not come back. I hope it does.
Another concern I had when the legislation first came out was that it really didn't fit the nature and structure of the NFU in this province. I guess the NFU withdrawing from this legislation kind of ends my concerns there, other than I hate to see a farm group excluded. NFU -- I go on down the list, there's a lot bunch more, but they felt they couldn't work with it.
I'm not sure in this legislation where the special funding for the francophone organization's going to come from. Who's going to pay it? Does anybody have an answer as to where that francophone funding's coming from? It says it will be provided, but there's nowhere it says that the minister will provide it or at what level. There's been discussion that the GFOs are going to pay transfer funds to the francophones. There's nothing in the legislation that would indicate that. It's this kind of hanging thing there. It says they may get it, but it doesn't say who's going to give it to them. That needs to have an answer to it.
One of the problems that has always concerned me with the legislation that we saw before Christmas in the new bill is that the accreditation criteria aren't in the legislation; they're to be in the regulations. I don't think this is fair to the farmers of the province and I don't think it's necessarily fair to the farm organizations.
If those accreditation criteria can be changed at the whim of some government down the road, some existing GFO may no longer be accredited. If there's some other organization that's out there that wishes to become an accredited GFO and it's working on today's set of regulatory accreditation criteria, by the time they apply for accreditation perhaps they may change.
1420
I think it does the farmers of this province a much better service if those accreditation criteria are stated firmly in the legislation and not in the regulation. Then we know exactly what those farm organizations are and are supposed to do and supposed to do for some time; not that those accreditation criteria can't be changed, but if they're in the legislation, it allows us to have a much more public debate as to what those accreditation criteria will be.
One of the concerns I have is that the accreditation criteria in the explanatory material that accompanied the bill are different from the accreditation criteria that were presented to the farmers last summer. The comment is that it was changed on the basis of comments from farm organizations. That's really without any kind of public debate. We kind of did debate these accreditation criteria quite hard in the farm community last summer, and all of a sudden we see something that's different.
The one that's excluded -- and it baffles me why this one was excluded. We were presented last year with an accreditation criterion which was number two in last year's, "Be provincial in scope," which includes having democratically elected leaders, representatives and accessible local organization structures across agricultural areas of the province and providing individuals an opportunity to become actively involved in, and empowering them to influence, the organization at a provincial and local level.
For the life of me, I don't understand why that one has been deleted. I think that's what we were presented with last summer and I would like to see that criterion go back into the accreditation criteria and I would like to see the accreditation criteria moved into the legislation. It does the farmers a service and it does the farm organizations and potential GFOs a service to put it in the legislation and not in the regulation.
The issue of registration -- and I don't understand why we have farm organization funding and registration mixed together, but that's the way it's been done. There are a lot of people who have a lot of concerns about farm registration, and I keep trying to point out to people, boy, we sure all register to drive our cars on the highway and we tell them a whole lot. We tell them where we live. We tell them how old we are, the colour of our eyes, height, sex. We even let them take a picture of us. Then, all of a sudden, we've got this big concern about privacy because somebody wants to have some, I presume, relatively simply farm registration. To me, that's hypocrisy on many people's parts.
I think registration is definitely a benefit and it should have been done a whole long time ago. It's time OMAF knew who the farmers were out there, who their clients were and what they are trying to do for them.
But one of the things I feel strongly about the registration -- and I suggested this to the committee last year as well -- is that the information collected under farm registration needs to be shared as widely as possible. Many commodity organizations have poor or incomplete mailing lists. Some farm organizations' operations market their commodities under a variety of names. It's Joe's farm; it's Joe and Mary's farm; it's Joe Blow. The kids market some of that commodity. They get on the list.
If you look through some of these commodity organization lists, some of these commodity organizations really have one farm operation and there may be four or five names on the list. That really doesn't help them identify who the operations are. Then they say: "Jeez, we can't mail anything out to anybody. We don't know who really should get it." They don't mail, which makes for poor farm organizations, because they don't communicate, because they recognize they've got a poor quality mailing list; or farm commodity organizations mail it out to everybody and lots of farm operations will receive multiple copies of communications. That's not efficient either.
I really think, if we're going to register farmers, we ought to share the data with the farm commodity groups or at least the names and addresses. I think what we need to do to help farm organizations when you're going to have a registration, I would say you put it in the form of what I call a default question on the registration form.
You ask the registering farmers: "Do you wish to have your name and address registered with a commodity board or association?" and then, "Please specify." Presumably on the registration form there are going to be a number of commodities that you produced, and I'm sure somebody can figure out you've ticked this box and you want your name to go, then your name will go to that box. I think that will really be a help to a number of our farm commodity organizations.
Then the aggregate of this information, I think, should be publicly available. We need to have as much information in the farm community as possible so that farmers know what's going on and the government knows what's going on so that everybody is working from a good information base when we discuss farm policy issues.
One other comment, and that deals with section 33, which is the review section of the legislation. I believe it says the minister "may" have a review after three years. Well, if you're going to have something that's "may," is it "may not," "can't do it until then"? What does it mean? I'm certainly not sure. In questioning what that meant and thinking about what that meant, I think maybe it ought to say that the minister may not have a review until three years.
Let's have this thing in place for a period of time and that gives some surety to the farm organizations that the thing doesn't get diddled around while they're trying to get on stream, or the target doesn't move on them in that kind of time. But then, on the other side, after three years everybody's registered, the minister will have a review, and there's no excuse for not having a vote because we'll have a good list.
I think if this is the democratic will -- and some of the most vocal opponents of this I've heard said, you know, "If the farmers had had a vote" -- and I feel much the same way -- we even accepted that bill that the minister tried to pass at Christmas. There end my comments both general in nature, which is on the direction that this took, and specifically on points.
The Chair: Thank you very much. There are approximately two minutes per caucus. Mr Murdoch.
Mr Murdoch: That was certainly an excellent presentation and I don't think you're totally against what we're trying to do here to help the farmer.
I know you started out that you thought maybe all the groups wouldn't be represented, but most of them do belong to the OFA or Christian Farmers. The different producers all do join, and I think that's where they come to the table. The thing is it's tough to have government and have everyone running there with their different problems. If you can sort of coordinate them, like you said, at one table and then come with a strong voice -- and I think that's what we're trying to do here. I think that's what they are doing with this bill. Then later on there may be other groups that want to join, as I said, and that can happen.
I know I haven't got too much longer. I just want to add that the "may" section, where the minister "may," where there's talk about that, it should be "a committee may" decide that and the word "shall" should be in there. I think that's going to be an amendment and we're going to look at that. That's a concern I think that will be addressed for you.
But don't you think that most of the groups could belong to either the OFA or the Christian Farmers? It's too bad the National Farmers Union dropped out.
Mr Coates: I would think that it's close to working but doesn't quite work, and I think the problem is in the OFA structure. If somehow we could get rid of those individual memberships of OFA, make them all individual members of county federations, because we've seen this in the past and we go back to that wonderful Grenville resolution which was the thing on the beef market, which maybe was popular in your riding.
Individual producers could say, "Well, Jeez, as individual members we've got another organization and we can put this pressure up through here which goes against the commodity board." We had this very costly, expensive and divisive fight. As long as the OFA has individual membership an individual has got a choice as to take it up through the federation or take it up through his commodity organization.
I think if the OFA would restructure itself as to be just a federation of agricultural commodity groups and representatives from county federations of agriculture, then I believe it would come a whole lot closer to doing it. But over the years, they've accumulated a whole lot of political baggage with a lot of people for things that they have or haven't done. That's why I think, you know, if -- I agree it could work but perhaps a new organization that they're a full member of and would draw funds from.
1430
Mr Klopp: Thank you for coming today, Glenn. You've made your comments and worked hard on this and you've come up with some interesting thoughts and we will keep them under advisement.
There were a couple of points, one or two, that are administrative things I'd like the deputy to clear up right now, if she would, please.
Ms Burak: Yes. I believe your specific question was, where would the money be coming from to handle the administration of this act? I think that issue has been raised by others. In response, on behalf of Mr Klopp, we do not see this administrative task as being onerous. Generally speaking, because money is tighter and tighter these days, we're being asked in everything we do to become more and more efficient and are given new tasks without additional resources from here on in. In short, there will not be additional expenditures here, we are simply prioritizing our tasks to get this done.
Mr Klopp: In fact, I said earlier you've been involved in this a long way, and in the previous bill, and something which I was quite glad to see in this one, it is far more streamlined. This big corporation, corporate identity, some had been talking about is definitely out of this now because it is refundable and the cheques will be going to the actual farm organization. It's their administration problem, it's no longer ours, so we really have streamlined this considerably.
Mr Coates: The ministry will still have to receive and record the cheque. It will have to document its transfer.
Mr Klopp: Sure.
Mr Coates: It's not free.
Mr Klopp: No, but that's part of the registration too.
Mr Cleary: Mr Coates, I'd like to thank you for your presentation. I'm sure from the remarks you made today that you spent considerable time on this and I think we have to take a lot of that into consideration. I take it from your presentation that you're strongly in support of a farm registration, almost immediately?
Mr Coates: To me, it's something that could have been done long ago and probably done by order in council. It may not necessarily require legislation. It could have been done under the farm tax rebate program, a simple registration system under that to generate numbers of people and who they were. Why the government hasn't done it, why it didn't do it last year or the year before, amazes me.
Mr Cleary: You say that the different farm organizations around the table -- how far would you go on different farm organizations?
Mr Coates: I like to be very inclusive of everybody. I don't see why anybody should be excluded. You know, if the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario wants to sit at the table, I think they have a right to sit at a table and present themselves, all the commodity organizations, the Ontario Farm Women's Network, the Franco-Ontarians. Everybody ought to be at the table. I think there is a mechanism for -- you make the hurdle as low as possible, not as high as possible. Everybody who wants to be there, allow them to be there.
Mr Cleary: I take it that you found a problem with the way the consultation process took place on this bill. Is that correct?
Mr Coates: I don't believe there was a consultation process. The consultation process was in a closed room between members of the three named GFOs and the ministry. That's where the consultation took place. It didn't take place in open forum in the public.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Coates. Your views and expression of them have played an important role in the process and we appreciate your taking the time to come and express those views.
GREY ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRACY AND GROWTH
The Chair: Next is Janette Mazur. You've been allowed half an hour. The committee would appreciate at least 15 minutes of that for questions and answers.
Ms Janette Mazur: This is the GDG oral submission to the steering committee on stable funding. It's delivered by Janette Mazur.
Good afternoon, honourable members of the steering committee. My name is Janette Mazur. I've been asked and gladly volunteer to present this submission on behalf of the Grey Association for Democracy and Growth. As a member from its early beginnings and as a former director, I am proud to now bring you a small history introduction to the Grey Association for Democracy and Growth, otherwise known as GDG.
Our association is a volunteer ratepayers' organization supported by due-paying members and was founded in January 1990 on a 1,500-plus-name petition to support our local elected representatives in planning. From that time on, our organization has been dedicated to protecting local resources, preserving local government and promoting local citizens' rights. To that end, we have and are taking an active and sometimes leading role in a multitude of issues that may or will have a significant impact on the lives and future of the citizens of Grey county, a predominantly rural jurisdiction: issues such as Grey county versus the MMA and MOE, the Ontario Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee hearings, the ongoing areas of natural and scientific interest-natural heritage areas MNR program fiasco, the Niagara Escarpment five-year review and the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario.
Our association feels that the passing of Bill 42 on stable funding, now known as the farm registration and funding act, could have some detrimental impacts on the rural citizens of all Ontario. Therefore, we have prepared this submission for your serious consideration.
Unity cannot be legislated. Unity among farmers and a strong farmers' voice is desirable, indeed necessary, but the current proposal will result instead in great conflict within the farm community. If implemented, this proposal could result in a costly, divisive court action against the government and the GFOs under the human rights freedom of association.
At this juncture we would like to point out that changes, including removal of fines for non-compliance, do not remove concerns with the financial gun to the head registration enforcement. Additionally, discrimination is evident due to the exemption of some farmers, in particular the Mennonite sector. Legal action could certainly be a consideration here.
It must be made clear that the present initiative was produced and promoted by a government-conceived farm organization, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which has failed through the years to acquire the trust and support of more than a minority of farmers. Existing GFOs are the voice of a minority. Most farmers see a lack of consistent, effective representation from these groups and choose not to be a part of them. Commodity groups have had a measure of success in correcting the major farm problems, for example, a fair return for products.
The consultation process left much to be desired. For instance, the Markdale September 8, 1992, meeting was an insult to the intelligence of the farm people in Grey county. What had been advertised as an information meeting turned into an OFA rally supporting their proposal and the NDP minister -- a determination by the minister to arbitrarily dictate to farmers what they must do, how they will do it, who they must associate with and what they must pay to the government administration for the privilege of compliance.
As the industrial age expires and individuals, small farmers, entrepreneurs and a cottage-industry initiative endeavours to rebuild this tottering nation, we witness a government initiative introducing central control on this fragile agricultural industry through farmer registration, compulsory checkoffs, unhealthy farm program propositions, insignificant foreign trade policies and government indifference to the wellbeing of rural producers.
1440
We note how quickly the government reacted in the recent past when the brewing industry came under pressure -- quite different than when producers of basic products came under fire.
Just as we are opposed to taxpayers being tax collectors, PST and GST, we are equally opposed to government collecting organizational dues. We see the function of government to be supportive to the aspirations and needs of the electorate, endeavouring to create an environment conducive to the successful achievement of those aspirations.
If we are unable to create a unity process built from grass-roots participatory democracy, then how much faith can we have in the end result? Without that faith and true representation, what chance and how much effort will a regime created through government legislation have at resolving the enormous inequities and barriers that exist, many created and perpetuated by government itself, issues such as:
-- Ensuring that "free trade" is accompanied by "fair trade."
-- Balanced trade must not be accomplished at the producers' expense.
-- Monopolistic manipulations in the markets should not be construed as "free enterprise."
-- The urban lobby manipulators, the majority of voters, must not be permitted to dictate policy, price or regulations adversely affecting rural producers, who are the minority of voters.
-- Subsidies eventually spell trouble and failure.
-- In short, a fair return on investment spells success for all.
We would like to remind the standing committee that equity within society equals democracy and that the rural voice must be strengthened through a majority consensus, not destroyed by the minority power brokers.
The Grey Association for Democracy and Growth believes that it is not the function of government to be a collection agency for any organizational dues, nor should the government be involved in right-to-assemble activities.
In conclusion, we, the Grey Association for Democracy and Growth, believe in democracy. In the best interests of the principle, we strongly recommend that before arbitrary, compulsory legislation is considered, a proper consultation process must be undertaken to ensure the majority of affected farm people understand such legislation. Following this process, a proper referendum must be held to allow all owners and users of farm land a vote on this far-reaching, irreversible legislation.
Yours truly, the Grey Association for Democracy and Growth.
The Chair: Thank you. There's approximately five minutes per caucus for questions. Mr Klopp.
Mr Klopp: I'll let Mr Hansen go ahead.
Mr Hansen: You said there were 1,500 on a petition. How many people are actually in your association?
Ms Mazur: From 800 to 1,000.
Mr Hansen: Which represents all of Grey.
Ms Mazur: No.
Mr Hansen: Okay. You were saying the OFA doesn't represent the whole farm community. There are a lot of groups that aren't members. So it's not that you're going to get 100% that are going to be OFA members or in that organization, or the three of them.
Ms Mazur: Some of our members are OFA members as well.
Mr Hansen: Yes, and they agree with this, as OFA members.
Ms Mazur: This is the director's decision.
Mr Hansen: I didn't have any other questions.
Mr Klopp: We're here today and this week to hear ideas and we'll take your concerns and thoughts under advisement. The minister has had a long discussion period with this issue and this is part and parcel of that, and we thank you for coming today.
Mrs Fawcett: On the registration part of the bill, does your group have a problem with the registration form or registering with the government so that the government can have this information?
Ms Mazur: Some of the members do, yes.
Mrs Fawcett: What is the problem they see with it?
Ms Mazur: I guess a lot of people just feel they're registered enough.
Mrs Fawcett: If this registration form was such that maybe it would eliminate some of the others, would that be what they are looking at, or do they just feel they shouldn't have to register?
Ms Mazur: I think they probably feel that the government has enough information on them by means of their income taxes that they fill out and then their farm tax rebate and other things, that it has all the information that could possibly be desired and that different things that it's bringing in are just a duplication of it.
Mrs Fawcett: I see. We keep hearing, though, that they don't seem to have a handle on the exact numbers and how many in each particular group attached to farming and so on, but it's interesting. Just quickly, you feel that there wasn't sufficient consultation. What form do you think that consultation should have taken?
Ms Mazur: It should have been open meetings.
Mrs Fawcett: Across the province?
Ms Mazur: Yes, across the province, and it's even like these hearings that are here today. There are very few people who knew that these hearings were taking place and then, when it did take place, set a time when farmers are so busy they can't get out of the fields.
Mrs Fawcett: I agree with you there, yes.
Ms Mazur: The other ones that took place last year, too, people had no idea when it came out and said they were having information meetings on stable funding. The farmers thought they were going to get some money for fixing the stables. They had no idea what this bill was about and a lot of them still do not. The information was not adequate to the farm community.
Mrs Fawcett: So lack of information, you feel, was a big factor?
Ms Mazur: Yes.
Mrs Fawcett: Certainly I would agree with you that this is a bad time to have hearings and it is unfortunate that we didn't get second reading in May when we could have, or even in April, as soon as we came back. If we could have got the bill brought forward, then we actually could have finished the hearings before we recessed, but that's hindsight. I'll turn it over now to my colleagues for other questions.
The Chair: Mr Cleary and Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. The gentleman before you -- and I know that you were in the room -- suggested certain problems with the bill. But I think the first issue that he brought forward -- I want to ask your thoughts on this -- was that the bill creates a mechanism where you can have particular GFOs in existence, which would be part of Bill 42, and follow a certain accreditation program.
I heard him say that is potentially a flaw in the bill because, instead of passing a bill which creates separate groups, a mechanism for the establishment of separate groups, one should be having a bill that has something that's more inclusionary; in other words, you don't have the traditional groups in the past but rather something that includes everyone. I'm wondering if you might want to share your thoughts on that.
Ms Mazur: My thoughts on that are that any farm organization or any organization whatsoever -- my own organization, the Grey Association for Democracy and Growth -- should be able to go out and sell their own memberships. I know that's not the answer you're probably looking for.
Mr Offer: No.
Ms Mazur: No, it's not, and if they cannot, then there must not be a need for them. If there was, people would gladly buy into their membership if they were getting something for it.
Mr Offer: I'm trying to get an understanding as to where your concern is with respect to the bill. If the concern is not, in principle, on the bill having certain GFOs in existence under Bill 42; and if we have heard, as we have, from the ministry that there isn't a real handle on the number of farming establishments in the province and this bill will help in getting us that particular information; and if any GFO lives or dies by its own success and ability to reach out to its members, as your association has to your members, then where are the problems with the bill as you see it?
1450
Ms Mazur: It's not a democratic process. It's being legislated by government. It's government intervention. I'm sure we wouldn't even want to do that because of our name even. We're for democracy. We're not for the government coming in and saying, "You have to belong to this group or that group," contrary to the fact that you're saying: "It's okay. You're going to get your money back. You can have it back." That's just pushing our own money back and forth and a lot of paperwork being pushed around for no reason. The people, if they don't support that group, just should not have to be associated with it at all.
Mr Murdoch: I just have one quick question. This brief that you presented to us, and I think you almost answered it to Ron over there, wasn't put forth before the full membership of the Grey Association for Democracy and Growth, was it? This brief was prepared by the directors, but it hasn't been presented to a general meeting for the full membership to vote on.
Ms Mazur: It was put together by the directors.
Mr Murdoch: So it's never been to the full membership for a vote?
Ms Mazur: Not that I know of.
Mr Murdoch: That's the main thing I wanted to know, whether the directors prepared this or whether the full membership had a chance to vote on it.
Ms Mazur: The directors prepared it.
Mr Murdoch: Okay. That's really the only thing I was concerned about, whether the full 800 had a chance to vote on it or not.
Mr Hansen: That was my question. Bill asked it for me.
The Chair: I'd like to thank you for taking the time to make the presentation here today.
Ms Mazur: I'd like to point out though, too, that if our members did want a vote on it, they would certainly get one.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Your views are important to the committee and we're glad you took the time to come and present them.
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, may I pose a question to ministry staff on the bill?
The Chair: Absolutely, as long as it takes no longer than seven minutes for the question and response.
Mr Offer: I have the greatest deal of faith in you as the timekeeper.
Under section 29 of the bill, it says, "A decision of the tribunal is final," and that's where it's left. The tribunal has a great deal of power, both in review, in accreditation, in dealing with religious objectors and things of this nature. In the information that was provided by the ministry, it says, "The decision of the tribunal is final, but the tribunal has power to reconsider its own orders."
My question is, and if you could provide the information hopefully before we get into the clause-by-clause analysis, what does that mean? Do people, do groups, have a right to appeal a decision of a tribunal to any higher body and is there an intermediate action that has to be taken in that people have to appeal the decision of the tribunal to the tribunal?
Ms Louise Stratford: I'll try to answer that. I'm Louise Stratford, counsel to the ministry. That provision about the tribunal being able to reconsider is known as the rehearing provision. It's in there because without it the tribunal wouldn't be able to reverse itself if it came to light that it made a mistake in an order, which occasionally can occur if evidence is overlooked or there's some difficulty. It does not mean that there is an appeal. The only review that could take place of a tribunal order would be in Divisional Court on a judicial review.
Mr Offer: They could only then review the decision of the tribunal on the procedure?
Ms Stratford: On the jurisdiction, whether they overstepped their bounds in making the decision they did.
Mr Offer: I don't know very much about legislation, but should there not be in the legislation steps for the general public, steps for aspiring GFOs, to be able to follow in the areas where the tribunal rules against them? This doesn't tell anybody anything. It just says that a tribunal may reconsider any order it has made, but it doesn't tell the people who have been aggrieved by the order how to get the tribunal to reconsider. There's no process. If I go to the tribunal and ask for a religious exemption and the tribunal says no, and I think the tribunal is wrong, I can go to Divisional Court and will lose, because the tribunal may have the jurisdiction to make the decision it made, but I don't have any process to appeal the decision because I think that they may not have put the proper weight on a particular piece of information that they otherwise should have. It seems to me it has always been a right of any individual, group or association, to go to a higher body to have a matter changed.
Ms Stratford: The tribunal's right to reconsider isn't confined to any particular grounds. Therefore, someone could ask for reconsideration on whatever basis he chose and it would be up to the tribunal to decide if that basis warranted a rehearing and a different order.
On a judicial review, although it's limited to jurisdictional grounds, there is in fact a fairly broad opportunity to challenge on the basis of mistakes in evidence and so on. Most things can be characterized as failing to exercise proper jurisdiction.
Mr Offer: I guess the problem I have is that when you get into the Divisional Court you're getting into, many times, a more expensive type of procedure. That may in fact in itself become a deterrent to appeal. I'm even thinking about the Workers' Compensation Board, which has certain levels of appeal. You have levels of appeal in a lot of other boards, but you don't have one here. When one takes a look at what this tribunal is going to be deciding -- it is going to be deciding and have a great deal of very important powers and be making some very important decisions. On a review, they can say to a GFO, "You are no longer a GFO." For that organization not to have a right of appeal -- I was hoping I had misread the legislation.
What do we say to those GFOs? What do we say to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture if it says: "Well, the tribunal has taken away our accreditation. We think the tribunal made a wrong decision." What would you say? "Sorry, you're out"? I don't know.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Offer. If you could provide whatever clarification you can at the moment and then we must move on.
Mr Klopp: You make some interesting points. It's something we will definitely clear up for you by the time we get back for clause-by-clause. I think it's important to note, though, that under the accreditation material that is there, it's going to be pretty clear and there are safeguards in other sections, which the tribunal has to go through. It's not on a whim and a prayer, you know, unless you get seven tribunal people that we pick somehow, but we'll get that cleared up.
1500
HARRY BRANDER
The Chair: The next presenter is Harry Brander. Good afternoon, and welcome. Identify yourself and then proceed with your presentation. You're allocated one half-hour and the committee would like at least 15 minutes of that for questions.
Mr Harry Brander: My name is Harry Brander and I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for letting me speak before the committee today. I am here strictly on my own. I'm not representing anybody except myself. I run a 500-head beef cattle feedlot and small cash crop operation at Norval, Ontario. My MPP is Noel Duignan for Halton North, who is in support of this bill. I would also like it to be recorded that I am in strong support of this bill also.
It's time; we need this bill. This bill provides an opportunity for all the farm organizations within Ontario to contribute to the funding of a general farm voice. As I said, I think the passing of this bill, it's the right thing to do and I think the time is right to do it. After all the commodity organizations, they've had this secure source of funding for over 30 years, and I think it's time now for the farm organizations.
As far as the fee for $150, I think that's a very reasonable fee. I think I would get probably an excellent bang for my buck for $150, and it's, as you know, totally refundable. In comparison, last year I was looking over my books and I paid roughly $1,600 in compulsory checkoff fees to the Ontario Cattlemen's Association. I'm not begrudging them the money, but I think I could have seen a heck of a lot more benefit for my $1,600 than what I received.
As far as the process, I think it's a process where farm operations can register and get a number and fill out a registration form with OMAF. I think it's important that all the farmers will be financially supporting a farm organization.
I also feel that we do need the information, or the government needs it. I know personally from the cattlemen's association, when they send out a notice for an annual meeting, I sometimes get three or four of them, and I know just due to the way I have marketed cattle in the past. So there's a lot of duplication and I think the government needs a better handle on who the actual producers are and what parts of the province they come from and what they do produce.
The $7,000 annual gross fee, I think that's a small enough figure for any farmer who wants in on the registration that it won't be encumbering him to stay out of it.
Of the two farm organizations grandfathered in, I think that's along with the special funding for the francophones of Ontario, I think that's a good startup process right now. I like the idea of the accreditation process and the openness that any other farm organization come in if they meet the criteria.
I guess, as one of the other speakers said, I would maybe like to see the accreditation, the guidelines possibly in the legislation as opposed to being in the regulations, but I'm not really sticky on that point. I just think if you're reading the legislation, it's up front and everybody knows what the rules are.
Also, in closing, I think that this is a very democratic way of doing this. I don't think there has to be a vote, as some people have wanted. It is totally refundable and you can either be in the funding of the organizations or not be.
Again, as I say, I think it's a reasonably good bill. I tend to look at the committees and the organizations that have worked on this bill and I tend to think that they are working for the good of agriculture in Ontario and not to the detriment. So again I'm just totally in favour with this bill. Thank you.
Mr Cleary: Mr Brander, I'd like to thank you for your presentation. You have told the committee that you're 100% in support of this bill. If there was to be a vote, and I say "if there was," do you think it would be supported by the majority of farmers in Ontario?
Mr Brander: I guess it would depend on who was voting on it. As of right now I believe the government doesn't have a clear mandate of who all the actual producers are. But I think if it did go to a vote, yes, I most certainly think it would carry.
Mr Cleary: The other thing that I would like to ask you, and you've probably sat in on many of the presentations here today and of course we had some yesterday -- there's quite a bit of opposition out there and you're 100% in support of this -- how do we bring all the groups together to try to solve some of these problems so that we don't have farmer against farmer on this issue? What are your suggestions?
Mr Brander: I think that's a pretty onerous task. I've stated at regional council meetings before that there's only one thing farmers agree on and that's to disagree. I think if we had a vote, that would certainly divide the farm community more so than ever. But I find that you have to keep the dialogue flowing, have a good communication process, bring in all the major stakeholders and the people concerned and sit down. If you want to call it a think tank or whatever and hammer out some of these things, well, maybe that's what we have to do, but I believe that from the farm organizations that have been on the working panel, they have a cross-section of members in every commodity and I think they're bringing the concerns of their members to that board right now.
Mr Cleary: We heard from some of the groups that came before us today and yesterday that there hadn't been sufficient consultation on this legislation. How do you feel about that, that some groups were excluded?
Mr Brander: I guess I have to disagree with that. There were meetings last summer, information meetings, and of course somebody said, "Well, it's a busy time." I guess it's a busy time today too. I should be home running the combine, but when do you ever get a day that's a slack day in the farming community? I haven't found it yet. I think there was equal opportunity for the farmers to attend those meetings and I believe that's where they should have been, at those meetings getting the information and putting their comments forward.
Mr Cleary: I thank you for your presentation. I suppose you were hoping today would have been a rainy day.
Mr Brander: Right on.
1510
Mr Murdoch: Again thanks for coming and taking your time out. We sure appreciate that, everyone who takes their time out to come and tell us, and this is sort of the process. You know, we've been criticized again for not having given people a chance to tell us what they think. That's why we're here today, and it doesn't say that parts of the legislation can't be changed if we find out there's something that's wrong.
That's the question I might ask you. I think it's section 30 but I'm not sure. It says in three years the minister "may" take a review, and there's talk of maybe amending that, that he "shall" take a review. What do you think of that? Plus, should it be the minister's decision or should it be a committee something like this? Do you have any views on that?
Mr Brander: I personally don't see anything wrong with a review. I think it's always good for an organization or a group to have a review every once in a while and kind of sit back and look at themselves and see what kind of a job they are doing. I suppose I wouldn't have any problem with a committee like this looking after the review.
Mr Murdoch: There's always this problem with the "may" and the "shall," and in this case maybe the word "shall" should be there for now because there are people and there will be people who will not like this bill. We're not going to please everybody, that's for sure. I think this is a chance, maybe once in a lifetime, for farmers finally to get it together to lobby as a group at Queen's Park, but we've again been accused of not being democratic and things like that. So maybe the word "shall" should be there to make sure we do review it, the first time anyway at least, and from then on it may change.
Mr Brander: I wouldn't have any problem with that.
Mr Murdoch: I don't have any other questions.
Mr Hansen: My question is to the clerk of the committee.
The Chair: Your timing is impeccable. The clerk has just stepped out. When she comes back --
Mr Hansen: I know, but the question is actually -- John had said to get all the farm communities together. The Silent Majority was against it, when it was here, on a lot of aspects. The National Farmers Union had to do with problems with its constitution. But was there any documentation sent in from the other farm groups to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food that opposed the stable funding? That would be good for the committee to know. Were there any other briefs submitted that we would know of? Normally we get from the clerk any of the briefs that have been in but haven't been able to present.
The Chair: Is your question whether the ministry has received any briefs?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
The Chair: Does the ministry care to answer?
Mr Klopp: Everything that comes to this committee is documented. There are letters and stuff, I guess, that come to the minister, but we didn't ask those groups, "Do you want us to put it out in the public?" They have an opportunity like everyone if they want to --
Mr Hansen: But there were no letters that came into this committee that opposed the stable funding, from other general farm groups?
Mr Klopp: That's not up to me. That's up to the --
Mr Hansen: Yes, okay. Maybe when the clerk comes back that could be checked.
Mr Klopp: And I guess the answer is no.
Mr Hansen: It seems to be.
The Chair: All the committee members will be provided with whatever written submissions are submitted to this committee, so that you'll have access to, whether it's in favour or opposed or no opinion. The stuff as far as the ministry is concerned, it is up to them to provide anything they have if they wish to provide it.
Mr Hansen: I just heard the comment come out a couple of times that the farm groups are far apart, but I haven't seen anything to that evidence.
Mr Klopp: Mr Brander, thank you very much for coming in today. I've known you for a number of years and I appreciate your taking the time, because I know there's lots of work at home to do.
One of the questions that you brought up and that we've been thinking about too is the regulations, and it's in the bill. I guess, just very quickly, there's always a point that if you put too much in the bill there's not an opportunity so easily to change things as time ebbs and flows along, you know as a farmer. But at the same time in the bill there is quite clearly that there are farm organizations; it's mandatory refundable. That's in the bill and I think that has a lot of power so that people can't play games. Like always, like any bill, whether it's regulations or not, the public is the one that pushes politicians to act or not act. I appreciate your comments, though, on that. It's something that we've been wrest-ling and we'll take it under advisement. Thank you.
Mr Brander: As I said, I'm not strongly opposed to putting it in the legislation. I would tend to think I could find it a little more easily if it's in the legislation. Sometimes I get a bit upset, saying, "Well, go to subsection this and that and regulation this and that."
Mr Klopp: Sure. If I could ask for help to us, would you know of a couple of things that should be in the bill that would satisfy the regs, that you would take out of the regs and put in the bill as classification? Do you have a couple?
Mr Brander: I was just saying that the accreditation, the guidelines for the organization being accredited.
Mr Klopp: Okay, and what you've seen so far.
Mr Brander: Yes.
Mr Klopp: Okay.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Brander, for taking the time to appear this afternoon. Your views are important to the committee and have played a significant part in the process. We trust that you will stay in touch with the committee as this bill proceeds through the process, either through the clerk, members of this committee or indeed your own MPP, the member for Halton North.
JOHN CLARK
The Chair: The next witness is John Clark. Good afternoon and welcome. Identify yourself and proceed with your presentation. You've been allocated one half-hour. The committee would like a significant portion of that, if possible, for questions and answers.
Mr John Clark: Good afternoon. It's my pleasure to be here. My name is John Clark. I'm a beef farmer from Paisley, Ontario. I'm in the part of the beef industry that's in between the cow-calf sector, which Bill Murdoch is part of and maybe Noble Villeneuve, and the feedlot industry. Essentially, we make our money preparing the calf for the feedlot sector. We have to live by our wits and I'm proud to be part of that sector.
I'm also part of the Silent Majority steering committee, but I'm here mainly on an individual basis. You have my brief before you.
The stable funding legislative issue has been before farmers for over one year now. It started with quiet, low-key sales meetings in 14 Ontario rural centres sponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.
Mr Murdoch: We don't have your brief yet.
Mr Clark: As long as it is not taken off my time.
Mr Klopp: There's only one? I guess the clerk is trying to prove that we really do need her.
Mr Clark: She asked me for a copy of it and then she came back without it.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Mr Chairman, I move that the time be extended by two minutes so that he doesn't run out of time.
Mr Clark: Anthony, I appreciate that you're here, because I think I have an important message for you and I think you and I will get along fine.
Mr Perruzza: I have to tell you, in Downsview we're a little short on the kind of people who are engaged in the activity you're engaged in. But I'll tell you, we produce all kinds of tomatoes and beans and everything else, lettuce and onions.
Mr Villeneuve: All through December, January and February.
Mr Perruzza: You bet, in those garden plots.
The Chair: It appears that everybody now has a copy of the written brief. We thank Jerry Richmond for providing that. Let's try this one more time.
Mr Clark: Sure. The stable funding legislative issue has been before farmers for more than one year now. It started with quiet, low-key sales meetings in 14 rural Ontario centres sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The bill was to be passed in the fall of 1992.
The original idea remains, which is a $150 fee payable to one of three general farm organizations. One GFO has dropped out, so our choice is limited now to two. Several groups have opposed this legislation.
A large information meeting was held at Kurtzville in July 1992 and several concerns were aired. As a result of a year's worth of dialogue and information, we now have had second reading of a new stable funding bill. However, to the chagrin of the OFA, third and final reading has been delayed till the fall of 1993.
A hesitant group of politicians has made it possible for the farmers of Ontario to have one last chance to review this bill in committee hearings.
There are many things we don't know about this legislation; ie, administration cost, registration details and just how all farmers are to benefit. Now we wonder, what is the status of the members of the National Farmers Union? Will they have to pay another $150 to another organization?
What we do know is disturbing, and what is said and what is reality are widely divergent or different. Let me just outline a few problems.
There's been a claim by the Minister of Agriculture and Food, Elmer Buchanan, that he is just a facilitator for the three GFOs, passing into legislation their proposals. The reality is, who wrote the current bill? It wasn't the GFOs. In fact, the NFU has pulled out and disagrees with this proposal.
1520
Another claim has been that the majority of farmers support a GFO, but the reality is that membership in GFOs is around 20,000-plus, and a confidential OFA memo to OMAF targets potential membership at almost 70,000. That is clearly not a majority.
The call for a democratic vote is countered with an argument that no one knows who a farmer is. But the reality is that spokesperson Elbert van Donkersgoed indicated at a July 1993 Kurtzville meeting that OMAF has or will have compiled a list of farmers, complete with registration numbers, to be mailed out as soon as the bill is passed. They do know, it would appear.
Another claim is that the OFA has long said that it will be responsive to all farmers' needs once this legislation is passed, that they will hear all the concerns. The reality is that just this summer there was an open information meeting, at Kurtzville again, which OFA did not attend. Where is their consultation, cooperation and concern?
The Silent Majority, which I'm a part of, has always had concerns about the effectiveness of an organization which relies on government legislation regarding funding. The reality is that the CFFO's Elbert van Donkersgoed confirms that a deal was made to help sell the government's austerity program if the government passed a stable funding proposal. The GFOs are already in tune with the government concerns more than the farmers' concerns.
Next, the cost of registering farmers by a private firm was estimated to be $25 a farmer in the fall of 1992. We are now being told that OMAF can do this job for between $7 and $9 a farmer. That's in the summer of 1993. A total cost of $150,000 is bandied about. But the reality is that even at $7 a farmer for 70,000 farmers, this amounts to almost $500,000, which simply means that somebody can't do any math. The money spent on a registration, probably in excess of $2 million, plus the cost of a tribunal, could fund some of the cutbacks OMAF programs face. When did government become more cost-effective than private enterprise?
The general farm organizations feel that if they were given more money, they could lead the farm community to prosperity. Hence the reason that everyone should pay so everyone can benefit more. But the reality is that the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food has county offices all across Ontario with many staff people just to help farmers to become more profitable. That's their goal. The cost for plant, office, travel and staff is approximately $166 million or $2,500 for every farmer grossing over $7,000. That's essentially what this bill covers. I can find no farmer, far or wide, who would be willing to pay $2,500 for this service. Another $150 will not ensure profit, only another bloated, inefficient bureaucracy similar to OMAF.
There's a claim that GFOs do good things for all farmers and therefore everyone must share the cost. But the reality is that the expected revenue of GFOs will rise from just over $3 million to a possible $10 million. This is a money grab, not "share the cost." If everyone must fund those organizations that "stand on guard for thee," so to speak, should we expect a bill and registration forms from our churches, our political parties or any of the health groups such as the heart and stroke or the cancer societies?
Farmers who don't register or send a cheque to one of the GFOs won't be able to get the property tax rebate back or other government program grants. The reality is that welfare recipients don't have to register or fund on a refundable basis anti-poverty groups before they take part in a government program. Again, this legislation sets a troubling precedent. People, even with no Canadian citizenship, are not denied access to taxpayer moneys or programs.
Claim: The $150 is refundable. But the reality is that in instances where there was a refundable checkoff, this quickly became non-refundable. Even worse, the fee schedule, as the last speaker talked about, usually rapidly escalates. If refundable is so good, why not voluntary? The benefit of registration does not stand on its own merit. It is just a way to save a few bureaucratic jobs, in my estimation.
Mr Buchanan has said that with the three GFOs there was enough choice. He said that often. Since the NFU has dropped out, the choice is extremely limited. The reality is that we can either support a fiscally irresponsible OFA or a morally bankrupt CFFO, not great choices. Mr Buchanan should listen to the GFO that advocates a farm vote to decide this issue.
There's a goal that is often stated by governments, to dismantle interprovincial trade barriers. That's probably a good idea. The reality is that provinces like Quebec which have a very strong GFO single voice make national farm programs impossible. Congratulations to the National Farmers Union for not tearing down its cross-border membership zones. Bill 42 has the potential to pit province against province. This is not in the country's best interests.
The advocates of stable funding and registration all claim that the majority of farmers are in favour of this legislation. The reality is that only a vote to allow the farmers of Ontario to decide this issue democratically, whatever the proposal may be in the final form, will make sure that there are no mistakes made.
These are a very few of my concerns. There are others, and they include issues of religious objection by the Mennonites. They're not happy about this, and I'll let them speak for themselves.
I have one more comment. I have a question of the Chair. It's apparent to me, watching this committee work, that there's a fairly strong conflict of interest, Mr Cooper. The fact that we have several members of the OFA, current members, sitting on this committee leads me to wonder if the Chair recognizes the potential of a conflict of interest and what the Chair is willing to do about that.
The Vice-Chair: There was a question raised on that yesterday.
Mr Clark: I see they're still here.
The Vice-Chair: I think Mr Villeneuve advanced that --
Mr Clark: No, I'm asking the Chair, not Mr Villeneuve.
The Vice-Chair: I do not see a conflict at this time.
Mr Clark: What constitutes a conflict?
The Vice-Chair: We're talking about a piece of government legislation here right now, and the committee members were selected to sit on this committee to review the legislation.
Mr Clark: But as a farmer, I'm seeing a conflict of interest.
The Vice-Chair: The problem is that a lot of government members do belong to a lot of associations and do have associations in their daily lives that they have also brought into this job.
Mr Clark: Well, define a conflict of interest in this committee. Is there a potential? There's no potential? Anybody could sit on this committee?
The Vice-Chair: No, you have to be an MPP, an elected official. They are chosen by their caucuses to represent their party on the committee.
Mr Clark: We're talking about divvying up $10 million, a potential $10 million.
Mr Murdoch: Mr Chair, if Mr Clark feels that he is being intimidated by a conflict of interest, I have no problem not asking him any questions, if that's what he would like.
The Vice-Chair: I don't think he's questioning the questioning; he's questioning the vote on the clause-by-clause section, whether there will be conflict in people supporting or not supporting this legislation.
Mr Clark: I'm speaking for the province of Ontario. There is a cost of registration that the taxpayers have to bear. There's a conflict because there's so many OFA members on this committee and they obviously have a vested interest in making sure the OFA comes to the fore. So I'm asking the Chair.
Mr Murdoch: Maybe you should verify his accusations.
The Vice-Chair: I think if you look at any elected officials who has some background, they come from different religious or racial or ethnic or different backgrounds, even political backgrounds. We carry them in here, but also we're here to represent our parties and our constituents. I think that if anybody felt that there was a direct conflict of interest, they would abstain from this committee. It would be their choice to abstain.
Mr Hansen: Mr Chair, maybe I can make a clarification here. Are any members of this committee directors of the OFA? I think they're just members because they are in the farm community. There would be a conflict if --
The Vice-Chair: As I said, I think, as honourable members, if they felt there was a direct conflict, they would withdraw from the committee.
Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I think it's important to point out that we enjoy a very special privilege here as members of the committee and as MPPs. We can say just about anything we like and nobody can take any recourse against us, but he doesn't enjoy the same privilege that we enjoy in that way. I think he should be advised of that.
1530
Mr Hansen: What are you talking about?
The Vice-Chair: There have been no accusations made. As I said, if honourable members felt there was a conflict they would withdraw from the committee.
Mr Clark: But if I understand Mr Perruzza's comment -- and I haven't got the comment to make comments to the Chair about it --
The Vice-Chair: Your comments weren't out of line. I don't think you said anything inappropriate. It was a legitimate question and, as I said, if honourable members felt there was a personal conflict of interest they would withdraw. That has happened in other cases.
Mr Clark: I'm asking the Chair what would constitute a conflict of interest.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Offer?
Mr Clark: I'm asking the Chair, not --
The Vice-Chair: We have been issued conflict-of-interest guidelines by the Premier and by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
Mr Clark: Maybe I could get a copy sometime.
The Vice-Chair: Sure.
Mr Clark: I'm open for questions.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, in rotation, Mr Murdoch.
Mr Murdoch: John, thanks very much for your brief. We certainly appreciate people coming and talking to us, because this is what it's all about, open consultation, and we're trying to do that now. You do have some concerns and there are quite a few concerns that you've claimed. Unfortunately, there isn't any proof to them so some of them may be just your ideas or other people's -- the secret letter and things like that.
Mr Clark: Just a minute, I have proof of the secret letter. Would the committee like to see the proof of the secret letter I have? Bill Murdoch says I haven't got the proof and here it is right here, Mr Chairman.
Mr Murdoch: You didn't present the proof. I didn't say you didn't have it. Maybe you should get copies made and pass them around.
Mr Clark: May I ask the clerk to take a copy and bring this around to the Chairman? It says, "Confidential Memorandum."
The Chair: Mr Clark, why don't you submit that on the record? We'd appreciate it if you would.
Mr Clark: Mr Murdoch said I didn't have it and I do have it, so there it is.
Mr Murdoch: I said you didn't produce any proof of it.
Mr Clark: You didn't ask me to. If you'd asked me to begin with --
Mr Murdoch: I said you have a lot of allegations here and --
Mr Perruzza: Maybe we can recess for a few minutes until we get a copy of that letter and read it.
Mr Murdoch: No, I don't think we need it. He's got the claim in here so it's the same thing and now he has the proof, so that's fine. That's what we like to see, though, when you do make claims; it helps us out to determine what goes on. We certainly appreciate your giving us proof.
You really don't say, though, whether you're against the bill. You indicate you have a lot of problems with it, but I wonder in the end, what would you do if you had the decision, you were the minister or deciding to help out farming in our community and trying to get a voice that's heard at Queen's Park?
Mr Clark: There is a voice that is heard at Queen's Park, though.
Mr Murdoch: We want it heard loud and clear and we want everybody --
Mr Clark: It's heard loud and clear.
Mr Murdoch: What would you do, though, differently other than the vote -- I mean, that's fine, we understand you'd like to see a vote. There are certain conflicts of how we would have that vote and I'm sure you have your opinions. There again, you claim that the government could produce that list. I don't know whether they could or not; in the past we've heard they couldn't. What would you do then? I'll give you the floor now and you can explain, put on the record how you would handle the whole situation.
Mr Clark: The vote?
Mr Murdoch: No, just what's trying to be done here. As far as I'm concerned, we're trying to give farmers a good say at Queen's Park and trying to unite the farmers the best we can, and I think this is a good bill to do that. Obviously you have real concerns with it, and maybe you want to throw the whole bill out. You really don't say that, you just get to the vote, so I'm asking you, how would you vote?
Mr Clark: If I had a vote, I would have the chance of saying yes or no to it.
Mr Murdoch: How would you vote then, or do you want to tell us?
Mr Clark: I would vote no.
Mr Murdoch: Okay, then that's good. It's on the record you'd vote no. Now what would you do? We have the vote, we'll say; theoretically we've had the vote no. Would you just leave the status quo?
Mr Clark: Sure. What's wrong with the status quo? What's wrong with free association? Really the vote is a compromise, Mr Murdoch. A vote is a compromise between free association, non-compulsory free association, and the chance to let the majority decide. Really, in reality we should be all for freedom of association.
I've compromised my principles to the effect that I will stand for the democratic process, to let the majority of farmers, after they have a full understanding of this bill, the best they can find out about it, to make a rational decision on their own and the majority rules. As we hear, everybody says that the bill will pass, so there's really no problem. Let's have the vote and we'll find out.
Mr Murdoch: There is the problem of maybe the financing, the proper list of who the farmers are. In your case, you feel that would be adequate here; there are other cases where it isn't.
Again, if the vote was turned down, you feel that everything is fine in the farming community and we are being well represented at Queen's Park, the voice is being heard, so we could just let things go the way everything is right now.
Is that what I'm hearing? If it isn't, you can tell me. I'm just looking to see what would happen after the vote if we had the vote and it was turned down, because that's what you would like to see happen.
Mr Clark: We'd go back to the status quo. There would be no bill and there would be no registration or whatever the question was.
Mr Murdoch: That's right. Okay. You're happy with the farming community and everything's fine right now? Everything's hunky-dory out in the farming community?
Mr Clark: You're assuming that you can make it better.
Mr Murdoch: Yeah.
Mr Clark: I make the assertion that we've already had a lot of money spent trying to make farming profitable, and apparently it hasn't made farming profitable. You're assuming that $150 is going to make farming more profitable. Show me. Prove that.
Mr Murdoch: If this legislation is passed, that's what we're trying to do. Hey, we're not always right here.
Mr Clark: There's $3 million being spent on lobbying the government for money that it doesn't have. The government doesn't have money to hand out. It's not their money to hand out. They're handing out taxpayers' money, right?
Mr Murdoch: Okay, are we into another --
Mr Clark: Philosophical?
Mr Murdoch: Yeah, okay, we're getting off the topic here. You're saying that's what we're trying to do. That's exactly right. You're right on. That's what the government down here in Queen's Park is trying to do, make farming better, and hopefully this will help. They're not going to solve all the problems. We know that. But this is an attempt to try to do that. I mean, in your mind it isn't, and that's fine. That's why you're here listening.
Mr Clark: There are a lot of farmers out there, Mr Murdoch, who are concerned about the welfare treadmill that farming has become, and they'd like to get off that.
Mr Murdoch: I'm sure they would.
Mr Clark: I'm one of those. I've heard many things on this committee that indicate that it would like to see the welfare treadmill turned up, more money from government sources that government doesn't have.
Mr Murdoch: No, I don't think that's what they're trying to do. They're trying to get people united.
Mr Clark: If you're saying the treadmill can make farming better, show me, tell me.
Mr Murdoch: That's what we're going to try. We have to wait to pass the legislation, and then we'll go from there. But anyway, I just wondered. You seem to be fine and everything's okay out there, so that's fine.
Mr Clark: I'm happy with democracy, Bill.
Mr Villeneuve: Mr Clark, thank you for your presentation. I'm sorry I wasn't able to be here for the entire thing, but I got most of it. I guess I did get it all. Do you belong to tripartite?
Mr Clark: No, I don't.
Mr Villeneuve: And you're quite happy. You talk about a welfare state of agriculture. Would you consider tripartite payments, where you pay so much to belong, welfare?
Mr Perruzza: Maybe we should let Mike Harris make the calculations. Just joking.
Mr Villeneuve: You consider that welfare?
Mr Clark: Does it come from government? Does the majority of the money come from the taxpayers?
Mr Villeneuve: It does.
Mr Clark: Okay, that's part of a general welfare program for farmers, however you want to define it.
Mr Villeneuve: You've chosen not to belong to it and not to participate?
Mr Clark: Yes.
Mr Villeneuve: You do collect your tax rebate.
Mr Clark: No, I don't.
Mr Villeneuve: You don't. Well, you're certainly different, and you are here very legitimately then.
Mr Clark: I think other members should recognize that Mr Villeneuve is trying to trap me into the fact that I take part in -- I believe strongly that we have some obligations in life. I'm not condemning people who take part in government programs, but I do not; I survive quite well, thank you very much, by not. The question is: How can I, as a farmer, survive without government programs when the rest of the world says I can't survive without them?
Mr Villeneuve: You're here very legitimately.
Mr Clark: Answer that question. How do I do it?
Mr Villeneuve: You're quite obviously a very smart operator.
1540
Mr Clark: Why does everybody else need welfare payments when I don't? You've raised this issue. I'll ask you the question.
Mr Villeneuve: Look, I give credit to anyone who is able to say, "There is a support for me here from the treasury, the public purse, and I choose not to take it." I give you credit for that.
Mr Clark: So what's your point? Do you want farmers to get more welfare or less welfare?
Mr Villeneuve: I am simply looking at the family farm and agriculture in this province to survive.
Mr Clark: More welfare or less welfare?
Mr Villeneuve: To survive, sir.
Mr Clark: More welfare or less welfare? That's a simple question.
Mr Villeneuve: To me it's not welfare, you see.
Mr Clark: Well, more government money or less government money?
Mr Villeneuve: We have a difference of opinion here, and you insinuate here that --
Mr Clark: I'm insinuating? You just be careful.
Mr Villeneuve: You've made the statement that a GFO in Ontario would pit Ontario against Quebec.
Mr Clark: Yes.
Mr Villeneuve: Could you explain that to us?
Mr Clark: No, I've said that it pits province against province. When we have one regional government saying, "We want to do the best things for Ontario," it doesn't allow for blending, Mr Villeneuve, and I think you should understand that.
Mr Villeneuve: I think I do understand to some degree. I thank you for being here. I know I thank you for being in my office, and I was not trying to trap anyone. I happen to know a little bit about your business from just having discussed it, and it's certainly not for me to say. I wanted you to say it, and you have said it, you take no payments from government and you are here very legitimately when you come here being able to state that you take no money from government. We've had a lot of people who fight the same argument as you do, but they cash the cheques.
Mr Clark: I'm not condemning them, and I don't think you are either.
Mr Villeneuve: Nor am I. But you're here very legitimately and I thank you for being here.
Mr Clark: You're welcome.
Mr Klopp: Thank you, John. We're here to talk about this and come up with ideas, and you've been one who has given your views over a number of years. I started to remember back a little bit that I've seen letters to the paper and put a face to you today and that's good.
Mr Clark: Bill's chuckling too; you notice that.
Mr Klopp: Elmer, the minister, my colleague, has been very open in trying to discuss this issue with whoever would listen. He has spent a lot of hours on this -- many hours, because I know.
Today you have some interesting points that you bring up in written form. We will take them under advisement and we are glad you were able to come here today. Thank you very much.
Mr Cleary: Thank you, Mr Clark, for your presentation. I take from your comments that the big thing, in your opinion, would be the vote. Is that correct?
Mr Clark: We've got this huge impasse. We don't know whether the vote is a good idea. We don't know whether farmers really want this thing. My opinion may not be the majority of farmers. That's fine. I would be willing to abide by a democratic procedure. I'm not very happy with the idea of this being put in the manner where it could become non-refundable or we'd have to register and become a burden to the taxpayers of Ontario quite generally, frankly, for the registration process, for no benefit for the farmers or the community or for the province.
Mr Cleary: In other words, you feel that there's sufficient registration there now that we would not --
Mr Clark: Listen, I think we give information to bureaucrats till it comes out our ears, and you show me where it's made us a lot better off.
In fact, there have been several comments about the OFA being a positive force. One of the things that the OFA advocated when I was starting off in farming was that all farmers could get a government-backed guaranteed loan if they're having a hard time, and the banks took that guarantee and cashed in a lot of farmers the next year. The OFA lobbied like crazy for that proposal. That was the panacea for farmers, just get the banks off our backs. That piece of legislation put more banks on more backs of farmers than anything else around, and it was largely through the efforts of a lobby group called the OFA. They don't talk about the negative things that have happened in the community.
For instance, John, if you read their latest Farm and Country, they have four good reasons for not having a farm registration in this thing. First of all, on page 6 it says that the OFA has to balance its budget. Then on page 12 Roger George says he wants to be a partner with farmers. Well, if I want to be a partner with you, if I just said, "Can I be a partner with you?" would you say yes or no? I think you'd say no. I would like the right to say yes or no to Roger.
Also in his article on page 12 -- and I'll leave this paper with the committee -- he says that he finds glee that the bureaucrats can't define a farmer.
On page 33 the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is very upset because its nose is out of joint because of a barley issue; there wasn't a democratic vote. Maybe we should have more votes, maybe on barley and maybe on farm registration and stable funding.
Then, going back to Mr George's point about a partnership, on pages 34 and 35 the pork partnership, the marketing board, is trying to come apart. That's a partnership that's trying to come apart. That's been a forced partnership that's not working any more.
So right within the OFA paper there are enough reasons for questioning forcing people to try to unite underneath two banners. I will leave that for you.
Mr Cleary: The other thing I should mention here, and I think I get that from your presentation, is that you don't feel that there was enough consultation with farm organizations and groups when this bill was being prepared. Am I right on that?
Mr Clark: Well, I got a call in the middle of July last year, right when we were doing haying, "There are some meetings being held." It was very low key, and that was the first I heard about this thing. And the bill gets presented in our busy farm season, not in the middle of wintertime when we can discuss and debate it. That's not part of the issue, but that's a problem.
Mr Cleary: Do you feel there are meetings still being held there on this issue?
Mr Clark: There are a lot of farmers kicking dust out there mad because it's happening, because they haven't got time to wrestle with it.
Mr Cleary: The other thing that had been mentioned earlier and one of my colleagues had already brought it up is where you say you pit province against province.
Mr Clark: Yes.
Mr Cleary: I'm not exactly sure how you mean that.
Mr Clark: If you have a strong organization that says, "This is best for Ontario," it doesn't allow for the blending of ideas between Manitoba and Ontario. What we should be trying to work for is level playing fields. One province may put a whole lot of money into one thing and then say, "That's in our best interest," but if we look at a national picture, what's good for the whole country, that's better. If you have these huge lobby groups, they're not responsive to the needs of the whole country. Their aim is just for the local interest.
Mr Cleary: Those are my questions, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much for your answers.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Clark, for coming forward and so effectively and forcefully expressing your views. The committee appreciates it.
Mr Clark: I had to wake you up, okay? You were going to sleep.
The Chair: The committee appreciates all the input from everyone who appears before this committee and it all plays an important part in the process.
I will say in closing that the members of the Legislative Assembly take their duties very seriously in terms of representing the general public and also have a very conscious view of the role of integrity of individual actions and members' actions as they serve their constituents and represent the general public in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We certainly are very aware of the level of cynicism that exists in that area by and large in the general public, but I want to assure you that each and every member of this committee, as I know them, if there were any question in any of their individual minds as to whether or not they could comfortably perform their duties with that role of integrity intact, they would not do so. I want to give you that assurance. Thank you for appearing here today.
We'll adjourn till 10 am tomorrow morning.
The committee adjourned at 1549.