ALVIN RUNNALLS
MAX SABEY
JACK SHAW
ALVIN DOBIE
NORTHUMBERLAND FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
CONTENTS
Monday 30 August 1993
Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993, Bill 42
Alvin Runnalls; Max Sabey; Jack Shaw; Alvin Dobie
Northumberland Federation of Agriculture
Fred Thomson, president
Marvin McComb, member
Lyle Gallagher; Bruce Buttar
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 Ms Murdock
Sterling, Norman W. (Carleton PC) for Mr Jordan
Villeneuve, Noble (S-D-G & East Grenville/S-D-G & Grenville-Est PC)
for Mr Turnbull
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Agriculture and Food:
Burak, Rita, deputy minister
Stratford, Louise, director, legal services
Stroeter, Rolly, director, farm assistance programs branch
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1401 in the Huron 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): All members of the committee will notice in front of them a summary of recommendations on Bill 42 prepared by Jerry Richmond, the legislative research officer assigned to this committee. It contains the presentations to date.
ALVIN RUNNALLS
MAX SABEY
JACK SHAW
ALVIN DOBIE
The Chair: The next group is Alvin Runnalls, Max Sabey, Jack Shaw and Alvin Dobie. Good afternoon, gentlemen, and welcome. If each of you could identify yourselves for the purposes of Hansard, which is recording these proceedings, and then continue with your presentation. You've been allocated one half-hour, and the committee would appreciate about 15 minutes of that for questions and answers.
I'd also like to welcome Mr Sterling, who is joining us for the first day on this committee.
Proceed, gentlemen.
Mr Alvin Runnalls: I am Alvin Runnalls from Winchester, in Dundas county.
Mr Max Sabey: Max Sabey from Dundas county.
Mr Jack Shaw: Jack Shaw from the Arnprior region, Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
Mr Alvin Dobie: Alvin Dobie, Lanark county.
Mr Runnalls: I will proceed and we'll each probably take two or three minutes and then leave it for questions.
I'd like to give a brief outline of my background. I was raised on a mixed farm in northern Ontario, taught school for a few years and have since farmed in partnership with my wife near Winchester in eastern Ontario. We were in the dairy industry for 24 years and presently have a dairy heifer and a beef feedlot. I've been involved in volunteer activities and organizations for many years, and one of these organizations has been the OFA. I am now serving on the executive of that committee.
I note with interest that opponents of farm registration complain about the $150 fee. Had I stayed in the teaching profession, I would be paying approximately four to five times that amount, without any choice in the matter.
I have also had the opportunity to give an overview of the Canadian dairy industry at the International Live Stock Management Schools at Kemptville. I've worked with small groups of agricultural people from Latin America, Africa and parts of the former Soviet Union. In all cases, it's interesting to note the lack of farm leadership and grass-roots organizations in these countries.
I feel that I've had an opportunity over the years to observe first hand the valuable contribution of farm organizations, and especially the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, to the betterment of agriculture in this province.
I believe that we could be at a crossroads in the present uncertain times. Could farmers lose control as transnationals strive to globalize the economy and control every aspect of our lives? Could we sink into the same catastrophe that has engulfed these countries that I have just mentioned?
I believe that to steer a proper course for agriculture, we need the combined resources of all of the farm community, not just one third of it, as is presently the case, and if people committed their money, then maybe more of them would also take part in the democratic process that is part of the farm organization.
Another aspect, in my conclusion, is that I've noticed that in our organization we will often have people coming to us asking for help and we'll check back and they're not members of the federation of agriculture. We still try to help them, but our resources are very limited because of the financial constraints of only having 20,000 members.
All told, I think that all of these things are really important, that we have to have as many people as possible involved. We can't be only part; we've got to have everybody.
Mr Sabey: Max Sabey from Dundas county. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and make presentations. As my presentation continues, you'll find out what I do now as well as something of my background.
I grew up on a mixed farm in southern Alberta during the Depression, when eggs were 10 cents a dozen, milk was 14 quarts for a dollar and wheat was 30 cents a bushel. My father lost his farm then and there was no agricultural organization to which he could appeal, no one to give assistance. It was strictly upon his own. How much he would've appreciated something and someone he could've talked to, consulted with and had some help.
The idea of compulsory fees and compulsory registration is not unique among agricultural organizations. I had beef, I had soybeans and I had corn. Every time I sold a beef, a fee went to the cattlemen's association. I had no choice. Every time I sold a bushel of soybeans, a fee went to that organization, and the same thing with corn. So the idea is not unique, and even compulsory checkoffs are not unique, and in this case at least the individuals have an opportunity to request a refund if they wish.
Over the last few years, I have travelled extensively on the concession roads talking to farmers about membership. Now, we've done well in Dundas county. We have about half the farmers as members. Of those who say no, there are two primary answers. The first one is, "Well, you're going to get stable funding, and when that comes, you'll get my money." The second is, "When everybody pays, I'll pay." Well, that's a fair situation if everyone pays, and that's why we're in favour of this legislation.
A strong, well-funded GFO not only to lobby but to assist members with difficulties: We've been involved, for example, in helping farmers solve fenceline problems, difficulties with the Hydro people and their hydro lines across farm land, environmental issues, and believe me, many of the farmers really don't know who they can turn to and what they should do. They need to have a GFO that can help them.
But in addition to that, the municipalities receive assistance. I was at a meeting just a few weeks ago and a group was there to talk about the municipality system of controlling the spread of sludge from Ault Foods in Winchester. They were very much concerned. Finally the municipality decided that they would set up a committee, and they asked to have somebody from the federation on that committee. But in addition to that, they asked if the federation had any information. As it happens, the federation and OMAF had indeed worked out a policy which was available to all and I was able to get a copy and give it to the reeve.
So it's a rather broad mandate that people expect, but they do expect a GFO that will have the resources to do the research and to give the kind of assistance they want, and that's why we support this act.
1410
Mr Shaw: Just a word of introduction as to who I am. I farm with my two sons, 615 acres on a dairy farm, am presently chairman of the West Carleton assessment review committee and a member of the Ottawa-Carleton land division committee, past councillor and reeve. But the most important thing is, I want to be a voice in a well-respected, well-financed agricultural organization.
A government can only make decisions in the best interests of society if it's first well informed about all aspects of all sectors of society. Most industries communicate the state of affairs to their industry through government and their industry association. The strength of the voice to government is usually determined by the strength of their financial backing. Bill 42 will provide the necessary funding to create a stronger, united voice from the agrifood industry to government. As a result, the government will be better informed about the health and problems of the agricultural industry.
There is a reduction in the OMAF budget. This will increase the workload for the general farm organizations. Extra funding will be required for the research to make the proper advisory decisions to assist the grass roots of the agrifood industry and thus an effective presentation to government. These informed presentations will be another means for government to attain a fast-tracked opportunity to agricultural decisions. That is why we're here today in support of Bill 42.
Mr Dobie: Good afternoon. My name is Alvin Dobie. I come from Lanark county. I've lived my entire life on a farm near Perth, Ontario. Up until six years ago we were in the dairy business. We changed from dairy to cash cropping. I grow about 90% hay, which I supply to horse stables in the area, between Perth and Ottawa.
I come here today I guess mostly because of my concern for the farming and agriculture industry. It certainly is on a downhill slide from what I've ever known it in my lifetime. I'm not as old as some people are here who are in farming, but I have been actively involved farming the home farm since 1960.
I can certainly tell you we ran a custom business of farm machinery for quite a number of years and we disposed of that at the same time as we changed from the dairy herd because there were no longer enough farmers and sufficient business to support it any longer. That's six years ago, and to this day grain prices really haven't improved to help make things any better.
I'm a firm believer in farm organizations. I feel we have to have them to keep things operating smoothly and to help advise you people as to what are the requirements of the agriculture industry in Ontario, or Canada, for that matter. I was around and I voted in the 1969 general farm organization vote and I think farmers would be a lot better off today if that vote had carried. I think we'd be better organized and would have been able to communicate better with governments and a lot of things would have been much improved for Ontario farmers.
I didn't write up a presentation. I prefer just to talk off the top of my head. I'm the type of person who, when I go to talk to someone or meet them, I like to talk heart to heart. If there are any questions that you people have, we'd be very pleased to try and answer them for you and help you with your guidance in this situation.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Thank you, gentlemen. It's always great to see people from eastern Ontario here in Toronto. I imagine there are lots of other things you gentlemen, as farmers, could have been doing today and we appreciate your coming before the committee.
The first question I might have is the draft registration form. I'm sure you've each seen that. Are you happy with what you've seen?
Mr Runnalls: Actually, some of us had gone through it several months ago. Now, I think it's --
Mr Cleary: Changed?
Mr Runnalls: I don't know if any of the rest of you have seen the draft or not.
Mr Shaw: I have seen one of them. Whether I've seen the final draft or not, I'm not sure. I think the process and the form that it is taking, this final one, I'm satisfied with it.
Mr Runnalls: I think we're satisfied that you people will do a good job on that end of it.
Mr Cleary: You know that in any change, there are always two sides. There's a bit of opposition to whatever change might take place. I just was wondering if you gentlemen would have any advice that could help this committee with some of the presenters who have come before us opposed to Bill 42, because this is going to unite after this is all over. I think it's going to need many organizations to do it.
Mr Shaw: I think you've got a very good question there. What we must all be involved in is the marketing of Bill 42. However, the very fact that it is refundable is a definite plus. I think when we tell people that it isn't a compulsory thing, the registration may be, but the fee is refundable, I think that should alleviate the fears that many have.
We hope that in a short period of time there will be very few people seeking that refund. I think when they realize the opportunities that are there with a well-financed organization, with the research that can be done, the benefit that there should be to the agricultural industry, I would hope it will become a bill and the legislation will be beneficial to all. Certainly it's an opportunity for agriculture and the agrifood industry to work with government.
Mr Runnalls: If I could add, I would like to make a little comparison to the milk marketing board act. There was a lot of anger at the time, but now 90% of the milk producers are happy with what they have. I think that would be a good comparison. We may have some problems, but as Jack said, with the marketing of it, it will certainly turn out well.
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'm happy to see people not only from my constituency but the surrounding constituencies down at Queen's Park expressing their views on this issue.
One of the concerns I have is that, of course, when you give essentially a lot more power to an organization, which this bill does -- perhaps you could fill me in on how, number one, the OFA is going to involve the enlarged membership in an active membership role. Have they thought about that at all? Second, do you see any problems with accountability to those, if you want to call them, fringe members or whatever?
Mr Sabey: Not really, to answer your last question first. I suppose the OFA probably has the largest board of directors of most organizations. Our county, for example, has two. We have regular meetings with the membership of that county and they give us direction. They tell us the problems they have, they tell us any questions or concerns they have, and we in turn take that up at the board of directors' meeting. The executives acknowledge that they get their direction from the board of directors. So from the accountability point of view, there's that aspect.
The second is, there's an annual convention, and even more delegates from each unit attend. They have an opportunity to vote on the membership of the executive. It's a grass-roots organization and the grass roots have ample opportunity to express their concerns, their interests and what they would like to have.
I suppose people will always wonder what will happen when it looks like there might be some growth, but there's an inertia that everyone has when it comes to change. We all get in our comfortable little ruts, we like to do things our way, and sometimes we forget that maybe the good of the whole is better than the good of the individual.
Mr Sterling: Mr Shaw, you know in the last provincial campaign, your five-year-old grandson came out and campaigned with me. He was the youngest campaigner I ever had and, quite frankly, one of the most informed campaigners I had, Master Caldwell. If I vote for this bill, will you follow your grandson's leadership?
Mr Shaw: You don't have to answer that question.
Mr Dobie: I'd like to add something in answer to Mr Sterling's question. I think one of the main reasons that the federation requires stable funding and more money is, with fewer farmers, costs going up and what not, it's hard to hold on to membership and keep the money coming in when costs are increasing. Plus, if there's a meeting of something important with government or whatever it is or with any of the farm commodities, the government and other organizations always have people there. So I think it's important that the OFA has funding and has resources so we can have someone there to represent our point of view when its required. I think this is the biggest problem facing the OFA right at the present time, to have enough money so we can get around and be at all the meetings and cover the views of the farmers, trying to get our point across.
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To you gentlemen from eastern Ontario, thank you very much for being here. I apologize for being a little late. I had a meeting in Edwardsburgh township, in Spencerville, this morning regarding some problems, and I was doing a little better than the speed limit getting here, as usual.
Interjection.
Mr Villeneuve: I've been there before.
Bill 42 in its new form, as opposed to Bill 105, is much more palatable to all of us. However, people who are opposed to Bill 42 have outlined their reasons and certainly those will be considered, as will those of the potential GFOs.
Accountability: I go back to what my colleague from Carleton was referring to. Section 33 of the act says that in three years' time the minister will have the opportunity -- and you may well be quite satisfied with what's in there now, but if we were to amend this bill with the fact of accountability back to a standing committee of the Legislature, which involves as you see all parties, so that this is a different kind of creature of government because it will not be a hands-on government type of operation.
The minister, whoever he or she may be in three years' time, may want to do away with it and may want to enshrine it in concrete, but I still think that because it's a different kind of group -- agencies, boards and commissions are under direct, hands-on management of the government and appointees by the government. The board here will be appointed by the government, but it will not be an agency, board or commission as we know. So in order to satisfy people who may be well satisfied and may want to say so at that time, and in order to satisfy those other groups that may well still be in opposition, what is your opinion of an amendment that would bring it back to a standing, all-party committee of the Legislature? Could I have your comments on that?
1420
Mr Sabey: I'd be delighted to comment. All you're doing is opening a can of worms. For three years people are going to have an opportunity to ask for refunds. Now, if that isn't a vote either of confidence or against, I don't know what it would be. To have a vote is merely allowing additional opportunities for those who are in a minority, and call them a vocal minority, to muddy the water.
Mr Villeneuve: Mr Sabey, this is not a vote.
Mr Sabey: I understand what you're saying, but the fact is that you're still opening it and you'll do the same thing you're doing now. You're going to have hearings, which leaves a platform for those people to come and express their opinions, which will be published in all the newspapers, and you'll end up with a vocal minority who are getting far more press and far more publicity and far more attention and exercising far more influence than their numbers warrant.
After all, if you've got 20 people who are opposed and all 20 appear at the hearing, and you only have 20 who appear representing 60,000, it will look like even numbers. It doesn't work that way.
I think that the fact that it's refundable is sufficient indication of how they feel about it. If the minister at the end of the three years feels there are too many asking for refunds, then let the minister make a decision according to the way the act is written now.
Mr Runnalls: I agree with Max on that. I feel that time is of such critical importance right now, with NAFTA and all of the problems facing agriculture, low incomes, that I think it's time to get on with it. If we leave it another three years, as Max has said, it'll build up. Let's get on with the job, let's do it. I'm sure it will turn out well.
Mr Villeneuve: The comment from head office, pursuant to a question of how many members they felt the OFA or the GFOs would increase by was, "Exactly what we deserve." I guess you're saying basically the same thing.
In another area, refundability, I certainly am pleased to see the refundability aspect in there for those who so desire. Would you stipulate a certain criteria, a period of time from the time the designated GFO receives a cheque which is to be refunded? Could you live with a specified period of time?
Mr Sabey: It depends on how the mail runs. After all, it takes up to two weeks to get a letter from Toronto to where I live, so if you say that it's got to be done in 15 days, we'd be in trouble. So on the details of that, we're talking about assumptions, we're talking about what might be. So far as we're concerned, if the refund is to be made, it should be done as quickly as possible. If we don't make it, we're automatically going to lose that person as a member. If we get out there quickly, we might be able to convince him. So I'm not sure that there should be a time factor.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We'd also like to welcome Mr Waters to the committee this afternoon. Questions, Mr Hansen and Mr Klopp.
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): We're talking about refunds and how quickly they're going to be coming back. What about someone who applies for a refund six months later and has had the benefits for six months? Is there anything in there that you feel that a certain period of time should elapse when a person asks for a refund?
Mr Sabey: That's a different question.
Mr Hansen: This is the other way around. The one who's receiving the benefits, maybe he's signed up already with OFA on its dental program and some other programs and decides six months later to cancel. Just a comment from you.
Mr Sabey: Then I have to change saddles. Certainly, there should be a limited time within which they can ask for a refund, 30 days, 60 days, but not more than that. I think that they can make up their minds within a more limited time than six months or whatever it happens to be. They can do it in 30 to 60 days.
Mr Hansen: Why I asked this is, in case the letter gets put on top of the fridge and it sits there for two months and then they decide to send it in and they say, "But we sent it in a long time ago." Some of these things, I think, will have to be worked out, but I just want to throw that one back to you.
Mr Runnalls: I think it's the nuts and bolts of the situation. We're not asking for that today. We feel you will look after it properly. Certainly, we don't want it to go, as Max said, six months.
Mr Hansen: Okay. You're representing the OFA executive in a particular area?
Mr Runnalls: No, I'm representing myself and my county.
Mr Hansen: Okay, fine. The question I was going to ask wouldn't really apply to you. I've asked this question of some of the other groups that have come forward, if the executive are the only ones supporting and have you gone to the membership. Do you feel that the farmers in eastern Ontario are in support of the stable funding bill, Bill 42, generally speaking, in your neighbourhood?
Mr Runnalls: I can take my own county, Dundas. We have 800 census farmers and we have about 404 members right now. Of the membership, certainly I would say they overwhelmingly support it because they feel, as somebody else said, "Why shouldn't everybody pay if I'm paying?" The other people, well, when you have census farmers, they're anywhere from $9,000 to whatever as an income, so a lot of people may not even be aware. But no, I feel that the vast amount of the people would support it.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): As a person who comes from cottage country -- we've lost all our farmers pretty much, and all our dairies. At one time in Muskoka we had something like 10 dairies. I grew up on a farm; in fact, on about three farms, none of which is farming any more. The farms are all gone. I guess what I want to know is, do you feel that this legislation will empower yourselves and your organizations to have an effective means of conversing with the government to get your points across so this doesn't happen to some other areas and to other farmers?
1430
The gentleman at the far end mentioned that he was in dairy, and they just sort of whittle away and whittle away and they never seem to get a big enough voice to make a stand, historically. So the question is, is this going to assist your organizations in dealing with the likes of us and getting your points across, effectively, for a change?
Mr Shaw: I believe it will accomplish just that very thing. If we might go back to the days -- of course I'm in supply management, being in the dairy industry, and at that time Bill Stewart said, you know, "We're in it," and there were those of us who opposed it at that time but it wasn't long until we realized the benefits of supply management. I think this is once again an opportunity to unite not only supply management but all of agriculture into a common sector that they can speak in a democratic way with one voice, and I certainly think Bill 42 can accomplish that.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): On behalf of Elmer and us at the ministry, we thank you today for coming out. Your comments -- and it's been brought up before about why we're doing this and you mentioned the farmers saying, "Well, I'd join if my neighbour does." I've heard that now three times and I'll put on the record I know exactly what that means because I've had that happen. In fact, that was one of the reasons, I guess, I started thinking maybe we should have stable funding in. Some people are just like that and they need to have a shove. Maybe they've gone through the 1969 issue and it hurt them so badly they said they're not going to ever join, because I've had that too. I truly believe that is a comment and I think this does give a pleasant push to all of us who need to get more involved.
You brought out some very good points today. We're going to keep them under advisement: the issue of refundability, which was raised on the other side of the saddle and I'm glad that Noble raised his question. I thank you for your time. We're going to go to clauseby-clause, I believe, on Thursday and Wednesday, and I look forward to using some of your points. Thank you.
The Chair: Gentlemen, thank you very much for appearing here today. Your views are important to all members of this committee and we certainly are appreciative of you taking the time, which I'm sure is a very busy season for each and every one of you, to come down and express your point of view on this very important bill. Your views have played an important part in the process and I think it's important that you understand that as well. I urge you to stay in touch with the committee, either through the clerk of the committee, or any members of this committee or your own sitting MPP, and we trust that you'll follow the process as we move through Bill 42.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Mr Chair, while the next deputants are coming, I have a question I'd like to pose to the ministry staff. It has to do with the francophone organization under section 11. When one reads it one can't help but assume that it's anticipated that there be but one francophone organization. That's not the way the legislation reads and I was wondering if I might be able to get a clarification that indeed there is the possibility that there be more than one francophone organization that would qualify under a GFO. Secondly, if that be the case, how is it that competing francophone organizations would challenge for the special funding.
Mr Klopp: Rolly Stroeter is here today along with us and he's with the ministry staff. He may give a technical reason. We've had a long discussion on this. If he's ready now, he can answer some but, if not, we'll get the answers.
Mr Offer: I have no problem, as long as it doesn't take away time from the next deputants.
Mr Klopp: We do have some time after 3 o'clock or 3:30. Can we deal with it then?
Mr Offer: It's up to the Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Offer. We have noted your question and the ministry will be prepared to deal with it after we hear the last witness this afternoon.
NORTHUMBERLAND FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
The Chair: The Northumberland Federation of Agriculture. Please identify yourselves and proceed.
Mr Fred Thomson: Fred Thomson, president of the Northumberland Federation of Agriculture.
Mr Marvin McComb: Marvin McComb, a member of the Northumberland Federation of Agriculture.
Mr Thomson: I guess it's left with me to make the presentation, I believe a copy of which is in front of you. I've captioned my remarks initially to say that it's my pleasure to be here this afternoon. That is perhaps stretching it a little bit, because we would all probably prefer to be somewhere else, maybe outside on such a nice day. But let me say that I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak with you on behalf of our federation of agriculture to bring you up to date on some of the points that we feel are important and how we feel our members are reacting to Bill 42.
While the concepts encompassed in this legislation are certainly not new, they are, however, seemingly closer to becoming a reality and that we view to be good news. I can advise that the substance of this legislation has been well debated in Northumberland at our federation's monthly meetings, of which we would have probably 12 a year. Half of those are regular meetings where they are open to anyone who would wish to attend, as well as at least two open-house forums that we have had specifically to discuss stable funding. In addition to that, Northumberland also hosts several summit meetings every year, quite often at Brighton, Ontario. These are used to discuss areas of concern or issues of concern and stable funding. The substance of Bill 42 has been discussed on several occasions in that forum. That draws from about eight counties around us, so we're getting a reasonable representation from our area.
I think farmers understand that in today's complex business world they need representation. I think they understand that good representation costs money, and to ensure a continuity of that representation requires a stable revenue base for general farm organizations. The voluntary aspect of farmer contributions to the GFO of their choice, while different from earlier legislative proposals, is not considered to be a weakness in this bill. Rather, it provides farmers with an additional option and obliges the general farm organization to be ever vigilant of the quality of its representation to ensure a continuation of support from the membership.
In the past, benefits obtained by the OFA for Ontario farmers have been shared by members and non-members alike. This legislation essentially rectifies a long-standing inequity and underscores the principle that all those sharing in the benefits should also share in the cost of obtaining those benefits. This particular aspect of the legislation is very well received by members of the OFA, some 20,000 strong in Ontario, because we believe that a larger membership will give rise to even better representation and an even more effective lobby voice on our behalf.
Also, the voluntary nature of this proposal removes the necessity to have a farmer vote, in our opinion, after a period of time has elapsed, as was considered in the earlier legislation. You will recall that they were talking about a possibility of a vote about three years down the road to see how well it was accepted by farmers. It will be relatively easy to determine the acceptability of this bill through a tabulation of those farmers who request a refund and certainly we believe much less costly.
It's also worth noting that all elected officers of our federation of agriculture, as is the case with all county federations of agriculture to my knowledge, are volunteers. We do a lot of work at the grass-roots level on helping farmers resolve issues and we do a lot of our work around membership, going and seeing people and renewing memberships, obtaining new members. In our view, that very much constrains the opportunities that we have to do other things on behalf of those members in our area. We believe this legislation will permit our county federation to also deliver a better and more diversified service to our members.
1440
Further, the farmer registration system is long overdue. To date, there is, to my knowledge, no mechanism to properly identify bona fide farmers in Ontario and, as a consequence, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food has lacked valuable statistical data needed for policy development.
In addition to addressing this immediate need, the registration mechanism could provide for numerous other possibilities, like a better system for accrediting bona fide farmers with provincial sales tax exemptions on eligible items or perhaps an easier collection rebate mechanism for GST.
We recognize that this bill, once passed in the provincial Legislature, becomes enabling legislation around which will be constructed the required regulatory and policy framework to become operational. Through several discussions with our MPP, Mrs Joan Fawcett, who is a member of your committee, we have hopefully conveyed the feelings of our county federation of agriculture regarding this valuable legislation.
While we recognize that not all farmers support this legislation, we believe that opposition is small in numbers and, certainly in Northumberland, the majority of our farmers supports this bill. We wish this committee fruitful deliberations and encourage timely passage of Bill 42.
Mr Villeneuve: To the Northumberland and surrounding area Federation of Agriculture, thank you for your presentation.
The chamber of commerce was here last week, suggesting that it was against Bill 42. I was surprised at the chamber because I'm not sure whether the chamber had checked with the chambers, say, in the riding I represent or in other ridings.
However, I think some explanation has to be done because agriculture is the kind of industry where you buy retail and you sell wholesale, and you don't have a great deal to say about the farm-gate value of your product. Example: You can have an A-1 steer go to market, you've fed that animal for a year or more and someone in a cow-calf operation raises the calf for four, five, six months. Yet our processors say they can't afford the time to age that beef and it winds up on the consumers' table probably before the farmer gets the cheque for the animal, and has no say on how that product is handled after it leaves that farm gate. The consumption of red meats is, for some reason, going down on a per capita basis and agriculture is a type of enterprise certainly different from just about any other enterprise.
My question to you is on the refundability. I asked your colleagues from the federations of agriculture in the area that I represent as to their feeling on the time from when an applicant who decides that he wants to be reimbursed his $150. Do you feel there should be a time frame? That's one of the questions that opponents to Bill 42 are bringing forth, that GFOs will not be in a hurry to reimburse to those who have chosen, for whatever reason, to withdraw their support. Would you have any ideas as to whether there should be a time frame here? Suggestions?
Mr Thomson: I guess, catching the tail end of the previous conversation, I'd be inclined to agree that, yes, there should be a time frame and it would seem to me reasonable to expedite it as much as possible. I say that because, for many farmers to sit down and write a letter is maybe not the easiest thing they would do in life.
Mr Villeneuve: On a rainy day.
Mr Thomson: They don't have a secretary at hand they can dictate something to. So they have made a conscious effort, if they're going to write a letter, that they've done so thinking about it and they've come to a conclusion that they would like a refund.
I think we have to respect that. That's not to say that we can't go and talk to them and try to change their minds, but I think we have to respect the decision they've made. It would be my view that should be followed up fairly quickly.
Mr Villeneuve: I was a member of the OFA tax assessment committee back in the late 1970s, early 1980s, when we spoke of farm tax rebate and came this close to having it initiated where we would not pay tax on farm property and farm real estate, and at the last moment it did not go through. However, everyone gets benefits and that's fair game.
When your OFA field man gets a call from someone, are you aware as to whether he goes through a list of members and says, "Uh-oh, this guy's not a member, therefore he doesn't receive the services from OFA"?
Mr Thomson: You're in a better position to talk about that, Marvin.
Mr McComb: I wouldn't say that we refuse to talk to him, but we will certainly go and tell him that if we can help him, we'd like him to join us. I think that's fair game.
Mr Villeneuve: That's fair game; I agree. So you have no discriminatory policy where if my neighbour, who's not an OFA member, requests some advice, and I know at one time Hydro corridors were a big question and OFA helped considerably. You know that's all water under the bridge now. Whatever was decided, everyone benefited: farm tax rebate and a number of other situations. So in your opinion, the OFA field man simply says, "We're quite willing to help but it would be quite nice if indeed you were a member of the OFA," and I'm sure the Christian Farmers probably do the same thing.
Mr McComb: As far as I know, we've never turned down anybody's help. We've certainly done our best to persuade them to join us first or come along with us as we help them.
Mr Thomson: We had an example this past winter where an individual had approached me over a boundary dispute. That individual was not a member of the OFA. He subsequently became a member, probably in the hope that we could offer some assistance. As Marvin has said, we do encourage them to become members, but they were not turned down service because they were not members.
Mr Villeneuve: Can I ask one more? On item 33 -- you probably heard the tail end of the last conversation, and I am asking everyone, where time permits -- are you satisfied with the minister having the sole decision, or could you consider the entire question, in three years' time, coming back to committee for a review of the pros and cons? Because this will be a slightly different type of organization out in rural Ontario than any other.
Mr Thomson: I guess the feeling at this point in time, as I alluded to in our remarks, is that I believe we could leave that decision at this moment until we found out, through the numbers of people who may in fact request refunds, whether there's a need for a more detailed review. Obviously, if the numbers requesting refunds are greater than anticipated, then yes, there probably should be some form of review to determine what is the reason for discontent. However, otherwise I think that will tell us what we need to know.
Mr Hansen: I'm going to ask sort of a question, sort of a salesman's part: Do you believe you get your $150 out of OFA, the upcoming registration as members?
Mr Thomson: If I didn't, I shouldn't be president of the Northumberland Federation of Agriculture.
1450
Mr Hansen: Okay, I've asked this sort of question before. You have health benefits and dental programs and that. So actually the savings that you have there just about pay the membership in plus the literature on farm safety. I'm just trying to find out if it's the same all over Ontario with the OFA as in our area.
The other thing is that you mentioned sales tax. If I went into, say, a feed store or an implement dealer in your particular area and bought an 18-horsepower riding lawn tractor with a snowblower and it came to, say, $4,000, do you think it's fair that I'm able to go in and sign to say that I'm a bona fide farmer when I'm not, where you are?
Mr Thomson: I think that's part of the inequity that exists now. If we use examples, there are certain locations where I would do business and where they know that I am a bona fide farmer and things can be purchased tax-exempt. There are other locations which might be in another town where they don't know me, and I would pay the sales tax with the idea of collecting it back.
What we are suggesting is that if you have a registration system and can more readily identify who is and who is not a bona fide farmer, that should facilitate the kinds of things like collection and rebate of taxes.
Mr Hansen: Why I'm getting to that is that my wife is in a business. She doesn't pay sales tax, but she has a form filled out and signed with her number on it that she hands to another business so she's exempt. So with this number, when you go in, it wouldn't just be the word of the person, because a lot of times you don't know whether the person's making $7,000 a year in farming.
I've got over 10 acres, and yet the farm dealer who is 20 miles away from me wouldn't know whether I'm a bona fide farmer or not. That's why I brought that issue out. So when we talk about underground economy, it's sort of like underground people not paying the tax they should be paying on the farm equipment that they're purchasing for, let's say, personal use.
Mr Thomson: Or, on the reverse side, tax being paid where it's not collected back as well, and that also exists.
Mr Waters: In the last main paragraph of your brief you say, "We recognize that this bill, once passed in the provincial Legislature, becomes enabling legislation around which will be constructed the required regulatory and policy framework to become operational."
I understand that this bill is something that hopefully is going to bring the farming community and government into, shall we say, a better system of discussion. What I want to know is, does the OFA, at this point in time, have any input on this regulatory and policy framework? Are you being talked to at this time or are there plans for that so that indeed you are involved with the bill in all aspects of its creation?
Mr Thomson: The way I'll comment on that is that with the stable funding legislation which preceded this, I participated in a technical committee directly with the OFA here in Toronto. At that time there was ongoing discussion and certainly there was going to be concentration and dialogue on the development of regulations and how they should be developed as a follow-up from the act. I would see no change in this. I can't tell you, from where I sit now, whether these regulations are in the development stage yet. I would assume that probably some work has already been done.
Mr Waters: We'll find out right now. Mr Klopp, can you comment on this?
Mr Klopp: Yes. Actually, we haven't done the regulations. We'll get you one of these. In fact, I'll give you this one right now.
On one of the pages it shows a basic outline of what the regulations are going to be, and indeed you mentioned the technical community. Elmer and ourselves, we have been in strong discussion with this over two and a half years on what we want there, and more importantly, not what we want but what the farm community feels is fair and addresses everyone's concerns. I think you'll be more than pleased with the general outline and it's probably very close to what you've seen already.
Mr Waters: So the short form of that is that yes, you are in discussions with the OFA and other organizations over the creation of the regs and that.
Mr Klopp: Yes.
Mr Waters: I know a number of farmers who have either 50 or 100 acres and they rent them out, people who own land. They might have a barn on there but they rent it to the guy next door. At this point in time, they're getting any of the rebates that are going on in farming. I really don't think they're farmers. Is this going to deal with that problem so that indeed the rebates or anything that goes out there for farmers is indeed going to be channelled to the farmers and not just necessarily to somebody who owns title to land?
Mr Thomson: You bring up an interesting point, because I think it would maybe depend on which rebate we're talking about. If you're talking about property tax rebate, we recognize that the property tax rebate is an attempt to correct an inequity, that's also existed for 20 years or more, over the collection of taxes for education purposes on land for which really there should be no assessment, in our view, for education.
I personally, and I'm speaking for myself in this case, still believe that the land owner is entitled, if he has paid those taxes and that land is being used for agricultural purposes, to that rebate. There may in fact be other rebates which should be channelled to the individual who is actively involved in the farming operation as opposed necessarily to the land owner. Perhaps that would have to be considered on an individual basis.
Mr Waters: Do you feel that with this legislation you would have a better, I guess, voice with government indeed to make sure that the appropriate rebates go to the appropriate people?
Mr Thomson: I don't think there's any doubt that the stronger we are, the better lobby voice we have on behalf of all farmers. That's the goal.
Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Welcome. Sorry I'm late, but I did get held up with a minor accident that I was involved in on Friday night and I had to get things sorted away, so I'm sorry I wasn't here for your presentation. But I think I really know your feelings, because we have discussed this on a few occasions, and I hope you realize that our party is in support of the bill and certainly you know you have my support as far as voting in favour.
There have been questions asked around the registration form. I don't know whether you've seen the registration form draft proposal. There have been some presenters who maybe were worried as to what use the ministry might make of the information, but maybe you could just give me your feelings on the ministry requiring all farmers to register. Do you feel that is a problem? Would you like to see it then maybe even so that it could eliminate further registration forms for all of the programs? I'm not sure yet what the final draft of the registration form is. We haven't really seen it yet either. So just your thoughts there to start.
Mr McComb: The more complications we can eliminate, the better for both you and me.
Mrs Fawcett: Yes. So your feeling is that you would like to see an easy form to fill in that doesn't take up too much of your time?
Mr McComb: We're not really in any great love of a complicated form. It doesn't matter what it's for, short and concise so it gets the main facts but doesn't spend all day getting around to it.
Mrs Fawcett: Yes.
Mr Thomson: Believe me, if we can get through NISA, I think we can get through most anything. I have a copy of the draft here in front of me.
Mrs Fawcett: I've heard that before.
Mr Thomson: I don't think there's anything in here that should cause serious concern to people, from what I see at first glance.
Also, as Marvin was saying, the more it can be streamlined, the better it is for all of us, for example, to participate in provincial programs. A farmer registration system in the longer term, as I was explaining earlier, to me holds other benefits as well. There are other options and possibilities that could evolve over time with this mechanism that are not available to us now.
Mrs Fawcett: Subsection 20(3) of the bill says, "The ministry shall promptly forward the cheques to the appropriate organization." Rather than the word "promptly" there, would you favour seeing an actual time line -- three weeks, a month -- where, when the cheques are received by the ministry, they are forwarded on, and then do you have any idea as to if someone wants a refund, then how long it should take the OFA or the Christian Farmers to return the money? Have you any thoughts there? Would you like to see in the bill explicit time lines or are you satisfied with "promptly"?
1500
Mr Thomson: I guess in my past experience with legislation, I would advocate keeping the bill or the act an all-encompassing document to cover the subject but not to get too specific in detail, rather have that fleshed out through regulation or perhaps policy. That's going to develop over time through dialogue between the different parties, the different people of the GFO and the ministry.
There could well be constraints that we're not aware of at this table that could develop. I've seen cases where acts of Parliament, in this case federal, became the limiting factor themselves by their very nature to legislation moving on, and if it takes three, four years to amend an act of Parliament, it takes a relatively short period of time to change a regulation.
I would in fact favour, I think, leaving those kinds of specifics on the time for refund, time for forwarding money on, to regulation or policy.
Mrs Fawcett: There has been some concern expressed over the tribunal and the powers that possibly are perceived in the bill about the tribunal as to when possibly just a quorum of three would be making decisions or the full seven and who is eligible for the tribunal. Have you any thoughts that you would like to express as far as that's concerned?
Mr Thomson: To be perfectly honest with you, Joan, I hadn't considered that and I'm not sure that I have any meaningful thoughts on it at the moment.
Mrs Fawcett: All right. One further thing came up last week. As the bill is right now, there does not seem to be any appeal mechanism. Some people were concerned about that and so I throw that out for you to think about as well.
Mr Thomson: I guess the appeal mechanism I see in place now is the fact that it has moved from a mandatory bill to a voluntary bill in terms of participation by farmers. As I responded to an earlier question, I believe the very nature of it is voluntary now and the numbers as they may be who would choose to apply for a refund will be indicative of the success of this bill and whether further adjustments may be necessary.
Mrs Fawcett: I think the tribunal has powers over and the decision as to whether another group would like to become an accredited, bona fide organization, that kind of decision too is left up to them. We hope it never happens, but if, let's say, one accredited group wasn't living up to what we thought it should, then that tribunal may disenfranchise as well, so we were concerned about the appeal mechanism.
Mr Offer: Under the bill, as you have indicated, a farmer can apply for a refund. Do you believe that there should be a time limitation on when the individual can apply for a refund? Under the bill right now, for instance, they could apply for a refund 11 months after registration. Is there something that should be done to the bill to, firstly, continue to enable an individual to request a refund but also provide a certain certainty to the GFO as to when the refunds are going to be made?
Mr Thomson: In response, that subject also came up at the earlier session, and I believe there should be a certain period of time during which an individual would apply for a refund, after which time it would not be available. For example, I don't think it's reasonable that a farmer could take advantage of services that are being offered and then, at a subsequent time, apply for a full rebate. But again, those kinds of dates and time frames I would leave to probably the regulatory framework rather than putting into the bill itself.
The Chair: I thank the Northumberland Federation of Agriculture and each of you for coming forward this afternoon and getting your views on this very important bill to the agricultural sector on record and known to members of the committee. I trust that you'll stay in touch with the committee as it goes through its process, either through your own MPP, Mrs Fawcett, the clerk of the committee, any other member of this committee or any other sitting MPP. Thanks very much.
LYLE GALLAGHER
BRUCE BUTTAR
The Chair: Lyle Gallagher and Bruce Buttar, welcome, gentlemen. Please identify yourselves and then proceed with your presentation.
Mr Lyle Gallagher: I'm Lyle Gallagher. I'm a part-time farmer from Northumberland county.
Mr Bruce Buttar: Bruce Buttar. I'm a full-time dairy farmer from Hamilton township in Northumberland county.
Mr Gallagher: Ladies and gentlemen, I come before this committee as a part-time farmer from Northumber-land county, strongly in favour of Bill 42. Agriculture is the largest industry in Northumberland county, producing $115 million worth of agricultural products, according to the 1991 census. This far exceeds the number two industry, tourism, with gross receipts in the $60 million range.
Within Northumberland, 895 or 59% of census farms in 1991 reported sales of less than $25,000. This group would probably not feel that they need to belong to a general farm organization because their main source of income would be from off-farm employment. However, they are all benefiting from the efforts of the general farm organizations. These benefits include the efforts to have the education portion of property tax removed from farm land, rural rate assistance on hydro, the constant vigilance of Ontario Hydro, the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Environment and Energy and other ministries like the Ministry of Natural Resources, and the implications that these have on agriculture as a whole and on individual farmers.
The 440 members of OFA in Northumberland county would easily represent 80% of the agricultural production. These people realize that with the decreasing number of farmers it is even more important to speak with a strong, unified voice.
It is in society's best interest to keep a strong agricultural industry here in Ontario, not only to have a source of safe, nutritious food, but to also supply jobs to the one in seven who relies on the agriculture and food industry for employment.
As I mentioned in my opening, I am a part-time farmer. My main source of income is in the sale of seed to farmers. It is in my industry's best interest that farming remain profitable. The better organized the farm community is, the more likely it will be able to stay profitable.
1510
The farm data which may be gathered through the registration process of Bill 42 could make it easier for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food to target programs to the sectors that most need assistance.
The refundability aspect of Bill 42 will make the accredited groups responsive to the wants and needs of those requesting a refund. I would hope that if I were to request a refund someone from the organization would contact me to ask my reasons for the request and would follow up with some action to try to regain my support.
In conclusion, it is my belief that farmers, both full-time and part-time, as well as the agricultural industry as a whole, would be better served by a well-funded grassroots organization, one that can devote all of its time and energy to the issues of today and tomorrow and not have to worry as much about funding.
Thank you.
Mr Buttar: I would just like to thank you for the opportunity to address you today and give you my comments on this. Speaking as a director of the Northumberland Federation of Agriculture and as a full-time farmer, I feel that any organization depends on its members, and certainly the number of members and the more it has makes any organization far more effective.
As an Ontario farmer, I feel that we need a strong organization to represent us and speak for us and debate on many of the issues that we're presented with today. As a farmer and a dairy farmer, I know that I don't have time always to be up on all the issues that are coming forth and the things that we need to be aware of, and that's the reason why I feel we need a strong organization to be there for us.
The Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, I feel, presents this avenue that we will be a larger organization and we will have the representation we need. The funding act would require all farmers with a gross income over $7,000 to register and pay this fee. As a director of our township, I've spent considerable time travelling up and down the roads of our township, seeking prospective members, talking to members, speaking to some who are very large farmers and don't feel the benefit of paying a registration fee but they're more than willing to accept the benefits they get out of the organization that does the lobbying for them. And we're all in the same boat. There's no requirement that if they don't pay they don't get any of the benefits, and I feel that is an inequity.
If the legislation is passed, all the people will be required to pay into it, and hopefully we will have an opportunity to speak to them if they would like to have it back and maybe we can show them some of the benefits. At least we're on a different side of the stick, whereas we're trying to talk them out of getting it back instead of paying us to get it. I think that would maybe be a little benefit to us.
I think rural Ontario needs to be strong and needs to stand together. We have seen the present government give a lot of support in new areas, typically ag in the classroom, agricultural awareness. The Ontario Health Council did a series of workshops last winter where they're trying to strengthen the rural community. It's all part and parcel of making the agricultural sector stronger in an area where we're becoming less and less people in a growing society.
So I think it's important that we would get this legislation passed. I feel it would be considerably important to all the people in the agricultural sector. These are my thoughts on it.
Mr Hansen: Mr Gallagher, you were talking that you're a seed salesman, plus a part-time farmer on top of that. How do you feel that registration with a number coming in will help you in your business?
Mr Gallagher: In my business as a seed salesman?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Mr Gallagher: Simply by strengthening the farm community, hopefully keeping the farm community more profitable. There's no sense in selling something to someone if he can't pay for it. That's how I see it.
Mr Hansen: I thought you were in opposition to this bill and I had some questions prepared. Since you're in favour of it, I haven't got any.
Mr Waters: I'm even worse. I'm going to go off topic because of a comment --
Interjection.
Mr Waters: The Chair isn't here. He's behind me, so he can't cut me off too fast.
You mention something in your comments about ongoing farmers and there are fewer and fewer farmers. I guess it's something that's bothered me in my family that there were at least myself and three cousins who were all raised on farms, and none of us farm. My question has nothing to do with the bill.
The Chair: In that case you want to make it extremely brief.
Mr Waters: How do we keep our kids on the land or get our kids interested in farming? What is the problem? Is it just that they can't make a living and it isn't worth it, or how do we deal with that?
Mr Buttar: From the point of view of a dairy farmer, I think at this point in time, unless you're in a certain situation where you have the benefits of getting in by family or whatever, you couldn't possibly afford to get into a dairy farm.
Mr Waters: Quota keeps you out.
Mr Buttar: Well, yes, but maybe even without quota, by the time you buy the equipment to feed probably 35 or 40 cows, and now they're saying it's got to be 60 cows to be viable, I don't think the returns are there, and that's a problem. If a person can go to a factory and start out making $15 an hour and know he can bring that home with all the benefits involved, it's pretty hard to convince somebody they should be going back and start in farming where they're going to have to work 12, 15 hours a day and maybe not be able to pay the grocery bill at the end of the week. That's a fact of life. We have to live with that.
Mr Waters: I take it this is the challenge that this will hopefully help us assist to deal with.
Mr Buttar: I'm sure. Things come before the farmers that they don't understand or don't recognize and I think as a strong organization -- and it's support, too. A strong organization is support, can support a young farmer who's coming in and give him some direction and some incentive to go ahead and maybe become viable where otherwise he wouldn't be.
Mr Waters: I keep looking up there hoping he isn't going to cut me off, because you always lead to another question.
We seem to have a lot of support, at least I feel there's a lot of support, for agribusiness, but is there enough support for young farmers to come in? They're two different groups of people, by the way, in my mind. I just wondered. You don't have to comment. You can just let it go if you want.
Mr Buttar: It would be nice if there was more support.
Mr Klopp: Thank you both for coming today and bringing out very good and well-articulated points. I've known Lyle for a long time and it's good to see you again here today. I think the last comments, although we got a little bit off topic -- and he used to be a chair. He used to tell me I couldn't do those things. I'm going to remember that when he's chair.
But seriously, this is the type of bill, I believe, and why I've strongly supported something along these lines for a long time, and if we could keep going here we will get this through so that people can build those building blocks so that we can have a better future for our sons and daughters. I thank you for taking the time today to come out and help push it.
Mrs Fawcett: Here I thought all along that people listened to speeches and so on where there's just been no doubt that Northumberland is in favour of this bill. I can't imagine that there would have been anybody here against it.
The Chair: I'm tempted to call this Northumberland Day for these hearings.
Mrs Fawcett: I'm very pleased that it is Northumberland Day and I thank the four of you for coming forward, because it's very important, I think, that we get everyone's views, as many as possible.
There have been some questions around the whole democracy and democratic issue concerning the bill. There are those certainly who have said that they still want the vote. I'd just like your thoughts on how you perceive this new bill, Bill 42, as opposed to the other, 105, how you feel about it democratically.
1520
Mr Gallagher: I feel good about it. I actually felt good about it when farmers were being forced to pay.
Mrs Fawcett: I know you did.
Mr Gallagher: Maybe I shouldn't say that, but I did feel that there would be nothing wrong with having everyone forced to pay.
I guess this probably makes it a little more responsive within the organization. If they see a lot of people requesting refunds, then the organization had better answer to that as to why so much interest in refunds at that certain time.
I had some thoughts on your questions to the others as to timeliness of requests for getting the money back. I don't know if it would be possible to have it on a prorated basis. That would be one possibility. If someone has been in and taking advantage for 10 months, then they would only get two months' worth of money back, the thought being that everyone should have the opportunity to request their money back and maybe make that as their vote as to why they are opposed to something the organization is doing at the moment. That's why I wouldn't want to necessarily see a certain time limit put on it.
Mrs Fawcett: All right. Now, you have your ear to the ground in Northumberland. Do you really feel that there will be many refunds? Do you have any idea, any handle on that? Do you think there will be many applications for refund, and is that going to cause a problem administratively within your part of the organization? Will it put undue stress on you to try and maybe get out and change minds, and will we be any further ahead then?
Mr Gallagher: I think we'll be a net gainer because of the process, whether the 1,514 census farms within Northumberland will all have a membership or whether all of those would require a membership, because in some instances one farmer or one farm organization or corporation owns six or seven farms. They're only going to be required one registration, and I think it remains to be seen. I don't think there will be a great number of people requesting it back myself.
Mr Cleary: You gentlemen were sitting there when the last presenters made their presentation. Are you in agreement with the registration form? Do you agree with their answer: very simple, not much bookwork?
Mr Buttar: Yes, I feel that's fair. I think what they've said is pretty representative of the way we feel as an organization.
Mr Cleary: In the former presentation they said that eight counties get together. Is that an annual meeting?
Mr Buttar: No, that is probably eight times a year. It doesn't through the summer months, but it's a meeting where they gather. It's hosted by Northumberland county and it encompasses eight counties that are sort of centred to Northumberland where they come together to discuss any issues that are current to them or that they would like to discuss.
Mr Cleary: That sounds great. The other thing that doesn't seem to have been touched on much today is, last week we were talking to the federation and a few others who had talked about returning some 25% plus back to the local organizations. Do you figure it should 25% or do you figure it should be more than that or how do you feel about that?
Mr Gallagher: The 25% is quite adequate. It's more than we are getting back now and we would have no problem with that.
Mr Cleary: I know that in our part of Ontario they find it difficult to raise the funds, you know? They have to have their barbecues and everything. So that should free up a lot more time to you as farmers and as volunteers, as they say.
Mr Gallagher: That's right, yes.
Mr Buttar: I think it's good to have to do some of those things, though. We had a barbecue this past summer in our county, the first we've had in a while, and I think we all benefit from it from a social and a working together aspect. I think that's good. But it's nice not to have to do those things all the time in order to have enough money to keep going.
Mr Cleary: We have them too and I think it unites everyone more, and it's sure a great opportunity for our people out of the villages and the cities to get a good home-cooked meal and a variety of different meats.
Mr Buttar: We think we need to be visible as an organization so people know we're out there and what we're doing to you, but it's nice to have lots of money to be able to do things you want to do.
Mr Villeneuve: Gentlemen from Northumberland, welcome and thank you for being here. Census farms: You have 1,500-and-some?
Mr Gallagher: That's correct.
Mr Villeneuve: Based on what census?
Mr Gallagher: The 1991 census.
Mr Villeneuve: Gross income of $7,000, $3,000? Is that the federal census?
Mr Gallagher: That's the federal census, yes. It goes from $2,500 to whatever, $500,000.
Mr Villeneuve: To whatever a full-time farmer is, and quite obviously $2,500 -- how many of those 1,500-and-some farmers are presently OFA members?
Mr Gallagher: There are 440. Now, those are census farms, not census farmers.
Mr Villeneuve: I realize that, and therein is part of the problem that we hope this legislation would solve: What's a farmer? Right now it's $7,000 gross for Ontario. At the federal level it's a much lesser amount and I think the $2,500 you stated is probably right.
Could you give us some guidance as to what in your opinion is a farmer? I think the regulations will look after this, but maybe it would be helpful for those who formulate regulation to get from farmers what in your opinion is a farmer. You sell seed corn. You milk cows seven days a week. What in your opinion is a farmer? Should there be only a gross income criterion? Should there be a second or a third criterion?
Mr Gallagher: My feeling is that a gross income of $7,000 is as good a threshold to start at as any.
Mr Villeneuve: That's been there for quite some time for farm tax rebate purposes, and you would be satisfied to continue in that vein. Could we ask the dairy farmer his opinion on that?
Mr Buttar: Knowing that there's more and more part-time farmers out there who probably -- we need to be strong in our organization. I don't think we should raise it excessively high. It seems like a fair medium.
Mr Villeneuve: It's gross income or the equivalent of, which could be value of crops produced, not necessarily $7,000 deposited in the bank to pay the bills. I think the regulatory body will probably have some difficulty, and I think if they increase it they would probably have to look at one or two other qualifying criteria, ie, full-time, someone who is retired from a job and may well be farming full-time with pension income, or a widow with a dozen cows selling the beef calves in the fall. That may or may not get her $7,000.
I just want this on the record so when the regulatory people work on this particular end of things that if they do increase the threshold, they would have possibly one or two other qualifying criteria, because $2,500 to me is pretty borderline farmer and there are different descriptions for farmers with federal census and with provincial census, and ne'er the twain shall meet right now. It's a bit of a problem.
1530
As far as being OFA members, you've quite obviously paid your $150, as I do, because you feel you're getting the benefits of being an OFA member. I asked, I think, the preceding group, you know the OFA field person. Have you had the opportunity of working with the OFA field man?
Mr Gallagher: Yes.
Mr Villeneuve: To you, that may not be accessible in a monetary way, but it's very important to have someone who is knowledgeable about other things than just growing crops and killing weeds. The business of farming is kind of what OFA is involved in. So you're satisfied that the $150 at present is well worth paying for the services rendered.
I guess it will be frozen at $150 for the next three years. What sort of mechanism would you like to see if indeed an increase is required? Would you simply take the GFOs' word that indeed "Our costs are above our operating expenses"? I do know that the representative group for the province of Quebec work on a much, much, much larger budget and, of course, in so doing, are perceived to be considerably more effective. When the time comes to look at the cost of being a member, what should happen?
Mr Buttar: I think that would have to be done certainly in consultation with the GFOs or whoever is involved. They have their own budgets, and I think they could outline what they feel they need, and as it increases, that would have to go up.
Mr Villeneuve: Discussion at the annual meeting and possibly a vote at the annual meeting?
Mr Buttar: I think that would be fair.
Mr Villeneuve: Okay. Right now, the NFU made a presentation and they were -- I'm trying to use some words that would not be too inflammatory, but there's bad blood between the OFA and the NFU. Has this been traditional, or has this just happened with the formation of GFOs, in your perception?
Mr Buttar: I think it's been traditional. I can remember, my dad was an OFA man for years and years, and it always seemed there was conflict between the NFU and the OFA. It seemed silly.
Mr Villeneuve: I believe amendments will be brought forth whereby the NFU will be cut loose, which it has asked for and which I guess will occur. Do you foresee any other bodies possibly saying, "Gosh, this looks like a good way of getting into the advisory business to farmers," and attempting to become GFOs?
Mr Buttar: Not in the short term. I wouldn't think so. I think it would take a lot of time before something like that would happen, and certainly they're going to have to prove themselves before that would be possible.
Mr Villeneuve: So the vacuum, in your opinion, that is there, if there is a vacuum, you feel that the OFA is doing a very acceptable job in serving you as members. I gather Christian Farmers do have the same sense that their people are being served well by representation and service field people and what have you. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Villeneuve. I'd like to thank both of you, gentlemen, for taking the time to come here today and so effectively putting forward your views. Your advice will be useful to the committee, and we thank you for taking the time to present it.
Mr Offer on a point of clarification.
Mr Offer: Yes. I did that, and was awaiting a response.
Mr Klopp: I wrote it down a little bit here, but in essence, your question basically went around the issue of francophone relations.
Mr Offer: The francophone organization that applies for special funding: First, is there an assumption that there may be more than one francophone organization? Second, how is it determined; if there is more than one, who wins? Third, what is the meaning of section 19?
Mr Klopp: As you've gathered, this has been a long discussion on the whole issue. We can look up Hansard and explain a little bit of it too when Elmer was brought this in our technical briefing on the first day.
But there's a strong francophone organization of farmers in Ontario. About 3.5% of Ontario farmers actually class their first language quite proudly as francophone, the French language. In fact, they've had an organization which has been quite active; in fact, far more active than any other farm organization probably in Ontario. Its history goes back some 69 years. That's the Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens. In fact, they're coming tomorrow.
But what was happening in the history of this, some farm organizations like the OFA have worked with them over the years and they've also had special status. When it first came up, this issue, that the farm organizations came up and said, "We'd like to have a GFO," the francophone Union des cultivateurs made comment that it still feels that it should be recognized, and it was felt by all the farm organizations that that truly should be recognized and that there should be some fairness there.
This has accumulated into a bit of a compromise issue, and it came up in the bill. The intent is that there is only one French-speaking farm organization in the bill, and what section 19 says is that we will recognize the Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens, although they are not named. But that's probably what it's going to be because at this moment the history is there; there's no other organization. It just isn't there.
I believe they agreed to it too. They also didn't want to have that down the road there's like 15 or something, and so after many hours in discussions -- and you can deal with this tomorrow again, I'm sure -- section 19 basically says that we will recognize one. They didn't name it in the bill on the outside chance that tomorrow morning there may be -- who knows? But the way it looks, it will be this organization that will be allowed special funding.
However, down the road, if they actually go all across Ontario and meet the criteria which are in the regs about 12 regions or whatever and then they become a recognized organization, then that's it, the story's over. Subsection 19(2) says there will be no other special accreditation for anyone else. If they go on and fill all the criteria of the other farm organizations under this act, then that's it. But for now, after many discussions with everyone involved, we felt this was a fair compromise on the issue. It answered our colleagues basically in eastern Ontario, our French farmers who are proud of their first language, and we feel at the end of the day this is as fair as we can get.
The Chair: Would Mr Stroeter or ministry staff like to expand on any of that?
Mr Rolly Stroeter: In response to that question, section 19 actually says that if the UCFO ever goes for accreditation and becomes an accredited organization, the special funding formula for any kind of other francophone organization will cease. It will be no longer necessary. So there's really only funding of one francophone organization under this bill at any one time. That is the policy intent.
Mr Offer: It says in section 19, "If the organization that is eligible for special funding is accredited." Apparently there have been some dealings in the ministry that you've got in mind one organization, but it doesn't say that here. But it says that if it's accredited -- now, I read that as saying that there can be a number of groups, francophone organizations, that say, firstly: "We are a francophone GFO organization. We may not be the Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens, but we're something else, and we can apply to be accredited." Can they apply to be accredited?
Mr Stroeter: Other francophone organizations?
Mr Offer: Yes.
Mr Stroeter: Yes, they could. What section 19 says is that if the eligible French-language organization that is now eligible, which is the UCFO, becomes accredited there's no longer any need for special funding, but it doesn't prevent other organizations to seek accreditation. That's the short answer.
Mr Offer: It just must be my problem in this case, because you've got all of these sections dealing with the francophone situation and section 19 seems to say that, really, when this bill is passed, we're going to accredit one organization.
Mr Stroeter: That's not how I read it, but I refer to legal counsel and see if Louise Stratford can clarify it.
Mr Offer: Maybe I can ask some questions on it.
The Chair: Legal counsel just happens to be in the room and taking her place now by a microphone, so perhaps we can get to the bottom of this, Mr Offer.
1540
Ms Louise Stratford: I think it is just a question of perhaps rather difficult drafting in section 19. But the situation is as Mr Stroeter has described it. In fact, there is no preclusion of an organization that seeks to do all of the things that the specially funded organization does from applying for accreditation in the normal way. What these sections talk about is a process for getting special funding for a particular organization. What section 19 says is that if the particular organization that was getting special funding applies for and becomes accredited in the normal way, no other organization may then slip in to get the special funding, on the theory that now that particular need has been filled by an accredited organization.
Mr Offer: But isn't it assumed that the francophone GFO is going to apply for accreditation in the normal way? How else is it going to get there? It's not in the legislation. There's no other way it can get there.
Mr Stroeter: I don't think we make any assumption about what the UCFO will do after three years or next year. I think they have the choice. There's an element of choice here. They can stay with special funding for as long as they remain eligible, and as long as there's no review of their activity and they satisfy the criteria, they can remain eligible for special funding. They do not have to seek accreditation. Accreditation is an option. You might ask them tomorrow when they appear what their views are of seeking accreditation. But it's an option, it's a choice. There's an element of choice there.
Mr Offer: So the francophone farming organization need not be accredited in the way in which the OFA is deemed or the Christian Farmers is deemed or any other group would have to be. A francophone organization meeting the criteria in section 11, even if it's not accredited -- I don't understand this -- would be eligible for the dollars. My assumption was that a francophone organization would be either automatically accredited under the bill or would follow the process to become accredited, and that would be the first criteria before it could receive funding. That's the way I would have assumed the bill to be. It would allow anyone saying that they serve the socioeconomic and cultural interests of francophone farmers and offer services to farming businesses in the French language to say, "I want funding."
How could a tribunal, to which there are no grounds for appeal -- that's another issue -- say no? How can they say no? In the course of natural justice, how does this not contravene the Charter of Rights, by the by?
The Chair: Ms Stratford is joined by Rita Burak, the deputy minister. If either of you would wish to comment, along with Mr Stroeter, feel free.
Ms Stratford: I'm sorry, Mr Offer, the charter question was directed to --
Mr Offer: Let me put it in the positive sense. I thought that a francophone organization could apply to this tribunal to become accredited.
Ms Stratford: That's correct.
Mr Offer: After being so accredited because it met some criteria, which we are not yet aware of, it would then be able to say, as well as other francophone associations, "We are also accredited," and there is room under the legislation for one such organization to receive a special sort of funding, the amount of which we still do not know and the place from which the moneys come we still do not know, but still could make that case. The tribunal would then say either, "Since there is only one organization serving francophone farmers," or "Of the number of francophone organizations which have become accredited, we think this is the one that should receive the funding. We so rule."
Now, I'm sort of hearing that this is not the case, that the organization doesn't have to become accredited and just goes to the tribunal and says, "Well, we're not going to become accredited, but we want the funding because we followed these certain criteria." In fact, if they do become accredited, they become ineligible for funding. Is that correct? Does the accreditation of a francophone organization disentitle it to special funding? That was a long question.
Ms Rita Burak: No, that's all right. Mr Offer, I may be getting into some level of detail that we'll get into on Wednesday and Thursday, but maybe I can just get you to step back before we answer the specifics, and there are some answers to some of your specific questions. For example, again on the issue of criteria, we did table the criteria in the information document, and they have not changed materially since they were written.
But to just step back and understand the whole scheme, as Mr Klopp explained, in the meetings and the discussions that took place with the general farm organizations obviously a policy decision was made that the grandfathering clause was most appropriate for the three general farm organizations listed. But from a practical standpoint and to ensure that the benefits of the act would accrue immediately to that even smaller group in society, the minority of farmers who are francophones, the ministry and the general farm organizations wanted to go a step farther and offer a scheme where they would receive some extra help by way of funding to strengthen their organization. The one organization that has been around for a number of years is the UCFO.
Maybe you're asking, "Why not list four?" I think the minister addressed the issue of why the legislation was limited to grandfathering three on the first day he was here, so that's the policy framework that we're working in. It's limited to grandfathering three, but in order to go that additional step to assist the one long-standing francophone organization that has been here, they wanted to provide some mechanism to provide it with funding.
Mr Offer: I'm not going to continue on with that, but in section 11, it says, "In addition to the accredited organizations, one francophone organization representing farmers in the province may be eligible for special funding under this act." The reference "in addition to the accredited organizations," are we talking about accredited francophone organizations?
Mr Klopp: No, GFOs.
Mr Offer: So GFOs are also entitled to special funding.
Mr Stroeter: No. It refers directly to section 7, those that are listed there, as well as any others that may be accredited.
Mr Offer: It says, "In addition to the accredited organizations, one francophone organization...may be eligible for special funding." Doesn't that mean that there are some additional organizations that may be eligible for special funding?
Ms Stratford: It's not intended to mean that. I think what you're pointing out is a drafting problem.
Mr Offer: Okay.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will adjourn till 10 am tomorrow morning in the same room.
The committee adjourned at 1549.