CONTENTS
Wednesday 1 September 1993
Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993, Bill 42
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
McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est 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: Yurkow, Russell, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1024 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): We are proceeding with clause-by-clause analysis of Bill 42. Before we begin that, I would like to put on the record that subsequent to the committee hearings, some concerns last week from witnesses about the potential of conflict of interest by some members of this committee who belong to a designated farm organization, the subcommittee last Thursday agreed to request a ruling from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to decide that issue. We have not as yet received that ruling, and pending that ruling it was agreed this morning that therefore there will be no votes on the sections until we get that ruling from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Are there any comments from any committee members?
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): What's your definition of "conflict"?
The Chair: That is to be determined by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Exactly what does that leave us to do in clause-by-clause if we're not allowed to vote?
The Chair: The votes are stacked pending a ruling from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. We're expecting the ruling very shortly.
Mr Waters: It isn't something that we're expecting next week or something like this?
The Chair: No, Mr Waters, I believe they are fully cognizant of the situation and indeed have endeavoured to provide it as quickly as possible.
We will then proceed to section 1 of the bill. Any discussion on section 1? On section 1 it is agreed the vote is stacked.
Section 2 of the bill?
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): We have an amendment for that.
The Chair: There is a government amendment?
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Do you want me to move it or are you going to move it?
Mr Klopp: You go ahead.
Mr Cooper: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Time for registration
"(4) The farming business registration form shall be filed on the dates prescribed, or ascertained by a method or under criteria prescribed, by a regulation made under this section.
"Regulations
"(5) The minister may make regulations prescribing,
"(a) dates or methods of ascertaining dates for filing farming business registration forms;
"(b) criteria for selecting different filing dates; and
"(c) classes of registrants.
"Same
"(6) A regulation made under subsection (5) may prescribe,
"(a) different dates for different registrants or classes of registrants based on any criteria that are prescribed; or
"(b) different methods of determining dates for different registrants or classes of registrants."
The Chair: Discussion?
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'd like to just get a response by the government as to why this amendment has been brought forward at this time.
Mr Klopp: I'll give a general answer and if you need more we have the legal counsel here. Over the last number of weeks and during even the committee hearings, a number of people have brought up the issue of what happens if you have 70,000 all in one week and then the issue of paying promptly and those kinds of issues. We felt after hearing the discussions that we needed to clear this up and allow the opportunity for the registrations to be staggered. The bill wasn't clear enough on that, so this allows through the regs some flexibility with farm groups that wish to become accredited.
Mr Offer: I understand that the amendment was directed towards the staggering of applications. I guess my question is, behind that amendment, are there going to be different registration days? This was a matter that was brought up in the committee earlier on more than one occasion as to whether it was going to be, for instance, a big group coming in January 1 or whether the government was prepared to follow a model such as drivers' licences, where it's staggered throughout the year, and we received no information on that. I do not know if the GFOs are aware of this and I'd like to get a little bit further information on what I perceive as a significant administrative change at this point in time.
Mr Klopp: I'll let the deputy or Rolly respond.
Ms Rita Burak: Maybe I could just start. Rolly, do we have a handout for members?
Mr Rolly Stroeter: Yes. Do you want to do that now?
Ms Burak: What we'd like to do is give you, just further to Mr Offer's question, a bit more information on the potential time frames for beginning the registration process, especially the first time around, given what we know today about possible passage and so on. I think this presentation would answer some of your questions, and I can confirm as well that we have had very detailed discussions with the farm organizations about this.
The Chair: Before you begin, may I suggest that the government motions likely all have a rationale, and if the parliamentary assistant would get into that rationale when he moves the motion, it would be extremely helpful. I would also ask legal counsel to perhaps join Mr Stroeter at the table here. I think no doubt at some point in time you'll be requested to answer a question or two and it'll save you some miles.
1030
Mr Stroeter: These are potential time frames. This is not cast in stone. This is just a what if kind of scenario. We have discussed this with the general farm organizations and we have not at this point agreed to a specific way of doing it. We have looked at various options and this is to show you how it potentially could work.
The first assumption is that, let's say, if third reading happens by the end of October -- let's start off with that time frame -- then regulations could be filed by the third week in November. This would mean we wouldn't have the authority to mail registration forms until the regulations are filed, end of November, so the very earliest we could start mailing the forms would be in December 1993.
As you appreciate, the options here are that clearly we could mail, let's say, 80,000 or 100,000 forms all at once and then sit back and be deluged by the response or we could phase this over a three- or four-month period and stagger them so that when the returns come in we can actually process them and get the cheques to the GFOs promptly, as legislation requires us to do. So we are very seriously considering a phase-in process over several months.
The first group of farmers could register in January 1994. We would anticipate that farmers should have at least 60 days to return their form. Allowing for mail back and forth and delays, they have 60 days to study this, fill in the information and return it to the ministry. So the first group could be registered by January 1994 some time. They would then be issued valid registration numbers at that time and we would mail and confirm these registration numbers to the farm businesses.
We will be developing an expedited process, particularly the first time around, because, as you appreciate, there's a fair bit of information. Although the form is simple and it's only two pages, and with shareholder information three, there are still a lot of data that have to be entered. If we anticipate 50,000 to 60,000 farm businesses to provide us with the data, this is clearly a sizeable administrative task. The expedited process would allow us to only take the business name, address and telephone number of the contact and issue the number if the payment appears to be correct and if the rest of the information appears to be there and then promptly hand over the cheque with this very basic information to the farm organizations so that they can run the payments through their banking system.
This expedited process, even at very busy times, we see as four weeks or less. Our farm tax rebate program, which is the ministry's largest program and serves over 110,000 clients, we manage to deal with in a six- to eight-week turnaround time, so we're quite confident that we can meet this time frame of the expedited process of four weeks or less.
The farm organizations then would receive their first cheques and payments in January 1994. They in turn would be required to acknowledge receipt of the payment and send any kind of membership information on to the farm business and disclose also at that time the refund policy.
The government is proposing through regulation to stipulate that refunds should be requested within 60 days of the payment actually having cleared the bank. The advantage of this is that there's a record of this. If there's any dispute about the 60 days, there's an official record of this both with the farmer through the bank statement -- if it is done by other method of payment, there's a date there -- and the farm organizations also know very clearly when the 60 days start to count.
The last group, under a staggered system, if we spread it over three to four months, would be registered by April 1994. Valid numbers then would be required for the farm tax rebate program for the fall of 1994. So that's how we see the potential time frame and the potential startup.
This regulation really allows the minister the flexibility to, after having discussed this in more detail with the farm organizations -- because clearly you appreciate that the impact on the farm organizations is greater than on the ministry in accommodating this change. They have to staff up, they have to have computer systems in place, so clearly this has to be a process where both parties have to work closely together. So this regulation gives the minister the flexibility to set the precise dates and precise ways of implementing this system.
Mr Offer: I have some questions about this. Just to say, I would have thought that the administrative decision as to how the forms are going out and how you're going to deal with this in this coming year would have already been decided. I recognize that you wouldn't know the dates, but I would have expected that the format, the framework would have already been decided and understood by all the GFOs, as opposed to at this point in time. I say that only by way of comment. In your time frames, I see that the issue of the tribunal is not there. The tribunal, as you know, has a great deal of power and will be deciding some important things and I don't see them in this.
I also would like to know that as registration is a precondition to get the farm tax rebate, is it understood that in the year 1994, after the bill has been passed, not having a registration number because of the staggering will not be a bar to individuals obtaining the farm tax rebate? In essence, I think, how can you expect a farmer to get a registration number when they cannot get a registration number and then say, "You're barred from the farm tax rebate"?
Mr Stroeter: As I'm suggesting, the valid numbers would only be required for the 1994 program onwards. Those applications will not be sent out till September 1994. In the 1993 program, normally applications are sent some time during the month of September, and by December 1993 probably 80% of the rebates will have been paid for the 1993 program. So clearly, this would impact next year's program, not this year's program.
On the issue of the tribunal, as you are aware, there's a government process of establishing tribunals according to the rules of Management Board secretariat. We have to go to the secretariat and obtain permission, we have to go through the selection process and that takes normally two to three months at least. As long as the tribunal is operational by the first due date -- and the earliest due date that we foresee in this scenario would be January 1994 -- it's not required to make any decision until that point in time.
Mr Offer: But isn't it somewhat optimistic to think there's going to be a tribunal selected, up and running, ready to make decisions by January?
Ms Burak: We are confident that we can do this. As I think Mr Stroeter pointed out, these time frames will move depending on when the bill is passed, so it all kicks in from when the bill is passed. If the bill isn't passed until some time in November, then all these time frames move down. But establishing the tribunal is possible by January.
1040
Mr Offer: But even if it's passed in October, the potential members of the tribunal, would they not be coming before, for instance -- firstly, there would be a selection process of some kind. Wouldn't they be coming before the legislative committee for discussion? I understand there's a whole process here. I won't dwell on it at all except to say that this is an administrative framework which was brought up earlier in the committee which I thought wasn't going to be put in the bill.
My last question at this point is, under the regulations, you have now put in classes of registrants. What is that?
Ms Louise Stratford: This is in contemplation of the fact that we might want to group people according to some method and have them all register by a certain date; for example, alphabetically. We may have a class of people who are required to register on a certain date if their surnames fall within the first 10 letters of the alphabet and so on. We're trying to give flexibility here to the ministry to devise a system that's workable.
Mr Offer: I think Mr Villeneuve has a question, but I would like to know how the GFOs -- we're talking about an issue called stable funding, and now this is staggered funding, because if you're going to stagger it, the GFOs just will not receive the dollars as they had potentially anticipated.
Mr Stroeter: This wasn't devised by myself in a dark room; this was devised in consultation with the GFO leaders -- over the last six months we have discussed these issues. We have been working on the technical implementation of this for a year and a half. So none of this is half-baked or very recent; there have been significant discussions to this and, too, GFOs are fully aware of these proposals and these options and are in agreement with them.
Mr Offer: My final comment is that if that were the case, I certainly, as a member of the committee, would have appreciated the minister indicating this potential administrative brain work when he gave a briefing to the committee on the first day.
Mr McLean: He didn't know.
Mr Offer: He just said he knew.
Mr Stroeter: My only comment is that the administrative framework isn't part of Bill 42; a lot of it is left to regulation on purpose because we have to prescribe many details. So these hearings are about Bill 42. I think we have concentrated on that.
The Chair: Mr Villeneuve, before you proceed, I'd like to welcome Mr McLean, who is the member for Simcoe East, to the committee this morning. I know Mr McLean has a very deep and real interest in agricultural issues. Welcome.
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too had some questions on classes of registrants. I know it will be staggered funding. I know my cheque to the OFA -- and I've never hidden the fact that I was a member of the OFA -- comes out on January 15. I do know that as memberships are sold, that is the date of renewal throughout the year.
My question is, if my date of renewal was at the end of September, I will then have been moved to January, February, March or April in order to qualify for the farm tax rebate and whatever other. Would there be some prorating of the moneys that would be overlapping at that point? Let's assume that someone paid their $150 as an existing member of the OFA in November or December and then is again billed in January or February or March. Would there be some prorating there?
Mr Stroeter: This issue has been discussed between the two farm organizations, and their views are that we should phase this in the way it makes most sense and then leave the GFOs to issue refunds to those members who in fact had overpaid. Administratively, that probably would be the cleanest.
Mr Villeneuve: I too had a question on classes of registrants. I think the solicitor clarified that. A further question: Will further classes be determined at the ministry level as to who belongs to OFA, who belongs to CFFO, who may belong to another organization which may join the group, who requests their money be refunded and the religious objectors?
Mr Stroeter: That's not the intent of these classes. The intent here is really just to determine how we're going to register and what the startup procedures will be. For mailing purposes, will it be three groups, four groups? Will it be by geography? Will it be by alpha? Will it be by another code? There is no class of member other than that. We will clearly hand on the names and addresses of the farm businesses that selected the OFA only to the OFA; those that selected the CFFO only to the CFFO; and religious objectors, if they are entitled to program benefits, clearly we need to know who they are.
Mr Villeneuve: The religious objectors will probably create quite a discussion. Pursuant to the bishop's presentation yesterday, I'm not sure if it clarified or confused my thinking, but I know there will be quite extensive discussion. I just don't want to see classes of farmers: those who belong to one organization, those who belong to another, those who request a refund and those who have religious problems. I have no problem with the classes as long as they're alphabetical, geographical, simply to assist in the bureaucracy.
The Chair: Further discussion on section 2 of the bill? As agreed, the vote on section 2 is stacked.
Section 3 of the bill: There is a Liberal amendment. Who's moving it?
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I can move it. I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Limitation
"(2) The information received under this act shall not be used to monitor or regulate compliance with any act or regulation."
The Chair: Discussion.
Mr Cleary: There's a lot of concern in the farming community that once this information is received on the registration form it could be used for environmental purposes or some other purposes.
Mr Klopp: How do you mean? I'm not sure if I understand, then. I apologize. We don't support your amendment, but --
Mr Cleary: Well, we knew that.
Mr Klopp: -- section 3 is there for the ministry to use, and it's protected under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act so no one else will get hold of it, like some environmental group or something that could grab the information and use it for or against farmers. It's not going to be out of the ministry's hands.
Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): But could it be forwarded to another ministry? I think that's what we want the assurance of: that, let's say, the Ministry of Environment and Energy wouldn't use some of this to then come down and penalize, and also the Ministry of Natural Resources. There are farmers that have had undue hardship because of certain regulations in Environment and Natural Resources and have come under some problems.
Mr Klopp: Sure. Okay, I'll let the deputy step in, but I think the form that we've all basically seen is very generic stuff, and it's there as a snapshot to help OMAF in policies with pork producers or with anything else, whenever other groups are coming in. I don't think that would be a problem anyway, but I'll doublecheck. The deputy has been in this a long time and cross-references with other deputies.
1050
Ms Burak: Maybe I can give the committee members insight into the discussions around this section. We consciously discussed with the farm organizations and with the minister the full range of options around what you do with the information collected on the registration form. The minister made a very conscious policy decision that it should be used only for the collection of broad information that could be used in aggregate to assist us in some way for policy development purposes.
We've attempted in the legislation -- I'll have to rely on legal counsel to help me here -- to ensure that there cannot be any crossover -- not to any program within our ministry, to begin with -- because some farmers were concerned for the potential for us to use that to hold back, for example, the crop insurance cheque. We are making a conscious decision in policy and in law not to do that, and certainly not to have any crossover to any other ministry. So I want to give you the fullest assurance that that is both the intent and, we believe, the legal safety that we have here.
Mrs Fawcett: I appreciate that and I thank you. I really do believe that is exactly what you mean, but I guess, by putting it in the form of a motion, that would really ensure that that's exactly what would happen, and that is the reason we decided to move this motion.
Mr Cleary: There is a big concern out there for many farmers that it will be used for other purposes and I don't know how we get across to them that this won't be the case.
Ms Stratford: The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act really does serve as a very good protection and safeguard here. That legislation would prevent the ministry from disclosing personal information to any other institution, and any other ministry constitutes an institution, so there is a strict prohibition and no way to get around that.
In terms of using the information inside the ministry, you can only use, under the terms of the privacy legislation, information that you collect for the purpose that you're collecting it for. We are collecting, as section 3 indicates, just for certain purposes and the purposes don't envisage compliance with any other type of program. Really, this type of provision you suggest would indeed not go as far as the protection of privacy legislation that's there already and that, I suggest, would be a very adequate safeguard.
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Just one question that I'd like to ask the Liberals on their amendment is, what was on the draft form of filling out that would raise this question? It has to be the information that is collected. Was there a particular question that was on this form that was felt -- I saw telephone, name and type of product raised and how many acres and it was income area and education. It didn't seem to really come down that there was any real information there. Just that there is a question; maybe that question will be taken off if there's a feeling.
Mr Cleary: We don't know what's going to be on that form yet. We've had a hard time even getting to see the draft form, so why shouldn't there be concerns out in the community? Many of the presenters didn't even see the form. With the attitudes people have towards governments any more, they're very sceptical of what you're after and there's a lot of concern. You're going to have a lot of selling to do to get that information that the legal people told us out to the farming community and all organizations.
Mr Villeneuve: My only concern with this particular amendment is that I don't know whether it would prohibit, say, a commodity group that supports the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario or whatever -- let's use an example. The pork producers need information that may well be available from an accumulation of all pork producers, general information on the pork industry, the investment in the pork industry or whatever. Would this amendment prevent a commodity group from obtaining information about the industry it is representing?
Mr Klopp: From the government you mean?
Mr Villeneuve: From the government.
Mr Klopp: I'll get the real legal opinion.
Ms Stratford: I suggest that it probably would. The word "information" is not defined. It's any information, whether attached to a personal identifier or not. This would be a strict prohibition on sharing anything at all if it could be linked to monitoring compliance with the act and regulations. One would have to ascertain the motivation for the request and somehow make a determination whether that would involve compliance, and then if so, no information at all received could be shared.
Mr Villeneuve: So the pork producers at present can go the freedom of information act and say, "We need X, Y, Z on the pork producers registered with the government of Ontario regarding the industry." It would be available to them now. It would not likely be available to them if this amendment were to be in place.
Ms Stratford: It would depend why they wanted it. This section requires someone to make a judgement as to what the ultimate use of the information will be when it comes into the hands of the requester. It would be very difficult in fact to assess that it wouldn't infringe this.
Mr Cleary: I'm a little bit confused here. "The information received under this act shall not be used to monitor or regulate compliance with any act or regulation." How would that differ with the pork producers than what the bill states now?
Ms Stratford: The way the bill reads now, the ministry is confined to using information in certain ways. Freedom of information legislation prohibits the ministry from disclosing personal information. Non-personal information, information that doesn't contain a personal identifier of any kind, aggregate information, statistical information and so on, wouldn't fall under the freedom of information act because it's not linked with anyone. That kind of information would currently be available under a freedom of information request under the proposed motion. Since the information isn't described as personal, it's just any information.
It's more difficult to define what now would be prohibited, and one would have to know because the disclosure here can't be used for monitoring or regulating compliance. You wouldn't be able to share the information if it was possible to use it in that way. As I've said, I'm not sure how you would determine if the requester had that in mind. I don't know that one would feel very confident in disclosing any information at all, not knowing the ultimate motivation, in that you might end up in breach of the provision.
The Chair: Mr Klopp, do you have something further to add to that?
Mr Klopp: John, for the amendment, the concern is out there and the farm communities always had that about information. I think legal counsel has assured us and I think your point about a selling job -- there always has to be a selling job. Everybody has to be cognizant of that, farm groups and government and any other public organizations, but I think legal counsel has done a fair in-depth review on this. That's why we can't support your motion and why we think our section 3 covers all the bases as well as possible.
Mr Villeneuve: Just as a supplementary to that, some such rudimentary information as the pork board may want to know how many pork producers are registered, simply to compare with what they have: If this would exclude that -- I certainly don't want the information to go out lickety-split, but I also want it to be beneficial to the people it's there to help.
Mr Klopp: I think you make a good point. That's what this is all about.
The Chair: Any further discussion on Mr Cleary's amendment? Any further discussion on section 3 of the bill? As agreed, the vote on Mr Cleary's amendment is stacked as is the vote on section 3 of the bill.
We will move to section 4 of the bill. There are government motions, I believe. Starting with the first one, Mr Klopp, perhaps you could read the motion into the record.
1100
Mr Klopp: I move that subsection 4(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Renewal
"(2) Any accredited farm organization may apply to the tribunal for a renewal of its accreditation if it does so during the period prescribed.
"Preserving status
"(2.1) The accreditation of a farm organization that applies for a renewal of the accreditation during the prescribed period remains in effect until the tribunal makes its order pursuant to the application."
The Chair: Do you have a rationale for your motion, Mr Klopp?
Mr Klopp: Subsection 4(1) allows any organization that represents farmers in Ontario to apply to the tribunal for accreditation. Subsection (2) further amends the clarifying of the words concerning the time period within which renewal applications may be made. Subsection (2.1) is added to preserve the accreditation of an organization pending the tribunal's consideration of its renewal application. This is to ensure that the accreditation will not lapse in the event the tribunal is delayed in making an order on the renewal application. Both the OFA and the CFFO have requested this amendment.
Mr Offer: I have no problem with subsection (2.1). With respect to the renewal under subsection (2), the government took out the words "during the prescribed period immediately before its accreditation expires" and has not really replaced that with anything. Basically, under the bill, a group can move for accreditation before a tribunal, and if it is granted, that accreditation lasts for a period of three years. That organization can apply for a renewal of the accreditation.
There are two questions that come up. Firstly, on a renewal, is the renewal period the same as the initial period, and does that have to be in the legislation? Many times on first application and approval, it is for three years. Renewals may be for a different time period. Is there the necessity for clarity in the legislation that renewals are also for periods of a certain amount of time? It may be in the legislation.
The second point is, why can't the bill specifically indicate to accredited GFOs that if they wish to apply for a renewal, they must make that application six months prior to their period expiring? It provides certainty to the GFO; it provides certainty to the members under the GFO; it provides a more realistic and more orderly manner in which the tribunal can order its own affairs. What is the problem in saying a particular date?
Mr Stroeter: Mr Offer, we agree with your second point, that indeed it would be very orderly if GFOs would know exactly what would be the time period in which they should apply for accreditation, number one, so that it's clear to them, and number two, to allow adequate time for the tribunal to make a decision and to make a considered decision and to hold a hearing.
What we are proposing in subsection (2) is really to prescribe this in regulation, and the period to be prescribed is precisely to be the one that you suggested, six months. We will go a little bit further. We want to say that they should apply not before nine months but within six months. The reason, which goes to your first point, is that the renewal is always on a three-year period. We don't want somebody to apply after one year, for example, and seek renewal, because it's an unnecessary workload for the tribunal. That's why we plan to have a six- and nine-month window in regulation to signal very clearly to GFOs: "Please apply within that time frame. If you do, we guarantee you a decision."
Subsection (2.1) indicates that if for some reason the tribunal doesn't make the decision exactly within that six-month time period, the accreditation does not lapse.
Mr Offer: I have no problem with (2.1).
Mr Stroeter: Why in regulation --
Mr Offer: You've assumed my question, and properly so. Why, if you're agreed that it's going to be six months -- and I just chose that -- and nine months, that time frame -- what is the problem in putting it in legislation so that other organizations, that may not yet be accredited but may very well be, can look to the legislation as opposed to the regulation? I just have a feeling that more people read the legislation as opposed to the regulation part, and see, "Oh, this is the route that we have to follow."
If the object is certainty and clarity, I personally have no problem with the six months. Why is there a problem in putting this in legislation? Regulation can be changed outside of this process, and there are an awful lot of people in the Legislature, on all sides of the House, who have some real expertise on farming matters, on the way farming organizations work. Why would you deal all of those people out in terms of making any changes here? I find it problematic.
The last thing is, could you also just show where in a renewal that it's three years? I just can't find it quickly in the legislation.
Ms Stratford: It doesn't specifically address renewals in terms of lengths of time. Section 6 would apply in the case of a renewal because it applies any time the tribunal is looking at accreditation. We didn't feel it was necessary to go on to say, "This would be for renewal too," because they both speak about accreditation.
Mr Offer: I must --
Mr McLean: It's 6(2).
Mr Klopp: Accreditation of a farm organization. It's for three years.
Mr Offer: My point is that I just think it's probably, again, clearer that organizations that renew also know it's clearly in the legislation that the renewal period is for a time certain.
Mr Stroeter: The advantage of having it in regulation is that if the tribunal finds that for whatever reason it takes longer than six months to make a decision, to hold hearings, to travel the province and to hear things, it preserves that flexibility. The minute you have it stated in the bill itself, the flexibility is gone.
Mr Offer: Not to belabour the point, but (2.1) is exactly the safeguard. If it takes the tribunal longer to make a decision, then that association knows that its charter is in full force and effect. It doesn't deal with the issue as to why we can't say in legislation -- there are a number of members who are now elected in this Legislature and will be elected in this Legislature who carry with them a particular expertise in these types of matters, as well as opinions, and are very plugged in to their particular communities. I do not represent an area in which there is a rural, an agricultural base. I know from colleagues that obviously there are many members who do have that. Why would we take that out of legislation and put it into regulation? I find that to be a little concerning to me.
Mr Klopp: If I may, because you mentioned legislators, the bill clearly states that there is going to be some time frame for accreditation when a new farm group comes into play. This really deals with actually the old group that is already accredited. So I think we crossed the line a little bit there, if I may, when you were giving your examples.
This clearly says that there will be a time frame. It's going to allow the flexibility in regulation. They'll understand that and I think this proposed amendment actually helps clarify the concerns that you've been raising from what you've been hearing out there, because over the next two or three years it may be that it only needs to be three months. If you have it in here, though, we'd have to open the whole bill. Also, there's the other side of the coin: opening up bills takes a long time to do.
1110
This clearly states that there will be a recognized time frame and the farm organizations will all know that in the regs. As in that point that you said, everybody wants to know what kind of game plan is going to be there, and that will in effect work. From what I've been hearing from farmers, being personally involved in this a long time, I think that this does give the framework, and the regulations will be clear to everybody.
Mr Cleary: I just heard something else mentioned there. It was said, "As this tribunal travels the province."
Mr Stroeter: It may have to. For example, if we want to expedite hearings for religious exemptions, it might be more appropriate for a tribunal to meet in Kitchener-Waterloo than to ask Mennonites to come to Toronto. So those provisions clearly have to be there.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): Anything further? Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: There are so many pieces of legislation where there are time frames which are important time frames that are part of the legislation and not part of regulation. When those time frames don't work, they don't work for certain reasons. If those are to be changed, it doesn't mean that you open up the whole piece of legislation. It means that you open up a particular part of the legislation because of a demonstrated part of a piece of law that doesn't work.
I just can't understand why a government would be so reluctant to put into a piece of legislation something that provides certainty and clarity and that I think would be supported by anyone and would give to all of those people who are going to be affected by this legislation or interested in the legislation more of the framework under which they have to operate. I don't know why there is that reluctance to put it in legislation and, again, just taking out of the debate so many people who have so much understanding of farm organizations and the realities of farming and the realities of how the tribunal will or will not work in the future.
Mr Klopp: I think you made a good point about the farm organizations and farm people. There have been long consultations. Our staff at OMAF has worked tirelessly after getting direction from Elmer on that, but we wanted to try to get something done here on this issue for the last two and a half years. They're quite comfortable with this, realizing what it's like to get something up and started and recognizing those realities.
I appreciate your comments, but under this particular bill, under this particular ministry, this is, we think, the best way to run this. I thank you for your comments.
Mr McLean: The next section we're going to deletes a group from this bill. In section 4: "Any organization representing farmers in the province may apply to the tribunal to become an accredited farm organization...." You're deleting one. What other farm groups would want to apply?
Mr Klopp: Are we on another section?
Mr Offer: No.
Mr Klopp: You threw me a curve.
Mr McLean: Its in another section, but perhaps my question could be answered. Are there other groups who are wishing to apply that you know of?
Mr Klopp: We've always said that we want to make this as open as possible, and any group can come and see if they're accredited under the regulations and if they fill out the criteria. In fact, one group has actually asked to be taken out. It doesn't stop them from tomorrow morning deciding, "Oh, we'd like to be accredited." Now, they will not be grandfathered in. They will have to go through the process, and it's open to any organization that can fill out the criteria.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr McLean. Any further discussion on the government amendment?
Seeing none, as agreed, the vote on the government amendment, subsection 4(1), is stacked. We go to subsection 4(2). I believe there is another government amendment, or was that it? That's it?
Interjection: Yes.
The Chair: Any further debate on section 4 of the bill? As agreed, the vote on section 4 of the bill is stacked. We move to section 5 of the bill.
Mr Waters: Just a point of clarification, and I hate to draw you back, but you had said subsection 4(1). Is that correct? I'm looking at subsection 4(2). I just wanted to make sure that we were looking at the same page.
The Chair: I think we are. Just let me ensure that we were. Maybe the parliamentary assistant or someone could --
Mr Klopp: On a point of clarification, indeed you are correct. It is subsection 4(2).
Mr Waters: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: That was the government amendment. Would you confirm that, Mr Klopp?
Mr Klopp: Yes, that was the government amendment.
The Chair: As agreed, that vote was stacked, as was the vote on section 4.
We are now on section 5 of the bill. Discussion on section 5 of the bill. No discussion on section 5 of the bill? As agreed, the vote on section 5 of the bill is stacked.
We'll move to section 6 of the bill. Discussion on section 6?
Mr Offer: On section 6 of the bill, I want to bring forward a point which was raised earlier, and that deals with whether the government feels it is appropriate that there be certainty that the accreditation for a farm organization on the initial application is for three years, but also that any renewal period is for a similar period of time. I do not have an amendment to that effect at this time, but I think it leaves a certain degree of confusion as to the duration for the period of renewal.
Mr Stroeter: The way I read subsection 6(2), I interpret it to be that any accreditation period is for a three-year period. There's no review during the first period, and after the first three-year period you have to reapply for accreditation. The accreditation is no longer valid, the first one, and you have to reapply for the next accreditation, and the accreditation is defined as a three-year period each time. That's how I interpret this section.
Mr Russell Yurkow: If I could speak, the last speaker has got that correct. The focus is on the accreditation period. Whether it's during the first accreditation, second or third accreditation, you're accredited for three years.
Mr Offer: I take it then that legislative counsel has agreed with ministry staff on this.
Mr Yurkow: That's correct.
Mr Offer: Okay, thank you. I think it's important for the record.
The Chair: Further discussion on section 6 of the bill?
Mr McLean: Where is the clarification of the criteria laid out? In what section are the criteria?
The Chair: Interesting question, and perhaps somebody from the ministry can give you the road map to that.
Mr Stroeter: Subsection 6(1) refers to the prescribed criteria, so the criteria are going to be prescribed in regulation.
Mr McLean: Does anybody know what the criteria are?
Mr Stroeter: Yes, there's a document that has been circulated to committee members the first day that outlined the criteria.
Mr McLean: Then it's here. That's fine. You have a copy of it, I'm sure, Parliamentary Assistant.
Mr Klopp: I sure do.
Mr McLean: You'll be up to date on that, I know.
The Chair: We will pause briefly while that information makes its way over to Mr McLean.
1120
Mr McLean: Thank you. Carry on.
The Chair: Mr McLean has signalled he's received the information, and we will now carry on. Any further discussion on section 6 of the bill? As agreed, the vote on section 6 of the bill is stacked.
We'll move to section 7 of the bill. I believe there's a government motion.
Mr Klopp: Under section 7, paragraph 2, I move that paragraph 2 of section 7 of the bill be struck out.
As you know, we've had a request from one of the deemed accredited organizations that were going to be grandfathered in, and that is Region 3, Ontario, of the National Farmers Union. They have requested that they be taken off the accredited list, and that's what this will do by striking out paragraph 2 of section 7. We wish to make every organization happy.
The Chair: Discussion on Mr Klopp's motion?
Mr Offer: We were here when the NFU made its presentation. Are there any discussions with respect to them, as an important group, with the ministry in terms of meeting their concerns and potentially again being part of this legislation?
Mr Klopp: As Elmer indicated, he's had discussions with the farm organizations for two and a half years. This week we came to this bill and where we got to this process, and they decided, for whatever reasons -- and they have heard them. I can say I don't totally agree with them personally, but that's their decision. They now will understand that if they want to be accredited, we have in the act that any farm organization can go through and apply for accreditation, and that's their wish, if they wish to. But we did all we could, I think, to alleviate their concerns, and they made a decision.
Mrs Fawcett: I think it should be noted for the record that they did express the concern that they were left out of some of the meetings and that they didn't get invited to or didn't know of meetings until after they had taken place. So that was a concern of theirs.
The Chair: Do you care to respond to that, Mr Klopp?
Mr Klopp: No, other than everyone's entitled to their opinion and obviously one of us is wrong.
Mr Villeneuve: We've removed paragraph 2. Do we leave a vacant spot there and go from 1 to 3? Are we going metric in here?
Mr Klopp: I hear your point. Is there a problem with this?
Ms Stratford: No, my understanding is, in the editing of the bill, the "3" would be changed to a "2."
The Chair: Mr Yurkow, do you have further clarification?
Mr Yurkow: Yes. When the bill is reported and reprinted, editorially the numbering will be rationalized. So the blank will be filled with a "2."
Mr Villeneuve: That might have left an invitation for another so-called GFO to come and fill the vacancy.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Yurkow. Further discussion? Seeing none, the vote on the government amendment is stacked, as agreed, as is the vote on section 7.
We'll move to section 8 of the bill. Discussion on section 8?
Mr Offer: I have a question dealing with matters before the tribunal. Is it within the jurisdiction of the tribunal to make any award as to costs? I bring it up at this point because here is where an accredited organization may be reviewed, and it may be reviewed because someone feels it is no longer meeting the prescribed criteria. If it turns out that a review is undertaken and that the review finds the accredited organization to in fact be complying with the criteria, that organization will have been put to certain time and expense. Is it then within the jurisdiction of the tribunal to look at who has instigated the review and to reimburse a party to a review for costs incurred, which could be substantial?
Ms Stratford: There's nothing in the bill that would empower the tribunal to award costs.
Mr Offer: I guess the question then becomes a matter of policy as to whether it is right and proper for a tribunal which is looking into so many areas to also have within its authority the discretion at certain times to award costs.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Offer. Deputy?
Ms Burak: I would offer, from the policy perspective, the example of the farm products marketing tribunal, which makes decisions that affect farm businesses, large food processors and what have you, and even they do not have the authority to award costs. Despite what some who came before the committee may have said, when you look at what the tribunal can really do, it accredits farm organizations and hears religious exemptions. So from a policy perspective we have never contemplated giving them powers to award costs.
Mr Offer: I understand that, except that there's a third thing it will do, and that is that it will potentially review someone as well. At least that's my understanding of --
Ms Burak: Yes.
Mr Offer: Which is a little different. Okay, a group comes before the tribunal and says, "Okay, we're a new group. We want to be accredited. Here are the criteria. We think we need it," and the tribunal makes a decision. Or someone comes before the tribunal on the basis of a religious objection, which I'm sure we'll be discussing somewhere down the line, and the tribunal makes a decision. But section 8 is an issue where somebody says, potentially, that group doesn't meet the criteria, and then the tribunal has a responsibility to take a look at the matter and potentially have a review. So that's sort of a little different because it goes within the term of their accreditation.
Ms Burak: Again, if I can respond by giving another parallel situation, the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission, which is responsible for supervising, overseeing -- it has very broad powers under the Farm Products Marketing Act to oversee the workings of all of the marketing boards. It can also revoke their powers and put them into receivership. That is a very, very strong piece of legislation, and even there, there is no authority to award costs. Again, answering it from a policy perspective, we think we have some consistency in the way we have been approaching farm organizations here.
Mr Offer: On those boards that make those decisions, for my information, is there a right of appeal on their decisions?
Ms Burak: The tribunal hears appeals to the decisions of the Farm Products Marketing Commission and I believe certain marketing board decisions. There is no appeal to the tribunal other than to the courts.
1130
Mr Offer: So you mean the group that makes that decision, like the revocation of a right, in the example that you just gave --
Ms Burak: The commission.
Mr Offer: Can somebody appeal that decision to a place other than the courts?
Ms Stratford: Certain decisions of the commission are appealed to the Farm Products Appeal Tribunal. There's no appeal from there to the courts.
Mr Offer: But there is an appeal, though, within the framework of OMAF then?
Ms Stratford: That's right.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Offer. Mr Villeneuve.
Mr Villeneuve: Three of the seven so-called tribunal members can decide if a review of an organization can be undertaken. It also says there that a review cannot be undertaken until three years from the prescribed starting time. Does the three-member tribunal designate a quorum? That may be in the regulations. Is that right?
Ms Stratford: For the purposes of determining applications for accreditation and renewals and so on, the bill provides that a panel of three can make those determinations. This group of three that's described here isn't empowered to conduct a review on its own. It's a filter to ensure that where a review question has come up, it is not an automatic matter, that three members must first look at the facts and determine whether going forward with a review is warranted. If they believe it is, they suggest that to the chair of the tribunal, who will then decide whether a review hearing should in fact be scheduled, and then that would be heard by a panel of three members or more, depending on what the chair determines.
Mr Villeneuve: Okay, so three can trigger a review; three plus the chair can decide. Is that what I heard?
Ms Stratford: No, three can suggest to the chair that a review should take place. If the chair agrees, the chair can schedule a hearing. In that event, a minimum of three would be required to sit on that review. You could have the entire tribunal if that were felt to be --
Mr Villeneuve: But when you say a minimum of three, you're actually saying a quorum is three, a recognized gathering of the clans.
Ms Stratford: That's right.
Mr Villeneuve: Okay. Now, with items numbers 2 and 6, accreditation of a farm organization is in effect for three years starting at the prescribed time and a review cannot be done during that three years. I know we went through a previous amendment that gave some flexibility. My colleague from Mississauga North was wanting a specified date in there.
But if there is a problem, and maybe you could explain to me, you can't do it until the three years are up, can't review them until the three years are up. They apply for a renewal and you say, "Well, there's a question as to your credibility or your qualification to continue." What's the mechanism here? Do you let them lapse while they're being investigated?
Ms Stratford: The three-year period that you're discussing now that's in section 8 is particular to the deemed organizations. They can't be reviewed for three years. They would apply for renewal as their third year approaches, in that time frame that we discussed earlier. The tribunal would then consider whether their accreditation ought to be renewed, and the amendment that we proposed earlier would ensure that the accreditation they now had wouldn't run out in case the tribunal was delayed in making a ruling within the original time period.
Mr Villeneuve: Because they can't be looked at until 36 months plus, and then in 36 months they have to apply for a renewal, so this is the flexibility that the tribunal would have to do whatever research they have to, to establish in their own minds if they're happy with them continuing or otherwise.
Ms Stratford: In section 4, we make mention of applications for renewal having to be made in the prescribed period. That's in subsection 4(2). That is where we will define the time at which someone must apply for renewal, and that will be, as was suggested, at least six months before the renewal or the accreditation runs out. So the tribunal will have six months to consider the evidence as to whether accreditation is deserved for a further three years.
Mr Villeneuve: It's just a little ambiguous to one who isn't a solicitor.
The Chair: Mr Stroeter, do you have something to add?
Mr Stroeter: Yes. If I may add, this review is not the same review as the first one, although the same words are used. The intent is that during any time period, if something comes to the attention of the tribunal that there's something wrong with one of the farm organizations, there are allegations of embezzlement, for example, or gross misconduct, a review can be triggered. Call it a special review. It has nothing to do with the accreditation review. It is not a regularly scheduled review.
This is a provision to allow for a special review during the accreditation period outside of the normal time frames, in case it comes to the attention of the tribunal. The previous bill allowed for this special review only to be called by the chair, and in response to some of the comments by the farm organizations, this was now broadened so that the chair couldn't trigger the special review but the chair or three members had to trigger such a special review. That's the policy intent.
Mr Villeneuve: It's not really accreditation; it's a credibility review that you're doing.
Mr Stroeter: That is correct.
Mr Villeneuve: All right.
The Chair: Further discussion on section 8 of the bill? Seeing none, as agreed, the vote on section 8 of the bill is stacked.
We move to section 9 of the bill. Discussion on section 9 of the bill?
Mr Offer: Under subsection (3) it says, "Any person or organization entitled to notice...may make submissions in a hearing." Who would that be? How broad is it in terms of the notice provisions?
Ms Stratford: Subsection 8(2) of the bill speaks to who receives notice of review. As you can see, the actual organization, of course, that's being reviewed would be notified, as would the minister and all other accredited organizations.
Mr Offer: But in a review, as opposed to a renewal, the members of the organization under review would not be given notice of the review. It would seem to me that if you're actually reviewing an organization because it hasn't met certain criteria -- I recognize this would be a fairly large group -- the members of that group who will be specifically affected would not get notice of that.
Ms Stratford: The organization that's under review is the party to the hearing at which the review will take place, so to that extent, its members will be notified by it. The tribunal would notify presumably the executive of the organization.
Mr Offer: But there's no obligation, really, to notify the members of the organization that is being reviewed. These are the people who ostensibly receive the benefits from being members of the organization, and on other questions which are brought forward talking about the flow-through of dollars, they said the local county groups and all of the members are all part of the group itself. But if that holds true, then why wouldn't all of those people get notice of the hearing?
Mr Stroeter: From a policy perspective, I would suggest that the tribunal could, in very exceptional circumstances, if they really think that the review does require such extensive notification, make that determination, for example, place an ad in newspapers and say, "This review is taking place and interested parties, da, da." It leaves it to the discretion of the tribunal but it doesn't force the tribunal to notify, let's say, 30,000 farm organization members. The cost would be prohibitive, and it leaves it to the judgement of the tribunal how to conduct such reviews.
1140
Mr Offer: I guess the only reason I ask that is that a review of an accredited organization is, the way I see it, very serious and will have an immediate and dramatic and direct impact on the members of that organization if the review is successful. As well, some members may have very important information for that hearing. It seems that it would only be right to have some provision, whether by publication -- it doesn't have to be personal -- that there be some effort on behalf of the tribunal to notify the members that the organization of which they are a party may lose its accreditation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Offer, Mr Stroeter. Mr Klopp.
Mr Klopp: If I may, I think Rolly pointed out subsection 8(2), "The tribunal shall give written notice of any review under this section to the accredited farm organization that is the subject of the review, to the minister and to all of the other accredited farm organizations."
Out there, and to put it in the real world that you and I live in, believe me, the farmers who are affected will be notified by that farm organization when they get a written notice. If they don't, I would say that's probably one of the reasons why they're doing a review. So, they will know.
Also further under this section, submissions, subsection 9(3), "Any person or organization entitled to notice of the review may make submissions in a hearing relating to the accreditation of a farm organization," not unlike we do here. So, quite clearly, they cannot turn away anybody who wants to come and talk to them and make a submission for or against. I think we've allowed quite clearly what your concern is and what my concern is in the act.
Mr Offer: The problem with that is that subsection 9(3) says yes, "Any person or organization entitled to notice of the review may make submissions," but the members are not, by the legislation, entitled to notice. Therefore, under subsection 9(3) they could be specifically excluded from making presentation, under the bill.
Mr Klopp: I don't see that.
The Chair: Mr Stroeter.
Mr Stroeter: Part of the accreditation criteria state that these farm organizations have to be democratically elected and that there's a flow-through of communications from bottom to top and vice versa and they're accountable at annual meetings and so on. So I would think that in a democratically elected organization, the central group or the federate group has the responsibility, at least the moral responsibility, to keep its membership informed of important matters such as a review. Plus, I would add, as Mr Klopp stated, communications in the farm community on important matters are very swift, and it will be very difficult to keep it quiet that a review is taking place.
Mr Offer: Just finally, I'll accept those positions except that this tribunal is, for want of a better word, quasi-judicial in nature. I think, personally, when there is a tribunal created which is quasi-judicial, which has enormous powers, which can take away significant potential resources from organizations, if there's a process put in place, there have to be some safeguards in legislation. There just have to be.
The realities of the community may be very true and may be very effective, but it just seems to me that, apart from that, when you're dealing with a quasi-judicial process, something more than the flow-through of information in a regulation or democratically run criteria in a regulation are well for that, but a process of this nature I think really requires something a tad more specific for its members.
I must say I'm a little disappointed in a tribunal being set up with such power, quasi-judicial in nature, which has no process in it to inform its members. It is as if the legislators in this place didn't have bells ringing or lights on for a vote. How would you like it?
Ms Burak: I would just add to what staff have already said. I recognize the concern you have from a practical -- if your specific question is, should the tribunal notify all of the members of the body being reviewed --
Mr Offer: Should there be something there that specifically requires them to consider that?
Ms Burak: Again, in response, first let me just say that from a practical standpoint, we would not have and the tribunal would not have the membership list and wouldn't be able to --
Mr Offer: Don't they have the registration forms?
Ms Burak: No, I think Mr Stroeter's response about leaving to the discretion of the tribunal the ability to advertise and to circulate the information is probably, just from a practical standpoint, the way they would approach it rather than --
Mr Offer: You see, I don't have any problem with that, but there's nothing in the legislation that requires the tribunal to do that. They do have all the information. They know where every member -- it's on the registration forms. You've got all the info. You could, if you wanted to, write a letter of notice to every member. You have that type of information. I'm not suggesting that.
Mr Klopp: No. We've got to make that very clear.
Ms Burak: Can I just make a clarification? The ministry will have registration information and, as the scheme suggests, we will be sending the cheques and names and addresses and telephone numbers to the farm organizations. We won't know who are members in what organization and neither will the tribunal. But I think legal counsel has perhaps another clarification to give you more comfort.
Ms Stratford: There are further provisions in the bill that will govern the tribunal in holding hearings. Not to get ahead of ourselves, but in section 26, you will find the power of the tribunal to consider submissions from persons who are not parties and to gather evidence on its own. Clearly, the intent here is that the tribunal have before it all of the relevant information. Presumably, the tribunal would be most interested in advising members if it thought their submissions would be relevant, and presumably they would be, on a review. So I think that practically speaking, the tribunal, given that it has the power to seek out that input, would do so.
In addition, in section 27, there is provision for making prescribed rules of procedure that the tribunal must adhere to. If this were found to be a problem, I think the ministry would look at recommending perhaps the making of a regulation that would speak to those kinds of matters of notice and so on.
Mr Offer: Okay. I just feel that the government introduced its first amendment today, which then introduced this new phrase, "classes of registrants." We don't know what classes of registrants are going to be; they may be alpha, they may be something else. It also may have within it the organization which they are a part of. It may. I don't know. The conversations, I understand from the deputy and from legal counsel and from staff, as to the reasoning behind it -- I just have a difficult time finding out how that's going to protect individual farmers when their organization is under review. That's nothing new that I've added.
Mr Klopp: Maybe just on a point of clarification with regard to the point that the government of the time may know or the ministry would know who is a member of an accredited organization: Under the act, we only send their name, their telephone number and this cheque. Obviously, it says OFA on it or Christian Farmers or Catholic rural life or heaven knows who might be accredited. But we don't know if they're going to ask for a refund. We have no idea. That is totally out of the hands of the ministry, and I think that was one of the issues that came up over time, that somehow there would be some power because they would know how many members. The government, under this, will never know, because we don't know if they asked for refunds. That's totally their business. I want to make that perfectly clear. Maybe that will help.
1150
Mr Offer: Surely, the government could photocopy the cheques.
Mr Klopp: We don't know if they asked for a refund, Mr Offer, and sent it to another -- we don't know that and we will never know that. This still doesn't allow us to ask that question.
Mr Offer: Surely, the ministry is going to photocopy and keep on record the information.
Mr Klopp: No.
Interjection.
Mr Klopp: Yes, and even back it up.
Ms Burak: May I respond to Mr Offer? In fact, we're not going to photocopy the cheques. The compliance with the registration will be simply, did they fill it out properly, did they send a cheque over to the farm organizations, and then they've complied, number one. Not only will we keep a record of that, of who signed up with what organization, number two, sending the cheque does not constitute membership in the organization.
The Chair: Further discussion on section 9 of the bill. Seeing none, as agreed, the vote on section 9 of the bill is stacked.
We'll move to section 10 of the bill. Discussion on section 10 of the bill. Seeing none, as agreed, the vote on section 10 of the bill is stacked.
We'll move to section 10.1. That is the government amendment.
Mr Klopp: It's rather lengthy. I hope I don't run out here.
I move that the bill be amended by inserting the following section immediately after section 10:
"Relinquishing accreditation
"10.1(1) An accredited farm organization may apply to the tribunal to have its accreditation removed.
"Notice to ministry
"(2) The tribunal shall give the ministry notice of every application that it receives under this section.
"Revocation by tribunal
"(3) The tribunal, on receiving an application under subsection (1), shall, without a hearing, make an order removing the accreditation of the organization.
"Service
"(4) The tribunal shall serve a copy of the order on the ministry, the organization that made the application and the remaining accredited farm organizations.
"Effective date
"(5) An order to remove the accreditation takes effect on the date set out in the order.
"Return of payment
"(6) The ministry shall return to the persons submitting them, any payments that are payable to an organization making an application under this section that the ministry receives after it gets the notice of the application.
"Resubmitting payment
"(7) A person whose payment is returned shall, within the prescribed time, resubmit the payment payable to one of the remaining accredited organizations.
"Registration number
"(8) A registration number that has been assigned to a person to whom payment is returned remains current only until the prescribed time for resubmitting payment has expired unless the payment is resubmitted within the prescribed time."
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klopp. Rationale for the government motion as moved by yourself which creates section 10.1 of the bill.
Mr Klopp: Because it is very complicated and I'm very dry, would Ms Stratford please take care of this?
Ms Stratford: This section is new and was inspired as a result of some questions we received here at committee. Someone was concerned that an organization that might have been accredited and might now desire not to be wouldn't have a specific way of being de-accredited. Although I think practically that could be achieved either by stopping meeting the criteria or trying to find a way of getting a consent application before the tribunal, this type of section very clearly authorizes the tribunal to grant a revocation of accreditation if an organization so requests. That is the basic intent.
Subsections in this new section follow through on this concept to ensure that the ministry is advised of any such orders so that payments coming into that organization from persons who don't know that a de-accreditation process is under consideration won't be forwarded to that organization. The ministry is directed by this new section to return those payments to the persons who made them and the persons then will be given an opportunity to select another organization to direct their payments.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Stratford. Discussion?
Mr McLean: Section 8: I'm getting the feeling that the key to this whole operation is to get the money regardless of who it's being submitted to. I don't see anything in here where it says there's a form sent to the individual with regard to his application to apply for a refund. I haven't seen anything where it tells where he may apply for the refund unless that is in the original application. Is that so?
Ms Stratford: Section 20 deals with the refund mechanism --
Mr McLean: I read that.
Ms Stratford: -- and would apply equally in this case.
Mr McLean: Where does it tell them in there that it would apply?
Ms Stratford: Section 20 says that a person who has paid an amount to an accredited organization has the right to ask for a refund from that organization. So the organization under consideration in section 10.1 was accredited when it received the payment and therefore would owe the refund if the person so requested.
Mr McLean: So the individual sends a cheque in, goes to the ministry -- that cheque then goes to whatever organization he authorized it to. Then, does he write them a letter and ask for a form to send in for a refund?
Mr Stroeter: I would think a letter just indicating a request for a refund would be quite sufficient. I don't think a form is necessary.
Mr Klopp: Which is present practice now in a farm organization. I do believe any time you want your money back, you just write them -- any piece of paper and they're obligated to follow that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klopp. Mr McLean?
Mr McLean: That's fine. Thank you.
Mr Offer: I think I can anticipate the answer, but even in the situation where an accredited farm organization wants to take away its accreditation, there will be no obligation to inform the members of that organization as to the ongoing process. Again, I'm assuming that the answer is going to be, "There is no obligation."
Mr Stroeter: I would think these organizations, being democratically elected and dependent on an effective voluntary system where members have the right to ask for refunds, they would be very careful to keep their members informed of their actions. Otherwise, they would face a very uncertain financial future.
I would think, if the farm organizations make such a drastic move to cut themselves off from this source of funding, being democratic organizations, there would have been some kind of discussion within the larger organizations to approve such a move.
Mr Waters: With what Mr Offer said, I can't imagine any farm organization that is democratically elected not going to a convention or something like this to remove its accreditation. I can't imagine there being a situation where one or two people sitting at head office make a decision like that. They would have to do that at a conference or a convention in order to do it. So at that point, it would be done on the floor.
The Chair: Further discussion? Mr. Offer? You're going to let me down, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: If there's going to be an organization, it's going to be -- take away their accreditation and they're going to have a whole bunch of members who have paid money for a year and sometime during the year, the accreditation and all of the things that they should have received they will no longer receive.
They will have paid a fee and not received anything and there will be no obligation to help these people out. But I note that, as I've heard, it will be done through the democratic process and there will be a convention and there will be a vote and all of those things. Jeez, I hope this is correct.
Ms Burak: I just wish I could give Mr Offer more comfort on this point. I offer this comment --
Mr Villeneuve: Just offer.
Ms Burak: -- that it would be hard to envisage the tribunal having a group before it and not having its first question be, "Describe to us how you arrived at this through discussion with your members." I guess we hoped to give you more comfort.
Mr Villeneuve: Just thinking out loud: Would it not be possible for the decertified group to assign its membership for the remaining interim period, at which time, come renewal time, the members could, upon their choice, divert the funds to whichever GFO they so choose? It would be simply to provide that interim service the decertified GFO would not be providing.
Mr Stroeter: The intent of this section is really to address organizations that will continue as farm organizations but choose, by free will or by motion of the whole membership, to withdraw from this scheme. That's the intent. They will not cease to be organizations that provide services. The intent here is they don't want to have any part of this bill or this system. They don't want to be accredited under Bill 42. That's the only intent of this motion. We would not foresee that such an organization would cease to exist as a farm organization.
The Chair: Further discussion?
Mr Klopp: I guess in the --
The Chair: Does this mean yes, there is?
Mr Klopp: Just one final point, I guess, till noon. This allows that there doesn't have to be a big expense of a tribunal hearing and all that kind of stuff if a group really does feel, through its democratic right, that it would like to sever. I think it's a reasonable motion. We've had good discussion. But we use the worst-case scenario that a group defrauded. I think Rolly brought it back that this really is probably for an organization that just feels it wants to get out without a whole lot of red tape that we talked about earlier, having hearings all over the province and forcing the tribunal to have a big discussion when it didn't need to be had.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, the vote on the government motion, as moved by Mr Klopp, which creates section 10.1, as agreed, is stacked.
Is there unanimous consent by the committee that section 11 be stood down until tomorrow?
Mr Klopp: Tomorrow morning?
The Chair: Tomorrow morning.
Interjections
Mr Offer: I want to think about 33 and 21.
The Chair: Okay, I appreciate that, Mr Offer. Then we will proceed after our recess. The committee will recess until 2 pm and we'll resume with section 11 of the bill. We are in recess.
The committee recessed from 1204 to 1414.
The Chair: Okay, we'll call the committee to order. Members will find in front of them a summary of all the presentations, oral and written, up until yesterday afternoon from legislative research, compiled by the research officer, Jerry Richmond. It's all there for you to take a look at, and if there are questions, Mr Richmond will be here for a few minutes and you can certainly address any questions to him.
The second order of business is, as I referred to this morning, we were awaiting a ruling from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I have now received that ruling and I will read it to you on the record. It's addressed to myself as Chair of the standing committee on resources development. It reads as follows:
"Dear Mr Huget:
"I have now had an opportunity to discuss with the commissioner your letter dated August 30th with respect to the issue of members voting on Bill 42, An Act to provide for Farm Registration and Funding for Farm Organizations.
"Section 2 of the Members Conflict of Interest Act, 1988, states:
"`For the purposes of this act, a member has a conflict of interest when the member makes a decision or participates in making a decision in the execution of his or her office and at the same time knows that in the making of the decision there is the opportunity to further his or her private interest.'
"The definition of `private interest' is set out in section 1 of the act as follows:
"`private interest' does not include an interest in a decision,
"`(a) that is of general public application,
"`(b) that affects a member as one of a broad class of electors, or
"`(c) that concerns the remuneration and benefits of a member or an officer or an employee of the Legislative Assembly.'
"As each member is only one of a broad class of electors affected by the bill, it is the commissioner's opinion that members of the standing committee on resources development who are members of one or more of the organizations listed in section 7 of Bill 42 can take part in discussions and vote on the bill and would not be in a conflict-of-interest situation.
"Yours very truly,
"Lynn Harris,
"Executive Assistant"
The Chair: Any discussion?
Mrs Fawcett: I'd be interested to know in my own personal case yesterday whether I really would have been in conflict. There isn't anyone here who can answer that, is there?
The Chair: No, we didn't address that issue. This was the broader issue.
Mrs Fawcett: Yes, I realize that.
The Chair: So, as agreed in subcommittee this morning, we will now go back to section 1 of the bill and proceed through the votes which have been stacked since the start of the clause-by-clause hearings.
Mrs Fawcett: Would it be possible to wait until tomorrow morning to vote on these so that the other member of our caucus would be present at that time?
The Chair: We had discussions in subcommittee this morning with that member of your caucus present, and it was agreed that when we got a ruling, we would proceed with the votes and stack them until we got a ruling.
Mrs Fawcett: I guess I understood, and maybe he did too, that it would have been later on this afternoon. You didn't really know you would be getting it this soon.
The Chair: No, we expected the ruling this afternoon, and we all of us agreed in subcommittee that once we got a ruling, we would proceed with the votes.
Mrs Fawcett: Thank you.
The Chair: So move back then to section 1 of the act. Shall section 1 carry? Carried.
Section 2 of the act: Shall Mr Cooper's motion carry? All those in favour? Agreed.
Shall section 2 of the bill, as amended, carry? Agreed.
Section 3 of the bill: Shall Mr Cleary's motion carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Shall section 3 of the bill carry? Carried.
1420
Section 4 of the bill: Shall Mr Klopp's motion carry? Carried.
Shall section 4 of the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 5 of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall section 6 of the bill carry? Carried.
Section 7: Shall Mr Klopp's motion carry? Carried.
Shall section 7 of the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 8 of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall section 9 of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall section 10 of the bill carry? Carried.
Mr Klopp moved a motion that created section 10.1. Shall Mr Klopp's motion carry? Carried.
Shall section 10.1 of the bill carry? Carried.
We are now on section 11 of the bill. Mr Klopp, I believe you have a motion.
Mr Klopp: I move that section 11 of the bill be amended by striking out "In addition to the accredited organizations," in the first and second lines.
As a point of clarification, after hearing discussions over the last few days, there has been some misunderstanding and concern in the committee about the accredited organizations maybe somehow getting special funding. By taking that out of this section, it clearly says it's special funding for this organization and not accredited farm organizations no matter who they may be down the road.
The Chair: Discussion? Seeing none, shall Mr Klopp's motion carry? Carried.
Shall section 11 of the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
We'll move to section 12 of the bill. Any discussion on section 12 of the bill?
Mrs Fawcett: I'd just like some background, because I'm not familiar with how the francophone organization is eligible for special funding -- not that I am against them getting funding in order to have the services in their language. I'm wondering, is it that special that this couldn't be provided under the ministry of francophone affairs and that it not then have to be dealt with in the Ministry of Agriculture, or just how this all started.
The Chair: Mr Klopp, Mr Stroeter, Ms Stratford, Deputy Minister; there's a host of people who are waiting to answer that question.
Mr Klopp: I'll do a brief intro, and if you still want more, Rolly, as has been pointed out, has been quite involved with the whole discussion. But in a nutshell, when the stable funding was first talked about, a number of the farm organizations had dealt with the francophone organization and at that time there was discussion and the minister was led to believe, I believe, that they wanted to recognize this particular farm organization in eastern Ontario, or across Ontario, if it ever occurs, but basically we all recognize it's mainly in eastern Ontario, and that's how it evolved.
You mentioned another ministry that gives funding, but it was still felt that all the farm organizations still wanted to be a part of this, and we tried to take everybody's wishes as best as possible. That's how it evolved into the system.
Mrs Fawcett: I have no problem with them being a special accredited organization, should they choose, or being a special organization, but I wonder about the special funding and whether that special funding could be provided in another ministry. Then you don't have one particular group getting special funding from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.
Ms Burak: Maybe I can add to what Mr Klopp has said, and Rolly, you may want to add something as well. I think the best rationale was stated very well by the UCFO when they came before the committee yesterday. They made a very strong representation to the minister that it was important to have special recognition of the francophone farmer issue in this legislation, not in a companion piece or to be dealt with under another agency or piece of legislation. That argument was accepted by the general farm organizations and the ministry, and that resulted in this scheme to give them special funding.
My recollection of some of the earlier discussions with the general farm organizations was that some of them had some capability to deliver services to their francophone members in French and others had limited ability. One of the other outcomes of this special funding might be that they could contract with UCFO to provide some services actually in the farm community on their behalf. So it was a very cooperative spirit among the general farm organizations that said yes, special recognition is worthy of mention in the legislation.
Mr Cleary: Could we get the dollar figure and where that funding is coming from at the present time?
The Chair: Does the ministry have that information?
Mr Stroeter: It's still currently being negotiated between the farm organizations and the UCFO. There's an agreement in principle, but the memorandum of understanding hasn't been signed yet. So I would say that the number is not public at this point.
Mrs Fawcett: Have they received funding in the past?
Mr Stroeter: From various sources, yes; federal-provincial government sources.
Mr Cleary: Can we get that?
Ms Burak: I can today tell you what funding we've given them in the last two fiscal years, but I couldn't speak to what they may have received from sources other than the Ontario government. Just by example, in the last fiscal year I believe it was a grant of about $9,000, and in the previous year it was around $7,000.
Mrs Fawcett: Does the Ministry of Agriculture provide services for them that, let's say, the ministry of francophone affairs couldn't, or is it just that it's easier to facilitate what they require through your ministry rather than through francophone affairs and keeping it all in the one area there? Do you know what I mean?
Ms Burak: I'm not certain that I understand your question.
Mrs Fawcett: Whatever services they require that are different from other organizations, that they need to have their own, and I have no problem with that, is it easier for the Ministry of Agriculture to provide that and provide funding, rather than having it come out of the ministry of francophone affairs?
Ms Burak: I would imagine. Their primary purpose in life is to serve farmers, and they are also involved in rural development that is closely linked to agriculture. From that perspective, I guess the correct account would be the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, although there may be some other features of their organization that would qualify them for funding under francophone affairs.
1430
The Chair: Further discussion on section 12 of the bill? Seeing none, shall section 12 of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall section 13 of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall section 14 of the bill carry? Carried.
Section 15, I believe there's a government motion.
Mr Klopp: I move that section 15 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Further order
"(2.1) If an order is made under clause (1)(b) and the organization does not meet the specified conditions within the specified time, the tribunal may, after holding a hearing under section 14, make a further order under subsection (1)."
I'll get to my notes here. Sorry, this book is only as good as the computer, I guess. Explanatory notes: The proposed amendment clarifies that where the organization fails to meet the conditions imposed under subsection (2), the tribunal can hold a hearing and thereafter either remove the eligibility of the organization or set new conditions.
This is a housekeeping change that mirrors the tribunal's powers on the review of an accredited organization under subsection 10(3).
The Chair: Discussion on Mr Klopp's motion?
Mr Villeneuve: Does this in any way deal with the UCFO if it decided to become a GFO?
Ms Stratford: No, it doesn't. This section speaks specifically to the special funding eligibility, but the purpose of the amendment is to track the wording on a review, which is an accreditation matter. If this organization did wish to become accredited instead of receiving the special funding, it could apply and, if it met the criteria, could acquire an accreditation order.
Mr Villeneuve: This does not then preclude them from receiving this, should they become a GFO. Is it possible that they would be getting both?
Ms Stratford: No. There is further on a section that addresses that situation. Section 19 basically says that if they become accredited, they're no longer eligible for the special funding.
Mr Villeneuve: Okay.
The Chair: Further discussion on Mr Klopp's motion? Seeing none, shall Mr Klopp's motion carry? Carried.
Shall section 15 of the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Any discussion on section 16?
Mr Klopp: We have an amendment.
The Chair: So you do. Proceed with your amendment.
Mr Klopp: I move that subsection 16(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Application for renewal
"(1) The eligible francophone organization may apply to the tribunal for a renewal of its eligibility under this act if it does so during the period prescribed.
"Preserving status
"(1.1) The eligibility of a francophone organization that applies for a renewal of the eligibility during the prescribed period remains in effect until the tribunal makes its order pursuant to the application."
The Chair: Thank you. Does the government have a rationale for its motion?
Mr Klopp: Yes. Again, it's more of a clearing up of the issue here, mirroring again the other accredited organizations, that they are able to continue to work until their application is renewed and also make eligibility for accreditation, in a nutshell.
The Chair: Discussion? Seeing none, shall Mr Klopp's motion carry? Carried.
Shall section 16 of the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
We move to section 17 of the bill. Discussion on section 17? Seeing none, shall section 17 of the bill carry? Carried.
Section 18 of the bill: Discussion on section 18?
Seeing none, shall section 18 of the bill carry? Carried.
We move to section 19 of the bill. Discussion on section 19 of the bill. Seeing none, shall section 19 of the bill carry? Carried.
Section 20 of the bill: I believe the Progressive Conservatives have a motion.
Mr Villeneuve: I move that subsection 20(5) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Refund
"(5) An accredited farm organization shall refund, to any person applying for a refund, the amount of the cheque given by the person that was payable to the organization.
"Interest
"(6) If the refund is not made within 30 days after the organization receives the application, the organization shall pay interest at the prescribed rate on the unpaid refund for the time beyond the 30-day period until the refund is paid."
The Chair: Do you wish to speak to your motion?
Mr Villeneuve: This is to satisfy many of the people who made presentations to us regarding the length of time a GFO would have to reimburse the, now, $150. You will notice in (5) that in the event this figure changed, we did not specify a figure other than the cheque, which would have been provided by the farmer to register and, upon request, would be reimbursed.
We're saying that the time frame here is important. It was touched on by many of the people who made depositions here, and we feel that in the event of a GFO taking longer than a 30-day period, interest should be paid to the farmer at a specified rate based on interest rates prevalent at the time.
The Chair: Mr Klopp, do you care to respond?
Mr Klopp: My colleague had his hand up.
Mr Hansen: It's okay if Mr Klopp wants to go first.
Mr Klopp: I realize this was an issue that was raised by many people, and it may not be the right time now, but we also have an amendment here to this section which I think addresses more of the issue. Where we have a problem, or I guess I have a problem -- I hope some other people do too -- is the issue of telling a farm organization that it is going to have to pay interest. Although the concern was raised, I didn't hear anybody suggest that maybe that's what we should do, although I could have missed that discussion. In looking at it, I just can't quite agree with the intent of asking for a person to have to pay interest. We discussed many times over the bill that the organizations would promptly -- and we have them on the record that they would return cheques as fast as possible.
Also, my understanding is that under the administration of it, the cheque really isn't costing me any money till the day it is put in the farm organization's bank account, and at that point I've probably already written my letter of intent that I want my money back. So I think that at this time I cannot support your motion.
Mr Villeneuve: Under (5) of the existing legislation, it simply says, "shall promptly refund to any person applying for the refund the amount of the cheque given by the person that was payable to that organization."
We do not have a definition of "prompt." Promptness in a farmer's language may be that you ask this morning and you receive this afternoon. In the bureaucratic world, it can be somewhat different. There are no penalties for non-prompt return, and it is my feeling and that of my colleagues within the Progressive Conservative Party that we should recognize a time frame and we should therefore have a penalty for not meeting that time frame.
Mr Hansen: Mine was just about along the same line as Mr Klopp's. There's a date on the back of the cheque, that when it's actually cashed it winds up going through -- let's say it takes four weeks or five weeks before it gets to the farm organization, there would be no withdrawal on that particular farmer's account and he would lose no interest from the time it was cashed.
1440
The other point is that this application sent in for the refund for the length of time from the time the cheque was cashed, and the refund comes back -- this is what Mr Villeneuve, I believe, is looking at. Is this correct on your amendment?
Mr Villeneuve: It's looking at the time, the request for reimbursement.
Mr Hansen: From the time they receive the request there. Okay, just a little clarification.
Mr McLean: I have a problem with this bill that I see nothing in it that makes it easy for the farmer to be able to make his payment, send in his name and address, and makes it simple for him to know when he has to apply for a rebate if he wants one. There's nothing here that I see that tells him when he shall write for a rebate.
Do you know what happens in many cases with farmers? They get busy, and you know the letters they're going to get from the farm organization that say: "I'm sorry, but you're five days late in applying for your refund. Our period of time is such and such." That is going to happen a lot. I think you'd be aware of that. Why is there not something in here that spells it out that he has 60 days or 30 days from the time his application is due? Is there a due date for the application? We get all the different dates here. The phase-in is three months. The first group could register in 1994, but there's nothing concrete that a farmer's going to realize, and you're going to see a mess because he won't know when to apply for his rebate if he doesn't want to leave the money there.
Mr Klopp: We do have some friendly amendments that are, I think, going to address that particular issue a bit, Mr McLean, regarding giving -- there needs to be a prescribed time for the person to apply and that's going to be in regulation, I appreciate. But definitely they have to look and work at that and we will have it in regulation.
Going back to the motion, one other problem that I think we would see within even the farm organizations and that's regarding the payment of interest. Probably $150 is a lot of money and say it's 30 days to set up that kind of cost because they'd have to have it there for every person, wondering if they owed them money. I know that my income tax -- apparently, if you get some back they have it all figured out -- but I think the administration on that would be rather onerous.
The checks and balances also for the farm organizations, which I think we heard over the last few weeks, it would be very foolish for them not to get as fast a turnaround as possible on any cheques to be refunded, because that would spread. As you know, good news travels fast and so does bad news, and if any organization tries to -- if there's a feeling out there that they're holding that cheque for two months or whatever to get some interest on it, they'll look really foolish. I think the checks and balances are there and to make the farm organization have to set up an administration like this would probably not do either one of us any good. But I appreciate your comments.
Mr Villeneuve: To the parliamentary assistant: I think it's been mentioned by the two GFOs, particularly by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, that if indeed there were requests for refunds, they would likely have one of their field officials visit that farmer. That may take a week or two or three, and at this point in time the cheque has been cashed and has been requested. However, field staff would be looking towards attempting to convince this particular farmer that possibly he should not be asking for a refund. There is a time element here and if this becomes the case where the field man says, "Well, you know, Farmer Jones is not quite sure whether he wants his rebate," it could be pending for six months. That's my concern for including this particular amendment to subsection 20.
Mr Klopp: I think we've answered our own question, there -- my colleague. We said very clearly that they have to give a prompt refund. Now, the farm organization will no doubt go out and ask why, but if they hold up a person's cheque and try to play that -- what I call for lack of a better word -- game, again, it will be seen out in the farm community that they're holding up a person's cheque and that will be very bad public relations.
We have stated in the act that they have to return that cheque promptly. We can check with legal counsel, and we've heard word that this is some kind of common term in legalese -- I'll ask them to verify that. But the point of how the system out there would work is they have to send it promptly. The farm organization will go out and ask them to reconsider, but the cheque already is going either through the mail or is already going back to the person. Any farm organization that would try to hold a cheque up and browbeat a farmer, again, I think would be very unwise. I think that balance is there.
Mr Villeneuve: This would be simply to ensure that.
Mr Klopp: I hear you, but I think it's there.
Mr McLean: On a point of privilege, Mr Chair: On this very issue, I just can't believe what I'm hearing, that whatever farm group is going to go out and harass an individual because he asks for a refund. Is that what this legislation's all about?
Mr Klopp: No, I said they would not harass.
Mr McLean: But you said they're going to go out and ask. Why?
Mr Klopp: I'm sure they will go out and ask, "How come you asked for a refund? Are we a bad organization?" or whatever.
Mr McLean: I can't believe it.
Mrs Fawcett: Just legalities, I guess. I'm not knowledgeable. I'm wondering, is this in order? Because it is dealing with money. I know that when we're requiring the ministry to pay money, motions like that are out of order, but is it because this is a farm organization that is being requested to pay extra money, it is in order? That's all I'm wondering, whether it is in fact in order.
The Chair: My understanding from legislative counsel is this is not money being paid out of the consolidated revenue fund and therefore does not have those conditions attached to it.
Mrs Fawcett: Thank you.
The Chair: You're going to have to fly a holding pattern for a moment, Mr Cleary. I have Mr Waters.
Mr Waters: Just in answer to some of Mr Villeneuve's and Mr McLean's concerns, when you look at the government's amendment -- and it's back a couple of pages; we haven't come to it yet -- subsection (7) says, "A person may apply, within the prescribed time, to the appropriate organization for a refund of the amount paid." So they're talking about a prescribed time. When you look at the page that we received this morning as being the one, potential time frames, it talks about a time there.
Maybe I'm making a very large leap, but I don't believe I am when I'm looking at something that the government indeed is going to prescribe in regulations. There will be a time frame set, that they can't sit on those cheques for six months or something like that. But 30 days is far too short. By the time you send something through -- when does the 30 days start? When you put it in the mail, or when they receive it? How do they prove --
Interjection
Mr Waters: My colleague here says, "When it's cashed," but --
Mr Villeneuve: Receives the application for reimbursement.
Mr Waters: That could be a bit arbitrary. I think that by looking at what the government has offered here covers all of your concerns quite adequately.
The Chair: Did you wish to provide some more clarification, Mr Stroeter?
Mr Stroeter: Yes, I would. The problem with this interpretation is that the farmer could apply for a refund before the ministry has actually handed over the cheque to the farm organization. In that case it would be very difficult to make the 30 days count. The farm organization could receive the refund before the payment has actually cleared the bank. I think the logical time to have the 30 days click in would be whenever the payment has cleared the bank or the request has been received, whichever is later. That would probably be more like the intent you are trying to get at.
Mr Villeneuve: Is that part of the amendments?
Mr Stroeter: No, this would be an administrative rule in regulation. This would be covered in regulation, if it was covered.
Mr McLean: The request received by who?
Mr Stroeter: By the farm business. The farm business has to send the request to the farm organization, but technically it could be possible that the farm business sends a request before the ministry actually passes on the payment, so we need to be mindful of that.
The Chair: Mr Cleary, then Mr Wilson.
Mr Cleary: Our party would have no problem supporting the amendment that's being discussed at the moment.
1450
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I just want to say I want to support Mr Klopp's contention that in fact the penalty is built in, in the lack of support that the GFO would get if it didn't handle its finances properly. I think, as I say, Mr Klopp made that very strongly.
The Chair: Further discussion? All those in --
Mr Klopp: The issue of "promptly" is something that I know my colleague is concerned about. We all are. In hearing this discussion, Louise might have an opportunity to give us clarification. Maybe we can put in some safeguard here.
Ms Stratford: The word "promptly" was chosen because it was considered to be very difficult to arrive at a number of days which would be reasonable given that there's no real experience in this system. The word, though, has received some judicial interpretation. What "prompt" is generally held to mean is as something being reasonable in the circumstances. There is the power to define words used in the act in regulation. If it came to it, the ministry could recommend a regulation that defined "prompt" in such a way that it would be clear that there should be no delay.
There is some latitude for closing in on this issue short of suggesting an exact number of days which, as I said, I think would be difficult at this stage to really define.
The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Villeneuve's motion, please indicate. Opposed? Motion is defeated.
We have a Liberal motion, section 20.
Mr Cleary: I move that subsections 20(3), (4) and (5) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Forwarding cheque
"(3) The ministry shall forward each cheque, within two weeks after it is received, to the appropriate organization along with the name, address and registration number of the person who provided the cheque.
"Refund
"(4) A person who has a registration number may apply to the appropriate organization for a refund of the amount of the cheque if the application is made within six weeks after the cheque is given to the ministry.
"No administration cost
"(5) The full amount payable on registration shall be paid to the appropriate farm organization with no administration fee payable to or recoverable by the ministry.
"Refund
"(6) An accredited farm organization shall, within four weeks after receiving an application for a refund, refund to any person applying for the refund the amount of the cheque, given by the person, that was payable to that organization.
"Application of sections 2, 20 and 21
"(7) Sections 2 and 21 and this section cease to apply if the cost of administering the registration and the refunds exceeds the revenue generated from the program.
"Insurance
"(8) In order to receive cheques under this section, an accredited organization must have insurance to protect all potential applicants for a refund against default in making the refund.
"Vote entitlement
"(9) Every person with a registration number is entitled to one full voting membership in the organization to which that person directed the cheque."
The Chair: Do you wish to speak to your motion?
Mr Cleary: Yes. On the first one, "The ministry shall forward each cheque," I guess as we know, and we all get criticized, correspondence and different things lie on desks too much in government. I feel if that time frame were in there, it would speed the process up.
On the refund, it's just about the same as I explained in the previous one.
On no administration costs, I guess why we have that in there is that we have heard from the ministry that there are not going to be administration costs. We hear from some of the presenters that they don't rule that out, so I think we'd just like to get that cleared up at the moment.
Next, on the refunds, I guess we'd just like to see that tightened up and dealt with immediately, because I know that there are going to be other problems in this legislation and I just want to see this happen and the refunds and everything done as fast as possible.
On the next section, I guess what I'm concerned about there, we've heard of travelling tribunals and I'm sure that will be as expensive as sending a committee around the province. I'm just worried about the expense of everything and I would like to see that section in there.
On the insurance, that's just the way of doing business in the 1990s. Companies have gone through that. I think everyone is going through that. There are loans being called and everything, and I think we should have something to protect it in there.
On the vote entitlement, I know it's been a concern to many farmers in the area and the province about sending their money in with no vote entitlement. I think it was the federation of agriculture that had kind of been nibbling on something there and I think that it would soften it, for those who would send in the $150, if they had something to say. Those are my comments.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cleary. Do you wish to respond, Mr Klopp?
Mr Klopp: Yes, and I'll probably turn to some colleagues for some other points. With regard to forwarding the cheques within two weeks, again this is a program -- the government doesn't get any benefit from holding on to these cheques; the cheques are payable to a farm organization. It's already written in the act. I know our amendments aren't here yet, but there's no way that we can tie in through the bill a two-week turnaround like that, especially at this time when we're going through the program. It's clearly in the act that we will send them on promptly and I think that is the best you can do. To get it tied into two weeks is just going to create a problem in the bill.
The refund, six weeks after the cheque is given to the ministry, this again is somewhat the same argument or the same discussion we've had, with the above time lines, and I know we discussed a few minutes ago with our colleague Mr Villeneuve and we will, I think, look at regulations to make sure we can define "promptly" so that everyone understands what that means. I think that is the way to go, so we can't support that.
On the administration costs, it says clearly that the cheques are given back to the farm organizations and I really feel that is not necessary.
On the refund, again, it's in the act already. That is spelled out, that the amount that you pay is the amount you receive back.
On section 6, refund again, it goes back to where we were talking about promptly sending the cheque back when someone has asked for a refund, and I think your intent is fine. I do believe that even our proposed amendments, when we get them on the record, will better clarify, and the discussions that we had earlier, with regard to the regulations.
Then, when you move on to sections 20 and 21 -- we'll start at the bottom -- the vote entitlement issue has come up, and in fact we are going to have an amendment which clearly tells people that if you send this registration fee to a farm organization, it might not be that you are deemed accredited for a voting member, and people will know that and choose to decide, do they want to send, in this case $150, to an organization which does not give them voting privileges? That will be their decision to do, just like it is now. I belong to an organization and it's so many dollars just to be a member. If you want to be a voting member, it says you have to pay more. It's a neat way to raise money, I guess.
1500
On the insurance, that's something that I believe has been discussed a number of times, and I'm going to let Rolly, because he was in the committee dealing with that. I know I've seen many briefing notes because it was something that was discussed. I'll let him expand on that and the reasoning and rationale why we can't support that issue.
Mr Stroeter: The issue of requiring farm organizations to carry insurance we feel is adequately addressed by restricting the time limit in which farm businesses can apply for a full refund, and as we are suggesting, we're thinking of 60 days. We feel that the farm organizations have a sufficiently strong fiscal position to keep the money in the bank for 60 days. We don't feel that it is necessary to cover that in insurance when really the action has to be taken in such a short turnaround time.
Mr Villeneuve: The social contract implications: I could see where, if a cheque were received on December 20, within two weeks might be difficult for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and it doesn't say working days. It's difficult to define "working days" these days. I have a little problem --
The Chair: Those are the non-leisure days.
Mr Villeneuve: The non-leisure days.
Mrs Fawcett: Hopefully, they're the non-working days in two weeks.
The Chair: Hopefully they're not the same days.
Mr Villeneuve: Promptness is quite obviously the gist of this amendment, and I certainly agree with a lot of the areas. The insurance could be a very costly thing, and I think we've had the two recognized GFOs operating for quite some time. I'm not sure what insurance would cost.
The final one, subsection (9): The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario has its annual membership set at $425. They're reducing that by $150. I'm not sure that the Christian Farmers could live with number (9) in that, would they be voting members? I think there's conflict there. They don't refuse any memberships but I'm not sure that they could be full-fledged members of CFFO under this amendment.
I agree with the gist of this amendment if promptness is what we're attempting to do, but with the social contract and with CFFO on two of those and then the question of costs for insurance, I have some reservations.
Mr Hansen: I remember that when the OFA was here, the one thing it said was that it's interested in people staying with the OFA. So what they would endeavour to do is to make sure they had the cheques refunded to that particular person who asked for that refund, because in the following years, possibly that person would say, "They sent the cheques so quickly that I'll stay with that organization," plus they also have the choice of saying, "Well, next year -- the OFA or the Christian Farmers were slow -- I'll give to the OFA rather than this particular GFO."
I believe on the Christian Farmers I'm going by what I heard, and I haven't got Hansard in front of me, but for the $150 you were on the list to receive all the benefits from the Christian Farmers but you didn't have a vote at that amount. They're still discussing, as he said at that point, on the fee structure, of what it costs to belong to the Christian Farmers. That hasn't been okayed by the executive as it is. So I think it's a sales job here, that these farm organizations -- we might see a third one in there, or a fourth one in the years to come, and they'll vie for that membership in their particular organization, and how they're doing the job for the farm organizations out there will be more competition.
Mr McLean: Could I have a clarification on the refund portion of it. Mr Cleary's amendment says, "A person who has a registration number may apply to the appropriate organization for a refund of the amount of the cheque if the application is made within six weeks after the cheque is given to the ministry." I'd like a clarification from the ministry: Is there going to be an application that the farmer would be able to send in for his refund? I've had word here that it could be a letter. This is a very grey area that's not defined, and there are no time limits or anything. Are there any other amendments coming that are going to define that?
Mr Stroeter: Essentially, any written notification -- it could be a fax, it could be a letter; a telephone call would not be sufficient because there would be no permanent record -- to the farm organization will do and will be accepted by it as a request for refund. They're not particularly form-happy and feel that there needs to be a special form. This information, by the way, will be made known to the farm businesses at the time when we send out the registration form. A brochure will be included and it will be explained exactly what the procedure is for requesting a refund and what the time lines will be.
Mr McLean: What do you anticipate, with a supplementary then, that the time lines may be? I'm glad to hear that you're going to have it on the application now. What are you kind of recommending the time lines are going to be -- 60 days?
Mr Stroeter: What we have out for discussion is 60 days from the time that the farm organization has received the payment.
Mr McLean: Fine. That's reasonable.
The Chair: Further discussion? All those in favour of Mr Cleary's motion, please indicate. All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
There is a government motion on section 20.
Mr Klopp: I move that section 20 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Payment
"20(1) Every person required to file an annual farming business registration form with the ministry must, when filing the form, provide to the ministry payment of the prescribed amount.
"Same
"(2) The payment to an accredited farm organization must be in the form of a cheque or in another form acceptable to the ministry.
"Forwarding payments
"(3) The ministry shall promptly forward the payments to the appropriate organization along with the names, addresses, telephone numbers and registration numbers of those who provided the payments.
"Registration number
"(4) The ministry, on receiving the annual registration form and the payment, shall assign a registration number, for the year of registration, to the person filing.
"Revoking registration
"(5) If the organization is unable to collect the payment and notifies the ministry that the payment has not been honoured, the ministry may revoke the registration number of the person who provided the payment.
"Restoring registration
"(6) After a registration is revoked, if payment is remade that is collected by the organization, the ministry shall restore the registration number.
"Refund
"(7) A person may apply, within the prescribed time, to the appropriate organization for a refund of the amount paid.
"Same
"(8) Subject to subsection (9), an organization shall promptly refund, to any person applying for the refund, the amount of the payment collected by the organization from the person.
"Same
"(9) A refund shall not be paid to a person who does not have a current registration number.
"No membership
"(10) Payment under this section does not confer membership in the farm organization."
There is some lengthy discussion there, explanatory notes. I'm going to ask Rolly or Louise or whoever wants to, to kind of go through. But I do believe we've had some of this discussion already in part. So could you please go ahead.
Ms Stratford: The changes to section 20 accomplish a number of things. Subsections (1) and (2), the basic change there is to elaborate on the form of payment. Previously, only a cheque was contemplated as satisfactory payment. After discussions with the farm groups, it was determined that this may be too narrow, that there may be farmers who wish to use a form of payment other than a cheque, so the word "cheque" has been removed and the word "payment" inserted.
Subsection (2) goes on to say that payment may be in the form of a cheque or in another form acceptable to the ministry. It would be the intent there for the ministry to indicate to farm businesses what forms of payment would be acceptable. The ministry's thinking here, of course, of money orders and perhaps Visa or MasterCard-type payments.
Mr McLean: No farm produce?
Ms Stratford: No payments in kind, I don't think, are contemplated.
Subsection (3), again, substitutes that word "payment" for "cheque." It also adds the words "telephone numbers." This is the information that the ministry will send along to the organization that is receiving the cheque. Previously, only names and addresses and registration numbers were going to be conveyed. The telephone number has been added as a result of discussions that were held with the farm organizations. They indicated a strong interest in receiving this information and the ministry has agreed to include it.
Subsection (4): The only change here is the word "payment," substituting for the word "cheque".
These subsections provide that if the farm organization to which a payment has been made is unable to actually collect the payment, for example, if a cheque is returned NSF, then that organization can notify the ministry of that fact, and the ministry then may revoke the registration number of the person who provided the payment.
If subsequently payment is remade to the organization that is honoured, the ministry would then restore the registration number. This provides some kind of mechanism to address the situation that the farm organizations were concerned about, wherein business would offer payments that couldn't be negotiated to collection.
The Chair: Further discussion? Are you finished?
Ms Stratford: There's more.
The Chair: I had a hunch.
Ms Stratford: Subsection (7) is where there now is inserted a time period within which a person may apply for a refund. The words "within the prescribed time" have been added. It's contemplated now to have a regulation which would set out the time period within which someone may request a refund, and you've heard Rolly speak about what's thought of there as a reasonable time.
Subsection (8): The only change again is "payment" instead of "cheque."
Subsection (9): No changes there.
Subsection (10) is new. This is to clarify a point that seemed not to be very clear, that being that payment under this section does not confer membership in the farm organization. Membership in the organization would be a separate step that a farm business would choose or not choose to take. If they requested their refund, then presumably they wouldn't be interested in membership and would so notify the organization. If they didn't request the refund, the farm organization would presumably then ask them if they wish to become a member and they could advise them as they saw fit.
Mrs Fawcett: I'm concerned about subsection 20(1). "Every person required to file an annual farming business registration form with the ministry must, when filing the form, provide to the ministry payment of the prescribed amount."
I feel that this is going to be very confusing because before you had "payable to an accredited farm organization." We all know who that cheque's supposed to go to, as people who have been really involved, but I just think that the ministry's going to end up with a whole bunch of cheques payable to them by the way that's written now. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just feel that this is quite confusing. At first glance, because that's number one right there, they'll read that and they won't go any further and then the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is going to have the cheque.
The Chair: Mr Klopp, do you wish to respond?
Mr Klopp: I think we can probably clean that up a little bit.
Ms Stratford: I think that's a good suggestion.
Mr Klopp: A friendly amendment. It does say in the second section, but I agree when you first read that --
Mrs Fawcett: I realize that, but I think first, bang, you should get it in there.
Mr Klopp: How would that read, that you fill out the forms --
Mrs Fawcett: Just continue the way it was here.
Interjection: Or change the wording.
Mr Klopp: Yes, very good.
The Chair: I think it probably is in the best interest if we have a short recess and get something drafted, put together properly and then --
Mr McLean: Just reverse (1) and (2) and I think you've cleared it up.
The Chair: We will recess for 10 minutes.
The committee recessed from 1514 to 1529.
The Chair: Ms Fawcett, I understand you have an amendment to Mr Klopp's motion.
Mrs Fawcett: Yes, I do.
I move that the motion be amended by adding "payable to an accredited farm organization" at the end of subsection 20(1) as set out in the motion.
The Chair: Do you wish to speak to your motion?
Mrs Fawcett: I think everyone understands why this is being added.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour of Ms Fawcett's motion, please indicate.
Mr Villeneuve: This is an amendment to the amendment?
The Chair: That's correct. All those in favour? Opposed? Ms Fawcett's amendment is carried.
Further discussion on Mr Klopp's motion, as amended? Mr Cleary, Mr Villeneuve and Mr McLean.
Mr Cleary: Being we haven't been in on the discussions with the different organizations and there seems to be some confusion on the membership fee, "Payment under this section does not confirm membership in the farm organization," I would just like to know what discussions took place with the different farm organizations, because I'm getting two different readings here.
Mr Klopp: Rolly, would you mind explaining this?
Mr Stroeter: The discussions that have been had among the farm organizations were essentially along the lines that there's no automatic membership in any of this, that there's a second step, an elective step, to be taken by the farm business to elect membership. That was the first point, and all the participating organizations have agreed to that.
The second issue then is where the fee is higher than the $150 payment provided. We have one organization where that indeed is the case, and that's the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario. They definitely have made the decision to credit the $150 towards a fee but at the moment are still working out the technical details on how to go about the rest. The current thinking is that to have a full voting membership in the organization, one has to choose and elect to become a member and probably pay a supplementary fee. For the $150 they would be entitled, however, to all the information material the organization provides to its members.
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has said that it will essentially accept the $150 as a full fee and its plans are to provide, if you like, an opting out clause to members. They will say, "You will have automatic membership provided unless you let us know within a certain number of days that you do not wish to be a full member of the OFA." There is no second step required unless the individual doesn't indeed want to be a member of the organization.
Those were the discussions that were held with the farm organizations.
Mr Villeneuve: Who is the cheque payable to?
Mr Stroeter: To the farm organizations.
Mr Villeneuve: And then, because of the religious beliefs requirements, they would qualify for the benefits and yet not have membership within either of the existing GFOs. Do I get that right?
Mr Stroeter: No. They will have to choose to become a member. In the case of the OFA, it's sort of a negative opting out; you are deemed to be a member unless you notify them differently. In the case of the CFFO, there's an active declaration of membership required.
Mr Villeneuve: Does this, in your opinion, meet the Mennonites' requirements as we heard them yesterday? I had some difficulty in quite understanding what they are -- they have no problem paying the $150. I'm not sure if they have a problem with registration, but they don't want to be part of a lobby group. Does this meet their needs?
Mr Stroeter: I'm wondering if we'll leave that discussion till we get to section 21.
Mr Villeneuve: All right.
Mr McLean: The question I have is, why the telephone numbers? I don't mind them having the names and addresses and postal codes, but why the telephone numbers?
Mr Stroeter: The short answer for that is in the case of any problem about the payment, if there's any problem with a bad cheque or so on. Apparently even currently there are problems with cheques inadvertently not clearing the bank. So this will facilitate this process. For example, there's a provision for revoking the registration number if a payment is not honoured, but clearly it is in the farm organization's best interest to phone up the farm business first and inquire: "Are you aware that your cheque didn't clear the bank? Was this intentional or could you send us another cheque?" The telephone number will be very helpful in that regard.
Mr McLean: Why is subsection (9) in there, "A refund shall not be paid to a person who does not have a current registration number"? He wouldn't get the registration number unless they had his cheque there, would he?
Mr Stroeter: It's a fail-safe mechanism, really. It could potentially be that the farm organization receives the refund request before they have received the payment, because the refund request is sent to the farm organization. The payment is sent with the registration form through the ministry. So it could be, if a farmer mails these things out the same day, for example, both forms, that the farm organization could have a request for a refund on its hands before it actually has the payment.
Mr McLean: Mr Cleary had an amendment here a while ago with regard to the money being sent to the farm organization from the ministry. How long are you anticipating the ministry's going to take to deal with that before the farm group gets it? Is there going to be any deadline?
Mr Stroeter: As I suggested this morning in my presentation, in the ministry's busiest programs dealing with the heaviest workload and the largest number of clients we have a six- to eight-week turnaround time. We're quite confident that on an expedited process we'll be able to have a four-week turnaround time or less under this scheme. However, as was pointed out before, it depends on the time of the year. If it happens to be the Christmas period with social contract days, we might be off by a few days.
Mr McLean: If the farmer has 60 days to apply for his refund, how is he going to know then whether it's taken 50 days to go from the ministry office to the farm organization? When do his 60 days start, after the farm organization gets it?
Mr Stroeter: Yes, after the farm organization actually has received the payment. That is correct.
Mr McLean: How is the farmer going to know when they get it?
Mr Stroeter: Through a bank statement, for example, a bank record, it can be determined when a cheque was cashed.
Mr McLean: Well, farmers don't always have their -- I don't know when my cheque's cashed.
Mr Stroeter: There's a stamp at the back of the cheque plus there's a bank statement.
Mr McLean: But I don't get my cheques. So how am I going to know?
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Phone the bank.
Mr Stroeter: I think the other way you will know is that the farm organization will notify you promptly when it has received payment and thank you for having supported it and provide you with membership information. So that would be the second step, plus you will receive a letter from the ministry giving you a registration number, which is a signal that, once you get your number, the payment has been moved on to the farm organization. So there are two signals at least you will be having, plus your own bank record as a third one.
Mr McLean: That's clear as mud.
Mr Villeneuve: We've just got to make sure that the farmer knows that within 60 days of his sending the cheque, if indeed it is his or her request to have the money reimbursed, they have the correspondence in to the designated GFO.
Mr Waters: It would be my assumption, and hopefully when we go to do this registration the ministry would indeed be sending out a very straightly worded message with every package that went to every farmer, very clear, concise, "These are the rules and these are things you watch out for." It's my assumption that would happen.
1540
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour of Mr Klopp's motion, as amended, please indicate. Opposed? The motion is carried.
We'll deal with section 20 of the bill, as amended. Shall section 20 of the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
May I have unanimous consent from the committee to stand down section 21? Agreed.
We'll move to section 22 of the bill. Shall section 22 carry? Carried.
We'll move to section 23 of the bill. Is there any discussion on section 23?
Mr McLean: What is the order in council going to be? What are these tribunal members going to get paid? Does anybody have any idea?
Mr Stroeter: They would be paid the normal per diem rates as published by the Management Board secretariat, which are amended from time to time, and they will also determine which class of payment they will receive, so the normal government rates.
Mr McLean: It goes from about $500 down to $120.
Mr Stroeter: Oh, no, much less.
Mr Klopp: Those were the good old days.
Mr Waters: That was under the Tories.
Mr McLean: The lawyers who get appointed to these tribunals still get $500.
Mr Stroeter: I believe they go from $160.
Mr Villeneuve: Would that also include expenditures, ie, overnight accommodation and mileage?
Mr Stroeter: If indeed overnight accommodation would be required, then yes, it would. I would think we want to keep the cost of this tribunal down to a minimum and make sure it only meets as required, and particularly on religious exemptions meets in small panels. That's where the panels of three comes from.
The Chair: Further discussion on section 23 of the bill? Seeing none, shall section 23 carry? Carried.
We'll move to section 24 of the bill. Discussion on section 24? Seeing none, shall section 24 of the bill carry? Carried.
Section 25: discussion on section 25?
Mr McLean: Could I have an idea of what the cost would be to gather the information? That could be a week's work. What does section 25 with regard to the documents pertain to?
Mr Stroeter: For example, in a decision when a farm organization claims to have a certain number of memberships and a certain number of branches, it might be reviewing documents, financial statements or any membership records that may be kept by the organization. So it could be reviewing evidence that is required to prove accreditation.
Mr Villeneuve: How many employees is it anticipated that the tribunal may require?
Mr Stroeter: We require that the tribunal will have really no direct employees, but we'll provide the limited administrative support that it needs from time to time through ministry staff.
The Chair: Shall section 25 carry? Carried.
Discussion on section 26? Seeing none, shall section 26 of the bill carry? Carried.
Is there any discussion on section 27?
Mr McLean: Yes. "The tribunal may make...rules it considers necessary for the conduct and management of its affairs." Is there anticipated to be some legal advice on this committee? Where are they appointed from? Is there any layout of the types of individuals who are going to be appointed, their qualifications and so on?
Mr Stroeter: In previous discussions we have said that these people should be pre-eminently knowledgeable and qualified to know agriculture in Ontario and know the work of general farm organizations. However, they could not be officers or directors or any officials of any of those accredited organizations or those seeking accreditation.
In terms of procedures, the tribunal is free to set its own procedures on how to hold hearings, but clearly there are strong precedents on how to conduct hearings and so on and other legislation, like the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, would outline certain minimum requirements that would have to be met by the tribunal when it conducts its business.
Mr McLean: What vision do you have of the committee being formed? You say you can't be part of the groups, but could you be a farmer and be appointed?
Mr Stroeter: I would hope that would be something that would qualify you and --
Mr McLean: They're men outstanding in their own field, most of them.
The Chair: Keep your day job, Al.
Shall section 27 of the bill carry? Carried.
Is there discussion on section 28 of the bill? Seeing none, shall section 28 of the bill carry? Carried.
I look for unanimous consent to stand down section 29. Agreed. Section 29 is stood down.
Is there discussion on section 30 of the bill? Seeing none, shall section 30 of the bill carry? Carried.
Is there discussion on section 31? Seeing none, shall section 31 of the bill carry? Carried.
Section 32: I believe there is a government amendment. Actually, we'll go to the Progressive Conservative amendment.
Mr Villeneuve: We're simply looking to add to paragraph 32(1)14. It reads presently "respecting the period within which cheques must be provided and refunds requested." Now, we had our amendment defeated which said 30 days, so we don't have a period of time any more, other than "promptness."
The Chair: Mr Villeneuve, are you moving that paragraph 32(1)14 of the bill be amended by adding at the end "and refunds requested"? Is that correct?
Mr Villeneuve: "And refunds requested," yes.
The Chair: Mr Villeneuve has moved same. Discussion on Mr Villeneuve's motion?
Mr Klopp: I think this makes it redundant, my friend. So as not to be inconsistent, we can't support this as the government.
Mr Villeneuve: I appreciate that.
Mr Klopp: I'm sure.
Mr McLean: I have a question with regard to subsection 32(1), with regard to the annual gross income. Is that in order now?
The Chair: Certainly.
Mr McLean: Okay. The process of determining the gross income -- I discussed it with my colleague and I understand that $7,000 is there. But if you're a retired businessman and you live on 100 acres and you rent 50 to a farm operation that makes more than the $7,000, do you qualify for the tax rebate on your property?
Mr Klopp: The short answer is yes, but I'll let Rolly explain the procedure.
Mr Stroeter: The answer is yes if the land is rented out to a farm business that is part of a production that at least grosses $7,000 in production. So we don't envision the rules of the farm tax rebate program to change under this. They aren't affected by this bill. So the short answer is yes.
Mr McLean: He has two houses on his property, so he would therefore get what percentage back of his taxes that he pays?
Mr Stroeter: Two houses? Could you elaborate?
Mr McLean: Well, the individual owns two homes on a piece of property, rents out half of it to a farmer who has a gross income over $7,000. He applies for his tax rebate back because the farmer is in the position of making enough money. Does he get his taxes back based on his total taxes that he pays for the property with two houses on it?
Mr Waters: Or on the portion that is being farmed, is what he's saying. Which way?
Mr McLean: That's what I'd like clarified.
1550
Mr Stroeter: What I would like to do is get the answer for you on this. It's a highly technical answer that I'm not totally familiar with, but I can get the answer for you by tomorrow.
Mr McLean: What are they doing now? How is it done now?
Mr Stroeter: That's what I would like to verify before I answer.
Mr Villeneuve: Right now, it's 75% -- it was 75% of your taxes. Now there is a freeze at $159 million and, according to the minister's answer pursuant to a question in the House, it will be between 71% and 72% of the taxes paid because of the freeze at $159 million.
Mr Stroeter: Was that your question, or was --
Mr McLean: No. My question was, what part of his taxes would that individual get back? He pays so much taxes on his home and 100 acres of land.
Mr Stroeter: We know for sure that the owned home and the one acre associated with it is not rebated. So that's one part that is 100% not rebated. I suspect that the rest of the property tax bill will be rebated in full but, as I said, I would like to verify that.
Mr McLean: So 75%. He should really be paying the farmer to rent his land, then, instead of the farmer paying him. He should be paying the farmer.
The Chair: Mr McLean, Mr Stroeter has indicated he will obtain the information and have it available for first thing tomorrow morning, and I believe he understands your request. Mr Waters, did you have a point?
Mr Waters: This is a curious thing, but you could actually put two or three residents on your property and only have to be penalized for one, and the rest could be considered farm? I don't think so. I think the ministry caught on to that.
Mr Villeneuve: A house and one acre, you used to get back 75%. Now, because of the freeze on it, it'll be between 71% and 72%.
The Chair: Thank you for your comments, gentlemen.
All those in favour of Mr Villeneuve's motion, please indicate.
Mr Villeneuve: I actually withdraw that motion because it is redundant pursuant to what's happened previously.
Mr Klopp: Appreciate that.
Mr Villeneuve: It makes for a good discussion, though.
The Chair: For the record, the motion has been withdrawn.
Mr Villeneuve: So is the next one. It falls into the same category and therefore that motion will be withdrawn by myself.
The Chair: We now have a government motion on section 32 of the bill. Mr Klopp.
Mr Klopp: Subsection 32(1), paragraphs 4, 8, 13 and 14: I move that subsection 32(1) of the bill be amended by striking out paragraphs 4, 8, 13 and 14 and substituting the following:
"4. prescribing anything that the act requires or authorizes to be prescribed, or refers to as prescribed;
"8. prescribing the period during which an application must be filed for the purposes of subsections 4(2) and 16(1);
"13. prescribing the amount of payment to an accredited farm organization."
These are basically a lot of housekeeping regulations as we've seen us move through different chapters and in order for the ability to make regulation. That's where they come from. I will turn it over to our very good administrators there if they want to further clarify this for my colleagues here today.
Ms Stratford: I can provide some more clarification. Specifically, in paragraph 4, we're taking out the current wording, which is the ability to make regulations respecting the time for filing forms. The reason for that is that we have an earlier amendment that has been carried which would allow the minister to decide those times, so that authority isn't needed any more.
The new paragraph 4 is a general clause which would allow for prescribing regulations in situations where we haven't tracked the wording into section 32. It's a standard clause that should have been included in the first place, a very routine thing in regulation-making sections.
Paragraph 8 is there to pick up on earlier amendments that were carried concerning the time for applying for a renewal of accreditation.
Paragraph 13 simply substitutes the word "payment" for the word "cheque."
Mr McLean: Could I have a clarification on 14? Maybe I was asleep or something. "Respecting the period within which cheques must be provided": What period are you talking about?
Ms Stratford: We're proposing to delete that paragraph altogether in this motion.
Mr McLean: Paragraph 14?
Ms Stratford: Yes, in the bill it makes clear that cheques are to be provided with the registration form, so this power isn't necessary.
The Chair: Shall Mr Klopp's motion carry? Carried.
Shall section 32 of the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Thank you. We will adjourn until 10 am tomorrow morning, and we will resume with the stood-down section 21.
Mr McLean: In this room?
The Chair: We'll start with section 21, in this room.
Mr Klopp: At what time?
The Chair: At 10 am.
Mr Klopp: Is that morning?
The Chair: Thank you. We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1556.