CONTENTS
Thursday 2 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 will resume clause-by-clause analysis of Bill 42 with the stood-down section 21. The government has a motion. Mr Klopp.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I move that section 21 of the bill be amended by striking out subsections (1), (2), (3) and (6) and substituting the following:
"Religious objection, individual
"(1) If an individual carries on a farming business and objects to making payments to a farm organization because of his or her religious conviction or belief, the individual may apply to the tribunal for an order that payment be waived.
"Religious objection, corporation
"(2) If a corporation carries on a farming business and an individual who is a shareholder or a member of the corporation objects to the corporation making payment to a farm organization because of his or her religious conviction or belief, the corporation may apply to the tribunal for an order that payment be waived.
"Religious objection, other entity
"(3) If an entity other than a corporation carries on a farming business and an individual who is a member of the entity objects to the entity making payments to a farm organization because of his or her religious conviction or belief, the entity may apply to the tribunal for an order that payment be waived.
"Order of tribunal
"(6) If the tribunal is satisfied that an individual referred to in subsection (1), (2) or (3) objects to making payment to a farm organization because of his or her genuinely held religious conviction or belief, it shall order that payment be waived."
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klopp. Your rationale?
Mr Klopp: The proposed amendment to subsection 21(2) is a housekeeping amendment. It recognizes that some farm businesses may be carried on by a corporation with share capital. In this case there may be members instead of shareholders. They should each have similar rights in the area of religious objections.
The proposed amendments to subsections 21(1), (2), (3) and (6) replace the word "cheque" with "payment." This reflects the proposed amendments to section 20 that would allow persons carrying on farm businesses to submit payment in other forms acceptable to the ministry as well as by cheque.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): If I might start this discussion, the parliamentary assistant and ministry officials were here when we had a presentation by Mr John Drudge, who is a bishop with a Mennonite church. The bishop indicated that the concern he brought forward to the committee was not on the basis of the provision of a cheque but also on the fact of registration. On the basis of his presentation and a further letter filed with this committee, exhibit 3/01/044, are the parliamentary assistant and the ministry prepared to meet the concerns raised by that deputant?
Mr Klopp: I believe we've had a long discussion, as has been mentioned earlier in the hearings, with the Mennonite community. That's been discussed. We felt that we have come a long way to answering as many questions as we can. You're referring to the last letter that came, which we just received. I think we have answers for them. If you want to pick them out exactly, it's a long letter, as you know, and I don't know exactly which ones you're referring to, but if you want to go through them, we can do that. We have legal counsel here. Rolly, as I said earlier on, has been quite involved in the discussions, and I will rely on them plus the deputy and myself to answer questions.
Mr Offer: To me, this is not a matter of political partisanship. This is a matter of an individual who has said that by virtue of religious beliefs the wording of the bill will, of necessity, disentitle that person and all that follow in those religious beliefs to current and potentially future farm assistance programs.
I have the letter and I can refer to a part that says -- I am quoting in part -- on the first page, "We do strongly object to registration under Bill 42." On page 2, under number 2, it says, "Registration under Bill 42 is a violation of our belief." Under number 3, it says, "Registration under Bill 42 is a violation of our principles."
It is not just the writing of a cheque, and I understand the amendments which deal with the provision of a cheque. The bishop has said it is not just that; it is the registration itself. The question is, political partisanship aside, forgetting what one's position is on Bill 42, putting all that aside, can legislators in this assembly vote in favour of a provision which we have heard from a bishop will disentitle them to a government assistance program as a result of following their religious beliefs?
1030
Ms Rita Burak: I would like to add to the comments Mr Klopp made, because like other staff in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, I have been personally involved in meetings with a number of bishops and elders from the Mennonite community. As Mr Klopp would speak for the minister, I would repeat on the minister's behalf and on behalf of everyone involved in the ministry that we are very sensitive to and want to respect the beliefs of the people we met with.
I'd like to just spend two minutes and perhaps ask staff to expand on the process we went through and the policy thinking behind where we have come to.
We had, as the record would show, a number of meetings with representatives of the community before the first bill was tabled, and subsequently, this spring, there was at least one other meeting, one that I attended. Many things were tabled in these committee hearings. We would be pleased to distribute the one piece of material that was sent to the ministry. We were not privy, by the way, to a lot of the minutes that were tabled today, but we were given a summary of views by the Mennonite central committee. We can table that.
More importantly, I would simply say, and perhaps turn it over to Rolly or Louise, we have attempted to respect the views that we heard. My recollection of the meeting I attended is that there is a spectrum of beliefs within the community, and in that sense it is very difficult to ensure that we do not offend any particular group in the community. It's in that spirit that we came to the wording we've got before us. I don't know whether a more detailed explanation would be helpful, but that is in summary what we have tried to do.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Mr Chairman, while he's passing that out, could I ask for a clarification of what criteria the tribunal will have with regard to making a decision on registration?
Mr Klopp: That is a procedure which Louise, I believe, is quite clear on. The tribunal is in her capacity.
Ms Louise Stratford: Mr McLean, if you mean by that how will they assess if someone has the religious conviction or belief, there won't be a set of rules for them to follow. This is a judgement they'll have to make based on the information they have before them, and I guess that will vary depending on what the person's religious belief really is. No doubt the tribunal would have some streamlined procedures for groups that would contain large numbers of people, such as the Mennonite community. The tribunal would not be looking to have each individual come before it, for example, to prove his faith. The tribunal would have the power to accept evidence, perhaps from a bishop or some leader in the community, attesting to the fact that, "These persons are members of my congregation and I can certify that they are of this religion." That would satisfy the tribunal. That would discharge their duty in determining whether those persons had the belief, so I would see it being somewhere along those lines.
Mr McLean: So anybody who is a Jehovah's Witness could apply, the same as the Mennonites.
Ms Stratford: That's right.
The Chair: Mr Cleary is next in the flight path.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have to say that as to this letter my colleague has referred to, there are pretty strong statements in there, and in number 1, on Mr Buchanan's statement of August 23, where it goes on to say about the minutes of the meeting, if that was not the belief of the Mennonite people I am very concerned that a bishop of that faith would put that in a letter. Then we get this other that was handed out here, number 4.
There's something I'm missing here and have been missing for a considerable length of time, because we've been getting these vibes from the Mennonites for a considerable length of time. That's why it's very important that these hearings took place and this legislation wasn't rammed through the way it almost could have been. I think this is a non-partisan thing and it's very serious and there's got to be something done here.
Mr Offer: I'd like to join with Mr Cleary on the letter and on the fax from the Mennonite Central Committee, because I was concerned. Here we have a bishop saying something about the fact of registration. I had thought the concern with the legislation would have been only with respect to the writing of a cheque and, as such, there would be some approval for the provisions, and then the bishop comes and says something different, that the objection is with registration. Now we have the letter from the Mennonite Central Committee, paragraph 4, which I think justifies everything that the bishop said.
Paragraph 4 reads, and I think we have to have this on the record:
"They observe that the present legislation and regulations do not deal with their concerns about registration and the link to `government social assistance programs.' Therefore, they expect" -- this is, I imagine, the Mennonite Central Committee -- "that a number of the members of these groups will simply choose not to register and accept their consequent ineligibility for various OMAF programs and the farm tax rebate."
This is exactly what the bishop has said. So the question that we have, as legislators, is to say, "Are we prepared to put in a piece of legislation a provision which does not meet the concerns of a group of individuals by virtue of their religious conviction and that will, in effect, because of maintaining their religious beliefs, make them ineligible for farm assistance programs? I'm not prepared to do that.
1040
Mr Rolly Stroeter: For the record, I would like to explain a little bit more about this link between number and so-called government assistance programs. The Mennonite community leaders we met with -- Mr Drudge was not part of those meetings, but there were about a dozen to 20 bishops we met with during the various consultations. They explained their concerns to us, that essentially, for many of them, they do not wish to partake in any government assistance programs.
For example, under the Canada pension plan, they've made a special arrangement with the federal government whereby they are assigned a very special number that automatically disentitles them from any benefits under any social legislation or social payment programs. We indeed have discussed that option as well under this bill, and for the bishops, in their view, that would have been a compromise position that they would have been comfortable with, for example, if we were to issue a special number that then subsequently does disentitle them from any programs, because that's central to some of their beliefs.
The fact of the matter is that there are some members of the Mennonite community who do not hold such a strict view of accepting social assistance programs, and as we have heard from the bishop, there are some who do accept the farm tax rebate, as a rebate and not as an assistance program.
We have discussed various options with the bishops on how to deal with this, and as I said, there's a precedent at the federal level with the assignment of a special number, but clearly this would then put the government between the bishops and their community members, their congregation members, because if individuals within the congregation wished to obtain the farm tax rebate, they then were prevented from doing so by having this special number. So, while again it meets the needs of some members of the congregation, it doesn't meet the needs of others. Clearly, this is a complex area and there's a diversity of views and beliefs within any religious community, as the deputy has pointed out.
Alternatively, we looked at other options and within the ministry asked, "Is there any way we could really accommodate everybody's wishes?" One of the things we looked at, the first one, is the way it's in the bill right now. You get exempt from writing the cheque but you still have to go through the registration process, and you obtain a number and then it's up to each individual's beliefs if they wish to take part of the farm tax or not. That's how Bill 42 operates at the moment.
The second option would be the bishops' option, their fallback option, if you like, whereby we would issue a special number that would automatically disentitle any people who have this number from the farm tax rebate program.
The third option would be to open up the whole thing wide and say: "We exempt you from payment and registration. Don't register with us, and by the way, if you want to go to farm tax, go to farm tax, and do as you please." That would be the widest possible and most flexible option. However, this, in our view, also goes against the intent of Bill 42, because Bill 42 is about the registration system of the farming community and it's somewhat central to that.
Then the fourth option would be that we consider exempting them from the payment, but make them register but do not assign a number, don't give them a number but make them register the census information. Then we would have to come up with a scheme whereby any religious exemption orders issued by the tribunal would have to be cross-checked against any applicants to the farm tax program without a number to ensure that those who don't have a number but have a religious exemption order indeed can have access to the farm tax rebate program without a number. But again, I don't think that meets the needs of this bishop, for example, because it's not a number now that is a link; it's the name of the individual.
We have attempted to deal with this very difficult problem and had really come to the conclusion that because there is such a wide variety of views, from the government's perspective and in the context of Bill 42, the exemption order the way it is presently worded is probably the one that is most accommodating to a large segment of the community.
Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I guess section 5 is the part that really jumps out at me, "We are pleading and pleading with you, to make laws that we can obey." I think somehow we have got to do that. We must find a way that they can be accommodated, because to me this group is a very special group with very special beliefs. I agree with what my two colleagues have said, that there just has to be a way or we really will fail. I cannot see that there isn't some way we can accomplish this.
The two options you were speaking about: Do we know whether or not this group has ever applied for any other program except their farm tax rebate? It's my understanding that the only thing they would want is money that they think is theirs to begin with, the farm tax rebate. They have no intention of applying for any other government program. To me, there it is, right there. They are eligible for their farm tax rebate, if that's their choice, and some of them won't even choose to do that, and so they get a special number. If they want a special number that either allows them to get their farm tax rebate or not, if they choose, then is there not some way that we can work it out that way?
Mr Stroeter: I believe it is correct that the Mennonites do not participate in other programs; however, I do not know this for sure. We have selfcontributory programs, for example, like crop insurance and revenue insurance, and I would be surprised if -- that's a different kind of program; I wouldn't want to speak about that. However, in terms of other grant-type programs, you're probably correct. It's likely the farm tax rebate program is one of the larger programs that some members of the community would participate in.
Mrs Fawcett: Is there a way then to assign them the special number and that makes them eligible only for the farm tax rebate, if they choose?
Mr Stroeter: The problem is this doesn't deal with their objection. They object to a link between the registration system and entitlement to a program. That is the fundamental objection here, so that solution would not help.
Mrs Fawcett: Then would the ones who may request their farm tax rebate -- I guess they would then also not register under the normal rules of Bill 42, just to do that. Well, then, we just exempt them completely.
Mr Stroeter: Short of a total --
Mrs Fawcett: It's their choice. There can't be that many of them. We're not talking of a large group here, and in the age of computers I cannot believe that it would be a major problem to deal with this special group in a special way. We have to do it. That's all there is to it, or I really cannot support this section without making that allowance.
Mr Stroeter: I believe that what some members of the Mennonite community would prefer is really a totally separate thing about registration and a totally separate thing about programs, and short of having two separate bills, I don't think we can accomplish that.
Mr McLean: To become a shipper of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board you have to register, and you're assigned a number and you pay a levy and you pay fees to the board for shipping your milk. The milk marketing board has dealt with the Mennonite community, and I would like to know from your ministry what special rights they have with regard to the milk marketing board, because I understand they were given some at the initiative of the milk marketing board. It would be interesting to know whether they pay the fees. I think they wanted exemption from fees for trucking. I think it would be interesting to know what has happened in that instance, because it appears they're asking for something the same here.
1050
Mr Stroeter: I do not have the answer to that question. I'm not familiar with this particular part of the ministry program.
Mr Klopp: I'm not familiar with that either, but one of the things -- when you talk about exemption of a fee and, in fact, in dealing with the consultation, which is also clearly in the letter of June 18, in streamlining, we allow that they don't have to pay a fee to any lobby organization at all. That addresses a long way the issue that I think you're raising about the dairy, how they make exemptions.
The intent of what we're looking for is to register how many farmers there are out there, and clearly they don't even have to give a cheque because originally, when we first started this, they were going to have to send a cheque too. The association said, "That still is sending money to a lobby group and we don't want to even have to send any money to a lobby group at all." We said: "Okay, that's fair. We'll allow an exemption that all you have to do is" -- and the intent of section 21 is to come in -- and all religions can look at this, not just one, but any religious person, for whatever reasons, and they don't have to send a cheque. They just have to register. So I think we've answered that.
Mr McLean: But you haven't given us the criteria by which the tribunal is going to deal with those requests. If you don't know what the criteria are going to be to get an exemption -- you said anyone could apply of their own belief if they believe that they shouldn't have to pay it. What's the criteria for that?
Mr Klopp: I think Louise did try to explain how we set it up, but if she has more clarification, I'll look to her.
Ms Stratford: I can perhaps draw upon the Ontario Labour Relations Board as an example of what this tribunal might look to for some guidance on how to proceed. This section, I should mention, is modelled on the religious objections section from the Labour Relations Act. That board, in dealing with religious objectors, has developed a set of criteria in attempting to assess the nature of an applicant's belief. These criteria have to be general, of course, but basically they are: Are the beliefs sincerely held? Are the beliefs religious? Are they the cause of the objection to paying the fee?
The tribunal presumably would be guided by those same three considerations and would rely upon the leaders of the religious groups to help them with satisfying themselves that a particular religion would dictate against providing a cheque, so it could be established that way.
In the matter of determining whether the individual holds the beliefs, as I suggested before, I think that could be again established through the leaders verifying that the person was a member of the congregation. I don't think it would be an overly complicated matter; it would simply be a determination of that fact.
Mr Offer: The problem I have at this point is I know now that the concerns of the bishop, as brought before the committee, have been verified by the Mennonite Central Committee. Paragraph 4 is clear. I know that now.
I also know that the provisions under the legislation do not meet the concerns of the Mennonite community. I know there are now members in the Mennonite community who, while maintaining their religious beliefs and convictions, also apply and receive the farm tax rebate funds, and I know that if this gets passed into law, there are individuals in the Mennonite community who have received the rebate who will no longer receive the rebate.
Mr Stroeter shakes his head. But paragraph 4 is clear on that. It's absolutely clear that will be the consequence of the passage of this legislation and that section.
Now we have to ask ourselves the question, recognizing what the intent of Bill 42 is, do we place a higher priority on the intent of Bill 42 over the religious convictions of a group of individuals who are impacted by Bill 42? The question is, what's more important? I'll tell you something, I think this is a very serious -- hopefully it will not be because it will be changed, but this could set an extremely serious precedent.
The question is, is the principle of Bill 42 so overridingly important that it must step on the religious convictions of a group, a small group, of individuals who fall underneath Bill 42, or should we looking for some way in which the principles of Bill 42 can be maintained while, at the same time, guaranteeing the ability of some to follow their religious beliefs even though Bill 42 is passed into law? Obviously, if the section applied to both the cheque and registration, it may -- and I don't know it will, but it might -- meet the concerns of those in the Mennonite community if it applied to both areas, cheque-writing and registration.
I see in the letter no real concern by the Mennonite Central Committee over the fact of a tribunal. I don't see that. I see in their letter an acknowledgement of the effort made by the ministry in trying to deal with their concerns, but I also see that it doesn't go all the way.
How is it -- it's less a statement than a question -- that the ministry can justify this particular section knowing the position of the Mennonite Central Committee, especially as found in paragraph 4?
Ms Burak: Mr Offer, I would just respond briefly from the ministry perspective to a number of the points that you made. You stated that the letter from the Mennonite Central Committee emphasizes in point number 4 the problem that apparently all would have with the linking of registration and farm assistance.
Again, I would just repeat two things. First of all, we believe, based on our face-to-face meetings with a large number of representatives from those communities, that a spectrum of beliefs is held, and I think Mr Stroeter did a very good job of outlining from a policy perspective and with this knowledge how we tried to logic out the possible optional ways of respecting that reality.
If you take the point in number 4 to some logical conclusion, again I repeat what Mr Stroeter has said, you have to virtually have two pieces of legislation, one which deals with registration and one which deals with stable funding for farm organizations. It was this consideration that led us to this being the best approach.
1100
Mr Offer: Why is it that there have to be two pieces of legislation, when all you are doing is giving an individual the ability to say, "I know the legislation, but the legislation itself contains a provision where, if I can demonstrate my religious conviction, I'm falling within Bill 42 by saying there's a section within Bill 42 that allows me to, in essence, opt out of 42 while keeping my farm assistance eligibility and religious conviction intact"? There is no need for a second piece of legislation.
I don't see the Mennonite Central Committee saying that. They're saying they're prepared to use the procedure established in 42 to move out, to make their case, to abide by the decision of the tribunal. If the tribunal said yes, as is in the Ontario Labour Relations Act, then they are free, if they wish, no matter where they are on that religious spectrum, to apply for the farm tax rebate or not, but there's no other piece of legislation that's required. In fact, it's using the legislation to accomplish their needs.
I just don't comprehend why the principle of registration under Bill 42, which will be accomplished for thousands and thousands and thousands of farmers, must override the Mennonite community, when it is saying, in essence, "Don't override us; just give us a process to get us out of having to register." I'm sure there's no other fear involved here. I'm sure there's no other fear that others would use that, because I wouldn't think that for a moment. I would believe that only those with specific religious convictions would come before the tribunal and make that case.
The fact is, the mere fact that people come before the tribunal and ask to be exempted from registration is notice to the tribunal of an individual. If one kept a list of all of those who came, you would have a pretty fair idea. So let's be frank about this thing. I think it does not detract from the principle of Bill 42 by accommodating the concerns of the Mennonite Central Committee.
Ms Burak: I don't want to take up too much of the committee's time, but with the reference that Mr Stroeter made and I made to the issue of potentially having two pieces of legislation, we were simply trying to express what we were hearing from some of the members of the community -- it may have been also repeated in some of the minutes of the meetings that were tabled -- that for some there would be a problem with the framework of the legislation having some link between registration and having the compliance with that registration linked to the payment of a fee to a farm organization. In our most sincere efforts to understand their concerns, we did hear that. I apologize for taking so much time.
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Sorry to come in late. Will this be and have to be dealt with by every individual conscientious religious objector, or will a bishop be able to say, "Well, this is the list of people whom I am representing to date," a bishop or someone else within that religious organization?
Mr Stroeter: In our discussions with the Mennonite leaders, we have said that that would be a type of expedited process that hopefully the tribunal would consider. We can't tell the tribunal, really, how to conduct its business because it is independent, but clearly from a practical point of view, we would hope that the tribunal would consider that approach.
Mr Villeneuve: Secondly, will this be an ongoing, annual episode and the tribunal will have to again go over the road it had gone over the previous year to exempt these people?
Mr Stroeter: The policy intent is not to make this an annual process. Clearly, one doesn't change one's religious beliefs that often. However, there are some very practical considerations. For example, in the case of a corporation, and we know that about 13% or 14% of the farm businesses are actual corporations, only one of the members needs to have a certain religious belief and then the farm business can apply as a corporation to be exempted. Corporate structures change more frequently, and people move in and out of corporations, so in those kinds of cases, a more frequent review might be necessary. I think the tribunal would have to ask itself, "How long should we grant such an exemption?" They will have to take that into consideration. But clearly, it wouldn't be practical for a lot of applicants to have to repeat, on a yearly basis, an exemption request.
Mr Villeneuve: In the labour relations legislation, I gather you have verbiage in there that meets the requirements of the Mennonites or the religious objectors.
Mr Stroeter: The fundamental difference is that the labour relations act deals with individuals; we deal with farm businesses. Here we deal with a business entity and that is a complicating factor under Bill 42. The labour relations act deals with individual persons. There are no corporations to be taken into consideration. But I believe that any religious group can find accommodation under the labour relations act. I would also state that there are relatively few orders that were made under this exemption in the labour relations act.
Mr Villeneuve: There's got to be some legal verbiage so that we can accommodate, hopefully without undue hassle, these people who are deeply religious and have convictions probably above and beyond what most of us sitting in this room have. We must respect that.
Mr Stroeter: The problem lies not in the registration as such. As the Mennonite community has stated, it has no problem with registering. The problem lies in linking that registration to a program entitlement. That is the fundamental problem, and short of exempting them totally from registration, it will be very difficult to deal with this.
Mr Villeneuve: I know there's a great deal of ambiguity here and it's not an easy chore, but there's got to be a way where ministry people, legal people, whoever, can get together and understand precisely what they have to have and meet their needs. Surely that can be accommodated.
Mr Klopp: I don't know if you were here earlier, and I know that you are very busy. I know that too. Rolly and the deputy went through a chronological order of all the discussions, as is even stated in the June 18 letter, trying to find the best of all possible worlds. Short of Rolly going through it again, and I know that you've been involved, but I think we have come today under section 21 as best as possible in this imperfect world to recognize all religious groups and people's opinions. I appreciate your comments.
Mrs Fawcett: But Mr Klopp, I just don't feel that we've got there yet. It's just not good enough. We must continue to try, and we must somehow accommodate this group because, as my colleague said, there isn't a more honest group. We know that they're not trying to pull the wool over our eyes, absolutely in no way, and there has to be a way to accommodate them. We have to stop and take a look at it and find the way.
Mr Offer: A recorded vote.
The Chair: Mr Offer has requested a recorded vote. All those in favour of Mr Klopp's motion, please indicate.
Ayes
Cooper, Hansen, Klopp, Waters, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.
The Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Cleary, Fawcett, McLean, Offer, Villeneuve.
The Chair: Mr Klopp's motion is carried.
Shall section 21, as amended, carry?
Mr Offer: Recorded vote.
The Chair: A recorded vote. All those in favour?
Ayes
Cooper, Hansen, Klopp, Waters, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.
The Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Cleary, Fawcett, McLean, Offer, Villeneuve.
The Chair: Section 21, as amended, carries.
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, I have a motion. I apologize for the lack of notice. After hearing the discussion, I would like to move that the committee ask the minister and ministry officials to reopen discussions with representatives of the Amish and Mennonite communities in order to put in the legislation a provision satisfactory to these communities which would allow them to maintain their eligibility for farm assistance programs in keeping with their religious beliefs and convictions.
Mr Klopp: What does that all mean?
The Chair: Thank you for the motion. Mr Offer has indeed moved a motion that is in rather a unique format.
Mr Offer: It's in a manilla envelope.
The Chair: May I suggest a five-minute recess in order for Mr Klopp and his colleagues to have a discussion. Is that agreeable to the committee? Agreed.
The committee recessed from 1113 to 1140.
The Chair: Order. Prior to the recess, Mr Offer had a motion on the floor. I understand, Mr Offer, you're willing to stand that motion down for the time being?
Mr Offer: Agreed.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to reopen section 21 of the bill? There is.
Section 21, as amended, is open for debate and section 21, as amended, can be further amended.
Mr Klopp: I move that the amendment to section 21 of the bill be struck out and that section 21, as set out in this bill, be amended by striking out subsections (1), (2), (3) and (6) and substituting the following:
"Religious objection, individual
"(1) If an individual carries on a farming business and objects to making payment to a farm organization or filing a farming business registration form because of his or her religious convictions or belief, that individual may apply to the tribunal for an order that payment or filing be waived.
"Religious objection, corporation
"(2) If a corporation carries on a farming business and an individual who is a shareholder or member of the corporation objects to the corporation making payment to a farm organization or filing a farming business registration form because of his or her religious convictions or belief, the corporation may apply to the tribunal for an order that payment or filing be waived.
"Religious objection, other entity
"(3) If an entity other than a corporation carries on a farming business and an individual who is a member of the entity objects to the entity making payments to a farm organization or filing a farm business registration form because of his or her religious convictions or belief, the entity may apply to the tribunal for an order that payment or filing be waived.
"Order of tribunal
"(6) If the tribunal is satisfied that an individual referred to in subsection (1), (2) or (3) objects to making payment to a farm organization or filing a farm business registration form because of his or her genuinely held religious convictions or belief, it shall order that payment or filing be waived."
"Non-application of subsection 22(2)
"(7) Subsection 22(2) does not apply to an individual, corporation or entity for which filing is waived by an order under this section."
Ms Stratford: If it's not clear, what that amendment is meant to do is to allow for someone, in addition to applying for an exemption from making payment, to also apply for an exemption from actually registering, and the tribunal will be empowered to make an order granting one or both of those things. If the tribunal does grant an order waiving the requirement for registration, the section provides that subsection 22(2), which says that only a person with a registration number can benefit from ministry programs, will now not apply, the result being that a person with an order from the tribunal would be entitled to benefit from those programs even without having registered.
Mr Offer: Yes, just shortly. On the basis of that amendment, which from my perspective I believe meets the concern of the Mennonite committee as well as the presentation made by Mr John Drudge, then I can support that type of amendment. I believe that keeps the principle as espoused by Bill 42 as well, but most importantly allows individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs not to be disentitled to a farming assistance program to which they are otherwise entitled.
I certainly hope that does meet the concerns of the Mennonite community and the committee. Certainly I would expect there will be some dialogue or discussion with that committee just to make certain that it does in fact meet their concerns, but at this point in time, because I think it does, I'm prepared to vote in favour of that. We will probably be communicating with that committee just to make certain, before final passage of the legislation, that it has in fact met their concerns.
Mr Villeneuve: Simply in addition to what my colleague from Mississauga North has said, I want to thank the parliamentary assistant and the government members here who realize that we were not, in our opinion, meeting the requirements as set out by the Amish bishop when he was here. I think this does it and I think it's most appropriate that we deal with it now in this committee. I thank you all for it.
The Chair: Shall Mr Klopp's amendment carry? All those in favour? Unanimous.
Shall section 21, as amended, carry? Carried.
We'll move to section 29, which was stood down yesterday. On a procedural point, Mr Offer has a motion that he stood down. Do I understand it is withdrawn?
Mr Offer: Yes.
The Chair: We have a Liberal motion. Mr Cleary.
Mr Cleary: I move that section 29 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Appeal from tribunal
"An appeal lies to the Divisional Court from any decision of the tribunal made after a hearing."
I guess this is what you were talking about, Steve. Am I on the right one there, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: As far as I know. It's your motion.
Mr Cleary: What we had felt at that time when we discussed it with our caucus was that any other organization has a further appeal route and that we were just concerned about this particular tribunal. As all of us around this table know, there are going to be lots of problems there and we were just concerned about another route to go after they made their decision.
Mr Klopp: We can't support his motion. I think we already cover in the previous section, 28, that the tribunal may reconsider an order, can go back and look, although section 29 clearly says the decision of the tribunal is final. But the fact is there is an opportunity in section 28 which allows them to review their decisions and the fact is, they have to follow clearly the lines that are given that they have to follow.
This question was asked by a number of people here over the last week that you've asked, and I think Jack Wilkinson explained it the best to me and to all of us that under the realities out there in the farming community, they felt the decision of the tribunal being final -- they understand that someone has to make a decision, and with all the checks and balances that are in place in this in truly the administration form but also, I think Jack would say, in the big political picture out there, that section 29, as is, is fair enough and there's no need for an amendment. Therefore, we will not agree with your amendment.
1150
Mr McLean: In a lot of cases the tribunal may make the decision, but how come there's not a final appeal to the minister?
Mr Klopp: We did try to make this separate from ministers, I believe. It is standard procedure under many things within the farm products marketing issue and the labour.
Ms Burak: I could ask counsel to give us other examples, but again, I can only repeat what Mr Klopp did say, that we felt it would be sufficient, if new or additional information came forward, for the tribunal to reconsider its decision.
Mr McLean: In most cases, there is an appeal. If the decision is not satisfactory to the individuals, there should be a final appeal to the minister and his decision should be final.
Mr Klopp: My understanding is that with the farm products marketing tribunal and also through the minister, there is always that provision. Maybe I'm explaining it wrong. This is technical stuff here; sorry. Let the deputy.
Ms Burak: Mr McLean, there is a provision for the Farm Products Appeal Tribunal, where the minister can -- and I don't recall the exact wording, but some reference can be made to the minister. I would just point out that that act was written, I believe, over 20 years ago and if it were being brought into the House today, such a provision -- where a tribunal which you're trying to set up to be independent of political influence -- we would not today insert a provision like that.
Mr Cleary: I'd like the parliamentary assistant to explain his comments when he was explaining to me. He said "to go back and look." What does that mean?
Mr Klopp: To review their decision. Section 28: "The tribunal may reconsider any orders...made and may affirm or replace the order."
Mr Offer: This is a matter, if memory serves me, that was brought up very early on in the hearings. The tribunal has a great deal of power and it will be making decisions and there is no appeal process from its initial decision. It says under section 28 that the tribunal may reconsider its own order. In other words, the tribunal may change its mind. There is nothing in the legislation as to how you do that, and you have to ask yourself the question: Is it right that a tribunal with this amount of power is in essence its own appeal board? How do people get there? What's required to reconsider its decision? How many times can it be brought before the committee? What if the tribunal makes an error as to whether it should or should not reconsider the matter apart from the matter itself?
If a worker in this province gets injured and there is a decision made as to the amount of compensation that worker should receive and the worker disagrees with that, under the Workers' Compensation Act there is a right of appeal. In employment standards, there are rights of appeal. If a person gets a licence taken away under the Consumer and Commercial Relations legislation, there's a right of appeal.
There is an acknowledgement in a variety of sections that sometimes, just sometimes, the board that initially makes a decision might be wrong; not is wrong, but just might be wrong. Because of that, it gives to those individuals the right to go to another body. We have that for injured workers. We have that for insurance agents, real estate agents, a variety of individuals in this province, but we don't have it, apart from the court system, for farmers. In fact, I think, earlier on, there is indeed, even within OMAF, a body that sits almost as a tribunal -- a review type of body, an appeal body.
I know that in these times we talk about restraint, and I know that we talk about we don't want to create new bureaucracies and we want to save dollars wherever possible, but what we are talking about here is an individual's right to have an initial decision reviewed because that tribunal just might be wrong.
I don't believe it is sufficient or appropriate that the only way in which an individual, a farmer in this province, can have that matter reviewed is to the same body if the body decided that it should review it. I don't believe it's fair that people have to resort to the court system, and I know how they can get there.
I believe it is possible under OMAF that existing bodies be seized with the responsibility of reviewing, if necessary, initial decisions from a tribunal. I think that the bill is quite deficient in this area. If any of us get a parking ticket, if any of us get a speeding ticket, if any of us get any charge, if any of us have a licence taken away and we don't agree with the decision made at first instance, we have the right to go somewhere else, but if you're a farmer you don't, and that's what Bill 42 in this section is about.
Mr Klopp: Maybe I could get legal counsel to expand a little bit on the rationale of why we can't support section 29 as you would like to amend it.
Ms Stratford: The motion that has been proposed is for an appeal to the Divisional Court. The scheme under the bill is to create an expert tribunal, a panel of up to seven individuals who will be chosen on the basis of their experience and knowledge of agriculture. Those people will be making findings on some very important matters, but within, I suggest, some quite narrow confines in terms of issues that they'll be looking at when you consider what they'll be deciding.
They'll be deciding accreditation. How will they be deciding that? They'll be looking at a set of criteria and they will be asking themselves, "Are these criteria met or not?" If the answer is yes, they are told to grant the accreditation. If the answer is no, they are told not to. There is no residual discretion to ask themselves other questions. The issues are narrow.
In the case of special funding for francophone organizations, it's the same type of approach. There are prescribed criteria. The tribunal will test against the criteria, answer yes or no. Religious objectors, there will be a couple of questions the tribunal will be asking itself. We have already discussed here today how those applications will probably be facilitated through information coming from leaders of the religious group and various ways in which the tribunal will be able to arrive at findings of fact.
The motion that's proposed would see those kinds of questions going to the Divisional Court on an appeal. Consider who would be hearing this appeal. You would have some justices from the courts, probably in Toronto, three of them, thinking about whether the tribunal made a right decision as to whether a particular criterion was met. What kind of position are those justices going to be in? In order to make that kind of finding they will need to look at transcripts. Will the tribunal have transcripts? It's not contemplated that they will. The procedures are meant to be rather informal. If there are to be appeals on facts, then that will have to be looked at. The tribunal will have to ensure that the court will have something to have regard to on an appeal and will have to formalize the procedure. I don't think that's to the benefit of the people who will be appearing before the tribunal.
These days it is extremely rare to give an appeal on facts. It's almost unheard of. Legal writers today suggest that this type of power is most inappropriate for a court to have and the only type of appeal that should be contemplated is one on a question of law, and even then only with leave. As the bill stands now, already there is a remedy that you can go to Divisional Court on judicial review. On a judicial review you can have the court consider, "Did the tribunal make a mistake?" The issues that the court can look at are jurisdictional and errors of law in the face of the record. Again, legal writers have noted, these days the court is able to characterize just about anything as coming within its ambit of power on a judicial review. So I think the safeguards are certainly there. There is a remedy.
1200
The tribunal's ability to reconsider: As you say, there are no rules about how that's exercised. The reason that there are no rules is because the intent is to give the tribunal a full latitude to be able to reconsider in any kind of case. It's not restricted to particular mistakes or grounds. The tribunal has wide-open discretion to go right in there and look again. And because the tribunal has been set up to sit in panels of three, you would have another panel, presumably, that could rehear the matter. That other panel would be a fresh set of people to reconsider the facts, and I think that would be a very effective avenue to pursue. So in terms of the ministry's intent here to have a process that's expert, that's fair, that has an opportunity to correct problems, I think that's been filled by Bill 42 as it stands now.
Mr Villeneuve: This question could be to legal counsel or the parliamentary assistant, whomever. Section 29 says seven words: "A decision of the tribunal is final." Yet I think I heard that there is a recourse that legal counsel has suggested. The farm products marketing board is another avenue. Did I hear that right?
Mr Klopp: No, I was on a different wavelength with the deputy. I apologize. She was just giving an example of another organization over here. Sorry about that.
Mr Villeneuve: If I were to assume that our amendment to 33 would pass, I would have less problem. However, we're dealing with 29.
The Chair: As you're aware, we're on 29.
Mr Villeneuve: We're on 29, yes; 29 always comes before 33.
With the presentations that were made, we would hope that there would not be a lot of dispute, but inevitably there will be because of what we heard in the last 10 days. I don't think there's any doubt about that. The one farm organization that was initially recognized came through very, very loudly very much against whatever seems to be proposed here.
Would this be a matter that would be in the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman of the province of Ontario? I tell you, I would suggest that as the last recourse because of the time and all the rest of it. Is this an arm of government?
Ms Stratford: Yes, the tribunal's decisions would be reviewable by the Ombudsman.
Mr Villeneuve: Okay. With 29 in there, "A decision of the tribunal is final," that is not the case then.
Ms Stratford: The purpose of 29 is to make clear that there is no appeal and that the tribunal's decision is judicially reviewable because it is a final order.
Mr Villeneuve: Then I have a problem with that stating that bare fact when indeed other avenues are there. I realize you've just explained the legal sense of it. I as a farmer would say, "Gosh, I've come to a solid wall here," when indeed it's not. Is there a need for 29?
Mr Russell Yurkow: What the section means as final is final as to findings of fact. What is reviewable is if there has been a denial, say, of natural justice or an opportunity to appear or to make representation. In that situation, an aggrieved party can go to the court and say, "I'm not questioning the decision, I'm questioning the process; it was not fair," in which case the court, if it agreed, would send it back for a proper hearing.
But counsel was pointing this out: What a court is reluctant to do is to overturn a specialized tribunal on questions of fact, because a court generally doesn't feel it has the expertise to in effect second-guess a tribunal on questions that are within the expertise of the tribunal. A court would look at what it considered to be errors in law or in procedure. I'm not sure if that clarifies your point.
Mr Villeneuve: In legal jargon I understand you, but in layman's terms it looks pretty final. If someone were not to obtain legal counsel or advice from someone who may read Hansard here, which I doubt very few will, they may just turn away and say it's over when indeed it's not, and that's my concern.
Mr Cleary: We thought about this amendment for some period of time before we finally got it drafted, and I know this tribunal is going to be very busy. I know there are lots of concerns out there and they're going to have lots of challenges.
I stand corrected on this: Legal counsel has said that three members are a tribunal. We have heard here at this committee that sometimes all members would have to be present, the seven of them, and I just want that cleared up.
Ms Stratford: Mr Cleary, I will clarify that for you. You're quite correct. In some instances the tribunal may well choose to sit with all seven members present. I was really alluding to their ability to sit in panels of three, and if that had been the case, then a reconsideration could be by another panel. But you're quite right, if all seven had been at the initial ruling, then yes, you wouldn't be able to have yet another three people reconsider, you would have to call upon the original group again.
Mr McLean: That is just where the confusion is, because there is no appeal then. I was wondering if you agreed with what legal counsel had to say at the front, his statement that he made there a few minutes ago, his interpretation of it in law.
Ms Stratford: Of this provision, the decision is final?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Ms Stratford: Yes, that's the intention of that provision, to make clear that there is no appeal. It doesn't foreclose judicial review. If it were meant to do that, it would have to go on to say, "And cannot be reviewed by any court," and go on at some length to foreclose the court's jurisdiction.
Mr McLean: But shouldn't there be a section in there that would indicate that there is an appeal process then?
Ms Stratford: There is the section which allows the tribunal to reconsider. That's in there.
Mr McLean: It may reconsider, but I can tell you that if a tribunal of three makes a decision, you're not going to see three others from the same board come and overturn that decision. They wouldn't get along very well very long if that was what was happening, would they?
Ms Stratford: That in fact is how all the courts of this land operate. You have colleagues on the same court overturning each other on a regular basis.
Mr McLean: Finally, I just fail to see -- there should be a final appeal able to be made to the minister if they're not satisfied.
The Chair: All in favour of Mr Cleary's motion? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Shall section 29 of the bill carry?
Mrs Fawcett: Wait a minute, wasn't it five to five?
Interjection: Have a recorded vote.
The Chair: Before there's a major confab, shall section 29 carry? On a recorded vote, all in favour?
Mrs Fawcett: Just a moment.
Mr Offer: The vote was already called, the number was taken, and now, as a tie, it's up to the Chair to cast. We already took the vote.
Mr McLean: Mr Chair, on a point of order: I think it's fairly simple. All you have to do is make a decision on which way you're going to vote.
The Chair: We have a tie vote on section 29. The Chairman casts his vote with the government.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Nice try, guys.
The Chair: Section 29 of the bill carries.
It is 1210. We will recess until 2 pm.
The committee recessed from 1211 to 1405.
The Chair: We will now deal with section 33 of the bill. Mr Cleary, I believe you have a motion.
Mr Cleary: I move that section 33 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"The standing committee on the Legislative Assembly shall, not later than three years after this act comes into force, undertake a comprehensive review of the program and shall, within one year after beginning that review, make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly regarding the appeal of, or amendments to, this act."
The Chair: Do you wish to speak to your motion?
Mr Cleary: Yes. Since we've heard from both sides of the agricultural community on this issue, we feel very strongly that this amendment would probably help unite the agriculture community after these hearings.
Mr Klopp: Thank you, Mr Cleary, for your motion. Unfortunately, we feel that the way the section now stands, that the minister may review this act three years after it comes into effect, satisfies a lot of the issues out there. I've heard too from both sides and I think a lot of people have said they are opposed to the bill or opposed to any amendments short of scrapping the bill, which is fine. Other people who are for the bill agree that "may review" is a good alternative and in fact I think Dona Stewardson said one day, "If it's not broke, why do you want to fix it?"
Your motion makes a review have to happen, and that's an expense, but clearly also our section 33 gives clear intent to any farm organization out there that the minister or the government isn't just going to leave this carte blanche; it does give notice that you have to work and make this thing as smooth as possible. Because your motion clearly states it has to happen, I don't feel that is necessary and I can't support your motion.
Mr Cleary: I totally disagree with your comments. I know that if these hearings hadn't taken place, a lot of things in this bill would have been missed. I'm sure it was an educational process for each of us, not only the opposition, but the government as well, because I'm sure it didn't know what was in this bill either and the feeling of the community out there. I only feel that if this review was to take place after three years, it would be another educational process and we'd learn a lot.
Mr Villeneuve: To Mr Cleary: Recommendations from a committee to the Legislative Assembly may or may not be acted upon and I have some doubts about it. We've had many reports from committees that have been shelved. We also have an amendment which would report directly to the minister. We will have a little problem supporting this, because I believe coming back to the Legislative Assembly would mean that House leaders would have it in their prerogative to consider it or to ignore it. I have a problem with that.
Mr McLean: Looking at this amendment, I know where the member is coming from and I know what his thoughts are with regard to a review. I'm not so sure it's all bad, because maybe there should be a review a year from now, after this tribunal has been in place for a while, and find out that it's not all that easy. So while his amendment is not being accepted by the government, I think it was worth the discussion it has had.
Mrs Fawcett: I'm in total agreement with this motion.
The Chair: All in favour of Mr Cleary's motion, please indicate. All opposed? The motion is defeated.
Mr Villeneuve: I move that section 33 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"Review of the act
"33. After three years have elapsed since the coming into force of this act, a select or standing committee of the Legislature shall conduct a review of the act to recommend to the minister whether it is advisable that the act continue in force."
Again, as my colleague from Simcoe East has suggested, I know where my colleague from Cornwall is coming from, but I've seen too many recommendations from committees go unheeded or not listened to. This would mandate a select or standing committee of this Legislature, all parties, to conduct a review of the act and recommend to the minister who is responsible for this act whether it's advisable to continue or to whatever. The recommendations would come from a committee to the minister responsible. I think that has considerably more weight in that it is coming to give some guidance to the minister who is responsible.
I would strongly urge my colleagues to look at this in a positive light, as we looked at previous amendments which, in most instances, were defeated by the government, particularly on item 29, where it gives somewhat of a false impression that the decision of a tribunal is final. We would now have the opportunity to come to a committee, such as we are here this afternoon, an all-party committee, explain our frustrations if indeed they are, or explain why the GFOs should remain, or explain why some changes should occur, and it would be going to the minister.
Mr Klopp: As always, you've put a lot of thought behind your motion, but I'm afraid we will be voting against your motion basically for the reasons already mentioned earlier. Section 33 does give direction clearly that the minister, the government of the time, may look at this particular bill and indeed, though it doesn't say, review the -- it says review the act, but that leaves the door open for the minister of the time to look at standing committees and to do lots of options. Maybe he'd want to -- I don't know -- make all kinds of wide consultation.
The fact remains, though, that the system may be working well. Let's look at it in a positive light. I think you've made comments that you'd like to see this thing work, farmers work together. The fact that the program's refundable now, I think to say the minister "shall" again forces an issue, an expense, that may not need to happen. Therefore, though I understand where the member is coming from, I do feel that section 33, how it is written, does allow all those flexibilities that are there and that you've talked about.
Mr Villeneuve: The parliamentary assistant, the member for Huron, I think has to realize that this is "shall" to a committee which will report; it's not "shall" to the minister, it's "shall" to a committee. If no one registers a requirement to present to the committee, then quite obviously there is no problem. If indeed we have a week of hearings that express concerns and may well also express positives, then the minister has some food for thought to decide. It's in the minister's hands and no one but the minister's hands. Therein is the slight difference, or the major difference, if you will, from my colleagues in the Liberal party who want a report to the Legislature. As you well know, reports to the Legislature tend to get lost between the committee room and the Legislature. This would be to the minister with some guidance. I think that's important.
If, after advertising that there will be hearings, there is no reaction, there is no one who wants to speak to the standing committee, pro or con, we have a vehicle that's working well. The minister then can very easily say, "We proceed or we amend."
I respectfully request your consideration on this.
Mr Cleary: I guess we will probably support this amendment. I would've like to have seen it a little bit different but that's what we're talking about now. For the parliamentary assistant to say about the expense of having these hearings ahead of an all-party committee, I find that hard to accept because after I know what's going to happen with this tribunal, seven members plus staff, and I hear about travelling the province, I think these hearings would only be peanuts to what that committee is going to cost.
Mrs Fawcett: Yes, I can see where we can support this since our own amendment has been lost. But I would also maybe remind the member that reports to ministers have been known to get lost or get shelved as well. However, I think what I have a problem with is the giant leap of faith that we will have to take here, that if there is in fact something wrong and if farmers do find that this is not working, the minister then may decide to look at things.
I guess that's what really -- I mean, sure, if everything is working fine, then that will be wonderful. If all farmers are happy with it, well, we'll all be very happy. But it's just this "may" that -- if something is wrong, will the minister take a look at it, I guess is what we really have a problem with. This section 33 that is being presented by the PCs -- and in fact it was put by us -- would ensure that it definitely is looked at.
Mr Klopp: I think the fact that the minister of the day, our parliamentary procedure, the public pressures that come out and the day-to-day operations, the minister, no matter who it is -- and the government -- will very clearly know if things aren't working or are working with our section 33 as printed. I think in the real world out there --
Mrs Fawcett: But they may or may not react.
Mr Klopp: Well, I think in the real world we've seen political pressure. If things are working that bad and it clearly states that the minister may act, I'm sure the minister of the day, especially if it's anyone I know, will definitely act. In fact, section 33 does give the power to act.
It also sets clearly that he or she will not just let this thing go on its merry way and allow the negative things that might happen in the system as it works its way through the next three years.
I hear your comments, I understand where you're coming from, but I do believe, from what I've heard from the general comments out in the farm community, that section 33 is the best of all worlds. It clearly states that, I think. We've talked about it. Therefore, I can't accept your amendment, sir.
Mr Villeneuve: I thought sure I had the parliamentary assistant almost convinced. But let's look and remember the people who made presentations here. Let's remember, those people who were against this bill did not want any amendments, they just didn't want the bill, period.
Those people who were in favour, and I speak of Mr Sulliman, Mr George and a number of people from the federation of agriculture and I believe the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario as well, had no problem with a review. We don't know what the next minister will look like, and it may well be the present minister, three years hence.
1420
However, if you were minister, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, would you not like some guidance from a committee, with some input as we've had here for the last almost two weeks of grass roots? We have a different animal roving the rural routes of Ontario, an animal that answers to seven people known as a tribunal.
We have in this legislation item 29, which says there's no recourse; the tribunal's decision is final. Would it not be kind of comfortable for farmers, if for no one else, to know that three years down the road there will be a chance to express some opinion -- good, bad or indifferent? That's all we're looking for.
Mr Klopp: A couple of comments. I understand the OFA position has been that they're happy with the discretionary section 33, the way it is written. There has been a number of farmers -- I know you asked a lot, and I think you've got it about right with the ones who are against the bill: nothing at all. But also there were those who felt the bill was fine. Dona Stewardson is one that comes to mind, and I think Fred -- I forgot his last name.
Mr Villeneuve: Max Sabey, in my riding.
Mr Klopp: They said they felt that "may" was the proper way. It clearly states that no one's off the hook. The government of the day can't say, "Well, we had an act that says we couldn't review it." It also doesn't force a minister and a government to have to make all the farmers come together again and talk about this issue, and I say that in a nice way.
Therefore, I hear your points, but from my sense of what we've done in the last two and a half years of working on this bill, the way we've written up section 33 does give everybody the ability to pressure government to open up this act and to review it. Also, if the public pressure isn't there, as Dona Stewardson said, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it." It allows the government of the day to make a well-managed decision that they are paid to do.
Mr Cleary: There's one thing we must remember here. The parliamentary assistant keeps referring to organizations. We have a whole new bunch of players here. We have 60,000-plus farmers who all should have a say in this, and when we are not democratic enough to listen to these people and give them an opportunity, if we're not going to do it now, at a later date there's going to be something drastically wrong with the system.
Mrs Fawcett: Just very briefly, I want to remind the parliamentary assistant that in the original Bill 105, this was significantly different. It was "shall review" and even "consider a vote at that time." So you haven't been on the same wave length for the full two-plus years that you have been putting this bill together. It's only this Bill 42 that is a little bit different. You changed your mind and decided that it only needed to be "may," which I don't believe. I believe it should be "shall."
Mr Klopp: On that point, Bill 105 also was quite a different animal compared to this.
Mrs Fawcett: Oh yes, it wasn't stable funding then. Come on.
Mr Klopp: No, but it was mandatory, non-refundable. Therefore it was felt that if it was going to be mandatory, then at some point, as people said when we were in the hearings and in talking out there in the public, maybe there should be a section where we make a review possible.
When we changed the bill that became now Bill 42, it was mandatory refundable and many farmers out there -- not all of them, but many -- then realized too, "You're allowing me to have a vote with my chequebook." Therefore we didn't have to have, we felt, such strong language.
I will stand by my comment that with many of the public out there who actually didn't have a position one way or the other, for or against, after they reviewed the bill and made comments -- and probably will support this down the road -- said that section 33, where the minister sets out clearly that he may review to keep everyone on their toes, is the best opportunity now. That's why we did make this change.
Mrs Fawcett: That may be so, but we must also remember that the bill contains many sections and not just the one refundable part. We would think that the whole bill should be reviewed in three years.
Mr McLean: Bill 105 had "shall" in it. Could I ask the deputy minister why it was changed to "may"?
Ms Burak: I would only repeat what Mr Klopp said: The first bill was mandatory registration, mandatory payment of fee. This is significantly different in that the fee is refundable. As Mr Klopp said, many in the farm community felt, and the ministry feels, that with that very significant change, this is an appropriate review clause.
Mr McLean: But we were talking about a review of that bill; we're talking about a review of this bill. So what is the major difference? I don't see any major difference. The question bears repeating: Why was it changed?
Ms Burak: I was trying to explain that the original bill was significantly different by virtue of the fact that the funding component of it was mandatory, non-refundable. This bill is a refundable scheme, a much less onerous scheme, and therefore "may" rather than "shall" on the review.
Mr McLean: I understand that very clearly, but I must say that there are clauses in this bill that are no more clear than the clauses that were in the other bill, and therefore there should not have been any difference whether this one should have been reviewed or the previous one reviewed. So I support the amendment that "shall" shall be there.
The Chair: All in favour of the motion, please indicate. Those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Shall section 33 of the bill carry? Carried.
Mr Klopp: I move that section 34 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Commencement
"34. This act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent."
The Chair: Do you wish to provide rationale for the motion?
Mr Klopp: It's proposed that this section be amended to bring the act into force on royal assent. We feel there is really no need to delay the coming into force of this act, so the extra step that is needed in proclaiming an act is not warranted here. That's basically the straight goods for that.
The Chair: All in favour of Mr Klopp's motion, please indicate. Those opposed? The motion is carried.
Shall section 34, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 35 of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
That concludes the clause-by-clause analysis of Bill 42. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the staff that's been assigned to this committee: Tannis Manikel, the clerk of the committee; Jerry Richmond, the legislative researcher; Mr Yurkow, legislative counsel; the staff from Hansard and broadcast and recording service, who as usual have done an excellent job in making sure that everything we've said and done has been recorded accurately.
I'd also like to thank Rolly Stroeter, Louise Stratford and Rita Burak, the deputy minister, for being here throughout the committee hearings and providing excellent pieces of clarification when requested and sometimes going over and above the call of duty in trying to make sure we have the information we need.
I'd also like to sincerely thank each and every member of the committee for the cooperative spirit that has been demonstrated throughout these hearings. It was clear to me from the outset that every member of this committee was truly interested in this bill, truly interested in its impact on agriculture. I hope that through this bill the agricultural community is well served.
Mr McLean: Mr Chairman, yesterday I requested some information and I believe Mr Stroeter has that information today.
Mr Stroeter: Mr McLean, you inquired about the case where a land owner rented some part of his farm land to another farming operation. Would the land owner who is not a farm business have to register under Bill 42? The answer is no, they would not have to register under Bill 42, and yes, they would be entitled to the farm tax rebate.
Mr McLean: Would that farm tax rebate be on the land only, exempting a residence and one acre or two residences and two acres?
Mr Stroeter: Yes. As a matter of principle, we only rebate on farm land, not residential buildings.
Mr McLean: So the owner of that farm land would be able to apply for a farm tax rebate due to the fact that he had rented his property to another individual who was within the qualifications, and he would therefore get 75% or whatever the percentage of his land tax returned.
Mr Stroeter: That is correct, sir.
The Chair: The committee will adjourn shortly. I'll remind members that there will be a brief subcommittee meeting to deal with the graduated licences issue, which is next before this committee in the coming week.
The committee adjourned at 1432.