ESSEX COUNTY FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
CANADIAN FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
KELLI CROWLEY
MARY-LOU GARR
BETTY SEMENIUK
DONA STEWARDSON
CONTENTS
Thursday 26 August 1993
Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993, Bill 42
Essex County Federation of Agriculture
William Olson, past-president
Ray Burell, first vice-president
Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Jack Wilkinson, president
Kelli Crowley; Mary-Lou Garr; Betty Semeniuk; Dona Stewardson
Dave Older
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
*Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L) for Mr Conway
Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND) for Mr Waters
Murdoch, Bill (Grey-Owen Sound PC) for Mr Turnbull
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND) for Ms Murdock
Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC) for Mr Jordan
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Burak, Rita, deputy minister, Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND)
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1010 in the St Clair/Thames Room, Macdonald Block, Toronto.
FARM REGISTRATION AND FARM ORGANIZATIONS FUNDING ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSCRIPTION DES ENTREPRISES AGRICOLES ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES AGRICOLES
Consideration of Bill 42, An Act to provide for Farm Registration and Funding for Farm Organizations that provide Education and Analysis of Farming Issues on behalf of Farmers / Loi prévoyant l'inscription des entreprises agricoles et le financement des organismes agricoles qui offrent des services d'éducation et d'analyse en matière de questions agricoles pour le compte des agriculteurs.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): I'd like to call this meeting of the standing committee on resources development to order. We'll continue with our public hearings on Bill 42, an act to provide for farm registration and funding for farm organizations.
ESSEX COUNTY FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our first presenters this morning, from the Essex County Federation of Agriculture. Could you please come forward.
Mr William Olson: I have to apologize. One person's in the bathroom right now, so he'll be here in a second.
The Vice-Chair: We'll give you a moment.
Just for the information of the committee, it's my understanding that we will have a summary of this week's proceedings available on Monday, hopefully, for all members of the committee. Anyway, we'll proceed.
As you know, you'll be allowed up to a half-hour for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd leave about half that time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. As soon as you're ready, could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.
Mr Olson: I'm Bill Olson. I'm past president of the Essex county federation. I'm also OFA provincial director for the last three to four years. There is a prepared statement coming when the gentleman comes in here. I apologize that you people don't have copies, okay? We were supposed to be here at 3:30 yesterday afternoon. It seems like machinery likes to break down, and even government does sometimes, I guess.
Over the years, in working for the federation in the county and working for the OFA, I've worked on probably signing up 200 members of the Essex county federation to OFA, and the trouble is -- the year of 1988 I was very thankful to our MP Steven Langdon and Roger George to help us get some drought money down there. I guess also that there were MPPs in this room who probably instigated help getting that money too.
But I guess the viewpoint is, over the years that I've sold memberships and been in organizations I've seen the buck passed, and I guess the buck passed for the reason that on the work that the people did in the county and the commitment from the farmers' union, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, and the OFA and the Essex county federation, my viewpoint is I figure the people who have been the carpetbaggers of this industry or the people who have leached on to the people who have done the work in the county or the work through the government, through MPs and legislators and whatever -- but I guess the viewpoint there is, I don't think there should be a free ride.
The free ride is that I've seen people who have known that there was money coming out from the legislation from the federal and provincial governments before even, I think, the MPs knew there was money coming out. I guess my own viewpoint is, I lost a farm in 1988 during the drought, but I have the respect of our MPs and MPPs and Roger George of the OFA. He was first vice at that time. A lot of this money during the drought in 1988 would have gone to the west, would have been generated to the west, but these people in these organizations were up front and knew that if we didn't have to stand up for the farmers in our own county or in southwestern Ontario, we wouldn't have ever got any of that money during the drought.
This is past history, but the trouble is, I have a very hard time recognizing that there are people out there who don't want to pay their fair share for the people who have worked. I'm leaving it off at that.
I'm going to introduce the first vice of Essex county. He's going to go over some points on a piece of paper, and I'm throwing it back to you guys to come back at us.
The Vice-Chair: Could you start off by introducing yourself for the record, please.
Mr Ray Burell: Yes. My name is Ray Burell. I'm the first vice-president of Essex county OFA. I'm here today on behalf of the Essex federation in support of the group there. We believe in stable funding for the simple reason that we must have an organization to represent the farmers to be able to work with government and the government to work with us and know who these people are.
I also believe that the government should have some way of knowing who the farmers are out there. There are tax dollars being spent on people who are not farmers and are representing themselves as farmers.
I don't believe the government knows where all the farmers are in Ontario and who they are. Somebody can have a two-acre plot, call himself a farmer and help himself in not paying the sales tax or other portions of it.
As far as opposition to the stabilization, there's a lot of people arguing that you're forced into something, but it is for the good of the farm people in the province of Ontario. We have unemployment insurance. There's a lot of people who never use it, will never use it in their lifetime, pay into it. It's part of the system. The system is to help the others, not just for the personal individual.
I think that we should have a choice in what we belong to, but we're not pushing stable funding to the point of trying to make a system for just a few and not the rest. We're trying to build a system that is open, fair to everyone and the people who are in it to use it. The people who are not in that part of the organization shouldn't be using it. This is our belief.
Other than that, I'll leave it up to you gentlemen to what your views are when it comes to putting the bill through for us.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Questions and comments. We have about seven minutes from each caucus. From the government side, Mr Hansen.
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I notice you brought up the point of the 8% sales tax. You feel this is a real abuse by a lot of people with two acres coming in and that this money generated legally, let's say, to the government, would wind up helping farmers in the sense where there would be more money in the government to promote programs, maybe, in agriculture.
Mr Burell: Yes, I do believe that. I know where there are cases that there are people taking advantage of that. There are other programs similar to that which are being abused by the people, and I honestly believe that the government, in its best efforts, doesn't realize how many dollars have been lost to groups outside of farmers.
Mr Hansen: So you feel that farmers would be treated more fairly in the sense that if you had this registration number, when you went into an implement dealer or feed store, whatever the case may be, as soon as you identify yourself, just like a business that has an exemption from paying sales tax, you would wind up -- and you are in business, in a small business that -- automatically you'll wind up -- but somebody who comes walking in and the implement dealer says: "Do you farm? Do you have over 10 acres?", and he says, "Oh, yes," and away he goes with a garden tractor where maybe it's a 17- or 18-horse. He's not paying GST. I believe it's over 18-horse. So this would actually stop a lot of abuse, of people abusing the whole system. So there's more to this than just what benefits farmers; it benefits the taxpayers of Ontario also.
Mr Burell: That's right.
Mr Hansen: You were talking about the drought in 1988, I believe. Can you tell us exactly the help that came, just to get it on the record, because a lot of us don't come from Essex and at that particular time maybe I didn't read in the paper of the help that did come down through the work of Roger George and the MPPs. If it wasn't for the OFA, as you said, the money would have gone out west, most likely.
1020
Mr Olson: Right. I guess the whole thing there -- at that time I was the president of Essex county. There was real concern from my MP and Roger George that there was election money or possibly money that was going to be passed on out west. They had a drought at the same time. Gentlemen, we have a drought in Essex county right now, and the trouble is we haven't had the rain. We might be in the position of coming back, as we did two years ago, and giving you a brief on what's going to be down there this fall.
But I guess the whole thing there was, it was work between the county and the main organization. It was work with your MPPs. I guess the viewpoint was, a lot of people have the feeling that the people who are in some of these positions are just running out for headlines, running out for a job down the road. I was not. I was representing the farmers at one end of the county. I get most of my phone calls at 11:30 at night until 2:30 in the morning. You guys know how you feel. I had that for that year too. But the trouble is, it was the information and it was the input and the close net with your MPs or MPPs and/or farm organizations to get this rolling. I did not run out there and say they had to give us money, but all we can do as a lobby system, as the Essex county federation or OFA, we're a lobby group and we can make that concern to you guys.
Mr Hansen: So you feel that an individual farmer going to his MPP doesn't have the strength of a whole province of Ontario speaking with one united voice.
Mr Olson: Right. But also, the one thing that I will throw in to you from this point forward as a provincial director and as past president and membership chairman of Essex county, they have three choices: They show the OFA card, they show the National Farmers Union card, they show the Christian Farmers card, or they go and nail you guys. I don't think you want those guys standing on your doorsteps crying for everything that they should have.
Mr Hansen: Well, it makes it a lot easier if the whole area is looked at as an area, not as -- I mean, you have to look at individual farms, but then you yourself would be gathering information on a lot of the damage that was done. There is crop insurance also, but there's still another viewpoint there also that maybe had been overlooked there.
That's all the questions I have. Thanks for coming today.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Just briefly, thank you very much for coming forward and giving us your verbal presentation in support of the bill.
Just a brief question on the voting that will be taking place. People have the choice of sending a cheque for $150 and directing it to an organization of their choice, and I just want to know if you feel that this is a voting procedure that would be fair and would register all of the farmers and give them the opportunity to voice their vote through their chequebook to the organization.
Mr Olson: I'm going to throw that to the first vice.
Mr Wood: Okay.
Mr Burell: We believe that they should be registered. That's one way of finding out who the farmers are for the government, so the government knows who they are, and if they want their money back, that's fine. I have no objection to that, because we can talk to those people and try to find out, if they want to have their money back, what it is that we're not doing or somebody's not doing properly that creates them wanting the dues returned.
I think it would help strengthen the organization from the perspective of a strong farm organization and also maybe bring out some of the things in government that we don't see or it doesn't see that they can bring forward to us that we can pass back to government, if they have a grievance of some nature. I don't know just what it would be.
I have no objection to them asking for their money back, but I think all farmers should be registered, or some way of knowing who they are, because there is abuse out there and it's much greater than what we think it is.
Mr Wood: That's the only question I had.
Mr Cleary (Cornwall): Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. Just maybe a bit of a question. I know that we've had presenters in the previous few days, some not too far from where you people live. We don't like to see the agriculture community split, and we were just wondering what advice you as federation members could give this committee on how we should be handling these other organizations, because we would like to see the farm community more united than it possibly will be after this goes through.
Mr Olson: The whole thing is, I have no trouble, I think our county has no trouble, showing the membership list to every one of you guys in this building. We have over 700 members out of I think 1,600 census farms. Most of the farmers in the county have pretty close to 500-acre farms. At one time, that's probably five farms that have been gobbled up. If you want to stay in business, you pretty well have to be a 500-acre farmer or more.
I guess if the other two organizations -- one organization is fighting against it, one person who lives in my county. I have no trouble, I've sold memberships right around that fellow. But the trouble is, I'm willing to show 700 memberships. Are they willing to show the 25 memberships that they hold in Essex county?
Mr Cleary: The other thing is the tribunal. You have no concerns about the tribunal and its powers?
Mr Olson: I guess you got to come back, on the tribunal are you saying the three-year vote down the road or -- I've been in the field the last couple to eight weeks trying to make up for what I've lost being at these meetings, I guess. So come back to me, John. I don't know. If we have these people back here from my parent, I'd rather have them touch on that.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Maybe I'll just add in. The tribunal has significant powers under Bill 42. It can accredit GFOs, it can take away, it can review them, it can determine the eligibility for special funding for the francophone GFO, it can act as a decision-maker in terms of people declaring religious exemption. So it's a group, a body, with a great deal of power which will affect potentially not only farmers separately but also the farming organizations of which they may be part.
Under the bill the decisions of the tribunal can never be appealed. In other words, if you read it, under the bill the tribunal is really saying that when they decide something, it's going to be right. Do you have a concern about there being no process to appeal a decision of a tribunal which might affect you separately as a farmer or affect your organization as a member of the GFO?
Mr Olson: I think what you're looking at, if you're looking at possibly about 20 organizations three years from now that could possibly be asking for those three positions on GFO or possibly whatever way you've got Bill 42 standing at right now, I guess my viewpoint is, we have three, possibly two, organizations in right now. The third organization, I don't know who that's going to be. If you're going to just sit with the two organizations, I have no trouble with that, because the trouble is, at the convention, if there is a concern, if OFA is not working its job, or the Christian Farmers or the NFU, I believe that in the convention you will see the $150 or whatever being turned over to a different organization.
1030
Mr Offer: But the tribunals make these decisions.
Mr Olson: Right.
Mr Offer: Are you content that whatever the tribunal decides shall always be the rule and that no one can appeal that decision to another body saying the tribunal made a wrong decision? Everybody else in this province has a right of appeal, except Bill 42 doesn't give it to farmers or farm organizations.
Mr Olson: I guess the whole thing is, I would decline from that question partially on the position, let's get Bill 42 through. Let's go with it. Let's see it in three years. If it doesn't work, fine. That's my answer.
The Vice-Chair: For clarification, Mr Klopp?
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Yes, to Bill, there seems to be a question coming from the official opposition about the tribunal. Just quickly, you've been involved in this for a long time, trying to help set it up, but I know what it's like when you're out in the field for three or four days. Life goes on.
Basically what the tribunal is, when we were talking about and going through these discussions for now almost eight years, one of the things I think even you and I talked about was allowing, you know, if there are other farm groups that are coming up through and we set up an accreditation program, and also with the business with the issue of religious organizations and stuff, allowing them to come forward to be exempt, you need a body. It's going to be like an ABC -- agency, board and commission -- in this case a maximum of seven people, and yes, there are certain powers they have, but the powers are based on what your regulations are.
When we talk about the appeal process -- the question was asked yesterday -- yes, you come in as a new farm organization and you look at the criteria and you think, "We have this group; we'll look at them." They may say, "Based on the criteria, sorry, you don't meet them; we turn you down." But by no means it doesn't mean you can't come back again next month or whatever or come back again and try. So that's the process he's talking about and he's wondering if you were concerned about that.
Mr Olson: No. You've got to get into that position first to be worried about it.
Mr Klopp: Okay.
Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I don't know how much time we have left.
The Vice-Chair: A couple of minutes.
Mrs Fawcett: In one part of the bill it says that the ministry shall promptly forward the cheques on to the GFO. Would you like to see an actual time -- three weeks, a month -- rather than just promptly? Would that be an amendment that might be considered? Do you think that matters, that there's just sort of " promptly"? There's no real time line there where those cheques, once the ministry receives them, should be forwarded on.
Mr Burell: I think there are probably going to be some amendments and what not once the stable funding is put into position. There will be some things we'll find that will have to be changed, some fine-tuning to it, that possibly we don't foresee right now. That would probably be one of them. But to say that I should at this particular time, I'm not too sure on that. I think we're going to have to wait and see when it gets going how it's going to be.
As far as on the tribunal, I think that can always be adjusted through the committee, through the organization, and with the government working together with them. It's like any other part of the system that we have today. If there's something wrong with it, we work at it to correct it.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Welcome to Toronto. I'm glad to see you make the trip here and get here today and bring your presentation. I just have a couple of questions because a lot of them have been answered.
One of the things we've been accused of here, as a committee and as a government, is that we're not very democratic because we're not allowing a vote. You've heard that. What do you think of that? I know we sort of touched on it, but you're prepared to go ahead without this vote that some people are calling for?
Mr Burell: We're accused of that every day. That's why the people around the world rush here to see us. When things don't satisfy anybody, it's always the shortest route to say that you're trying to set up a dictator policy.
Mr Murdoch: You're satisfied the way things are?
Mr Burell: Yes.
Mr Murdoch: Okay, that's one thing. Another one, I think, is that in the bill it says the minister may review this after three years. The word "may" is there, and there's been consideration around the table that we should change that word to "shall" review it. That means he will have to. Would you be more comfortable with that way rather than "may"?
Mr Burell: Yes, I would.
Mr Murdoch: Okay. The other one in that is that they're talking about the minister. There has been thought that a committee such as this, an all-party committee, would review it rather than the minister or in conjunction with the minister. The way it is now I believe it just leaves it with the minister. Would you be more comfortable too maybe that a committee be involved, because that sets all three parties?
Mr Burell: Yes, I think so.
Mr Murdoch: We like to know that, because I know when they go to clause-by-clause they'll want to consider that. Okay, I really don't think I have any other ones, Mike, because most of them have been answered.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Olson, Mr Burell, on behalf of this committee I'd like to thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedules and giving us your presentation this morning.
Mr Burell: Thank you for giving us the time.
The Vice-Chair: You're welcome.
CANADIAN FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenters, from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Could you please come forward. Good morning. I'd like to welcome you on behalf of this committee. As you know, you'll be allowed up to a half-hour for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd leave some time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. As soon as you're comfortable, could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.
Mr Jack Wilkinson: My name is Jack Wilkinson. I'm the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I do not have a prepared brief. I'll only need about five to seven minutes for my presentation and you'll be able to get back on agenda time, I hope.
I really am here not as much to speak to the technical aspects of this particular legislation. When I was on the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, I was one of the co-chair people with the Christian Farmers when a committee was set up, probably about seven years ago, in that time period, to really follow up with the resolution that had passed at our OFA convention, and that was to pursue the concept of a stable funding mechanism for general farm organizations. So I really have sort of the history of being involved in the general topic area of stable funding, but since becoming CFA president, I do not feel comfortable in talking about the technical aspects of this particular bill.
What I do wish to pass on to committee people here is the very grave concern I have as president of a national farm organization that there needs to be a type of funding mechanism in place. That normally applies at the provincial level because that's where membership of farm members has historically been, in our organization anyway, and then that money flows through those provincial organizations up to fund national organizations. We also have commodity boards that belong to our group and we have representation of around 200,000 family farms that are in fact in the membership of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
But some very serious things are taking place which I think the committee people should be aware of, and they have ramifications back to this bill: number one, the whole issue of farmers financing their ability to have input into government policy.
The federal government, for example, has in its mode of deregulation and user pay made it very clear that a lot of the support that it has historically given to farm organizations to participate in the consultative process is in fact disappearing. It is clear that over the next number of years the farm organizations want to make presentation in a host of areas, not ones that you may consider would be the obvious ones that the farmers should be willing to pay for, but the not so obvious -- the regulatory framework, standards, a whole host of health and welfare issues, regulatory in relationship to pesticides, transportation policies; it goes on and on and on -- which have had committee structures in place which have really been funded. The participation has been funded so that we've been able to have a broad representation in the farm community across the country. That is disappearing. Therefore, as it disappears, the farm organizations, if in fact they're going to represent their people, have got to have some mechanism in which they can raise money in a broader-based format than is currently the case.
1040
We really only have one province that substantively has a farm organization that is really funded by the broad base of the farm community, that being Quebec. Most of the others have membership type programs that may have a lot of farm members involved, like Ontario with a fairly significant percentage, all the way through to ones that have a difficulty in really having a very large percentage of their farmers participating.
You can look at that one of two ways. You can say, well, if the groups were doing their job, every farmer would belong. But I would hazard a guess to make the comment that I would be surprised if very few people would belong to a labour union if they got all the benefits of the labour union without having to pay dues, or very few people would belong to a whole bunch of things if in fact they could get away with taking all the benefits without having to pay the piper. I don't accept that argument, so therefore it gets back to, "How do you fund these organizations?"
There's no mechanism which we wish to pursue at a national level. There are some abilities for checkoffs on commodity organizations at the national level. We do not want to pursue that because we have a provincial organization that exists in all of our provinces. Therefore, it gets down to what is going to be the mechanism for funding for provincial farm organizations, and are they in fact going to have the ability to raise money from the broad spectrum of membership and then hopefully not have to have the fees too high that people feel that it's prohibitive?
So we're pleased to see Ontario moving ahead in this direction. There are two other provinces at minimum that are watching very closely what happens in Ontario because they would like to adopt similar legislation. In Manitoba, the Keystone organization is looking at changes to its legislation. Because of the way theirs is designed, it's been creating a number of problems even though it's been in existence for probably three years. Alberta's actively pursuing a similar type of program with its government. Alberta, being what it is, tends to be the land of the free and the individuals and therefore it'll take more time to encourage them to see the light than some others. But it will still be very useful if in fact Ontario, another place of the land of the free, has the ability to in fact show that it works here also. So from that point of view, it's very, very useful to see this move ahead.
As far as any technical aspects, I think those will through regulations hopefully be sorted out and it will be no different than the other legislation that comes into being: You do the best you can when you pass it. There will be some blemishes that will show up as time goes on, and there's a process in a democratic government to make amendments as we find those blemishes. I assume this one will be no different. I think one has to weigh the risks of not passing this legislation and having it drop off the agenda and what that in fact means to the farm community to respond to a host of issues.
For example, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has around $850,000 on which it's supposed to run basically and comment on everything that's happening, from rural development to trade to depopulation in the Prairies, and the list just goes on and on and on, and come up with significant policies in all of those areas and then lobby government provincially and federally to make sure the farm community is represented and in fact has a strong, viable industry. You don't have to stretch your imagination very far to figure out that's the art of the impossible. So therefore we are not able to put the resources in place to have the equal debate that should occur between governments and community or individual groups. It becomes a very one-sided discussion because there are unlimited resources or appear to be unlimited resources on one side of the issue and it's very difficult to muster the type of technical and research documentation that's required.
I would very much like to see Ontario have the ability in which all of the farmers, or at least most of them, have the opportunity, and if they choose not to accept that as an opportunity and want their money back, at least the onus will be on them to in fact request the money back. I think it would be viewed very positively. There will be some people who disagree, obviously; you've heard some of them. But I would like you to weigh the size of the voices, and not by volume, but by people. You have to make a decision as a committee as to whether the opposition that has been expressed, first of all, is significant; secondly, and maybe equally, whether the opposition is legitimate in its concerns and whether in fact there is anything that is so overwhelmingly repugnant to the individuals in this legislation or whether the common good that the legislation will give organizations outweighs the individual concerns of some people, knowing full well they have a very limited obligation before they can in fact ask for their money back and opt out. As I understand the legislation, you're not really imposing a very arduous sort of process in which they can opt of belonging, and we're not really talking of press-gang sort of stuff here and making it extremely difficult. So I think that has to be weighed. It's not good enough just to say, "I had people in my riding come in, and they're opposed to this." You also have to be willing to look at the size.
I guess one final point. General farm organizations and organizations in particular spend a great deal of resources in policy development, in weighing the pros and cons, and in voting processes sort out what is the compromise position to deliver to government. That is a very worthwhile process to take place, because it's very difficult for any sitting member to in fact access that. You can have people come into your home or into your constituency office and lobby for something in particular, but better to have the debate in the farm community and some sense that the majority has overwhelmingly ruled on this and all points have been discussed than to have that debate on all pieces of agriculture legislation in committee and in the House when it comes to voting, because nothing will pass until that debate has occurred; you can be assured of that. So better to have farm organizations that are designed to have that debate within, in a free and democratic and open way, than for you as MPPs to have to deal with that debate and try to assess whether in fact this is for the good of the entire population, or the majority. So there are lots of good, positive reasons to have dynamic and strongly financed farm organizations, in my opinion.
Thank you. Sorry for overrunning on my seven minutes.
The Vice-Chair: That's fine. Questions and comments?
Mr Offer: Thank you very much, Mr Wilkinson, for your presentation. I enjoyed it very much. You will know that as we go through these committee hearings, not only do we listen to the concerns and the comments for and against pieces of legislation, but we try to make the bill in the end result the best that it can possibly be, grappling with some of the issues that have been brought forward.
I would like to just deal with one small matter with you. The tribunal, as you know, has a significant amount of power dealing with the accreditation, the review, whether someone is eligible for a religious exemption, whether francophone organizations shall be able to have special funding. So the amount of power that the tribunal, as established, will have is significant. There are going to be, by regulation, criteria that will help the tribunal and those coming to the tribunal to know sort of the rules of the game.
The issue I bring forward is one that says in the legislation that the decision of the tribunal is final. I brought it up before the previous deputants. I would just like to get your thoughts as to whether any farmer or any general farm organization should have in principle the right to appeal a decision of the tribunal without having to go to the court system. Notwithstanding how definite criteria are, you will know that people say, "Well, they didn't put the right weight on these factors, and the decision just wasn't right."
In this bill, that right is not given to farmers or GFOs, whereas it is a right that exists for the general population: Real estate agents, if their licence is revoked, have a right to appeal a decision; parking tickets; anything that you might want to think of. I wonder whether in principle maybe we should be looking at establishing a right for farmers or farm organizations to appeal initial decisions of tribunals.
1050
Mr Wilkinson: Again I want to put on the record that I am not a technical expert in relationship to this particular piece of legislation, but I can give you the philosophy behind why the principle of a tribunal was first talked about. I'm probably not going to be able to answer your question specifically, but the feeling was that there has to be a process in place in which people and organizations will know what has to take place, first of all, to meet the criteria to in fact get the checkoff. It does not make a determination as to whether an organization can exist in the province; people will be free to have organizations as they see fit. But before one has the advantage of in fact getting on a ballot, or whatever the right terminology would be, to have a different process in place of being really legitimized as a named farm organization in the province with some sort of stature on a different level, there should be some criteria that have to be met, I agree with that.
I guess the next point is that once you have that, it has to be removed from the political process so that it does not become an issue in which you're dealing directly with the agriculture minister. Not that I have any problem with ag ministers in general, but it should be a system which is not just directly tied to the political whim of people as they come and go. People make very funny decisions sometimes on the way out of office, and so we don't want to get caught in that kind of trap.
I don't think that this legislation should have any more difficult and more arduous steps than others, so I guess one would have to sit there and compare. I know we have drainage tribunals. We have a host of tribunals that are fairly well accepted in the farm community in general as the appeal body or the decision-making body. I guess in a vague way I would say this should sort of embody those.
If it's not in the legislation in a fair way -- I won't make comment on that because I don't know the technical aspects. But the reasoning was to get it away from the political process, put it at arm's length both from the farm organizations as well as government, with a set of standards to be met to get in and a set of standards that would have to be met that were fairly broad but critical -- ie, annual reports and membership list etc, and a democratically elected executive. If you can't meet those standards, there should be some mechanism as a fail-safe, if in fact an organization starts dealing in a host of areas that put it off the rails. Past that point, I don't feel comfortable in commenting.
Mr Cleary: Thank you for your presentation, Jack. I guess one thing, as national president, I'd like to ask you: You saw a copy of the draft registration form?
Mr Wilkinson: I saw a copy of a draft, but I think it was one of the early ones and I don't know if there has been one since. I assume there have been numerous drafts. I've been out of commission on this for about nine months, on the final developments.
Mr Cleary: Okay. We have another draft since that, so I guess that wasn't a fair question to you.
The other thing that maybe I should ask you: Being you're dealing with agriculture in so many areas of this country, I'd like to get your opinion on the time frame that farmers could request their refund.
Mr Wilkinson: My sense is it's got to be viewed as a fair process. I would think that issue should be dealt with in the regulations. I think there should be certain broad time frames that are realistic, that organizations, without having to really sort of gear them -- as time goes on, these membership lists will probably come throughout the year in a fairly broad-based pattern, but in the first couple of years, I can see when you go into a registration process that there are going to be real bubbles as far as volumes coming in. I don't think the legislation and the amount that is agreed upon is so inflated that you want to put those organizations in a situation by meeting the regulations that in fact they have to hire a host of new employees to work for two or three months to handle it.
I guess my sense is it should be viewed as a legitimate time period by the farm community for those who want to receive their money back, but the regulation should not allow delaying tactics to take place by any of those organizations. I think that will be the time frame that's reasonable. I mean, I just got my final acreage report done for unseeded acreage this spring and I'll have to wait for the crop insurance cheque. Is that reasonable to wait for nine months for a government cheque for a crop that didn't get planted this May? I'd say the farm community would say no. My sense is it should be at least as fast as government moves and, hopefully, faster in a host of programs in which it has obligations.
Mr Murdoch: It's good to see you again, Jack, and I've heard you speak on this many times. One of the things I thought I might ask you, what do you think with NFU dropping out; what are your thoughts on that?
Mr Wilkinson: Well, the NFU has had opportunities ever since it started. When the original committee was formed an invitation was sent as well to the NFU to participate in that process. At that time period they chose not to and so it became the Christian Farmers and the OFA that put a process in place and developed policy and started lobbying government and the three political parties.
The second go-round they were offered again. I know when Brigid Pyke was involved, they were at the open meeting that was held at the airport strip. The NFU participated in that meeting, and then again chose not to get into the fine details of the development of the program.
This last go-round, they were invited. The minister, I think, to some degree, insisted that they participate if they in fact wanted to be on the ballot. Without being uncharitable, I think, clearly they had some objectives that were different from the other two groups and really changed sort of midstream as to what their objectives were, even though they had originally agreed on a number of principles from the information I was privy to and was general information that they chose at a later date to withdraw.
I don't think there's much one can do about that, quite frankly. The legislation will still be available to them, in my understanding, as it will be to any organization that meets some of the broad-based criteria. If they chose, for whatever reasons, to drop out of the process and wished not to be named, then my sense is that they should fall into the same category as any new entrant farm organization would have to fall into: meet a certain number of criteria and have a certain time period of existence once the legislation is passed before they can make application. If they meet the criteria, they're in.
Politics is politics. I think you have to look at the fact that that really is a national farm organization the way it's designed. Then it filters down somewhat to locals at a provincial level and some decisions are made at the national body and by their constitution they're bound to fall in line with that. I don't know the logic of the decision made in Saskatoon, but I'm assuming that's where it was made. I don't think that should be a reason for not pursuing with the legislation.
I think the principles have been out in the farm community for quite some time. There has been a lot of discussion over it. I think you have a lot of information privy to the members on the committee as to those in favour of the legislation, the commodity groups that have supported it in a general way or stayed out of the discussion but have clearly not come out against it. You've had your hot line; you've had your x number of meetings in the countryside; it's gone through public debate at annual meetings, county -- you add them all up. I think the weight of those people in favour is very, very substantial, and if they choose for their reasons to opt out, then they should fall into the group that re-enters when they see fit to or whatever the case may be.
Mr Murdoch: One other question I'd just like to hear your thoughts on -- you were often criticized here because of this no vote, and a lot of the people who come to the table are basically opposed to this bill because they don't have this chance to vote and I know you're involved. I'd just like to hear your thoughts, how you would answer that, if you happened to be sitting here and you're being criticized that you're not allowing this vote.
Mr Wilkinson: You mean since I asked Charley Mayer to have a vote on the withdrawal of barley out of the marketing, how would I answer this question?
Mr Murdoch: I thought it might be interesting.
Mr Wilkinson: Well, I think there are a couple of issues here. If it had been mandatory I think that would have raised the debate as far as the vote substantially and it would have been a more serious question, in my opinion, for the committee to have to grapple with, if everybody had to be in, period, end of discussion.
There's a lot of flexibility in this legislation which I guess is somewhat different than when you compare it to marketing legislation where you're either in or you're out. You're in a system and only one system and there's no choice even within that system, okay? There was the opportunity, when the discussion took place, for three farm organizations to be in. So a fair degree of flexibility in the philosophies that were put, a choice for the farmer and then the ultimate choice, I guess, was given when the amendments took place that would allow people to opt out if they chose not to belong.
1100
I think you have to divide up this legislation into two pieces. One is a registration process that in fact is of no benefit to the farm community on first flush. It is a benefit to government. It is a benefit to OMAF. It's a benefit for collecting data, and to that degree it'll be of benefit in policy development. But we really have the registration process, which more or less is mandatory if you want to have a government program, and then we have the supporting of a general farm organization, which can be viewed as totally voluntary. Yes, you do have to. There is one linkage, and the linkage is to register. You have to send some money in and then the voluntary aspect kicks in. If you don't want the money to stay in, you can ask for it back.
So if you look at it that way, which I do, I think there's a great deal of flexibility given to the individual farmer, that the registration being the mandatory aspect is really of no benefit to the farm community per se other than by arm's length. I don't view it in the same way as I would view marketing commodities through only -- if you vote to go into a supply-management, market-mode regime, there is no flexibility then within that, and I think there's a lot of flexibility in this legislation.
I guess if you had a large hue and cry from the farm community for a vote, as in a big percentage of people, again that would be a different issue, but I don't sense that. I was around to a lot of those meetings that took place and OFA was criticized for having a lot of organization -- its membership vote, but the opposition could have been put in one bus and trucked around to a lot of those meetings, because I was at a lot of them and it was the same people in the crowd. My toes and feet counted a lot of the opposition, to be brutally frank, and I don't think you can overly inflate that to try and take out the benefit of this legislation. I think that has to be seriously addressed. You don't have a huge group of people who are against this now that you have the refundable aspect in it.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Wilson, Mr Hansen.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thanks, Mr Wilkinson. I've enjoyed your comments, both your opening remarks and the responses to various questions. In fact, mine have been largely answered, except for the one about -- and you were touching on it in the answer to your last question, the benefit of the GFO again. In your opening remarks you compared it to a union, the issue of the free rider and getting the benefits of what the organization can achieve without paying for them directly.
With a union, as an example, it very directly negotiates wages, benefits and working conditions. I was wondering whether you see that, as a GFO, as being -- how do you see the relationship there, I guess is the question, speaking to the issue of how the ordinary farmer would see a benefit in the GFO in those areas?
Mr Wilkinson: When I was giving the comparison to the union, I was giving the comparison in the aspect of how many people would belong if in fact they received the benefit without having to participate. I wasn't wanting to compare that particular aspect to this legislation, other than the context in which I used it.
I maybe should have used the example, how many people would pay education tax if in fact they didn't have to pay education tax? Maybe it would have been more appropriate -- or a host of other ones. The point is, if people receive benefit and they don't have to support it, it's a fairly easy decision not to participate and you're really getting the very benevolent people who are in fact taking out the memberships and covering the cost of those organizations.
I think general farm organizations will go the direction in policy development as to what they'll be asked to do, that the membership elected to them will ask. I'm not trying to make that a flippant answer. It certainly wouldn't bother me if farm organizations got to the point where they in fact could get at least the poverty level for their per-hour rate they put in producing food so well and so effectively for the general population in Ontario and Canada. I wouldn't get upset about the fact if they had that leverage in society.
But as to this point, we have been more in the area of a broader-based policy development that has commented and encouraged governments, provincially and federally, to move in certain directions. The farm community has not yet really, other than through its market board structures, ever seen its general farm organization getting to the point of sort of negotiating salary and wage and benefit and severance packages and what not, not the same as the European farm groups have in fact done in some countries.
I guess the short answer is, what OFA will be asked to do in the future, or CFA, will be what policy resolutions pass at their annual meeting. If the day comes that the farm community wants its farm organizations to get involved in that heady sort of stuff, then my assumption will be, when the resolution passes, that's exactly what they'll do. So far there's none of that on the books that I'm aware of, in those general farm organizations that I've been involved in.
Mr Hansen: Jack, you've touched on the National Farmers Union. Actually, it has to do with their constitution in the way they're set up to operate as a general farm organization.
There was a gentlemen here who was from the youth wing and his comments were to the point that we need something nationally, not just locally. I can't agree with that completely, because if we take a look at Canada as a country, we wind up having provinces, we have a Premier, we have representatives in each province and then we come down to a local level where we have town councils.
I take a look at the structure of the OFA and taking a look at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in the same light, I feel that with this bill, with the 25% minimum -- and I think the OFA said they would look at about 33% of the money going back down to the grass-roots part. So I sort of disagree with what the National Farmers Union said and this is why you're here, because I've heard both sides.
I'd like to hear a little bit more on your side -- actually being the national president -- on how your feelings are with the breakdown as we get down to the grass roots right up to the national level. Is it a breakup of the farm community in Canada if we wind up having provincial regulations in each province?
Mr Wilkinson: I don't like to comment negatively about what other farm organizations and individuals have chosen to belong to because they view they're the models they wish to participate in.
All I can really comment on is that our federation has really adopted probably more closely the political model that exists in the country, as you've described yourself, than some others have. I mean, we very clearly have -- a lot of our provincial organizations have county or district federations below them that make up their structure.
If you take Ontario, it's a perfect example of what's laid out as geographically. The farm community, the way it's divided up by counties, there are county federations in every one of them -- or districts in the north -- to a provincial to a national. I think that's a very useful way to be designed; there is good reason for it. We have the OFA that's lobbying the provincial level and then making input into the national level -- after we shake out the 10 provinces and the national commodity boards that belong to the CFA, once we design policy, then it becomes our role and responsibility to deal with the federal government in those areas and responsibilities that are under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
I find our system very useful, and others have chosen otherwise. Ours has the natural flow to it in my mind and I'll leave the comment at that. I'll just leave it at that.
Mr Hansen: There was one more thing. You got one --
The Vice-Chair: No. Thirty seconds, Mr Klopp.
Mr Klopp: Thank you, Jack, for coming out today to remind us. I think you tied in with what Bill and Ray, as real people out there in the field, talked about.
We always hear the headlines and what's been discussed in your farm organization when there's a rally or whatever, but in order to get to those rallies and to get to a headline, you need the day-to-day slugging of organization, and that's really what this bill is all about, allowing people the opportunity to work day to day and quietly, but for ever forward for those moments when things arise. I guess it's the headlines that we see at the end of the day.
So I thank you very much for your comments and taking the time to come out today to talk. I think your points are very well taken and we'll continue to work on it. We've got this bill for a few of us. Thank you.
Mr Wilkinson: Thank you very much for having me. I do apologize a bit. I know it's provincial legislation and I know that I'm the national president, so I felt a little antsy about coming, but I think it's important for you to give some consideration to what the deed of regulation and the problems at the national level create. Therefore, the question is: The resolution of the problem means well-funded provincial farm organizations that belong to ours, and if in fact this type of legislation doesn't move ahead, then what you do is cripple the national organization, because OFA makes up about 25% of the contribution to the CFA and if it has no ability to pass money through the system, then there in fact becomes no Canadian Federation of Agriculture trying to deal with those national issues.
That's the reason I'm here, not to try to interfere, but to give you the reasoning for why we need this type of legislation, hopefully more than just in Ontario. So thank you very much for the opportunity.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Wilkinson, on behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule and giving us your presentation this morning.
Mr Wilkinson: Thank you very much.
1110
KELLI CROWLEY
MARY-LOU GARR
BETTY SEMENIUK
DONA STEWARDSON
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenters: Dona Stewardson, Kelli Crowley. Good morning. As you're aware, you'll be allowed up to a half-hour for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd allow some time for questions and comments from each of caucuses at the end. As soon as you're comfortable, could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed, and could you please speak into the microphones for the purposes of Hansard, so they can pick up what you're saying.
Mrs Kelli Crowley: Good morning. My name is Kelli Crowley. I'm from Perth county. This is Betty Semeniuk from Oxford, Mary-Lou Garr from Niagara and Dona Stewardson from Lambton.
I am a wife, mother, farmer, Catholic Women's League member and a provincial director on the OFA board. My husband, Matt, and I own a 50-acre farm in Perth county, where we raise 50 sows, farrow to finish, and three children. Matt also works off the farm full-time. It was not always that way. When we first married, my husband would never even consider taking a job off the farm. But as economics would have it, that is the way it goes.
I would like to encourage your support of the farm registration act, because I believe it will benefit government and farmers. This is a progressive move, a bold initiative, with impetus being on individual farmers to register themselves and to belong to a GFO or not. As a professional group, we as farmers have the responsibility to define ourselves, and this act is the first step towards that definition.
Today we are trying to compete in a global market with a farm lobby and support system that's over 40 years old. Many farmers would not think to use a piece of equipment that old. We need a system that helps us look after the wellbeing of our farmers through government and GFO support. This is a win-win bill for government and farmers. This act will help to define the demographics of rural Ontario, and that will enable you to decide where and what types of services are needed out here.
This bill doesn't need to be perfect to start with, so don't worry about making it perfect. That can happen as the years go by, and we can help to make it a better bill. That's what's so great about GFOs being grass-roots-oriented. This act started with some farmers in Lambton county saying, "We need a change," and progressed through the OFA, the CFFO and government action.
I know there are arguments out there against this act, such as it's a way for GFOs to pick our pockets. I counter this with GFOs and their members have been lobbying and working on behalf of all farmers in this province, not just paid members, plus I don't believe there are as many farmers out there as some people would like to think. There is more than one farm owned by more than one person, and some farms are owned by people who don't farm them. But I'm not here to play a numbers game with you. The only way to know for sure is to legislate this and get the figures.
Another argument is that farmers aren't having a say. Well, I'm here having a say and to tell those farmers who feel that they don't like the policies of the existing GFOs that there are rules that clearly define what a GFO is and how to establish themselves so that perhaps they would also benefit from this bill. I think it is always a good thing to have a choice and this bill certainly gives farmers that choice. Thank you.
Ms Mary-Lou Garr: Good morning. My name is Mary-Lou Garr. I'm from Niagara. I'm proud to be in the business of producing your food. I thank you for this brief opportunity to address your committee. I'm here to speak in favour of Bill 42 because I see it as a valuable initiative for the farm families of Ontario. I'm sure that over the course of your hearings you've heard lots and lots of information and comments about the value of the farm industry to the economy, but what I would like to talk a bit about is my role in that industry.
I'm one of the new generation of farm women. Every morning I put on my coveralls and my rubber boots and on our 350-acre mixed farming operation, hogs, grain, grapes, I go into the hog barn every morning and I do all the things that a farmer does in that hog barn. I breed sows and I -- not personally but I supervise. I clip teeth. I help castrate. I feed. I clean pens.
Then I go back into the house and I shower and I put on my suit and go to my office job where I make quite a generous salary, fortunately, because on a farm like ours there's too much work for my husband to work our farm. Quite frankly, there's too little net income to support the entire operation. My salary goes basically entirely to one of two things: either supporting our two daughters who are in university, which the farm could never hope to do, or into the farm operation itself.
I'm willing to do that. I'm even willing to take my three weeks' vacation every year in May because I spend it on a tractor. There are farm families all over this province exactly like ours. But we're proud to do that because we're performing a vital service for society. In general, we're a proud bunch and we are an independent bunch. We do need a strong, well-funded general farm organization to represent our interests.
Farmers don't share daily coffee breaks where we work so we can sit around and talk about social contracts and legislation. We don't all leave work from the same parking lot so that we can share with each other our ideas and our concerns. Farmers by nature rely on ourselves and we very rarely share our pain. Decision-makers, quite frankly, often receive confusing signals when policy is being developed from this widely divergent group that we are.
I became involved in farm organizations because I wanted to have some influence on my future. I wanted to be recognized and I wanted to be respected as a farmer. I want it for myself and my husband and I particularly want it for our 27-year-old son, who is presently in the process of taking over our operation. Ontario consumers, I think, need his youth and his energy.
I know that he needs Bill 42 so that he will have a strong representation during his farming career. He needs Bill 42 so that his government can create programs that will be of use to him as a genuine farmer. He needs Bill 42 so that the government, and not census takers like my 20-year-old daughter, will decide who is a farmer and what programs should be developed and who shall be entitled to them.
Don't be deterred by the furore over mandatory registration. I totally support the inclusion of a refundable registration fee. I think that has made an incredible difference. I challenge anyone now to prove unfairness in this legislation as it exists. I don't think it's uncommon for decisions to be made in the face of opposition if they offer a net benefit to society, and I believe that Bill 42 will definitely be a net benefit for our son and for all the other sons who will be the next generation of food producers in this province. Thank you for this opportunity.
Ms Betty Semeniuk: My name is Betty Semeniuk. I'm from Oxford county. I'm a farm woman and am in operation of a broiler and cropping 300 acres with my husband, Bill, and three children. I'm here in support of Bill 42. I became involved with our Oxford county federation -- and am presently president -- because I wanted to make a difference in agriculture because I've been in agriculture all my life and was raised on a dairy farm.
I volunteer my time and my energy because I want to see agriculture remain a vital part of our county. Over the past nine months our farmers have been put in front of two major issues that are confronting them, actually in the busiest time of our year, spring and fall. This is a time when we are all focused on either planting or harvesting.
To have an individual farmer have to go in front of a lawyer at a hearing to fight his battle at that time is just not a realistic point of view. I think if we, the farmers of Ontario, could have someone in our corner fighting these battles and giving us the resources to go up against the high-powered lawyers and the people who are hired for that specific job, we would do a more credible job.
1120
It has just shown me that stable funding should be a part of the GFO funding. Because of these two issues, the farmers are looking to the federation for a way of solving them, because the normal farmer on the back road does not have the time to take part and do a credible job on his own. So he is looking for an organization that's going to be in our corner. That's part of my reason for being here. I'm going to speak on behalf of the Oxford county farmers. This issue is near and dear to my heart because I've spent the last nine months fighting these two battles.
Ms Dona Stewardson: My name is Dona Stewardson and I'm a farmer from Lambton county. I have six generations on both my husband's and my side that have been farmers. We're very proud of that. We now have sold our farm to our son and daughter-in-law and we're pleased that they can carry on in agriculture. We now have two grandchildren and our only hope is that it will be available for them.
We here today support Bill 42 because we are partners in the business of farming. We're also women from rural Ontario, and as you've heard, we raise our families, we go to the barns, we go to the fields, and coveralls and rubber boots are our dress code.
As you see, we have no brief. We have no real prepared text. I've just jotted down some notes, as the other ones have. We are speaking from the heart and all you have to do is listen. We are proud to be farmers and we are proud to have ancestors who were also farmers. We would be proud to have our future generations be able to farm if they so wish.
Because we believe so strongly in a healthy, vibrant rural community, we have chosen to add to our many farm duties by getting involved with general farm organization. We have no time for nitpicking at grass-roots level, we have no time for pitting farmer against farmer and we have no time for pitting neighbour against neighbour. We choose instead to look at the big picture. We choose instead to look at the importance of agriculture to the economy, locally, provincially, nationally and even globally.
We speak in favour of Bill 42 because we believe it is so important to have adequate funding for farm organizations, to carry out the numerous responsibilities and tasks that are required of us every day. We are not just farmers working for farmers. We are farmers working for rural communities. We are farmers working for all of society: for example, supplying a constant supply of food, supplying a constant supply of quality food, and how about even the aesthetics of open space. We are good stewards of the land and we are the number one environmentalists.
We support Bill 42 because we will require adequate funding, as agriculturalists, to adapt in the coming decades to: (1) changing public attitudes, changing tastes and changing preferences; (2) international conditions and events; and (3) technological developments -- closer to home, concern for lack of funds in the rural areas, for health care, child care, policing, availability of education and training. The list seems endless.
We speak in favour of Bill 42 because farm organizations require funding to assist in planning and designing viable rural communities. The wellbeing of the province of Ontario and Canada depends on the wellbeing of rural communities and the rural environment. This begs the question, why would any member of Parliament, and especially any member from rural Ontario, oppose this bill?
Thank you for allowing us to present this.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Questions and comments?
Mr Murdoch: Thank you, women, for coming here today. I certainly appreciate your briefs telling us how you feel. This is what we need to know. Dona, I guess this is different for you and I. Sometimes we're on the same stage together.
Ms Stewardson: Not always agreeing, though.
Mr Murdoch: No, not always agreeing. Maybe this time we are though.
Ms Stewardson: Great, hopefully.
Mr Gary Wilson: We don't agree with that Bill either.
Mr Murdoch: No, this Bill, but not the bill. I'm Bill number one, so we'll wait.
Ms Stewardson: It's debatable.
Mr Murdoch: Yes, that's right. Dona and I have debated different things, but we're not that far out.
But one thing I wanted to ask you, and it's in the bill that the minister -- and we go back to this because there's been thought about changing it. It says the minister "may" review this and we think the word's "should" review this. Would you agree with that?
Ms Stewardson: I believe that "may" should be in there. "Shall" means that you would, so let's try it and see how it works. You usually don't fix something unless it's broken, right?
Mr Murdoch: That's true. It just reviews. It doesn't mean he's going to fix; it's just to make sure. If it's left as "may" we may then be upset with it, but there's no mechanism there to force somebody to review it.
Ms Stewardson: We're happy with "may."
Mr Murdoch: You're happy with "may." Okay.
Ms Stewardson: But we're here today to talk about the principle and the philosophy, and we're not here to talk about technical points. I hope you'll bear with us in that we're not trying to be evasive, but the minister does have a technical committee and we work closely with them.
Mr Murdoch: Yes. Oh, I understand that. The only reason we just sort of want your input into that is because the committee will have to decide before it's done whether it's going to make any amendments to the bill.
Ms Stewardson: Maybe someone else would like to --
Mr Murdoch: It's just a small thing, but it's nice to know, because they are considering making that amendment.
Ms Stewardson: Who is considering making that?
Mr Murdoch: The committee will.
Ms Stewardson: This committee?
Mr Murdoch: Yes. You see, next week there are some more people who will come before it, against and for, and then the committee will go through the bill clause by clause, and if there's anything in there that the committee or anyone here would like to make an amendment to, they could put the amendment forward.
Ms Stewardson: Before it gets third reading.
Mr Murdoch: That's right.
Ms Stewardson: Well, we like "may."
Mr Murdoch: Okay. That's good to have on the record, because that's what we're here to know. I guess the other one then, do you have any concerns that the NFU has dropped out? Because in your area I think they may be more active than in some of the other areas.
Ms Stewardson: I have chosen to be a member of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and I really wouldn't want to state why or comment on other -- they make their decisions, as OFA makes its decisions, so I couldn't comment on their reasoning, because I can't answer for them.
Mr Murdoch: That's fine. The only other one I would have is that we're criticized as part of the government for not having the vote, as you've heard probably many people talk about, and this is just a yes or no basically. You are quite -- and I think you are by your statements -- but you're quite comfortable the way it's going now and there doesn't have to be a vote at this time.
Ms Stewardson: I was part of the tours around the province and we are very open to speak to farmers. We feel that every time a farmer signs a cheque and sends it in, he gets to vote. That's democratic. It doesn't seem to be a big deal in my part of the country, anyway.
Mr Murdoch: Okay, that's what we need to know. That's all.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Hansen.
Mr Hansen: Yes, okay. Mary-Lou is no unfamiliar face in my particular area. Every time she comes in the office, she has a real problem, not just coming in to see me for other issues. You have been a real representative of farmers and members of the OFA, plus non-members of OFA in the area. Taking a look at the general farm organizations' benefits that, let's say, OFA has, I don't know that the Christian Farmers have, but it has to do with health benefits for families, I think the women on the farm are taking a look at how they can look after their families and it has to do with the health programs, the dental programs. Maybe you could explain a little bit, as women, on what you'd like to see even farm organizations to improve on maybe, just shortly. Maybe it's a little bit off the bill, but the advantages. Because I think as people join, they most likely will not ask for their $150 back, and will say, "It is well worth belonging to this farm organization."
Ms Garr: Of course, I elected to join the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and our farm finally has, and there are benefits, you're right. We do have a new health benefit, which I'm not going to explain to you, but it exists and it is of interest to the farm community because, quite frankly, one of the reasons farmers have trouble making a profit is because they have to cover a lot of those other costs that perhaps someone who works in a factory or an office doesn't have to cover. It's been a concern, I know, of mothers for a long time in terms of what protection our children have. All you have to do is take your child to the dentist once to understand where the profit from that pig went.
So I think OFA -- I hope it will be the selection of choice by most people and I think the health benefit certainly will be critical in people making that decision. I don't know how else to answer your question. You're asking me for a philosophical discussion about benefits of OFA.
1130
Mr Hansen: But if you've seen down in our particular area, even though they weren't members of OFA, OFA has stepped in to help farmers in the area, so it hasn't been just exclusive.
Ms Garr: Absolutely. No, we've never limited our help to people who are members. Mind you, we've gritted our teeth a few times, but a farmer is a farmer and, quite frankly, we all have common interests and a common goal and we're all in the same business. I think people make decisions about joining organizations for various reasons, and sometimes it's laziness to not join an organization. You know, people just don't bother, and they still have had that voice, you're right. But in terms of funding an organization and strengthening that organization, I think this Bill 42 is critical. Quite frankly, we need a stronger voice in your arena and that's what we want.
Mr Hansen: Okay, thank you, Mary-Lou.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Wilson.
Mr Gary Wilson: Just some of the questions that Ron asked, I had in mind as well. Certainly I appreciated your submissions. I guess what I'd like to focus on is the independence, and I guess -- it's Mary-Lou, is it?
Ms Garr: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: -- talked about having about having a job off the farm. I just wondered how you see the evolution of that. Do you think there will be more of it? Your husband, I take it, is working still full-time on the farm. Do you see that would be a possibility that he also would have to move off the farm? I'm just wondering whether the farm organizations would have a role in curbing that process or progression.
Ms Garr: That's my hope. I don't like having to go to work, quite frankly. I would prefer to be at home farming, because there's enough work there for two of us and that's why I'm in the barn morning and night and weekends and everything else. I don't see too many professionals or people who have the investment that we have in our farms, which is large -- I don't see too many people with that kind of investment in their career pumping gas on the side. I would like to see farmers be able to generate enough income from their operations to support their families, to send their children to university and to have a good lifestyle. I think most farmers live pretty frugally, you know. I see a lot of pools, but they're usually in dairy farmers' backyards. If I had to work seven days a week milking cows for hours and hours and never got away, I'd want that pool too.
But I think in general we are relatively frugal people, and I think with the investment that we have in our farms, there's an expectation that there might be a little more net income coming out of that and that there wouldn't be so many wives working off the farms.
Our children are grown, so I don't worry so much about it any more, but I really feel for the women who have young children at home, who are trying to find day care for those children. I took our kids on the tractor with me, the tractor that had a cab, which is still a half-dumb move, but we didn't have any choice.
Ms Semeniuk: If I could just add to that, I feel quite strongly about the arena of education and training. With the amount of unemployment that is happening out there, people being placed out of work, I don't think the off-farm jobs are going to be there for the farming community. I think what we need to try and focus on is getting training and educating ourselves into becoming better entrepreneurs and innovators. We all have it in the back of our minds. We've just subdued it because of all of the other things that happen on the farm. But I think you're going to be seeing far more of this coming, entrepreneurialism, something that we can make work on the farm, use, find other markets. There's just so much potential there in agriculture that I think this is something that is going to have to happen, because the off-farm jobs just aren't going to be there.
Mrs Crowley: I'd like to comment. Every time a farmer takes an off-farm job, he's taking away a job from a city or other rural resident.
The Chair: Ms Fawcett.
Mrs Fawcett: I really appreciate you people taking the time to come before us today, because it's good to hear a woman's perspective in farming and to dispel some of the old myths. You are full-time partners, and I really appreciate a lot of the comments you have made here, because we need to educate people as to exactly what's going on out there. I think you've gone a long way to doing that.
There's no doubt about your support of Bill 42, and I just want to tell you that there's no doubt about our party's support for Bill 42 as well. But I guess we always feel that we can make things better, and that's maybe what some of the questions we are asking are intended to do, to try to make a bill even better than what it is.
A gentleman yesterday, I believe Mr Coates, said that the registration -- I mean, he had no problem, and I think a lot of people are feeling that it's an excellent idea, to get farmers registered so that we know what they're doing and what areas of farming they're in. He said that it should be shared with all groups. It doesn't matter whether you're a commodity group or a GFO or whatever. How do you feel about that? Do you feel that the information should really be out there, again, you know, lending to the education of everyone?
Ms Stewardson: What should be shared? The information or the money?
Mrs Fawcett: The information that will be gleaned from the registration form. Now, I don't know whether you've seen the registration form yet, or a draft.
Ms Stewardson: I have seen a draft. I'm not sure if it was the latest one. But we always share information out there. That's what we are. We're information people and policymakers, and I can't understand why anyone would think that the information wouldn't be shared.
Mrs Fawcett: Some of the presenters who have come before us have said that there wasn't ample consultation, there was not a sharing of information. So I guess this is why I would like to put this kind of thing on the record, that you have no problem with any of this being shared and in fact you would expect the ministry to be sharing this.
Ms Stewardson: Yes, I would certainly hope so.
Mrs Fawcett: We've had some discussion too around time lines for the money, the cheques going out to the general farm organizations, and even then, if farmers are going to apply for a refund, should they have a certain length of time that this must be accomplished? Would you like to see some actual time lines specified in the bill?
Ms Stewardson: When they need to ask for their money back, you mean?
Mrs Fawcett: Yes.
Ms Stewardson: Yes.
Mrs Fawcett: Or when the ministry should be forwarding the cheque that comes in initially.
Ms Stewardson: Yes. I think in business today we do need time lines to keep things clean and neat. Yes, I do.
Mrs Fawcett: Okay, thank you. Maybe my colleague has a question or two.
Mr Cleary: Thank you, ladies. It's good to see four farm ladies in one group in Toronto here. We don't see that real often.
Anyway, my colleague had mentioned about the time frame. You wouldn't like to tighten that up a little more? You just said you'd like a time frame, but would you like to put any times in there, number of weeks or working days or something, you know?
Ms Stewardson: You'd like to put that responsibility on me, would you?
Mr Cleary: Kind of, yes. I think we've got to work together on this.
Ms Stewardson: I believe it's the technical committee again that's --
Mrs Crowley: The cheques have to go through the banks, as I understand it, in so many days. That's the kind of time frame you're going to be looking at anyway. When the cheque gets handed over to the GFO, the GFO has to cash it. It has to go through the banking process. That takes so many days. It takes so many days through the offices in the GFO and the offices in the government. I'm sure that whatever the technical committee figures out as a time frame is adequate.
Mr Cleary: The other thing that I would just like to -- we talked a little bit about the registration forms. Anyway, the next thing is the tribunal. Do you have any opinions on that, how that tribunal should be picked?
Ms Stewardson: Would you like to clarify that?
Mr Cleary: Yes. We had some discussions here earlier in the week when the minister was here that we didn't want to appoint people who were too close to any organization.
Ms Stewardson: Why not?
Mr Cleary: Well, I'm just asking your opinion there. That's what I understood was said that day, that we didn't want real close to an organization, that we were going to look at another group of people. That was my understanding of it.
1140
Ms Stewardson: We're the people, I guess, who are closest to the business and the policymaking. We are the most informed when you get involved with farm organizations.
Mr Cleary: Am I correct on that, deputy?
Ms Rita Burak: Just a clarification: I was reading through the notes, I believe it was in a presentation that Rolly Stroeter, the director of the farm assistance programs branch, made. He was commenting that the membership on the tribunal would have to comprise people who had backgrounds in farming and eminent persons, but he did make the point that they should not currently be members of boards of directors of any of the general farm organizations. For example, it could be a past president or an eminent person but not somebody who's currently on a board of directors.
Mrs Fawcett: But they could be a member of a GFO?
Ms Burak: Oh, yes.
The Vice-Chair: Ladies, on behalf of this committee I'd like to thank you for taking the time out this morning from your busy schedules and giving us your presentation.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Mr Chair, I have a technical point dealing with the legislation before the next presenter comes up. As you know, I'm working between two committees here.
The Vice-Chair: Sure.
Mr Hope: One of the questions that I have, and it's to the ministry staff officials, is that as I was having the opportunity of working between both committees, I was looking at the francophone. It deals with special funding. I've read the regulations. It says they're going to talk to the GFOs. I'm wondering what the intent is, the special funding for the francophones? I do represent a large area of the francophone community in southwestern Ontario. I'm wondering where that money is projected to come from, whether it's from provincial revenues or through a cost-shared program between the government and the GFOs, and I'm wondering if that is available.
Mr Klopp: That question actually was asked the first day when we had the technical briefing. When Elmer was here he gave a general outline. It was asked also, I believe, by the Liberal Party. We'll get you that information when it's available, as soon as possible.
Mr Hope: Thank you for your cooperation.
The Vice-Chair: You're quite welcome.
As a point of information I'd like to welcome Mr Runciman to this committee today. We enjoy his participation.
DAVE OLDER
Mr Dave Older: I am Dave Older, Oxford county. I thank the committee for the opportunity today to share some of my thoughts on the Farmer Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, Bill 42. I speak in favour of this project because it enshrines the concepts of equity and fairness that are important to me.
Before describing the structure of my brief, I should tell you about myself and my involvement in this project. Together with my family, we operate a 50-cow dairy farm and a 65-sow farrow-to-finish operation in Oxford county. I have been involved in this project since early 1990, at that time under the leadership of Brigid Pyke.
One of the curious effects of working closely with government staff, who I didn't really expect to see here this morning, is that from time to time the common refrain is, "But what will farmers think of this?" Somehow the effort of getting out of bed extra early to get the cows milked to race to a meeting and then racing back home to get chores done leaves some staff -- not all -- with the impression that you are less farmer than others. Let me assure you today that I speak with the only voice I have, that of an Oxford county dairy farmer.
My brief is divided into sections as follows: The one is philosophical foundation, the second is the technical components of the bill and the third is the political process.
The philosophical foundations: The central debate about Bill 42, as I understand it, is a question about whether the common good pursued through this legislation is compelling enough to justify the impairment, or perceived impairment, of individual rights of people affected by it. This statement assumes two things: that there are indeed benefits to the public or more immediately to Ontario farmers from general farm organizations -- the common good -- and, secondly, that there are charter rights impaired in some way.
The issue of public good is easy to resolve. After 55 years, there is a large body of evidence about general farm organizations and the good they do. The obvious are sometimes overlooked and very difficult to invoice people for, to bill them: agriculture in the classroom; efforts to negotiate between farmers and utility corridors; projects in the environment, such as Oxford county's battery blitz -- win, win, win, let acid batteries out of the environment, the farming community viewed as being active in environmental projects -- and money raised for 4-H.
General farm organizations have positive beneficial effects for every farmer. Every farmer in Oxford county benefits from those efforts. In the three years of debate that I have encountered working in this project, I have not heard one person be able to intelligently argue that they do not benefit from those activities, and with good reason.
From the larger provincial perspective, the efforts of farm organizations are easier to identify: the Ontario agriculture training institute, the Ontario farm environmental plan, the kind of slogging and trench work we have done in property tax reform with the Fair Tax Commission. Lord Almighty, how do you invoice individual farmers for that effort?
When I wake up in the morning and I look in the mirror, I know how I've paid for them; I've paid for them with a membership to OFA. When some of the individuals who come in front of you with the arguments of self-entitlement and self-service and individual rights look into the mirror, how do they answer that question? I don't know.
Yet for all of this that's happened over the last five decades, there is a double standard that occurs in farm volunteers. It's a curious one. Nobody has tried to explain it to me. Farmers who work inside of commodity groups that provide legitimate benefits to the people who produce those commodities can expect their energy, time and staff resources to be paid by all members who produce that commodity, and yet farm volunteers who work in general farm organizations, with the same time, the same energy and the same commitment, are left with the inference that their effort is less legitimate and less worthwhile because the benefits are equally distributed but the costs are not. It is a perplexing question nobody has tried to answer.
As for the impaired charter rights, I'll be very brief. Two things should be stated. The first is that the obligations envisioned are modest and well defined, $150, which is refundable. Second, the refundable nature of the proposal provides for those people who genuinely feel individual rights are paramount to be opted out.
In the last three years, under the technical arguments I've had the opportunity to view how other jurisdictions in this country and around the world deal with funding of farm organizations. This is not a precedent. Funding of farm organizations has a long history. Quebec is an obvious example, but there are others, the Nova Scotia and British Columbia federations of agriculture, and in Europe many of the funding mechanisms are based through the tax system. It is not a precedent, but what it is is a unique solution for Ontario.
We are very diverse, culturally and agriculturally, and we have to have a proposal in Ontario that reflects that diversity. Having the ability to accredit more than one GFO ensures that there will be fierce competition for the allegiance and support of farmers. It isn't going to be a cakewalk. There will be organizations that come forward and seek accreditation for general farm organizations and there will be an aggressive campaign to get those farmers on board. OFA is not going to relax. We will intensify our efforts to satisfy the concerns of individual farmers.
The criteria operate to provide serious organizations with ambitious objectives the opportunity to enter. It will remove organizations whose relevance has ceased to exist. They will be removed from having their name in this funding apparatus. It allows new organizations with fresh people and new ideas the opportunity in.
Some people have argued that a single producer identifier, the registration number, is unwarranted and that this investment by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food is without justification. Nothing could be farther from the truth -- nothing.
1150
It is not widely understood or acknowledged that OMAF has three or four databases, all of which have some duplication, some inaccuracy, deceased clients, bankrupt clients, and that those three or four databases are not integrated in any way. The various programs have no linkage between them. It is like driving a truck down the road only being able to see the road in front of you and not knowing when the intersections are going to happen. I received three NISA applications and dozens of other farmers did too. Whenever a new program is launched, you have no idea, the wasted bureaucracy and paper from not knowing comprehensively who's who in Ontario agriculture. For far too long, OMAF has lacked the coordinated approach it should have, and a stark contrast is Quebec, which has had for more than 20 years a comprehensive database which has allowed it to decentralize its ministry of agriculture and allowed it to deliver programs from regional offices in less time than we do in OMAF. I will not tell you how much less time, but it gets my attention as a farmer.
Finally, this is just the tip of the iceberg. As a young farmer, allow me the indulgence of dreaming about what could happen with a universal card, smart card technology, that identifies every farmer in Ontario and allows me to interact with government offices in a way that we can't even imagine today. It happens. The USDA has smart card technology used with peanut growers to allow them to update their quotas as they deliver peanuts to the elevator at that time -- immediate update.
Smart card technology is like a credit card with a computer chip in the back. Imagine going to an OMAF office with your entire farm management analysis project in your back pocket and being able to tell the person or having him tell you, "Yes, you're in the program," and he pushes another button and, "Yes, they're cutting a cheque for you in Toronto now." Farmers can't even imagine this kind of thing, but you've got to give me the indulgence of dreaming about tomorrow's reality, because if we don't, we're not going to be able to keep up with technology and we're not going to be able to keep up with information flow and these things are critical to my competitiveness in the world global arena. You've got to help us out, and this is one tool.
The political process: The debate among farmers has been mean-spirited and reveals an inclination we have for fighting among ourselves. Gordon Hill has said before, and when he speaks I listen, "Farmers never win when they fight with themselves." I have argued that this is the appropriate arena to determine the merit of this project.
In truth, the majority of farmers lie between the two camps which have been polarized in this debate. It is inappropriate for farmers to be forced to adopt a position which is at the extreme of one which talks about self-service and individual entitlement. It is just as inappropriate to make them adopt a position which says the new world is just around the corner if only farm organizations can get the funding they need.
The truth is somewhere between those two camps. It is on a bell curve, ladies and gentlemen, and your job is to determine where on that bell curve. It's a political decision, and it will never commit 100% of the population, but this the right arena for the decision to be made, because, Lord Almighty, you can do it with cool heads and dispassionate, reasoned logic, without the kind of hurtful and mean-spirited rhetoric which I will not repeat because it offends everyone.
The comments are most bewildering, because they speak about people who have inspired and motivated me to try to make a difference in my community.
In public life, all of you know only too well about lonely midnight drives across darkened county roads. If you've done it long enough, you know what it's like: time away from family and friends, the slings and arrows and the infrequent glory of volunteers. I recognize in the people I have worked with weather-beaten faces and bent backs from a life of effort. I sense a passion and a commitment that has carried them their entire farming careers and their adult volunteer lives. This discussion thus far has been utterly disconnected from their lives and their actions.
If I had to endure the insults and the acrimony all over again for defending the principles and the content of Bill 42, I would. I believe that it's based on an honest compromise and on issues of equity and fairness for all farmers.
I thank you for your time today.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks very much, Mr Older. I really appreciated your considered remarks, especially the comparative approach where you looked at other jurisdictions and suggested that they've done similar things. I appreciate your commitment; it came through very clearly. I think where you used the image of somebody looking in the mirror and what they see, it could be understood that not everybody works at your level and therefore wouldn't be that committed. There are variations there. I guess that's the root of my question here. You mentioned competing at a global level. Do you see all farmers being in that category or having to be in that category? I'm thinking mainly about a smaller farm that would see it in a more regional situation or perspective and whether a general farm organization can cover both ends of the spectrum.
Mr Older: I think it's the responsibility of farm organizations to go right from the grass roots up to the international arena. Every farmer who produces food in some way, shape or form must compete globally, because the forces that are at work there work their ways down through the marketplace: Chicago, GATT, wherever, it eventually gets back to our pocketbook. We may not identify or acknowledge that world forces are leaving less money in our wallet, but in reality that in effect is happening. But I also encourage local county federations to do whatever they can in terms of economic development, fostering the kind of entrepreneurial spirit that will allow us to hit niche markets and do diversification at the farm, that will keep people on the land. If we don't, we're not going to have rural communities we recognize in 50 years.
Mr Gary Wilson: Just to be clear, could you go a little bit into the niche market, what you mean by that? Am I to understand you that you can survive just on a regional basis without --
Mr Older: You can identify a pocket that isn't served well or cannot be served well by California grape growers -- I mean, it's an example -- or pecan growers from Oklahoma: something there that can't be served economically that you can. But even though you can identify it and fill it, the big picture, the forces are at work, and we have to do our best on both sides. We have to work on both sides: educate, push them along in terms of management ability and also make them focus on all the opportunities.
Mr Gary Wilson: By "we," do you mean the GFO?
Mr Older: General farm organizations, definitely.
Mr Klopp: I just want to congratulate you on your ability to put together the heart and soul of why we've come to a Bill 42. I must admit I've heard a lot of good rationale the last four days now, but I really do want to congratulate you. You've got I think the reasons when you talk about those long, lonely nights. We've had earlier today a number of people. Bill and Ray, you know, said, "We got involved not because of the glory of wanting to be the president some day but just to do our little bit," and I think you amplified that very well today. I thank you.
Mr Cleary: Thank you, Mr Older, for your presentation. There's one thing that I would like to ask you. I'm sure you have seen a copy of the draft registration form. Are you happy with that?
1200
Mr Older: Am I happy with it? I think the key ingredients are, number one, for goodness' sake, don't consider a voluntary registration. You'll have the same thing that we've already got. If you're going to spend government dollars, do it right and make sure it's comprehensive and complete and annually refreshed.
Is it too intrusive in terms of the amount of information? I don't think so. Any commodity group knows more -- in fact, any credit agency knows more about me than the OMAF registration database likely will. So I think that there's a lot of red herrings out there in terms of what's being collected. You ask questions about what who it should be shared with it. The information in aggregate likely ought to be available to anybody who wants to look at ag policy. But I would also speak to technical people who have, you know -- freedom of information etc.
In terms of the registration, I don't have too many problems. It needs to be well managed, and privacy needs to be respected.
Mr Cleary: My next question there about this legislation: After it's passed, I'd like to get your opinion on it being reviewed after three years. What's your opinion on that?
Mr Older: The most extreme review will happen every year. When people start asking for refunds, that's a review that the farm organizations are just going to have to, you know, flex all of the volunteer muscle that we can to deal with. It's the review that counts the most. I mean, it will either make this thing work or it will kill it faster than any legislative body can.
A review "may" is certainly adequate. I don't even know whether it needs to even be in there because it will either work or it won't. The fact that refundability is there will certainly influence the outcome of this.
Mr Cleary: Do you think it should be the minister or the ministry or an all-party committee?
Mr Older: Well, a minister is obviously the most -- that gets technical and nitpicking. I think any one of those three would be adequate, but a minister's obviously right in the centre of the fire. If it's not working, he's right there; he's on the stove. The farm organizations are, you know, they're in the -- I'm going to say they're in the coals. That assumes it doesn't work. We're going to make this thing work.
Mrs Fawcett: Thank you very much. I really appreciate your remarks this morning. Certainly you have an idea of the big picture and the smaller pictures and all pictures. You'll be one of the ones bringing agriculture into the next century. I really congratulate you for your remarks and thank you for taking the time to come before us. I'm sure you have other things you should be doing right now.
The only thing I would wonder about on the technical --
Mr Older: Go ahead, fire away.
Mrs Fawcett: We've had any number of things, you know, thrown at us about: "This is undemocratic. There should be a vote." I think you really touched on a lot of those issues, but do you really feel that you do not see any undemocraticness about this, that people are voting, I guess, as the minister said, with their chequebook?
Mr Older: I think you can call anything undemocratic if you try and adopt an extreme view. If you adopt an extreme view, you can call anything undemocratic.
I mean, I look at the pesticide registration act and I say: "This is something that benefits all of the public. How do you argue against the public good of it?" And yet public approval would likely have killed something that is very positive for the farming community, and that's to make sure pesticides are applied properly by people who have been certified.
I make the distinction between public approval and public good. Your job is to truly determine public good, not necessarily what is right up at the very surface level of a public debate that's gyrating between two extremes. It goes back 2,000 years, the argument about what democracy is, but you are elected to dispassionately and cool-headedly decide. This is an institution and a parliamentary tradition that's 300 years old. This is not undemocratic.
Mrs Fawcett: I think he's a candidate for the tribunal. I don't know.
Mr Older: Can I speak to the tribunal for just a second?
Mrs Fawcett: Definitely, yes. Go right ahead.
Mr Older: The tribunal does have a lot of responsibilities. I think we have to be really careful that there's no perception of conflict of interest. I think that's very important. But I also really think that government, you people, should be cautious about building in too many bureaucracies.
Farmers accept decisions. Tribunals that are well put together, with criteria that are clear and well defined, they should accept decisions of tribunals. The people are charged to do it just as I accept your decision pro or con against Bill 42. I ultimately accept your ability and your authority to make that decision.
Building in place a tribunal and then an appeal process and then a court of law, it seems to me that you're building bureaucracies in times when most people have a lack of tolerance for that kind of activity. They want to see government be relatively efficient, relatively straightforward, and the decision-making process to be transparent and clear. I caution you about the tribunal and what you should do with it.
Mrs Fawcett: You are more or less satisfied with what's there and don't feel that there is even a need for an appeal?
Mr Older: Another appeal process? I think that there is a model. The tribunal is not without model. My understanding is that the Ontario Labour Relations Board has provided some of the modelling for this particular tribunal. I acknowledge that this is new ground, but certainly someone has to make a decision, and if we make the criteria for membership on the tribunal stiff enough and we make the criteria for the organizations that are applying to it clear enough, that should be the decision-making body. You shouldn't get caught up into how many lines down the row you go.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. It seems just about every base has been covered but, Mr Murdoch, if you'd like to find an opening, go for it.
Mr Murdoch: I don't think there is. I just want to thank you for coming. I listened to you when you were in Kurtzville the first time and we had the problems there. Everybody seemed to express their concerns. We've come a long way since then, though, I think.
Mr Older: I agree with you. We've come a long way.
Mr Murdoch: I just want to thank you for coming and giving your presentation.
Mr Older: I'm on this side of the mike and not on that side of the mike. Please understand that this has been a long project for me and I've tried to compress a lot of work into a short time, and the energy level's fairly high. That's not inconsistent. Rolly Stroeter can tell you that.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Older. On behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule and giving us your presentation.
A note to the committee members that we will be meeting in the Huron Room next week, so if you have anything in the committee room could you please remove it and take it with you for next week.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Would you like me to move adjournment?
The Vice-Chair: Not necessary, Mr Perruzza, thank you very much. This committee stands adjourned until 2 pm on Monday.
The committee adjourned at 1207.