MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
CONTENTS
Monday 23 August 1993
Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993, Bill 42
Subcommittee report
Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Hon Elmer Buchanan, minister
Rita Burak, deputy minister
Rolly Stroeter, director, farm assistance programs branch
Louise Stratford, director, legal services
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
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND) for Ms Murdock
Villeneuve, Noble (S-D-G & East Grenville/S-D-G & Grenville-Est PC) for Mr Turnbull
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND)
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1407 in the St Clair/Thames Room, Macdonald Block, Toronto.
FARM REGISTRATION AND FARM ORGANIZATIONS FUNDING ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSCRIPTION DES ENTREPRISES AGRICOLES ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES AGRICOLES
Consideration of Bill 42, An Act to provide for Farm Registration and Funding for Farm Organizations that provide Education and Analysis of Farming Issues on behalf of Farmers / Loi prévoyant l'inscription des entreprises agricoles et le financement des organismes agricoles qui offrent des services d'éducation et d'analyse en matière de questions agricoles pour le compte des agriculteurs.
The Chair (Mr Bob Huget): If we could bring the committee to order, I'd like to welcome everybody to the standing committee on resources development. This committee has been charged to deal with 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.
The committee has a full and capable staff. On my right is Tannis Manikel, the clerk of the committee; to her right is Jerry Richmond from legislative research; and to Jerry's right is Arlene Cedilnik from Hansard. We also have with us Tony Abbatangelo from broadcast services, whose task it is to record all the wonderful and wise comments that will be heard in this room today.
I'd like to also welcome to today's hearings the Minister of Education, Elmer Buchanan --
Interjection: Agriculture and Food.
The Chair: Agriculture and Food; pardon me. It's a learning experience.
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): He's got enough problems where he is.
The Chair: -- Paul Klopp, who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food; Ms Fawcett and Mr Cleary, who are the co-critics for the opposition party; and Mr Villeneuve and Mr Jordan, who are the co-critics for the third party. I'd like to welcome you all. We look forward to a very productive series of hearings.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: The first order of business is the report of the subcommittee that met on Wednesday, July 28, 1993.
"With respect to 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, your subcommittee recommends the following:
"The committee will meet during weeks of August 23 and 30, on Monday afternoon 2 to 5 pm; Tuesday and Wednesday 10 to 12 am and 2 to 5 pm; Thursday 10 to 12 am and 2 to 4 pm.
"The first Monday afternoon will be set aside for a briefing on the bill by the Minister of Agriculture and ministry staff. The clerk of the committee was instructed to correspond with the minister without delay to inform him of this and to elicit his confirmation of attendance.
"The following four groups are to be invited and scheduled as early in the hearings as possible, preferably consecutively on the second day of hearings (Tuesday, August 24) -- Ontario Federation of Agriculture; National Farmers Union; Christian Farmers Federation; Silent Majority. They are each to receive a one-hour appointment, including questioning time. All other groups and individuals to be scheduled for 30 minutes, including questioning time.
"The clerk of the committee shall place an advertisement in all the daily newspapers in Ontario at the earliest possible opportunity. The advertisement shall be in the normal format used by legislative committees and shall include a statement to the effect that `hearings will be held in Toronto and in other communities as may be necessary.'
"The witness selection and scheduling, and the decision to travel, if warranted, were delegated to the Chair and the clerk.
"The last two days of the second week of meetings will be set aside for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
"The legislative research service was instructed to provide a summary of presentations made to the committee.
"With respect to the draft legislation on graduated licensing, your subcommittee recommends the following:
"The committee will meet during weeks of September 7 and 13, on Monday afternoon 2 to 5 pm; Tuesday and Wednesday 10 to 12 am and 2 to 5 pm; Thursday 10 to 12 am and 2 to 4 pm.
"The first Tuesday afternoon will be set aside for a briefing on the draft legislation by the minister and ministry staff. The clerk of the committee was instructed to correspond with the minister to inform him of this and to elicit his confirmation of attendance.
"All groups/individuals are to be scheduled for 30-minute appointments, including question time.
"The clerk of the committee shall place an advertisement in all the daily newspapers in Ontario. The advertisement shall be in the normal format used by legislative committees and shall indicate that the committee will conduct hearings in Toronto (2 days), Thunder Bay, St Catharines, Sudbury, St Thomas, Ottawa and Kingston (1 day each).
"The witness list provided by the Ministry of Transportation was agreed to and the clerk was directed to invite the groups and individuals listed to appear.
"Legislative research service was instructed to provide a summary of presentations made to the committee."
That is the subcommittee report.
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I move adoption of the subcommittee report.
The Chair: Discussion? There being none, all in favour of adopting the subcommittee's report please indicate. Opposed? Carried.
On a related item, in its advertisement soliciting input from the public on Bill 42, which ran in every daily newspaper throughout the province earlier this month, the committee indicated that it would hold these hearings in communities throughout Ontario, if necessary. This provision was approved by the subcommittee whose report has been adopted.
The subcommittee empowered the Chair in consultation with the clerk of the committee to decide whether or not travel would be necessary. In reviewing the lists of requests to appear before the committee, it was apparent that there were not sufficient numbers of potential witnesses in any single community to justify the committee holding local hearings.
Accordingly, all the committee's hearings on Bill 42 have been scheduled to take place here at Queen's Park.
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
The Chair: The first order of business is the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and I'll turn it over to him.
Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Thank you, Mr Chair. I see that copies of my remarks have already been distributed, so I will attempt to go through them very quickly.
First of all, I think everyone is familiar with the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, as it is known, so rather than go over the specifics of it right now, I'll use the time to point out the strengths of the bill and to address some of the concerns that have been raised regarding certain aspects of this bill.
First and foremost, the legislation will institute a funding mechanism to provide general farm organizations with the kind of financial support they need and deserve. Their efforts in research, education and providing policy advice to governments have benefited all Ontario farmers and should not be allowed to falter due to a lack of funding.
In these days of major restructuring in the entire agriculture and food industry, I believe it's imperative for farmers to have a strong voice in the decision-making process.
With rapid changes occurring in farm technology and management practice, the up-to-date information provided by these organizations is also crucial to farmers' ability to remain competitive.
Without appropriate funding, farm organizations will not be able to continue the kind of research and education process that they have so ably carried out up to now.
Provisions under regulations to be drafted for this legislation will also help empower farmers at the local level. Each farm organization will be required to provide 25% of its net revenues to its local organizations. Not only will this help establish effective representation on the local level; it will ensure that the organizations remain sensitive to grass-roots concerns.
I would add that this was one provision that I was personally involved in making sure was part of this process. It was not necessarily the general farm organizations that were asking for this; it was something that I thought was important to maintain grass-roots support.
Stronger financing to local organizations will allow them to be more involved in planning and projects that benefit the community as well as farmers. General farm organizations have traditionally been key players in stimulating economic activities in rural communities. By increasing local resources to farm organizations, the legislation supports the revitalization of rural communities as well.
At the same time, this bill's requirement for farm businesses to register with the ministry will mean better service to the entire farming community. Because the information will be updated annually, we can obtain accurate, timely information with which to develop new, and improve on existing, policy and programs. As it stands now, we've base decisions on census data which are updated only once every five years.
In addition, our ability to disseminate information on programs will improve with the comprehensive mailing lists that will be available to us from the registration process. I'd like to assure everyone here and everyone in the farming community that all personal information provided to the ministry will be subject to the protection offered under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The bill we have before us has been improved in a number of areas that raised farmers' concerns when its predecessor, Bill 105, was introduced.
The non-refundable farm organization fee under Bill 105 has been replaced with a refundable fee so that farmers have the option of asking for their money back. However, I think that many farmers will see the benefits of supporting these organizations and will not request the refund. In addition, there will be no provision for fines in the new bill.
Other concerns expressed about the legislation have also been addressed.
We have worked with the Mennonite community leaders to alleviate their concerns regarding registration and providing funding to farm organizations. As a result, Bill 42 includes a provision that allows Mennonites and other religious objectors to apply for an independent accreditation board for an exemption from sending a cheque to the ministry. The executive director of the Mennonite Central Committee has stated that his community does not object to providing government with information or with being assigned a registration number.
Bill 42 provides for a special funding mechanism for an eligible francophone organization. This is in keeping with the province's long-standing policy of encouraging and fostering the culture and language of the francophone community.
While it is true that fewer than half of Ontario's farmers belong to the organizations currently being accredited for funding under the legislation, other general farm organizations which meet the criteria will be able to apply to receive funding. This makes the legislation flexible in meeting the needs of a wider variety of interests in the farming community.
In this regard, the legislation is unique. Nowhere else in Canada do farm businesses have a choice of which farm organization they wish to support. I think it's healthy. It provides impetus to organizations to be accountable for their actions and to focus on the needs of farmers.
There have also been some general concerns about how we are putting this legislation in place. I'd like to dispel some of these right up front.
Some have called for a general vote from the farming community on the whole area of stable funding. With the new bill's provision for refunds, farmers will effectively be voting with their chequebooks.
Bill 42 also gives the minister discretion to call for a review of the legislation in three years if substantial numbers of farmers request refunds. However, again, I think the merits of supporting general farm organizations will quickly become apparent and farmers will recognize the benefits in continuing their support.
Along the same lines, some have argued that there was insufficient consultation conducted in the lead-up to this legislation. Members know that last summer, in July of last year, 14 public meetings were conducted by the participating general farm organizations and the ministry. Farmers were encouraged to either attend the meetings or phone a toll-free number with their views.
The fact that we have an improved bill before us now attests to the kind of care we have taken to address the concerns of the farming community. Making the fee refundable, removing the farm organizations funding corporation and removing the provision for fines are responses to those concerns.
1420
I would also add that the farm organizations themselves have done a lot of consultations. I know that the OFA had a meeting at every single county, I know that the other two farm organizations have had several meetings where they've discussed the proposals in this with their membership, and there certainly has been lots of media response in the farm papers and the weekly newspapers. So I think anyone who says that the farmers do not know about this bill is pretending that farmers do not read. They are avid readers of the farm press and they know exactly what's going on.
As some of you know, the idea for stable funding has been around for more than 20 years. The concept has had a thorough airing in the farm community at different points over that time.
I can assure members that all farm businesses affected by the legislation will know well in advance of the bill coming into force what its requirements and benefits will be.
The new registration and funding system will also be administered in a way that is both fair and cost-efficient. As I have said several times, funding and staffing for the registration system will come out of existing ministry resources. No new staff will be hired and no further funding will be needed to run the system.
We have also simplified the process by eliminating the farm organizations funding corporation which was proposed under Bill 105. As the legislation stands, farmers make their cheques payable directly to the general farm organization they choose to support. This is much more efficient than having to go through a third organization.
An independent accreditation tribunal will be needed to provide objective decisions on both accreditation and religious objector applications, but the tribunal will sit only as required, so we expect its operating costs to be minimal. Existing ministry resources will be used for administrative support both in terms of staff and funding.
Some farmers fear that the refundable nature of the fees may be arbitrarily revoked by the minister and that they'll wind up paying regardless of how they feel. Let me assure you that this kind of change could only happen under a legislative amendment, which would have to be approved by a majority of MPPs.
Perhaps the most compelling reason to introduce this legislation at this time is the rapidly changing environment our agriculture and food industry finds itself in. In order to remain competitive, farmers must have access to the latest information on management practices, technology and the emerging issues that they will need to think about and deal with. More and more, farmers are finding it necessary in a complicated world to remain in touch with one another and with the trends that are affecting their future livelihoods. General farm organizations play an integral role in assisting them with vital education and networking services.
At the same time, in these days of fiscal constraint, government should have accurate information on exactly who we are serving so that we can better focus our policies and programs on areas where they are most needed. The days when the economy was buoyant, revenues were high and the government could continually introduce new programs and services are gone, and I think that they're gone for good. Now, even with the substantial economic recovery, the public will demand a full accounting from the government of uses to which their hard-earned dollars are spent. The bill will allow us to collect the kind of information that will be of direct benefit to the farming community.
I'm very encouraged by the amount of support this legislation already has in farming communities throughout the province and I'm convinced that those who are currently reluctant to support it will see and experience the benefits of it in the near future.
By way of conclusion and in I suppose preparation for what I think the committee will hear from a number of people who individually will present to the committee, one should remember that those people who come out to committees like this very often are those people who are opposed to introductions of new ideas. Those people who support what's happening generally are more apathetic and sit back and expect things to happen, so I would like all the committee members to keep that in mind when you hear some of the presentations that I'm sure you will hear.
No one ever expects everyone to agree on this, but generally speaking, in my travels across the province, this bill has a lot of support in the very serious farmers who make a living at farming in this province. I encourage members of the committee to ask pointed questions of those individuals who are opposed to this and those who are in favour.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Minister. Just before we proceed with questions, to my far left is Rita Burak, Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food.
If it's agreeable to the committee, we can proceed in the normal rotation of questioning in 20-minute blocks, 20 minutes per caucus. If that's acceptable to all the committee, then that's what we'll do. Agreed? We'll start then with the opposition party.
Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): First of all, thank you very much. I'm very happy to be taking part in the hearings on the stable funding bill. I think first off I want to say that our party, the Liberal Party, has always been supportive of the concept of stable funding. There just is no doubt about that. Where the difficulty comes is the manner in which it was to be finalized. Certainly as the bill stands now, we will be supporting it, and I just want to make that very clear because there seem to be some interesting statements being made out there.
I'm definitely happy to see some of the changes that have been made. I guess we were all horrified at the penalty clause and so on of the former bill, but certainly, thank goodness, that has disappeared.
I'm wondering if the registration forms are ready now, because I know in speaking with the deputy minister that they were in the process, and I understood also that possibly they were going to go out for a trial with some of the farm groups. I'm just wondering where that all is, whether we do have registration forms and if in fact they have been tested or when they might be.
Hon Mr Buchanan: There was a preliminary form that was tested with a limited group. The comments that were received then were brought back to me. We've revised the form, and my understanding is that we're going to now test it with a larger group to make sure they not only meet the needs of the general farm organizations but they're user-friendly. We are going to check that out with some more farmers before we finalize it. So there's been a sort of trial run and we've made some revisions to make it more user-friendly and, as I understand it, we're going to test it with a larger group now before we finalize it.
Mrs Fawcett: How are you choosing the groups? Is it a cross-section of the various farm organizations or individual farmers? Then how soon do you expect to have these ready in final form to go out?
Ms Rita Burak: We were trying to work with the farm organizations and also trying to have a mix of geography and farming types so that we can assure people that it fits for a variety of different farming operations.
Mrs Fawcett: I'm assuming, but maybe I'm wrong, is it necessary to have that registration form ready before you can actually start to implement the bill? I recall at the end of the session the tremendous speed with which this bill was trying to go forward, even maybe without hearings, and into third reading, but if the registration forms weren't ready, then I wonder why all the fuss.
Hon Mr Buchanan: Having been at this since December 1990, I'm getting a little impatient.
Mrs Fawcett: I can understand that.
1430
Hon Mr Buchanan: We wanted to make sure we can have it up and running so we can bring it in in an orderly fashion and not have it sort of dumped on farmers. I'm sure I'm on the record as saying this would be implemented and introduced on January 1, 1993, if not 1992, and we certainly are targeting and hoping that we can have this completed for the first of 1994. We wanted to make sure the bill is passed before we get our registration form out there circulating around, before these hearings are over.
I don't have any problem in sharing it as a draft proposal at this point, but not as a final registration form. I think we might be able to do something on that. I've made some promise to some other members I would let them have a look at it. I didn't have a copy because I shared it with staff, I commented on it, I made a few questions about the ordering of things, basically housekeeping things, and then they're taking it back for further testing. So I don't have any problem in letting the committee see it, as long as they realize that it's a draft that they're looking at.
We don't want too many chefs in the kitchen here on this, or we could end up with -- what we don't want is a big, long registration form. We're trying to keep it short. We're trying to get some important information that will allow us to make some decisions, like how many people are in this who produce sour cherries, which we know is a problem in terms of price this year, but it'd be nice if we knew exactly how many farmers were growing sour cherries. We want to make sure it's useful but not too long, because if it's too long and complicated, farmers are going to say, "You're taking a lot of our time." We've found that with other forms. The best example of that is the NISA form, which we know that the federal government put together. So we're trying to streamline it, and I don't have any problem showing it to you as a draft registration, because we're not trying to do anything here secretively.
Mrs Fawcett: I'm more concerned with the time. When do you expect it to be ready for final draft?
Hon Mr Buchanan: We would have to have it ready as soon as the bill is passed. It's not completed because we keep testing it. As long as we've got time, we will continue to try to test it out to make sure that it's not too complicated or too long.
We could go with what we have now. We could go with what we had a few months ago when I first looked at it. But we will continue to do some testing and fine-tuning.
But I would make the commitment I'm prepared to share where we're at now, as long as you keep in mind that it's a draft and we don't get everybody having their input and have too many changes to have to make.
Mrs Fawcett: I'll turn it over to my colleague.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Minister, I'm glad you are getting closer on everything here, and the registration form, because I know that has been a concern to many. I guess possibly I'd have to say that we were a little bit disappointed that this dragged on as long as it did, something that was a priority of this government. Every member in the House had thought that this legislation would have been back at the start of the last session and then we would have had our hearings and probably those forms and everything would be done now and things would be solved.
Anyway, I like some of the changes that have been made here, and I'm pleased that you say that you've overcome the problem in the Mennonite community. I'm really pleased about that, because those are pretty good agricultural people and will continue to be that.
The other thing you had said, and I wasn't just too clear on this, being as we had so many problems getting a copy of the bill, was that 25% of the revenue collected would go back to the local organizations. I know that will be good for them. They will not have to put on so many picnics and everything else that goes along with it to raise their funds. But I guess we each enjoy their picnics anyway.
So you think that the final form will be out shortly, probably by the time the House comes back? I know we have a lot of questions on that. We all have to try to find answers.
Hon Mr Buchanan: Maybe the quickest way to the answer is to bring the thing in and show you tomorrow where we're at, but we are going back to do a little bit more testing with the farmers because we basically -- I mean, let's be fair -- did talk to the general farm organizations as well, because they speak for their members, and then it was fine-tuned. There were some things they asked for we didn't put on because they were too detailed, in my view at least. We did some things in order to tidy it up and make it streamlined. But I can share a draft of where we're at with you probably as early as tomorrow.
Mr Cleary: That's all we have to see, a draft. That will solve it.
Hon Mr Buchanan: As long as you understand what we're coming at. It may change a little bit but not significantly. I'm quite prepared to show you that.
Mr Cleary: The other thing that I might like to ask a little bit about is this tribunal that you're setting up. How many people are going to be involved in that and how will they be chosen?
Hon Mr Buchanan: It's probably better that I bring a technical person in. We've had discussions about that. There will be nominees, and ultimately they will be ministerial appointments. We had a lot of discussion on that when we were setting it up as to how they would be appointed, who would put the names forward. Obviously, you want to be careful you don't just get one person from each group whose role would be to keep other groups out.
One of the important roles of this tribunal will be to accredit new organizations. So if you have -- I'll continue to use three as a number -- two people from each of three organizations, their role then would be to maintain their own organizations and not let anybody else in. So we have had discussions about how we get someone who understands agriculture and understands farming, understands rural communities, who would sit on this tribunal but would not sort of be the spokesperson for each of the individual organizations. It will be something that will have to be handled carefully to make sure you get people who are of some independence and not affiliated. That's a tricky thing to do. We were expecting it to have seven members in total.
Mr Cleary: How many will sit at a time? Not all seven?
Hon Mr Buchanan: Not all seven will be required. I think I will get Rolly, who's a director who has been working many hours on this. Is there any way, Mr Chair?
The Chair: I was just going to suggest that there is provision for a technical briefing immediately following the minister's questions. If you would like to follow that format or bring the technical people in now, it's entirely up to the committee.
Mr Cleary: However you want to handle it, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Well, then, if it's agreeable to everybody, we'll proceed with questions to the minister and then bring the ministry staff in for a full technical briefing.
Hon Mr Buchanan: If I could just put my two cents on top of that, we'll just leave that question hanging and he can answer that when the time comes.
Mr Cleary: I have some other questions around it, so I'll wait until that time.
Mrs Fawcett: It's my understanding that the National Farmers Union has now withdrawn from its position as one of the three main groups. I'm wondering, is this going to affect the whole financial picture in some way or are there fears founded that possibly -- I know one of the main things was the administration costs. They figure it might cost them money to be a part of this and so they thought they should pull out for that, and then of course we all know that they wanted the vote mandatory. So I'm just wondering, does this affect the bill in any way?
Hon Mr Buchanan: No. Other than that it will be necessary, I believe, to put in an amendment to remove them as one of the accredited grandparented GFOs. I believe at this point in time it will be necessary. They have communicated to me in writing that they wish to have their names withdrawn as one of the accredited grandparented organizations. They have alluded to the cost. They said that it was going to cost them -- the press said $100,000 to issue refunds. I don't know where they got their costs. But this will not affect the bill proceeding in any way, other than the fact that we'll need an amendment.
Mrs Fawcett: Have you been speaking with the heads of that group?
Hon Mr Buchanan: I have talked to them. I was at their convention in July, I guess it was. They will be here to make presentations as members and as an organization. One of the things they said in their final analysis was that in addition to the cost was the fact that their structure would need to be changed. It's ironic, because the reason there was a three-year grandparenting clause in the bill was that the people who were at the table for them in 1990-91 negotiated the need for three years in order to meet the criteria. They said they could change their structure and it would take them three years to do it. So they would be a truly provincial organization or provincial body, with provincial letters patent and their own treasury, their own bank etc and their ability to then accept money in Ontario and keep it in Ontario. So there's some irony in the fact that we have that three-year clause in there at their request. That's why it was there, and now they are choosing to withdraw because they said they don't want to change the structure of their organization, but those are the facts.
1440
Mrs Fawcett: How's the time?
The Chair: You've got approximately five minutes.
Mrs Fawcett: Just more clarification on this 25% that will go to the local organization: Is that then to completely allow them to choose where they want to spend that money? Is there monitoring of it by the ministry? How does all that work?
Hon Mr Buchanan: The local organization will be responsible to the central organization. We will be interested in receiving an audited statement from the central organization. I doubt that we're going to get down into the county-level organizations. We have better things to do, I think.
Mrs Fawcett: Exactly.
Hon Mr Buchanan: But we will be asking the central organizations, the provincial organizations to be accountable and to show the fact the money did go out. Obviously, if there are complaints and so on, one would investigate, but we're not expecting to monitor things at the local level to that degree any more than they are now.
Mrs Fawcett: I just wondered because the local people know where best to spend their money and how to spend it, so I'm sure they'll do a good job of it.
Hon Mr Buchanan: Absolutely. In fact, I don't know what the actual wording will be, but my wording is "a minimum of 25%." If I were doing it, it would be probably much higher than that, but organizations have a way of centralizing over time, but it says "a minimum of 25%."
Mr Cleary: There are just some that I've found very confusing for a number of weeks now. I know when we were talking to you, Minister, over the last session about getting this legislation into the House, you had said the only thing you were going to agree to would be a few days of hearings here in Toronto, and I just was never able to find out exactly what had happened. I'd just like to know how the two weeks came about, or did that happen? Some people have been getting blamed for it, but I'd like to know just what happened.
Hon Mr Buchanan: I don't know what happened.
Mr Cleary: That makes two of us.
Hon Mr Buchanan: I know that one person blamed me. I was the one who didn't want any hearings, but we had discussions informally and I had conceded for a few days.
My understanding is that the House leaders were negotiating on a whole range of issues and this was put in and somehow got put in for two weeks. I certainly did not think two weeks was necessary other than the fact that it makes agriculture as important as some of the other things. I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if there's any point or any benefit here in trying to figure out why we're here and why it's two weeks at this point in time. I believe it was done at the House leaders' level and this was part of a bargaining chip.
Mr Villeneuve: Ask Murray Elston.
Mrs Fawcett: I really do not agree with that little side comment there from the third party.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): What did he say?
Mrs Fawcett: I believe there are three House leaders, we all know, and that three House leaders have to agree to something, not just one, because one can't do it, especially one in the opposition. We all know that the government House leader has the final say -- bang. Whatever he wants, that's what goes forward anyway. So let's not get into that little side trip.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Fawcett. We're dealing with --
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. We're dealing with Bill 42 and there's probably very little value in dealing with the fascinating process that got us to this point. You have approximately one minute, Mr Cleary.
Mr Cleary: Just to get back to that little bit there so the minister --
Mr Klopp: Who asked the question?
Mr Cleary: -- are saying, as I am, that it was an all-party agreement to give it the two weeks of hearings.
Mr Klopp: It was not.
Mrs Fawcett: Very definitely.
Mr Cleary: Come off it now.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Cleary: Anyway, that's the message that should be out there instead of the message that's out.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cleary. Do you wish to respond minister?
Hon Mr Buchanan: I'll just repeat what I said. It was negotiated. It wasn't my wish to be here for two full weeks, other than the fact that I think all of us could say agriculture is getting two weeks the same as -- I don't know what the other bill is; it's graduated licensing this bill is dealing with --
The Chair: That's correct.
Mrs Fawcett: It's called democracy, I think.
Hon Mr Buchanan: -- and I suppose we should say that we're spending some time talking about agriculture for a change.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Mr Villeneuve.
Mr Villeneuve: It's finally time that we had a look at stable funding. It's been talked about by many people for a very long time.
"User-friendly" I think is most important. Certainly, Bill 105 had many facets that I personally could not accept and I know you, Minister -- it came in and we had some private discussions over it and it was not a user-friendly bill from the start. Certainly it was very acceptable to our party and to me personally to have the bill not only amended but replaced, and I think you did the right thing.
The user-friendliness about the forms: We have many concerns about forms. Farmers fill out forms ad infinitum, it seems. Could you possibly outline what your thoughts are on the forms? I know we've touched on it a bit earlier in the official opposition, but farmers do fill out NISA and GRIP and umpteen other forms. Could they not be meshed into where that information -- you probably need less information than both NISA and GRIP, and I would hope you do, but a lot of those things I think are repetitious and some people are having to hire accountants and whomever else to do these for them.
When you say "user-friendly," I want to make sure I understand that it will be truly user-friendly and that a farmer, his wife or whoever from the family would be able to sit down and fill in the forms, as they will be required to. Could you maybe reinforce that for us today?
Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes, and that's something that when I looked at it, I tried to put my view on in the farm organizations. To give you an example, I believe at one time, on a very early form, we'd ask for a percentage breakdown -- I think I'm accurate here and I'll continue anyway, if somebody will shake his head if I'm not. We'd ask for a percentage breakdown. So if I have 300 acres and I have some cherries and some peaches and some corn and so on, we'd ask for a percentage breakdown on each crop. Well, I mean, I'm a math teacher, but I don't know that I'd necessarily want to sit down and figure out if I've got seven acres of alfalfa out of 300, what percentage that is and try to fill out the form. I can put down that I know I've got seven acres of alfalfa.
So I think we've changed the forms now and we basically ask to check off, and I believe we've asked for some quantity in terms of the size, although I'm not positive of that, so that simplifies it. The farmer knows he's got 10 acres of whatever and he can put down what his crops are made up of. That's the kind of thing we've done to try to simplify it so that the farmer himself can sit down and fill it out in probably 10, 15 minutes or something like that would be my guess.
We have the usual tombstone data that people have to put on almost every form.
The other thing we have, in terms of business corporations, where there are two or three partners, we're asking for some information there. We're asking for farm businesses to be registered, as opposed to each individual farmer, because there may be three farmers in partnerships and they can register as one organization. We want to know that there are three people involved.
So there's a little bit more to fill in there, but on the regular data we're asking for our own use. I think we've made it as user-friendly as we can and we're not asking for much in the way of financial data, other than an overview of what size of operation.
Mr Villeneuve: On the financial data angle, will you be asking for specific gross and net income figures or will you be asking for ranges?
Hon Mr Buchanan: We'll be asking for ranges, I think, in the $5,000 --
Interjection.
Hon Mr Buchanan: Or bigger, $5,000 or bigger. I'd been told earlier that you'd have to get the details later. But no, it's range. We're doing it in range. You check off roughly a range.
Mr Villeneuve: This will be confidential information and subject to protection.
Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes.
Mr Villeneuve: Now, the gross income criteria: $7,000 has been the key gross income figure for a long time. Could you give us your personal opinion on a $7,000 gross, how far that would get you in today's farming world and what you would think might be a little more realistic?
Hon Mr Buchanan: There's no magic, I guess, in where the $7,000 came from, although it's being looked at in a different way as to what $7,000 means. That's why it was picked, because that's the floor for the farm tax rebate. One of the farm organizations came in suggesting that it should be as high as $20,000, that if you're a farmer, you should have at least $20,000.
1450
The committee that spent almost three years looking at this kicked those around. Quite frankly, I think if you're a farmer, even a hobby farmer, $7,000 isn't very much. But we decided, in the interests of sort of uniformity and not to change too many things, that we would stick with the $7,000, even though I recognize that it's low. It probably could be raised, but it does affect some of the people who get the farm tax rebate.
The argument on the other side of the coin was that if we increase the floor, those people who buy farms and rent them back to real farmers would increase the rent in order to recoup higher revenues and that some farmers might suffer from higher rent on rented land. When we get the data and we know actually how much land is rented and being farmed -- which we will have, because one of the things we ask on the form is how many acres you own, how many you rent -- we'll have a little bit better handle on the issue of rental. I think that the $7,000 is quite low, but I wasn't prepared at this point in time, given that there were some controversial issues associated with this, to raise it at the same time.
Mr Villeneuve: Do I draw a conclusion maybe from between the lines here that you will be looking at a bona fide farmer renting a non-farm-owned property as not qualifying him for a tax rebate? To this point, the farm tax rebate -- except for one year, under another government, a bona fide farmer qualified a property owner who owned farm land for a farm tax rebate. Do I hear a little bit in what you're saying that this may not continue?
Hon Mr Buchanan: No, this will continue. It will be the farmer who needs to register, so that the owner of the land -- we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, but the person who owns the farm and who leases it to a farmer who actively farms it would need to know what the registration number was of the farmer who was actually renting the land, and that person who owns it would still get his farm tax rebate.
Mr Villeneuve: Then the person who rents the farm, the farmer who qualifies the non-farm person who would be getting the benefit of the farm tax rebate, should not see an increase then in the rental fee because of the non --
Hon Mr Buchanan: Absolutely, because the person who owns the farm, who rents it out, will not necessarily need to register. They will not have to pay and go through this process as long as the person who farms the land registers and gives them the number to put on the form.
Mr Villeneuve: My colleague here from Lanark-Renfrew has some questions, but I'm simply going to suggest to you that possibly you should look at this area where in the bill now, the minister is the person who is subject to review in three years' time or whatever. I would like the committee and the minister to consider this to be done by a committee which is at this time looking at that legislation, and together and in concert with whomever the minister is three years hence -- it could very well be you or it could be someone else, but whomever that person is would have direction from the committee.
I do know that many people are still out there saying we should have a vote. I have a problem with the non-existence of a voters' list. I would hope that three years hence we would have a so-called voters' list of bona fide farmers, at which time the minister, in concert with a committee -- I would simply like to see the minister, in concert with a committee of this Legislature, look at the services that have been provided, the effectiveness of the farm organizations, the way they are accredited, the way they may want to be delisted, as appears to be the case now. I think this committee, or a committee of the Legislature, should be mandated to do this. Would you consider that?
Hon Mr Buchanan: I will consider it. I have been having some discussions with my ministry staff. We've been discussing what that would look like and so on. I, at this point in time, would say I haven't ruled it completely out.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you. I'll yield to my colleague from Lanark-Renfrew.
Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Mr Minister, going back to the questioning on the gross income for the farm, I get some questions in my riding regarding, for an example, a widow who is living on the farm and she's renting her land to a larger farm operation. The word is coming around somehow from somewhere that on this form -- supposing I'm the farmer who's renting the land from her and I have a gross income of $50,000, just for a figure. Am I going to have to break it down on that form and show what portion of that $50,000 actually came from the land I rented from her?
Hon Mr Buchanan: No.
Interjection.
Hon Mr Buchanan: The answer is no. It's unequivocally no. And it just reminded me of another problem we have with severances, small lots in rural Ontario that are set aside as individual lots that do get farm tax rebate because they're still farmed even though they're severed lots. That's another issue that I'm sure you'll want to ask about some day.
The answer is clearly no. It's not required now, because you can have a farm with four or five lots severed and you get the farm tax rebate on those lots that are severed. You certainly wouldn't gross $7,000 on a one-acre lot that you've severed off. So it isn't happening now and it won't happen in the future.
Mr Jordan: Okay. On the tribunal, that's going to be a very important part of the bill, this tribunal that you're setting up. First of all, I would assume that it must be a bilingual tribunal.
Hon Mr Buchanan: One member at least, obviously, yes.
Mr Jordan: Is that all you would require, is one member to be bilingual?
Hon Mr Buchanan: I'm not the expert, but obviously there needs to be a francophone farmer, a bilingual person, yes. But I certainly would not say all members of the tribunal would be bilingual. That would be unnecessary.
Mr Jordan: So it's not going to be a bilingual tribunal, then.
Mr Klopp: Are you looking for a job, Leo?
Mr Jordan: Could be one I can handle.
Hon Mr Buchanan: It depends on one's definition of the word "bilingual," but it would be unnecessary to have it as a bilingual tribunal per se under what most of us would view as the meaning of "bilingual."
Mr Jordan: The other question relative to that is, if a French farm organization meets the accreditation and so on, the points required to make it acceptable to this bill, what services would it be providing to farmers, other than a bilingual service?
Hon Mr Buchanan: The same services as the OFA or the Christian Farmers would in English. It would be exactly the same service -- maybe they would do a better job -- but it would be delivered in their own language.
Mr Jordan: Has it been considered that we just leave it all one and we make all our services to the farm organizations bilingual, as we do other government documents?
Hon Mr Buchanan: If I travel in certain sections of eastern Ontario, the president of the farm organization that I deal with is unilingual in French as I am primarily in English and requires some services in French. There still is a need for unilingual French, and there still is also, for those who are bilingual who prefer to read in the language they understand the best, a need to provide those services. We've recognized it in the bill, and that's why we're providing for some funding for a francophone farm organization.
Mr Jordan: In conclusion, then, the money that you're providing for a francophone organization is basically for a bilingual service. There aren't other programs different than the English-speaking, if you will, farm groups are going to receive.
1500
Hon Mr Buchanan: Well, it's not just translation. The francophone farm organization does not simply translate something into French. They provide services as well for their members. They do other things for their membership as well which are somewhat different but similar, but not the same as the OFA would. The francophone organization at the present time is very interested in education and new technology. They're interested --
Mr Jordan: But aren't we all interested?
Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes. What I'm saying, though, is it has probably a higher priority in their list of services that they provide for their members than it does in the other organizations. They put a very high importance on management training, for example. Everyone understands the importance of it; it's just that they've placed it at a very high level. So each one is somewhat different, and some of the funds that they're going to receive are obviously coming from the other organizations to provide French services perhaps for their members.
Mr Jordan: They're coming from --
Hon Mr Buchanan: The OFA and the CFFO are going to provide some of the moneys they receive from other farmers to the francophone organization, which of course at this time is the UCFO.
The Chair: Mr Villeneuve, you have approximately three minutes.
Mr Villeneuve: The mechanics of the $150 -- I believe right now the fee's been set for $150. Someone decides that's not enough or whatever; it needs to be changed. It's not likely to go down. What is the procedure, or do you have a set-out procedure?
Hon Mr Buchanan: There isn't a set-out procedure, at least not that I am -- we have discussed it. Within the organizations, it was discussed at great length. That was one of the fears that some of the farmers had: get us in at $150 and then raise it. So there isn't a procedure that has been set aside. But I think we're talking about consultation and working with the farm organizations. Obviously, if the fees go up, then perhaps the participation drops off. Obviously, there's some political fallout for the government or the minister, whoever is party to this. So I'd think there would need to be some consultation, and that would be in the regs, so it could be changed. But it isn't laid out: "This is how you would do it."
If I could just add one thing, I think originally we talked about $150 being there for three years. That was the intent of the people who sat down in 1990, that we would have a freezing of the fees and they were going to have more money because more farmers would be in and that would allow them to keep the fees at that level.
Mr Villeneuve: That may be one more very good reason to have it come back to a committee of the Legislature as opposed to the minister and whomever.
The phantom cheque business: This has always been intriguing since the refundable aspect came to be part of the bill. Are there going to be phantom cheques?
Hon Mr Buchanan: If a "phantom cheque" is something that's not cashable, my understanding with most cheques is it says something about it having some value, that you can deposit it somewhere and know that it's worth something. I think there are some quarters where I'm being quoted as saying that it would be all right if they did something to a cheque. That was at a meeting where I was responding to a question where I wasn't exactly sure what water I was getting into, but it got deep very quickly. In terms of the regulations, if we receive something that is worthless in terms of what was intended, if someone suggests that you're going to write a cheque out to the OFA for $150 that it cannot cash, it's of no value, we will most likely be returning that cheque as not a cheque; it's a piece of paper that doesn't have any value. So we will be trying to deal with that.
Mr Villeneuve: This is going to have to be clarified quite extensively, hopefully during these hearings.
Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes.
Mr Villeneuve: I know that's going to be part of my questioning to the different people, because it's my understanding now that because of the refundable aspect of it, you simply sign a phantom cheque to register yourself; you never intended to pay and you never will pay. I don't think that was ever meant to be that way. That's something that I think is going to have to be clarified.
Hon Mr Buchanan: There are two issues, and we were meeting as recently as this morning. One deals with the NSF cheque in the system that happens now. The OFA and other organizations end up quite often with NSF cheques.
We will be certainly looking at a way of, if we receive something that obviously no one could deposit because it's got something on the back of it or the front of it or it's been defaced in some way so that it does not have any value to anyone, we anticipate that we will be returning that to the person, not registering them or giving them a number and saying, "This is not acceptable." We are currently working on just how that will work, and the staff I'm sure can answer some of the more detailed questions, but we have to separate that from the NSF cheque, which is a separate issue.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister. I'd like to take the opportunity to welcome to the committee Mr Wood, Mr Hansen, Mr Cooper, Mr Wilson and Mr Perruzza, who have joined us for hearings on Bill 42, and we'll lead off questioning with Mr Hansen.
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): The question to the minister is that this legislation that we have now has been around for about 20 years. It's taken 20 years until we've got to where we're at right now with this farm stabilization. Is this legislation used in other jurisdictions in Canada or the United States?
Hon Mr Buchanan: There are other ways of funding farm organizations in other provinces. Actually, it's a good question, because you take me back to 1990, and my memory's fading here, but in Quebec there is one farm organization. Everyone is expected to belong to that organization. There's an organization in Manitoba which in fact has a very complicated checkoff system where they extract revenues from every farmer in the province. Quebec and Manitoba are primarily the two provinces that have something in place that farmers sort of must participate in in a legal sense. The other provinces do not have a similar system, but those two do.
Mr Hansen: Okay. Maybe I'd question a little bit more how this bill actually compares to other jurisdictions like Manitoba. You say it's a compulsory checkoff. What does the farmer receive in Manitoba -- if you can answer that, because you must have studied all these areas -- compared to what they would in Ontario here?
In other words, you're going to be getting a registration number. This number will be able to identify a farmer and possibly other benefits as we go along to say that possibly you can have an exemption here or there because you are a farmer etc. Can you give me a little bit more background on more advantages, other than just the farm organizations themselves, what the individual farmer will benefit also?
Hon Mr Buchanan: I'm not the expert in the Quebec and the Manitoba situations, but I can tell you that, generally speaking, checkoff systems are a good way of funding central organizations. So you have a checkoff on all the cattle or all the hogs that are sold in a province and it goes to provincial agencies. It provides them with an ongoing source of revenues, and that serves certainly its purpose.
It does not necessarily strengthen the local farm organizations, the local chapters of those organizations. If we look at what we have in this province in the way of checkoffs in various -- in many of the cases you're going to have the same grass-roots support.
This particular legislation, in my view, is going to strengthen the voice at the community level, at the local organization, get them more involved, because I believe that if you're participating in this, you're going to come out to the meetings at the local level and you're going to strengthen the farm voice at the community level, which is not the case in Manitoba.
In Quebec I would say that there's a very powerful voice but it's centralized. The minister from Quebec in fact recently said to me that he wasn't too sure what we were doing here, because in Quebec he has to consult with the head of the organization in Quebec before he makes a move, and this was bad, that he would have to consult.
I don't necessarily think it's bad. We're not asking all farmers to belong to one organization. We're giving them a choice, we're giving the option for more organizations to be added in the future. So we've got more flexibility in our plan than they have in Quebec or in Manitoba. There's some choice involved in this, and it's also going to put money back at the grass-roots level, which is what I believe the strength of the farm organizations is, at the local level.
1510
Mr Hansen: Well, of all the bills that the government's put in, on Bill 42 I've only had support at my office. I haven't had one person object to it. But my area has a lot of OFA; we've got the Christian farmers. But I did have a tour with a feed dealer on their farm exchange program up in the Bruce area, and I talked to Christian farmers in that particular area, OFA, and they said: "Let's get on with it and get it done with. We've waited long enough." I can say that I haven't had one objection on this particular bill and I think that overall in the community we would hear in our offices of large objections. So I think it's a bill that we should get through and get going by January 1994, if not earlier.
Mrs Fawcett: Maybe you people should stick to agriculture.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you very much, Minister, for coming forward today with your presentation and the time you're taking to answer questions. Having been born and raised on a farm for the first 15 years of my life, and a lot of my relatives are still farming, I've taken an interest in this.
A brief question to the point: From what I can understand, the farmers are going to be required to pay a fee, and there are going to be benefits for the farmers, but there are also going to be benefits for the communities. I'm just wondering if you wanted to elaborate more on what benefits there might be for the farming communities and for the farmers.
Hon Mr Buchanan: I believe quite strongly in trying to strengthen what I call rural communities -- that may involve a town and the area around it, the township or townships around it -- as a viable economic unit. Over the last couple of decades, many rural communities have been in disrepair, if you will. Their economics are in a downwards spiral. The farm community basically has been in a recession since 1981. They never really came out of the recession in the farming area.
I think it's important to have strong organizations at the local level. These are the organizations, in addition to the agricultural societies, with the local farm organizations, that have ideas, that produce leaders.
One of the things that I think for the future is that we need to look at ways of getting more money in from the consumer back to the farmer, and the farmers are the ones who need to figure out the ways of doing that. Governments can't do that.
They sponsor lots of educational things for the people in the communities in terms of the importance of buying Ontario-grown products. They have ideas. They have ways of setting up farmers' markets, for example. That has to be a decision made at the local level.
So there's lots of things they can do at the local level that can't be done centrally, and that's why I think this is so important, to get some revenues to the local organizations to help revitalize rural Ontario, starting with the farmer.
Mr Wood: Just before I turn it over to Mr Klopp, I know that there's a history going back 25 years with the farmers who have been working and the research that I've been looking through there. There have been eight attempts made since 1969 to do this, and I would have preferred to see it happen a little bit earlier. I would have like to have seen third reading in June or July. It wasn't to be because there was no agreement reached. But I'm looking forward to the presentations that are going to be coming forward and listening intently to what they have to say. I'll turn it over to the Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wood. Mr Klopp.
Mr Klopp: Thank you very much. I'm glad to see you today, and colleagues from all sides of the House, here to talk about this important issue.
For me, I've been involved in this issue since I was 21 years old and I'm little older than that now. In fact I've come full circle to agree that we need to have a strong farm mandatory, refundable or whatever checkoff.
Some of the people I've talked to over the years in fact, and there are still a few out there unfortunately -- or, well, maybe it's fortunate we're lucky enough to live in a society that allows different thought -- have said: "As a government here, what are you doing? You're forcing people to join something." They act like it's something new and has never been around before.
I think back in my own county. We have a Huron county federation of agriculture, which is a general farm organization for the county. I was lucky enough and honoured to be actually the president for a couple of years. But that organization was founded by the county council, and they actually made every township, through a levy on your farm property, a certain percentage to go a general farm organization. It was structured not unlike what we're doing now here that you have each township, so that you talk about local people really having to get involved -- because that's only how an organization works. Money is the easy part. It's getting people to get to a meeting and maybe have your gas and telephone bills paid, heaven forbid.
But then it worked out that over the years, because of people maybe trying to get along better or whatever, the levy was taken off in some townships and just a grant form was given, at the beginning in lieu of what they received in a levy form. But I know myself that over the years, because maybe there weren't so many farmers active on councils or whatever but for a lot of reasons, the levy started to disappear. As the levy disappeared, I think I saw a direct relationship to the amount of input that rural people had on political issues.
I guess my point is, I do believe that you need to have strong organizations and you need to have some stability in how much money you get in, and also the idea that it's something that is new and radical, I think if we look back on our history, we've had a lot of people who were forward-thinkers, and I think this bill does that.
With regard to the local input, you mentioned the 25%. What was your general reasoning why you recognized that you need to make sure that money gets back there?
Hon Mr Buchanan: I'm going to be careful here not to name any organizations by name, but there have been a lot of good ideas, a lot of good organizations, that have become overcentralized. We even know of some very good charities that have started out in years past to really perform a vital function that over time became centralized and having a large head office and more staff and so on. Those concepts became more important and more and more of the money that was available went into running a central organization as opposed to service delivery. I've seen that happen. I've seen it happen in other fields. I'm not just talking here about agriculture. It can happen in education. It can happen, as I mentioned, in many charities.
I was looking at a way of providing stable funding, if you will, for organizations, but I wanted it primarily channelled at the local level so that the local level would be the one with the ideas -- they're where the service is needed -- and provide service for the members, and not simply provide a source of funds for a glass palace somewhere in, I don't know, Chatham or Mississauga or wherever. It's important to me that the money go back and the service go back to the members. So that's why I wanted that provision there that we not just get into a large central bureaucracy.
Mr Klopp: I think that's something that would help get a lot of farmers on side on this issue, because I know that even in our own discussions our council had at the county level almost six years ago over this, we wanted to make sure that any farmer who felt -- and that argument always came up, it seems: "Oh, well, you're going to have somebody at the top with a car." Any of us who ever really got involved in organizations, if anything, we were always doing the opposite. We were the first ones to take a pay cut or to cut out even getting gas money.
So I was really glad to see that we listened to that and we said, "Well, okay, we'll put this in place to get people to go on side," because truly I have seen a remarkable situation happen in this province over this issue, and I think you can be credited for that, which is that for so many people who maybe haven't joined, or joined once in a while and stopped once in a while, these questions were something that would bother them and we answered them. I think that shows with the feeling that I have out there, and I think a lot of us have, that this is good at organizations and this will work.
The registration and the ministry benefits: So many people on this question say: "Well, what do you mean that the government doesn't have lots of information now?" I've had to try to explain that maybe we have tons of information but it's almost unusable because of the one grape farmer here or another farmer in another area. In your registration, you alluded to a little bit of farm programs, but could you expand a little bit on that, on how you will use the information?
1520
Hon Mr Buchanan: First of all, we will have for the first time -- as I understand it, we'll know how many farm businesses there are in this province. I can remember my first day on the job when I asked how many farmers there were in the province. We know how many farm tax rebate cheques we send out, we know how many various people are enrolled in different programs, but we don't know the crossover, where people have three different businesses owned by the same person. We can't detect that they're different. So we're going to have some accurate data; we're going to know how much we've got in terms of acreage; we're going to be able to determine shifts in patterns.
An example is, some people said that GRIP would lead to changes in what people would grow because of the one -- soybeans, for example, might be a better thing to be growing than wheat or corn because of a better price. People would switch their crops, not because of the market, not because of the climatic conditions, not because of the land they own; simply because they thought there was a better support price for GRIP.
We'll be able to monitor those things if we choose to on an annual basis now when we see what the shifts are. We'll have up-to-date information and be able to see what the changes are and what's happening. So it'll be current information as opposed to anecdotal or information that's five years old. The census data is a useful overview, but it's not a precision estimate that you can make decisions based on because, quite frankly, the census forms -- we talked a little bit about forms earlier. I'm very familiar that the farm census form is not the most user-friendly form one ever had to fill out. So we're hoping we'll have some very accurate information on a very short form.
Mr Klopp: How much time do we have left?
The Chair: You've got approximately three minutes, Mr Klopp.
Mr Klopp: I think, in the interests of time maybe we'll want to get on with the -- like our caucus has said, we want to get this thing passed as soon as possible. Let's move on if it's all right with you. We'll give you three minutes back.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klopp. I'd like to acknowledge the presence of the member for Chatham-Kent, who is not a regular member of this committee, but I know he's interested in the deliberations and interested in this bill. I welcome you and hope you enjoy the proceedings. There is approximately two minutes of government time left. If you wish to ask a question, you may do so.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): No thanks.
The Chair: We've completed the first round of questioning. If it's agreeable to the committee, if everybody's questions have been sufficiently answered, we will then move to a technical briefing. Any opposition to that?
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): So moved, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Perruzza. I'd like to thank you, Mr Minister. You are certainly more than welcome to stay for the technical briefing if you wish. May I have the ministry people come forward, please, and take a position by a microphone and identify yourselves for the purposes of Hansard.
Mr Rolly Stroeter: Am I in the way if I sit here?
The Chair: The difficulty is that you must speak into a microphone so it can be recorded on Hansard. If you're seated by a microphone you're okay, and if you're seated by a microphone, please identify yourselves and we'll proceed with the briefing.
Mr Stroeter: I'm Rolly Stroeter. I'm the chair for the working group who has been working on this issue for the last couple of years. We have a two-part presentation. I'll start out and give you a brief background and a bit of a policy rationale for the bill. I will explain the registration system and how it will work and maybe address a couple of the issues that were raised here about the tribunal and the francophone organization. Louise Stratford, the director of legal services, will then go on to a review of the bill itself.
In terms of background, colloquially, this issue has been referred to as stable funding. This is not about horses but about finding a stable source of funding for general farm organizations. The minister mentioned it was on the agenda for a long time. This is actually the third committee since 1989. In 1991, Minister Buchanan invited farm leaders of the three general farm organizations to join him on a steering committee to see if they couldn't move this issue forward. We introduced Bill 105 in November 1992 and this bill was replaced in June 1993 with Bill 42.
Why is it important to provide a stable source of funding for general farm organizations? The number of lobby groups and industry groups has risen dramatically over the last few years and most industry groups really rely on checkoffs and this is quite easy for producer-representative groups when your aim is to market a product and you receive money. These groups are generally well-funded and the whole concept of checkoff is extremely well-recognized in Ontario. This, however, has left the general farm organizations -- and they deal really with a full range of agricultural issues beyond specific commodity groups -- somewhat vulnerable. Somebody needs to address the industry-wide issue, the overarching issues, the land use policy, the environmental question, the taxation issue, farm finance questions; most of these go beyond specific commodity interests.
Also, the costs of membership development have risen significantly in previous years. Some of the larger organizations actually spend almost one third of their revenues on membership development, so clearly it is a very expensive business to maintain this kind of organization. At the same time, government is relying more and more on advice and input from these organizations and very few policies and programs are developed today without their input. So the pressure on farm organizations is to send their members and their executive members to all kinds of consultations, to be prepared and to provide good policy advice to the government. All these developments then result in increasing financial pressures on these general farm organizations.
The funding mechanism itself: Many options were considered over the past few years, all the way from various checkoff proposals -- voluntary, mandatory, refundable -- to various payment processes. Bill 42 now provides a refundable fee to accredited general farm organizations; it provides a choice -- several of them; it provides for the special funding of one francophone farm organization; it provides for a farm business registration system; it allows program access validation to eligible farm businesses; and, as the minister has mentioned, a significant change from previous proposals is the empowerment of local organizations by actually directing 25% of the fees collected to the local level to encourage strong grass-roots organizations.
Why did we need a registration system? The ministry does not have a consolidated profile of agricultural producers as business entities. This clearly is an important business sector in the economy and we need to understand it as such. The intended uses of information are primarily to analyse and develop ministry programs and policies. It will help us in distributing and mailing application forms and other information to our clients. It will assist in the collection of the farm organization funding fee and will also validate program access such as the farm tax rebate program.
You have asked what type of information are you asking for and how complicated will it be. All Ontario farm businesses with sales of $7,000 plus must register their farm business operation with the ministry. They will provide basic information only: business name and the ownership structure -- is it a proprietorship or corporation; if there are shareholders, who are the three principal shareholders; if it's a cooperative or a public corporation, who are the three top officers, their names and addresses.
Then there is demographic data that we will be collecting, strictly age -- not precise age, age in range; I believe it's five- or 10-year ranges -- educational background, general level of education and continuing education that these people have undertaken.
1530
And we will be asking for business data. This business data is the data farmers will have filed with Revenue Canada the year before. We are not seeking copies of any of this information. We are strictly relying on a self-declaratory mechanism whereby the farm business owner declares gross farm income as reported on the last Revenue Canada filing and it is going to be in broad ranges. I see operation between $7,000 and $10,000, $10,000 and $25,000, $50,000 and $100,000, $100,000 to $250,000, or more than $250,000, roughly those kind of ranges, very broad.
Then we will also ask for the number of employees, hired labour, non-family members. We want to have a small idea about farm acreage: How much do you own? How much do you rent in? How much do you rent out? -- and review of the sources of sales: What kind of commodities do you produce? What kind of crops do you grow? What's the livestock that you have? -- and only by type, not by size or percentage, just simply: "Yes, I have a mixed-farm operation. I have wheat, and I have some livestock and here it is." You know, just a checkmark type of thing.
All the information that we do collect is subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That means it can only be used for the purpose intended and that we have declared to farmers what use we will put it to. In terms of sharing the information with general farm organizations, the only information that gets shared is: name, address and telephone number of the principal owners and the name of the farm business and the registration number. We'll forward the cheque to the farm organization. That's the extent of sharing.
In terms of analysis, we can analyse this data and issue reports on a very summary basis. But nobody can find out: It's farmer x on concession "so" has this kind of operation. That is proprietary and that's protected.
How does a farm business go about registering? Very briefly, a very short review of the steps in the process: The ministry will mail out a brochure and a registration form. The minister has committed to the form being short. We hope it's going to be no longer than three pages. The owners return the information and the cheque to the ministry. The ministry updates its database. We validate the farm business registration number.
We then send a cheque that the farmer made out to one of the accredited farm organization, to the farm organization with the limited data that I described: name, address, telephone number. The farm organization provides receipt of the cheque, the amount paid and any kind of membership information about the organization the farmer may be interested in. The farmer then has the option, the choice, to request a refund from the farm organization directly. This does not invalidate any registration number. However, a valid registration number is needed to access programs such as the farm tax rebate program. This process is repeated each year.
Let me talk very briefly about the tribunal. The minister suggested that there would be seven members. They are knowledgeable and pre-eminently qualified to know about issues in the agriculture industry and know something about farm organizations. Clearly they cannot be currently members of the board of directors or elected leadership of farm organizations. However, it would be difficult to find qualified people who at one time or another in their lives weren't members of farm organizations, clearly. So long as it's far enough in the background, that's fine.
The tribunal has, really, three purposes. It's there to determine orders on hearing for religious exemption requests, it's there to determine special funding for the francophone organization and it's there to accredit and review general farm organizations, accreditation status. It only sits as it is required. So it's part-time per diem payments that are paid and there is no administration or full support to this organization. It's an ad hoc group that meets as needed.
In terms of what kind of services the francophone organization provides, it provides general farm organization services, just as the English organizations provide. The difference here is that they provide it mainly to their members in their own language. It also provides francophone members an opportunity to really participate in a francophone farm organization as unilingual-speaking individuals. That is one of the strengths the francophone organization has: It's not bilingual in that sense; it's a unilingual organization. It allows for that. It really focuses on the special interests that francophone farmers would have in Ontario. It has a full range of education programs that the other organizations do. They're very similar to the other farm organizations in that respect.
That's it for me. I turn over to Louise Stratford for the clause-by-clause review.
Ms Louise Stratford: Thank you, Rolly. I'm the ministry's director of legal services. I'd like to offer you a bit of a road map to the legislation, so you know where things are, an overview of some of the key concepts and principles in the bill.
The first overhead is just a rundown of the various parts of the bill, the general headings, as to what's contained in each. I'll be taking you through each of these parts in a fairly general way. Each of these tackles a different feature of the bill and they aren't part I, II or III as such, but you'll find the headings in the front of the bill. As you carry on with the hearings, you should be able to find things fairly easily.
The first part of the bill deals with definitions. It's brief. There's really only one definition of particular note, and that's the definition of "farming business." The bill defines a farming business as a farming business within the meaning of the federal Income Tax Act. Under income tax rules, a farming business is one that is required to report income from farming. It can be various forms of business organizations, such as sole proprietorships, partnerships, corporations and so on. Whatever form of business organization the farmer's using for income tax purposes will be the one that will be relevant for the purposes of this bill.
The idea here is that this should make things easy for the farmer. He or she is used to reporting for income tax purposes on a certain basis, and we're hoping to mirror that so that there won't be undue confusion about different rules as to what constitutes a business entity.
The next part of the bill deals with the farming business registration form. Sections 2 and 3 of the bill deal with who has to file a registration form, what information is required and what the ministry can do with the information. The registration form is to be filed annually and the annual deadline for filing the form will be determined by regulation.
The only persons who will be required to file are those who carry on a farming business which has an annual gross income from farming of an amount to be prescribed, which we've all heard is $7,000 or more.
Regardless of how many people are involved in the business, only one form is required to be filed for the business. The form must contain the name and address of the farming business, plus other information that will be prescribed, and you've already heard a little bit about what is planned there.
The ministry may use information gathered in the forms to develop policies and programs, to distribute information about the programs and to develop mailing lists for use by the ministry in distributing the information. No other uses of the information may be made unless the use is authorized by regulation. As Rolly has said and as you've heard from the minister, registration information will be subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which means that there are restrictions on the use and disclosure of personal information that is gathered through these forms.
The next portion of the bill deals with accredited farm organizations. Sections 4 through 10 cover who may apply for accreditation, the accreditation process and the concept of deemed accreditation.
Only a farm organization that is accredited under the act will be able to receive payments under the act.
The bill provides that any organization representing farmers in the province may apply for accreditation. Applications are made to the Farm Organizations Accreditation Tribunal, which, as you've heard, is a new independent tribunal that is set up under this bill.
1540
To qualify for accreditation, a farm organization must prove to the tribunal that it meets the criteria that will be set out in the regulations under the act. The tribunal will hold hearings when considering applications for accreditation. Once it is granted, accreditation will be in effect for three years. However, there is potential for a review of accreditation during that time if three members of the tribunal come to the view that a review is justified. In that event, the three members can ask the chairman to convene a hearing to review the organization's accreditation to measure whether the criteria are still being adhered to. If in fact the tribunal finds that the organization no longer meets the criteria, the tribunal has the power to suspend or revoke the accreditation.
At the expiry of three years, an accredited organization must obtain a renewal of its accreditation from the tribunal. Another hearing must be held to consider this renewal application.
This part also deals with deemed accreditation. Section 7 provides that three farm organizations are automatically accredited, starting at a time to be set in the regulation. These three, as you've heard, are the Christian Farmers Federation, the Ontario region of the National Farmers Union and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. These three organizations are deemed accredited for a period of three years and no review can be conducted of their eligibility for accreditation during that time. After that, though, they will be subject to those criteria like everyone else.
The next portion of the bill deals with the eligible francophone organization.
Sections 11 through 19 deal with the special funding arrangements that are available for one francophone organization, which will be named in the regulations. The organization will be eligible for special funding if it meets the conditions set out in the bill. The bill contains three conditions: first, that it serves the socioeconomic and cultural interests of francophone farmers; second, that it offers its services to farming businesses in the French language; and, third, that it meets the criteria to be contained in the regulations.
The origins and amount of the special funding are not set out in the bill. They will be provided by the accredited farm organizations and the ministry under an agreement. The regulations will name one organization as eligible for special funding. The eligibility will last for three years. After three years, that organization must obtain a renewal of eligibility from the tribunal and at that time it must demonstrate that it meets the conditions contained in section 11 of the act.
After the initial three years of eligibility have lapsed and the organization obtains a renewal, there is potential for a review of eligibility by the tribunal through a similar process to that already described in relation to accreditation of organizations. Only one francophone organization at a time can be eligible for special funding. If the original organization that is named in the regulation loses its eligibility, however, another organization may apply.
Next is registration. Section 20 contains the requirement for the farm business to make a payment. It provides that at the same time as the farming business registration form is filed, the persons carrying on the business must supply a cheque for a prescribed amount, which as you have heard is $150, payable to an accredited organization. The ministry will advise farm businesses of which organizations are accredited beforehand, when the form is mailed out, so that farmers are aware of what the choices are.
When the ministry receives the completed form and the cheque, it will assign a registration number to the farming business and forward the cheque to the relevant accredited farm organization. The ministry will provide the accredited organizations with the name, address and registration number of those who provided the cheque. The accredited organizations are required to promptly refund the payment if requested by the farm business that made the payment.
Section 21 of the bill deals with religious objections. There is an exemption process provided for those who object to making the required payment on the basis of a religious belief. Individuals who so object may make application to the tribunal for an order that providing a cheque be waived. The tribunal will hold a hearing and, if satisfied that the religious belief is genuinely held, will grant that order.
Section 22 concerns program access. It states that only a person with a current registration number will be entitled to benefit from designated programs or subsidies from the ministry. A registration number is only current until such time as the next annual statement is required to be filed. This is an incentive for compliance with the act.
The next portion deals with the Farm Organizations Accreditation Tribunal, which you've heard a bit about already. Section 23 sets up the tribunal. A maximum of seven members is provided for to be appointed by order in council. The tribunal has jurisdiction in three general areas: accreditation of farm organizations, which would include new applications, renewals and reviews; eligibility of francophone organizations for special funding -- again, renewals, reviews and, in certain circumstances, new applications; and religiously based exemption applications.
The tribunal may conduct proceedings in panels of three or more members. If it so decides, it may have a couple of hearings going at once with panels of three so that matters could be expedited, if it thinks that's appropriate.
The decision of the tribunal is final, but it has the power to reconsider its own orders.
Finally, general portions of the bill deal with making regulations, which the Lieutenant Governor in Council is authorized to do under section 32. Under section 33, there is provision for the minister to review the act after three years have elapsed from the time it's come into force.
That is an overview of the content of the bill.
The Chair: Questions? We'll start with the opposition.
Mrs Fawcett: Just to make it clear now, the cheque to be made out will be made out to the farm organization. Then it goes to the ministry. The ministry doesn't do anything with the cheque except send it on. Right now, we have only the two farm organizations. Correct?
Mr Stroeter: Yes, if the bill is amended.
Mrs Fawcett: Right. Then, at that time, the farm organization will bank it?
Mr Stroeter: Yes.
Mrs Fawcett: Or can they put aside the cheques that can be refunded and then just send them back? Has that been decided yet?
Mr Stroeter: I have been advised by people who audit the books of these organizations that this is not an acceptable accounting practice. You cannot net out your revenues. You have to show that you actually received a payment and then go through the trouble of issuing a refund. To really get a clean audit clause from any professional firm, that will be required. They indeed have to have a negotiable instrument that they can actually run through their bank. If the bank accepts it, then they can turn around and issue a refund. On the surface it appears cumbersome, but it's a solid business practice.
Mrs Fawcett: Have you any kind of guesstimate as to, as the registration forms come in, what sort of time lapse you think will take place? Will you send them out then? Will the ministry send the cheques to the farm organization as they come in or will it all go together by a certain date? Have you gone that far?
Mr Stroeter: Workload permitting, what we've tried to do is to process these registration forms as they come in, as quickly as possible. It is not in our interest to hang on to the cheques very long. However, the first time around, registering 50,000 businesses for the first time will be a very challenging task, particularly if we do it with existing staff. We have a challenge. We have well-qualified staff. I think what we need to do is find ways of making sure that the first time around we do this within acceptable time frames. I would suggest that we negotiate those with the general farm organizations and say, "What is an outside acceptable time frame?" and maybe, in our process of registering farmers, allow for a phasing in of registrations so not all of them arrive on the same day or in the same month.
Mr Cleary: As a bit of a follow-up on it, once the cheque is mailed to the farm organization from the ministry, it's up to that farm organization to distribute that 25% locally and the ministry will have nothing to do with that? That's strictly up to the farm organization?
Mr Stroeter: Yes. However, they have to provide an audited financial statement which has to clearly indicate the level of funding spent at, or distributed to, the local level. The auditors will have the obligation to verify that indeed at least 25% of the funds were directed to the local level.
1550
Mr Cleary: The next question there, getting back to the tribunal, that seven individuals will be picked. I'm just not too clear on how that's going to be done.
Mr Stroeter: Well, I guess as any members of any other bodies, government bodies, appointees are picked. There's a process of nominating people. Interest groups and lobby groups nominate individuals. The minister may put forward certain names. There's a legislative review process and these people are selected by -- there clearly has to be a geographic representation and some gender representation, some linguistic representation. So when you have seven members, I think to have a balanced panel, the choices fall into place pretty simply. Then it's a matter of the minister picking the seven from the many nominees, I imagine, who are just most appropriate for this particular panel.
Mr Cleary: So these will be appointed by the minister.
Mr Stroeter: Yes, it will be an order-in-council appointment, and cabinet has to review and approve those appointments.
Mr Cleary: Those are my questions. Thank you.
Mrs Fawcett: One more, please.
The Chair: Ms Fawcett.
Mrs Fawcett: If a farmer requests this money, the refund, back because he or she has the registration number, then they are still eligible for provincial programs.
Mr Stroeter: That's right. As long as they have filled out the registration information and have given us what appears to be a valid payment, then we issue them a number. Only in the case where, let's say, there are persistent attempts to cover a bad cheque that turns out NSF and the farm organization has tried repeatedly to clear this up, they then may decide to let us know by saying, "We couldn't collect on this," and then we have something to think about.
Mrs Fawcett: In fact, will the ministry know if the farmer has demanded his money refunded?
Mr Stroeter: Again, the audited financial statements that the farm organizations have to provide each year will list the number of refunds requested.
Mrs Fawcett: I see.
The Chair: Did you have something to add?
Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes. We will not be attempting to get them by name, though. We're not looking for the names of all the farmers who ask for refunds, but we will be looking simply at the amounts that were refunded so we can figure out the numbers. But we're not looking to target people by figuring out the names of people.
The Chair: Mr Villeneuve.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you for your presentation. I think you have cleared the air, to some degree, for me. What will a quorum be on this maximum of seven? Is that left up to the legal people, the minister --
Ms Stratford: As I said, the panels of three can conduct hearings.
Mr Villeneuve: So that's a quorum.
Ms Stratford: Yes.
Mr Villeneuve: As far as duplication of forms and the completion of forms are concerned, bona fide farmers and farmers fill in many, many forms. Has there been discussion with either Revenue Canada, Statistics Canada or Agriculture Canada to see if indeed there is maybe a form that's in place now that has been palatable and could possibly fill the bill?
Mr Stroeter: As a matter of fact, there's probably a better legal answer here, but the freedom of information and protection of privacy legislation guarantees citizens that they have an idea what the information they provide various government departments is used for and, generally speaking, this use is quite restricted.
So there is the view: "I have given government this information before. Why do you have to ask me again?" Well, just because it's in this program over here doesn't mean we can access it from this program here. This can only be accessed with prior permission by the farmer, plus various levels of government have different types of information and all of this is protected in its own data bank. So this is really for the citizens' protection, to make sure that the information isn't misused. Maybe it's not preferable to access it from all different areas and be able to build one giant profile anywhere in Ontario, so these are protective mechanisms.
I don't know if you have further comments, Louise.
Mr Villeneuve: The information will likely be released en bloc as per industry, nothing individual, but much as it has been done in the past. Would some of the information gathered here under the stable funding registration be subject to release en bloc, if you will?
Mr Stroeter: Release en bloc? I mean, it can be used in summary fashion as long as you cannot identify individual respondents. But again, we have to tell the farmers up front that we are going to plan to analyse this data and use it in that fashion. I think a key requirement is that people know what the information will be used for.
Mr Villeneuve: Statistics primarily, and you're going to have to establish, I believe, a minimum number of participants so that you could not pull out and identify -- and I presume that might be 20 or 40 or 100, so that you don't have three big poultry producers with their information being submitted. It would be pretty easy to come out and say -- well, I use poultry; there's probably a better example of very specialized types of crops where maybe there are only two or five large producers. You'd effectively be divulging information pretty specifically on them at that point. So you may well have to come up with a formula whereby, for statistics purposes, you don't have a group of producers below a specified number.
Decertification: NFU appears, for whatever reasons, and it will probably give us those tomorrow, to not want to participate. It's still fairly clean to do it. Down the road five or ten years, a certified or a recognized general farm organization, for whatever reasons, decides to go free of the system or dismantle. Have you a provision in place at all for that?
Mr Stroeter: Not in this bill, I don't think.
Ms Stratford: Do you mean an organization that is accredited that wishes to --
Mr Villeneuve: Decertify.
Ms Stratford: Of course, one easy way is to simply stop meeting some of the criteria and then they will no longer comply and they'll lose accreditation. But I think there would also be provision, in order to go on consent, for de-accreditation. The tribunal would have that jurisdiction.
Mr Villeneuve: Who has access to funds that may be left over?
Ms Stratford: They would be divided up among whatever the organizations are. That organization would be removed from the list. Farmers would cease to direct payments to that group.
Mr Villeneuve: The fee will be set, I gather, at $150 per farm operation. How do you visualize it will happen, and if it's frozen for three years, then you'll have to face it shortly after the end of the third year for any changes in the requirement for whatever reasons. Do you have in place or will you have in place the very precise mechanism that the general farm organizations will have to go through? Proof, I presume, would be one, proof that there is need. Has the money been -- auditors, I'm sure, will be looking at it and I know these are organizations that have democratic elections and all the rest of it. Do you plan to maintain any sort of a guard dog situation on this?
Mr Stroeter: I think it's important in any new scheme where there's a potential of directing significant amounts of money to particular farm organizations that there are some safeguards. One of the safeguards here is that I think it will take two or three years to even find out what level of support this kind of funding system has. It might well take that time for farmers to really work this through in their own minds and decide, "Do I want to keep my money in or do I really use my protest vote and pull it out each year?"
I think the tradeoff here is for the farm organizations to potentially increase their membership. If that happens, then I think they probably will be very careful not to jeopardize that. So keeping a fee reasonable and affordable I think is probably very important. Again, there are probably tradeoffs between the number of members and a higher fee, and I would think the farm organizations would make their presentations to the minister and the minister would have to be convinced, I suppose, to take those regulation changes forward to cabinet.
1600
Mr Villeneuve: Okay. We sometimes try to compare. This is a creation of government, yet it will be arm's length from government. It will not be an agency, board or commission as we know them here at Queen's Park; it will be a different type of entity. As far as I can tell, the members of the executive of these GFOs will be democratically elected.
Would this, in your opinion, create a reasonable reason to bring this back to a committee of this Legislature as opposed to having a minister say, "Well, I think they're great people or I don't like them at all," or something in between?
Mr Stroeter: I refer that question to the minister. I don't feel competent to answer that.
Mr Villeneuve: I think the minister pretty well told me in earlier questioning that he would be receptive to looking at this, and I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Hon Mr Buchanan: Mr Chair, if I might respond a little bit to one of the early questions, the quorum question which Louise answered in terms of a panel of three, I think we were referring to, there, particularly in terms of the religious objectors, and one of the reasons we want that is so that they can deal with these very quickly and we wouldn't have to have a full seven-member tribunal sit down to look at those. We believe that they could be handled very quickly.
I would like to add one comment, though. If we're talking about accrediting a new organization, it would certainly be my hope that we can get as many of the tribunal members there as possible if you're going to consider accrediting another -- and I would mention that there are a couple of organizations I've met with that are interested. They are not asking to be brought in at this time, but they're asking for that option to be brought in in the future if they meet what the criteria are and no one has objected.
So I don't want to leave the impression that one panel of three might decide who was going to be the next accredited organization. I would hope we could have the full tribunal there because it will be representative of the province, hopefully, and we would give a full hearing to any organization that wants to come in.
Mr Villeneuve: Okay. I yield to my colleague here, Mr Chair, who has some verification he wants.
The Chair: Mr Jordan.
Mr Jordan: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, sir, for your time and contribution.
I'm going back again to this problem that's in my own riding, I'm not sure how far across the province. Supposing I send in my cheque for $150 to be registered and I send a letter with it stating that I wish my money to be refunded. Does that actually happen then?
Mr Stroeter: I don't think we would take a piece of paper and take it away from your correspondence. I think as long as you have a cheque in there that is a negotiable instrument that we can pass on to the organization and you have a fully completed registration form there, we would register, issue you a number and send the package that you sent us on to the farm organization that you have chosen.
Mr Jordan: Would the customer consider the case closed as far as he or she is concerned, having sent that letter with his or her cheque?
Mr Stroeter: I don't know. We talked earlier about the startup phase and the fact that registering 50,000 farm businesses cannot be done overnight.
Mr Jordan: Yes, that's why they're asking me, if I might say that: "Why should my $150 go through all this administration process if I tell you right off the bat, as I sent it in for registration only? And please refund at your earliest opportunity." So it doesn't have to go down through at 25% out to here and something else there.
Mr Stroeter: As I said, as long as you have a registration form that is complete, we will register you; we will issue you a number. If there's a cheque to one of the organizations for $150 attached to it, if you also attach a request for refund, we will send that along with the cheque, but it's up to the farm organization to act on that. We are just a mailing house for the cheque and whatever else you give us.
Mr Jordan: So there is no policy with the farm organization and how they might deal with it?
Mr Stroeter: I think farm organizations will be advised by their accountants that they probably have to deposit all those cheques and issue refunds.
Mr Jordan: But as far as the customers having to indicate that they wish the refund, what I'm wondering is, is that -- or is there going to be a place on the application where they can mark it to be a refund?
Mr Stroeter: I think farmers are required to write in to the farm organization directly.
Mr Jordan: At some later date?
Mr Stroeter: The appropriate date would be after the payment has been cashed and the transaction has been concluded. But if somebody includes a form up front, I can't see myself taking it out and putting it somewhere in the waste basket. I think I have no choice but to hand it on.
Mr Jordan: But we don't know whether they'll deal with it or not.
Mr Stroeter: Clearly, they can only deal with it after they've cashed the payment. Only then can they issue a refund.
Mr Jordan: The other part of my question or clarification relates to the statement that was made here today that the French organization concentrates more on education and other things and perhaps the other ones do not. Is it fair to say, if that is the case then, that this information is going to be shared between the groups so that if it's good for farming in Noble's riding it's good for farming in my riding? Do you know what I mean? If they have this concentration on certain education programs that they find very useful and viable to their unit and they're using funding to develop them, then surely it won't be contained within that unit, that all units would share in that.
Hon Mr Buchanan: I agree with the sentiment of your question. However, the people who pay the $150 that goes to that organization, they're going to want the benefits of their money back to the membership. Most benefits should go back to the members; then there are other benefits that are shared through media and other venues.
I would be a little reluctant to say you share, because one organization might have 2,000 members and the other one might have 52. The 2,000-member organization might be the one that's doing the most in terms of education, so over a period of time, other people are going to find that and they may shift their fee next year to the other organization. That's the way I would see it happening, as opposed to trying to guarantee that they must share their expertise or education.
Mr Villeneuve: Could you just clarify a little bit what's happening now? I gather the French-speaking Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens, whatever, presently puts out a newspaper which I receive, and it's very interesting. They are being funded right now, I gather, by the OFA, or is it a separate funding, and what will happen after?
Mr Stroeter: I'm not sure. I defer to the deputy on the funding of the UCFO at this stage.
Hon Mr Buchanan: The government of Ontario has been supporting the publishing of that newspaper along with membership fees which cover a small part of it. But the government has been subsidizing that instrument heavily.
Mr Villeneuve: Is that going to continue or have we come to a point where the stable funding would be taking that over? Certainly you would expect that would be taken over probably after the three-year certification requirement. What do you foresee happening?
Hon Mr Buchanan: Let me do a very quick history lesson of this. Under the original bill with mandatory registration of all farmers, there was an agreement certainly between the OFA and the francophone organization that they were going to put substantial moneys, based on a windfall, I guess most people would agree, back to the francophone organization. Now that we're going to a refundable situation, certainly the OFA has said, "Just a minute now, whoa; we have no guarantee that we're going to receive money from all these farmers." They've obviously pulled back, and I've made a public announcement to that effect.
What we have done now is we've entered into negotiations with the farm organizations and with the francophone farmer. We are now going to continue to provide some support to the francophone organization because we don't expect the money's going to be there from the OFA in order to do it.
Mr Jordan: Who is "we" -- the government?
Hon Mr Buchanan: The government of Ontario will sort of be a partner, but we will be getting some support from the OFA and the Christian Farmers' Federation of Ontario will be providing some of the money for the francophone organization to make sure, but we are going to be a partner in that, as we have been supporting them in the past. Originally, it was going to be completely arm's length, funded by farm organizations, but they're reluctant to put money on the table, not knowing what the results will be.
1610
Our discussions have led us to the fact that if their memberships go up and their revenues go up, they pick up a larger share of it and the government share will be reduced. But there will be some sense for the francophone farm organization to know that it has a future, that it's not suddenly going to be cut off at some point because somebody makes an arbitrary decision. So we have sort of given them that assurance as part of this operation. So they will have funding, at this point, jointly.
Mr Villeneuve: I think that explains it; that explains it for me. I realize that it's still a grey area.
Mr Hansen: My question's a little bit along the same line as Mr Jordan's there. It has to do with cheques. A cheque is sent into the government to be transferred on to the farm organization. In the process, like we said, if the cheque looked good at the Ministry of Agriculture, it will send it on to the farm group, whichever it's directed towards. What happens if the cheque looks good but it's had a stop payment on -- the number's been issued. Would the number be issued to the farmer? Let's say it's the OFA that receives the cheque. They process the cheque. It costs them $10; they've got an NSF cheque, and they're stuck with $10. The farmer's got his number. What are the safeguards involved in that, because it could be a cost to the farm organization also.
Mr Stroeter: Unfortunately, there is no easy safeguard for the banking charges that the farm organizations could incur. I understand that they have now banking charges that are quite considerable for bad cheques. They happen in every business, I take it.
In terms of the farm organizations, I think it's up to them to let us know if they have a persistent problem of non-payment with a particular party. A lot of bad cheques happen by genuine accident. If I write something out now and it takes the government, let's say, two months to register me and then suddenly, two months later, it comes out of my account, I might have already forgotten about this cheque that I wrote two months ago. So some of this might be quite accidental.
I think the farm organizations would want a chance to talk to their clients and find out, "Do you plan to issue a replacement cheque, or indeed did you go through the trouble of spending $15 of your own money to put a stop payment on this cheque?" and then that's clearly a very strong message if that has happened. I would think that that is something that the farm organization has to work out.
The question that the government is asking itself is, what do we do to the registration number in such a case? We are considering a proposal whereby we would actually be able to recall the number. There are, however, alternatives. For example, as people apply to the farm tax rebate program the following fall and they don't have a valid registration number, they would find out that that would cause a problem at that end. So there is a consequence to not following the legislation for most people. The question is, will the consequence be here now or might it occur only six or seven months later when they try to take advantage of another ministry program?
Mr Hansen: I guess my next question -- there's sort of an answer there but I thought it worked differently. Mr Jordan had asked about sending the slip in with the cheque, asking for a refund. I understood that it went through the whole process, that it went to the ministry, from the ministry through to be cashed by the farm group, and once it was cashed, then you would apply for a refund. I didn't realize a slip of paper would be sent through that way. I thought as soon as you became a member that, at that time, when you've been notified that everything had gone through, then you can apply for the rebate. Applying for the rebate before you even start is a little bit different from what I understood in the legislation, because I thought it was a regular form you had to fill out.
Ms Stratford: The bill doesn't specify at which point the refund request is made. It just says that when the farm organization receives a request, it is to issue a refund promptly. So I guess what we've said is, if someone's sent it in early along with the cheque, the ministry wouldn't, as a bureaucratic matter, send it back and say, "I'm sorry, this should come later." The ministry would send it in to the farm organization, which would wait until it was appropriate to consider a refund and at that time would be bound to do so promptly.
Mr Hansen: Okay, fine. Thank you.
Mr Klopp: Maybe it's a general question on the issue back to the commissioners, and I'd like to think we're a little bit concerned about that, just in case somehow commissioners would cancel a farm organization just arbitrarily, and I'd like to think that that isn't the intent. I guess, when it comes down to the accreditation, it's based on the criteria and I know that goes in the regs, but I just want to get on the record that this has been talked about many times and will continue to be talked about before the regs are written -- and have this confirmed to me that those criteria are fairly clear that no commissioners, in this province anyway, would go out and cancel a farm organization on a whim or for whatever other reason. Is that clear? That is, this consultation has --
Ms Stratford: You mean the members of the tribunal, I presume.
Mr Klopp: Yes.
Ms Stratford: That's right. The criteria will be quite specifically defined in the regulation, and the bill provides that as long as there is compliance with the criteria the tribunal wouldn't have the power to revoke, and if it did, that order would be subject to court review and would never stand. It's difficult to see how they would be able to justify a decision like that. Any type of review would take place at a full hearing and the organization that's subject to the review would be entitled to attend and fully explain all the matters.
Mr Klopp: Thank you. That was my only point.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klopp. Further questions? Mr Hope.
Mr Hope: Yes, I have a couple of questions I'd like on record. First of all, I was just wondering, and I don't know if it would go through legislative research -- we're being asked to fund, and quite so, a lobbyist. I'm wondering, out of those organizations, how many full-time staff they have and salaries that are paid; revenues that are currently generated; expenditures over the last four years; the last four years involved in meetings with government, because I was taking off the briefing notes what was displayed there about financial hardship and I am concerned, so I would like to know what those records are. I wonder, through legislative research, how many other special interest groups in the province of Ontario we have special rights for under legislation.
I have some technical questions which I wish to ask. Under section 8 of the bill, and dealing with subsections 8(1) and 8(3), where no review can be done, it says, "An organization named in section 7 cannot be reviewed during the three years of deemed accreditation." I'm wondering, does that supersede subsection 8(1), "If a panel of at least three members...believes that the organization no longer qualifies..." or do you mean to tell me that the organizations cannot be reviewed during that three-year process?
Ms Stratford: That's right. Subsection (3) of section 8 would be an override of subsection (1) for those organizations in the first three years only.
Mr Hope: Okay. I wonder what the rules are of accreditation and if you have currently draft regulations, if you're going to be tabling them before the committee.
Mr Stroeter: We had a discussion about that early on and it was felt that tabling draft regulations would be inappropriate at this time. However, I think there have been public consultation documents out over the last year and a half that very clearly outline the accreditation criteria. It's a public document and I don't think the accreditation criteria change dramatically. There are a few numeric things that have been added, but generally speaking the basic principles of accreditation criteria are pretty well along the lines that were part of last year's public consultation process.
Mr Hope: Just out of curiosity, dealing with the technical question of 8(1), why only three of approximately seven who can be appointed to this committee -- you're using a minority which would bring something forward before a tribunal process. Why wouldn't you go 50 plus one, or a 50% ratio of a tribunal process?
Ms Stratford: This provision states that if three members of the tribunal think that a review is justified they can take it to the chair, who then has the discretion to call for the review. The chair could certainly canvass, and probably would, the other members to decide if a review was justified. The purpose of the three is to make sure that at least there's some screening process at the outset. It's possible that the tribunal may get various pieces of information to consider from various individuals and there should be some process, but ultimately the tribunal itself can decide that, as a policy matter, it won't hold reviews unless all the members are of a mind to do so.
Mr Hope: I take it you'll be amending the bill on paragraph 2 of section 7, on region 3. I take it you'll be amending that part of the bill?
The other question I have is dealing with subsection 23(5). I'm just curious how much they're going to be paid for remuneration. Expenses I can understand, but I'm wondering what remuneration fee you have in mind for that process.
Mr Stroeter: Normal government rates as published in the Manual of Administration for all government agencies of this type. Management Board actually determines those rates and says, "Okay, this tribunal gets this rate."
Mr Hope: Under section 24 of the bill, which refers -- and I was listening to the minister's comments that you'd only use three members to deal with the religious part of it. I'm just wondering where that says that, only dealing with three. The way I read it, you put three no matter what you want to do.
Ms Stratford: The tribunal has the power to entertain hearings with just three members. What the minister was alluding to is that on complex matters or matters of some importance, no doubt the tribunal would choose to have a larger body present to have a hearing.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hope. Do you have an additional comment, Minister?
Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes. I'd like to respond, just a wee bit, to the first series of questions.
In the original meetings of the steering committee, a request for audited statements dealing with financial matters and dealing with membership was put by one of the organizations, that this should all be put on the table so that everybody was transparent and up front. Only two of the organizations were willing to put their audited financial statements in terms of staff and what they did and membership numbers on the table. The third was not willing to put forward any statements of that nature. So the committee, in fact, did not have that data and did not deal with that financial or staffing matter because of the lack of consensus at the steering committee.
Mrs Fawcett: Is it possible to get copies of the report that was mentioned there as to the accreditation criteria?
The Chair: The deputy is indicating that can be the case, but certainly she's able to speak for herself and if she wants to do that, by all means.
Mr Hope: Mr Chair, I just started listening to what was being said there and there is no way that I am insinuating that somebody did or didn't; all I'm looking for is, I'm being asked, under a piece of legislation, to support an organization with funding and I do not know what the elements of cost are. Even if a new organization were to come on stream, I think that information is important, so I would just suggest that. I'm not insinuating that one organization or another -- I'm just saying that in order for a proper analysis of the legislation it's important for me to know what the operating expenses are and the staff salaries and everything.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hope. Mr Klopp.
Mr Klopp: I think we have to realize that we're not deciding -- this bill is only to allow people the right to organize in this province, and I'm surely one who's totally in favour of the right to organize and I don't know why it's any of my business what a farm organization does or doesn't do. The criteria are there; it's a refundable program. I guess everybody has questions and we want to make them clear as possible, but I think on the surface this bill is quite transparent. It's really none of my business. If a farm organization wants to waste my money, I'll soon join another farm organization.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klopp. The purpose of the technical briefing is to indeed answer questions. We can get into the debate in the Legislature or in clause-by-clause.
If there are no further questions, I'd like to thank Rita Burak, the deputy minister, Rolly Stroeter, the director of the farm assistance programs branch, Louise Stratford, director of legal services, and -- I'll take a stab at this -- Dagny Ingolfsrud, solicitor for legal services, for your excellent briefing. I think you've done an excellent job in clarifying many, many points for the committee. On behalf of the whole committee, thank you very much.
It has been brought to my attention that the mineral water at the back of the committee room is imported from France, so perhaps when we're trying to deal with an agricultural bill in the province of Ontario we might be able to find some Clearly Canadian mineral water.
Having said that, the committee is adjourned until 11:00 am tomorrow morning. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned at 1625.