CHRISTIAN FARMERS FEDERATION OF ONTARIO
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
CONTENTS
Tuesday 24 August 1993
Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993, Bill 42
Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario
Arend Streutker, president
Ann Haagsma, director and treasurer
John Markus, vice-president
National Farmers Union
Perry Pearce, national board member
Rick Munroe, member
Joe Dama, director, district 6
Ontario Federation of Agriculture
Roger George, president
Carl H. Sulliman, chief executive officer
Bill Weaver, first vice-president
Silent Majority
Joseph W. Daunt, chairman
Tony Noorloos, steering committee member
Murray Musselman, steering committee member
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:
Burak, Rita, deputy minister, Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND)
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1106 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): Order. It's 1106. I will remind committee members that promptness in starting these hearings would be appreciated. I apologize to the witnesses for any delays. I'd like to welcome Mr Offer back to the committee and look forward to his active participation as usual in the affairs of the committee.
CHRISTIAN FARMERS FEDERATION OF ONTARIO
The Chair: The first order of business this morning is a presentation by the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, if that group could come forward. If you will identify yourselves for the purposes of Hansard and after doing so, if you'd proceed with your presentation. You've been allocated one hour and the committee would appreciate at least half of that time for questions and answers. Go ahead at your convenience.
Mr Arend Streutker: Thank you for inviting us to this hearing. My name is Arend Streutker and I am president of Christian Farmers Federation. Beside me here is John Markus, who is our vice-president. Ann Haagsma is supposed to be here; she is not here yet but probably she will be later on.
We called our submission Towards Better Financed General Farm Organizations. First we will talk a bit about history. CFFO has a long-standing history of supporting the principle of a general farm organization fee. In 1969, CFFO opposed the proposal to create one general farm organization with a compulsory fee. Our reasons were: The 1969 proposal did not build on existing GFOs; it created a mandatory membership in one GFO; it assumed that existing groups would be dismantled.
CFFO supported the principle of a compulsory fee but called for three changes at that time: Build an umbrella group on existing GFOs; create multiple choice: a farm family should have the right to support an organization of their choosing; include mandatory support for a GFO but no mandatory membership. CFFO was part of the 50,622 farmers who voted no in 1969.
In 1973, CFFO adopted a major policy position supporting an automatic checkoff. Throughout the 1970s this proposal saw only minor changes. The most significant one was the addition of a clause providing for religious conscientious objectors to redirect their checkoff to a charity. More recently a series of three funding proposals for GFOs have been abandoned.
In 1986, CFFO formed a joint checkoff committee with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Sid Sikkema, then CFFO's vice-president and Jack Wilkinson, OFA's first vice-president were the first co-chairs of this joint effort.
The 1987 proposal for a checkoff from the property tax rebate was abandoned when the Minister of Agriculture and Food of the day did not support it. The joint committee developed an alternative proposal. In 1989, it proposed a checkoff from commodity returns. Consultations were held with the elected representatives of farmers in the commodity organizations. When it became clear that they were reluctant to see another checkoff added to their own sizable checkoffs, this proposal too was abandoned.
OFA then set up its own stable funding steering committee and invited one CFFO representative to attend its meetings. In 1990, this committee proposed the certification of only one general farm organization, a compulsory registration of farmers and a voluntary fee. CFFO's representative wrote a minority report and CFFO opposed this proposal. We are glad that it was abandoned when both political and farm organization leadership changed.
With all this history, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that CFFO supports the current proposal. It is multiple choice. Writing a cheque will be required but membership will be voluntary and refunds will be available. Religious conscientious objectors will be able to avoid contact with lobby groups. It builds on existing organizations.
This proposal meets all the basic principles for which CFFO has argued these past 25 years. It also includes all the basic concepts to which we agreed as full members of the stable funding steering committee during the past two years. We fully endorse Bill 42 and are eager to get on with making it work.
Rationale for stable funding for GFOs:
(1) The GFOs of Ontario need to be better funded. Two decades ago issues were local and provincial; today they are national, international and global. The list is huge: CUSTA, GATT, GRIP, NAFTA, NISA, second-generation supply management, VAISA. This cannot be done effectively with the modest budgets that GFOs have been able to patch together.
(2) We need better research internally in GFOs. Too often we have been dependent on the research done by OMAF or AgCanada. Too often we have not understood the full implications of farm policies and programs in western Canada. Their impact on our farm sector has become significant, but do we have the time or the ability to keep up with all the policy changes across the country? No. Take western grain transportation as an issue. A huge subsidy is involved, $750 million each year; big enough to be flagged by Europe and the US as an export subsidy. But what is its impact on us in Ontario? It's been there for decades but only in the last 12 months have Ontario farm groups cobbled together some energy to assess its impact.
(3) Agricultural commodity organizations have become dramatically more effective during the past 15 years. How? Almost without exception, they have moved to a compulsory checkoff to fund their activities. GFOs have not been able to keep up. This puts us at serious risk within the Ontario farm community. If we, as GFOs, are not well informed or well researched, we pose a great risk of getting into a commodity group's hair without good cause. It has happened. We risk it happening more often.
(4) A new relationship is emerging between farm groups and governments. Governments no longer devise programs in city office complexes and then deliver them to the farm community. Programs are a joint effort of farm groups and governments. Increasingly, farm groups are delivering programs. The land stewardship program is the best example. That is the future. No more OMAF mothering agriculture. Farmers have become professionals. Family farmers are entrepreneurs and businessmen and women. The future shape and agenda of Ontario agriculture is ours to decide. It is time to make sure that GFOs can meet this challenge.
(5) There are others who have agendas for Ontario agriculture and for farm entrepreneurs. The Minister of Environment and Energy and his Environmental Bill of Rights; the Minister of Labour and his original plan to scrap agriculture's exemption from the Labour Relations Act; the Minister of Natural Resources and his plan for wildlife, for wetlands and for the Drainage Act. These are all challenges rushing at us and we are scrambling to stay on top of them all. We have responded with a farm environmental agenda, an agricultural labour relations act and other initiatives. But it is too much for current GFO resources.
(6) Our present resources could be better used. Too many of our resources are needed just to maintain our voluntary funding base. A funding system will free up those resources and allow us to redirect them to policy research and member services.
(7) The farm community is changing dramatically. We are but 2% of the population, feeding 10 million people and providing the base for 15% of the provincial economy. Farming has become a professional task. We now sort out our differences around conference tables and build effective coalitions to get important tasks done. The recent emergence of AGCare, the labour issues coordinating committee, the Ontario Farm Animal Council and the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition are examples of the new reality in Ontario's farm community. Without improved funding, GFOs will not be able to participate effectively in these partnerships.
Does the funding system need a vote? We support a review after three years by a committee of members of this Legislature. That committee, in its report, should be asked to advise on the merits of a vote at that time. If a vote is considered appropriate in three years' time, farmers will be able to assess the funding system on both the concept and the actual functioning of the system. There would also be a voters list available at that time.
Farm business registration: OMAF needs to develop a better database on Ontario's farming community for effective policy development. We are confident that the aggregate data that will become available from this process will also assist us in policy development and planning services.
We have been part of drafting the farm operations statement that every farm business will be required to file with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The draft that was part of the June 1992 consultation document has the full support of the federation.
Eligibility criteria: CFFO regrets that the legal drafters decided to leave eligibility criteria for defining an accredited general farm organization to the regulations. These criteria will guarantee that Ontario farmers will have choices in general farm organizations in the long term. This is a key principle for us.
We fully support the criteria that have been agreed to in the stable funding steering committee. We will participate vigorously in the development of the regulations to ensure that a diversity of general farm organizations is enabled by the legislation.
We regret that the Ontario region of the National Farmers Union is withdrawing, as this will reduce the initial choices available.
Francophone farm group: CFFO is committed to do its share of providing funding for a francophone farm group.
Conscientious religious objectors: CFFO has consistently insisted on a clause that will exempt conscientious religious objectors from any association with lobby groups. We believe the clause in the legislation will work well for individual objectors and for groups such as the Amish and Old Order Mennonites.
Program entitlement: We are pleased that OMAF is empowered by the legislation to limit access to designated programs to those who register.
1120
We realized that implementing program denial will need to be dealt with whenever a new or renewed program is put forward. We recognize that this approach will require a political decision to enforce farm organizations funding with each new or renewed program. We believe this is workable in the short term and accept it.
What will CFFO do with the stable funding money? Reduce our membership fee by $150, expand support for activities of our district associations, expand support for farm coalitions, improve our staffing to support our farm policy research, develop an advisory service for transferring family farm assets to the next generation and establish a reserve fund for office relocation.
What will CFFO do for those farm businesses which choose to direct their stable funding to CFFO but are not members? Modify our constitution and bylaws to officially recognize stable funding supporters, offer to send stable funding supporters all the literature and information now prepared for members and extend all services now available to CFFO members to stable funding supporters. There will be no expectation of cost recovery unless the expectation exists for members.
Discussions have started on a major restructuring of CFFO's memberships and membership fees. The results of this discussion will have significant implications for stable funding supporters. See appendices 2 and 3 for details of these developments.
This is it. Added, we have some background and the financial statements which are here too, at the bottom of the package. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Questions? You have approximately 15 minutes per caucus.
Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Thank you for your very excellent presentation. You've certainly explained how you feel about the whole bill and I certainly can say that I'm in agreement with you on many of the items.
I'm just wondering, how does your organization collect your fees now? Is it by mailing or do you physically go out and knock on doors? How do you collect your fees?
Mr Streutker: I'd like to have it answered by our treasurer, Ann.
Mrs Ann Haagsma: For the existing members, a renewal notice is mailed in the beginning of the year. For new members, we have Martin Oldengarm, who explains the organization to potential members and informs them. Then, if they so desire, they would take out a membership.
Mrs Fawcett: I see. Is it fairly costly for your administration? I notice your figures in the back here and I haven't had time to really look at them. What would be your administration costs now?
Mr John Markus: I'd like to respond that a little wee bit. I would say approximately half of our members have no problems, when the envelope goes out with the membership request in it, sending us the amount of money. But as you probably are well aware, in many circles there are always those who need a prodding to get that money brought in. That's where Martin Oldengarm spends most of his time, going around, because we have found that if we don't send somebody out prodding these individuals, the money never seems to come. His entire wage is, to a large extent, used to prod the other 300 in our organization to come forward. Of course, we have another policy: There are those individuals who can afford maybe the total amount and there are those who can afford to pay more than the total amount. That also becomes a consideration. When he goes out to have a visit, he has a chat with them, maybe possibly at the back door of the barn or around the kitchen table, and if they say they're having a tough time but they want to be a member in full standing and give him $50, we will let them in at the present time because of their financial situation. The large chunk of his time is spent in that direction.
Mrs Fawcett: Then with the new bill you feel that he's going to be relieved of some of this time that he has to spend?
Mr Markus: He will be relieved, but I think it will be redirected in new energy, and the new energy will be in the form of going around to the districts and drumming up new support so that some of this money that's available through stable funding hopefully can be directed to the CFFO office. Instead of becoming a beggar, he becomes a promoter, if you want to put it in simple terms.
Mrs Fawcett: Yes. That's a better change, I would think. He might feel better about that.
I'm just wondering. Subsection 20(3) of the bill says, "The ministry shall promptly forward the cheques...." What is your interpretation of "promptly"? What kind of time line would you like to see there? Would you rather have seen in the bill an actual time rather than just the word "promptly"?
Mr Streutker: Mr Chairman, can I have the volume turned up a bit? I have a little bit of a hearing problem.
The Chair: Certainly, we'll do what we can.
Mr Streutker: I didn't hear the question.
Mrs Fawcett: In the bill, it says, "The ministry shall promptly forward the cheques...." I'm concerned about that word "promptly." I'm wondering, should there have been a time limit -- two weeks, a month, whatever -- rather than just "promptly"? Would you rather have seen an actual time?
Mr Streutker: Yes, eventually that will come. But we know very well that at first they are overwhelmed by the stuff coming in to get this ready and done. But otherwise, when things are on stream, I would say a month or so, as soon as possible.
Mrs Fawcett: As soon as possible.
Mr Streutker: Or three weeks, whatever.
Mr Markus: I'd like to respond to that just a little wee bit more. You have to realize that OMAF has no financial interest in these cheques, because all it does is redirect them back to our offices. For them initially to say, "Okay, I'm going to hang on to these things for a month so I can collect x dollars of interest and then I'm going to forward" -- there is no monetary value except the paperwork, which is going to take some time to set up. We feel that once the thing gets into place, it'll move fairly quickly.
Mrs Fawcett: If someone wants a refund, are you looking at or have you already got yourselves prepared for that administration?
Mr Streutker: We are working on that. A committee has been struck between OMAF and the organizations to set this up, computer-based or whatever, to have it done quickly, yes.
Mrs Fawcett: Thank you. I'll turn it over to my colleague.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Thank you for your excellent presentation. I am pleased to see that you are supporting the bill. I have just a few things to add to what my colleague has already asked you. Do you feel that under the new legislation you will benefit a lot from increased membership?
Mr Streutker: We hope so. That is all we actually can say, of course. We don't know. But we do have good hopes, yes, that we will gain membership, especially from a lot of people who are not committed yet to an organization. We expect to draw from them. But we don't have any solid ground to base this on.
Mr Cleary: So you don't have a goal in mind, a number?
Mr Streutker: No.
Mr Cleary: The other thing that my colleague had mentioned, about the refunds, do you think that's going to be a big problem for an organization like yours, people asking for refunds?
Mr Streutker: You mean to pay back --
Mr Cleary: Yes, to pay it back.
Mr Streutker: -- or do we have a lot of people asking back?
Mr Cleary: To pay back the $150.
Mr Streutker: No, I don't think so. I wouldn't think so. As long as you don't spend the money before you have it, then you can pay it back. We will take care of that. That's one of our first worries, to make sure that this is not going to happen, that we don't have the money to pay it back.
Mr Markus: I'd like to respond now just a little wee bit. CFFO is most delighted that this refund legislation part has been interjected into Bill 42. In the past, we've always said there has to be a mechanism for those who are not desirous to be part of an organization so that they don't get it shoved down their throat. This has always been one of our stands and we are most pleased to see it in this particular bill, although we realize it's going to create some office time to redirect this money when it does come in. But we feel very strongly that this is a very positive thing in this particular bill so that we don't end up with these people feeling like they're being pressed into it.
At the same time, to have it completely voluntary and to send your $150 whenever you desire or whenever you get the urge will probably never occur, because I know when bill time comes in our household, if they're due on the 20th, the cheques get written on the 18th, not the 14th. That's human nature. But I think if they have to take the effort to ask for a refund, if there's that little bit of effort involved there, that means they had to think about the situation, whether they're going to be for it or against it. At that point I think it's most generous that we return that if they have an objection to a particular farm organization.
1130
Mr Cleary: I have another question. I'm sure that the registration forms are a big issue to you people, the same as they are to all of us. Are you getting your input in? I understand they have a draft form now. It's been mailed out to x number of farmers, I hope. Apparently, it's not satisfactory. There's supposed to be a revised one. Are you people involved in that too?
Mr Streutker: Yes, I know. Some people from OMAF have been at our policy stewardship committee meeting. People there filled out the first form. In that way, we were involved. I assume that before that, to set up the whole thing, our committee was involved there too.
Mr Cleary: I think that's one of the holdups at the moment. I hope they would get that ironed out shortly, because my understanding is that January 1 is the date, and that's not too far away if things get dragging and laying around.
The other thing that you had mentioned in your brief was about a review after three years. Would you like to expand a little bit on just what you would like to see? I know you had said a committee of the Legislature.
Mr Streutker: If it shows that after three years there's a lot of objection to this whole thing, to asking back the $150, and to us it is clear that something has to be done and that has to be looked into, the whole thing, what is wrong or whatever, maybe eventually we might need a vote on it. But if it shows that the problem is not there, then okay, the opening is there to have a review, as is stated in here. That is what I think about it.
Mr Cleary: I know that it will be up to all parties to be involved in this, because anything you do, any change, it doesn't run real smoothly, but I think if everyone works together on it, most of the problems can get ironed out. As you said, in three years' time that might be the time to really give it a good looking over. My colleague wants to ask a question.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you for your presentation. I would like to talk about that part of your presentation that deals with the conscientious religious objectors. I see in your presentation that you are pleased with what is in the bill. I just want to get some clarification on this for my help. You say in your presentation that you're pleased with what's in the bill because it will exempt conscientious religious objectors from any association with lobby groups. Maybe I'm just reading this wrong, but when I read the brief provided by the ministry, it seems that section 21, or the religious objection clause, doesn't deal with being part or not part of an association. It says that in being part of an association you may not have to pay.
I'm going to be asking the ministry if it can provide some clarification. Your presentation says that the religious objector provisions in the bill are fine because, as you read them, they mean that if somebody, for their own purposes, does not wish to be part of, in your words, a lobby group, they, after following the procedure, don't have to be. When I read section 21 and the brief from the ministry, it doesn't talk about being or not being part of a lobby group. I think it still says you're part of a particular group; it's just that you don't have to submit a fee for that.
I'm wondering if your concern in your presentation is met by the provisions of the bill, and my question is, is it your position that the religious objectors standards in the bill should be broad enough to exempt anyone, after following a procedure, from both having to pay a fee and secondly being a member of any lobby group?
Mr Streutker: Well, as we see it, paying the fee does not necessarily make you a member of an organization. You can choose an organization to send your money to, but that does not automatically make you a member, anyway not in our organization, because you have to believe in our constitution and you have to sign a membership paper to become a member of the Christian Farmers organization. So that's one requirement. There are people among the Mennonites who don't object to paying the $150 fee, but they don't want to become a member of a lobby group. So those people pay their fee but are not necessarily members of --
Mr Offer: Then may I ask for clarification maybe also from the ministry. It seems that section 21 and the religious objection provisions only apply to the payment of a fee and not to the membership, and what you've said in your last response is that people don't really have, in certain cases, an objection to the payment of the fee; they have a concern with being part of a group. I'm wondering if section 21 actually does deal with that matter. When I read it I would like some clarification because I do not believe that it speaks to membership. The only thing that section 21 talks about is whether a membership cheque is or is not refundable.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Offer. Your request for clarification is noted and I'm sure that the ministry will clarify that close to the end of today's proceedings, if that's acceptable to you.
Mr Offer: Well, it is certainly acceptable to me, but since we have the group right here and if they do have the response available, I think maybe they should be able to provide that right to the group.
The Chair: Yes. If they're willing to provide that now, that's fine.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Yes, this is a nice lawyer technical question. I'll allow the deputy to clarify it, but I think we've got it covered. Deputy, could you --
Ms Rita Burak: Yes, as I understand your question, Mr Offer, you're concerned about whether or not the act compels people who might be religious objectors into becoming members of a farm organization, and that is not correct. You'll note that section 21 is in the section of the legislation entitled "Registration." Obviously the bill has a number of objectives and one objective is to attempt to register every farm business in Ontario.
The provision in section 21, and I can have our legal counsel expand on it, was put into the bill to go a step farther than that. Not only do we want to ensure that we're not compelling people to be members of farm organizations, but as a further accommodation to some, particularly in the Mennonite community, who had concerns about even writing a cheque to a farm organization, we wanted to save them from that difficulty and have tried to construct this section of the act so that they could go before the tribunal and explain in an expedited way that to even write a cheque would offend their principles.
Mr Offer: I understand section 21 in so far as it wholly focuses on the writing or not writing of a cheque, but the group before us has said there are individuals to whom that in fact is not the issue. The issue in terms of religious objector is not the writing of a cheque but rather belonging to an association, and I don't see section 21 as dealing with someone being able to come forward and say, "I want to make an objection on a religious basis in terms of the belonging to a group."
Ms Burak: But neither will you find any other clause in the act which requires them to become a member of any farm organization. I was simply saying you won't find that anywhere because that is not the intent, and a step beyond that, a further protection beyond that for those who even find it troublesome to write a cheque: We're trying to make an additional accommodation with section 21.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Villeneuve.
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, thank you for being here. You give a conclusive, thorough analysis of your thoughts. A copy of your membership application is most interesting to me. We're concerned with a user-friendly application fee and yours is very userfriendly. There's no gross income, there's no net income; there's simply a matter of a signature, name and address, lot and concession and, "You wish to support."
Give me your thoughts a little bit on, will this eliminate some members for you who -- the gross income criterion right now is $7,000. Are you comfortable with that?
Mr Markus: Yes, very much so.
1140
Mr Villeneuve: So that would not eliminate some people who may not be actively farming and yet are supporters of CFFO. Do you have those?
Mr Markus: We do have some retired farmers who maybe support it in a different direction through what we call the jubilee research foundation. At that point it becomes far more advantageous to support the research part of our wing because they can get 100% tax donation because they are no longer farmers. There are a fair number of retired farmers who have been active supporters over the years, through membership, who are no longer now members of CFFO but have decided to move their support into the research part because, since they don't have a farm income any more, that becomes a total donation. It goes into research. We have covered that in the way we've structured the organization.
Mr Villeneuve: This is internal to CFFO and has nothing to do with the GFO then, I gather.
Mr Markus: That's right.
Mr Villeneuve: And that's not interfering with that area. Have you had input to this point on the application form itself per se?
Mr Markus: Yes.
Mr Villeneuve: You're satisfied with what you see coming through and that when regulations are brought forth over and above Bill 42, the legislation itself, the regulations generally lay out the rules out. You're satisfied that there's enough protection here that we won't wind up with surprises?
Mr Markus: I guess from a personal perspective, and I'm just talking on my own behalf, no matter how good you make legislation and no matter how thoroughly you go through a lot of this stuff, you never totally find out how it really works until you get it in the marketplace. I think you people as legislators find that out over time, that you have to readjust afterwards because you don't comprehend all the different angles coming at you. You give it what you think is your best.
We have changed this around many times in the past because the bill has changed as it has gone along. We feel that the bill has changed where we like it to be, but what I'm saying, to come down with concrete things, is that there may be some things that come out of these hearings again that we'll say we never thought about and we're going to have to change. It's still not cut in stone. I think that doesn't mean we can bury it, but I don't think we can cut it in stone either because as time moves forward, different things come forward that you have to adjust to.
Mr Villeneuve: Moving on, and again thank you for the support material in your presentation, your staff right now is comprised of five full-time people? Could you expand on that?
Mr Streutker: Not all full-time. Even Martin Oldengarm is not full-time. During the summer he is hardly working. Most of the time he is on so-called holidays because his salary is limited and, well, he is managing anyway.
Mr Villeneuve: How many full-time people do you have on staff?
Mr Streutker: I think three, one of whom is only paid $6,000.
Mr Villeneuve: Okay. I notice from your income and expense statement that your expenditures -- and I know you run a frugal, close operation almost 100% on budget, but your income fell short. Do you have explanations for that?
Mr Markus: I should maybe let the treasurer answer this. I stuck up my hand a little too quickly. Ann, do you want to answer that?
Mrs Haagsma: I think one of the problems was also last year. Most of us were aware that in the farm community there were some very severe financial problems, and so members didn't give their full membership and stayed on as members. So we're very aware; our fee structure is not cut in stone. If there is financial difficulty, a nominal fee will keep your membership status in good standing. We find very often that when these farmers get into a better financial situation, they will make up the difference, which we appreciate.
Mr Villeneuve: I noticed in your presentation that you're suggesting your fee will be reduced from the $425 plus taxes from last year down to $150. Is that realistic?
Mr Streutker: No. It's down by $150. We are setting up a whole new system, hopefully, which is not approved by members yet, so I don't know whether we will get there, to get the whole thing down to $150 and even without saver funding; we would try to find other means to finance.
Mr Villeneuve: You've expressed your disappointment to the NFU asking for withdrawal whereby only two accredited GFOs will be in existence, if indeed this occurs, and I don't know what will happen. The accreditation for new organizations coming under the GFO umbrella, are you satisfied with the way it's set up now, the time frame required, the waiting period, the qualifications, or would you like to see some changes there?
Mr Streutker: No, we are quite satisfied with this because we realize that to be a bona fide farm organization, it takes quite a while before you get there. You cannot get off the ground, I would say, in half a year or a year. It took us I don't know how many years to get where we are now and also the other organizations, so if a new organization comes on stream and it wants to participate, it should prove that it is really worthwhile to be there.
Mr Villeneuve: Some of the questions that will be very difficult to answer -- we've got many commodity organizations representing a very narrow group of their producers and their interests, of course, and then we have the broader groups, ie, Christian farmers, the OFA, the NFU and a number of other groups. There's a women's group as well.
The problem, as I see it, in attempting to represent such a diversified industry as agriculture is that what's good for you may not be good for the next guy, and we have to present some sort of a united front. As you mentioned, we're only 2% producers. You have qualified here that we present 15% to the economy, and that's, I think, if you pardon me using the word small-c conservative, a low figure. I think the overall thrust of agriculture in the production, in the requirements for production, ie, herbicides, fertilizers, equipment, fuel etc and then we go into the processing, the hauling of the product -- the 15% is probably low and probably a figure of 20% might be more realistic, and it's a tremendously important ripple effect to the economy of the province.
We take food for granted, always. We assume it's going to be there in plentiful supply and in excellent quality and that's the way it is. However, you've mentioned that your income is down, as an organization representing farmers, because of the very difficult situation faced by farmers, especially in a year like last year where crops did not mature right because of temperatures, where prices were very depressed etc. With the additional funding, could you just kind of give me an example or two as to where you could better represent the people you speak for and influence, I guess, governments and consumers as to the importance of the food producer?
Mr Streutker: For one thing, all the contacts we have with OMAF, we could expand on that thing if we could do more research. For example, we would like to dig into agricultural education much more and we probably would like to deal with some other things, but this cannot be done if we don't have research, because there is one man sitting there and that is quite elaborate to come up with something. It takes us ages, almost, to come up with something because there are too many things we have to deal with. Through this stable funding, we hope to get more income so we can employ more people to do the research, and from that I think we can serve our member farmers, our farmers in general in Ontario, much better than we do right now.
1150
Mr Villeneuve: I know part of your aim is the protection of farm land and, in so doing, the protection of farmers and farm families. It's not only income criteria. I know you go well beyond that into -- it's a confessional organization, but maybe you could just touch on that.
Mr Streutker: There are so many, many more things. The Drainage Act is not for now, but even there, there are some important things we have to look at, because there is an environment, how does it connect. So we have to research all those things and that takes time and money. If the money is not there, we don't have the time either.
Mr Villeneuve: Right after this question, I'll yield to my colleague here from Lanark-Renfrew.
The tribunal will be made up of a maximum of seven members. Do you feel that this tribunal will satisfy the requirements as you see them from your perspective of an organization that is interested in farmers' welfare but also interested in the larger benefits of saving rural farm land and protecting a way of life? What are your thoughts about the tribunal and do you feel you will have sufficient input as a GFO member?
Mr Streutker: You mean to be a member of the tribunal?
Mr Villeneuve: Yes. It will be an appointment by the minister. What are your thoughts on that?
Mr Streutker: I expect the minister to ask us to come up with nominations. We'll try to come up with people who we think are able to function on this kind of tribunal.
Mr Villeneuve: Okay. I'll yield to my colleague from Lanark-Renfrew.
Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Thank you for your excellent presentation. Certainly, it's been enlightening to me. My colleague, as you know, is much more versed on the subject than I am. However, on page 3, the eligibility criteria, you say you regret "that the legal drafters decided to leave eligibility criteria for defining an accredited general farm organization to the regulations." Could you enlarge on that?
Mr Streutker: I think if it would have been put in the bill, it would have been clearer what would be there. Now it still has to be defined, and as far as I know, the criteria are not defined yet, so it has to be worked on still.
Mr Jordan: What was the alternative, rather than leaving it up to regulations? What would have made you more pleased -- by doing it what other way?
Mr Streutker: Maybe you can answer this one better, John.
Mr Markus: I'll try. I think what this thing hinges on, and this is one of the things we get caught in, is because we're not lawyers by profession. What we would have liked to have seen in the criteria is that it was farm-friendly. We had some eligibility criteria in the making and we struggled with them, and what we felt was that from where we stood, they were fairly favourable but did not necessarily pass the legal test and implications from a legal standpoint. That's where we tend to get just a little wee bit lost. It was: "How do you deal with that? You have to have a guarantee there. We'll have choices." We felt that those individual organizations had to have criteria, that it was worthwhile making them an organization. We had spelled out some criteria, what is a good farm organization, but not necessarily from the legal context. This is where I have to admit we're a little bit between and betwixt in where we're going, because we also realize and understand you have to have a legal document, because it is a bill of legislation.
That is one of the things that hopefully we can get resolved in a favourable way, but there is some difficulty there, because we also realize we just don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry to come into the government for stable funding just because they've got a good idea and they round up 50 people and come knocking on the door. At the same time, you have to leave it open enough that if there's a new group out there that's really doing an extraordinary job for the farm community, then I would say yes, after credibility has been built up, we have to open up the door to let them in. That's where the difficulty comes. I hope I've explained it somewhat.
Mr Jordan: Would you prefer to see it going in the other direction, that we would have an umbrella-type organization for the province recognizing all important groups rather than splitting it up?
Mr Markus: You can look at this in two particular ways, and I guess we look at it, because we're somewhat of a small group -- let's just say that there was an umbrella group of nine members, of which two of us were a part. The difficulty comes when the umbrella group becomes the sole representative of all the farm groups. Our individual concerns, our individual platforms or, for instance, our individual policy statements, if they were not friendly to the other seven sitting on this particular umbrella group, we would be getting outmanoeuvred every time and then you, as members of Parliament, would never really see the other side of the coin unless we make a private presentation.
We feel yes, there is a place of working together. We've seen this in the stable funding steering, we've seen it in Vision 2020, we've seen it in the labour committee, we've seen it in a lot of places, but when it comes to policy and direction then we feel an umbrella group could be a hindrance because you would be outmanoeuvred -- legally; nothing wrong with it -- because you have to accommodate everybody else's views and we felt that that would be a weakening of agriculture as a whole if you go in that direction.
Mr Klopp: Thank you very much for coming today to this hearing on the bill. Your history goes back a long time and one thing I've always found about your organization is that you've always been consistent. Not that I've always maybe agreed, but you've always been consistent and when you've changed your mind you've given it a lot of thought. On this particular issue, I must confess that you've got me convinced in many ways and I'm glad to see that we've come to a meeting of minds with a lot of farmers out there.
We've talked a lot about more money getting in and this kind of thing, but along with maybe people getting involved in the organizations, because there is now a little bit of a push with this type of legislation, is it your hope that they not just send their cheque but they get involved in your organization? Could you expand on that, or is that something that we seem to lose? I just want to know if that's what you're hoping happens too.
Mr Streutker: Yes, of course. We hope people who send their money do choose our organization, that they also will become a member, as a member participating in what we are doing, because that is what we need, our grass roots and our members to come up with the ideas that we have to work out and get to know what is going on in the farm community. As board members we are all farmers ourselves, but we still like to be better informed. That is our hope and wish and we will make it as easy as possible for everybody to become a member of the Christian Farmers organization.
Mr Klopp: Okay. I don't have any other questions. We take your comments to date and we're listening to them. There are some good remarks. I'll turn it over to my colleagues. Do you have any other questions?
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): There are just a few questions I'd like to ask. You've got in here, "Reduce our membership by $150 (presently $425)." I thought the amount was $150. Now, if you're reducing it $150, that would come up to about $275.
You talked about membership. If you pay $150 to the Christian Farmers, would "become a voting member" be a difference, or would I be able to be a voting member at paying $150?
Now, I would have to sign another sheet that I agree with the principles of Christian farming. Could you explain that a little bit to me there?
Mr Streutker: This is something we are working on right now --
Mr Hansen: I heard you talking about you're working on it; okay.
Mr Streutker: I hate actually to elaborate and say something. Our membership doesn't know yet that this is in the executive board, but we are working on this and have some ideas and for $150 you can be a full member if you want to sign. This is for the existing members on now and also the new ones. We are working on it.
Mr Hansen: I notice that with that $150 I would pay in I would receive all the information and literature, but I would not be a full member in order to vote at a meeting or be elected to the executive then possibly.
Mr Streutker: It could be that some people don't agree with our constitution or what we are standing for and still will support us. They might have difficulty signing on the paper, so maybe we will create a possibility of becoming an associate member.
Mr Hansen: Do you have businesses that -- let's say an implement dealer who doesn't have a farm but is actually a member of the Christian Farmers.
Mr Streutker: Yes.
Mr Hansen: He wouldn't be paying most likely the full rate in order to wind up being a member and still a voting member in your organization, so you would still have this other source of income, because you take a look that if your rates are $425 and it drops down to $150, there could be quite a loss of income.
1200
But taking a look at the area that I represent, like the Wellandport area, there's a lot of Christian Reform, Dutch Reform, in that particular area, who possibly feel the shelter of the milk marketing board and some of these other boards and have never joined the farm association. Do you feel that in these areas you'll be picking up membership?
Mr Streutker: Well, probably that is one of the bigger areas we will pick up people, yes.
Mr Hansen: In the Wellandport area, I believe there's, what, 10 or 12 members? With the 25% of the funds going into that particular area, would you make your districts bigger so that you could get a better program? Because if you have 10 or 12 members in that particular area, if you're figuring out $150 and take 25%, it's not very many dollars into 12 family farms.
Mr Streutker: This is something that they organized locally, not from the top down. We don't say, "Well, you need 20 or 10 members to become a local," or a district, or whatever you call it. No, that is done locally. They come together and when they want to form an organization in Wellandport, for example, that is fine. If they want to do in the next close town another one, we could advise them, but not tell them what to do.
Mr Hansen: I see, okay. The other thing is, just a last question here: If a farm is registered, then everyone who is in that family is a member? Now, that would only be a member as a membership in the Christian Farmers, because if you went the one step farther -- so it would be only be the registered owners who are put on the ownership who would actually be through the stable funding, but to become a full-fledged member of your group, then every family member would be a voting member.
Interjection: That's right.
Mr Hansen: Just to bring out some different -- I read a little bit in here. It's not in Hansard, but if anybody's reading Hansard, they can get these points.
Mr Markus: We're working on some different concepts, like you say, and all this thing about the membership in the locals and all this other type of thing, we're waiting somewhat to see what comes out of the wash with the legislation. We are becoming fairly comfortable with it.
At the same time, at the executive level, we spent a whole morning the other day with three of us dealing with how we're going to restructure membership. The idea basically is that first we'll see how our membership rolls in, because this $150, we feel, will be much more attractive than $425. Thereby, we hope to get some increased memberships, and thereby, hopefully, we can make a set of locals of 10 or 12 like you're talking about. Hopefully, we can get them up to 25 and 30. But we have to see these figures come in first and then maybe realign our areas to some degree. But to sit down here and say, "We're going to do this and we're going to do that," when we haven't got any memberships rolling in yet from stable funding I think would be a bit irresponsible on our part.
Mr Hansen: Okay.
Mr Markus: The idea is coming, but how we're going to do it exactly will depend somewhat on how this thing materializes down the road.
Mr Hansen: I know that the farms I'm talking about aren't members of any farm organization as it is now, so it's new memberships, actually, that are out there but have never been associated, that have never, I guess, come forward to join. So there could be quite a change in the number of members that remain members of your organization there. Okay, thank you.
Mr Markus: I'd like to make a comment on membership which is somewhat outside, I guess, of our organization but I think is very much part of the stable funding, which I think is very, very healthy.
I think in the past -- and we have a few townships too that donate money to Christian Farmers. But I think in the long haul the different commodity organizations, the different townships that have given money to different farm groups -- in a way it was nice. There was money coming forward. But I think if stable funding comes to be and this problem can be eliminated, it would be very healthy for the farm community.
If, for instance -- I'm just using that as an example -- the Ontario Milk Marketing Board was to give us a $10,000 grant, it would be very difficult for us as Christian Farmers to sit back and analyse the Ontario Milk Marketing Board and come up with a positive critique, because we have to be careful that we don't bite the hand that feeds us. I think one of the long-term objectives that is very positive in stable funding is that we unhook from some of these types of things in the farm community so that we can sit back without having a string attached to it and move forward.
Mr Hansen: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I would welcome Mr Hope to the committee, the member for Chatham-Kent, who is not a regular member of this committee but who I know has an interest in this bill. There are approximately two minutes of government time left, Mr Hope, if you have a question.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Well, I have a question, not to the presenters. Unfortunately, I didn't listen to the presentation so it's not appropriate for me to make comment even though I've had an opportunity to glance at this. But there are some concerns that I wish to address to the ministry in asking for information.
Yesterday during the presentation, we were told about meetings and policy meetings that the farm organizations have been involved in over the number of years. I'm wondering, through you to the ministry officials, about information pertaining to moneys that have been paid to farm organizations in support of their efforts in helping us establish policies. So I was wondering if there could be a financial statement report.
I notice the Environmental Bill of Rights and labour relations stuff, and any financial assistance that has been given to the farm organizations from the provincial coffers -- I was wondering if for the last four years that information could be provided.
The Chair: The request is noted.
Mr Klopp: We will see what we can do. Did you say four years?
Mr Hope: Yes.
Mr Klopp: Any particular reason for four?
Mr Hope: Because it's consistent with what I said last night.
Mr Klopp: Okay. We'll see what we can do. Appreciate that we're not going to spend great amounts of money trying to find -- but we'll dig stuff up. I think we can find something. It's all for the record. I'm sure in our budget nobody usually checks things through with a fine tooth comb when doing budget reviews.
The Chair: I'd like to thank the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and each of you for taking the time to present here this morning. Each of you individually and your group have made a valuable contribution to the process. We trust that you will stay in touch with the committee either through the clerk or any member of the committee as this bill proceeds through the process.
I notice in your presentation that you have a line on page 2 that I find interesting. It says, "Governments no longer devise programs in city office complexes and then deliver them to the farm community." I wish that were more true. Thank you very much for your presentation.
We'll recess till 2 pm.
The committee recessed from 1207 to 1402.
NATIONAL FARMERS UNION
The Chair: I call the committee to order. The next scheduled presenter is the National Farmers Union. I see you've taken your place there and if you can identify yourselves for the purposes of Hansard and then proceed with your presentation. Your group has been allocated a one-hour time slot to make your presentation, and the committee would appreciate at least half of that for questions and answers.
Mr Perry Pearce: Thank you, Chairman Bob. I'm Perry Pearce of the National Farmers Union. Beside me is Joe Dama and, with some luck, Rick Munroe will be joining us if the public transit system of Toronto does not fail us and he gets lost in this concrete jungle. The committee has before it two pieces of paper. One is the prepared speech that I'm going to present to you today and the one with the pink cover is the supporting document that goes along with it. With that, I will begin.
On behalf of the National Farmers Union, we appreciate this opportunity to present our position on the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, Bill 42.
I, Perry Pearce, national board member, will be speaking on behalf of region 3, which is Ontario, as well as the national board of the National Farmers Union. With me today is Joe Dama, who is district 6 director, and Rick Munroe is a local member. Ah, just in time, Rick. Perfect timing; we're just getting started.
Mr Rick Munroe: Sorry I'm late.
Mr Pearce: If you'll excuse me for a second, I'll get my latest member organized.
Before you, we have prepared a supporting document for our presentation today. It should be understood that our comments refer to Bills 105 and 142, which to us are the same and have the same basic intent.
When preparing for this I asked myself, "What is the purpose of this hearing?" I concluded that our purpose is to achieve democracy. In Patrick Watson's book entitled The Struggle for Democracy I found a quote which to me explains democracy. It states:
"And so the rule of the blood clans was over. The rule of the hereditary kings was over. The rule of the usurpers was over. The rule of the gifted tyrants was over. Democracy was finally born."
In looking over Bill 42, I have grave concerns whether or not democracy is being served. In my opinion, there are some blood clans and gifted tyrants involved in Bill 42.
The history of the stable funding issue is outlined in a document that I've supplied to you. I wish to highlight some of these items, beginning with -- and I don't want you to leaf through them, because the text is covered here -- the first letter, which was to the Honourable Jack Riddell in April 1988 from R.A. Briscoe, region 3 coordinator.
The first point made in this letter is that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has been the driving force behind this legislation. After 20 years of strong membership recruiting, they have only had one third of the Ontario farmers supporting them. The whole purpose of this legislation would be to coerce or manipulate farmers into funding an organization they have already rejected.
Farmers resent the fact that the OFA has underground means of coercing funds from them, for example, municipal mill rate levies, direct county grants, commodity groups etc. This funding is not an issue the OFA wishes to discuss in Bill 42 if it's implemented.
The letter to Riddell also points out what happens time and time again with checkoffs, and there are seven points:
(1) Refundable checkoff for a small amount.
(2) The amount of the checkoff is increased.
(3) Organizational policies favour the minority.
(4) Farmers start to observe organization.
(5) Requests for refunds increase.
(6) This one is important: Organizations ask for non-refundable checkoff.
(7) Farmers start supporting rival farm organizations on a voluntary basis, which puts us back to square one.
Another item in our document is a letter to Premier Rae, dated November 20, 1990, from John Dowling, region 3 coordinator. In this letter he points out that the OFA admits to only having 29% of Ontario farmers and that it is its desire to become the single general farm organization in Ontario.
Mr Dowling's letter also states why Ontario farmers are in the mess they are today, and I quote from his letter.
"The OFA has enjoyed 50 years of Conservative, Liberal support. The system that the OFA is presently being financed by is the product of this support. This support is the fragmentation and dilution of farm leadership to the point that except for supply-management marketing boards, the other farm industries are in their death throes.
"It is this scenario we (family farmers) are facing and yet we are being forced to react to the OFA agenda.
"The exploitation of agricultural lands by developers and the takeover of these lands by wealthy urban dwellers have come to serve as the only retirement fund for senior farmers.
"This process has denied these farmers' sons" -- and I should add "daughters" -- "the opportunity to farm because of inadequate returns. We have lost most of our prospective middle-aged and young farmers already.
"It is the legacy of neo-conservative OFA leadership that has presided over the demise of Ontario's agriculture.
"Why would any NDP government perpetuate this useless system? To read the OFA as the farm-majority-supported organization is to deny the 71% a voice."
To give you an indication of the state of Ontario agriculture, I want to draw your attention to a submission to the Ontario provincial government dated November 25, 1992. Under the section "Increased Reliance on Off-Farm Income," figures obtained from the Ontario government tax filer figures reveal that the average net income for almost 115,000 Ontario residents submitting information on on-farm and off-farm income was as follows: average net farm income, $2,389; average off-farm income, just over $30,000. I think that says a lot for the state of Ontario agriculture today.
If farmers were able to earn a living from farming, these off-farm jobs would then be available to unemployed Ontarians. The federated system pits farmer against farmer and the OFA élite have prospered under this system and strongly desire more of the same.
1410
In my quest to show how the gifted tyrants and blood clans have operated, I will refer you to a letter dated November 22, 1991, written by John Langlois, an NFU negotiator reporting to our regional coordinator about a stable funding meeting held in Milton, at which I also was present. Key issues with regard to stable funding which we wished to discuss were not included on the agenda, namely, other funding sources -- municipal tax levies, county grants etc -- autonomy of county federations and affiliation with commodity organizations. We had also requested an independent chair.
I'm taking directly from John's letter. John's report says the following:
"When the meeting began, Aukema (CFFO president) was apparently the chair. I don't really know how that was decided. I immediately noted that three items offered by the NFU were not on the agenda and while this was fine for this meeting, I wanted a time noted when they would be on the agenda.
"Roger George (OFA president) and Carl Sulliman (OFA staff) were emphatic that these were internal matters and not negotiable. I suggested that while the OFA considered them internal matters, we did not, impacting as they did on most Ontario farmers.
"Jack from the CCFO said that OFA and CFFO had cooperated for years to get stable funding and the NFU had refused to participate in discussions until Buchanan invited us to be part of the process. He expressed that in his opinion `Buchanan will proceed without the NFU.'"
John goes on to explain that "after the OFA suggested that they were this close from leaving the meeting, Henry Aukema, in true arrogant form, suggested that unless we were prepared to drop these items, we should be the ones to leave and not bother coming back. I responded that while I was always appreciative of his comments, I took exception to the threatening nature of his remarks."
Carl Sulliman suggested that the OFA had spent over $100,000 to date on stable funding and had no intentions of dropping it now. When asked by Roger George, OFA, if these were make-or-break issues, I, Perry Pearce, replied yes. After a five-minute break, we agreed to leave in protest since our issues would not be addressed now or in the future. As far as I know, these issues have not yet, to today's date, been addressed. We were even asked by the tyrants' leader, Roger George, to put in writing that we would never raise these issues again.
Other concerns are that the county federations are not bound by provincial OFA decisions and we could therefore actually have 36 farm organizations instead of one GFO known as the OFA.
The OFA also seems to have a stranglehold on commodity boards. Our perception of their relationship is as follows: financially, a large number of commodity boards support the OFA in return for representation on their behalf at various government functions. In addition, it seems that whenever farmers have a problem or idea which they bring up to the boards to better the situation for agriculture, the OFA always intervenes, not addressing the situation, just burying it in red tape. They seem not only happy with the status quo but ensure nothing changes. However, things are changing for the worse out there. Evidence of this has been experienced by myself in trying to organize farmers to promote marketing boards, to have more power with our commodities. It seems the OFA is always there to make sure farmers don't get ahead.
Our document also includes correspondence from OMAF, which continuously ignores our concerns. In most cases, we were given last-minute notice of meetings, including the announcement of Bill 42, which we were usually unable to attend, given the short notice. The OFA and CFFO always seem to be at the minister's footsteps. I question if that was so that the tyrants and blood clans could give their stamp of approval to the proposals. It appears that one farm group's mandate has become the minister's, regardless of what the majority of farmers may want.
The concerns that need to be addressed: In Bill 42, the tribunal has the power to give or take away accreditation from a farm organization. Two groups are grandfathered. We have withdrawn, so you have the OFA and the CFFO. For the record, I wish to state that the CFFO has certain religious beliefs and values contrary to the charter of human rights. Who will ensure no rights are violated? There's nothing spelled out in the tribunal on this issue.
Religious convictions, a rule for exemption: How will the tribunal deal with this question when guidelines are not set? We're asking the tribunal here to play God in deciding whose religious values have merit and whose don't. Can any group be given such a power? Whose mandate will prevail? Grass-roots farmers or a general farm organization?
The NFU position: We were invited to participate in the process to develop a scheme of stable funding for farm organizations. We accepted this challenge to ensure democracy for farmers, knowing the OFA's battle to implement a system to fund its own bureaucratic network. Several attempts on our part to instil a democratic process have been hijacked. Every mention of a vote has been denied. We insist on a vote. Only one third of the farmers currently belong to a farm organization. Membership should be voluntarily based on the GFO's worth, not coercion. We will not assist this government in imposing this scheme on farmers.
The NFU wants no part of a money grab from farmers. Dissenting farmers are still faced with the problem of coming up with $150 of their hard-earned money, then having to request a refund and waiting to receive it. Nowhere do we see where this time line is outlined. We don't know if this is 30 days, 90 days or 135 days.
We fear that a small minority of farmers who want to force all farmers to send money their way will persist in their efforts and the refund mechanism will eventually be eliminated. We strongly object to the plain denial of access to certain farm programs, including the farm tax rebate, which is simply a return of taxes farmers should not have paid in the first place.
The authors of Bill 105 -- and Bill 42 -- deliberately wrote it in such a discriminatory manner as to ensure only a few GFOs qualify. Exclusion rather than inclusion was their motto. We would have had to drastically change our structure from a national to a provincial organization to comply. In this day of globalization, why is the provincial government trying to ruin national cooperation among farmers? This bill actually entrenches barriers among provinces, which is contrary to the ministers' agreement on eliminating provincial trade barriers.
1420
In our participation we have tried to present these concerns. It was very evident throughout the whole process that the agenda and process were set by the OFA. We are sorry to say that our perseverance to have a democratic process for farmers on this issue has not yet prevailed.
It was at our annual regional convention that our membership decided to withdraw our name as one of the GFOs named in Bill 42. This decision was based on matters of principle and practicality. We had previously agreed to stay involved in the process until such time that it became impossible. That time has come; hence our recent action.
In conclusion, I want to state the facts as I see them. Based on my earlier quote by Patrick Watson, I see the gifted tyrants as the OFA, which will receive the ultimate cash cow and the power of rural Ontario; the CFFO as the blood clan which has a little family that will provide programs to their own; Elmer Buchanan as a hereditary king who will just be a figurehead with no real power; and the elected members of the House as the usurpers using force to seize and hold power. OMAF will become the servant not of grass-roots farmers but of tyrants and clans.
There is, however, still an opportunity for democracy. I recommend to the committee to take it upon yourselves to change the word "may" to "will" in section 33. If nothing else, do that small feat.
In closing, we wish to advise that we have requested that the minister amend Bill 42 to withdraw the NFU as one of the grandfathered GFOs. To date we have not heard anything from the minister or any acknowledgement from him regarding our request.
With that, I thank you for your time and consideration and open it up to questions.
Mr Cleary: I'd like to thank you gentlemen for coming before the committee. I know you have made your views known. I guess, from what we hear, it's a done deal: You're out. There's no way of reconsidering?
Mr Pearce: Are you asking me that?
Mr Cleary: Yes.
Mr Pearce: What would it take to reconsider?
Mr Cleary: Yes.
Mr Pearce: First a vote, because there's no way I am going to recommend to our organization, as a small minority in this province, to endorse a program that affects everybody. The second issue that would have to be addressed would be the power of the tribunal and the mandate it has. It's a very, very powerful body and it's left wide open. We have great concerns over that tribunal.
This government today may have the best intentions, but what about the intentions five years down the road, 10 years down the road? Change the appointments of that tribunal and you can change the direction of that tribunal totally.
Mr Cleary: Have you had any input into this proposed form that has to be filled out by all farmers? Have you had input into that?
Mr Pearce: Haven't seen it.
Mr Cleary: There are very few who have. We've been trying to get a look at one for some time now and we haven't had any opportunity yet.
Mr Pearce: I guess you're in the same boat as we are then, John.
Mr Cleary: I don't have many more questions. I'm just sorry that things fell apart the way they did. Maybe at a later date you'll reconsider. I've heard your concerns before, not from you but from other members of your organization and other farmers. I think it's a time when agricultural people have to stick together, one way or another. I'm just sorry that this happened. That's the end of my questions.
Mrs Fawcett: I too want to thank you for coming. I think this is one very good reason why these hearings should be taking place. I know that on July 21 there were certain people who wanted to just ram this through on third reading, but I guess our party felt that this was not really what we believe democracy to be and that people like your group should have a chance to voice their opinions.
I notice that in one of your statements you said you really didn't have an opportunity for consultation. Yet I know that the meetings were going on and that there seemed to be some confusion around whether or not you were invited to the meetings and then walked out and so on. I just wondered. You really felt that you didn't have a chance to really consult or be consulted and have input into the stable funding bill? Am I correct in that assumption?
Mr Pearce: Let's clarify which meetings.
Mrs Fawcett: On the stable funding bill.
Mr Pearce: The development meetings?
Mrs Fawcett: Yes.
Mr Pearce: In our opinion, the problem with the development meetings was that it seemed like it was always three against one, with OMAF usually siding with OFA and Christian Farmers, and usually the agenda was designed and written without consulting us. And at some meetings we didn't have an agenda until we got to it.
Mrs Fawcett: It sounds like it was more confrontational, your association, which is unfortunate. I can't imagine that was really something --
Mr Pearce: Useful?
Mrs Fawcett: Certainly that kind of meeting is never useful. But I am surprised that the ministry would not try to consult with everyone who has an interest. All farmers have an interest and I think we all want the best for the general farm group.
I notice too that in your language you refer to the "blackmail of linking the denial of access to farm programs to compliance." That's not my reading of the bill. The registration number is the thing that will allow you access to the farm programs that the ministry would run. I'm having trouble with your interpretation of the bill.
Mr Pearce: Our interpretation is that, first of all, the farm tax rebate is an unfair tax, has been for years. Various governments, including your own, have seen fit to rebate percentages back. Why is that being tied to stable funding now? That's a question that begs to be answered. Why is it being attached? You will not have access, as we understand it, as you go through the registering process, which means writing the cheque, but the key question is, if I want a refund, when do I get that cheque back? Do I get it back in 30 days? Do I get it back after somebody's field staff comes out and visits me and tries to convince me several times that I'm really holding up process and I should be a nice guy and give it back? When does this money come back to me as a citizen?
Mrs Fawcett: I asked that question this morning of the Christian Farmers. That word "promptly" is in the bill. Would you have preferred to see a time line there?
Mr Pearce: Everybody else has to have days. Banks operate on a number of days, and credit unions. It should be a number of days.
Mrs Fawcett: Again, maybe we would require some clarification from the ministry around what your thoughts are as to the farm tax rebate and the registration and stable funding. It's my belief that you get your number, you can receive your money back so that you do not have to belong to a specific organization and then you have access to all of the programs.
Mr Pearce: I could live with that principle providing you can guarantee me how down the road that will not be changed to non-refundable.
Mrs Fawcett: I see.
Mr Pearce: That's the other grave concern we have.
Mrs Fawcett: All right.
Mr Pearce: Which may not reflect anybody's intent in this room, but things change over time.
Mrs Fawcett: Right. I guess we all hope everybody is dealing with the best of intentions, and yet sometimes it's hard to include all of that in legalese form in a bill. I guess that's why we have elections, so that every so often things can change.
Mr Offer, do you have a question?
1430
Mr Offer: Actually, on the point raised dealing with the issue of "shall promptly forward the cheques," that is, I think, fairly strange language for a piece of legislation when one is talking about money. That's what we're talking about; we're talking about somebody giving money to someone else and saying to the other person that they should promptly give the money back.
I'm wondering, since the point has been brought up and there are just reams of other pieces of legislation where the refunding of dollars is put in a specific time frame -- five banking days, two weeks -- whether the parliamentary assistant and/or staff from the ministry are looking at this fairly clear-cut issue.
Mr Klopp: We're working on it. That's what we talked about in regulations in the bill here. We're looking at tightening, as we say "pay promptly back" in the bill. Regulations can stipulate days. There have been ongoing discussions. That's why we're here right now, to hear what people have to say, and we're listening.
Mr Offer: I guess the point is that that shouldn't be by regulation, that you should be looking at legislative change by taking out the word "promptly" and putting in a specific set of days so that if there's going to be any change -- and there is some concern about changes years down the line -- any change would have to go through this type of a legislative process. It's no guarantee that changes won't take place, but it is a guarantee that if they take place, they've got to go through a process such as this.
I'm wondering if the parliamentary assistant has looked at that.
Mr Klopp: As I stated, that's why we're here, to listen to ideas, and that's why I'm taking down the notes.
Mr Offer: That's pretty close to a commitment.
Mr Pearce: We certainly support that concept.
Mrs Fawcett: Hearings can be useful.
Mr Pearce: For sure. That's why we're here.
Mr Klopp: They've been going on a long time.
The Chair: Further questions, Ms Fawcett, Mr Cleary or Mr Offer? Mr Villeneuve.
Mr Villeneuve: To the NFU, thank you very much for being here. There's some bad blood between you and the other organizations. Has this always been the way, or did it just start with stable funding negotiations?
Mr Pearce: I think you'd have to ask them more so than me or us. The NFU has always been very principled and very upfront and forward. Sometimes other groups don't appreciate that way of doing business. We've said all the way along that we thought stable funding was a bad deal. We've tried to work within the process, and that's why we're walking away from it today. As far as being bad blood, I wouldn't say that. We're just trying to state the facts as we see them today.
Mr Villeneuve: The NFU and CFFO and OFA have been representing farmers for a long time. I always thought that you each went about your own business and not attacking one another. There are pretty serious attacks in this presentation of yours. Has this worsened the situation?
Mr Pearce: I think it has brought many issues into focus. As far as bad blood, I think this is pretty mild to what I see go on in the House.
The Chair: You're well advised not to follow our example sometimes.
Mr Villeneuve: Well said.
Will you, as a farmer, register?
Mr Pearce: Yes.
Mr Villeneuve: Will most of the NFU members, as farmers, register?
Mr Pearce: I think so.
Mr Villeneuve: And ask for a reimbursement.
Mr Pearce: I certainly will.
Mr Villeneuve: Now, with your suggestion to section 33, where "the minister may" should not be "may," but "must" or "will," would you not prefer that this maybe go to a committee of the Legislature, whoever might form a committee three years down the road, as opposed to going to an individual, where you would have the opportunity to return and say, "Look, we've looked at this. It's not working at all and should be completely done away with," or, "Yes, maybe we're thinking of becoming accredited now that we've seen it work for a little while"? Would you not prefer this to having the minister be the sole arbitrator here?
Mr Pearce: I'm a little confused on the question. The wording is to deal with the issue of a vote, not accreditation.
Mr Villeneuve: As I read it here, "After three years have elapsed since the coming into force of this act, the minister may have a review of the act to determine whether it is advisable that the act continue in force." It doesn't say "vote," and I don't read "vote" between the lines there. That's what it says and that's what you're asking us to amend. I have no problem in amending that, but I think maybe we can do better.
Mr Pearce: I understand your question much better. I think you're right that probably, yes, it should be a committee, maybe such as this, that allows equal opportunity for all parties and for the farming public to comment on that review and not a select handful.
Mr Villeneuve: Who have been served or possibly harmed with what is about to occur in Bill 42.
Mr Pearce: Right.
Mr Villeneuve: Who votes? You want a vote now. Who votes?
Mr Pearce: If I had to vote?
Mr Villeneuve: Yes.
Mr Pearce: I would send out a ballot to everybody who gets a farm tax rebate. It's not perfect --
Mr Villeneuve: No, it sure isn't. I happen to own three parcels of land and I get three little cheques. Would I have three votes?
Mr Pearce: As it stands, yes, if I was doing it.
Mr Villeneuve: That's democratic?
Mr Pearce: It's better than what we've got.
The Chair: Further questions? Mr Jordan.
Mr Jordan: I don't really have further questions, but I'd like to thank you for coming forward and giving us your feelings on this. I would like to see you give it further thought as to -- your main differences seem to be between the organizations rather than with the bill.
Mr Pearce: No. Can I speak to that? In many ways, we feel that we've been prostituted by the minister. I think if you re-read the text of second reading, he says something along the line that he has full support of the three GFOs. No, he doesn't have full support.
Mr Jordan: Did he not have it at that time?
Mr Pearce: He did not have it at that time and he doesn't have it today. We were still working on the issue and I think, in all fairness, we felt that was very misleading to the farm public to allow ourselves to be used and have it suggested that we were in full support of Bill 42. I think that's a very good reason for stating publicly where we stand not only to you as the committee but to the general farm public: that there are a lot of problems with this bill and that we are walking away from it. We may have to walk back towards it down the road; I don't know that. But right today, this summer, we're saying it's a bad bill and we don't want our name on it; we're walking away from the table.
Mr Jordan: Are you willing to take another look after these committee meetings and perhaps some amendments have been made to the legislation, putting aside your personal differences between the organizations and looking at just for the good of the farmer? Are you willing to review it after it's amended and say, "I'll reassess our position"?
Mr Pearce: In order to serve democracy to our membership, to revisit the issue of stable funding would have to be at an annually convened type meeting of the general membership. I don't know, and maybe the other two members would like to comment, but I don't think we would allow a decision like that up to an executive decision or a small group. We would want to make sure that our entire membership -- and time may not allow that.
Mr Jordan: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr Wilson and Mr Klopp.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thanks for your presentation, Mr Pearce. I do want to greet Rick Munroe, who is from my riding and someone I know very well, and just to dispel any impression that he was late to this meeting because he couldn't find the committee room. I know Rick has attended a lot of committee meetings and represented the people in our area -- not just farmers, I would say, but the people in general -- very strongly on issues like plant breeders' rights on free trade. He certainly put those issues in a context that showed their importance to everybody in our area. In fact, I thought the way he acted was the way I would want any representative in a general farm organization to act. That's what I thought a general farm organization would involve, that kind of activity, and in fact it would have better stability through the program or the plan that we're bringing in with this legislation.
1440
I do want to say too I'm glad that Mr Villeneuve cleared up the language in your brief, which I found strong. You seem to be implying that we're not to take it seriously, similar to how we don't take seriously the language in the Legislature for the most part. I'm also pleased to hear that these things can change in the future, because that is the essence of democracy, I think, the discussion and deliberation that occurs.
I do want to point out that the way I read that reference to Patrick Watson's -- to remind you, he says democracy is born. It has a long way to go, and certainly when you look at the history, we have a very deep history of things other than democracy and a very relatively recent history of democracy. So I think that there is a lot that we still have to learn, there's a lot of experience we have to go through, and I think this is part of it, your coming here to make your presentation.
I guess that is the one thing that I want to go over again, just this idea of how we find out what farmers are thinking in Ontario when, even according to your brief, there is really little organization there. It seems to me this is a step towards better organization, a better mechanism for finding out what farmers think and also for allowing them to have a greater say in what goes on in the province.
Mr Joe Dama: I'd like to make a comment concerning the general farm organizations. What are they, really? We believe that we are a political lobby group, and I'm sure that's what the OFA believes, because I've seen it in some of their writing. Considering that, then, are we going to legislate people into supporting lobby groups and political organizations? If that's the case, what are we going to do next? Is the NDP then going to say: "All right, our support is low in the polls right now. We'd better legislate a bill and make sure that everybody is supporting the NDP"? That's a possibility.
Interjection: Come on, Gary.
Mr Gary Wilson: Well, if you're waiting for an answer, I can tell you I don't think it's much of a possibility, but --
Mr Hansen: It's an idea.
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, it's an idea, as my colleague says.
Mr Villeneuve: Mike's a big guy.
Mr Gary Wilson: Democracy does require discussion and debate and --
Mr Dama: The NDP has a majority in the House right now. It could put a bill through like that.
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): No.
Mr Gary Wilson: I must say, if your remarks or your work are based on that kind of an analysis, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding there about how the system works. That is just out of the question. People have to come together, and compromise has to be part of the system to get things done. We all have different views, and there are separate organizations in all kinds of activities now, but it's how the views get represented, and that's again part of the intent of the legislation.
Mr Munroe: If I could offer a few words here, democracy also certainly works around diversity of opinion, and I think Gary mentioned plant breeders' rights. I would throw in issues like free trade.
I think the disagreements that arise between the farm organizations have a lot less to do with bad blood than to do with fundamental differences of opinion on critical policy decisions. The federation was strongly in favour of plant breeders' rights. We stood dead opposed to it and have major concerns about what we see happening with proprietary ownership of life forms and biotechnology and those sorts of issues. With respect to free trade, we were dead set against it right from the beginning and remain so, whereas their position was uncertain at first and divided even between the OFA and the parent body federally. So I think there are some major differences that way and they remain, and I think that's healthy for farmers.
Also, I was struck by something that appeared in the March 1990 edition of the OFA Members' Digest with respect to stable funding, and I'll quote from this very briefly. It says, under the heading "Developing One Farming Organization":
"Dan Caley, OFA field representative, recalls" -- this is his quote inside my quote -- "`The government would hear two different opinions and would tell the two organizations to go back and find out what farmers really wanted.'"
If that's the intent behind stable funding, to sort of attempt to funnel a great diversity of opinion that's out there among farmers or any segment of the public into one voice, one opinion, then I think the whole thing is quite misguided. The NFU has always felt that we don't represent all farmers but we represent a viewpoint of some farmers, and we feel that the federation has equal entitlement to the same sort of approach, but to attempt to set up a structure that's going to force all farmers to come up with some rather watered-down voice -- which is part of our concern, I would say -- is something that we think is quite undesirable. We think our opinion is different enough from theirs on certain critical issues that it's a valuable one. We'd like to see room for our organization, but we're certainly not going to be part of a scheme which forces farmers to support us.
With respect to the refundability thing, I think anyone who's voting for this legislation thinking in the back of their mind, "Well, there's a refund mechanism, there's no problem," is quite misguided. The result of this sort of plan is going to be unstable funding, and it won't be too long -- because of course, how can any organization plan? They're going to have a slew of $150 cheques with no foreknowledge of what percentage of that is going to be refunded, and it won't take too long, I think, before there are complaints from the other two organizations about the fact that they can't work under a mechanism like that. They're having to administer this entire refund system. They can't plan from month to month or year to year based on a system like that. So let's not have anybody be fooled about the refund mechanism.
Mr Klopp: Thank you for your comments today. We've been discussing this. Elmer has been discussing this since he became the minister; I've been discussing it; we're here today. We'll take your comments, as we will with all other groups today and over the next two weeks.
You asked about you've heard no response back from the minister regarding that you've officially asked to be withdrawn from the bill. That is through the system that needs amendments and we will be doing that kind of decision-making process and we will definitely take that under advisement. That will come under clause-by-clause and we will certainly try to make sure that your wishes are there.
Mr Hansen: I'd like to thank the National Farmers Union for appearing. There was one question I wanted to ask. What is the fee to belong to the NFU as it is right now? Is it because of the $150? Is it cheaper than that or is it more? What is the amount that it costs to become a member?
Mr Pearce: It's $150, including GST. We're one of those federal tax evaders.
Mr Hansen: Okay. I know you've had a lot of difference of opinion, and I think the one thing is, when we're talking, I think in that OFA submission, about one farm voice, I don't think the OFA was talking about its one voice but talking about farmers as one farm voice talking to the government with the stable funding with the three groups that could be involved. You know, we have different interpretation when we read a sentence. To me, I interpret it a little bit different. I don't totally agree on that point. I've got a rural area and I'd like to see the farmers coming together, not to be split, and I hope that if you want to be taken out of the stable funding, in three years you take a look at how stable funding is working and maybe jump back in and your group would be one of the groups to be involved, if not more.
The Chair: I'd like to thank the National Farmers Union and each of you for making your views known here today. Your group and you as individuals have played an important role in the process and I hope that you'll stay in touch with the committee, either through the clerk of the committee, any member of this committee or indeed your own MPP, as this bill makes it way through the process. Thank you very much for appearing here today.
Mr Pearce: Thank you.
The Chair: We'll just take a five-minute recess. We're a little ahead of schedule and I think all of us could use a little stretch, so we'll reconvene in about five minutes.
The committee recessed from 1451 to 1500.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
The Chair: Okay, if we could come to order. It's 3 pm and the next scheduled presenter is the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, if you could identify yourselves, gentlemen, and then proceed with your presentation. You've been allocated one hour to make a presentation, and the committee would appreciate at least half of that for questions and answers.
Mr Roger George: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. My name is Roger George and I'm the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. With me today, on my right-hand side I have Bill Weaver, who is OFA's first vice-president, and on my left is Carl Sulliman, who is OFA's chief executive officer.
Today we did not bring down any written material. It's our intention that Carl makes a short, verbal presentation. We're going to keep it down to a very few minutes to allow the maximum amount of time for questions, which I think will serve us as the most useful. So with that I think I'll defer immediately to Carl, who will make a short statement.
Mr Carl H. Sulliman: Thank you, Mr Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the committee, and Roger George and Bill Weaver, colleagues. I'm going to take just a very few moments.
Most of what the OFA has had to say on the subject of the farmer registration system and a funding mechanism for the general farm voice is well documented and very much in the public domain. As well, those things said about OFA on this subject are very much in the public domain. You are conversant with the arguments on both sides and with the material, as members of Parliament.
But while we're in this committee and we're on the public record, I want to take a moment to express some profound appreciation for a lot of hard work by a lot of individuals. I guess I'm one of the people in this room who's a continuous link, having worked with Premier Peterson's ministers, Minister Riddell and Minister Ramsay, on this subject and I've worked with Premier Rae's minister, Minister Buchanan, on this issue. I've worked with our partners in the general farm organizations in the province and worked with two deputy ministers and a number of public servants, and all those people I've found to be people of sincere intent and goodwill on what is a very complex subject: the funding of the general farm voice.
Men and women of the committee and members of the Legislative Assembly will know that there are many jurisdictions across Canada that have such a mechanism in place, some of them through formal legislation which is much more onerous and strenuous than this. An example would be the province of Quebec, which virtually turns the farm voice into a collective bargaining unit, on that kind of model, others on a less formal memorandum of understanding, but they too, in those jurisdictions, are moving towards a legislated framework.
In short, what we have put before you, and before the men and women of the Legislative Assembly who will deal with the report of the standing committee prior to third reading, is a made-in-Ontario solution to the Ontario situation. It's a solution that ensures the financial independence and integrity of our commodity organizations, funded through a variety of mechanisms which they have determined over the years, and the general farm voice now is before you for such consideration.
We have engaged in a very lengthy democratic process prior to appearing before you today, in consultation with our members, our 46 county and district federations across the province of Ontario. We have written directly, over the years, right to the mailbox and farm kitchen of our members as well as published reports through the farm media to the rural population at large and farmers specifically.
I suppose there are two or three items I'd like to just touch on for a moment for consideration of the committee. One is, what are you going to do with this money? As I have moved around the province with Roger and other elected leaders of the OFA and the leadership of other farm organizations, I have yet to have a producer in the province of Ontario approach me and seriously suggest that the general farm voice should not be funded. There is no one who doesn't believe the general farm voice ought not to be funded adequately.
The quarrel, I guess, has been the mechanism, and now that we have a mechanism before us that allows farmers to vote with their chequebook, in terms of asking for a full refund of all their money, what is it that confronts us today?
Bill 42 provides for two things: One is a reliable database for the government of Ontario to know who is in the business of farming in the province of Ontario. At first blush, in the hearings thus far I haven't heard a lot of questions from the members of the Legislative Assembly on that question, and it's a critical one because of the stewardship of taxpayers' dollars. It's important for you to know, as you bring on line, as members of Parliament, programs for that constituency, the farming constituency, and you rationalize those dollars, who it is you're directing them to.
If you look at Statistics Canada census figures, there were about 68,000 farming operations in 1991. If you look at Revenue Canada's farm tax filer figures, there are something like 113,000 farm tax filers. When you look at the property tax rebate program, you have upwards of over 200,000 parcels of land with multiple cheques going out to individuals or corporations or partnerships. In short, we don't have a handle on who is farming in the province of Ontario. It becomes difficult to plan, then, programming, so part of the farmer registration process here is to get a handle on who is farming in Ontario.
That's what the government gets. Regardless of which government is in power, that's what the public service gets in order to fulfil its mandate to plan accordingly and put programs in place for its political masters to make decisions about and priorities about.
For the farm organization, it's a mechanism for funding. It's a mechanism that provides a flow of funds to the general farm organization of choice. There are other general farm organizations that may not even exist today that hopefully, down the line, will exist and they'll apply to the accreditation tribunal for accredited status, and men and women will direct their payment to the organization of choice. But at this moment in time there are the three, plus, I might add, the Franco-Ontarian group, the Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens. Their issue has been addressed and it's been addressed to their satisfaction, and they've been around a long time too. OFA from day one has been on record of working with the Franco-Ontarian French-language farm organization in saying, "We will ensure that you get adequate funding," and the legislation ensures that; the regulations in draft form ensure that and enshrine that for them. They are in total support and agreement, and that's important to us.
We have met many times with the Ontario Farm Women's Network, and as a consequence of OFA's constructive and cooperative approach with all partners in the farming community, they themselves, in the midst of these discussions which at times could be heated, chose to formally align themselves with the OFA and took a seat around our board of directors within the past year, understanding that we are committed to the same notions that they are committed to, and we will work with them and support them in these endeavours.
Now the money: The legislation provides that a minimum of 25% of the net that accrues to the GFO, and in our instance it would be the OFA, ought to be used for -- Minister Buchanan used the phrase at the OFA convention in November 1990, "grass-roots empowerment," local empowerment.
1510
The reason why you have a copy of the OFA annual report before you today is that it's very clear that already over one third of our budget is directed back to local service, and we're prepared to enhance that. The greatest risk in all of this is to the OFA itself, but we think it's a risk and an adventure that in the long haul are the best course of action to strengthen the general farm voice.
There are many of our counties that obtain funding from a variety of sources. They get a rebate from us; we provide field staff to them, full-time field staff across the province of Ontario in serving our members and non-members, I might say. Rarely is someone asked, "Are you a member of the OFA?" if they need help, rarely. So in terms of our ability to deliver that kind of funding back to the local level, the mechanisms are in place.
There are democratically elected men and women from farm families on concessions and lots in townships that exist today right across the province of Ontario. We have a history of nearly 60 years. It is a not-for-profit corporation. What we receive is spent back in terms of serving our members and the farmers in the benefits and the services we can provide for them.
One of the questions may be: "Well, does the OFA have any amendments it thinks the committee ought to look at? Is there anything in the draft legislation that ought to be looked at?" I think one of the troubling ones for me and for the OFA -- we've discussed it -- is the notion that anyone would deliberately attempt, should Bill 42 become a law of the land and a statute of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, to somehow subvert the law by writing a cheque or including a prescribed fee that in fact can't be negotiated. There has been considerable reporting in the public media about that.
I think members of Parliament need to be pretty careful about thinking that one through, because it's a pretty serious offence when someone knowingly misrepresents a negotiable instrument when making payment to you, remitting something to you, knowing it is a fraudulent instrument. I think one would want to be very careful about counselling anyone to break a law, because it's not just the law that flows from Bill 42, but it's the law of the land in this country. I pay my bills. You pay your bills. When we write cheques, we expect that they will be honoured and I think the person who receives our cheques expects they'll be honoured. So that's an important issue for us.
The business of prompt refund: Always on record publicly, once again today in Hansard, OFA is prepared to turn your cheque around in 30 days if you say: "I don't wish to belong to the OFA. I don't wish to be associated with the OFA. Please send me my money back." We will do our utmost from the time we receive the money from OMAF that's transmitted and moved on to us and the request comes. We will do our utmost. But may I also say there's a flip side which hasn't been asked, which I've raised with legal counsel and the Ministry of the Attorney General, which have OMAF as a client, and that is clearly the time line in which you may ask for a refund.
It's a preposterous notion to think that you could obtain from a general farm organization services and benefits for 11 months and ask, at the 11.5 mark in the year, for a full refund. I mean, there's a certain morality to be attached to that and just a fair business practice, and they have taken that under advisement. But, as those of you who are members of Parliament know, there is a prescribed way in which laws are formulated, and regulations follow after the men and women of Parliament have given their consent to the legislation in His Honour the Lieutenant Governor. The regulations then become a part, and that's why we go through this step now of looking at the law. I know that creates some confusion as well for our producers and for individuals and interested parties. Everyone would like to see the whole package. I understand that. I share that. I would like it too. OFA would like to see the whole package, but that's not the way laws are drawn in a parliamentary democracy. Regulations follow the enactment of legislation.
I have two points to make. Next is categories of membership. This is a very important concept. OFA has always been on record as saying, "Lockstep whatever the tribunal or the minister of the day or the members of Parliament prescribe as the prescribed fee." OFA has been willing to say, "We will accept that as full membership." If the man or woman or the farm operation chooses to take membership out on OFA, that's a wash for us.
We've got the biggest systems challenge in terms of the prorate of credit. Obviously, we've got a little over 20,000 people today, men and women across the province of Ontario and farm operations which have paid fees for a year depending upon when this legislation would come on stream or come into force. We would want to ensure that men and women who had already given us money don't get double billed. That's a systems problem. We're committed to making sure that people get fair value on a dollar as a dollar whether it has come through the OMAF route or whether it came in to the OFA office. That's important to us.
The other issue is categories of membership. We do have other opportunities for people who don't want to belong to the general farm organization but they wish to indicate support. We have a substantial number of those people. That's why you have both brochures in front of you today. One is a supporter category, the small brochures, and the other is the actual OFA voting member, just to clarify that for men and women of the House.
The last issue is: OFA is here today to speak on Bill 42 but this is not the all-consuming passion of our time and our efforts at OFA. There are tremendous challenges confronting the agricultural community and rural prosperity and the agribusiness economy in this province and across this country. The farmer registration act is only one thing. It is a means to obtain funding to do the work that needs to be done in those other areas; whether it's the GATT, whether it's the environment, whether it's ensuring that farmers have forums and material and information in their hands for the upcoming federal election to make informed decisions about the parties and policies and the options that face them; that whole range of things.
One of the things we have striven to do, in closing, is from start to finish -- from the day we started to this moment, OFA has done its darnedest to make this a non-partisan initiative. We have worked with all members of the House, any member who wants to be informed on this subject; we will meet with them at any time. When we meet annually with the cabinet of the province of Ontario, within 12 hours we meet with members opposite, the opposition caucuses, to ensure that they know exactly what's been transmitted to the government of the day.
This issue is no different. We've worked with Minister Ramsay, Minister Riddell and now Minister Buchanan. The people of Ontario will decide which minister we work with in the future. We will do it with the same integrity and the same commitment and the same honesty that we always have done in the non-partisan way.
The Chair: We have approximately 13 minutes per caucus.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you for your presentation. This has been a long and arduous road while looking after the interests of your members, dealing with many of the ministries of the province of Ontario.
The exact process for reimbursement of one who chooses not to support you, but chooses to make his cheque payable to you, would you kind of go through the avenue that you foresee? I realize you've got to look after those people who are paying direct to OFA. Then, whenever the legislation becomes law, it will be a different route and you're going to have to probably put a lot of manpower -- but explain to us what you foresee as the route.
Mr Sulliman: The short answer is: To comply with the legislation the way it's written, Mr Villeneuve, which says "prompt." Prompt for me means you wrote in today, I want to turn it around as fast as I can because even if you obtain a refund from us this year because of the passion, whatever circumstance you find yourself in, you want a refund this year.
The way in which I make that refund this year, Mr Villeneuve, may very much determine your attitude next year when OMAF sends you your annual farmer registration form in which you then write another cheque. You may have said: "Well, that xyz farm organization treated me with courtesy, politeness, dignity and promptness in a businesslike manner. I appreciate that. I have second thoughts now. I think maybe they will be the organization of choice for me, Mr Villeneuve." That's our attitude towards it.
1520
Mr Villeneuve: Inevitably, as business goes on and the three years will evolve, there is provision here for the minister who may look at the legislation -- you've suggested that you have no particular amendments. I would like to ask your consideration of if, in section 33, this should come back to a committee of the Legislature such as we have here today to do an assessment, what's your feeling?
Mr Sulliman: With great respect, I believe that Bill 42 has now obtained second reading. It is utterly, completely, 100% in the hands of the men and women of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario. I think we have discharged our responsibility by having worked in partnership with the other two general farm organizations and the ministers of the day, as time passed, to bring us to this point. What we now have is a bill before you -- it's been referred to this committee -- and I don't think it's for me to be telling you what to do as a parliamentarian. I think that's a fine line, Mr Villeneuve, and I've just too much respect for the parliamentary system and integrity here.
Mr Villeneuve: What effectively the government is doing is giving the GFOs, whoever they may happen to be, the power to tax for representation of the people who will be providing them with the funds to keep them going. Under the agencies, boards and commissions, which is a slightly different structure, the Legislature and committees have the opportunity, from time to time, to bring these ABCs -- agencies, boards and commissions -- back to answer to us, the elected people for the time that we are elected. This is going to be a slightly different animal, accountability --
Mr Sulliman: Yes.
Mr Villeneuve: I'm a member of the federation. I quite obviously wouldn't be a member if I did not think it was operating aboveboard. However, we have somewhat of a different animal here and I don't know whether there's another one of those roaming the rural routes of Ontario or elsewhere. So I'm looking for guidance.
Mr Sulliman: Okay, the short answer is, when the criteria were put in place for accreditation, they almost were too stringent. OFA argued to relax some of those criteria because, the truth of the matter is, even some of our partners around the table couldn't have met those criteria at the time in terms of local organization, the numbers, that whole thing. So we've had to relax that.
There is in regulation a substantial amount of power given to the accreditation tribunal to initiate review. In other words, if a farmer writes in with a fairly well-founded documentation of abuse or failure to comply, I welcome any opportunity at any time, at any place, to come before a parliamentary committee or a group of parliamentarians, Mr Villeneuve, and give accounting for our conduct, absolutely categorically. I have no hesitation.
Mr Villeneuve: That may well have to be included through amendments and added.
Mr Sulliman: No hesitation.
Mr Villeneuve: Okay, fine. An increase in fee -- and you spoke about the tribunal which would be dealing with basically all aspects of the GFO pertaining to religious reasons for not providing funds etc. The way this tribunal will be made up -- do you feel comfortable with the government appointing a maximum of seven people to this tribunal?
Mr Sulliman: Well, we live in a parliamentary system. We elect men and women to Parliament. They form a government at the behest of Her Majesty's representative and we entrust in them a tremendous amount of prerogatives, whether it's the Attorney General, the Solicitor General or the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It's just part of the system to trust that.
Now, with integrity on their side, I suspect they would invite candidates from us, as they do from every ABC now. They canvass the constituency for candidates. But it's the government of the day which holds -- and appropriately so in a parliamentary democracy, sir.
Mr Villeneuve: It appeared that a quorum would be three people and there is a difference of opinion that that may not be sufficient in a seven-person board. Your thoughts on a quorum of three?
Mr Sulliman: You have to ask the Speaker that.
Mr Villeneuve: He's not here. The method of increasing fees: Inevitably, in a world as we've known it -- and I presume it will continue to evolve as we've seen it -- fees would have to be looked at from time to time. My understanding that $150 would remain that way for the initial three years -- and I'm not sure that's in the legislation -- the mechanism that you would see in order to increase, be it 2%, 10% or 20%.
Mr George: Presumably, Mr Villeneuve, each general farm organization would have to come to its own conclusion. If they needed an increase in fee and then jointly take a recommendation, one would hope that the farm organizations would agree on a consensus to take then, I believe, to the tribunal, and then the necessary changes would be done. But it would have to be something, I suspect, that would have to be agreed by all affected parties.
Mr Villeneuve: One final question: From the increase in fees to the actual way of operating, the federation does represent, I guess, a goodly number of farmers. How many GFOs -- and we may have an onrush; right now we've apparently got one that was originally ready to go that's pulled out -- do you feel could be comfortably accommodated without starting to step on each other's toes and still be productive to the farming community?
Mr George: I think the farming community will evolve to sort that out. I'm no longer concerned that we are going to get a proliferation of GFOs and I firmly believe that within this system, once the farmers of Ontario see this particular legislation in action and see the results of the work of general farm organizations, they will come to realize that we don't necessarily need 10 or 15 GFOs.
There will always be issues where a group comes about for maybe a short time, maybe an intermediate time, and that's probably healthy on specific issues. We see that with various coalitions we've put together. I believe the basic farm organizations will remain small in number.
Mr Villeneuve: How many umbrella organizations -- and you and the Christian Farmers apparently will be the GFOs of the province of Ontario for the time being if things go out the way they appear to be falling into place. You will be asked by umbrella organizations, ie, the rural women and a number of those types of groups, and what do you foresee as your role there in assisting? That gets complicated, but I know you've looked at it.
Mr George: There are going to be tremendous demands on the farm organizations that are recipients of the benefits of this legislation. As an example, we in OFA are now going to be, as you say, the deemed farm organizations and there will be requests from perhaps commodity boards, perhaps farmers to take prime responsibility for issues of a general nature: things like labour; things like environment; those types of general issues that are non-commodity-specific: AGCare; OFA; the animal care; all those types of things.
The pressure will be upon the OFA and the Christian Farmers to contribute a lot more funding than we do now to those general issues because, let me tell you, it's very, very easy to build these coalitions and I've been party in building quite a few. It's a totally different kettle of fish to fund them and the whole point of this thing is to get adequate funding, because it's not just going to be the OFA that is going to be the beneficiary of however much extra money may come through stable funding, it will be all farmers across all commodities who are going to gain the benefit of, hopefully, that money so we can put in more research and whatever it takes there.
As I say, this is not going to be a magical pot of gold sitting in the head offices of two or three general farm organizations. The demands and the expectations of those farmers who perhaps haven't belonged to general farm organizations in the past will be there. There will be those continued pressures upon the affected organizations, and we are committed, as Carl has said, to assist some of the minority groups in their efforts to carry on their specialized work.
1530
Mr Sulliman: If I could add, just very quickly, an example is areas of expertise. There aren't just two organizations; there are a number of organizations already. What this statute does is simply grandfather three today. One has asked to be deleted, but there are lots out there still that have said they want to work with us.
The Ontario Farm Women's Network: There are issues that are not just gender-specific, but they have more expertise. We work with them on it, whether it's providing child care in rural Ontario, which is a whole different set of circumstances: Child care in the city and child care in rural Ontario are two completely separate things. On a dairy farm we've got a 14-hour day. How do you do child care? It takes a really specific answer.
The Franco-Ontarian group: A very specific mandate again for them. They work with us in assisting in communicating in the French language and to the French rural population information on issues of concern to them in that linguistic grouping.
Mr Villeneuve: One final question.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): Briefly.
Mr Villeneuve: I know you've got your crystal ball with you, because you were in Hamilton this morning talking about casinos and protecting the horse racing industry. What, in your opinion, will be your membership three years down the road?
Interjection: What we deserve.
Mr George: I am not going to speculate on that. What I will say is that the number of farmers choosing to leave their money within the farm organizations will be directly proportional to the degree Ontario farmers perceive those organizations to be doing an excellent job. I think it will be that pursuit of excellence that allows the farm organizations in Ontario to grow and prosper and serve every farmer in the province.
Mr Gary Wilson: Mr Villeneuve anticipated some of my questions which had to do with life after the legislation passes. I was just wondering whether you could continue. You mentioned, Mr Sulliman, child care as being one of the things that need attention. What are some of the other things you would like to be working on? I guess there is the added help through the rebate or the $150 contribution. What do you see as being some of the things you can do with that money?
Mr Sulliman: The short answer to the question is providing, through appropriate analysis and reflection and consultation within the farming community, policy options for governments. That's becoming more complex, because we're finding we're dealing not just with the provincial government and the federal government, but municipal government is getting to be fairly complex too. In the process of disentanglement, in the process of rejigging through this government's initiatives in the social contract and expenditure control, as well as its budget, there's a whole reworking of the taxpayers' dollars. That has implications for agriculture and how we're able to do our business.
Land use is another issue. Just implementing the Sewell commission, its impact on -- Roger is the president of an organization that represents 14 million acres of the finest land in this province. I think it's incumbent upon us to have something intelligent and thoughtful to say to those who are the policymakers about how we ought to approach the use and the stewardship of that land. When you look at things like waste dump sites, the solution keeps being prime agricultural land. Does that make sense to any intelligent person? I think not, but what's the policy option? We just don't have the resources to keep generating those kinds of options all the time. We're just running all the time by the seat of our pants.
Mr George: I think a follow-up to that is the fact that as we are in this turbulent time of change -- our economy is undergoing a change -- we in agriculture have seen that we have to broaden out our perspective and seek strategic partnerships with groups that we may not have talked to five years ago, in fact groups that were probably our adversaries. We are, through the minister's own process, the Vision 2020 process, involved in bringing all sectors of the agrifood business -- from the farmer, to the processor, the distributor, the restaurant trade, the consumer, the suppliers, everybody -- into a room and saying: "Okay, what's it going to take to survive in business in the agrifood sector in this province? What's it going to take to ensure that all sectors can make a fair profit and we in turn can generate that economic impact for the economy?"
What we're doing in agriculture, as the second-largest economic sector, is fundamentally important to the wellbeing of this province. I think it's something that's often taken for granted by consumers and taxpayers, not only in Ontario, but in Canada, about vitality, the need for vital domestic industry and one that's prepared to seek markets around the world for those who choose that way, and those who choose domestic markets or niche markets. There's room for everybody. There's room for big farmers and little farmers in this economy. Every one of us has got a role to play in making sure that the rural economy remains strong, and I think this legislation will go towards helping some of those broad plans.
Mr Sulliman: Another example, Mr Wilson, if I might, just for one second, is that Mr Weaver's been responsible for carriage of the labour issues portfolio around OFA. I can't tell you what a dramatic change that's going to be for agriculture. Here we have the second-largest sector of the economy, which up until now has been exempt from the Labour Relations Act. Now we shall have our own labour relations statute.
Suddenly, farmers as employers, farmers as business people involved in the labour negotiating process will be afraid, will be fearful. In many respects they are uninformed, they are not trained. They are going to be dealing with a labour union movement that has 100 years of history. I come out of a family of labour leaders. Just trying to bring yourself up to speed in the 1990s, to suddenly be put into the labour relations process, is an awesome challenge. We're not talking about a big employer; we're talking about 50,000 farm operators spread across the province saying: "How do I comply with this array of new labour laws and labour statutes? I want to be a responsible employer, I want to be a responsible citizen, but I also want to make money at the business of farming."
It's a big challenge and we're at ground zero on that one. We don't have the resources even to do training programs for farmers as employers in terms of the whole labour relations model. It's endless, the list.
Mr Gary Wilson: You yourself brought up the issue of the big operation versus the smaller, what I think is traditionally called the family farm. Do you see any problem with balancing those two or do you see that at some point some of your decisions will favour one over the other?
Mr George: No. I think this is a very interesting philosophical question. Economists love to talk about the 25% of the farmers who are producing 75% of the goods. By implication, they say, "If we can get these farmers a bit bigger, we won't need x number of thousands of the small ones or the part-timers, whatever you want to call them." I don't subscribe to that; the OFA doesn't subscribe to that. We are saying there is room in the rural community for all different shapes and sizes of people, and some of the smaller farmers fulfilling niche markets will serve a very vital role in the economy. The horse industry plays a very large role in the economy of the province. There is room for everybody. There will be those who choose to go out there and be global traders, and they will be multimillion-dollar corporations. We have no trouble with that, nor do we have any trouble with those who decide to choose to, or who are forced to, remain small or seek off-farm work. The challenge is always going to be to work together to make the rural economy work.
Mr Sulliman: Don't forget that a lot of our smaller farmers today in this economy started out as big farmers at some point.
Mr Gary Wilson: I think my colleagues would like some time.
Mr Hope: The question I have is dealing with section 8 of it, where the named organizations in section 7 cannot be reviewed during the three-year period of deemed accreditation. Would you have any problem of being reviewed -- as I listened to your opening remarks -- by a tribunal if you were found to be not complying with the accreditation?
Mr Sulliman: I answered Mr Villeneuve in the affirmative on that question.
Mr Hope: So you want to, what? You would have no problem being moved out?
Mr Sulliman: I'm saying that the accreditation tribunal already has powers of initiating review in the statute. That's already provided for.
Mr Hope: But not to review the named organizations in section 7, which are the Christian Farmers Federation --
Mr Sulliman: It's just that they are accredited for three years. If I do not meet the criteria, the accreditation tribunal can call me into question when it feels it's appropriate. I don't think you're suggesting frivolous harassment here, are you?
1540
Mr Hope: No, what I'm dealing with is accreditation.
Mr Sulliman: Exactly.
Mr Hope: It says here that the named organizations above cannot be reviewed during the three years, plain and simple. You say you would have no problem being reviewed during that three-year process.
Mr Sulliman: I have no problem with it. It is the grandfathering -- or the grandparenting, to be politically correct today -- of these GFOs for a startup time. It's going to take us a minimum of 24 months to get up and running on this, just the crossover of systems, it seems to me.
Mr Hope: I listened to you quite lengthily about the refund aspect and I know you do reflect part of the rural community, because you talked about the prime agricultural land that you represent. Most of that prime agricultural land lies in Kent county, which is the riding I represent the majority of. When I was looking at the farm registry, because we've known it as God's country where we come from --
Mr Villeneuve: We should go there some time.
Mr Hope: You're more than welcome to come and visit. I'm sure you've been there already, right, Bill? Because you talked about the refund aspect and because you reflect the family farm and the farm viewpoint, why then couldn't we go with the proposed, "If I don't want to belong to the farm organization, let me make that decision at the kitchen table, on a voluntary basis, right there, instead of writing the cheque"? Instead of my processing a cheque, sending it out with my registration and then turning around -- because you know how time-consuming things are on the business end for farmers -- why not let me have that opportunity to say yes or no at my kitchen table versus my having to write a letter and send it you asking for my $150 back?
Mr Sulliman: I guess you'd have to ask the minister of the crown that question. That's a question directed to OMAF, I think.
Mr Hope: Those are all the questions I have.
Mr Hansen: On the $150 membership -- I was going to ask the Christian Farmers -- even though you send the $150 in and it stays with the farm organization, would I automatically become a member or would I have to signify that I want to be a voting member of the OFA?
Mr George: We will acknowledge the fact that we received your $150. I assume we will say that unless we hear from you within x number of days we will assume you wish to be a member of the OFA and we will issue a membership card in your name.
Mr Hansen: So you'll be a voting member then?
Mr George: You'll be a full voting member for $150.
Mr Hansen: So you'd receive all the literature and everything else from the OFA.
Mr George: Absolutely.
Mr Hansen: You were sharing with us a vision on how the group could grow and the different programs you get into. Would you be working with the other farm organizations -- say, the Christian Farmers -- at sharing information? This is a question that came up earlier. What I got out of the pamphlet is that I'd ask the question of the NFU about one strong farm voice. To me, one strong farm voice is all the agricultural groups together, not just the one group.
Mr George: Notwithstanding some petty differences, you would be absolutely amazed at the amount of cooperation that occurs between the farm organizations, between the OFA and the Christian Farmers, the National Farmers Union, all the commodity groups. We are constantly meeting in various forums, all those people. Sure we have our little spats, but so does every family, on little issues. On the big issue of what is right for Ontario agriculture, I believe the farmers of Ontario are more prepared than ever to do business together and to look at that big picture and embark on a course that is going to help our industry survive and prosper and meet the challenges.
Mr Hansen: This is what I was saying. The vision is a stronger vision, as you can see, with this stable funding.
Mr Bill Weaver: If I could, that is a vision. It's a vision increasing that ability to work together, but it's also a vision looking back at our current practices Roger talks about at the provincial level or even at the county level. The common standard right now is for county organizations to include each other in various plans. I know that in the county I came from, Mr Hope's county of Kent, there's been quite a number of years of history as far as the Christian Farmers working together, even the NFU working together. The NFU is a constant participant in the mall display that the county federation puts on, and that's great. That's a tremendous way that the agricultural and rural community has to develop to create a more cohesive message. As Roger says, there are going to be some differences from time to time, and hopefully we can set those aside for the bigger picture.
Mr Hansen: I just want to comment that down in the Lincoln riding -- I mentioned to the minister yesterday when you weren't here -- it's the only piece of legislation that I haven't had a phone call in opposition. I've only had positive phone calls to my office down in my area of Lincoln, even from the Christian Farmers also.
The Chair: Very quickly, Mr Klopp.
Mr Klopp: Thank you very much for your presentation today. Indeed this has been going on a long time.
You've made a number of interesting points and clarifications. One is section 20. We've marked that down. We'll look at amendments and ideas and we'll see what happens.
Someone said a little earlier about spending time, and as one who has been in the trenches, trying to farm and also go out and collect memberships, I certainly have no trouble supporting this type of bill. I appreciate your comments here today, as everyone else's.
Mr Cleary: Thank you for your presentation. I guess what I'd have to say is that over the last 20-plus years as an elected person, I've always been a firm believer that if there were going to be changes, and especially if it was going to cost people money, we should at least listen to all groups and to what they have to say and do our best to answer their questions.
As I said, I've been involved in farm organizations as long as anyone in this room. I understand the changing times, and I've always been very supportive of some type of stable funding process.
I think we've had excellent discussions here in the last few days. I know I've learned a lot, and I'm sure everyone else in the room has learned something too from the ministry and the people who made the presentations.
What I would have to say here is that after the mess last fall with the proposed legislation, I had thought that it would have been this government's intention to get that legislation into the House early in the session and not wait till July 21, three weeks after the normal time the House would sit. The minister had agreed to have hearings here while the House was sitting and to try to wrap this up in a hurry. Several days before the bill came to the House, we heard that an all-party agreement had been arranged that there would be two weeks of hearings, and the government House leader had the final say.
It has been brought to my attention many times since, rumours that were circulated through Ontario and that came from people who were sitting in the House that day, that the bill was stopped for third reading by the official opposition, and there's nothing further from the truth than that. Ladies and gentlemen, an all-party agreement was in place -- you can laugh if you like, Klopp.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): John, I was sitting there too.
Mr Cleary: And I know a few members tried to grandstand that day.
I have sent Hansard out, and that corrected the situation. I find it very difficult that these stories would have been circulated.
I'm very pleased at what went through the hearing process. I am pleased at what I heard, and I think it's everyone's intention to get a final bill drafted and get that into place as quickly as possible.
We are a little bit concerned over the registration forms, which we have not seen yet.
Mr Klopp: They were handed out this morning.
Mr Cleary: Okay, I'm sorry. I got them okay.
The Chair: Just by magic, they've appeared, Mr Cleary.
Mr Cleary: I got them, thank you. I stand to be corrected.
I would just like to get some comments on the remarks I said. I've got a few more questions after.
Mr Sulliman: Mr Cleary, first of all, I think the comments you make are probably best directed to Mr Buchanan, because we don't run the business of the House. You as parliamentarians decide the business of the House and the agenda of the House.
I will say this, that from stem to gudgeon, start to finish, whenever Mr Harris wanted to see us and was willing to talk to us about this, whenever Mrs McLeod wanted to see us and was willing to talk to us about it, we've been there, and we have appreciated some very, very hard work by yourself, by Mr Eddy and by Mrs Fawcett on this very, very much. There's no question.
1550
We're here today as part of that process, Mr Cleary. The only thing we can account for are the actions and the activities of the OFA, and we're here to account for those today. I cannot answer for ministers of the crown; I cannot answer for House leaders. You're the parliamentarians. The Legislative Assembly's in your hands, sir, not mine -- at least not until general election day.
Mr Cleary: The other thing I would like your comments on is that we talked a little bit about the tribunal. You people, as federation members, must have some ideas how to best set that up. Why I say that is because yesterday when we talked about that, we talked about we don't want anyone who's real close to an organization and we may have some difficulty getting the best people there. I'd just like your views on it.
Mr George: We're clearly looking for the minister of the day to appoint eminent persons who have got integrity. We can ask no more than that. I can assume that we will be given the opportunity to make suggestions, and then we're in the hands of those who appoint. I don't think it will the general farm organizations that appoint the tribunal.
Mr Sulliman: I think you have to be careful about those kinds of statements, Mr Cleary, with great respect. It would like telling the Attorney General, "You're responsible for appointing judges but don't chose any lawyers, because at one time or another they've been in court and argued cases and they've got a viewpoint of the world." I mean, everyone has a viewpoint, but presumably people act with integrity when they become members of Parliament, when they become judges, when they become members of ABCs. People are asked in life, at certain moments, at certain times, on certain occasions, to act with integrity and impartiality and fairness. So we will do our utmost to put candidates to the minister of the day who we believe possess those kinds of credentials, Mr Cleary.
Mr Cleary: I just want to mention to you they weren't my comments, it was what I heard here yesterday. I'm just passing along what I heard.
The other thing you had mentioned a bit earlier was about getting 25% plus back to the local organizations. Is that 25% or is it more that will be going back to the local out of money that was sent in to --
Mr George: It's already more. In our case, it's already more than 25% goes back directly to the county federations. I've had some ongoing discussions at the county federations and it's very clear that from our point of view -- and I spoke about excellence -- the strength of the OFA is our county federations, the fact that we've got our 46 organizations. In every area of this province where there's any serious farming done, we have a county federation or a regional federation of agriculture, and the worst thing we can do is to leave them short of resources.
The strength of the organization is the grass roots. The OFA is not Roger George and Bill Weaver and Carl Sulliman, the OFA is the 20,240 members who empower us today. The empowerment comes from the bottom to the top, it doesn't go the other way around, and that's the way it will stay as long as any of us are around in the organization. We've made that commitment to our people.
Mr Cleary: I totally agree that the grass roots is where you need the assistance and I know how hard they're working at the moment to try to fund their organization. There's no argument from me there. Anyway, those are my questions.
The Chair: Ms Fawcett.
Mr Sulliman: Mr Chairman, may I just say that we hope Mr Cleary is feeling better, too. You were hospitalized for some time there and we appreciate you being here this week, because I don't think you're totally comfortable. We hope you're on the mend.
Mr Cleary: If it had been any other bill but 42, I wouldn't have been here.
Mr Sulliman: Ross Procter's saying the same thing in the back row here, you see. You've got a friend.
The Chair: Go ahead, Ms Fawcett.
Mrs Fawcett: I thank you for your presentation. In some ways, I really am glad that my colleague Mr Cleary brought forward some of his thoughts, because we in our party have had some very grave concerns over some of the feelings that have been out there and we want to ensure that we get this bill passed now. It is seemingly on the road. It's unfortunate that it could not have started back in May and been finished, then you would be well on the way to implementation by now, but that wasn't our choice. So we hope now that it will definitely come in first thing in September, it'll be right on the order paper the day after we come in and we'll be onward.
Thinking positively that way, and with implementation, you would anticipate, hopefully, as all -- well, I guess there would be the two GFOs right now with increased revenues. What sorts of areas of your mandate do you see increasing? What areas of concern do you have that may be underfunded, that you can't do what you want to do? What sorts of things do you see really going forward here?
Mr George: I think policy development is by far the most important issue. Our research staff is the same now as it was -- actually it's less now than it was 10 years ago, and that's critical, because the issues are more complicated and there are more of them. I think as we move into this, as I said earlier on, as we broaden out to look at the whole impact of the agrifood sector on the rural and on the provincial economy, that opens up a whole host of new avenues we are going to have to analyse. And in working with other groups -- I just came back this morning from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. We make contacts down there, and every time you make a contact, it becomes really more work. We don't have the resources, we spread ourselves so thin, and quite frankly in the past some things have got passed over, and that's been in the long term to the detriment of the people of Ontario.
Mrs Fawcett: Being educationally oriented too, I know there are some really terrific things going on there that I hope to see, that I can see even --
Mr George: I will say that without the volunteers also in Ontario agriculture, I don't know where we would be. It's one thing to say that we've got x number of paid staff and we do all these things, but the amount of voluntary work that is carried on by hundreds and thousands of farm families is one of the things that makes it -- when you travel around, and I know you as elected people do the same thing, that's one of the things that makes you so proud to be a resident of this province: to see people out there digging and making that determination that change is in their hands, that change is not down here in Queen's Park, the change is going to come from those people. Those are the people who are going to carry us forward.
Mrs Fawcett: The money that goes to the local level, I know a lot of people don't realize how that is accountable. Are the local groups then accountable back to you as to how they spend their money, or are they completely on their own, or how does that work? I know people not knowledgeable in agriculture have mentioned this.
Mr George: The county federations of agriculture are autonomous groups. They deal with local issues. Some issues we never get to hear about in Toronto, at the provincial level. They sort them out there and then. There are issues then that they need to bring up the pipe to us for further action and which results in us coming to lobby yourselves or federal politicians, whoever else. Then, when we pass resolutions at our convention or whatever, we send them back down to our people and in turn invite them to go in to meet the local politicians on their home turf. You've all been lobbied in the past and I think you know how that system works.
Mrs Fawcett: Yes.
Mr George: So it's a multilayered approach there where there's a degree of autonomy, a degree of cooperation and internetworking.
Mr Sulliman: It's an important question, Mrs Fawcett, because even the crafters of the statute and the regulations now consulted with me on this question. I want to be very clear to members of Parliament about this. It's not like a humane society model or a Red Cross model where you have a provincial governing body that charters or incorporates constituent groups across the province. It doesn't work that way at all. It's a very dynamic, a very fluid, a very independent thing where cooperation and a common goal are very much the rule of thumb, and when the provincial organization gets off track, it takes about 30 seconds for a county federation to say whoa. As the chief executive officer, I report to a board of directors constitutionally of 130 men and women who meet monthly in kind of a mini-Parliament, and there is no shyness about them when they think we're off track -- no shyness whatsoever.
The Chair: I'd like to thank the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and each of you gentlemen for appearing here today. I think it was a very interesting one-hour time frame and I know all members of the committee enjoyed the ample time for discussion back and forth. We trust you will keep in touch with this committee as the bill proceeds through the committee process and into the House, and I encourage you to stay in contact with the clerk, any member of the committee or indeed any other MPP in the province of Ontario. Thank you very much for appearing here today.
Mr George: Thank you, Mr Chairman. We are available at any time. If the committee's deliberations need some more clarification, we are available to help you out there. Thank you for your time.
1600
SILENT MAJORITY
The Chair: The next group scheduled to appear is the Silent Majority. Could they come forward. Could you identify yourselves for the purposes of Hansard and then proceed with your presentation after you've done that. You've been allocated one hour. The committee would appreciate about half of that time for questions and answers from all three parties, so proceed at your leisure.
Mr Joseph W. Daunt: Thank you kindly, Mr Chairman and fellow committee members. My name is Joe Daunt, I am a farmer from Perth county and I'm the chairman of the Silent Majority steering committee. With me is Tony Noorloos, who is a farmer from the Acton county area, and also Murray Musselman, who is also a farmer from Perth county.
A small correction on page 2 of our presentation, line 3: It reads "money form" and should be "money from."
We're very happy to have been granted an hour of your time as equal status with the three general farm organizations. Our origins date back to the open house which was held in Ayton on July 16, 1992. It was one of 14 open house meetings which the stable funding steering committee put together to try to inform farmers. A group of us went. We came to gather information on the stable funding proposal, but we were very disappointed. We found it much more like a tea party. It was as if the GFOs were there running membership drives. The question in their minds was to get people to join their organizations. It was a foregone conclusion that this proposal would become law. There was not, in their framework, room for the question of whether people thought this was a good idea.
The question was asked if a vote had ever been considered. Mr Tony Morris of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture executive reported, "You all had your vote in the fall of 1990 when you elected the NDP." John Langlois from the National Farmers Union thought there should be a vote on this issue. As a result of that meeting and our experience there, the Silent Majority formed in response to the total lack of democracy that we were seeing.
The goals of the Silent Majority were established: (1) to create an opportunity to educate and inform farmers about the stable funding proposal, and (2) to ultimately create a situation where stable funding is decided by a free vote of Ontario's farmers. Those were the goals we established on July 23, 1992, and they have not changed.
On July 31, the Silent Majority held a meeting in Kurtzville. It was a public, town hall-style information meeting and 500 farmers were in attendance. At the end of the meeting, by a show of hands, 20 people present indicated that they were against having a vote on this stable funding proposal. All together, three town hall-style meetings have been held. Total attendance at those meetings was equal to the 14 government meetings that were held across the province. That's approximately 700 people. At the three town hall-style meetings, a poll was taken. Almost 95% of the people who participated were in favour of a vote being held on stable funding before it should be implemented. To our knowledge, this is the only poll that has been taken of Ontario farmers.
On the question of a vote and why there should be no vote we've heard many, many reasons. We've been told that we don't know who the farmers are in Ontario, "How do we create a voters list?" "A vote would be divisive," and on and on.
We have detailed at length, in meetings with Mr Villeneuve, with the minister, Mr Buchanan, and with members of the Liberal Party as well different methods of how these problems could be overcome. It seems every time we make a suggestion, somebody finds another excuse as to why it can't happen. Ultimately, the minister suggested that he would rather drop the proposal than have it face a vote. I believe that a vote is more necessary now than ever. I think, firstly, there is a need to legitimize stable funding.
We've heard much reference over the last year and a half how strong the farm voice in Quebec is, how strong the union of farmers in Quebec is, but people fail to mention that strong voice was put in place democratically: 66% of the farmers in Quebec participated in the vote and 70% said, "Yes, we want this organization." It is the only time that a vote has been held and it has come to pass. There was a vote held in Ontario about 20 years ago and at that vote it was turned down.
This issue is going on across Canada. Right now in Nova Scotia there is another organization, the Freedom to Farm, that also has the same concerns about an imposed system of farm registration and of collecting money from farmers.
I think, secondly, a vote clears the air; it ends the divisiveness. I speak from my experience, my observations in the cattle industry. For 15 years the beef industry was racked on the issue of supply management. There was much bitterness. It was a very divisive, controversial issue. It hamstrung the cattlemen's association.
Finally, a vote was held on the issue of supply management. It was done fairly straightforward with a mail-in ballot accompanied by a declaration of eligibility to participate. There was no voters list and there was no polling done. I don't think there was any question as to the validity of that vote.
Yes, the divisiveness within the cattle industry has ended. People are working together. They're sitting down and working together, whereas before they were at loggerheads over one issue and one issue all the time.
I think that those who are against the vote are saying loudly and clearly that they know their ideas do not have widespread public support. I find it also somewhat distressing that those who have chosen to attack the Silent Majority often tend to suggest that there is little support for what we say. They choose to attack us personally, "bespectacled, grey-haired old fogies," rather than attacking our ideas.
There are many myths surrounding stable funding, that stable funding would improve the farm economic situation. For what we can see of it, stable funding taxes farmers to finance now two lobbyist groups. This is money coming from farmers, not going to farmers.
There is the issue of a unified voice. I think forcing farmers to do what they don't want to do does not unify; it divides those who want to impose and those who are imposed upon. I think it's important to remember that there are 68,000 farm businesses run by approximately 110,000 farmers in Ontario versus a combined GFO membership of about 20,000. We must remember that one of those three general farm organizations has asked to opt out. It looks very much like a minority dictating to a majority. Free men know what tyrants never learn, that the ultimate economic resource is the mind and the energy of a free person.
1610
We've preferred to deal with the issue of stable funding on the level of ideas rather than personalities. I think we have here a conflict of ideas, of good ideas and bad ideas. The answer to bad ideas is good ideas. It think we need to remember that there are casualties if bad ideas prevail. Supporters of bad ideas often try to force schemes on us using the power of government. Such resort to government solutions always seems to be a giveaway that something wrong or dishonest is involved. In freedom, persuasion, not coercion is the way to get one's ideas across. It is the only way.
Imposing them by law denies others their liberty, their dignity and their right to their own opinions. It is in fact an act of contempt towards them and an act of pride in oneself, a claim to know better than what we know is best for us. This is the fatal conceit. In the Judaeo-Christian view it is sin. This is precisely the kind of thinking that has collapsed due to the hard experience in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. We need not know the whys and the wherefores of a given status scheme to realize that it serves bent thinking and bad purposes. It will be made to sound good, as if it were correcting injustice instead of creating it, of helping the needy instead of making them dependent and helpless. But it is going to cost us dearly, not only in taxes and liberty but in moral values.
Let's look at what freedom can do. The American railroads are emerging from a century and a half of wild venture, corruption and the suffocating hand of government to become a gathering economic force. The railways which hauled everything in 1900 lost out to cars and trucks. By 1970, indifferent to consumers, to customers and indifferent to shifting markets, about one quarter of the lines were bankrupt. Deregulation in 1980 allowed railroads to make quick adjustments to practices and to rates. They shrank their lines by one third, they reduced employment by 45%, they used 40% fewer rail cars, they hauled 40% more freight and they've upgraded their lines to a condition never before achieved. Freight rates have declined by up to 30%, yet the railroads are in a strong financial condition to face the troubled trucking and shipping industries. The scary part to this story is that nationalization of the American railroads received serious consideration in the 1970s.
I want to relate to you discussions which we've had with leaders in the Mennonite community. This group of farmers does not believe in lobbying or in government handouts. Historically, they state, the rural community has worked together and looked after itself. Barn raisings and threshing bees are a couple of examples. Government intervention and support programs led to farmers becoming dependent on the state, weakening the fabric of rural society. The Mennonites have a stronger community today because they depend on each other in times of trouble, not on the state for support and comfort.
They have a strong community because each participates voluntarily. An institutionalized community that demands mandatory participation by law or coercion is weak and meaningless by comparison. There is an old cowboy saying, "When you realize that you've dug yourself into a hole, quit digging." The minister may have realized the size of the hole which Bill 105 created, but he needs to take the advice of the cowboy-sage and lay down his shovel.
In closing, I ask, do you want to strengthen agriculture or do you want to strengthen the power of government over agriculture? For the sake of farmers and for the future of the agricultural industry, the Silent Majority says, let farmers decide.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Questions?
Mr Klopp: Thank you. Your comments today -- the minister, myself and many of us in our caucus have long questioned this idea, and these hearings in fact over the next two weeks are furthering that process. We will take your comments under advisement and we look forward to what comes out after we go through clause by clause.
Mr Hope: Mine is interesting: Are they going to deal with the Mennonites? I know that you have been in discussions with the Mennonite community around this issue. There are amendments now that allow for the Mennonite community to be withdrawn on religious belief, but this is going to be handled by a tribunal of maybe three people. My question relates to, when you deal with religion, are these people going to be the religious lords of whether you have a religious belief or not? I don't know if that discussion has come up, because you're empowering three people to make a decision whether you're religiously bound and you have a religious belief. I'm wondering if that discussion has come up through the Mennonite community.
Mr Daunt: Yes, it has, and it is central to their concerns. There has been provision made that the Mennonites would be able to gain a religious exemption from paying the fee, but there has been no provision made for an exemption from participating in the registration proposal. They have religious grounds that they do not believe in the registration system either, and it has been suggested to us that quite a number of Mennonites will not participate in the registration process either.
Their question is, who is a fellow man to judge one's religious beliefs? They believe that they are answerable only to God and that it is God who will judge them, not fellow man. Yet here they are going to have to submit their religious beliefs to a tribunal which may or may not have any Christian or Mennonite religious understanding whatsoever and they will be judged. Many of them will choose not to be judged by fellow men. As they have in the past, they avoid those situations and those circumstances and they simply will not participate. They have done that in the past. Some of the Mennonites are people who have moved from other jurisdictions over time because of religious persecution, and they have the feeling that this is religious persecution again.
I have here a letter which I am going to submit to the clerk. It is a from a Mennonite bishop. He handed this to me this morning to bring down and personally deliver to you, his concerns, and they are along those lines. We've had many discussions on this.
Mr Hope: I know you're putting the question forward, letting farmers decide. In the earlier presentation with the OFA, I asked a direct question which I feel is just as valid as a vote.
I would like to see the farm community prosper. I know in my own community they're working very hard to regenerate their commodity and make sure they have the opportunity for prosperity, as they've been faced with this downturn and recession for over 10 years now. Since the early 1980s, farmers have been fighting to get themselves back up to, as I heard one farmer say, at least earning a minimum wage. Right now, most farmers aren't even earning a minimum wage aspect of it.
But you're calling for a public vote of farmers. I wish to pose the question to you: Do you feel that letting farmers vote on the issue at their own kitchen table with filling out the ballot -- let's say, for instance, if I want to affiliate to a farm organization, I'm left that decision at the kitchen table. Instead of conducting a vote with ballots being all mailed out, there's one other way of conducting a vote, and that's letting me have that democratic right at my kitchen table with my family to decide whether I want to belong to a farm organization or not.
Mr Daunt: I think there are many ways that a democratic vote could be held. They've taken different forms in the farm community on different issues in the past. When I mentioned the one method of how it was done in the cattlemen's industry, I used that as a suggestion, not as the way that I think it has to be done. I think quite definitely the ideal situation is that it should be done at the farmer's kitchen table. It is two things. It is how you will get the best response. There was a good response from the mail-in ballot that was used in the cattlemen's plebiscite. By having the choice of filling out the registration form and deciding whether or not you want to send a cheque, that is another method.
As was mentioned a bit earlier, a suggestion has been made that farmers might be able to write on the back of their cheque to endorse it "for deposit only to the account of," for myself, "Joe Daunt." That suggestion was made so it would reduce the cost of the paperwork of having a cheque pass through the banking system, of having to send a request for a refund of the government or, before that, of the government having to send out a notification of how one would ask for a refund, and of the farm organization having to go through the process of writing a cheque and issuing a cheque, and the cost of that cheque. That suggestion was not made with any intent to be fraudulent or to present fraudulent cheques. It was made as a suggestion of how this thing could be simplified.
1620
The Chair: Mr Hansen.
Mr Hansen: Yes, I was going to ask a question there, and maybe ask for some clarification from Mr Klopp or the deputy minister. I believe with the Mennonite community, a lot in the Mennonite community, the old Amish, do not participate in a lot of the programs put on by the government, so there would be no need for them to register in the first place because it's only for rebates from the government. If they do not deal with the government on a rebate or a program, there's no need to register then.
Mr Klopp: That's true.
Mr Daunt: I thought the purpose of this registration is to have a complete list of all the farmers and to know who's out there so that when you develop programs with money that you don't have, you can develop good programs. Now you're suggesting that you don't need to know who everybody is any more.
Mr Hansen: No, but they're not tapping into the programs for farmers.
Mr Klopp: No, that isn't what I said at all. We're not forcing anybody to register -- myself, you or anybody else -- in this program. Maybe that got out there, but we're not --
Mr Daunt: No, but you are using a fair bit of coercion to force people to register. You're holding the rebate of the farm tax from farmers. That is the intent, although it's not stated in the legislation. Many Mennonites do participate in the farm tax rebate where they do not participate in other programs. The reasoning for that is that they believe it is their own money that is coming back to them. That is the premise for the farm tax rebate to exist, that it is money that should not have been taxed and so it is returned; the amount that should not have been gathered is returned to farmers. So most Mennonites do participate in the farm tax rebate program, but they will not participate in programs where the money is coming from government, not having been paid to government initially.
Mr Hansen: Well, that would be about the same; you pay it in and get it back and you don't have to be a member to get your number. I'm not going to argue this one because the ministry has been through this. I'm just a committee member, just to ask questions, and I can't come back at you. I'm just saying that, you know, if someone has paid too much in tax, the money comes back. And using the same principle, what you told me -- I'm not looking at it as a religious order because I can't tell you everything about the Mennonite community. It seems to be the same thing that you told me, that the money goes in, the $150, and the money comes back again from the farm organization and you don't have to be a member of the farm organizations.
Mr Daunt: But you are going to have to register in order to get your farm tax rebate.
Mr Hansen: Your number.
Mr Daunt: Yes, in order to get a number, which would make you eligible for your farm tax rebate. The Mennonites are suggesting that it would be against their religious beliefs to register.
Mr Hansen: Okay, so that was just --
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Hansen.
Mr Hansen: I'm done on that. That was the only question I wanted to ask.
The Chair: Further questions from the government side? Mr Klopp?
Mr Klopp: No, just on a point of clarification: The minister has been working, and indeed myself personally, with many of the farm Mennonite community and they felt that this issue -- there are others out there. All I'm saying is that there are others out there who felt that this has been working well together. We've heard their comments, we'll continue to hear their comments, and we will see, as clause-by-clause goes forward, if there are any changes to the amendment.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms Fawcett and Mr Cleary.
Mrs Fawcett: I appreciate your coming forward and making your views known before the committee. Maybe I could just continue on the Mennonite problem.
The minister yesterday did state, and I can quote right from his remarks: "The executive director of the Mennonite central committee has stated that his community does not object to providing the government with information nor being assigned a registration number."
This talk back and forth is a bit confusing in that what you have stated is that they are against being registered, yet in dealing with the deputy in questioning -- and in fact the minister's statement said that the Mennonite community is not in opposition to a registration number. Because that really strictly isn't with the GFO; it's with the ministry as far as being registered goes so that then you're eligible for programs.
Mr Daunt: I can only report on what we have been told.
Mrs Fawcett: Yes, I understand that.
Mr Daunt: I have had a couple of Mennonite bishops come forward and explain that to me. The letter that I presented to the clerk, the bishop allowed me the privilege to read previous to my handing it in. He states the same things in that letter again, so it is going to be on the written record.
Mrs Fawcett: Right.
Mr Daunt: I don't pretend to suggest that the minister has not talked or is misrepresenting the fact that he has talked to the Mennonite community, but apparently we have two different stories here.
Mrs Fawcett: Yes. I guess one thing I would like maybe to know is whether or not there was anything ever in writing from the Mennonite community or whether it was verbal.
Also, one question: Do you really feel as a group that the general farm organizations don't adequately provide service to all farmers? I'm really interested in why you really seem to be almost against Bill 42. I know you're not against all of it, but you definitely want a vote, and that seems to be the crux of your real opposition to it. I'm wondering: How do you feel about the general farm organizations?
Mr Daunt: I think we've had the feeling from the start that it is the prerogative of the general farm organizations and the government to bring forward whatever proposal they want. We've encouraged them to take the time and to develop a sound proposal. But the ultimate decision --
Mrs Fawcett: Do you not feel that they represent farmers?
Mr Daunt: All we're suggesting is that when that proposal is put forward, farmers should have the final say on whether they are in favour of it or not. I would think that the fact that the majority of farmers have chosen to discontinue their membership or have chosen not to belong to one of three general farm organizations should raise some concern as to what the majority of farmers feel towards them.
I'm a past member of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, and they had a membership of much more than $150. So we're not quibbling about $150; we are talking about democratic principle here.
Mrs Fawcett: You don't feel, then, that this manner of being able to ask for your money back in fact gives you a vote that you don't really, let's say, want to belong to a group?
Mr Daunt: Why go through all this rigmarole and set up two new bureaucracies that are going to cost the government in the neighbourhood of maybe $2 million -- we don't know; we've never seen estimates -- to gather money from me to send it back to me because I have chosen not to belong? It's not by default.
Mrs Fawcett: I guess we are bridge-crossing, you know. We like to guess as to how much it's all going to cost, but until we try it out and find out -- I'm sure it'll take some amending here and there to get it right. I appreciate your concerns though, and thank you very much.
Mr Cleary: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. I know that you put a lot of work into that and we appreciate that. Carrying on from what my colleague said there, the main sticker seems to be the vote with you. Are there any other parts of the bill that are a problem to you too?
1630
Mr Tony Noorloos: Mr Chairman, that we do not have a vote on the stable funding act -- it's being said we need one strong farmers' voice that will benefit the whole agricultural industry in this province. But if you do not get a vote and you have a majority of the farmers that do not support general farm organizations, how can we expect that we're going to get unanimity? We will divide the farmers more so than we have now.
I think if we have political parties, we expect to have a vote, and rightly so. But should we not have it if some organization goes to the government and says, "Well, we should have all the farmers' money. They've all got to be members; they've all got to pay," and we make that law, who are they going to be responsible to? Are they going to be responsible to the farmers or to the government that gives them that power, that gives them that law?
On top of that, we are in an economic situation in the province. You all know about the social contract. Now it's just for a couple of lobbying groups, you're going to make it so that they have a guaranteed income. What, for life? I think this is very questionable and I want to refer this to the members here. I think this should be thought over very critically, because I think if this sets a precedent, what other group can go to the government and try to get the same thing, go to the government and say, "Yes, we need funding; make it law and have people pay, without them having a say in it"? I think this is wrong. It's undemocratic.
Mr Cleary: Yes, your remarks are somewhat worrisome to some of us, and we hope it won't happen that way, but we're not sure. Just one other thing that I was going to mention to you, that if it was said down the road in three years' time that there was going to be an all-party committee look at the legislation and some possibility of a vote at that time, that wouldn't put your mind at ease a bit either, eh?
Mr Noorloos: No, it would not, because in the legislation it says the minister "may." It does not say that he has to. We have no guarantee that he's going to. I can tell you, if the general farm organizations do not want a vote today, do you think they'll want one three years from now, once the funding is in place? They'll want to keep what they've got. I can understand that fully, but let's be careful. Are they really going to work for the farmers? The government hasn't got a lot of money to pay out any more. The funds won't be there. That's realized. The farmers will have to be more on their own feet, and it's coming and it could be much more so than we have today.
Mr Cleary: Could I ask another question? How many members do you people have now?
Mr Daunt: We're not a formal organization in the sense that we have members. We have what we call supporters, the people who, in one form or another, financially or verbally or whatever, support the same ideas that we have. As far as who supports us, I would not want to hazard a guess. I think one way to find out would be to have a vote and we would soon find out how many people support our position and how many people support the position of the Christian Farmers and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
Mr Cleary: How would you handle your own registration, when your registration is mailed to you? How would you handle that?
Mr Daunt: That's a decision that personally I haven't made yet. This bill is not law yet.
Mr Cleary: That's right.
Mr Daunt: We will cross that bridge when we come to it.
Mr Cleary: Okay.
Mr Daunt: But it is going to receive quite a bit of consideration.
It will be a heavy penalty to me. My farm tax rebate cheque approaches $10,000, and in my farm operation, that is a significant sum of money to me. So there is a fair bit of coercion that my wife and I should register our farm operation and participate and send our money in and ask for a refund; $10,000 extra money to any one of you individual people, I think, would be a considerable sum of money also. So there is a lot of coercion here, and this is the thing that we don't have to -- it's up to us to make that free choice whether we want to register our businesses or not. How free is it really?
Mr Cleary: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I really appreciate your comments, and I heard similar remarks before from others. Hopefully, there's going to be a way to solve this one way or another. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Villeneuve, Mr Jordan.
Mr Villeneuve: Joe and your colleagues, thank you for being before us this afternoon and bringing forth a different angle. I also want to thank you for meeting with myself and some of my caucus colleagues over the past number of months. I've had the occasion of attending some of your meetings, the one in Kurtzville, and it's a very, very interesting point of view that you bring forth.
First of all, the vote. I think we'd all like a vote. Again, the problem I have is that famous voters list that we hopefully will have three years down the road. Your comments again, and I might as well put them on the record -- I know what your answer's going to be, but who should vote if indeed a vote were to be held?
Mr Daunt: Anybody who will be affected by the legislation.
Mr Villeneuve: You're including, at this point, many people who have nothing to do with agriculture other than owning some farm land and collecting the farm tax rebate because the farmer qualifies them to be eligible for the farm tax rebate.
Mr Daunt: No, I'm suggesting anybody who will be required to register their farm business, as the proposed legislation states, should have the opportunity to have a democratic vote. It's very simple. I can't understand why it's so difficult for you to understand.
Mr Villeneuve: Well, the requirement here is that, in section 33, "After three years have elapsed since the coming into force of this act, the minister may have a review of the act to determine whether it is advisable that the act continue in force." That is item 33.
I have suggested, and we will be proposing amendments to that particular section, that it would be taken out of the hands of the minister once we have a voters list. We will have this famous voters list in a year's time, maybe before, those who have qualified as bona fide farmers. In other words, they've registered. We'll have a voters list.
At this point in time, it may well be that a vote should be held, once we have the voters list. Would you be in favour of an amendment to this, and I know you're against the entire process, but could you live with an amendment that takes it out of the hands of the minister, puts in the hands of a committee of this Legislature, the likes of which you may be sitting before today and you may or may not like, but that's, I guess, a portion of the democratic process? Could you live with an examination by an all-party committee of the Legislature? They may well, at that point, recommend the vote. Would you accept that?
Mr Daunt: I think it's very clear in our goals statement that our second goal is that we ultimately create a situation where stable funding is decided by a free vote of Ontario's farmers.
You can't be half pregnant. You either are or you ain't. So let's stop playing around with democracy and trying to impinge on democracy. A lot of people have given up a lot more to fight for freedom and democracy than what we are by giving our time freely here today.
Mr Villeneuve: There's no doubt about that.
Mr Daunt: I hope we have a lot to respect and honour those individuals who went so far as to give their lives so that we could have freedom and democracy here. Yet people keep pulling away at that house of democracy. They think if they pull a little brick out here, it won't matter; nobody will notice. Then somebody else wants to pull a little brick out over here and it's okay; it's just a brick. But at some point in time, somebody pulls out the wrong brick, and the whole house comes down. We need to keep our house intact.
Are you a member of the OFA, by any chance?
Mr Villeneuve: Yes, I am. I've never hidden that fact.
1640
Mr Daunt: Do you not believe that you might be in conflict of interest sitting here on this committee as you're reviewing this?
Mr Villeneuve: I have considered that, yes. We would have a number of members who might be in conflict.
Mr Daunt: I find it very disturbing. How can we expect to receive a fair hearing?
Mr Villeneuve: That is entirely up to you and the perception that is left. I'm simply here to attempt to extrapolate some answers that would help the committee as we proceed with Bill 42. It's had second reading. I've never hidden the fact that I'm a member of the federation. I think we have probably members from all parties who are members of the federation.
Mr Daunt: And you're promoting your vested interest.
Mr Villeneuve: You may see it as that.
Mr Daunt: That is the perception.
Mr Villeneuve: If it's perception, then it's reality.
Mr Daunt: Exactly.
Mr Villeneuve: I simply am here to attempt to assist the Silent Majority. I was surprised that my colleague Mr Hansen hasn't had any phone calls. I've certainly had a number of phone calls, and I think you three people have on a number of occasions phoned, and I have certainly been prepared to listen. I wanted to get it on the record. I've heard it a hundred times if I've heard it at all. Yet we've got to start with a voters list. It's the chicken and egg.
Mr Daunt: Why? We didn't have a voters list in the beef industry when we had a vote. In rural ridings, I understand it's going to be the case that even in urban ridings that if your name is not on the voters list, you still are going to have the opportunity to vote in the next federal election, so there are mechanisms.
Mr Villeneuve: It's my understanding that members of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association at the different county levels were allowed a vote whenever a vote occurred in the beef industry, and I was involved. That's the way I assumed it was occurring. I have no problem, once we have a voters list of bona fide farmers, and whether that gross income, whatever the criteria are -- I had an answer this morning that said whoever gets a cheque as a rebate cheque on farm taxes, gets to vote. How many cheques do you receive from the government?
Mr Noorloos: I only get one and I've got 10 or 11 farms.
Mr Villeneuve: How many does Joe get?
Mr Daunt: There are two, because some of the land is in my name and some of it is in my wife's name and myself. In the cattlemen's vote, my name was on three different lists that the farm products marketing board used, but you see when those vote packages were mailed out, they were also accompanied by a declaration form, and you had to declare that you were an eligible voter and it laid our very clearly what an eligible voter was. In my case, it meant that either myself or my wife, just one of us, could have a vote because of the structure of our farm business. Those are the rules. I have no problems with the rules, whether we make it each farm business or each farmer, as long as they're laid out and everybody knows and it is done fairly.
These ballots were put out. I'm not sure of the numbers, but there were almost twice as many ballots distributed as people participated in the vote, as ballots that were returned. The farm products had their audit procedure that it went through to make sure that things were done fairly and that there was not any fraudulent voting went on, and I don't think either side on that issue could take issue with the way the vote was done, and there was no voters list.
Mr Villeneuve: With all due respect, there were questions.
Mr Daunt: I think there were questions on both sides. But I don't think they were so severe that people thought that even if all those questions were swayed all one way or all the other way it would have altered significantly the outcome or the result of that vote.
Mr Villeneuve: But it wasn't smooth as silk.
Mr Daunt: Democracy has rough spots.
Mr Villeneuve: That's why we're here.
Mr Daunt: You have spots in provincial elections where there are some rough spots, and you have voters lists to start with.
Mr Villeneuve: Yes.
Mr Daunt: So you still have rough spots.
Mr Villeneuve: That's the reason why without a voters list the rough spots become rather bumpy, and I guess that's why we're here, and I appreciate --
Mr Daunt: And it's a lot bumpier if you don't even attempt the process.
Mr Villeneuve: I'm asking again: On item 33 --
Mr Daunt: No.
Mr Noorloos: No.
Mr Villeneuve: No. Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Mr Jordan: Thank you, gentlemen, for giving of your time and giving us your very clear point of view on this legislation. First of all, right off the bat, I want to tell you that I am a member of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I would ask you: Is that any different than being a member of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, the National Farmers Union, or any of the other farm organizations?
Mr Daunt: Different only in the fact that you have chosen to belong to a different organization, one rather than the other, and maybe you belong to more than one.
Mr Jordan: So you don't see that, then, as really a conflict as you were inferring --
Mr Daunt: As to whether you're a member of the Christian Farmers or a member --
Mr Jordan: No. As far as this legislation is concerned and sitting on the committee.
Mr Daunt: It certainly does raise some concerns, yes. I'll be very frank with you. I also understand that there are different reasons for people belonging to one or another of the organizations. Sometimes it is done only for political reasons to put oneself in political good standing with an organization. Sometimes it's done because you firmly believe in the goals and objectives of that organization.
Mr Jordan: I think, in the area that I represent, it's the only farm organization that's active in the area, so it's not a matter of really having a choice, as far as my knowledge of that particular area goes.
Anyhow, to move on, you started off and you said you represented the silent majority. Are you saying that because you know that by the work you've done in the province or the contacts you've made across the province, or are you assuming that you represent the silent majority because you are representing those who are not members of one of the three organizations?
Mr Daunt: I wouldn't even want to go so far as to say that we're representing all of the people who do not belong to one of those three organizations. I think we have similar ideas to quite a large number, a number that's undefined, of people who cannot accept this legislation being implemented without a vote first. I would suggest that those people who support us, some of them are also members of one or another of the general farm organizations. We've been surprised at some of the people who are members of one or another of the general farm organizations who have come forward and expressed their concerns about this legislation being implemented without a vote, and some of them have even financially supported us. So there's not unanimity even within the general farm organizations. They do not have the unanimous support of their membership. I question whether it's even been put to a vote in any of those organizations, to their full membership, whether they have the majority of support within their organization. I may be wrong. We don't know.
Mr Jordan: Something along these similar lines has taken place in our neighbouring province of Quebec and there was a majority there in favour of a farm organization for the province. You quite likely are familiar with the policies and assistance programs that they've been able to get for the Quebec farmer. Do you see it as having benefited the farmers there as compared with the situation you're in here in Ontario?
Mr Daunt: They have been successful at getting money out of government, but I question whether getting money out of government and becoming dependent on government is healthy in the long run. I participate in the tripartite stabilization program for beef cattle and my experience in the past has been that whenever I get extra income because the tripartite stabilization program pays out to me, that money doesn't stay in my pocket, it simply gets passed on down the line. So I'm no better off for that government money that has come to me, and there are some great concerns at this point in time. As we've seen in the pork industry, it is something that becomes countervailable, and I think there's widespread feeling now within the pork industry that they might have been better off if they had never participated in that government program.
1650
Mr Jordan: So this is what gives you, as you state in the conclusion of your presentation, the fear of government intervention? You said government interference rather than farmers helping farmers.
Mr Daunt: I think it's the Mennonites that may be exemplified the most, and I've heard it expressed by some of the general farm organizations as well that we need to work together. But I think there's a difference in working together because voluntarily I want to help my neighbour because he's got a problem or he's in trouble, and the institutionalized community whereby we are forced to work together whether we want to or not. I think people are pretty ingenious and they figure out all sorts of ways to get around doing things they don't want to do. I think it's going to be a pretty hard law to enforce.
Secondly, do we want to waste a lot of the energy of Ontario's farmers, having them sit up nights devising ways they can get around stable funding? Wouldn't it be better if they were devising ways of becoming more productive or enjoying life a little bit more; spending a bit more time with their wives and their children; enhancing their quality of life, whatever?
Mr Jordan: I'm not in a position to judge the amount of time that they're going to spend trying to avoid the legislation, but --
Mr Daunt: We're being told we're spending too much time by some people.
Mr Jordan: Trying to avoid the legislation?
Mr Daunt: Yes.
Mr Jordan: We had great concerns, as you know, about the legislation in its original form. Now that it's been changed in Bill 42 relative to the vote issue, in that at the end of three years the minister may -- and as my colleague has pointed out, his amendment would be that not only the minister will, but it would be referred to a legislative committee such as this for review, and you would come again before the committee with concrete evidence of reasons why a vote is now required. We found that to be more or less acceptable as against the previous legislation.
Mr Daunt: I think in Bill 105 there was a provision that there would be a vote in three years' time.
Mr Jordan: That's right.
Mr Daunt: This legislation is regressive on that point and I would add that we could not support the idea of a vote being held in three years' time because, in the case of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, it was implemented and there was going to be a vote in three years' time. That vote never occurred. Laws can change.
Mr Jordan: But it would be a heavy yes vote today if it did, would it not, on the milk board?
Mr Daunt: I don't know. I would want to be a little bit careful. This is another issue. There are farmers who have some serious concerns about it.
Mr Jordan: I think the majority, though, indicated that they were much better off with the board than they were without it.
Mr Daunt: The question of whether they're happy with it or the question of whether financially they're better off, those are two separate issues.
Mr Jordan: Yes, they are.
Mr Daunt: I don't think we should confuse them. I know the one will tend to diffuse people's -- but I think when you get into second-generation supply management that there's a lot of problems that weren't there for the people who were given the quota.
Mr Jordan: That's right.
Mr Daunt: For the young person trying to get started in farming today who has to face that burden of the price of quota, that huge capital expenditure, it's something that doesn't pencil out, it doesn't give you a return on your investment.
Mr Jordan: I guess what I was leading up to is that once we experience this in place for three years, we'll be in a better position to judge it. But you seem to be indicating a fear of government interference in the operation of your --
Mr Daunt: If we have a vote first, I will be certain that there will be a vote. If you say there's going to be a vote in three years, I'll believe it when I see it.
Mr Jordan: Thank you very much.
Mr Daunt: I'm afraid I haven't got any more faith than that in our government.
Mr Villeneuve: Just as a supplementary: I represent a very rural riding. You tell me that you're worse off with the tripartite payment because it just goes down the road. All the people I've spoken with gladly cashed that tripartite cheque, whether it's hogs or beef. I find you in a minority position.
Mr Daunt: I think we have to separate -- there are two issues here again -- whether you think it's a good program or not and whether you participate in it, because I'd be put at a severe economic disadvantage if I did not participate in the program. If I did not receive that money when I went to the auction yard and I had to bid on cattle, if I did not have that money in my pocket, I would be at an economic disadvantage to the person who had participated in the program. So I don't think it's a conflict to participate in the program and yet be opposed to it.
Mr Villeneuve: I think you've put your finger on the dichotomy that agriculture faces. In other words, let the cow-calf man take the docking at this stage of the game, you'll buy your stock as cheap and be able to make a profit on them, I guess is what you've just said, if tripartite were not here.
The second thing: You were a member of CFFO, I gather, at one point.
Mr Daunt: Yes.
Mr Villeneuve: You no longer are a member?
Mr Daunt: No, I --
Mr Villeneuve: You need not answer this, but could you explain to us why? You need not answer.
Mr Daunt: There were two points: One of them was stable funding, the fact that they would pursue it.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Noorloos, did you have a point to make?
Mr Noorloos: I don't really have a point, Mr Chairman, but I think -- and it's probably been mentioned already -- that it looks like this thing is going to go ahead. It's got second reading. There is no assurance of what admittance you're going to make.
Are we going to have a vote in three years? Nothing there -- they may redo it, but it doesn't say a vote, there is no vote. Do you think this is democracy? Is this the direction the government must take in this province? I think it's very serious and I think we should reconsider, not only us but all of us. If we throw this out of the window, I think we're on a difficult road ahead.
Mr Murray Musselman: I'd like to make a little point on Mr Villeneuve talking about how we can't have a vote because we haven't got a voters list. At a meeting in early July in Kurtzville, Elbert van Donkersgoed from the Christian Farmers was there and he stated that we knew who to send these registration forms to. If we know who to send the registration forms to, why don't we know who to send the ballots to?
The Chair: Thank you. I'd like to thank the Silent Majority, who have obviously chosen not to be silent today, and each of you for taking the time to appear before the committee.
Mr Noorloos, it's always a pleasure to see you. Mr Noorloos's farming operation is very close to my riding of Sarnia and I believe he and I have some mutual acquaintances in the cattle business as well. It's a pleasure to see you gentlemen, and thank you very much for appearing before the committee. The letter that you hand-delivered has been marked as an exhibit and will become part of the proceedings of this committee.
We trust you'll stay in touch with the committee either through the committee clerk or any member of this committee, or indeed your own local MPPs, as this bill proceeds through the process. Thank you very much for taking the time to be with us today.
Mr Daunt: Thank you, Mr Chairman and committee members. Thanks for taking the time to hear our concerns and our beefs.
The Chair: You're most welcome. We are adjourned till 10 am tomorrow morning.
The committee adjourned at 1659.