BRUCE COUNTY FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
UNION DES CULTIVATEURS FRANCO-ONTARIENS
CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
CONTENTS
Tuesday 31 August 1993
Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993, Bill 42
Russ Danbrook
Carl W. Bolton
Bruce County Federation of Agriculture
Thomas M. Sweiger, member
Lloyd Graham, member
Byron Monk, president
Robert A. Bregman, member
John and Elizabeth Drudge
Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens
André Chabot, président générale
Pierre Glaude, secrétaire
Canadian Federation of Independent Business
Catherine Swift, senior vice-president
Judith Andrew, director, provincial policy
Richard Lloyd
Peter Dowling
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
*Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L) for Mr Conway
Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND) for Ms Murdock
Murdoch, Bill (Grey-Owen Sound PC) for Mr Jordan
Villeneuve, Noble (S-D-G & East Grenville/S-D-G & Grenville-Est PC) for Mr Turnbull
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Agriculture and Food:
Burak, Rita, deputy minister
Stratford, Louise, director, legal services
Haslam, Karen (Perth ND)
Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND)
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1005 in the Huron Room, Macdonald Block, Toronto.
FARM REGISTRATION AND FARM ORGANIZATIONS FUNDING ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSCRIPTION DES ENTREPRISES AGRICOLES ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES AGRICOLES
Consideration of Bill 42, An Act to provide for Farm Registration and Funding for Farm Organizations that provide Education and Analysis of Farming Issues on behalf of Farmers / Loi prévoyant l'inscription des entreprises agricoles et le financement des organismes agricoles qui offrent des services d'éducation et d'analyse en matière de questions agricoles pour le compte des agriculteurs.
The Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Order, please. It is 10:05 am. We have members of the opposition caucus and members of the government caucus here. I was awaiting the arrival of members of the third party. They have not arrived. In the interest of efficiency and respect for those who take the time to come here and make presentations, we'll proceed.
RUSS DANBROOK
The Chair: Russ Danbrook, welcome. If you could identify yourself for the purposes of Hansard, which is recording these proceedings, and then go ahead with your presentation, you've been allocated one half-hour, and the committee would like about 15 minutes of that for questions and answers if you can see fit to do it.
Mr Russ Danbrook: Fair enough. My name is Russ Danbrook. I'm a farmer in Perth county. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the opportunity to address your committee. Again, my name is Russ Danbrook and I'm a pork producer in Perth county.
I'd like to make it clear that while I oppose stable funding and the registration, I'm not necessarily opposed to the OFA. In fact, I was a member for a number of years and quit because of philosophical differences.
My opposition to this proposed legislation started even before the information hearings that were held across the province in the summer of 1992. After attending three of these meetings, I became even more opposed to the whole concept. The meetings were held at a busy time of year in an already difficult harvest season and were not well attended. Thus, farmers did not receive enough information on which to form an opinion or base a decision.
I helped to form the Silent Majority as a result of what I'd seen and heard. Our goals then, as now, were to better inform farmers about stable funding and to seek a vote as the resolution to the question.
My problem with this legislation stems mainly from the fact that it is so undemocratic. That problem is compounded by the fact that it gives lobby groups a right to tax farmers of this province.
When I say that it's undemocratic, I would simply point to the figures. Approximately 20,000 farmers have chosen to belong to the farm organizations out of 70,000 farm families in this province, less than 30%. Yet here we are ready to grant them the power to force another 50,000 to follow their cause.
While the OFA has done a creditable job in some areas and with some problems, it is painfully inadequate in others. It cannot be all things to all farmers and therefore should not have the right to force all farmers to belong.
When one looks to the farm population for an answer, it's not readily available. OFA members think that Bill 42 is great. The balance of the farm population is considerably less sure. I point as proof to the Ontario Cattlemen's Association annual meeting, where they voted in favour of a resolution calling for a vote to decide the issue of stable funding. This association represents approximately 30,000 farmers in this province. By the way, that vote carried; they asked for a vote on stable funding.
As a director of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board from the county of Perth, I took a resolution calling for a vote on stable funding to our 1993 annual meeting. It was lost 79 to 78, indicating a split vote and how divided we really are. I believe a vote of all affected farmers is necessary to decide this issue before any part of it is implemented.
There are other issues involved with Bill 42 that I believe need to be questioned as well. One issue is the cost of registration. We were told at the information meetings last year that of the $150 collected from each farm business, approximately $25 would be used to cover the cost of registration, with the balance going to the farm organizations. Now the province and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food proposes to assume the cost of registration, a cost that would work out to $1.75 million. Where will this money come from? In a province that is already cash-tight, it is probably not going to be new money. That means it will have to come from the existing Agriculture and Food budget, which means $1.75 million less for research, education and other direct aid programs to farmers. I find this deplorable and totally unacceptable.
While the fines for non-compliance have been removed from the previous bill, Bill 105, farmers who choose not to register for whatever reason will not be allowed to participate in government programs. The best example of this is the farm tax rebate program, where unregistered farmers will not get the rebate for the land portion of their taxes, which is their own money which they've already paid to the government. Is this not a form of punishment for non-compliance?
I question the need for registration. I fail to see the province's need for more information about farmers than what is already stored in the many data banks around this country.
I simply cannot accept the fact that having more money will guarantee a stronger farm voice. It may in fact be just a better-paid one. After all, how critical can the OFA be of a government who creates this monetary opportunity?
The proposed legislation came about in part, I believe, because Mr Buchanan did not foresee any major opposition to it. Obviously that opposition has been a complicating factor and has helped to create the situation we have here today.
As a member of the Silent Majority, I honestly cannot say that we represent the majority of farmers in this province, but I can say with certainty that we have better educated the farmers of this province about this bill. Opposition has also been raised in editorials in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, London Free Press and the Toronto Globe and Mail, not to mention a number of local farm papers. I find it unfortunate, therefore, that Mr Buchanan did not see fit to attend the meetings which were held in Kurtzville, and only hesitatingly even met with us at Queen's Park.
All through my presentation I have referred only to the OFA in my criticisms. The obvious reason for this action is that while I respect and admire Elbert van Donkersgoed, the organization which he represents has only approximately 650 farm family members, less than 1% of the farm population. I find it therefore a little presumptuous, if not slightly arrogant, that the CFFO believe that they even represent any semblance of a strong farm voice.
Given the large cross-section of opposition that this committee has heard, and considering the fact also that the NFU could no longer be part of this scheme, one can only wonder how this committee could approve this bill in its present form. The bottom line is that the proposed legislation will be resolved by a vote. I happen to think that vote should open to all of the affected farmers in this province and not settled in the Legislature.
I would ask again that this bill be amended to include a vote of all affected farmers, to stop the divisiveness and so that those of us who choose not to belong to these farm organizations are not branded as hangers-on, chaff, scabs or freeloaders.
I remain -- committed to a vote -- Russ Danbrook.
Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Thank you for coming before us with your presentation and giving us the other side.
On the second page, you talk about "the power to force the other 50,000 to follow their cause," and then again you mention, "It cannot be all things to all farmers and therefore should not have a right to force all farmers to belong."
I think it was hoped that this present legislation, with the fact that you can apply to get your money back, would really take away that force. I'm just wondering if you would comment on that.
Mr Danbrook: While I realize the money is refundable at this point, I think a fear that all of us have who do not want to support this is that we will lose that refundable clause in a very short period of time and will end up with a non-refundable checkoff or tax given to lobby groups when in fact we might not support the things that they're doing, even though they're trying to do a good job.
Mrs Fawcett: It's really a matter of trust -- that this bill will not stay the way it is.
Mr Danbrook: Maybe lack of it.
Mrs Fawcett: On that, yes: trust or lack of it. I'll turn it over right now because there was another question.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Thank you for taking the time to come before the committee. I know there's probably many other things you could have been doing today.
But I guess the first thing that I would like to talk a little bit about, and you mentioned it here in your presentation, is the registration form. Have you seen a copy of the draft registration form?
Mr Danbrook: No, I haven't, John.
Mr Cleary: Maybe you could comment a little further. You say here that you feel that information is already in data banks in this country, and I imagine you mean federally and provincially. Is that correct?
Mr Danbrook: Yes. The privacy minister, Bruce Phillips, indicated that Canadians have their names scattered across these data banks approximately five times a week, through the ones that are held in this country, from different information sources. So I would guess that there's a pretty good file built on most of us, if we have that many entries per week. That would be my only comment there.
Mr Cleary: The other thing: I guess possibly, listening to your presentation, that your main opposition is that you feel very strongly that there should be a vote on this legislation. That would be your main one?
Mr Danbrook: Ever since I got into this 14, 15 or 16 months ago -- I never was a political person. I guess we stayed at home and farmed and I raised a family and I fought with my wife and I loved her some other times and that's about all we did. We never really got involved with politics.
The simple part for me was the totally undemocratic approach that this was creating. Less than 30% of the farmers, those who had chosen to belong to organizations, were forcing me at that time -- and it's different now; I realize that. But at that time, when I got involved with it, they were forcing me to be part of that even though I chose not to. I chose for good reasons, I think.
A prime example of the reasons that I chose not to belong is that a year ago this past March, the OFA helped orchestrate a march on Ottawa. It was well attended; they did a good job of that. I can't criticize them at all for having done what they did. It was in support of supply management. Supply management benefits the milk industry and it benefits the feather industry.
As a pork producer, I could make a pretty strong case that I would be better off under a GATT situation, and therefore all of the efforts of the OFA helping those supply-managed commodities are working against me. Yet I was being expected to be supportive of and be quiet about that organization by going along with this. That's why a lot of the opposition came to the original plan, John.
Mr Cleary: You mention in your presentation there the two votes that you had and how the farmers were split; you say in your letter there a vote of 79 to 78. It's your opinion that this legislation will even split farmers more than they are now?
Mr Danbrook: When there's a vote in the House, and after it's all over, are you more split than you were before the vote? I happen to think that farmers would be less split. If in fact 51% of the farmers in this province voted for stable funding, I have absolutely no problem with that. I will accept it, I'll go along with it, I'll pay my $150 and I'll shut up and go home. That's really where I sit and that's what I've said all along. When you can prove to me that you've earned the majority of the respect of the farmers in this province and their willingness to support your cause, maybe then I am chaff and a freeloader if I won't belong.
Mr Cleary: We have had other presenters who have said exactly the same as you're saying there. I guess my next question is, if this legislation does go through, without a vote in the farm groups, how are we going to go about uniting the ones who are opposed to it and bring them back in? I just wondered if you had any suggestions.
1020
Mr Danbrook: How are we going to unite the ones who are opposed to stable funding?
Mr Cleary: Yes, we want to bring them back in to try to work with them. Do you have any suggestions on that?
Mr Danbrook: I think it's going to be tough to unite without a vote. My own personal feeling is that the divisiveness is going to remain until all of the farmers who are affected by this have a right to make their opinions known with a vote. I know the minister has said the vote will create divisiveness. He could be right and I might be wrong. I can't say that I'm right, but I still feel that until an organization can earn 51% of our respect, we're going to have a hard time supporting it and we're going to be awfully reluctant members if we do. I don't see the majority of farmers, if in fact they are in the majority, being very strong supporters of the OFA or any farm group if they're conscripted into it, and that's really what I hate, the conscription aspect of it.
Mr Cleary: I think my colleague has another question.
Mrs Fawcett: On the second page of the brief, and I think maybe this is a question directed more to the parliamentary assistant, if he could, at the bottom of the page where it says, "One issue is the cost of registration," we were told at the information meetings that of the $150 collected from each farm business, approximately $25 would be used to cover the cost of registration, with the balance going to the farm organizations. Now the province and the ministry propose to assume the costs. I wonder if you would just comment on that, please, because I really wasn't aware of that at initial meetings.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): You mentioned something about it's going to cost $25. When was that in it?
Mrs Fawcett: No, I'm saying it's at the bottom of page 2 in the brief.
Mr Klopp: The minister, I don't ever recall in this whole discussion, saying what it was going to cost. This $25 figure was in the paper two years ago or a year and a half ago. We never mentioned that at all. That was just something that came up in an article, from my understanding. I'll leave it over to the deputy, because this issue is something we've talked about a number of times, about registration. She maybe has a more technical answer she can give.
Ms Rita Burak: No, my recollections of the $150 fee disbursement were that I think initially a number of options were considered, but in the final analysis, we felt we could do this without any additional funding, and that would include the $25 fee that might be attached to administration costs. If I can just go on another few seconds for Mr Danbrook, the information that we gave to the committee, and which I would repeat to you, is that we are able to do this without any additional resources. We are very confident that the administration costs can be handled within the branch that already exists to do a lot of the assistance programs.
Mr Danbrook: Okay. Where I got that information wasn't an article; it was actually a quote from Norris Hoag the night of the meeting in Aitken. He's the one who gave us that figure. I find it interesting that you can process approximately 70,000 registrations at no additional cost.
Mr Klopp: At Aitken, was that also under the old Bill 105?
Mr Danbrook: That was under the old Bill 105, but I don't know how you can register people differently than you could then.
Mr Klopp: Yes, because under that plan there was going to be a corporation set up, because we were actually going to handle the cheques and literally take the money and then transfer it over to the farm organizations, which I think -- you talk about your committee trying to get things better and more streamlined. I think you can take a feather there. This program now is that we don't process the cheques or anything like that; the cheques come in and they go to the farm organizations. They have to set up their bureaucracy. That really streamlined it.
All we're taking is what we want and I think it's very cheap. I think a lot of different ministries should look at how to gather information. We talked about this before, but what we want to know is general farm data, what operations you've got. This is actually going to be quite cheap in relative terms, and that's already, in a lot of our budgets, built in. So this form is what we want. We want to know exactly what farm programs are needed or not needed in this, a one-stop deal. So that's how we can really save the money and work within the system that we already have in place, because of those major changes from Bill 105 versus Bill 42.
Mr Danbrook: If I could have an opportunity for a clarification on the registration, one of our main opposition to that was the fear of it being something of a NISA, net income stabilization account, boondoggle. If it could be a simple declaration of three or four lines or half a page like that, it becomes an awful lot less innocuous for a farmer to fill out than something that's going to take him two or three hours and an accountant's help. That's one of the real fears that we had, that it was going to create additional costs and take quite a bit of time. If in fact that's close to what it's going to look like, I have a lot less problem with it, I'll be honest with you.
Mr Klopp: They've been working on that and, believe me, as one who's on the record as saying NISA was a very complicated form, we very much don't want to get in the same trap. I'll give you a rough copy of what they've been throwing out to the farm community --
Mr Danbrook: I'd appreciate that; thank you.
Mr Klopp: -- on what some of the lines were, so I'll let you decide that over the next little while. I'll give it to you right now.
Mr Danbrook: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Villeneuve.
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Mr Danbrook, thank you for being here all the way from Perth county, where I believe you need some rain pretty badly.
Mr Danbrook: We got it. We live right up there, you know. We just got a little bit of everything.
Mr Villeneuve: You mentioned figures: 70,000 farmers; I believe there are well over 100,000 farm tax rebate cheques. Therein is the dilemma, I think, that we're all faced with, the voters list, and we've had a number of people from your organization tell us, "Well, you know, just send out a ballot to everyone who gets a farm tax rebate." Would that have been your way of establishing who should vote?
Mr Danbrook: No, I don't think so. I think there are better ways than that. I think you could come up with a list. If the political will is there, I believe a list could be achieved pretty handily. As a prime example of that, when Charlie Mayer decided he was going to deregulate barley selling, 21 commodity groups went to Ottawa. The OFA sent Bill Weaver and he was to sign a document calling for a vote on the deregulation of barley from single-desk selling. Now, it seems to me that the OFA thinks it can not only pick out the farmers in Ontario; it can pick out the farmers who are growing just barley. So they should be able to pick out the farmers if they can do that. That's maybe a simplistic approach too, but I think if the will is there, a list could be achieved. I don't want to make light of it, but I do believe a voters list of farmers could be achieved.
Mr Villeneuve: I appreciate your candidness and your sincerity in making this presentation. There is not really an easy solution to this.
Mr Danbrook: I accept that.
Mr Villeneuve: Therein is my problem, and that is why I fully expect and do have an amendment ready to section 33, which says, "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." I would like that to read "shall come to a committee of the Legislature."
I don't know; you can make presentations to ministers, whoever he or she may be at that time, and they never get recorded and they can be taken lightly and they can be overlooked. The federation of agriculture, through its chief administration officer and its president, has admitted that it would have no problem with this. Would this, to a degree, satisfy your questions? I realize that this GFO -- two of them now, apparently, and not three -- will be a brand-new creation, an animal the likes of what we've not seen roam the rural sections of Ontario. Would this to some degree alleviate the concerns you now have regarding the credibility and accountability which you've referred to?
Mr Danbrook: I'm a member of the Silent Majority, but I'm not here today speaking on behalf of the Silent Majority.
Mr Villeneuve: I appreciate that.
Mr Danbrook: I spoke with Mr Klopp earlier. You offered an amendment there --
Mr Villeneuve: To bring it to committee.
Mr Danbrook: I presume you're asking my opinion of those amendments. Again I'm speaking personally and not on behalf of the Silent Majority, because I know that our philosophy all along has been evoked before anything is implemented.
Mr Villeneuve: Yes, just throw this all out.
Mr Danbrook: The practical part of me would say to you that if I can be guaranteed a vote three years down the road with your amendment, I'll take half a loaf before I won't take any.
1030
Mr Villeneuve: This is not saying a vote; it's simply saying a review of the positive and the possible negatives that the GFOs have brought to Ontario agriculture. You hit the nail right on the head when you mentioned that what's good for you is not necessarily good for someone else, and the dichotomy and the diversity in agriculture will always be that way.
We've had people who have come here and said that they'd rather not be on tripartite. They could then buy their feeder cattle cheaper, and that's possibly true, but there may not be anybody to provide them with cheaper calves.
So it's a vicious circle. You buy cheaper calves to feed out in your feedlot, but you may not have them to buy them a number of years down the road. So somehow or other we must provide the entire spectrum, which very often is in opposition to itself, sufficient chance to make a living.
Mr Danbrook: I realize what you're saying there, but what you're talking about is commodity-specific in the feeder cattle business. I'm a commodity representative. In fact, I'm going to a meeting, after I leave here, about the marketing of hogs in this province and whether we should have the right to sell them out of the province or not. That is a different thing than being forced or being coerced into being part of a lobby group. That lobby group has to be seen to be effective for you before you want to belong to it; at least in my mind it does. If it doesn't do some good for you, whether you're paying $150 or $5, it's a waste of time.
Mr Villeneuve: Do you feel that the lobby group with our farmer friends in the province of Quebec is working for them?
Mr Danbrook: I do, but I think it's a different situation.
Mr Villeneuve: Under the Union des producteurs agricoles it's different?
Mr Danbrook: It is different. I talked about this at fair length with Roger George, both personally and in a meeting with the Silent Majority. These are not simplistic solutions, but there are an awful lot better ways that the OFA could do the job of retaining its members and being creative in the funding it has and uses in this province.
A prime example of that: We as pork producers hand the OFA $16,000 a year, a blanket token. Before I became a director, I was not aware of all of the little things the OFA does. I appreciate that they do more than I had given them credit for. They lobby on a number of issues. But if they think that they're doing a good job of lobbying for us -- every year at the annual meeting we hand them maybe four, maybe eight issues to lobby on, but we also say, "Here's your $16,000."
If I want you to do a good job of lobbying and you're going to be good at what you do, it seems to me that the OFA should be coming back to us and saying: "Look, you want a job done. It's going to cost you probably $20,000 to get that done. We can do it, but that's what it's going to cost." I think they need to be more positive in their attitude. Maybe we as a group should give them $100,000 one year and maybe nothing another year if in fact we as a commodity group don't require them, but to give them a blanket fee of, like I said, $16,000 and give them 16 issues, $1,000 doesn't open the door on each of those issues.
Mr Villeneuve: Some of the broad issues they're involved in over and above the specific issues, farm labour law, environmental bill of rights, the Sewell commission, the tax rebate, the casinos.
Mr Danbrook: Those are the ones that I'm talking about where we refer them to the OFA.
Mr Villeneuve: I realize that, but the horse racing industry and casinos, nobody seems to be worrying about the horse racing industry; they are quite worried. The tobacco taxes -- tobacco producers can't get labour to harvest their crops. This is the broad spectrum. As you get into commodity-specific deals, yes.
I was at the protest on Parliament Hill in February 1992 and I thought it was tremendously successful. I realized where the pork producers were coming from and where the non-supply management people were coming from. That goes against, and therein is the dilemma that we face in agriculture, and I certainly recognize it, as you do.
Mr Danbrook: It shows pretty quickly that groups like the OFA can get involved in the general good but not commodity-specific issues. You talked about the dichotomy before. There's nothing they can really do for the pork industry, when it's not supply management, that might not contradict supply-managed commodity over here, or at least a lot of those issues would pit one against the other. I think they have to pretty much stay out of those, but the general farm goods taxation, labour, the Sewell commission, there's a lot of things that they can and should be involved in.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Just one quick one. You mentioned in your brief about the registration and you sort of objected to that. Now you know the form might not be as bad as we thought it might be, because I had concerns about it also. I just want to point out, and I'm sure you do, you get your tax rebate back.
Mr Danbrook: Yes.
Mr Murdoch: And you fill out a registration there.
Mr Danbrook: Yes.
Mr Murdoch: This isn't going to be much different. A lot of people come in and say, "Well, now we've got to fill out a registration form." You're already doing that when you get your tax rebate back. Is that right?
Mr Danbrook: Yes.
Mr Murdoch: You don't have any problem with that?
Mr Danbrook: No, I don't. I pointed out before I have a lot less problem when I see what we're dealing with. As I said, my fear and a lot of the fears out there were that we were going to force farmers to deal with another NISA boondoggle, and they don't need that.
Mr Murdoch: So that's sort of cleared up.
Mr Danbrook: That is alleviated. I'm not striking it, but it's less to cover it.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you, Mr Danbrook, for bringing forward your presentation.
Mr Danbrook: So far, it's been my pleasure.
Mr Wood: You've raised a number of issues. I notice with interest that you're saying you were one of the founders of the Silent Majority. Do you know approximately how many members you have in the Silent Majority lobby group or whatever you want to call it?
Mr Danbrook: No, I don't. It's a loose organization. It's basically a group of farmers from across this province who because of one reason or another were against stable funding and have found some way to form with us or join with us, either by phone or whatever. It's a loose organization and it's specific to this one issue. We're not dealing with anything else. I said to Mr Klopp today, I hope my organization can die. There's nothing I'd like better than to see it done. I hope I'm being honest when I said I don't know how much support we really have out there. I think we have a fair bit as an organization. I think there are a lot of farmers who are sympathetic to what we're saying, but I can't give you a number, no.
Mr Wood: In your point 2 you're saying to seek a vote as the resolution of the question. We've had a number of groups that have come forward and said that they feel people have the right to vote with their chequebook and they fill out a simple registration form so that we'll know exactly how many farmers there are in Ontario. They have the right to vote with their chequebook and they can get a prompt refund. I just want to see what your comments would be on that, whether you consider that to be a way of voting.
Mr Danbrook: It is, I suppose, a legitimate way of calling it a vote. I pointed out before, given the amount of money this is involving right now, an awful lot of farmers -- well, not a lot, but a few farmers are going to leave their money in there simply out of apathy, "I've got to start making requests, I've got to fill out forms to get my money back, I've got to send letters." So $125, $150, it's going to lie there. "I'm not really a supporter, but I'm not -- " It's just general apathy. I think that's what somebody has to be counting on to achieve more money.
Given the fact, though -- and this is a question I think is important -- that maybe a lot of farmers do vote with their chequebook, and let's say for instance that the OFA doesn't achieve additional funding, in two or three years will this thing become mandatory? That is a real fear that I have, a real question that I want asked, and if in fact the situation that I understand with the OFA being in debt right now, $140,000 this year and they had an ongoing debt from before -- I'm not privy to the amount totally, but they're sitting with an accumulated debt there. If they have to start turning around a bunch of cheques and sending them back out, I wonder at what point in time the bank might try to realize on its security and therefore put the OFA in the bind of not being able to return all of the cheques to the farmers.
Who is going to guarantee those cheques back to the farmers asking for a rebate? Is it going to be the government of the day? Are they going to have the money, or is the political will going to be there? Would it not in fact be an awful lot handier at that point in time to make this situation mandatory rather than start handing these cheques back? It's certainly cheaper for the government.
Those are the fears that I have. Maybe they're unfounded. I don't happen to think so.
1040
Mr Wood: The only comment I would make is that some of the other organizations that have come forward and made presentations are saying that whichever farm organization it is, if they want to increase their membership and to have a viable organization to lobby on behalf of the farmers, whether it be the Silent Majority or whether it be the Ontario federation of farmers, it's in their best interest to get the cheques back as promptly as possible if somebody doesn't want to join. It's in their best interest to represent the people to the best of their ability, to broaden their scope and be there.
Mr Danbrook: That's true. I realize that they would probably want to expedite getting those cheques back, but on the other hand, it also creates a list for the OFA or the CFFO to go out and canvass these people one on one and it creates the situation where farmers could be under more pressure to join these groups down the road than they are now, or to not seek a refund.
Mr Wood: Okay. That's all I have, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Mr Cooper, very quickly.
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Yes, Mr Danbrook. You made the comment that maybe because of apathy the people may not ask for the refunds. I know right at the end of your presentation you talk about hangers-on and things like that. Other presenters have come forward and the comment has been made that maybe it's because of apathy that people haven't registered with some of the GFOs. What do you think of that?
Mr Danbrook: I think there's a degree of that too, yes. I'm not going to sit here and deny something that I think is right. I think that's a very real problem. I don't choose to belong to these organizations. As I pointed out before, I think I have reasonable rights to suggest why I don't want to belong. On the other hand, I'm involved with the pork producers as a director.
What I resent more than anything else is the fact that over the last four or five years, and especially since we've been involved with this, there's been a number of incidents with name-calling involved. I've been called a freeloader and a scab more times than I like to admit. A letter to a rural paper from the Perth county OFA president indicated that the members of the OFA were the wheat in our county and the rest of us were the chaff. That does nothing to reinforce my opinion of the OFA.
Mr Cooper: Just a yes or no answer. You used to be a member of the OFA. Did you get your money's worth, the $145? Do you feel you got your money's worth, yes or no?
Mr Danbrook: Well, it was only about $50 at the time, and I can't say I did or didn't. I wasn't an active member.
The Chair: We have exhausted the original half-hour allocation. There is some time remaining, if there are questions. If it's the unanimous consent of the committee to continue with this witness for another five or 10 minutes, that's fine with me.
Mr Villeneuve: Do you agree, sir?
Mr Danbrook: I'd love it. I'm enjoying it.
The Chair: Are we on board?
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Mr Chairman, I have a question, not so much of this particular deputant but rather to the ministry staff.
The Chair: Would you wish to deal with that now or perhaps when we're finished with the witness and then deal with it? We have enough time.
Mr Offer: Sure.
The Chair: Further questions for the witness?
Mr Villeneuve: With the fact that it can be reimbursed, and many people have expressed concern as to the time factor for reimbursing, will you be registering with one of the GFOs as a pork producer if this bill goes through?
Mr Danbrook: Will I be registering with one of the GFOs as a pork producer?
Mr Villeneuve: As a pork producer and as a farmer.
Mr Danbrook: I can't afford not to. My tax rebate is important. The threat of the loss of that is enough of a deterrent that I'm going to register. As much as I like or don't like this thing, my wallet is the bottom line there.
Mr Villeneuve: You don't have to answer, but do you intend to apply for reimbursement of the $150?
Mr Danbrook: Yes. I do right now, simply because of what I've gone through in the last year and a half. I have fought this thing tooth and nail, and out of principle, if this thing is not made more democratic, then -- like, the $150 is not even going to come close to reimbursing me for my phone calls, but it's a start. We've put a lot of work and effort into what we've done, and we've worked hard at it. I guess out of principle I simply wouldn't at this point support one of the lobby groups.
Mr Villeneuve: The province of Quebec is receiving federal and provincial money, $40 million worth -- it's in the Toronto Star this morning -- regarding further exploring the pork industry and the dairy industry as to new markets, niche markets, whatever. Would you feel that the province of Quebec, because of its strong lobbying by UPA, possibly got this where maybe Ontario didn't ask? We seem to be following the lead of many Quebec producers in that they explore new areas and then we find out about them as farmers.
Right now we're going through some very, very difficult economic times in the rural agricultural communities. They are suffering. If you sell grain, you would have sold grain at a higher price in 1980, and a considerably higher price than you would be getting for grain now. You're a pork producer. If you don't produce grain, that's a benefit to you. Therein again we go back to that dichotomy.
But going back to UPA and the way they lobby in Quebec -- I wish I had brought the article with me -- there is I believe $40 million of investigative new markets, looking at the American markets. As a pork producer I'm sure you're very concerned as to what's happening with our exports to the US. That's probably what your meeting is all about. But do you feel a lobby group that we now have -- they admittedly tell us they cannot fight the war on all of the fronts. Do you not feel that a somewhat better organized, better funded group could do a better job?
Mr Danbrook: Certainly a better funded group could do a better job. The difference in your opinion and mine is that I think they have to deserve those funds and you're saying they should be legislated. That to me is part of the problem.
Going a bit further back, the UPA might be able to take credit for that $40 million you're talking about or it could be just a more progressive attitude from the government in the first place. I realize that right now we are following in a lot of situations. We're following the Quebec government, letting it take the lead.
To give the UPA the credit? I'm not sure that they deserve it or don't deserve it. I personally don't know the situation well enough. I think any lobby group that's effective and maybe prioritizes its issues and spends a lot of time maybe could achieve improved results, but maybe you look at your budget and you prioritize based on your budget and do what you can instead of trying to be all things to all farmers when you can't.
Mr Villeneuve: The refundability aspect I think is a most positive aspect of Bill 42 which was not in Bill 105, and the question went to Carl Sulliman, who is the chief administrative officer, "How many increased participants or members of the OFA do you feel you will have?" His answer was, "Exactly what we deserve." I think you're saying the same thing in a slightly different way. If their membership goes up, they may have deserved more members. If their membership goes down, this may well be the offshoot of them not deserving. Do you not feel that is a fairly good safeguard for the short period of time until we have a look at the legislation again?
Mr Danbrook: I'm willing to accept that in the short term, but I think there have to be not just amendments that indicate "may" down the road. "Shall" is a good word. "Will" is another word I would like to see used in any amendments, and I believe that amendment should include a vote, or the possibility of a vote at least. Farmers in this province deserve that right.
If we don't get the vote among ourselves, and we know what we want or don't want, then it's going to be settled -- and no offence to the urban MPPs in this room. I respect that you're not from the farm, but you don't know what we want as well as we do. Give us the right to vote on what we want or don't want. If, in fact, stable funding is the buttered bread that it's supposed to be and 51% of the farmers favour it, I'll shut up and go home. I said that before.
1050
Mr Villeneuve: But if you take your money back --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Villeneuve. Mr Cleary.
Mr Villeneuve: Could I just finish my --
The Chair: Mr Cleary.
Mr Cleary: Thank you, across there. One thing we didn't much about is the tribunal in this half hour. It was mentioned here about who might sit on that tribunal, once the minister makes the decision, and it was said that we didn't want or it wasn't suggested that anyone close to a farm organization, like a director, should sit on that tribunal. Would you have some comments on who you might like to see sit on that tribunal?
Mr Danbrook: I'll go back to the meeting in Kurtzville that we had. The second meeting that we had in Kurtzville, a Mennonite bishop and his family came to the meeting. That's a rarity in itself, having Mennonites participate actively in meetings or at least even passively sitting there. This one came to the microphone and he said to Elbert van Donkersgoed, who was sitting at the front, and I'm paraphrasing because I can't quote him now, but "Who can you put on a tribunal that has the right to question my religion?"
I guess if people are going to ask, for a religious reason, to be opted out of it, then you're certainly going to need somebody who is an awful lot more qualified than a farmer to tell him that he's not close enough to God to get his exemption. I don't know who should be on the tribunal and maybe I'm not being very constructive, John. But it's going to take some awfully intelligent people, and I think it's got to be independent of the OFA and the CFFO and anybody who can benefit from it, because obviously there would be a bias there to include everybody because you've got more opportunity to be funded then. I guess I'd have a real problem with that. I think you're probably right, an independent. But how can you judge a man's religion?
Mr Cleary: I know that that tribunal will be one of the keys that will make this work or not work, just the people on that tribunal. That's one thing that I as a member am very concerned about. I'd just like to thank you for your remarks, what you said and the way you feel about it. That was my question.
The Chair: Mr Danbrook, I would like to thank you, on behalf of the committee, for taking the time to be with us this morning and spending extra time in terms of questioning from committee members. I, for one, certainly enjoyed the exchanges that took place. They were most enlightening. I trust that you'll stay in touch with Bill 42 as it proceeds through the process, either through the clerk of the committee or through any member of the committee or your own sitting MPP. Again, I'd just like to thank you very sincerely for taking some time and putting a very candid point of view across. Thank you very much.
Mr Danbrook: Thank you, Mr Huget. Could I have one more minute, please?
The Chair: You certainly can.
Mr Danbrook: I would like to share with you something that a neighbour told me the other day. Apparently, Mr Buchanan had been touring Africa recently. I wasn't aware of this. But he was covering some of the agricultural areas over there and as part of it, he was asked to give a speech to some of the local natives, none of whom spoke English, so he got up on this little wagon and got an interpreter beside him and he said: "Good afternoon. I'm Elmer Buchanan. I'm the Minister of Agriculture and Food in the province of Ontario in the country of Canada," and the interpreter did his job. He spoke to the natives and they all stamped their feet, clapped their hands and yelled, "Huzanga, huzanga." That is pretty good, so he went on and said, "Yes, I'm one of the chief architects of Bill 42, which is going to provide stable funding for the farm groups in my province." Again, the interpreter did his job and the natives clapped and cheered and yelled, "Huzanga, huzanga," and he said, "Yes, under my direction the farmers will all pay into this fund." Again the interpreter did his thing and they all cheered and yelled, "Huzanga, huzanga." So he finished his speech and came off the little wagon and he was walking around through this field of cattle with the interpreter, just chatting, and he said, "You know, that was really great the way they received me back there, all that cheering and yelling." About this point, he's walking past this cattle beast and the interpreter looks down and he says, "Be careful, Mr Buchanan, you'll step in that huzanga."
The Chair: Your comments are noted, Mr Danbrook. Thank you very much. Mr Offer, you have a point of clarification.
Mr Offer: I have two matters that I'd like to raise. One I believe is just a drafting matter for my edification and, secondly, I think one of a more substantive matter. In the application for accreditation, it says that an organization can apply to the tribunal to become an accredited farm organization. It doesn't say -- and I haven't been able to find it; maybe it does -- that in order to become an accredited farm organization they must meet certain criteria, and I think, from the purposes of the bill, as set out in the regulations.
From a drafting point of view, is there the need for potential farm organizations to know that there are criteria that they have to meet that may be found in the regulations, or not? Is there some link, some bridge that has to be found in the legislation? That's just a drafting question from my perspective, but would you like me to ask the --
The Chair: Mr Klopp, would you care to respond to the question?
Mr Klopp: Your point's taken. We can deal with that and we can go through clause-by-clause and unless Louise or someone has a right up-tight answer on that very technical point right now and can do it short and sweet, we can deal with it now --
Mr Offer: I just don't know if that bridge is necessary.
The Chair: Ms Stratford, legal counsel, has joined the committee for a second or two. Go ahead.
Ms Louise Stratford: I would direct you, Mr Offer, to section 6 of the bill, wherein it says that the tribunal must determine that the prescribed criteria are met before it can make the order.
Mr Offer: Okay, right. Thank you. That is helpful. My second question deals with a more substantive point. I note in the document that was provided by the ministry it says that one of the criteria is that the GFO contribute at least 25% of revenue from membership to the local organization level. When I've read the legislation, there is not a word of that requirement in legislative form, and I'm wondering if there is something which I have missed or if there is, in fact, any legislative requirement that a GFO send 25% of the money that it collects from the farmers of this province to the local organizations.
Mr Klopp: The deputy seems to have the right page on this right away, so we'll let her do it.
Ms Burak: I think, Mr Offer, you're speaking to the issue of whether or not the accreditation criteria are listed anywhere in the legislation or the regs, are you?
Mr Offer: I know that the accreditation criteria are not listed in the legislation and they are not listed in the regulation; rather, the only thing that's found in the regulation is that there is a list that's going to be prepared, but it's not in the regulation, which is another issue. But there seems to be, from my perspective, an important aspect in the bill, and that is that the dollars that are collected on registration from the ministry are forwarded to the accredited GFOs. The GFOs, as they are accredited, must, according to this document, send at least 25% to the local organizations. My understanding from these hearings is that those local organizations are very -- they're essential. I haven't seen in legislation where the local organizations can point to any government and say, "Listen, in the legislation, in Bill 42, it says that a GFO is supposed to send at least 25% to us." That isn't there, and I just wondered if I've missed that or not.
1100
Ms Burak: You're right. It's not there. But again, it speaks to the issue of the fact that none of the accreditation criteria are in the act. I guess the issue for the local organizations, being concerned about whether or not they're getting 25% of the funds, is an issue that can be brought forward, just as other elements of the accreditation criteria would be coming forward to the tribunal.
Mr Offer: Well then, my last question -- I'm cognizant of time.
The Chair: Very quickly; we have witnesses waiting.
Mr Offer: But to the parliamentary assistant, as a policy matter, I understand that the criteria for accreditation are going to be found in regulation, and we all know that changes in regulation can occur outside of the legislative process. People will always have opinions on that. But on the matter of the local organization receiving at least 25%, as a policy matter, do you not believe that at least that be put in legislative form so as to guarantee to the local organizations a security that as the GFOs will receive the funds, as are in the legislation, so do the local organizations?
Mr Klopp: Very quickly, the local organization is one and the same as the GFO, and so to put it in, in reality, that will not be a problem because it's the same people who are at the local organization level who are also part of the big parent group. It's like your arm is part of your body, if I can put it that way; maybe it's a bad example. So to put it in the bill, that it's going to be 25% rather than the reg, there may be a time when they want to go higher than that, higher than 25%.
You're right; you can change regulations. However, in the real world out there of that GFO that gets accredited, that will take care of itself with that organization. It does not have to be in the bill.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klopp.
CARL W. BOLTON
The Chair: The next scheduled witness is Carl Bolton, if you could come forward.
Mr Carl W. Bolton: Good morning.
The Chair: Good morning, Mr Bolton. You've been allocated one half-hour to make your presentation to the committee this morning. We would appreciate about 15 minutes of that, if it's possible, for questions and answers from committee members. So proceed at your leisure.
Mr Bolton: Certainly. Good morning. My name is Carl Bolton. I'm a fifth-generation Huron county farmer, which is in the riding of Mr Klopp.
Mr Chairman, committee, ladies and gentlemen, is Bill 42 in the public's best interests? Thank you for allowing me to express my concerns about Bill 42. I would ask that the members of the committee set aside their views on specific farm organizations for a moment and consider Bill 42 from the viewpoint of the public.
Of greatest concern is the compulsory annual registration and collection of prescribed information pertaining to all businesses affected by this act. Many do not participate in government programs for a variety of reasons: religion, retirement, administrative costs or overall ineffectiveness of programs. Programs requirements such as land ownership or income from other sources sometimes disqualify participants. They too will be required to provide the prescribed information.
It was first suggested that only name, address and phone number would be required. Now it is being suggested that certain financial and personal information similar to that already collected through government programs must be provided yearly. In the future, the regulation pertaining to the prescribed information may be modified by the minister by order in council without debate in the Legislature. The prescribed information requirements will undoubtedly become very extensive and detailed.
Should all businesses and small private enterprises in other industries be legislated to provide prescribed information under similar legislation? Will it be used to regulate the incomes and lives of individuals and businesses within the industry? What will the government do with this information? According to the act, the minister may use the prescribed information for prescribed purposes, which again may be modified by the minister by order in council. The possibilities become endless. I fear Bill 42 will become an example for other industries and organizations without the best interests of the public being considered.
The other issue of major concern is the government accreditation of lobby groups and collection of their funding. The main objective of lobby groups is to lobby the government for legislation and/or assistance, often pursuant to a single ideal or goal for or against a single industry. Is it wise for the government to provide legislation, manpower and resources to collect and distribute these funds whether refundable or not to such organizations? If funds are given voluntarily, without fear of reprisal or denial of benefits, legislation is not needed because it serves no purpose.
Would the tribunal which is to rule on the eligibility of other organizations allow groups that hold views different from those of the grandfathered organizations to be accredited? It would be difficult to obtain an unbiased decision if any remuneration or members of the grandfathered organizations are part of this tribunal. The decisions of the tribunal are final. No appeal process is available for accreditation, religious exemptions and cultural special funding decisions of the tribunal.
All of these issues are redundant if the funds are to be truly voluntary. However, I believe this is not the case and in a very short time funding will again be compulsory as stated in Bill 105.
If ultimately these lobby or union dues are to become non-refundable or compulsory, a mandate supported by a definite majority of those involved must be clearly demonstrated. In addition it is not known who will determine the prescribed amounts of these dues in the future. If control of the organization and its funding does not lie solely with its members, the integrity of the organization and the government will be lost.
I fear that Bill 42 will become the reference for funding to other groups involved in other industries and issues. The public would not be served if governments are perceived to be governing by special-interest ideals rather than the majority.
In summary, Bill 42 is an accumulation of mass information and sponsorship of an inefficient funding scheme. It is a definite encroachment into the lives of private individuals and family farm businesses. It is a waste of public resources. Money, time and manpower resources could be better utilized enhancing areas such as education, research and market development to ensure long-term advances in agriculture and other industries.
Considering all the flaws, perceptions and consequences of Bill 42 on agriculture and the public, I ask this committee and the government to reconsider Bill 42 and act accordingly. The conclusion is obvious that Bill 42 is not in the public's best interests.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): Thank you. Questions and comments? We have about seven minutes for each caucus.
Mr Villeneuve: Mr Bolton, thank you very much for coming down from Huron county this morning to make your presentation. You are actively involved in farming?
Mr Bolton: Yes, I'm a full-time farmer. I have no outside income.
Mr Villeneuve: Did you at any time ever belong to the OFA or Christian Farmers?
Mr Bolton: No, I have not, but my father has.
Mr Villeneuve: You simply make a statement here that it is not in the public's best interests. Are you aware of the activities of UPA in the province of Quebec?
Mr Bolton: Only very little.
Mr Villeneuve: They are a very strong lobby group. They do research, they do market research, they do a number of things that you say should be done instead of this. This becomes part of it, and I'm not sure just how heavily involved, I guess the adequacy of funding will be the determinant factor as to whether Christian Farmers, OFA or whoever the GFOs are can do some of this for farmers at the request of farmers. If this bill goes through, do you intend on registering?
Mr Bolton: I'm required to.
Mr Villeneuve: No.
Mr Bolton: Yes, according to my copy.
Mr Villeneuve: You're required to but --
Mr Bolton: I'm required to according to my copy of the act that was sent to me by Mr Buchanan. I carry on a farm business and I have an annual gross income. From the number that's being mentioned at $7,000, I'm well above that as a gross income.
Mr Villeneuve: I don't think you need register, simply you would be forgoing some of the farm tax rebate, for example.
Mr Bolton: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it says, "A person shall file with the ministry a completed registration form." That's what I read in it.
Mr Villeneuve: Okay.
Mr Bolton: I am required to register. Now I can ask for a refund.
Mr Villeneuve: Yes, do you intend then asking for a refund?
Mr Bolton: Yes.
Mr Villeneuve: At that point in time, you will no longer have any say in the two GFOs that will be in place, the OFA and the Christian Farmers.
1110
Mr Bolton: They are not the only two agricultural groups in the province. In addition, I'm a member of several commodity groups which have paid fees to one of those organizations. So through them, I still have a voice.
Mr Villeneuve: Through them, you would have a voice.
Agriculture is a somewhat different type of business in that we agricultural producers are into producing commodities that are in a lot of instances perishable and the situation where you have very little say in your cost production and very little say in the farm-gate cost of what you've produced. Do you not feel that somewhere -- and I know commodity groups do it to a certain degree -- an umbrella organization should be looking for the benefit of agriculture per se as opposed to the pork producers, the dairy producers, the feather producers, the grain producers?
Mr Bolton: I've asked that this be considered from the viewpoint of the public or other industries. Should all small store owners form an umbrella organization legislated by the government to do the same thing? I'm not saying that lobby groups do not do good things, nor that lobby groups don't do research. The logging industry, the people who oppose that industry, they obviously do research, and who's to say whether they are doing good or bad. Should we all donate money to them if we can ask for a refund? I'm comparing it to a broad situation, not just agriculture.
Mr Villeneuve: But you continue to compare your corner store in downtown rural Ontario to the farm down the road. Is there a real, legitimate comparison here?
Mr Bolton: In the sense we have to carry on as a business, and we do or I won't have a livelihood. I'll have to give it up.
Mr Villeneuve: I will yield to my colleague.
Mr Murdoch: Do you object then to the register of the farmer?
Mr Bolton: Yes.
Mr Murdoch: Do you get your farm tax rebate?
Mr Bolton: Yes, I do, but I know others who don't even own land.
Mr Murdoch: No, we're just talking about you.
Mr Bolton: Yes.
Mr Murdoch: Do you fill out the form there?
Mr Bolton: Yes, I do.
Mr Murdoch: So basically it's the same sort of thing. We've seen a draft copy and it's not a lot more information that's going to be on the registration. You do register now?
Mr Bolton: Yes, because I'm already on the tax roll, the information --
Mr Murdoch: No, but you still fill out the form. You have no problem filling out the form to get your tax rebate?
Mr Bolton: No. I fill it out because the program's there. I'd be foolish not to.
Mr Murdoch: I agree.
Mr Bolton: And it asks basically your name, address and phone number. This legislation goes beyond that. The form that I just received a couple of minutes ago is asking education and age, and I ask the government, "From this form what kind of policy could you develop?" You're going to need more information than this to develop an effective policy.
Mr Murdoch: Maybe not.
Mr Bolton: We don't just need specific programs. We need an overall policy. The OFA, for example, opposed free trade. I was in favour of free trade because I think overall, on agriculture and other industries, it had a great effect.
Mr Murdoch: If you're a member then, you could go to the meetings and do your opposing right at the meetings. I didn't always agree with my federation in my county and one time I thought I should quit. Then I thought it's my fault, if I don't go and object. I'm a member and I have that right to go and object to what they're doing. Obviously in the end the majority will rule, which is okay. If I can't get my point across, then I guess maybe I'm in the minority. If we don't belong, then we don't have a right to go and complain. It's sort of the same as if you don't vote, you really have no right to complain to the governments that are there.
Mr Bolton: That's right. I believe that you should vote.
Mr Murdoch: Okay.
Mr Bolton: But I also believe that if I don't agree with the NDP government that I shouldn't join their party as opposed to a different party.
Mr Murdoch: No, but you have voted and you have a right to go to their meetings and tell them that you don't agree with what they're doing or you have the right to come here to all the meetings that we have now, and this is why you're here today, because this is a proposal put forward by the government of the day and you're here to voice your opinion. If you hadn't voted, then maybe you wouldn't have had as much credibility, but since you say you voted, you have all the credibility in the world, you have the right to come here. So that's what I'm trying to point out. But the fact is that you can get your money back.
Now, I know what you're saying. You're saying, "All right, we're still forced to do it," and that may be to a point. But I think this is a chance farmers have never had before in the history of Canada. I think that now they have a chance to have a strong lobby voice to do the things that, in your brief, should be done. They're going to be able to do that if they have an effective voice at Queen's Park, an effective voice and enough money to be able to do that. But if the bottom line is that you don't want to belong, which is your right, you can require your money back. Do you not think that's good enough?
Mr Bolton: No, I really believe that I shouldn't be asked to join one of these two organizations listed. Should you have to join Greenpeace or any other lobby group for any other industry?
Mr Murdoch: You're comparing now and you're getting into different -- you can talk about that and you can talk, like Noble said, about the corner stores; it's the same as the farm. I don't believe you can compare whatever happens in the world, different things, to farming. Farming is farming and that's what we're with.
I suppose if you, in your wisdom, decided that lobby groups such as Greenpeace and that should have some legislation like that, you could lobby the government and we'd have to see where that would go. That's a whole separate identity in itself. This is strictly for the farming industry and as to whether it will help the farming industry or not. I know you said you didn't think it would help the public at large.
I think a lot of us are concerned whether we're going to help farming or not. Farming, we think and a lot of people think, is in trouble and does need some help. This would be one way of doing it. Obviously a lot of people agree and there are some who disagree.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Murdoch. Mr Hansen and Mr Waters.
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): You said you belonged to one of the commodity groups.
Mr Bolton: Yes.
Mr Hansen: Which commodity group was it?
Mr Bolton: I belong to the pork producers, the beef producers, the bean board, the wheat board, the seed growers, the local fair board.
Mr Hansen: Okay. Some of these commodity groups that you belong to you have a certain interest in there, because you raise pork. Correct?
Mr Bolton: Yes.
Mr Hansen: In order to sell your pork, would you have to belong to the pork producers on a larger scale?
Mr Bolton: You have to market your pork through the pork board. That is legislated. Fees are deducted from your cheque.
Mr Hansen: Did you have a choice here to be a member, or did you ask for your funds back?
Mr Bolton: I don't believe I can ask for my funds back from the pork board. Now the beef, which was voluntary, is compulsory.
Mr Hansen: Do you feel this is fair in the pork producers?
Mr Bolton: The cattlemen's, which I'm most familiar with because that changed when I became a full-time farmer, was done on a vote of the actual producers. So I accepted that.
Mr Hansen: As it is today, do you feel it's right that you pay into the pork producers a fee?
Mr Bolton: It was decided on by the members, therefore I have to accept that, yes.
Mr Hansen: Is there any objection today from the pork producers, or would everybody like to be on their own?
Mr Bolton: There's quite a discussion now being concerned that one corporation or farm business wants to ship its hogs to the US and the pork board is not allowing that. So there is dissension.
Mr Hansen: But overall, most of the pork producers are agreeable that the pork producers are looking after the pork producers. Is that correct?
Mr Bolton: To the best of my knowledge. I'm not a director of that board.
Mr Hansen: I take a look at a lot of the producers. They're all, as you said, associated with the OFA. Are there any programs -- I'm not going to just say the OFA. I know these ones are, but they could be associated with the Christian Farmers also and some other farm organizations. Is there anything that you receive as a pork producer not paying as an OFA member as it is right now? Are there any benefits that you receive of these groups belonging to the OFA?
Mr Bolton: I'm not familiar with all the programs. Your question is?
Mr Hansen: Okay, you're a pork producer?
Mr Bolton: Yes.
Mr Hansen: The pork producers of Ontario, I believe, contribute to the OFA.
Mr Bolton: Yes.
Mr Hansen: Are there any benefits that you see as a pork producer coming back to you through the OFA?
Mr Bolton: Because I haven't been a member of the OFA directly, I'm not sure if they've been involved and how much they've been involved in the tripartite stabilization program that's now nearly finished. Conversely, OFA has been in strong support of supply management, but the pork board has repeatedly turned that down.
Mr Hansen: But wouldn't you say that the OFA -- I'm saying OFA because I know, in my own particular area, it supports pork producers. When there's a county fair, you see the OFA sign and you see the pork producers there also; you see the different commodity groups. OFA seems to be a group that pulls all these commodity groups together to have a display at a county fair. I take a look at -- they are doing something for you.
1120
To wind up being a member -- and maybe the pork producers -- I've asked this question of other farmers coming forward and representatives from the farm community. The OFA for one, I know, has a dental program, has some other safety benefits and safe farm programs, pamphlets going out to farmers to make them aware of certain chemicals and maybe chemical effects which maybe the government hasn't done, but it's picked up some of these loose ends here. Do you agree this is something you would benefit from if you were a member of this organization, or do you have this with the pork producers?
Mr Bolton: I don't disagree with the fact that the OFA does some good things. I won't dispute that. But what I do dispute is being forced to join.
Mr Hansen: No, you're not being forced to join, because you can ask for a refund.
Mr Bolton: It's costing me if I don't want to join. It's costing me money not to join, because I have to take the time and write a cheque, which the bank charges me to write, and send it in with a 40-cent stamp and the envelope and then I have to wait while my money's tied up somewhere else to get it back. I have to take time to ask for it back. That's all cost. So to say I'm not being forced to do anything -- I'm being forced to get my money back that I don't want to give in the first place, at this time.
In the future, I may want to join. There was a time when I was canvassed. My father was a member. We felt, because we worked so close together, that one membership was enough. There would never be two of us at a meeting at one time anyway, and we were satisfied with one voice. But the people felt this wasn't correct, that I too should join and put in another $150.
Mr Hansen: I know we've only got seven minutes. I have to leave some time for my colleague here.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Waters, one quick question.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): It was pretty much what my colleague Mr Hansen was getting at. As an all-party committee -- and most of us actually, on this committee, are rural members -- we have great concern about farming. I represent the riding of Muskoka and when I grew up there were a lot of farms. There are virtually none. There are maybe three or four farms of any -- maybe three maximum of any size. I live on a 100-acre dairy farm that now grows 98 acres of scrub brush and a couple acres of lawn. None of us wants to see this continue. I think that's what the effort is, to work with the farm community and the organizations that represent the farm community to try to find a better way to save the land and save farming.
I don't see in the legislation where you have to join. Yes, you have to register and that registration costs you the price of a cheque that you can get back and the price of a stamp. The registration part is one, but the OFA, as I understand it -- all it would get, if that was your chosen one, is your name and address, where to return the cheque to or to send a cheque back to you. They don't get all the information, as I understand it.
Mr Bolton: No, the government gets that. But then it's up to the minister to use it at his discretion. It even says in here, "to develop mailing lists." It says, "prescribed purposes." That can be open to anything.
Mr Waters: But that way, don't you think the government should know the crops that the farmers are indeed doing so they can create a comprehensive way of marketing or working with the farmers? I just see that for so many years it's been hodgepodge. We've lost pretty much all our farming, even the ones -- we lost all 9 or 10 dairies. We have nothing left in Muskoka. Part of my riding is north Simcoe. I get concerned about this spreading south. When I go over to eastern Ontario, I see all this vacant land sitting there. I think we have to work somehow. I would assume that we have to work with the organizations.
Mr Bolton: Agreed, but the government shouldn't be seen as part of their funding. You lose your integrity. Who's going to sit on this tribunal? Who's going to rule on it?
Mr Cleary: Thank you for your presentation. Have you seen a copy of the draft registration form?
Mr Bolton: Yes. I just got it a couple of minutes ago.
Mr Cleary: Are you satisfied with that or do you feel that there should be things added or deleted?
Mr Bolton: There's nothing that offends me on the form, but what can you develop from that? What kind of program can you develop from that? I'm at a loss what kind of program you could develop from that information. They're going to, obviously, have to ask for more information, which I then become opposed to.
Part of the problem with negotiations with the United States is that our programs have influenced the production of one commodity or another. So how is the government -- if it has the list of all the crops that are grown, for example, what kind of policy is it going to try and set from that? If you want to increase the price of pork somehow, do you shut the border when we can produce more than we eat? Then at the same time, okay, you raise the price of pork. Are you then going to turn around and control the price of the combine or the machinery, the inputs? If you really want to fix this net income, you've got to fix both sides of the equation, not just one.
Mr Cleary: I just wanted to get your concerns on the record there.
The other thing that you had mentioned about in your presentation -- you talk a little bit about Huron county. Do you think this bill will split the agricultural community more than it is now once this bill goes through, or do you feel that the problem will be worse or better afterwards?
Mr Bolton: I think it will remain divisive, probably about where it is. I don't see any improvement or getting worse. The people who oppose it are going to continue to oppose it because the issues haven't been decided one way or the other.
Mr Cleary: Is there quite a bit of opposition in your community?
Mr Bolton: We have a small seed business and farmers come in a lot of the time and even OFA members feel there should be a vote, and the other thing is we don't need to fill out another government form. Those are probably the two main concerns of people who have talked to me. They're not going to storm the government if this goes through, but I believe there's opposition to its being done. Why should these be the only two groups listed? There was another group listed and now it has dropped out for special reasons.
Another point is the francophone community. If they're representing the farmers and meet all the criteria, why are they not listed as a grandfather organization, or is there only one francophone group that represents the francophone community? I don't know because I'm not familiar with them. Who decides how much their special funding is? Maybe they'll be unhappy with the situation. I don't know. There's nothing spelled out how much they get. Does my money -- if, say, my money goes to the OFA, is the $150 going to the OFA or how much is going to the francophone community? It's not clear in the bill.
To say that you can process these forms without any cost, I guess in a light comment I would have to say, are they going to do that on their 10 days off? It costs money to process a form. It costs money to have that person sit there and process that form.
Mr Cleary: The other thing, would you care to comment a bit on the tribunal? Are you comfortable with the way that's going to be set up? Would you offer the committee some advice on the way you think it should be set up?
Mr Bolton: To be fair, the money can't come from the grandfather organizations. It would be seen to be biased, again, with members sitting on it. As in any deciding committee or a jury or maybe a judicial system chosen from the public, they would have to sit on that. I don't think it could be the grandfathered organizations through money or members.
1130
The other concern -- they say the government's not spending any money on this tribunal. Who is going to pay for this tribunal? It's not said. It says the Lieutenant Governor will see that they and their staff are paid. So who is paying for that?
Mr Cleary: I take from your comments that you feel there should be some type of an appeal process?
Mr Bolton: Yes. I think with every decision, there's usually some method of appeal through the court or somewhere. There should be some kind of appeal process for people to turn to.
Mrs Fawcett: I thank you for coming. Just to follow up on the question on the registration forms that my colleague started, I think possibly one of the ideas was to get a handle on the numbers of farmers and the numbers of particular farmers in a commodity grouping and that maybe, when formulating policy, you could get more ideas from a larger group. More farmers would become aware of what is proposed and possibly then the ministry could formulate policy that is going to be better. Any comments on that? Rather than being absolutely specific and asking all kinds of questions, at least if you get a handle on the numbers, and you know who's who and who's in which kind of farming, then you could go from there.
Mr Bolton: A lot of the commodity boards and groups have all these numbers pertaining to their specific commodities and the OFA could obtain those numbers, or the government could obtain those numbers, for any one of those commodity groups.
Mrs Fawcett: I guess this was just possibly a way of centralizing that and getting it on this particular registration form and then having it central.
Mr Bolton: But to hand an individual --
Mrs Fawcett: And a complete update.
Mr Bolton: All pork sales are through the pork board, as an example, so I mean it's an easy number. It's available. If the OFA is the central gathering house, it's already there for its use already. What was the other part of your question? Was it basically the numbers and the number of farmers?
Mrs Fawcett: Just so that information could go out if a particular policy was being formulated to a wider number of people and a more up-to-date list.
Mr Bolton: When any legislation comes out, or programs, the OMAF extension branches are there for that purpose. They run ads in newspapers for informing farmers and if they're truly interested in that program, it's up to them to participate. There's usually lots of opportunity to do that.
The Chair: Mr Klopp, on a point of clarification.
Mr Klopp: Thank you very much. Your comments today were interesting. Just on a point of clarification with regard to the registration: It was always our intent -- Elmer was very clear about that from day one -- that he wanted a lot simpler snapshot form to know how many farmers are out there and give a very general but a very precise way to see information. That was always there. What maybe the confusion is, that is going to stay with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. That stays there. What would go to the general farm organizations, where your cheque would be going to, is just your name and address, and maybe your telephone number. That wasn't something that came up in the last week or five weeks or whatever. That was always there.
With regard to the information, we didn't say it wasn't going to cost less. We didn't say we were going to spend any more money on this gathering of information. In fact, as you pointed out, we have many ways of asking for information in the ministry and whatever. My hope is that now we're going to be able to streamline some of that. Indeed, it will happen, because we're very conscious of government dollar spending. So I truly do believe that this is going to help us.
We also heard a comment that this is going to be the end-all and be-all of policy-setting. It is not. It's going to be a tool.
You mentioned the commodity boards. In fact, it even confuses commodity boards somewhat, because for example the federation says it represents 20,000 farmers and the corn association in all intensity says, "We're representing 20,000." If you add up all the groups that come in, you can have hundreds of thousands of farmers. There's a lot of overlap. So indeed it really is a better way to streamline that.
I just wanted to make that point clear, because there were no surprises. I'm sorry if it got out that way.
The Chair: Would you care to respond to that, Mr Bolton?
Mr Bolton: Is there anything in the regulations which can be changed that states that that's all the information those groups are going to get?
Mr Klopp: It's in the bill that the farm organizations will be getting your cheque to that organization of your choice, the GFO.
Mr Bolton: Could you specifically point that out in the act?
Mr Klopp: Section 20, I believe, and section 3. I haven't got my book right in front of me here.
The Chair: I remind the committee that we have a group of witnesses waiting in the audience who are scheduled to appear at 11:30. If some of these issues can be dealt with in the room somehow, we'd appreciate it.
Mr Klopp: Yes. Maybe counsel can --
Mr Bolton: I see the point you're mentioning, section 3, but something I would think that would overrule that is that the minister can use this information for prescribed purposes. If he decides that maybe more information is required by these groups, then he could change the regulation and provide that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bolton. The parliamentary assistant and members of the ministry staff are here, and if you wish to further discuss that specific issue, they're certainly available for you to talk to them. Mr Stroeter is here, walking by, and I think if you have some questions, you may wish to speak to him as well.
The committee would like to thank you for taking the time to come this morning and present your views. They're important to the committee, and your views and yourself have played an important role in the process. We trust that you'll keep in touch with the committee as Bill 42 proceeds through its process, either through the clerk of the committee or any member of this committee or indeed your own MPP. Thank you very much for coming this morning.
BRUCE COUNTY FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
The Chair: The next scheduled witness is the Bruce County Federation of Agriculture. Good morning, gentlemen, and welcome. Could each of you identify yourselves for the purposes of Hansard, which is recording these proceedings, and then continue with your presentation. You've been allocated one half-hour, and the committee would appreciate about 15 minutes of that half-hour for questions and answers, if you can accommodate it.
Mr Thomas M. Sweiger: Tom Sweiger.
Mr Lloyd Graham: Lloyd Graham.
Mr Byron Monk: My name is Byron Monk and I'm the president of the Bruce County Federation of Agriculture.
Mr Robert A. Bregman: My name is Bob Bregman.
Mr Monk: I have some remarks that I'd like to make to the committee and I've brought some reinforcements with me here to help me out maybe with the questions. We're all OFA members in Bruce county. We're also involved with the Bruce County Federation of Agriculture, obviously, and we're all active participants in the farming industry in Bruce. I think we're all full-time farmers, and this issue is an important one to us. We'd like to thank you for the opportunity of being able to come down here and just make a few remarks about our feelings on this bill.
The county of Bruce has approximately 2,600 census farms and we would call half of those active commercial farms. In the county, we have approximately 900 OFA members. The county federation is affiliated with the OFA, but we are an autonomous group, so some of these questions about the 25% funding and that will have an impact on us and we can talk a little bit about them.
1140
My main message, on behalf of the directors of the county federation, is to tell the committee that we in Bruce do support Bill 42 in the form that it's being presented now, mainly because we've all been members of OFA for many years and we believe firmly in the benefit of having a strong and well-funded general farm organization. In this day and age, money's tight everywhere, and to do the job that a general farm organization must do requires adequate funding. There's no doubt about it, we are looking to this bill to help solve some of that problem.
The farmers are less than 2% of the general population now. My belief is that in this society most interest groups are organized to speak on behalf of their members, and I think it's important in agriculture, being such a small part of the population, that we have a strong, well-funded and unified voice to represent us on the issues of the day.
It's true we have commodity groups. They are more specifically focused to those issues that affect individual commodities, whereas I see the role of the general farm organization dealing with roles such as environment, taxation and financial issues that affect all farmers in every commodity. This is why historically groups such as the pork producers have made a financial contribution to the OFA, to partially compensate it for the work that OFA does on these general farm issues that the individual commodity boards in many cases don't feel they have the time, resources or maybe mandate to look after.
I would say that the farming business is a bit unique. I don't think there are many other sectors where we are organized in small production businesses, versus, say, retail or service, that in many cases are expected to basically compete on a worldwide scale. We know that farmers are organized in all countries of the world, and it's important that we have a strong voice here in Ontario too. In Bruce county we see this bill as being a method to help us in that regard. I think it's important for farmers to look to the positive aspects of what can come out of this instead of looking for some of the minor details, maybe, that might suit us individually. Really, I think the time is to move forward as a strong unified farm voice, and this is the way of the future.
Just on the information-gathering part of the bill, I have to provide that much information to renew a subscription to a farm magazine. They want to know who it is they're serving and what are the topics that you're involved in and interested in. To my mind, the information-gathering aspect of the registration process is really not a major point. It's not a major inconvenience or a major cost to farm operators.
With those remarks, I'm sure it's clear to you that in Bruce county at the federation of agriculture level we do support this initiative to have this registration and the stable funding that goes with it. If there are any questions that myself or my colleagues can answer, maybe that would be most productive.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Before we start with questioning, I'd like to welcome the member for Chatham-Kent, Randy Hope, and the member for Perth, Karen Haslam, who are not regular members of this committee but obviously have interest in agricultural issues and are here with us this morning. We'll start with questions from the government caucus, Mr Hansen.
Mr Hansen: I was just up to Bruce county. I was at Bluewater feed mills, and I had the opportunity to be in that particular area, knowing I'd be on this committee. As different farmers were walking into the feed mill, I asked them the question whether they supported Bill 42. I talked to a couple of Christian Farmers members up there; quite a few had come in there. It may be just the particular area I was in, the Tara area, but I had no opposition. So I felt good coming to the committee, that I've covered a little bit of Ontario, that I had an opinion out on the street rather than just here at Queen's Park. To see people coming forward for and against gives you a good idea of what's out there, because I couldn't find any opposition in my particular area of Lincoln.
The thing is that businesses have been involved with OFA. Why would you say businesses have supported the OFA in the rural community?
Mr Monk: The reason for that is simply that these local businesses are servicing the agricultural needs. They are quite well aware that the health of the agricultural community and the rural economy is directly going to affect their wellbeing as well, and they obviously support the initiatives that OFA takes to enhance the rural economy. It's that simple.
We've developed at the OFA level a supporting membership category where, for a reduced membership, not an active voting membership, these businesses can show their support, and we've had some good luck selling them. Simply, they are aware that there's room for a general farm organization or organizations to try and enhance the lot of rural Ontario.
Mr Hansen: So if businesses believe in it, then the small farm business of a farmer should be investing in his future. You would agree on that one?
Mr Monk: I agree on it and I have since the day I started farming, and my father has too. We've carried two memberships around our place and have been glad to do it. But some people don't and they have the option of opting out, I guess.
Mr Hansen: I'll go on to my other two colleagues so there's a chance.
The Chair: Ms Haslam, Mr Waters.
Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): Basically the funding is for the OFA to be a lobby group. I'd like to know what your definition of a lobby group is and what you see the OFA doing in that area.
Mr Monk: Lobbying would obviously be one of the main roles of OFA. I'm not sure it's the only one, but to try and influence government policy in a way that's beneficial to our members and to try and be in a position to do that while policy is being developed, rather than reacting to it after it's already in place. An example of that might be the tax forces that went around the county this spring. The OFA did a lot of work on that, and we as an individual county made a presentation about the working paper and parts in it that we thought were of interest and could be detrimental to the way we carry on business. That, in my role, is the function of a lobby group.
Mr Waters: You brought up an interesting point about subscriptions to magazines, and the one comment I would have is that at least this information is protected under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, whereas the magazines frequently sell their lists. If you give them any information, they use it to make dollars.
I've heard a lot of comment about the tribunal, and I've just recently joined the committee. I hear the tribunal has a maximum of seven members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and there's concern about that. From your point of view, I would like to hear your comments.
Mr Monk: This is a tribunal to certify new GFOs or to rule on things like religious objection?
Mr Waters: This is the accreditation tribunal.
Mr Monk: I'll be frank with you. I haven't read the latest legislation. Basically we're here in support of our people in Toronto at OFA. Maybe I'm not as cynical as some, but I'm sure we can find people who can make an objective ruling on whether the rules that are set out for accreditation have been met or not.
Mr Waters: Okay then, let's move from that to the other tribunal that would deal with it. Do you have any concerns about who would sit on that or how they would be appointed to that?
Mr Monk: I guess everybody's scared that if you have people with something to gain on the tribunal, ie, members of the GFO, they're going to rule in their own favour. If the money's refundable anyway, what have they to gain? I'm sure we can find objective people again to make a ruling on someone's religious objection. In my view, that's primarily the Mennonite and Amish community. We can identify those people without any difficulty.
1150
Mr Waters: By the way, one of the things that this committee has changed my perspective of is, I really had a feeling that most of our farmers were 60 and over, and I'm glad to see some farmers out there my age and younger practising. So thank you for coming before the committee.
Mr Monk: I might as well say too that we've got a mix of age here, and we have that in our county federation as well. But we have a good, solid group of young farmers in my neighbourhood and in our county, and they're in agriculture with their eyes wide open, because they believe in it and think it's a good future for them. Many, many, many of them are OFA members at this time.
The Chair: Further questions? Mr Hansen, Mr Klopp.
Mr Klopp: On behalf of the minister, I'll just make a comment that we appreciate your taking the time to come in today to give your views. That's what this is all about. We will take them all into consideration when we go through clause-by-clause. Thank you.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have just one question that I would like to ask, and that deals with the flow of dollars. We're talking about a stable funding piece of legislation, and you're a local organization. I'd like to get your thoughts on this. I think that you were watching as I was bringing up this point a little earlier, but the legislation clearly indicates that the dollars flow to the government, are flowed back down to accredited GFOs, and, of course, if somebody wishes a refund, that's there also. But there is nothing in legislation that says that at least 25% of the revenue should be flowed to the local organization level.
As a local organization, I would like to get your thoughts as to whether you would like to see in legislative form, apart from whatever other criteria are necessary and will probably be found in regulation, that there be at least the 25% flow-through to the local organization, thereby giving to the local organizations stable funding, as well as everyone else.
Mr Monk: That was in the original -- I guess it was Bill 105 -- that came out, and it wasn't in this one and we noticed that. But in our organization at least, we elect the leadership at our convention every year, and those people are elected from grass-roots organizations like ours from across Ontario. In effect, we do control the policy of the OFA from our grass-roots organizations. If we found that we weren't getting the deal that we thought we should have out of this stable funding bill, we could rectify that every November at our convention. It's as simple as that. I think it's an important point that we are a completely democratic, grass-roots organization. The leadership turns over -- or doesn't necessarily turn over, but we have the opportunity to replace it completely each year if we thought that our local groups were not being well served.
Now, we had a meeting about this topic with the leadership. Roger came up into Grey and Bruce to talk to us about it, and he gave us his personal commitment that, yes, these dollars will be flowing back to enable us to carry on the programs that we do. In Grey and Bruce -- I'm speaking primarily from Bruce, but we do run some of the more active federations in the province.
But that is my safeguard. I'm satisfied that we've always worked well in a partnership with our provincial organization, and I think we can resolve that among ourselves now. I don't know the political or legal reasons why that 25% isn't in there, but personally, I wouldn't take this whole process back to day one in order to put it in there. We can work with our parent organization quite satisfactorily, and we have the ultimate authority to make changes if we wish.
Mr Offer: Certainly, I asked the question. I have no problem or suspicions or whatever. I was just wondering, from your perspective as a local organization, whether you think that it could be put in, as it could be put in through amendment.
Mr Monk: As I say, I am willing to trust our parent organization, of which I have been a provincial director and I'm a member. We have regional directors from our county. We will work that out within our group. I think it's important that these groups have county organizations, but we're maybe almost too much grass-roots, to a fault sometimes. But we do control the parent organization quite effectively, I think, from the grass roots.
Mr Sweiger: I would just like to add that our townships at the county level have supported Bruce county very well financially. We've always got enough money to run our organization. We are a little bit concerned, but we do think that with stable funding we will be supported from the general farm organization. Our municipalities and our county are warning us that their tax dollars are only going so far and we may lose that, so we're hoping to get some support from our central organization.
Mr Cleary: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. You had mentioned in your presentation where you had 2,600 census farms. How many members of the federation do you have?
Mr Monk: We have approximately 900 members in Bruce. We added about 150 last March in a concerted drive right in the middle of this whole debate, in one of the most successful membership drives we've ever had -- the most successful we've ever had.
Mr Cleary: Do you feel that after this bill comes into place, you'll be able to increase your membership more?
Mr Monk: I'm hoping we will. The one thing that we have noticed is that we maintain an office with a secretary by the phone there all the time and we really have not had any negative feedback that I am aware of. Maybe they wouldn't come and talk to us. I know of one membership that's been cancelled over this issue. But Donna has had at least three people come in off the street thinking that the bill was already in place and wondering where they could register. If that's any indication -- we're looking to pick up some members. We hope so.
Mr Cleary: So I take it that you gentlemen are happy with the draft registration form.
Mr Monk: I haven't seen it, but from what I've been told, if it's general information within blocks of numbers -- "How many cattle do you have?"; "Between 50 and 100," whatever -- I could live with it. I get a phone call every month, I think, from Stats Canada -- I'm on their list or whatever -- and they want to know how many acres and what's harvested and all the rest of it. I'm quite willing to share it with them. It doesn't matter to me. They always ask me at the end if they can share this with OMAF, and I say, "Go ahead."
Mr Cleary: Being there seems to be a little bit of a split in that part of Ontario in the agriculture community on this bill, are you concerned about that?
Mr Monk: It would be nicer if there wasn't, but I think the bill has accommodated those who can't possibly live with it. They can get their money out and carry on as ruggedly and free and unhampered as they want, I guess.
Mr Cleary: Do you have any advice to this committee on how we could overcome some of that?
Mr Monk: It's going to be up to the general farm organizations to overcome it, I think. We're trying to do as well as we can, but we're going to have to earn the trust of these people and try and bring them into the fold the same as we do every year now. We do a membership drive every year and we have to convince these people that, yes, their $150 would be well spent and they should be supporting us. It'll be up to the farmers and these GFOs to bring those people in. There are philosophical differences among some that will never be resolved, but as to the rest, we do the best we can to try and meet their needs, I guess.
The Chair: Mr Villeneuve and Mr Murdoch.
Mr Villeneuve: To the Bruce county federation representatives, thank you for being here.
Firstly, we hear from your area that many, many farmers were not supportive of the march on Parliament Hill in February 1992. Was your federation supportive of that demonstration regarding article XI GATT negotiations etc?
1200
Mr Monk: Yes, I think it was very successful. We collaborated with our sister county, Grey. We had 11 busloads we put together and there were some other individuals who drove down.
The important thing I'd like to raise about that rally is that without us ever asking or advertising for funds, $11,000 in donations came into the county office to help pay for those buses, and that came primarily from businesses. Some individuals who wanted to go but couldn't would offer to pay the $40 or whatever it cost for an individual to go in their place. It was very, very successful. In fact, we ran a little campaign in one of the local stores for the businesses in that main street to shut down for an hour in support of the rally on that day. We ran out of signs, and they were after us: "Where's my sign? I want to be part of this too." It was the most successful public relations and, basically, spirit-booster we've ever run in the federation, but there was widespread support for that in Bruce.
Mr Villeneuve: I was there from my area, Stormont county, and very, very strong support, but I realize that Stormont county is very much supply-management oriented, dairy and feather. Your area is probably a lot more diversified. Of course, we know that what's good for farmer A down the road is probably exactly the opposite to farmer B, and therein is the dichotomy of agriculture that we must face.
Were you aware that the Ontario Chamber of Commerce was here making a presentation against this bill?
Mr Monk: I had heard that, yes.
Mr Villeneuve: Does that surprise you? You've just told us that businesses in your area, of all areas, were very supportive of the demonstration.
Mr Monk: Well, it might hark back to those philosophical differences I talked about. I don't know how well they're in touch with their grass-roots members. They wouldn't have got a whole lot of votes for that in a rural area, I don't think.
Mr Graham: I personally asked for money for the trips from different businessmen and I was not turned down by anybody. I also got a phone call from a lady from Huron county, a retired lady, wanting to donate money to support farming; I told her where to send the money, because Huron county should support Huron county. There was nobody we knew of who did not support us financially.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you. I'll yield to my colleague.
Mr Murdoch: Thank you very much. Welcome, guys, it's nice to see you down here, and I hope you'll see everybody you see here today up at the ploughing match in a little while.
The Chair: Only if the Bruce county federation is prepared to guarantee dry weather.
Mr Murdoch: Oh, I'm sure they will because, as you heard the Bruce county federation say, they work a lot with Grey county and we get along quite well up there. We want to point that out.
We've been criticized here, though, as government for not taking a vote. I just want to know what you think about that whole thing that's been talked about.
Mr Monk: The bill, the way it's presented now, I don't think requires a vote. Our simple answer is, if you can't live with it, take your money out.
Mr Murdoch: I just wanted to get that on the record. The one other thing is item 30 that says the minister "may" take a review of this in three years, and certainly we're talking about changing that to "shall" take a review. Would you be more in favour that there should be a review of it in three years than just saying "may"?
Mr Monk: So this review would encompass the entire legislation?
Mr Murdoch: Well, I guess what we'd do is probably that if the minister did it, he may have a committee something like this set up to review people to see what they think about it. He could do it in many different ways, but it would be a committee like this to review the whole legislation to see whether it's been working in three years.
The way it's left now it just says "may," and there's been talk about saying this "shall" be done because "may" leaves it open. If the minister decides he doesn't want to do that, whoever it may be, he wouldn't have to, but if you change it to "shall," then whoever the minister happens to be will have to see that there's a review done in three years.
Mr Sweiger: If the minister has got the money at that time to support a review, go ahead. It's public money, eh? "Shall" means you have to, right? It doesn't matter.
The Chair: Sir, you have a response?
Mr Bregman: Yes. I would like to talk to Mr Murdoch. We're going to have to prove that this thing's going to work, that the "may" or the "shall" will not even come into play, that it will just continue as it is. I'm very confident that we can do that with the support that we have now from our local chamber of commerce, whatever you call it, Main Street, and I'm very confident we can do that.
Mr Monk: Just on that point, I think I could live with there "may" be a review, because I don't think there needs to be a review unless there's a real backlash or a lobby effort or whatever you want from the farm community, the people who are primarily affected. If the minister or members such as yourselves were getting a lot of requests to have something changed or have the system reviewed, then the minister probably should, under those circumstances, review it. If the system's working fine and things are going along just great, then probably a review wouldn't be required. I don't know why it would.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Murdoch. I'd like to thank the Bruce County Federation of Agriculture and each of you individually for taking the time to appear here this morning. The views of the Bruce county federation are important to this committee, and we appreciate each of you coming to so effectively articulate those views.
I hope you'll stay in touch with the committee as the bill proceeds through the process, either through the clerk, any member of this committee or your sitting MPP.
Again, on behalf of the committee, thank you very much for appearing this morning.
Mr Monk: Thanks very much. As Bill has said, you're aware that the international ploughing match is coming up in Bruce from September 21 to 25. It's going to be the greatest outdoor show in the country and we would just love to have all of you there, so thank you very much.
The Chair: I had the opportunity to see the ploughing match site this year and I notice it's on a hill, so the water is not going to be a problem, I don't think.
Mr Monk: It's good, well-drained land there, so we're all set.
The Chair: I'd encourage everyone to indeed do that, to visit Walkerton and the international ploughing match, September 21 to 25.
Thank you very much, gentlemen. We are recessed until 2 pm.
The committee recessed from 1207 to 1403.
JOHN AND ELIZABETH DRUDGE
The Chair: Could we call the committee to order.
The first witnesses scheduled to appear this afternoon are John Drudge and Elizabeth Drudge, if they could come forward, please. If you could have a seat, each of you behind a microphone. Good afternoon and welcome. You have one half-hour for your presentation to the committee. The committee would like about 15 minutes of that half-hour, if it's possible, for questions and answers. I will remind committee members that they have a written submission in front of them as well, and I will also remind committee members that on August 24 a submission from John Drudge was marked as an exhibit of the committee and it's on its way here from the clerk's office. If you could proceed and introduce yourselves for the purposes of Hansard.
Mr John Drudge: I'm John Drudge. My wife, Elizabeth, is with me, and our son Roger, one of our three sons. I'm a farmer in Huron county and also bishop and leader of the Mount Zion Mennonite Church. In our Mennonite tradition, we ministers are self-supporting, so that's why I'm a farmer.
On August 24 we submitted a letter to this hearing and after that date I saw a copy of Mr Buchanan's presentation, which took place on August 23. I felt that he incorrectly presented the feelings of the Mennonite and Amish communities, and I'd just like to quote that statement from his presentation which concerned me. He said:
"We have worked with Mennonite community leaders to alleviate their concerns regarding registration and providing funding to farm organizations. As a result, Bill 42 includes a provision that allows Mennonites and other religious objectors to apply to an independent accreditation board for an exemption from sending a cheque to the ministry. The executive director of the Mennonite Central Committee has stated that his community does not object to providing government with information, nor with being assigned a registration number."
I looked back through my files on some of the minutes of the meetings that were held with Mennonite leaders, some with OMAF and MCC and others. I'd like to make some quotations. You may have a copy there numbered 2. It's a meeting in Kitchener on May 14, 1992. In all of these quotations, I'd like to point out we do have a concern about that registration. We don't want to be registered. I hope that will come out as we look at these quotations.
Okay, in this report of the meeting, number 2, under section A, the registration number.
"This topic was discussed at length. It seems we do not know yet if the farmer registration number will be compulsory or if there will exemptions. If registration is not compulsory, we are faced with deciding if we want to forgo the property tax rebate or to register to get it. Some of us get the property tax rebate now and some do not. We felt that we would rather not get the property tax rebate than allow ourselves to be registered."
Down at the bottom of the page, the conclusions were:
"We are not opposed to paying the $150 a year." In other words, it's not the amount of money that concerns us.
"We are not opposed to being assigned a number." We have numbers for other matters and issues.
"We are not opposed to being registered as farmers," because we're now registered as taxpayers and property owners and so on.
But:
"We are opposed to supporting a lobby group.
"We are opposed to membership in a lobby group.
"We are opposed to registering if this number makes us a part of a larger movement that supports lobbing or if it is needed to take part in farm assistance programs."
I have with me a few clippings. One's the report of a meeting which I attended in a local community hall. A point was brought up there, what started this stable funding idea in the first place? Reading from this clipping:
"The CFFO policy director surprised the audience when he said, `Bill 42 is a proposal of the GFOs, not OMAF. The ministry,' Mr van Donkersgoed said, `put forward the stable funding proposal because it is what the GFOs wanted.'"
So our feeling as Mennonites is we don't want to be registered because it is a proposal of the lobbying groups.
Another newspaper clipping which might clarify my point, "The number one benefit you get from being an OFA member is that you are supporting an organization that fights the government." Again, I say that's what we as Mennonites do not want to support or be a part of or be linked to in any way.
I go on to another report. It's numbered 5. It's a report of the meeting at MCC in Kitchener again on July 30, 1992, the section which we've marked A:
"After introductions we explained our concerns about registering and about the fees.
"Norris insisted that registration merely identifies us as farmers. It does not imply that we are identified as taking part in social assistance. We insisted that as long as the government is saying they will withhold farm assistance programs if we do not register, they are implying that registration and social assistance are linked."
1410
I guess that was all for that quote. I'll go on to the next report, number 6, the report of a meeting held at Martins Mennonite Meetinghouse on Thursday, January 24, 1993. Several things were discussed. It's item 2 that we want and that's on the back side of the page, farmer registration and stable funding. There's one paragraph there marked A:
"After some debate it was decided, because we do not know today what form or shape the legislation will take, the MCC should remind the Agriculture minister of our stated position:
"(1) If we may choose not to register but then not be eligible for any farm assistance programs, including the property tax rebate, we are satisfied.
"(2) If we must register, and this registration is in any way connected with farm assistance or the support of farm lobby groups, we request special numbers to indicate that we have no part in either one. We also suggest to direct our fees to a charity rather than to the corporation."
Particularly pointing out there in number (1) that even though we would be denied the property tax rebate, we'd rather take that route than to register.
There's one more report of a meeting, numbered 7, on the back side of that report. It was a meeting held in Kitchener on April 5, 1993, paragraph A. We had mentioned several concerns.
"The second one" -- of these concerns -- "is now the main one. A part of a statement in the notes of the May 14, 1992, meeting at MCC was read: `We are opposed to registering if this number...is needed to take part in farm assistance programs.' Our reason for being opposed to this is that such a registration system would become a list of people involved in government assistance. We do not want to be on that list. If we register along with the farm public, we will leave the impression of possibly having done so in order to get such assistance. This is similar to the position we took on the Canada pension plan issue. We desire to be people who take care of our own needs, without the aid of worldly society and government. The act of requesting a refund of money paid to or through a government is questionable in itself, to some of us."
Paragraph B is discussions on possible solutions.
"Ms Burak said they need to go back and try to make some changes to solve our concerns about registration. Her first suggestion was to allow us to present our position to a tribunal after filing a registration form without a cheque. We showed her how that would not solve the question of registering under a scheme involving assistance programs. We offered to fill out the census information and be registered under a number system that does not allow us to take part in their handouts. We do not want to oppose the government unnecessarily. Mr Sherman suggested the idea of including a note with our registration forms, asking to be assigned a number under a separate scheme. We weren't sure we like the idea of" even "asking for a number."
Down to paragraph C.
"A system like the Canada pension plan exemption numbering arrangement is seen as a compromise: We would prefer not having to be registered or involved at all. If no changes are made to the latest proposals, many of us will not register. This would not be to protest against government, but to keep our consciences free. We do not want to be numbered along with the general farm population under this scheme, even if the government took it into its hands and assigned numbers to us."
Possibly one of the strongest feelings we have here today as Mennonites is the fear of being registered or the desire to escape that so that we're not part in any way of a structure that is geared or designed or was originally proposed as having to do with lobbying against the government. I guess supporting the government has been a strong part of our faith and our Mennonite tradition. When we take members into our congregations, we go through what we call the 18 articles of our faith and we carefully instruct each one. Those 18 articles range all the way from the truth of the creation of the earth all the way to final judgement and resurrection.
One of those articles is about civil government. We teach our people that government is instituted by God and that the government is to be respected and obeyed and honoured. We teach our people to obey the laws, to stop at the stop signs, to wear their seatbelts and everything from one end to the other.
At the same time, we also believe in our church that the church institution or organization is an entirely different one from civil government. So as Mennonites, we do not run for office; we do not vote; we do not lobby the government. We do not want to tell them what to do, how to make laws or not make laws. But one thing we do, we pray for them. We pray that the members of government might be men and women of honesty and integrity and that they might make and maintain laws to keep this country such a place that we can live our faith.
In our Mennonite history, there have been many times in the last 300 or 400 years that Mennonites have either packed all their belongings and moved to another country to maintain religious freedom or in some cases left it all behind. My ancestors came to Canada for that one reason, that search of a place where they could have religious freedom, and we're thankful that we've had it.
It's a strong feeling with us of both supporting the government and trying to obey the laws, yet not being a part of it as far as trying to lobby against it or oppose it in any way. We want to obey the laws. It puts us in a rather difficult position if legislation is in the making to bring about laws that we cannot obey. What am I to tell my people then? Am I to say, "Obey these laws but don't obey those"? It puts us in a difficult position. So we pray that we can continue to have a country with laws that allow us to live our faith.
The present legislation, as we understand it, does not alleviate our concerns and does not satisfy our needs.
I would like to thank you for this privilege of making this presentation, especially on such short notice. Mennonites are kind of shy, yet we're thankful for this privilege to communicate with you how we feel.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much for your presentation. We have a short period of time available to us and tomorrow we're going to be moving into the clause-by-clause analysis of the bill. What is it that should be in the bill that would address your concerns? What I'm hearing you say is that the objection is broader than I certainly had earlier appreciated; that is, your objection is based on the fact that you do not wish to be registered if that is a precondition to a government program. Basically, you feel, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, that if you make a declaration of some kind, that should exempt you from the registration but still entitle you, if you wish, to a government program.
Mr Drudge: It's hard to say. Some of us have received that tax rebate because we felt it was money that we had paid in.
Mr Offer: Of course.
Mr Drudge: Naturally, it would be a lot easier on the farmer if we could keep on getting that tax rebate.
Mr Offer: I'm just struggling a little bit with this. Right now, there are provisions under the bill where you could ostensibly go before a tribunal to make a religious objection. That religious objection would exempt you from providing a cheque to the farm organization but would not exempt you from the fact of registration.
Mr Drudge: Right.
Mr Offer: Are you saying that the provisions of the bill are not sufficient to meet the matters that you've brought forward?
1420
Mr Drudge: I would say that is correct. If the provisions of the bill would exempt us from registration, I think we'd feel a lot more comfortable.
Mr Offer: Would you be prepared to go before a tribunal, as indicated, if that were also expanded? If the bill were expanded to exempt you from registration and the provision of a cheque, would there be an objection to go before a tribunal to make that objection, or should there be something less onerous required of you? Or is a mere declaration sufficient?
Mr Drudge: Would you care to answer? Have you any thoughts on that?
Mrs Elizabeth Drudge: Hasn't it been the feeling all along that the tribunal did not meet our needs? Because if we still had to register, it's the registration we want to avoid. So the tribunal didn't meet our needs.
Mrs Fawcett: Can I just get clarification? You did say on the bottom of the one report there, "We are not opposed to being registered as farmers." But it's the whole attachment, then, of that registration to a program. So it is not really sufficient that even though you are registered -- if you registered as farmers and you were able to take advantage of the programs but if you chose not to take advantage of those programs, that doesn't satisfy?
Mr Drudge: Just restate that again.
Mrs Fawcett: All right. If you register, that does qualify, if you choose to get your farm tax rebate. Then if you don't choose to take part in any of the other programs, then you just don't bother applying. Does that not satisfy what you require in the bill?
Mr Drudge: That does not satisfy because we object to registration under this --
Mrs Fawcett: The attachments that are there.
Mr Drudge: Right. The statement at the bottom of that page that says we do not oppose being assigned numbers or to register as farmers -- someone was saying that in a totally different context, not having to do with Bill 42. We're registered at birth; we have numbers to ship hogs. That was saying it's not that idea alone that bothers us. I'm saying today that registration having to do with Bill 42 and this whole idea of support does bother us.
Mrs Fawcett: I see.
The Chair: Very, very quickly, Mr Cleary.
Mr Cleary: Thank you for presenting the brief to us. I know that this has been a concern to some of us in this committee for some time now, even when the bill came up in the House, how it would affect you people. I'm really pleased -- I know the Chairman is watching me here -- that you took the opportunity to come and give to us first hand the way you feel. I think this is very important to us when we go through the bill tomorrow. I thank you for that.
The Chair: Mr Villeneuve and Mr Murdoch.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you very much for clarifying the situation. I read from your presentation -- and I believe it says:
"(B) Conclusion:
"We are not opposed to paying the $150 a year.
"We are not opposed to being assigned a number.
"We are not opposed to being registered as farmers."
But you are opposed to supporting a lobby group, you are opposed to membership in a lobby group and you're opposed to registering if this number makes you part of a larger movement.
At this stage of the game, I don't think this legislation has enough flexibility to have you registered but not be part of a GFO, and I think therein is your problem. Is that right?
Mr Drudge: No.
Mr Villeneuve: You don't mind being registered as long as you don't belong to a lobby group who would be considered to be the Christian Farmers or the OFA.
Mr Drudge: The first three lines didn't expand enough. What we mean is, we do oppose paying $150 or any amount to support GFOs. We are opposed to being assigned a number having to do with this whole structure. We are opposed to registering as farmers under this system of the lobby idea.
Mr Villeneuve: I'm glad you clarified that.
Mr Drudge: It needs clarification. It was so brief.
Mr Villeneuve: Because that certainly led me down the wrong path.
Mrs Drudge: What it means here is that in other situations -- it's not that we're opposed to paying our taxes. If this was $150 tax, we'd pay it. We're not opposed to being assigned numbers. We have numbers for shipping hogs. We have numbers having to do with our farm which do not conflict with our faith. We're not opposed to being registered as farmers because on our tax bill, we're registered as being a farmer in Howick township. These do not conflict with our faith. But in this particular situation, this money, this number, this registration conflicts with our faith, all the way from the beginning. Bill 42 conflicts with our faith, period.
Mr Villeneuve: Therefore, with the group of seven, if you will, that will be operating the appeal process, and their exact definition escapes me, would have to be fully aware of what you've just told us today, because as I read this, I was very badly misled and I'm very, very pleased that you came here and explained that.
You do not mind being registered with the government as farmers providing that it stops right there. What this does is it registers you with the government but makes you part of a GFO, a general farm organization, be it Christian Farmers or OFA at present, and this may be expanded in future. You cannot accept that, and I have no problem with that. But we've got a dilemma here that you want to be registered to qualify for what's available to you --
Mrs Drudge: No.
Mr Villeneuve: No, but farm tax rebate.
Mr Drudge: There's a quotation somewhere, if we would have the choice of either registering or not registering, and let's say the penalty for not registering is to lose your farm tax rebate, we'll take that choice.
Mr Villeneuve: You will not register.
Mr Drudge: Correct.
Mr Villeneuve: What you would like to be is recognized as farmers not registered anywhere, and your tax rebate, which is a tax you've already paid, would be reimbursed.
Mr Drudge: I'm sure we don't care if we're registered as farmers or not. It would be nice to have the tax rebate because every dollar counts on the farm, but I guess our principles of believing that we don't want to have one thing to do with being registered with a structure that is lobbying the government is stronger than anything else.
Mr Villeneuve: I think I'm starting to understand. Thank you.
Mr Murdoch: Just quickly to follow through with Noble, I understand that's the way this bill is, though. The bill's really in two parts. One is the registration, which is not any different than if you apply for the farm tax rebate. The other part is if you want to belong to the GFO your money stays there. If you don't want to belong, your money comes back to you. Then you're not any part of any organization that's lobbying the government. The first part is, all you are is you register. You fill out the forms. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I thought this bill was.
Mr Klopp: That's our intent, yes.
Mr Murdoch: I would think there'd be some latitude to work with you on that. Maybe it's the part that it's a bill that's saying you have to register that bothers the faith. Is that the part? Because you do register when you file for your tax rebate. The form won't be much different and the registration, as I believe it, goes to the government. All the GFOs get is your name, your address and your phone number, but you don't want that so that's fine; you can request that back. I think you're covered, but I may be missing something.
1430
The Chair: Do you have a response for Mr Murdoch?
Mr Drudge: We're not here to get our farm tax rebate. That's secondary.
Mr Murdoch: I understand that.
Mr Drudge: It was said so well in one of these quotations, if I could just find it. The implication that registration and social assistance are linked, that we're very wary of social assistance. Evidently it gets to the point, or it will possibly, where you have to be registered to get your rebate and then it starts to look too much like social assistance, where we've been taught to take care of our own and do our own work.
Mr Murdoch: I don't think the intent of the bill was --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Murdoch. Mr Hansen, Mr Waters.
Mr Hansen: On our briefing at the very beginning, from the ministry, I understood with the Mennonite and Amish communities that the central committee had agreed to the point that you would not be paying the $150, that you would be going to the tribunal to receive a number only, so that would not require you to join a farm organization. I have to take a look at the date. This is May 14, 1992, which was actually Bill 105.
Mr Drudge: Yes.
Mr Hansen: So when I read this last sentence down here, "We are opposed to registering if" -- now, the if -- "if this number makes us a part of a larger movement." It does not become a part of a larger movement because you've already bypassed that you wouldn't be joining any one of the farm organizations, but would only be getting a number for your farm that maybe, possibly -- you talk about social assistance -- it'll be that number you'll require in order to go into a farm implement dealer to buy a piece of equipment, which you wouldn't pay Ontario sales tax of 8%. So you couldn't call that social assistance because it's like a business tax, that 8%, for someone who's not using it for farm use. I'd like the ministry to maybe explain this a little bit more in detail because this is the idea that I have.
The other thing is that I know, being Lutheran, there are seven different types of Lutherans in Ontario and I think there are 38 different sects of Mennonites in Ontario, depending on who the minister was talking to to get different versions from different sects of the Mennonite community. Is that a possibility?
Mr Drudge: That's a possibility.
Mr Hansen: Do you agree with what I said there on that sentence, registering is only with the government with that number? That number would not go down to the farm organizations. Not only that, at that point, with the tribunal there, because they were going to deal with a central committee, they wouldn't be getting your phone number or your address because you wouldn't be part of the larger group. I'm not trying to twist words, I'm just trying to take a look at a clarification in that particular sentence because this to me is a little bit different than what's actually in the legislation.
Mrs Drudge: On page 7 is the report of the meeting at the Mennonite Central Committee which you quoted. You felt the MCC had given you the thought that Mennonites were satisfied. This is why my husband brought these notes of the MCC meetings, to prove that the Mennonites are not satisfied and that these minutes, (a), (b) and (c) of page 7, show that the Mennonites are not happy with Bill 42.
Mr Hansen: They wouldn't be happy with Bill 42, depending on how you read that last sentence, because if you thought you were part of the general farm organization, you'd say, "No, we don't want to be part of that larger group." It depends on how you read the legislation, whether you would be involved in these farm organizations. Maybe just some clarification quickly from the minister to wind up saying that when you go to the tribunal, this information wouldn't be going on to the farm organizations. You're only dealing with that form with the government, with the registration number.
The Chair: Mr Klopp, do you wish to add anything? You have about 30 seconds.
Mr Klopp: Other than it's been pointed out there have been many discussions that the minister's had with this particular issue because it has been very important to all of us. It was something that I personally talked about, going back about eight years ago, when it was talked to me about trying to come up with some kind of stable funding. I very much felt that there is a community that needs to make sure we deal with it.
Your comments today and then last week that you wrote in, we are taking them under advisement and tomorrow when we go through the clause-by-clause, on Wednesday, we certainly hope that we can address the issues you're talking about as fairly and equitably as possible. I thank you very much for coming here today, knowing that it is -- as you pointed out. I really do appreciate you taking the time today to come forward and air your views. Thank you very much.
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, on a point of order: With respect to this presentation, I believe this to be a point of order. I believe the deputants have said today that the opposition which they have to Bill 42 is not just the writing of a cheque but rather the fact that they would have to apply for a registration number as a precondition to obtaining the property tax rebate to be part of that program. I think it's been clear that is what they've said.
My point of order is that we are in the afternoon just prior to the day of clause-by-clause. We have a difficulty, and this is the problem that I have as my point: how is it that -- we will require some strong representation from the ministry because what I'm hearing here is that if Bill 42 passes in this form, there is a community which will be, by virtue of their religious beliefs, excluded from a government program.
I would hope that, on the basis of the presentation we've heard today, there be a meeting of the minds before we move on and potentially pass a piece of legislation into law which carries with it a significant flaw.
The Chair: Mr Offer, that is not a point of order. However, it's an excellent point of information.
Mr Offer: It was close.
The Chair: I trust the ministry listened closely to your advice. John, Elizabeth and son, Roger, it was a pleasure having you before the committee this afternoon. We appreciate you taking the time and I think I speak of the entire committee. It was indeed enlightening to hear your clarification of the points that you originally, I think, submitted on August 24. Thank you very much for taking the time to be here this afternoon.
UNION DES CULTIVATEURS FRANCO-ONTARIENS
The Chair: The next scheduled presenters are the Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens, if they could come forward. Good afternoon, gentlemen, and welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the purposes of Hansard and then proceed with your presentation. You have been allocated one half-hour to make that presentation and the committee would appreciate at least 15 minutes of that for questions and answers. There are simultaneous translation devices provided. I'm not sure what channel that's on.
Interjection: One.
The Chair: It's on channel one, and you can proceed at your leisure.
M. André Chabot : Mesdames, messieurs, bonjour. Je me présente: Je suis André Chabot, producteur laitier et également président général de l'Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens. La raison d'être de notre présence ici aujourd'hui est pour vous dire, dans un premier temps, qui est l'Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens ; dans un deuxième temps, pourquoi nous appuyons le projet de loi 42 prévoyant l'inscription des entreprises agricoles et le financement des organismes agricoles ; et troisièmement, pourquoi nous avons demandé au gouvernement de reconnaître les francophones d'une façon tout à fait spéciale dans la Loi, articles 11 à 19.
Premièrement, qui est l'Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens ? L'Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens fut fondée en 1929 lors d'un congrès de l'Association canadienne-française d'éducation de l'Ontario, l'ancêtre de l'ACFO. Elle est incorporée à titre d'organisme à but non lucratif depuis 1945 selon la loi de l'Ontario. Depuis, elle a bien servi les intérêts des agriculteurs franco-ontariens sans interruption et à ce titre elle est la doyenne des organismes agricoles généraux de l'Ontario.
1440
L'Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens est un organisme totalement indépendant qui n'est imputable qu'à ses membres, même si elle est spirituellement affiliée d'une part à l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario et d'autre part à l'Ontario Federation of Agriculture. À titre d'affiliée de ces deux organismes, elle siège avec droit de vote sur le bureau des gouverneurs dans ces deux organismes et entretient avec eux des relations de communication privilégiées. Cependant, l'Union ne retire aucun avantage financier de ces deux affiliations, et il doit en être ainsi pour que l'Union puisse demeurer un organisme totalement indépendant qui n'est imputable qu'à ses membres.
L'Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens est un mouvement voué à la défense et à la promotion des intérêts économiques et socioculturels de tous les agriculteurs franco-ontariens. Elle se préoccupe tout particulièrement des intérêts de la ferme familiale en tant qu'entité traditionnelle où s'entremêlent dans le quotidien les activités culturelles et économiques de ceux qui oeuvrent dans le secteur de la production agricole et dans le développement des collectivités rurales. Notre langue de travail est le français.
Nos objectifs :
-- regrouper les agriculteurs franco-ontariens, ce qui comprend tous les hommes et toutes les femmes qui participent directement aux travaux de l'entreprise agricole, les professionnels et techniciens agricoles et les étudiants en agriculture ;
-- informer la communauté agricole franco-ontarienne en général à fin qu'elle soit en mesure de faire valoir ses intérêts ;
-- défendre les intérêts de la collectivité agricole franco-ontarienne lorsque des actions communes s'imposent ;
-- appuyer les institutions et groupements qui favorisent le développement de la communauté agricole franco-ontarienne ;
-- développer l'économie des régions agricoles franco-ontariennes.
Au cours des années, nos préoccupations sont demeurées essentiellement les mêmes et elles sont les suivantes :
(A) l'éducation, et plus particulièrement la formation professionnelle en agriculture. Dès 1929, à sa toute première assemblée annuelle, l'Union réclamait par voie de résolution un collège d'agriculture francophone. Ce grand rêve se réalisa en 1981 avec la création du Collège d'Alfred. Aujourd'hui, l'Union veille avec beaucoup de vigilance sur ce collège. Elle en fait la promotion et travaille en partenariat très étroit avec cette institution pour s'assurer que tous les agriculteurs francophones en bénéficient au maximum, surtout en ce qui a trait au cours d'éducation permanente.
(B) la prestation de services en français aux agriculteurs francophones. Tout au long de ses 64 années d'existence, l'Union a travaillé d'arrache-pied pour s'assurer que les agriculteurs franco-ontariens puissent obtenir dans leur langue des services comparables à ceux qu'obtiennent leurs collègues anglophones. Au yeux de l'Union, il s'agit là non seulement d'une question de justice mais aussi d'une question pratique d'efficacité et de développement. Pour de nombreux agriculteurs francophones, l'information qui ne leur parvient pas dans leur langue ne vaut rien car ils ne comprennent tout simplement pas. Or, on sait aujourd'hui que les agriculteurs mal informés coûtent très cher à la société.
Dans les années 30, 40 et 50, l'Union des cultivateurs s'est battue pour que les gouvernements nomment des agronomes bilingues dans les régions où il y avait des agriculteurs francophones. Dans les années 60 et 70, l'Union a elle-même fourni cette information en français en organisant de nombreux cours d'éducation permanente dans les collectivités rurales francophones.
Depuis la proclamation, en 1986, de la Loi sur les services en français, l'Union s'est fait le chien de garde de la mise en oeuvre de la Loi et a travaillé positivement et en partenariat avec les gouvernements pour s'assurer que les agriculteurs et les gens du milieu rural obtiennent efficacement les services prévus par la Loi. Il reste encore beaucoup à faire à ce chapitre.
Par ailleurs, l'Union donne depuis 1983 aux agriculteurs et à toute la population francophone de l'Ontario son unique revue agricole entièrement en français. Tirée à près de 6000 copies 22 fois par année, Agricom est distribuée dans 143 villes et villages de l'Ontario, de Hearst à Windsor. Cette revue agricole est devenue un outil indispensable de développement professionnel et de développement communautaire.
(C) le développement économique communautaire. Depuis sa fondation, l'Union a oeuvré d'une façon toute spéciale dans le domaine du développement économique communautaire en utilisant en particulier la doctrine coopérative. Dans les années 30, 40 et 50, elle a formé, dans presque chaque paroisse francophone, des cercles d'étude coopératifs qui ont débouché sur la création de nombreuses caisses populaires et coopératives agricoles en milieu rural.
Aujourd'hui, ces institutions coopératives ont des chiffres d'affaires qui totalisent plusieurs centaines de millions de dollars, et les emplois qui sont ainsi créés en milieu rural se comptent par milliers. Ces coopératives ont fourni une base économique stable à de nombreuses collectivités rurales.
En 1988, dans le cadre d'une expérience assez unique en Ontario (le Sommet socio-économique de Prescott et Russell), l'Union des cultivateurs, avec quelques partenaires, a doté cette région d'un plan stratégique de développement de son secteur agricole et rural. Ce fut une première en Ontario.
La mise en oeuvre de ce plan a donné lieu, entre autres, à la création de groupements de gestion agricole. Cette formule, qui a fait ses preuves au Québec depuis 20 ans, est maintenant implantée dans trois comtés ontariens : Prescott, Russell et Timiskaming. Dans les trois cas, c'est l'Union des cultivateurs qui en a réalisé l'implantation.
Les groupements de gestion agricoles sont essentiellement des coopératives de 40 agriculteurs qui se regroupent pour s'échanger des connaissances et des conseils en gestion agricole. Un spécialiste en gestion agricole est embauché à temps plein par le groupe pour coordonner les activités et donner aux producteurs, chacun selon ses besoins, des conseils professionnels.
(D) Nous avons également oeuvré dans le développement d'un environnement socio-économique propice au maintien d'une collectivité agricole franco-ontarienne forte et viable. Au cours de son histoire, l'Union s'est toujours préoccupée de tout ce qui affecte l'environnement socio-économique et la rentabilité des fermes. Par conséquent, tout récemment encore, elle s'est penchée sur des questions d'aménagement du territoire, d'utilisation du sol, ainsi que sur les questions de financement agricole. Elle a aussi été très active dans le domaine de la sensibilisation des Ontariens à la chose agricole. L'an dernier, l'Union a siégé sur de nombreux comités consultatifs établis par le gouvernement et a fait des représentations et présenté des mémoires à plusieurs autres.
Il nous apparaît clairement que nous sommes le principal porte-parole des agriculteurs franco-ontariens et, de plus en plus, de tout le monde rural franco-ontarien.
1450
Pourquoi appuyons-nous le projet de loi 42 ? Vous ayant expliqué qui nous sommes et l'ampleur de notre oeuvre au cours des 64 années, ils nous est maintenant facile de vous répondre pourquoi nous appuyons le projet de loi 42.
Je pense que vous en conviendrez avec nous que nous rendons à l'ensemble de la collectivité agricole franco-ontarienne des services essentiels qui sont hautement appréciés par une certaine élite d'agriculteurs qui ont eu la chance d'apprendre et de découvrir qu'une Loi sur les services en français ne donne pas automatiquement des services en français, et qu'on ne peut pas continuer à donner un journal agricole de qualité sans un soutien financier quelconque.
Cependant, pour de nombreuses raisons historiques, cette élite est trop petite pour prendre totalement à sa charge l'entier fardeau financier des services que nous rendons à toute la population. L'ensemble de la collectivité agricole franco-ontarienne doit être amenée, elle aussi, à comprendre qu'elle doit participer à payer pour les services rendus par les organisations agricoles, et nous pensons que le bill 42 est un excellent compromis en ce sens. D'une part, il encourage fortement les agriculteurs à poser le geste de faire un chèque, et d'autre part, il permet à tout agriculteur qui s'objecte formellement à contribuer, de continuer à jouir de tous les programmes sans aucune pénalité. Nous pensons qu'il s'agit là d'un bon compromis à ce moment-ci, même si plusieurs de nos membres parmi les plus actifs souhaiteraient une cotisation strictement obligatoire.
Nous sommes convaincus que la plupart des agriculteurs francophones appuient le bill 42, même si, paradoxalement, ils ne se sont pas toujours empressés de nous apporter leur appui financier.
Comme tous les autres agriculteurs, les agriculteurs francophones sont prêts à faire leur part s'ils sentent que les autres aussi feront la leur. Nous pensons aussi que les agriculteurs francophones comprennent bien la force de l'entraide, de la coopération et du travail à l'unisson. Ils ne cherchent que l'assurance qu'ils ne seront pas les seuls à payer pour les autres qui sont peut-être moins bien sensibilisés.
Les agriculteurs francophones sont aussi de plus en plus conscients qu'ils devront dorénavant payer pour des services qui étaient jadis perçus comme gratuits. À titre d'exemple, disons que de plus en plus d'agriculteurs paient pour des cours d'éducation permanente, ce qui n'était pas le cas il y a à peine quelques années.
Maintenant, on aimerait vous expliquer pourquoi nous avons choisi un statut spécial dans la Loi pour la reconnaissance d'un organisme agricole authentiquement francophone.
Disons-le clairement : les articles 11 à 19 du projet de loi 42 ne nous ont occasionné aucune surprise au moment du dépôt de la Loi en Chambre. Au contraire, ils sont le reflet fidèle d'une entente que nous avions négociée pendant plusieurs mois avec les fonctionnaires du ministère de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation et les autres organismes agricoles généraux avec l'aide de l'Office des affaires francophones. L'Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens a elle-même proposé l'essentiel de la formule adoptée dans les articles 11 à 19.
Au départ, nous recherchions deux choses dans cette Loi :
(1) une reconnaissance du principe qu'un organisme agricole authentique francophone doit pouvoir jouir de tous les avantages et bénéfices que procurent la Loi ;
(2) l'assurance qu'un organisme agricole authentique francophone pourra obtenir sa juste part du financement généré dans le cadre de cette Loi, sans que son indépendance ne soit compromise face aux autres organisations agricoles. Par ailleurs, nous cherchions aussi à tenir compte d'une certaine réalité qui n'est pas toujours facile pour nous d'accepter. Cette réalité se résume ainsi :
Les agriculteurs francophones de la province ne représentent que 3,76 % de l'ensemble des agriculteurs de la province, et ce pourcentage diminue constamment en raison de l'assimilation qui fait des ravages dans certains milieux isolés de la province.
Contrairement aux autres associations agricoles, qui ont un potentiel de croissance énorme, la nôtre est très limitée par le fait même que nous ne travaillons qu'en français et que nous ne recherchons qu'une clientèle francophone. Nous sommes donc conscients qu'il sera difficile pour nous d'offrir certains services d'une façon rentable sans travailler avec d'autres partenaires comme l'Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
L'Union aurait pu exiger d'être «réputée agréée» dans la Loi, conformément à l'article 7, au même titre que l'Ontario Federation of Agriculture et la Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario. Mais nous avons vite compris que cette façon d'agir n'aurait donné aucune reconnaissance de principe aux agriculteurs franco-ontariens dans cette Loi. Or, cette reconnaissance de principe est pour nous très importante parce que nous la percevons comme un corollaire logique à la Loi de 1986 sur les services en français. Si l'Union avait été agréée au même titre que toutes les autres organisations, cette reconnaissance linguistique de principe aurait été perdue.
Il faut aussi dire que nous voulions aussi épargner à nos agriculteurs des déchirements familiaux inutiles. Plusieurs agriculteurs et agricultrices francophones ont des conjoints de langue anglaise, et nous voulions leur épargner d'avoir à faire un choix difficile entre une organisation agricole francophone et une organisation agricole anglophone. Plusieurs de nos membres très francophones préfèrent aussi pouvoir adhérer à la fois à une organisation anglophone et à une organisation francophone. Ils ont la perception que les deux organisations sont complémentaires puisque l'organisation anglophone est plus grosse et peut leur offrir, par exemple, un plan d'assurance-santé, tandis que notre organisation peut leur procurer, par exemple, des services en français et l'opportunité de militer uniquement en français jusqu'au plus haut niveau hiérarchique.
Bref, la formule utilisée pour reconnaître le fait francophone dans la Loi 42 fait l'affaire de tous et amènera les organisations agricoles à travailler ensemble à donner aux agriculteurs des services complémentaires.
En terminant, je voudrais souligner aux membres du comité que nous sommes pleinement conscients du fait que le projet de loi 42 ne garantit comme tel aucun financement à l'Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens.
Les articles 11 et 12 de la Loi permettent au lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil de désigner l'Union des cultivateurs ou tout autre organisme agricole authentiquement francophone à titre d'organisme francophone éligible, et de prescrire la part du financement à laquelle elle a droit. C'est donc dire que tout se jouera dans la façon dont les règlements seront rédigés et appliqués. Nous serons très vigilants à ce sujet mais nous avons confiance en vous. Nous avons confiance en ce gouvernement qui nous a donné le collège d'Alfred, nous avons confiance en ce gouvernement qui nous a donné la Loi sur les services en français et nous avons confiance en ce gouvernement qui a accepté de négocier avec nous une reconnaissance des droits des agriculteurs francophones dans le projet de loi 42.
Monsieur le Président, membres du comité, nous vous remercions de nous avoir entendus cet après-midi.
The Chair: Thank you. Questions? Mr Villeneuve.
Mr Villeneuve: André, Pierre, merci infiniment d'avoir été des nôtres ici à Toronto cet après-midi, et de votre présentation. Vous avez très bien fait le résumé de ce qui est l'Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens. Vous existez depuis 1929. C'est ce que bien des gens ne savaient pas, et vous êtes incorporés depuis 1945.
Maintenant, une question. Le ministre nous a expliqué un petit peu lundi après-midi l'entente qui existe, l'appui financier qui provient de la province ainsi que de la Fédération de l'agriculture qui vous permet d'avoir fourni le petit journal Agricom -- et je vous en félicite pour la dixième année de publication -- un petit journal qui certainement précise beaucoup de choses dont l'agriculture a besoin.
1500
Maintenant, pourriez-vous nous expliquer un petit peu l'arrangement que vous avez ? Vous semblez ne pas être prêts à devenir «réputée agréée». Alors, expliquez-nous ce que vous voyez dans l'avenir et puis ce que vous avez vu dans le passé.
M. Pierre Glaude : Merci, Monsieur Villeneuve. Ce n'est pas complètement facile à expliquer, mais comme on le dit dans notre document, ce qu'on visait d'abord et avant tout, ce n'était pas nécessairement la reconnaissance de l'Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens. Évidemment, on la souhaite, et dans cette entente qui, évidemment, est en voie de négociation, il y a une chose qui est claire présentement : c'est que le gouvernement va nommer pour les trois prochaines années l'Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens à titre d'organisme admissible. Je ne vous cache pas qu'on serait très désappointé si ça ne se produisait pas.
Mais ce qu'on recherchait d'abord et avant tout, c'est une reconnaissance, une reconnaissance pour les agriculteurs franco-ontariens du fait qu'ils ont besoin de services en français d'une organisation agricole, et on voulait qu'il y ait dans la Loi une porte qui permette aux francophones d'aller chercher un montant d'argent à perpétuité, si vous voulez, autant qui la Loi existera, pour qu'ils puissent avoir ce financement-là. Si l'Union des cultivateurs avait été agréée comme toute autre organisation agricole, ce qui aurait pu se produire, c'est que l'Union des cultivateurs n'aurait pas pu rencontrer tous les critères que les autres organisations ont rencontrés. À ce moment-là, l'Union des cultivateurs n'aurait tout simplement pas été agréée, puis il n'y aurait eu aucune porte, aucune disposition dans la Loi pour des services en français. Or, nous, ce qu'on dit, et c'est ce qu'on a demandé au ministre -- c'est pour ça qu'on a insisté pour avoir cette reconnaissance spéciale -- on dit que même si nos agriculteurs disparaissaient demain, il resterait une porte dans cette Loi-là qui permettrait à tout autre gouvernement de financer une organisation agricole authentiquement francophone.
Maintenant, en ce qui a trait à cette entente-là, bien, l'entente prévoit un certain nombre de choses. Par exemple, l'entente prévoit que l'Union des agriculteurs soit agréée pour les trois premières années, même si la Loi ne le dit pas. L'entente prévoit certains détails, par exemple à l'effet que sur le tribunal, ce qui est le cas sur d'autres tribunaux, par exemple, il va y avoir au moins une personne qui va être un francophone puis qui va bien comprendre les problèmes des agriculteurs franco-ontariens. On ne veut pas, par exemple, que l'Union des cultivateurs dans trois ans d'ici soit jugée strictement par un tribunal formé de gens qui ne comprennent pas bien peut-être la problématique des agriculteurs franco-ontariens.
Il y a aussi la question monétaire qui n'est pas complètement réglée et qui est en train d'être négociée. On s'entend sur la base des négociations. Par exemple, on se dit, «Bien, le montant d'argent que l'Union des agriculteurs recevra sera définitivement réparti, proportionnel au nombre d'agriculteurs francophones.» Ça sera aussi proportionnel un peu, dans un sens, aux services que l'Union des cultivateurs offrira aux francophones, par opposition aux services que peut-être d'autres organisations agricoles fourniront. Par exemple, comme on l'a mentionné, il est clair que l'Union des cultivateurs, avec le petit monde qu'on a, ne peut pas offrir un plan de santé. C'est clair que si les agriculteurs veulent un plan de santé, il va falloir qu'ils voient, par exemple, la Fédération de l'agriculture de l'Ontario, ces choses-là.
Donc, le montant final va être négocié dans les prochains mois, parce que ce montant-là va faire partie du processus de la réglementation. On est satisfait que la réglementation va nous donner cette espèce de sécurité-là.
Mr Wood: Yes, just briefly. Merci beaucoup pour venir ici. Je vous remercie, an excellent presentation. As you understand, I'm not fully bilingual in French, but I married a French woman, both my daughters were educated in French and I represent the Hearst-Cochrane-Kapuskasing area, which has a large francophone population.
I listened very carefully to the presentation that you made there, saying that you worked very closely with the Minister of Agriculture and Food in getting a lot of your ideas and your suggestions in it and you agree with Bill 42.
I worked with a number of different committees up around the Hearst-Cochrane-Kapuskasing area. Last week we had some further meetings to make sure that the people are getting the literature they need or the translation they need in the French language, whether it be the Ministry of Health, whether it be MNR or in this particular case Agriculture.
I don't really have a question. I just wanted to let you know that we appreciate the francophone population, in this particular case representing the farmers, to make sure that they get representation and are represented in the language of their choice, which is French.
M. Glaude : Votre intervention est très appréciée, Monsieur.
Mr Cleary: Welcome to the committee, gentlemen. I'm sorry my French is not there either, but anyway, we really appreciate the time for you coming. We're pleased that those hearings were able to take place and that you were able to get on to the record the way you felt. I know I discussed an issue with you a bit earlier and you explained it. So from what I get from you, gentlemen, you're in favour of Bill 42 the way it stands.
M. Glaude : Oui.
Mr Cleary: You're happy with the arrangements under the tribunal and that the minister appoint members to the tribunal?
M. Glaude : Oui.
Mr Cleary: That's about all my comments. Once again, thank you.
The Chair: I'd like to thank each of you gentlemen for so effectively putting forward the views of the Franco-Ontarian agricultural community. Your views expressed today have played an important part in the process, and indeed the opinions and issues that confront Franco-Ontarians in the agricultural field are very important to every member of this committee. So we thank you very much for taking the time to come down and present to us today.
M. Glaude : Merci, Monsieur le Président.
CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
The Chair: The next scheduled presenters are the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, if you could come forward. Good afternoon and welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the purposes of Hansard and then proceed with your presentation. You have been allocated one half-hour in presentation time. The committee would appreciate 15 minutes of that, if possible, for questions and answers.
Ms Catherine Swift: Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon. My name's Catherine Swift. I'm senior vice-president with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I'd like to also introduce my colleague Judith Andrew, who's the director of provincial policy.
You all have a copy of our submission, which is really in the form of a letter. We just want to highlight some of the major points from it and hopefully leave sufficient time for questions.
Currently, the CFIB represents about 40,000 independently owned small and medium-sized businesses in Ontario, and our membership's about 83,000 nationally. Our membership generally reflects the business population overall in terms of industrial sector and size of business and also geographic location.
Among our membership we currently have about 550 crop producers and about 300 livestock producers in Ontario. We have found, of course, that Bill 42 provisions are relevant to this segment of our membership. We found that we had received several calls from members via our member services department or our regional representatives, our district managers, that brought this legislation to our attention and raised some concerns about it.
Generally speaking, we don't tend to get involved in very sectorally specific interests. Our membership does cross all sectors, as I mentioned earlier, but in this instance we found that there were some principles inherent in this legislation that were of concern generally to the small and medium-sized business community. As a result, we were really rather alarmed to learn that Bill 42 had received first reading June 3, second reading before the Legislature recessed and was really proceeding on a quite hasty legislative path through committee this summer towards third reading in the fall. Judith, would you like to continue?
Ms Judith Andrew: The federation has a long history of surveying our membership on key policy issues. Those member votes and the direct feedback from our members constitute the basis for the views and the positions that are taken by CFIB staff such as ourselves. Accordingly, given the haste with which Bill 42 was moving forward, we were limited to developing a fax survey, which was actually sent last week to a sample of some 200 of our members in the agricultural sector.
We did not really contemplate that the survey would be a referendum on the legislation. In fact, it couldn't be, given the circumstances, but our purpose was to test whether or not the concerns we'd heard from some members were in fact shared by other farm members who would be directly affected by the legislation.
1510
The survey is attached to our submission and you can see it there. It had three questions. The first question asked the farmer if he or she was aware of Bill 42, and it also furnished a short background and explanation of the key provisions of Bill 42, including the refund.
The survey also asked, in principle, whether the farmer believes mandatory membership in a farm trade group should determine eligibility for Ministry of Agriculture programs.
The third and final question asked whether the farmer favoured or opposed Bill 42.
Naturally, we're hesitant to tabulate a small survey sample but, with appropriate cautions, the results certainly show that there is undeniable opposition to both the principle and the provisions of Bill 42. We have actually had 80 surveys returned; we had some 200 faxed confirmations that were received, so that yields a response of some 40% of the surveys that were actually sent out. In the 80 surveys, roughly three quarters of the respondents reported being aware of Bill 42. We think this awareness figure is probably fairly high and it wouldn't be this high among the smaller operations. Just owing to the mechanism that we used, a fax survey, that would mean the survey would be skewed to the larger farm operations in our membership, those that were equipped with facsimile equipment.
Importantly, though, coming from this survey we found that opposition both to the principle of the legislation and the particulars of Bill 42 outweighed support for it by about a ratio of two to one. This, obviously, is not definitive, but it does certainly suggest that further broad-based research is required before this legislation is passed.
Our concerns:
As we read the legislation, our concerns are with sections 20 and 22 of the bill. Section 20 requires a cheque "payable to an accredited farm organization" to accompany the registration of the farm business. We're disturbed that all Ontario farm businesses with a gross income of $7,000 or more will be required to pay an annual $150 fee to one of the accredited farm organizations. It works out to be multiples of this $150 if, for example, there is more than one business involved. This $150 fee obviously is a fixed fee regardless of the size of the farm as well.
Subsection 22(2) of the legislation provides that access to selected ministry programs, such as the farm tax rebate program, will only be allowed to eligible farm businesses that have registered with the ministry. In short, under threat of losing the farm tax rebate, farm businesses will be forced to register and enclose the $150 cheque. I would just say in passing that it's unfortunate; because the farm tax rebate is designed to mitigate inequities in the nonsensical property tax system we have in this province, it's really questionable that this should be a measure to be considered a program and denied to farmers in this fashion.
On the general point, we would point out that most business associations are prepared to justify their work and their fees to members on an annual basis. This ensures that the business associations meet their members' needs and are diligent in carrying their members' views to government. By contrast, Bill 42 would institute government-orchestrated financial support to accredited farm organizations, an arrangement that risks making the farm organizations more responsive to government than to farmers.
It is sometimes argued that "free riders" should help support the organizations that lobby and win gains for them. While some people are not joiners, any business association that's doing a reasonable job for its members should be able to attract sufficient financial support to function. We can only assume that since the general farm organizations have been pressing for this legislation they must have been unable to attract sufficient voluntary support and must resort to a form of government-supported conscription.
We would argue that this legislation lacks even the modicum of democratic procedure available to workers under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, where at least there are rules on showing sufficient membership and, in some instances, workers are able to vote on whether or not they wish to be represented. Some of our members commented that all farmers should be able to vote on this arrangement, yet farmers have no such luxury: The 1992 consultation meetings held last summer represented their input to this decision.
By contrast, the legislation contains a new structure, the Farm Organizations Accreditation Tribunal, which gives considerable procedural arrangements for deciding which farm organizations are eligible to receive the money and for dealing with farmers who have a religious objection to paying the fee.
The subsection 20(5) provision for a refund of the fee may mitigate our concerns only slightly, depending on the procedures. We would liken the idea of requiring payment from every farmer and providing refunds to those who request them to negative option plans, and these are generally held in low regard by consumer protection professionals. Any student of human nature knows that people are busy and deadlines easily slip by. It takes purpose and organization to request refund forms and to pursue obtaining the refund to its finish. Most people would think that having to do this each and every year is an intolerable burden.
The minister's staff, as of recently, were unable to furnish details of the refund arrangements as these apparently are under development. We were advised, however, that the farmer will not be able to indicate his or her desire for a refund along with the registration, since only the cheque and the registration number will be passed to the farm organization. It's hard to imagine a recipient farm organization being pleased by the prospect of processing large volumes of refunds, yet these people are the ones who are being consulted on the procedures. We suspect that the farm organizations are counting on human nature to limit the number and volume of refund requests.
Given all of the foregoing, CFIB strongly recommends an arrangement whereby farm businesses can opt into membership and offer voluntary financial support to a farm organization. Voluntary membership would truly strengthen the farm organizations. Involuntary financial support will only breed resentment and disenchantment with the government mandating it.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Questions and comments?
Mr Hansen: I'd like to welcome you to the committee. There are a few points on your fax survey that seem to be incorrect, so when people are answering it they haven't got the whole picture.
It says in the first question a cheque in the amount of $150 payable to the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario or the National Farmers Union or the Ontario Federation of Agriculture or the union of French farmers. Well, there are only two organizations. Maybe you hadn't got the changes that took place at the end of July, that the NFU had dropped out, so there are actually only two you'd be filling into. Also, it says "although the refund procedures are not yet established." There is a process to refund the $150 to the individuals, but you're putting in there "will be coming through."
The other one is on question 2: "Do you believe mandatory membership in a farm trade group should determine eligibility for Ministry of Agriculture and Food programs?" That's an incorrect statement. You do not have to join one of the farm groups, because you get a refund and you wouldn't be a member.
Ms Swift: Well, it's a question, not a statement.
Ms Andrew: It's a question on the basic principle --
Mr Hansen: But you're misleading the people out there, I would say, with that particular question, because you're saying: "It's mandatory membership. Do you agree?"
Ms Andrew: Bill 105, before this bill, was even closer to that particular principle. I grant there have been some changes since Bill 105, but we were asking on the principle of whether the farmer believes that should be a requirement. Some do, and they're free to believe that, but some don't, and we're perfectly able to ask that question of farmers.
Mr Hansen: Were these full-time farmers you were soliciting results from, or were they agribusiness, feed mills and implement dealers, maybe possibly belonging to OFA as supporters?
Ms Swift: No, they were farmers. There were no implement dealers or any of that.
Mr Hansen: And they don't belong to any of the commodity boards either?
Ms Andrew: They're crop producers and livestock producers.
Mr Hansen: Then a lot of them already belong to the commodity groups.
Ms Andrew: That's right. In fact, we received some comments that they already pay fees to those boards, and "Enough is enough" was the gist of some of the comments.
Mr Hansen: But it isn't compulsory for them to belong to another group. They can ask for a refund.
1520
Ms Swift: That's what we have difficulty with. We don't know the situation yet with the refund procedures. We know with small firms generally, with all the different kinds of legislation they deal with, that typically, as outlined in our brief, the difficulty of compliance is often more of a problem than the intent of the legislation in the first place.
Again, if the refund wasn't a problem, we think it could be facilitated quite a bit more than it has been. Hopefully, that will take place, and that's something we would certainly promote here today. But we all know that human nature is such that in any refund program you get a much lower proportion of people who actually follow through the process.
Mr Hansen: I can tell you, I'm in a drug program here for my prescription drugs and I have to pay first and then I have to fill in the forms and send it away for a refund. It's all part of doing business, or individuals too. It's nothing new, filling out forms for refunds.
Ms Swift: We disagree with that very strongly.
Ms Andrew: If it didn't make any difference, then it should be possible for the minister and the committee to support having an opt-in arrangement rather than an opt-out, if there was no difference.
Mr Hansen: We're just looking for opinions today.
Ms Andrew: On the earlier point about the Christian Farmers not being involved, I have heard through the grapevine that --
Mr Hansen: No, they are. It's the NFU.
Ms Andrew: The NFU. Someone is going to be excluded as of the amendments on third reading?
Mr Hansen: Yes, the NFU.
Ms Andrew: That hasn't happened yet, the amendment.
Mr Hansen: It will be in the amendments that start tomorrow.
Ms Andrew: That's fine. As the materials stand, what we received from the ministry, this is what we have.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): As one who's been opposed to the legislation, I'm going to stick up for the minister on an issue. I take exception when you say that a lot of people don't know about the legislation; also, that's it's being hastily moved through the process. I'm going to stick up for the minister. Guys, have you got this on record?
It went through a lot of public information process. There were about 14 of them out in the community. I know there have been a number of surveys done and I'm going to ask the ministry to supply some information to the committee, because this is the first chance I get, that a survey has been done.
But that it is hastily being moved and Bill 105 was introduced and Bill 42, I don't necessarily agree with. This has been out there and it's been public. By the sounds of it, we've got all-party agreement, except for a couple of us individuals who are fighting on principles of aspects of the legislation. I won't say where the Tories are.
I just take exception to that comment. I'm interested in some of your surveys, because I've been doing surveys out there too to find out how many actually know what this is all about, and I know my colleague did. I just want to say that, because I'm opposed. I sit on the government side and I've been opposed to the legislation and it's been clear. I want to stick up for the minister on that part: There has been public information and data.
That then leads me to my question to the ministry folks, the deputy minister's office. We've been supplied statistics, which is the first time that I'm aware of, through the process of having a survey done. I know the ministry has conducted its own surveys with questionnaires at 14 public hearings, and also it had a 1-800 phone-in line. I'm wondering if that information can be provided to us, the surveys that were conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food at the 14 hearings, and also whether the tapes and/or translations of the 1-800 line for people to express their comments could be provided so we have a balanced perspective of both the CFIB's statistics and your statistics.
Ms Andrew: I should clarify that I did request that information. I requested a consultation report on those meetings that were held last summer. And I would point out they were held between July 6 and July 29, which is probably a busy time for farmers; it's not a holiday time. I requested a report of those consultations and was told there was not one available and that the information gleaned at those meetings was what turned up in the bill. I would be interested in whether there are any broad-based surveys or whether all farmers were able to vote on this, because from our modest sample of just a few of our members, it would appear that they have not.
Mr Klopp: As the parliamentary assistant, at those meetings there was no real formal survey done that I'm aware of, but we'll get as much information as we can out to the committee tomorrow. If there's a 1-800 number, I'm unaware of that myself. I know that somebody put in an ad for one of my colleagues: "Phone one of the minister's staff persons to voice your opinion against the bill," and I'm unaware of whether she got any phone calls. But that was nothing the ministry did; I think that's just part of the free-enterprise system and freedom of speech we live in under this country. But we'll get as much as we can. There was no deliberate survey of any type that I'm aware of.
Mr Hope: It wasn't me who made up the 1-800 number.
Mr Klopp: I'm not saying it was. Anyway, we'll get as much as we can.
I guess if I didn't say this, the people back in my riding would say I'm not fighting for farmers. Farmers are always busy, 12 months of the year. We're in a business where you make your own time where you can. There's no good time for a meeting. I say that just because it's something that, if I didn't, somebody would accuse me back home that I've gone soft down here.
Also, if I may, the Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens, you have in your brief, are receiving $150. That is something that is not the case, and I just wanted to make sure you're aware of it.
Ms Andrew: Do you have the minister's press release, Catherine? The highlight sheet that came out of the ministry states at the bottom, "Regulations made under the proposed bill will name l'Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens as this French organization for the first three years." It's clear that they're included for the first three years.
Mr Klopp: All right, they're just not accredited. I need that for the record in case there's someone else who wants to come forward. I apologize if it was misleading. I just wanted to get it for the record. It's part of these hearings that people read them, and I wanted to get that on the record.
Ms Andrew: It is decided that they will be named.
Mr Klopp: They're not accredited; they're under special funding. I don't know if you were here earlier --
Ms Andrew: Which is what their brief was about.
Mr Klopp: Yes. There's a small line difference. We've discussed it in the last few days, and I need to get that on the record. I apologize if it was that way.
Mr Cleary: Thank you, ladies, for your brief. I somewhat differ from the second-last speaker on the consultation process. I've been a firm believer that if you're dealing with the agricultural community, you want to get as much information out to them over as long a period of time as possible. As you said, they're all busy people.
I take it that you ladies are pleased that we're having these hearings, that you can get your views on the record. Is that true?
Ms Swift: We're always happy to express the views of our members. As we mentioned at the outset, typically we try to not get embroiled in fairly sectoral issues, but this one was interesting because, first of all, it was initiated by a lot of our members contacting us; that was where the initiation came from. Given that, we decided that yes, we should do a survey. Unfortunately, at that point we didn't have a lot of lead time so we had to do it via fax, which is not our preference, but it is faster, and did decide to appear before this committee on that basis.
Mr Cleary: So a few more weeks would have been pretty valuable to you.
Ms Swift: Under the circumstances, yes. Speaking for small business in all sectors, we find that the more the merrier in terms of efforts to educate. We try to perform an education role, as well as other things, with our membership, as do other organizations. No matter how much you may think you've informed people, I suspect this survey is -- well, there's no reason to believe it's not accurate when it implies that roughly 25% were not aware of the bill. One always thinks that by sending out a notice or whatever you've consulted, but what you say is absolutely true. Of course, with any small business in particular you have to get information out several times if you hope eventually you'll hit the majority of recipients.
Mr Cleary: If you had a wish list, what would be your priority to a change in the bill?
Ms Swift: As Judith alluded to earlier, if there really isn't a problem with this whole refund arrangement, why is there not the ability to opt out at the outset? Why do we have to set up this complex administrative mechanism whereby cheques are submitted and then refunded and so on, if there isn't any difference? Of course, the reality is that there is a difference. You know that a certain proportion of people -- and again we can speculate over what that is -- will not apply for the refund. To set up this complex procedure we see as unnecessary. Why not allow an opt-in or an opt-out at the outset?
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I have a question sort of around the area that you've addressed in dealing with the refund. I understand what you're saying with the request for a rebate. In fact, there is no process under the bill. It's just a mere request, and bang, the cheque should be sent back. But I understand that people just won't request, in keeping with human nature.
1530
Ms Swift: Under the current way we read it anyway, and it does seem to change as we discuss it, you have to apply to the organization that was the ultimate recipient and so presumably, I don't know, do you phone them? Do you write? We understand that's still under some kind of development, whether there's a process or whatever.
Mr Offer: One of the things that is clear from the bill is that there's no time frame. I know that you're knowledgeable about a whole variety of areas, but it says that the ministry shall promptly forward the cheques to the appropriate organization, that if there's a refund request, that shall be promptly sent back. There's no time frame for the individual to request the refund. I'd like to get maybe your thoughts as to whether there should be some time frames in the bill that say, "Listen, if you want a rebate, you've got this amount of time to request. When the ministry receives the cheque, it has this amount of time to send it to the GFO and the GFO to the individual," and your thoughts generally on time limitations in a bill of this nature.
Ms Andrew: I suppose, when it comes down to it, those things would be important. If a time limitation for requesting the refund elapsed before one got around to it, that would be unfortunate. So there should be a generous time allowed for doing that, given that farmers are busy business people. The subsection 20(5) requirement on the accredited farm organization to promptly refund to the business should probably specify a reasonable but short period of time for doing so, two weeks or something.
Mr Offer: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Offer. Mrs Fawcett would like one very brief one.
Mrs Fawcett: One very brief one, yes. Thank you very much and I thank you for coming before us.
Some groups that have come before us have asked that a vote should be taken or be part of the bill, that a mandatory vote be taken before to get the air cleared. Have you thought about that? I'm sure you must know that this is what some groups are advocating. What's your thought on that?
Ms Andrew: We received that specific comment from a number of our members on the survey and over the phone, those who called us, that every farmer should have an opportunity to vote on this, and that that would make it the most democratic procedure that you could muster in the circumstances. We believe, yes, that they should be able to vote.
Mrs Fawcett: Because even though the $150 is refundable, you don't feel that that's really democratic enough.
Ms Andrew: Again, it just seems like an awfully backhanded way of doing something, and I mean, don't get us wrong. We certainly have nothing against any of the organizations involved here in any way, shape or form.
Mrs Fawcett: I realize that.
Ms Andrew: It's a philosophical issue, if you will, and also setting up a procedure which really, a lot of it, could be avoided in a very straightforward way.
A number of our members, interestingly enough, said to us, "Why don't you become accredited," which would not be relevant for all kinds of reasons, but that was their approach in their cases. It's just not something, as an organization, we would ever want to do because of what it implies, I guess. So it's not anything involving the organizations but really the procedures that seem to be inherent in our interpretation of the proposed bill.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Murdoch?
Mr Murdoch: I'll just follow along the line of a vote. I noticed you've presented this brief as the CFIB brief, and I note that you say there are about 40,000 independently owned businesses that belong to this. I wonder what right you have to present this brief on their behalf if the 40,000 people have not voted on this. Has it been presented to them, which I don't think it has by listening to you, and you've signed it on their behalf? I'm wondering how this can be presented, then, as a CFIB report when there has in fact, as I take it, been no vote on this brief. Are you presenting it basically on the two of your decisions, or where does the authority come from to present this on behalf of the 40,000 independent businesses?
Ms Swift: The data that formed the brief came from a good sample of our agricultural members in Ontario. Just as you would probably not go to a vote for all Ontarians on this particular piece of legislation with something that is so sector-specific, we would not likely, and this happens in other sectors as well, the retail sector or some other industrial sector, if it only affects that particular sector.
Mr Murdoch: So you feel you've taken a qualified vote among the sector that you're trying to represent here?
Ms Swift: No, this is based on what we've received to date. We're still getting them in. We got a few more this morning as a matter of fact, but unfortunately because of our time frame and appearance here today, we're presenting you with what we've got so far. We're continuing to receive them and we will continue to report accordingly.
Ms Andrew: Our research here was quite clearly qualified with the size of the sample, and also the strong point that very much more needs to be done and a vote sounds to us like one way to address all the farmers in Ontario so that they have a democratic choice in this.
Mr Murdoch: On one hand you say there should be a vote and on the other hand that you're presenting something from the CFIB which has 40,000 members who didn't have a vote on it, so I wonder --
Ms Swift: Which we've presented accordingly, and as we say, we think there are more.
Mr Murdoch: I want to get on record that really, you can't present this as a brief from CFIB. You can present it --
Ms Swift: No, that's not true.
Ms Andrew: That's not true at all.
Ms Swift: We also have -- well, it's not a question of authority --
Ms Andrew: You represent your constituents, and I'm sure you don't check with them every time you make a statement --
Mr Murdoch: I try to, and I'll be surprised if my CFIB people will like this.
Ms Andrew: The other difference is we do have to justify our work and our fees every year to our members, and if we're not representing them well, then --
Mr Murdoch: As I say, I question it, so I just want it on the record.
Ms Swift: Because we don't have anyone paying us because it's in legislation somewhere, we do, certainly, have an annual check. Politicians have one every four years or so. We have one every year, and if we're not doing our job, we certainly hear about it.
Mr Murdoch: Okay, and maybe you will on this.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Murdoch. Ms Swift, Ms Andrew, on behalf of this committee I'd like to thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedules and giving us your presentation here today. Thank you very much.
Ms Swift: Thank you. We appreciate that.
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenter, Richard Lloyd.
1540
RICHARD LLOYD
The Chair: The next scheduled presenter is Richard Lloyd. Mr Lloyd? Good afternoon and welcome. You've been allocated one half-hour for your presentation. If you can proceed with your presentation and allow, if you can, 15 minutes or so for questions and answers out of that half-hour.
Mr Richard Lloyd: Just before I begin, I would like to enter into the point of information about what was done at the open house meetings in terms of what was called a survey. We were all asked to fill out a comment sheet. I am aware that all of these comment sheets were collected and compiled. Statistics of pro and against were kept. There's also a telephone tape of comments that were made to a 1-800 number which was publicized. It does exist. Now, to begin my presentation.
Good afternoon. I am here today to make one final public statement on what I see as a shameful episode in the history of Ontario farm politics and an equally shameful and inadequate response by our elected politicians in Ontario.
I will begin with an introduction of who I am and why I think I understand the opinions of grass-roots farmers.
My name is Richard Lloyd. To come to Queen's Park today I left my home in the back hills of Renfrew county in the Ottawa Valley even before most dairy farmers were getting up for their morning milking. I'm a constituent of Leo Jordan and when I step over my back property line I'm in Sean Conway's riding.
The Ottawa Valley is a very sane place to live. Perhaps that may be why I have been able to view stable funding with what I believe is some level of clarity. The valley is a small world on its own, with the Ottawa River and Quebec on one side and a string of high hills of the Canadian Shield -- we call it the Opeongo Range -- separating us from the rest of Ontario.
My father was a farm appraiser for the Veterans' Land Act. I grew up in Victoria and Haliburton counties. I picked the Ottawa Valley as a place to settle after attending Carleton University in Ottawa and have now lived in the valley for 17 years. I was a very happy, though not affluent, beef farmer and also ran a farm feed outlet.
My current résumé ends with the following statement:
"My great love and respect for the Ottawa Valley farming community is reflected in the easy rapport and acceptance I experience when I am with rural people. All of my activities and interests grow from my sense of commitment to the community within which I live.
"My work, lifestyle and energy revolve around the principles of self-sufficiency, fair treatment and positive action."
For over 20 years I have devoted much of my energies to organizing for the New Democrats at the grass-roots level, mostly in Renfrew and Lanark counties. Indeed, I had been prepared to challenge Mr Jordan in the next provincial election.
Throughout the course of my involvement with this stable funding issue, I have become a member of the National Farmers Union. I have contributed my efforts in opposition to this concept both through the New Democratic Party structure, as provincial council delegate for Lanark-Renfrew and internal lobbying of cabinet and NDP caucus, and through helping to draft NFU press releases, speeches, backgrounders and a clause-by-clause analysis of Bill 105, now Bill 42.
I am now a disillusioned former member of the New Democrats and a proud member of the National Farmers Union. But above all, I am a supporter of the democratic rights of my farming neighbours. I very much resent the attitude of people who say that they know what is good for farmers, are ready to legislate the extraction of up to $10 million a year from farmers and have held a second reading debate on the stable funding bill that concentrated on the price of cherries.
Now that I have completed my opening statement of declaration of interest, I am intensely interested in hearing a declaration of interest from the committee members, so I know to whom I am speaking.
I would like you all to please declare your membership in an Ontario general farm organization, whether this is a full or supportive membership, whether you have held an executive position and whether you have held a paying position within that organization. And, surprisingly, please state whether you are aware of and whether you are a player on the Legiskators Hockey Team, organized by Elmer Buchanan.
Mr Hope: I play hockey. I'm guilty.
The Chair: If members of the committee wish to indicate something to the witness, they can do so. If not, we can proceed with your written presentation and have dialogue after.
Mr Villeneuve: I'm a member of the OFA.
Mr Murdoch: I'm a member of the OFA too but I never was in an executive position, but I play hockey too.
Mr Villeneuve: In 1978, 1979 and 1980 I was a member of the tax assessment committee of the OFA, working on farm tax rebates.
Mr Cleary: I'm not a member of any farm organization, although I've worked with them over a lot of years, and I do not play hockey on that legislative team.
Mr Klopp: But we need you.
Mr Murdoch: Yes, we need you for defence.
Mr Cleary: Is that right?
Mrs Fawcett: I am not a member of any of the farm organization groups, and even though I can play hockey, I don't play for this particular team.
Mr Klopp: Jeepers, we find something out here.
I started off in politics at the local county federation of agriculture and am proud to have learned a lot from a lot of good people. My father was an active member of the NFU and also actually paid both memberships. Unfortunately, because of the poor farm prices in this province, I couldn't afford to do both plus try to farm, and only having me on the farm and dad and no other brothers -- well, Doug helps when he can -- I was only able to stay with one farm organization. I was never on the executive of the OFA, never tried, and heaven knows what would happen.
As far as your question on the Legiskators, I quite frankly am appalled that that question's been asked for the record, but since you asked, I will tell you that I'm a proud member of that. I'm not very good at it but I sure have fun.
The Chair: Anybody else?
Mr Hope: I've already indicated.
Mr Waters: I don't mind saying that I come from a farming area where the farmers are too poor to be able to afford to belong to a number of organizations. Like Mr Klopp, I see no relevance to your second question, but I don't play hockey and I have no idea why you would ask either of those questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Proceed, Mr Lloyd.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I just want to say, Mr Chair, that I'm not a member of the OFA and I'm aware of the team but I'm not a member of it.
Mr Lloyd: I just want to know who I was speaking to.
I will always remember the date of April 8, 1992, when a fellow Admaston township resident asked me to come down after supper to view the draft proposal of the stable funding concept as proposed by Elmer Buchanan and the OMAF bureaucrats.
My immediate reaction was that this was political suicide in rural Ontario. I promptly worked my political connections to advise Evelyn Gigantes of my conclusion and pleaded with her that there was only one moral and political position to take: A vote by farmers was traditional in these situations and no political blood would adhere to the government whichever way it went.
I thought this would be a relatively easy lobby. I was naïve.
For the first time in over 15 years, I travelled out of the Ottawa Valley to the NDP convention in Hamilton in June 1992. A small group of farmers got the issue of stable funding on to the floor after several procedural moves but lost on a virtual tie vote. After that, my Lanark-Renfrew NDP riding association sponsored the lobby. We circulated a resolution and background paper to all rural riding associations and caucus members. I attended farmer meetings in Alliston, Markdale, Cambridge and twice in Oshawa, where I continued to challenge the minister and his position.
In November 1992, I and others convinced the NDP provincial executive and provincial council delegates to overwhelmingly call for the withdrawal of the then Bill 105. Others in our effort lobbied the opposition parties.
All of us in a broad coalition of grass-roots farmers eventually took the non-partisan position that any party that stood up for the democratic rights of farmers through a vote on stable funding checkoffs would win our support.
You all have let us down.
Again, it seems pretty naïve on my part, but I thought it would be politically advantageous to defend a vote. Silly me.
1550
What I see, to my utter surprise, is all three parties consciously choosing to go along with the OFA's demands that there not be a vote, now or ever. For politicians whose very lifeline is democracy and voting, this, I believe, will live to haunt you. I certainly don't envy your position of defending not having a vote, both NDP government and opposition parties, and your persistence in espousing this totally politically untenable position. If I were a teenager, I'd say, "Awesome, folks." I don't get it.
I'll repeat what I have said to Elmer: "Stand back and take a look at yourself. Do you realize how foolish you look arguing against democracy? You don't know who a farmer is? You don't want to divide farmers?"
To Mr Villeneuve, who earlier in these hearings argued against using the land tax rebate database as a source of a voters list because, for instance, you get three cheques, I ask you, would you vote three times despite a legal declaration to vote only once?
I'm not going to devote any time to dealing with specific legal objections to Bill 105, now Bill 42. My 20-page clause-by-clause analysis is available from Liberal researcher Hans Feldman, Tory researcher Bill King and the offices of the Premier and the minister. You could also read the 45 column-inches that the Ontario Farmer magazine gave to the analysis in the March 23-24 edition.
Although it was written for Bill 105, the majority of the analysis applies to Bill 42, in particular the inordinate powers of the tribunal and the use of the regulations to encompass the most important elements, rather than entrenching them within the legislation. We won't even see the regulations until two weeks after you folks pass this bill, according to Elmer.
It's my belief that this has been a quite brilliant strategy engineered by Carl Sulliman, Ontario Federation of Agriculture chief executive officer, to bring back this December dead bird to life by the end of January with the support of the uninformed.
"Refundable" looks so attractive to those uninformed of the history of farm checkoffs. Liberals should have remembered how easily the Ontario Cattlemen's Association checkoff changed from refundable to non-refundable. Then in Elmer's early days as Agriculture minister, he took the cap off the amount of the checkoff. Only uninformed politicians would be fooled by this refundable scheme, certainly not farmers.
I will bet Elmer a case of beer that the scenario in a couple of years will be the OFA complaining that it is costing them a lot of money to administer the refund system. I can hear it now: "Before, we had freeloaders who didn't contribute, but now they're costing us a lot of money. Let's make it mandatory." Is the next government ready to play into this scenario?
Since I left my farming career, I took up computer programming, which is a simple matter of logic. I have based my arguments against stable funding on logic, but logic never entered into the Queen's Park debate on this issue. Silly me, again.
I have learned four things:
(1) Watching the OFA and the minister, I can see that it is possible to repeat lies and half-truths over and over until they are believed.
(2) The OFA runs OMAF. Indeed, a farmer friend of mine has been increasingly confused about who this province's Agriculture minister is, Elmer or Roger George. The farmer describes them as "Siamese twins joined at the wallet." We've got some very funny farmers in the valley. But right on. Now it seems the OFA is branching out to the Ministry of Labour, having announced for the government, on OFA letterhead, the introduction of the Agricultural Labour Relations Act, including an OFA invitation to the ministry's briefing.
(3) When it comes to understanding agricultural policy, both the government and opposition parties don't have a clue. The second reading debate on this bill is embarrassing in its lack of focus on the issue.
(4) Worst of all, although Queen's Park is a very busy place, it appears no one cares to take the time to find out about agricultural issues.
Thus, the attitude I've run up against is, "We have an Agriculture minister and he's a good fellow and he must know what is right for agriculture." Why, I ask, has every Agriculture minister for the last 20 years avoided the pressure from the OFA to enact such a scheme? Were they less brave or more politically astute?
I think the political judgement of both NDP government and Liberal and Tory opposition members in thinking that the OFA vote is crucial to your re-election is wrong and dangerous. For instance, to you NDP members, I want to tell you that I asked some of my local OFA leaders to take out NDP membership because of this great favour from Elmer. Guess what? No takers.
Farmers have busy lives and have had little opportunity to participate in the debate on this issue, with the ridiculous open house sessions and now the committee hearings taking place in the busiest time of the farm year. But I assure you that you must remember that two thirds of Ontario farmers do not now voluntarily belong to a general farm organization, not because they are the vaunted freeloaders, but because they see no value in such a membership.
This forced registration and blackmail payment will unleash farmer anger like you have never seen. Anyone attached to this farmer registration and farm organization funding scheme will pay the price of defeat at the polls. You will drop like flies after the first hard fall frost. When I have explained this scheme to my neighbours, their anger is scary.
I now introduce a compendium of Letters to the Ontario Farmer. That's this rather thick document. It took me a long time to clip them, make sure I had them all and reduce them so it didn't cost me too much to photostat them, but I think it's the most valuable thing in my file, which now occupies a box. If you choose not to read these letters -- and I know it's a lot of reading, but there is some very good writing in there, some very funny stuff, some emotional.
I direct your attention to the summary page, which includes the titles to the letters and the final totals on page 3. You can check with Paul Mahon, the editor of the Ontario Farmer magazine, Ontario's premier farm press, that this issue is unprecedented in the number of letter responses. There were, between May 1992 and July 1993, 72 letters on the issue of stable funding. There were 16 in favour, 22%, and 56 against, 78%. I believe this would reflect the results of a vote on stable funding. You can see why the OFA won't allow a vote on stable funding.
Despite all the talk heard here about a vote, I have no expectation that there will be an amendment to the vote section, or indeed any amendments, except the removal of the NFU from section 7. I look forward to seeing the minister move this amendment in the House and all parties voting on it.
During the general drivel of the comments made by members at second reading -- it could hardly be called a debate, except by Mr Hope and Mr Cleary -- one was left with the general impression that most members knew that farming was in a crisis and that since this was the only agricultural bill to make it on to the legislative schedule, this stable funding of farm lobby groups would solve all the problems of the agriculture industry in Ontario.
In an almost Freudian slip, Karen Haslam, Elmer's biggest fan, even referred to it as "stable farming." Now I note that the same word slippage has passed on to the letters sent from the committee secretariat to us witnesses, and no one seemed to notice. Even on the schedule of who appeared today, I see the name of the bill in dark print, in French and, in brackets, "stable farming." I draw your attention to this.
1600
I think this is an apt summary of this whole sorry affair. To quote a former OFA president, "Once you've got them in the corral, close the gate and don't let them out." To all MPPs, in case you missed it, the "them" is you.
Notwithstanding my angst about logic not being part of this debate, please let me read the arguments and counterarguments as contained in the grid sheets I have provided.
The "Eleven Stable Funding Arguments" grid sheet was prepared in November 1992 and used to successfully explain this issue to the NDP provincial council. Behind it, the "Six More Stable Funding Arguments" grid sheet was prepared in March 1993 to attempt to counter the uninformed support for the new refundable twist.
Eleven Stable Funding Arguments: I just want to say I learned a lot about writing through this exercise. I learned a lot about how much paper passes through your desks. I think this was my most successful attempt at making a concise issue that one would have the hope of an elected official having time to look at. I know a lot of people were sent it. I don't know if it got past your staff.
The issue of the concept: The Minister of Agriculture and Food said farm registration and stable funding. Others said no, this is mandatory fees to farm lobby groups. The minister said money to GFOs is power. Others said no, this is not a social democratic view of empowerment.
The issue of the Rand formula: The minister said all farmers benefit, so therefore all must contribute. Others said the Rand formula cannot be extended to political lobby groups, for example, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. The issue again was the minister saying the system must be mandatory -- now, I know this was November, but we'll go through it -- with a mechanism of force, denial of access to OMAF programs. I point out to you that only a third of farmers are voluntary members at this point. Others said if it's going to be mandatory, then the principle of union certification must apply; within that, there's provision for a vote.
The issue of a vote: The Minister of Agriculture said a vote would be divisive. Others said that's nonsense. Do we therefore dispense with elections? Denying farmers a vote will target their anger at the NDP and will result in many rural seats lost.
The issue of a voters list: The minister said no one can come up with a voters list. Others said that's nonsense. Many mechanisms have been suggested. A legal oath is sufficient in rural polls in elections. Is there no trust in farmers' honesty? If we can figure out where to send the bill, we can figure out where to send the ballot.
The issue of a delayed vote: The minister said there could be a formal review in three years. Others said no other group is forced to pay mandatory fees for three years and then allowed to vote. Why farmers? There is no grass-roots outcry for this as there was for milk supply management in 1965.
The issue of the Quebec model: The minister said Quebec's farm group, UPA, is a successful mandatory model. Others said UPA was given mandatory power after being accepted through a vote by Quebec farmers.
The issue of consultation: The minister said a series of information sessions was held this summer. That's now two summers ago. Others said only 14 manipulated sessions in the busiest time of the farm year was a consultation sham. Nevertheless, there was nearly 50% opposition. As far as I can tell, no input was considered.
The issue of one GFO: The minister said there is a choice of one of three general farm organizations. Others said this excludes many other legitimate organizations and likely will result in only one GFO, the OFA, shortly, due to the reaccreditation process.
The issue of what we do now, well, that was in November. The other bill was an embarrassing thing. I can't believe there are people who don't know how the farmers' anger erupted in a phone lobby in December.
The second grid sheet, six more stable funding revised version arguments, March 1993. I'll read the recent history. Legislation called Bill 105 was introduced and given first reading in late November 1992. Immediate and strong opposition from grass-roots Ontario farmers, the NDP provincial council and the opposition parties at that time brought the bill to a halt and prevented its quick passage in early December 1992. A desperate Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the main stable funding proponent, helped design a brilliant new strategy in mid-January 1993.
The issue of the concept again: The minister said mandatory registration and payment of $150 annual fee to one of three general farm organizations or lose access to government farm programs, farm tax rebate, for example. Others said this is the same as the original proposal, the same objections. If mandatory, then the principle of union certification must apply. There must be a vote. Denial of programs is draconian.
Refundable: Remember in March we weren't quite sure what this refundable stuff was about, but the minister said after the farm organization gets the $150 fee, a farmer can ask for it back. Others said the history of refundable checkoffs is that they soon become non-refundable. There is a double onus on farmers: pay and ask for it back, ridiculously bureaucratic and inefficient.
The issue of a vote: The minister said, just like Charlie Mayer says about having removed barley from the single desk selling of the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers will vote with their chequebooks. Provision for a mandatory vote in three years will likely be dropped and has been dropped. Others said if giving choice is genuine, cut out the deviousness. There must be a vote by farmers before implementing checkoffs for general farm organizations. This must be established as a fundamental principle.
The issue of information: The minister said that data provided on the registration form will aid the government in understanding the farm sector and its needs. Others said nonsense. Farmers already provide lots of data on various application forms. An extensive Ontario farm statistics is published yearly. Further questions could be added to the farm tax rebate application.
The issue of cost: The minister said the government will pay administration cost of registration, $700,000 or higher. No new employees will be needed. Others say, nonsense. Processing 50,000 to 70,000 registrations is a major, complicated task. Save the taxpayers from this foolish unnecessary expense, especially since what we've been through with budget stuff since April. At that point, we were asking who pays for the processing of the return of cheques. Now we know that it will be on the onus of the farm organization.
The issue of consultation: At that point in March there had only been two short meetings with the leaders of the three organizations and only one more was planned and it never did happen.
The Chair: Mr Lloyd, if I may interrupt, you are approximate a minute and a half away from using the time allocated to you. If you would care to sum up, it would probably be helpful.
Mr Lloyd: I'm totally disorganized here. I will go from memory. I want to remind you, in conclusion, of what my first reaction was, that this was political suicide in rural Ontario and that there was only one clean way to deal with this, both from a moral and political standpoint, and that was through a vote.
1610
I just want to warn you again not to go with the OFA's agenda on this. I want to remind you of a different agenda, that there will probably be enough time with this proposal in implementation; that there will be at least one if not two registrations, and that is when the farmers will find out about this and my neighbours down the road that we stop and chat with as our pickup trucks cross. We talk about this nonsense of passing cheques back and forth and if you don't do it, you don't get your farm tax rebate. The anger will really be in place for the next election. All I can say is, I wish you all luck if that is the scenario in the next election.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Lloyd. The committee appreciates your taking the time to be with us today and expressing your views. Your views as well as everyone else's who appears before this committee are an important part of the process. Certainly, I think I can speak on behalf of the entire committee in again thanking you for taking the time to present them.
PETER DOWLING
The Chair: The next scheduled witness is Peter Dowling.
Mrs Fawcett: Mr Chairman, I want to put it on the record that the next witness, although I know him to be a fine, honest, hardworking farmer, I do believe I have a perceived conflict of interest, so I will just leave the committee at this time.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Fawcett.
Good afternoon and welcome. You've been allocated 30 minutes for your presentation. You can proceed at your leisure. The committee appreciates time for questions and answers out of that 30 minutes, so if you can see your way clear to provide some portion of that for dialogue among committee members and yourself, I think they would very much appreciate it.
Mr Klopp: Mr Chair, on a point of clarification, the last speaker asked about membership. I also am a member of the Catholic Rural Life Organization. I want to make it perfectly clear so I don't get nailed on that either.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klopp. Proceed, Mr Dowling.
Mr Peter Dowling: I want to start off by introducing myself and establishing my interest in this issue. I'm including this information to indicate that I am concerned about this issue as an active farmer and as an involved member in the National Farmers Union, a voluntary membership-independently funded GFO.
We seem a little short on committee members here.
The Vice-Chair: Please continue. There are some who are out making personal phone calls. As you know, the committee proceeds all day long, so they have to get their work in while they're proceeding, but I assure you that they do catch up with things by reading the presentations.
Mr Dowling: I do have a response to that. I guess my response is that I already feel I may be wasting my time being here and I would appreciate the interest of the committee since I have made the effort to be here.
The Vice-Chair: I assure you that those committee members who are present at this time are paying full attention.
Mr Dowling: I invest a substantial amount of my time and resources in these activities. I believe that these credentials distinguish me from those who are willing to complain without the sacrifice and commitment to a chosen organization. I have tried, in judging this legislation, to be as objective as is possible given my interests and biases. I am declaring them here. I have tried to back up my statements with credible supporting documentation. Your actions will be a measure of the success of this presentation.
I go into details of my background here, a family farm. I farm with my brother, my family, his family and my mother on a large mixed farm on Howe Island in eastern Ontario, in the Thousand Islands. I graduated from the University of Guelph with a crop science degree in 1973. We have Holstein and Blonde d'Aquitaine herds, we have forage and certified barley seed production and until recently we had a flock of sheep, up to 400 ewes, so it's fairly diverse.
In the community, I've been a township councillor for over six years in the past. I was OMAF program coordinator for a rural community leadership development program in 1991. You're probably familiar with Ten Steps to Community Action. I'm a past NFU president and at the present time the local director. In the county soil and crop improvement association I'm a director and have been the secretary-treasurer. I now hold the treasurer's position and am a local committee member.
In the province, with OMAF again, in 1989 my wife and I co-authored the 1989 4-H dairy project manual and leaders' guide. I'm a graduate of the advanced agricultural leadership program, I was the NFU representative on Minister Buchanan's advisory committee on environmental responsibility and I presented NFU concerns to the Environmental Bill of Rights task force, and quite a while ago I was an assistant ag rep with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.
In Canada, I'm a member of the national farm financing crisis committee and I've just become a national board member-elect representing this region, to take effect in January, with the NFU.
My points of concern -- I've already alluded to the first ones:
(1) I am deeply concerned that all parties within this committee have indicated broad support for this bill at the outset of the hearings, before hearing any presentations.
(2) There are several points here I want to make about the CFFO as an accredited farm organization -- if you had asked me a week ago if I was going to discuss this, I would have said no. Two weeks ago I talked to a bureaucrat at the CFFO office and he offered to send me some information explaining their position when I eventually, after the discussion, said I didn't really understand why they were involved in stable funding at all. So they sent me the information. I was going on vacation, I came back on the weekend and these are the things that concern me most about the information I saw.
I leave it to the committee to judge this information. I think there's some follow-up to be done here before proceeding with accreditation.
The CFFO is an elitist, exclusionary organization and should not be accredited as a GFO. That's the point.
While the CFFO may say in its CFFO backgrounder, page 3, "Membership...is open to all," it has limited appeal in the farming community. Continuing in the backgrounder, "We anticipate that some -- perhaps many -- farm families will disqualify themselves from membership because they do not wish to be as public about their" values "and faith as we are."
Further, "To date, most of our members are also members of Christian denominations of the Reformed tradition," and it lists "Christian Reformed, Canadian Reformed, Reformed Church of Canada, Free Reformed, Netherlands Reformed and others."
So, what is reformism? The CFFO sent me their clippings entitled CFFO in the News, in which this definition appeared: "Christian Reformism is based on Calvinist teachings which hold that the word of God, as told through the Bible, is law. Traditional family values are emphasized. Homosexuality and abortion are not accepted." And this is from an article in the Ottawa Citizen.
Let's consider a farmer who accepts homosexuality and abortion as facts of life, as the Ontario government does. How comfortable and welcome would this farmer feel in a GFO that ignores entire sectors of our population? While the government and courts have consistently pressed for a reduction in discrimination and the upholding of fundamental human rights, I believe that this government is on shaky ground, both morally and legally, on the question of basic human rights in proceeding with accreditation of the CFFO. I can explain this further:
(3) The CFFO is prepared to take money without granting membership rights to those who do not sign the membership agreement.
This is another point. Accreditation should not be offered to any GFO that does not offer a voting membership in return for the $150 that farmers send in. It's a question of accountability and empowerment, an important issue with the Minister of Agriculture and Food, empowerment of the GFO, which I presume means empowerment of the farmer. The CFFO does not fit that category.
1620
Membership in the CFFO is further restricted to those who are willing to sign a membership agreement. The agreement says, "Agreeing with the basis and purpose of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, I wish to support its work and become a member," and you have to sign and date your agreement.
The basis reflects the Calvinist teachings: "Basis: The organization is based on the conviction that Holy Scriptures, as the infallible word of God, is the supreme standard for all human life.... Purpose: to promote and apply Christian ideals and principles to the solution of agricultural problems and to promote the social and economic interests of its members, in order to contribute to the solutions of the problems of our society in a Christian spirit. The federation tries to achieve this goal by...organizing those farmers who agree with our basis and purpose," in other words members, and the membership is limited to people who do sign the membership agreement.
Action is "cooperating with other organizations who strive for similar goals by lawful means, provided we do not compromise our principles in so doing." I suggest that the Christian Farmers are also compromising their principles by being involved in stable funding, given their interest in and reduced intervention with government.
The "flexible" membership fee of the CFFO is at $425, well above the GFO fee. This information that I have was two weeks old. I understand that there has been a change to reduce that to $150 since. I wish to duly note that in the presentation.
My recent discussion with the general manager of the CFFO confirmed that the above approach will continue under stable funding. Also see the pamphlet, Farmer Registration Stable Funding and CFFO.
My concern here is an important one. Since Minister Buchanan has stated that the purpose of the stable funding is to empower farmers, the way the legislation stands, a GFO is not required to grant a membership for a compulsory fee, and you might dispute the word "compulsory," but it's clear that one must write a cheque to an organization, so it is a compulsory fee in that respect. It's also clear that one must apply for a refund, so it is compulsory to apply for a refund, doubly compulsory. This may empower the GFO, this cash flow, but it certainly does not empower the farmer. The GFO has his money but the farmer has no voice in shaping its policy direction, and in fact the policy direction could be detrimental to the interests of that farmer.
(4) Either there should be no religion-based GFOs accredited or there should be more choice of accredited, religion-based GFOs.
This committee must really scrutinize the CFFO position as a deemed organization because of its religious basis and its membership restrictions. If you decide to allow the CFFO to continue as deemed then you must include other religion-based GFOs as deemed also. For myself, as a Catholic, I would choose the Catholic Rural Life Conference if I were choosing a religion-based GFO. This legislation should allow me that choice.
(5) Refundability is a maze for individual farmers and a means for the OFA.
The cumbersome and intrusive nature of the legislation is already disrupting recruitment efforts. Farmers are concerned about slow refunds, cash tied up in the bureaucracy and OFA arm-twisting tactics.
In one example, and I've been out on the road myself recruiting for the NFU, a farmer told me that he had intended to send his stable funding money to the NFU, but now that it was withdrawing he would have to send the fee to the OFA. I explained that he should request a refund from the OFA and then use the money for his NFU membership. He responded that it wouldn't be worth his time to try and get the money back from the OFA. He had resigned from the OFA a few years ago when they had his bank authorization. It took him two years to obtain a refund. His story indicates a lack of confidence in the refund mechanism, and this causes problems both for the farmer and for the non-accredited GFOs.
Refundability is further complicated by the very real pressure of OFA arm-twisting. In talking to two reluctant OFA members in my area during a membership drive last March, it became apparent that these farmers had only joined the OFA after feeling substantial pressure from a recruitment team which included a nearby neighbour. If you don't live in the rural community, maybe you don't appreciate the peer pressure that neighbours can apply to each other on issues such as this, and I think it's a very important one to appreciate in considering the refundability. We can argue that, "Well, all they've got to do is -- if they're really serious about it, they'll get it," but they have to go through difficulties to do that.
The NFU organizer confirmed that this practice is widespread. Carl Sulliman, from the OFA, confirmed that it will continue when he told this committee last week that the OFA will be sending out a representative prior to the issuing of a refund just to see if the farmers are serious about their application for refund. Minister Buchanan has offered a full and prompt refund but as yet he has not said it will be hassle-free.
(6) Any change from refundability to non-refundability must be preceded by a vote.
Historically, refundability -- you've heard this repeatedly, I'm sure, in the last two weeks -- of farmers' money has eventually become non-refundability due to the political pressures from the beneficiary of the legislated funding. The Ontario Cattlemen's Association checkoff is an example. A producer vote would be more important than ever with this eventuality.
Refundability is not the relief valve for this organization that one might think. To sit back and argue that refundability is the answer is simplistic.
(7) Stable funding has been and continues to be an OFA-owned and -controlled agenda imposed on the farming community.
Stable funding was not and may never have become an important issue for the other GFOs or for OMAF. The OFA decided that there should be one certified GFO "to represent the general farm interest." This was published in the OFA Members' Digest in 1990. This effectively drew every other GFO that was interested in its own survival into the debate, and also the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, because everyone went to the minister with their concerns about survival.
The government should be able to spot such an agenda when it sees one: The OFA has made no secret of the fact that it thinks that there should be one general farm organization, and stable funding is an essential element of that agenda.
The way the criteria presently read, it will be difficult for other GFOs which aspire to be accredited to achieve this status. Furthermore, criteria can change. My point here is, we should all be rather wary of a group which so clearly wishes to set up itself as "the one and only."
Secondly, I think it's rather simplistic to suggest that diversity of opinions within the farm community can be, and more importantly should be, melted down into one single position through one general farm organization. Such a model may appear attractive to government, but they are neglecting their responsibility to assess complex situations and determine the appropriate course of action in the public interest and the interest of all farmers. If the government will not assess these situations as elected members by the public, then who will represent the public interest?
1630
Meanwhile, there is some questionable element about the OFA itself. The OFA really has fairly lucrative stable funding bases already. They have municipal levies, they have county grants, they have federated groups, including the commodity checkoffs that come those federated groups, and they have voluntary membership. They anticipate corporate sponsorship, I noticed in the Ontario Farmer, of $20,000 in the coming year.
This situation raises an interesting difference between the OFA and some other GFOs. The NFU, for instance, is composed of farming families and believes strongly in the importance of remaining entirely independent of corporate interests. The OFA has aligned itself too closely with commercial interests and well-funded commodity groups. These connections limit its ability to represent the broad interests of farmers. In fact, it can't present a unified voice on commodity issues and has to disqualify itself at times from these issues.
This weakness, as an example, has led to a huge division in the farm community. The OFA had a duly passed resolution, called the Grenville resolution, to act on, but was unable to do so because of the intense pressure of the cattlemen's association. The Grenville resolution had to do with marketing of beef. The end result of this indecisive structure was that farmers were divided into yes and no camps and fought it out in a vote on beef marketing. The no side, of course -- the cattlemen's side -- had large amounts of government- legislated farmers' money to buy its victory in the vote. And when they ran out of funds, Minister Buchanan gave them a blank cheque to be drawn on cattle producers' bank accounts.
(8) Government cannot empower the OFA without reducing government support for commodity organizations.
Minister Buchanan undermined his wish to empower GFOs with his contradictory willingness to provide funding to the cattlemen's association to strengthen this individual commodity organization.
I'd like to bring in some points here that point out the problems with Bill 42. It does not do what it set out to do, and empowerment is one I mentioned. The farmers are not being empowered when they do not have access to membership with their $150. Membership means a vote. Vote means you have some direction, some input into policies of an organization. Accountability: that's part of empowerment as well. Policy accountability cannot be achieved without a vote for the farmer when he sends money to an organization, and stable funding is not being achieved if we accept the argument that refundability is the panacea here. How can you have stable funding when the money that's being sent in can be demanded back? It just doesn't provide any stability to funding an organization anyway. So that being the whole purpose of the thing, it sort of negates the need for it.
There's not enough choice of GFOs. Once the NFU is amended out of the legislation, we remain with the CFFO and the OFA. The OFA's position has been that it wants to be the one GFO, and essentially it has that now. Limitations that the CFFO offers our membership and religious restrictions do not make it a viable option. So what we're talking about is a bill designed to fund one GFO, and that's unacceptable. It's extremely unfair to other GFOs and it's funding an organization that, as I explained earlier, has some serious structural problems in dealing with important issues for farmers, pocketbook issues. So the bill is no longer required.
There is too much potential for bureaucratic harassment. It is bureaucratic harassment. You have a requirement to send a cheque out to an organization, one of two, a very limited choice, and then you have a requirement of doing the paperwork to get that back. Quite likely that requirement will have a limited time on it, which is understandable from a farm organization point of view. But as Mr Hansen pointed out, he has a drug plan. I'm sure he does not have a limit on when he can get his money back from his drug plan.
It stifles creative problem-solving on farm issues. The reduced input of farm organizations or the melting down of opinions on farm issues will not give the Ministry of Agriculture and Food or the government enough input to make informed, useful policies on behalf of farmers and on behalf of the public.
It separates the grass roots from its leadership over time. History has already showed us this. Back in the 1960s, the OFA had a lot more stable funding than it does now through municipal levies, a lot more township participation in those. In the end, they had to work out a vote for one GFO in order to force farmers to support them. At that time the Ontario farmers' union had a huge membership because of the ineffective representation they were getting through the OFA. There was not enough flow-through of grass-roots ideas to the leadership.
The role of government to represent the public interest is neglected. This bill is an example. GFOs, mostly the OFA, have been dictating to the minister the terms of the bill. The minister must provide leadership in assessing these terms, taking into account the public interest and the interests of all farmers. This has not happened with this bill. In fact, it leaves you people with a huge responsibility to assess the bill for what it really is. The control of the bill has not been outside of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, if you analyse the process, as I have.
Alternatives to Bill 42:
(1) Bill 42 must disappear. A bill that is as flawed as this legislation should not proceed to third reading.
(2) Minister Buchanan has stated that farm registration can be accomplished by order in council. Proceeding along these lines would provide a voter list that could be used in polling producers on their acceptance of some sort of stable funding. It would also provide OMAF with data to enhance its ability to fulfil its role in the public interest.
(3) To assist farm organizations in recruitment, OMAF could offer to mail out a specified amount of promotional material for any GFO that wishes to participate. This assistance could be given using existing mailing lists or registration lists from the registration in number 2.
This approach may be simplistic, but it accomplishes the goals of the government in an open and equitable, democratic fashion.
I hope that the experience of this committee over the last week and a half has been similar to my experience in preparing for this committee. I have found that I am saying things here today that I never thought of a week ago. This has been an evolution-of-thought experience for me and I hope it has been for you. I urge this committee to reconsider its support for Bill 42. No principled politician or political party should associate itself with such a convoluted, intrusive piece of legislation.
1640
The Chair: Thank you very much. The committee appreciates you taking the time to make your presentation this afternoon. The full half-hour that you have been allocated has been used up. On behalf of the committee, I would like to express our thanks for so effectively articulating what is obviously very well thought out and sort of soul-searching in terms of what should be done. I appreciate that and I appreciate your candour. On behalf of the committee, thank you very much.
Mr Dowling: The next speaker, Raye-Anne Briscoe, asked me to bring her regrets. Her mother has been very ill for the last little while and she has taken a turn for the worse. It's unfortunate that she wasn't able to attend. Being, I guess, an elder in the farm politics movement, I think she could have provided some very useful insight to this committee. I think it's everyone's loss that she is not able to attend.
The Chair: Thank you very much for conveying that. If there is unanimous consent in the committee with that in mind, we have approximately 10 or 15 minutes or so if there are some questions that committee members may want to ask in the absence of Ms Briscoe. Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.
Mr Hope: There are some technical questions. Are you allowing me to go ahead? Because I brought this out dealing with section --
Mr Gary Wilson: Of the response?
Mr Hope: Yes, because it deals with his presentation, and also I need clarification, which is brought out. Under section 7, we identified the already accredited farm organizations which are in the bill, but one will be removed from that process. In section 8 of the bill, subsection (3) says that they are deemed automatically accredited and are excluded from the tribunal.
I've taken a personal interest in trying to figure this thing out. Listening to the presentation only reaffirms what I've been trying to cope out, because there is no proposed accreditation format that has been laid out under that process to the tribunal. With the concerns that have just been raised by the presenter around the Christian Farmers, if they're in violation, under the accreditation, does the Human Rights Code have to be upheld? And if so, doesn't that then allow the policies of the Christian Farmers Federation the right to violate the Human Rights Code? Because that's where my understanding is in some research that I've done which the previous Attorney General, Ian Scott of the Liberal government, had serious problems with.
The Chair: I appreciate your concern on the issue, but I would really strongly urge you to take advantage of the witness who is here, and if you have questions to direct at the witness, I would appreciate that that is a priority. I understand the issues that can be dealt with when the witness is not here. The gentleman is here to answer questions and provide public input, not as a spectator but as a participant. I would appreciate if there are questions you could direct to the witness; it would be most helpful.
Mr Hope: I just found it interesting that the comments he made were something that I've already researched and was going to bring up today.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hope. Further questions? Mr Villeneuve.
Mr Villeneuve: Maybe just a little bit of clarification. I want to thank Mr Dowling for his presentation. I do have a copy of the CFFO, Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, presentation of August 24 last. In there it says they will reduce their membership by $150. It presently is $425. They're not reducing to $150.
Mr Dowling: That's the information I've seen as well, but I just heard that they had decided to reduce to $150. Now, that has to be confirmed; I would say that.
Mr Villeneuve: They're reducing by $150.
Mr Dowling: Yes, I understood that.
Mr Villeneuve: On their membership, and this is in pretty bold letters here, it reads as follows:
"Membership in the CFFO is open to all. We anticipate that some, perhaps many, farm families will disqualify themselves from membership because they do not wish to be as public about their value as faith as we are. As a confessional organization, we look to the Christian scriptures for guidance, for life and thought. We set no membership standards, but challenge those considering membership to join us in working out the implications of the Christian gospel for farm practice and farm policies."
They refuse no one.
Mr Dowling: Well, they do refuse people who don't sign the agreement of membership. The 1993 application form is the reference I have in my material, and in order to become a member you have to sign a membership agreement which outlines the basis of the organization, which is Calvinist teachings.
Mr Villeneuve: We may well need further clarification.
Mr Dowling: I really don't know that I can carry this too much further for you. I think it's up to you to take what I've said and research it yourselves. I don't have any more information on it. You obviously have as much as I do. The information I was sent was in a small envelope. It just upset me that that was the way it was reading.
Mr Villeneuve: Do you feel if the Catholic Rural Life Conference wanted to become a GFO that it couldn't qualify?
Mr Dowling: No organization can qualify if there is $150 already going to another organization. Who is going to spend $300 to be in two organizations? There are members right here who said they couldn't afford to --
Mr Villeneuve: That's not it.
Mr Dowling: I have to tell you that I have a train to catch at 6 o'clock.
The Chair: I could have a very quick question from Mr Cleary if he pays attention to your time constraints.
Mr Cleary: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you for your presentation. Are you opposed to the farm registration part of it?
Mr Dowling: Not per se, but it can be done by order in council; we do not need a bill.
Mr Cleary: So I take it that your main objection to this bill is just that there won't be a vote on it, is that correct?
Mr Dowling: It would improve the legislation to have had a vote on it, but there are problems with it. I've gone through them. The idea of accountability has got to be there, no matter how you vote; empowerment has got to be there. They're not. The minister says that's what he wants, but they're not in the bill.
Mr Cleary: I don't want to delay you if you've got a train to catch.
The Chair: Thank you again, Mr Dowling. Please pass along our regrets to Ms Briscoe, because I was looking forward to seeing her in the committee.
Mr Dowling: I'll do that.
The Chair: There are some ministry clarification issues that need to be dealt with. Mr Klopp, you had one you wished to raise. Mr Hope, I believe you have an issue as well.
Mr Klopp: Just to make very clear that there's refundability in this bill; in other words, if you wish to have your own organization and make it, you now have the position to refund your money to go to any other farm organization. I want to make that clear. In fact, the bill does not preclude any organization from becoming accredited down the road, and I want to make that point also very clear.
Mr Hope: Back to the presentation that was made, I find it very coincidental that it's the issue I've been working on and which I brought up on the first day of presentations around this bill, dealing with section 7 and section 8. I'm wondering whether, in the tribunal's accreditation process, it is looking at the obligations of the Human Rights Code, and if so, whether subsection 8(3) precludes the Christian Farmers Federation from that examination and that right, because in their policy they will not hire a homosexual.
Mr Klopp: The deputy has an answer. I know she'll do a good job, but just in case, I'll follow up.
Ms Burak: I'd like to answer the question in a general way, and then perhaps if Mr Hope has additional questions I could get some assistance from legal counsel. The first point is that the Ministry of the Attorney General, which has experts to ensure that any legislation the government tables would not be in contravention of the Human Rights Code or the Canadian Human Rights Act, has agreed that this does not contravene those pieces of legislation, and I would imagine it's based on the way the whole legislation is constructed. It is, again, a mandatory registration system and a voluntary refundable stable funding mechanism. So the general answer is no, the ministry does not believe that anything in this legislation contravenes the Human Rights Act.
1650
Mr Hope: I was not alluding to anything in the legislation that contravenes it. What I'm saying is you have a section 7 which currently identifies three farm organizations which will identify two farm organizations. It says in subsection 8(3) that those farm organizations in section 7 will not be brought before the tribunal on their policies in the accreditation. I give you the example that the Christian Farmers Federation some years ago stated it could not support the policy that farmers in hiring employees not discriminate on the bias of sexual orientation. Will the tribunal insist that the CFFO change its policy or lose its accreditation? They cannot lose their accreditation because they are given diplomatic immunity under subsection 8(3).
Ms Burak: The three named organizations are grandfathered into the legislation and the payment of the fee is refundable. It is on the basis of that that we're saying their being named in the legislation, their being grandfathered and not having to withstand a review for the three-year period does not contravene the code.
Mr Hope: A farm organization has a policy that directly goes against the Human Rights Code of Ontario. It discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.
Mr Klopp: Maybe I can help out. The Attorney General has been in consultation with us on this bill from day one. In fact, you even brought out that the past government used that argument for stopping the issue from going forward.
But I can only go by where we're at. Ever since day one, when we've been looking at this bill or looking at any bill regarding stable funding, we've had the Attorney General very much involved in this. Our legal counsel's been a real stickler with all the organizations, as they should be, on making sure that we are following the laws of this country and this province. In their legal opinion, the way the act now reads, including what you see in section 8, including what you see in section 7, they feel that this is indeed legal and does not contravene the concerns you have, which we all have.
Mr Hope: Excuse me. I understand that everything in the act is legally correct. There is a problem that one of the farm organizations that is being identified in the legislation has a policy that goes against the Human Rights Code. It's nothing in the legislation. You have identified a farm organization which is allowed diplomatic immunity under subsection 8(3) of the act. That section says it cannot be brought before the tribunal under the accreditation; it's already grandfathered in and it's received its accreditation and away it goes for three years. But that organization has a policy which is against the Human Rights Code: It discriminates. I might have a preference for hiring somebody with a different sexual preference and I can't hire them, and that group can pull my thing out and I can't bring them before the tribunal for misrepresentation or whatever. That's what I'm getting at. The legalese of the legislation is right on, but there is a policy of a farm organization that you've named in this legislation that could violate somebody's human rights.
The Chair: Does the ministry wish to respond?
Ms Burak: I don't know what more I can say other than the three organizations are named. Membership in those organizations is not compelled. You don't have to become a member of these organizations to register and comply with the act. I think in his introductory remarks the minister made a general reference to the rationale for naming these three organizations, their lengthy history and involvement in general farm issues in the province. Beyond that, I'm sorry, Mr Hope, I can't give you further clarification.
Mr Hope: The other thing, Mr Chair, which I was wondering about -- and sorry for taking up the time -- is that back on the first and second day of these public hearings, I requested a number of pieces of information. To this hour, which is 5 minutes to 5 of the last day of the public hearing process, I have not received that information I requested and which is indicated in Hansard; I don't remember everything I say, as I've been working between two committees.
Mr Klopp: Thank you for your time. We do have the information here. We don't have all of it here; it's a lot of information. The deputy, if she wants, can go through it with you and explain it to you or just give it to you, whatever you wish to do.
Mr Hope: I'll take it and read it tonight while I'm watching the reruns of the WWF wrestling from last night.
Mr Klopp: Thank you. We have some amendments we'd like to --
The Chair: Just hang on, Mr Klopp. As they say, we won't put the cart too far in front of the horse.
Thank you very much. I hope those responses satisfy some of your concerns. If they do not, Mr Hope, you are well aware of the clause-by-clause process which begins tomorrow. I think some of the issues that are being raised are properly disposed of in that venue.
There is a question of amendments. I understand that all three parties have their amendments to Bill 42 ready and are prepared to table them. If they would do so at this time, if we can get unanimous consent to do that, that will make it much easier for the clerk to compile what has to be compiled for tomorrow.
There is another issue I would like unanimous consent on from the committee: that we have a cutoff time for amendments of noon tomorrow. In other words, what I'm asking is that all amendments that are ready be tabled now from all three parties, with a cutoff of noon tomorrow for any additional amendments. Is that agreed?
Interjection: I can't agree.
Mr Cooper: There may be problems with that, because I know certain things have come up during the clause-by-clause process where additional amendments have been needed, and if we have a cutoff that doesn't allow that, we may run into difficulties.
The Chair: This is the tabling of the initial amendments. There is a set of amendments that is being prepared after the hearings, and if there are other amendments that come out of the clause-by-clause process, that's a different issue. So if we could have the tabling of the initial amendments, if they're all ready now, I don't need to worry about a noon cutoff. Is that agreed?
Mr Murdoch: You want them by noon.
Mrs Fawcett: That doesn't preclude extra ones coming in, but we do have --
The Chair: If they're all ready now in terms of your initial amendments, then we'll table them all now and we'll make our lives a lot easier, if that's agreeable. Agreed? It's agreed. Then we will table amendments from all three parties. You can give them to the clerk. Everyone understands that this is the tabling of the initial amendments, and if there is reason for further amendments as the clause-by-clause process goes on, this does not negate that process.
We are adjourned till 10 am tomorrow morning.
The committee adjourned at 1659.