by SUSAN MANN
The National Farmers Union in Ontario will continue speaking out on farm issues even though the Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal dismissed its application for accreditation, says its coordinator Ann Slater.
“This doesn’t stop our voice,” she says. “We just have to find different ways to make sure it gets heard in government.”
Slater says Ontario Agriculture Minister Ted McMeekin supported NFU-O’s application for accreditation during a tribunal hearing Dec. 14. “We know the government thinks we bring a unique and important voice.”
The tribunal’s Dec. 19 decision orders the National Farmers Union in Ontario’s application for accreditation to be “hereby dismissed.” The reasons for the decision will be released later, the decision, posted on the tribunal’s website, says.
Slater says they’re not surprised because they saw there was the potential for the tribunal panel to reject the NFU-O application for reaccreditation.
The organization’s next step is to determine its options, she says. “We need to see the full decision at some point from the tribunal.”
One option NFU-O is considering is submitting another application for accreditation but they don’t know all of the options yet. As for their work on behalf of farmers, Slater says that continues.
Practical Farmers of Ontario president Sean McGivern, who has been critical of NFU-O, says “it’s unfortunate that it had to come to this.”
McGivern, a former NFU–Ontario coordinator, says he doesn’t think the organization will ever become reaccredited in the province. “Myself and three other directors had to resign because the people weren’t willing to become compliant and follow the rules.”
McGivern says Practical Farmers, formed this year, isn’t seeking accreditation at this time. “We’re not sure that’s the place for us yet. People like the idea that we’re not accredited because we can’t rest on stable funding. We have to work hard or the members simply aren’t going to renew their membership.”
Practical Farmers has about 200 members and the membership fee, currently at $50 annually, is under review and may be increased next year.
As for what happens now with the farm business registration process, Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario president Lorne Small says he isn’t speaking for the provincial agriculture ministry but he expects the forms will go out to farmers in January on schedule and the organizations that are accredited “at that time will be on the list.”
Lori Perkes, director of finance, member relations and systems group for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the largest general farm organization in Ontario, says letters for the farm business registration process will be mailed to farmers on the second week of January. Once fees are submitted to Agricorp, the list of names will be sent to OFA, which will mail out the offer of membership “on an almost daily basis. There will be more work but this is a necessary step” because of the rules the tribunal implemented this year regarding membership in general farm organizations, she explains.
Both CFFO and OFA were reaccredited Dec. 7 after hearings before the tribunal. Those hearings were held after McMeekin stepped in and amended the regulations. Before that, all three general farm organizations had their reaccreditation applications denied in November.
As part of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993, farmers with gross incomes of $7,000 or more must register annually and pay a $195 plus HST fee. Agricorp administers the registration process. Farmers direct their fee to one of the now two accredited farm organizations. After registering and paying the fee, farmers can ask for a refund from the group they selected to receive their fee.
Farmers need a farm business registration number to access certain government programs, such as the farm property tax rebate.
The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs wasn’t able to immediately respond to questions about how the process will work.
Slater says they expect NFU-O members will have to register to get their farm business registration number through one of the two accredited general farm organizations. “We don’t know for sure yet if there might be any other option.”
Once they register, NFU-O members can ask for a refund and send their fee to that organization. Slater says they have about 2,200 members in Ontario and they’re encouraging as “many as possible to continue to join us. We know we have members that believe we’re doing important work.”
The three general farm groups have been dealing with reaccreditation throughout most of the year. On May 23, the tribunal denied all three organizations’ 2011 accreditation applications, mainly due to questions about whether they had explicit membership agreements in place for each member. In July, the groups again appeared before the tribunal to regain their accreditation.
As part of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act farm groups must get reaccredited every three years.
McMeekin says in an email statement that he had hoped for a different outcome for the NFU–O decision but “we must respect the tribunal’s independent review process. I understand how disappointed and frustrated the NFU-O and its supporters are over this decision.”
The minister says throughout the process his focus has been to ensure that farmers wouldn’t be negatively affected so they can continue participating in programs and carry on their operations. “That’s why we worked to streamline the regulatory requirements, which enabled the other two general farm organizations, OFA and CFFO, to receive their accreditations.”
Small says he’s disappointed “for my friends in the NFU. I know a lot of their people and they’re really committed to their organization.” But he adds he can’t criticize the tribunal for doing its job. BF
–– with files from Better Farming Staff
UPDATE: DEC. 21, 2012
by SUSAN MANN
The National Farmers Union in Ontario may apply for reaccreditation, provincial agriculture ministry spokesperson Elizabeth McClung says by email. It’s up to them to decide how they want to proceed.
All farm business registration funds NFU-O received on or before May 23, when the organization lost its accreditation, are not affected by the Dec. 19 tribunal decision. Similarly, the decision doesn’t have an impact of the funds NFU-O forwarded to the francophone organization, L’Union des cultivateurs-franco-ontariens, that all the general groups must provide funding for as part of the act.
Assuming NFU-O is not accredited by Dec. 31, 2012, the organization will not be included as an option in the 2013 farm business registration invoice. But supporters may choose to voluntarily send funds to the organization, she says.
McClung says assuming NFU-O is not accredited by Dec. 31, 2012, Agricorp will be instructed to return the fees that they have collected and held since May 23 to the applicable farm businesses. BF
General farm accreditation archive
Comments
Anonymous comment deleted by editor in accordance with our guidelines
The NFU knew all along that they were "sailing close to the wind" by being, in effect, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the national organization based in western Canada. They knew all along that they were treading on the thin edge of fiduciary responsibility by funnelling the entire $429,000 in annual fees to the national organization, and they knew all along that policies which couldn't be clearly shown to have been made in Ontario, by their members in Ontario, was bordering on irresponsibility. This tribunal seems to have effectively agreed, and, by virtue of their statement, has decided that the NFU, as presently organized, and run in Ontario, doesn't satisfy enough of the letter of, and/or intent of, the relevant legislation to warrant continued status under that legislation. The NFU had 20 years to "get their act together", didn't do it, and has now paid the price for trying to make the legislation fit the NFU, rather than make the NFU fit the legislation.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton, ON
Prospective NFU members whose FBR cheques weren't cashed by the May 23 deadline, and who may now find their cheques returned to them if the NFU isn't accredited by December 31, 2012, should really be required to issue a replacement cheque to either the CFFO or the OFA to be eligible for continued farm property tax reduction benefits for 2013.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Retaining a farm registration number entitles a farmer to a specific farm tax rate..... NOT a "farm property tax reduction benefit". It is a set tax rate that subsidizes a corporation formed through legislation.
Commercial, industrial, multi-res...etc.... have specific tax rates ...or would you classify them as 'property tax increased handicaps'?
You really should do your homework about municipal taxation.
joann vergeer
The point is that if you don't pay the FBR fee to a valid farm organization, your property taxes go up by a lot the next year. It happened to one of my clients a number of years ago, and ever since then, I've been responsible for paying his registration fee on time because neither of us wants to see it happen to him again. I'm merely pointing out that it would be too bad to see any NFU member suffer that fate because they didn't ever pay $195 to an accredited farm organization during 2012. Secondly, I don't know what you mean when you refer to a "corporation formed through legislation". Most farms are owned by individuals, not corporations, and even if a corporation owned a farm, as long as it has a FBR number, it's all the same thing.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I was making reference to the set tax rate that subsidizes a municipal corporation.
Municipalities are corporations and are creatures of the Province.
The taxes we pay to those corporations are subsidies.
joann
I'm sure those prospective NFU members who may soon find themselves on the outside of the 2012 FBR program, and looking in, will be most-reassured to know that the extra property taxes they could easily be paying in 2013, are, in your opinion, subsidies to the municipalities collecting those taxes. While I'm also sure those farmers who might inadvertently find themselves paying more property tax next year, are most-appreciative of what appears to be your vast knowledge of unrelated matters, the only relevant point has to do with who is paying this extra tax, not who is receiving it - yet it's a point which seems to have eluded you completely.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
nothey dont have to give their check to ofa of cffo we did have the option of giving toofa and the ask for money back so why chage it>
Why should some NFU members who end up not paying any accredited organization the $195 FBR registration fee in 2012, be entitled to lower property taxes in 2013, when nobody else would be able to get away with it? As I understand it, compliance, for any farmer, is now all about paying the money to either the CFFO or the OFA in the first place, and not what the farmer decides to do with it later.
So if Ag Minister McMeekin was so supportive of the NFU's re-accreditation, as Miss Slater says, then why when he had 3 opportunities to write the tribunal supporting the NFU's bid did he not once pick up his pen and ink a letter to the tribunal ??? He is not a foolish man, he knew the what was going on at the NFU-O and there for he chose to to say nothing publicly, smart man.
Sean McGivern
PFO
In a recent news release, the NFU wandered all over the map to blame everyone but themselves for their recent failure to keep their accreditation as a general farm organization in Ontario. Firstly, the NFU claims that legal counsel for the government "supported" their application, yet they seem to not understand that, to many people, this could be seen as "abuse of process" by the Minister in order to try to bully the Tribunal. The NFU would have been the first to claim abuse of process if counsel for the Minister had opposed their application, yet they fall all over themselves to ignore this double standard when things appear to be in their favour. Secondly, the NFU never does get to the nub of the issue which is that instead of being a truly autonomous Ontario farm organization, the Ontario branch of the NFU, for all intents and purposes, appears to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the national office in western Canada, and would appear to have not been able to prove to the Tribunal that there was either a legitimate division of responsibility and policy functions, and/or be able to demonstrate the due diligence trail to validate this autonomy. As a case in point, in their recent release, the NFU claimed that had their efforts been successful, we'd still have single-desk selling at the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), yet the CWB is of no relevance in Ontario - leading anyone to conclude that issues of concern to the NFU's national office are automatically issues of equal concern to their members in Ontario, when, by definition, that is not the case at all. Ironically, in their news release, by citing the CWB example, the NFU made it quite easy for the Tribunal to justify their decision. Thirdly, the NFU's claim that they do good research and produce good reports, is objectionable. As an example, a few years ago, they produced a report comparing the return on equity of publicly-traded agribusiness companies with the return on equity in primary agriculture. Unfortunately, they chose the rate of return on book value of equity for the agribusiness companies, and the rate or return on market value of equity for farming - a technique which, politely, compares apples and oranges, and is the sort of technique which merits an automatic failure at any level of academic pursuit. What's worse is that when I complained to the NFU's national office about the misleading aspects of this report, they were completely-un-apologetic and completely-un-repentant about what they had done, and how they had done it. Let's put it this way, if this type of horribly-designed, and therefore completely-misleading, report is what the NFU is all about, and by their news release, they would seem to claim it is, we really could do well without the NFU at all.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Post new comment