by BETTER FARMING STAFF
The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal has denied accreditation to Ontario’s three general farm organizations.
Spokespeople for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and the National Farmers Union – Ontario, say technical issues are behind the decisions, which stem from hearings held nearly a year ago.
“It’s minor technical stuff,” says Mark Wales, OFA president. “As far as we're concerned it's business as usual.”
All groups received the individualized decisions on Wednesday and say that they are reviewing the documents. What happens to the money that organizations collected for this year is "a question that's on a lot of minds," says Ann Slater, NFU-O’s coordinator. Accreditation is part of the process that allows the farm groups to charge a Farm Business Registration fee.
Every farm business in the province with sales of more than $7,000 is required to belong to one of the organizations. Objectors can apply for an exemption on religious grounds. Farm operators register with Agricorp as a member of an organization. Registration is one of the prerequites for receiving the farm property tax class rate.
All three organizations must reapply for accreditation every three years. The issues raised in this decision have never been raised in earlier Tribunal reviews, Slater says.
"I'm not sure why these have become issues this time," she says. She notes that complaints brought against the NFU-O as part of the review process may have generated some of the panel’s questions around her organization's electoral process. She says these were already addressed at the organization's annual general meeting in March and she's confident they will meet the requirements outlined in the Tribunal's decisions.
Concerns that the three-member Tribunal panel raised that applied to all three organizations included:
· The need for an explicit membership agreement between applicants and general farm organizations in order to counteract some conflicting and confusing wording in the 1993 Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act concerning how payment is collected and distributed to farm organizations.
· Late filings of audited statements to the Tribunal as well as a lack of details such as number of refunds made.
· The need to better document direct and in-kind contributions to local affiliates.
Concerns specific to the NFU-O included:
· The NFU-O inaccurately stated on its website that the National Farmers Union is the certified general farm organization under the Ontario Farm Business Registration program, pointing out that it is the Ontario branch that is was the accredited farm organization and the NFU “has no standing under the Act,” the decision states.
· The NFU should have developed accounting processes so that its annual audit can comply with the standards established in the Handbook of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants “without any exceptions,” the decision states.
· The process used to elect Regional Council members of the NFU-O “does not meet the prescribed criteria” in the one of the Act’s regulations, which requires that an executive body “at the provincial level that is elected by its members or by electors chosen by members,” the decision states.
As for the CFFO, the Tribunal panel found that the organization’s president and vice-president positions were prematurely filled each year by acclamation before the time during the CFFO annual convention when nominations close. The practice “limits the ability of CFFO members or . . . electors chosen by members to exercise their democratic right to elect an executive body at the provincial level as specified in the CFFO bylaws,” the decision states.
Nathan Stevens, CFFO’s interim manager and director of policy development, says the organization’s nominations are open, "so it's just a little bit of cleanup as far as that goes." He explains nominations for these positions close at the organization’s provincial council meeting on the last Wednesday of October before its annual convention in November. “What that meant is that there have been years where there are acclamations for president at the convention,” he says.
There were no concerns specific to the OFA, the province’s largest farm organization. BF
Comments
Miss.Slater, seems to think the NFU was denined based on a few technical issues, what planet is this woman on ??? any one wanting to read the tribunials report can go to the OMAFRA Tribunal web page and click on the tab for decisions. My self and 3 other directors resigned last year beacuse we knew the NFU was not meeting the creteria under the ACT and yet they didnt care, we even hired a lawyer, to give his professional opinion, still they didnt care, we tried several times to get the other board members to see that they were not following the ACT and meeting their obligations as a director under the ACT, but several long time NFU board members didnt care they felt they were above the law, bitter sweet victory to see the tribunal was intelligent enough to also see the cover up that had been pulled off by the NFU-O and the NFU for several years.
All of this could have been so easily avoided had only a few top ranking NFU directors just agreed to correct the problems, but becuase of their ego's they are now today no longer an accredited GFO.
Sean McGivern
Former Past President NFU-O
Current President of the Practical Farmers of Ontario
www.practicalfarmersontario.ca
And neither is the CFFO or the OFA??
This doesn't make sense.
If I understand the matter correctly, all three organizations were declined for basically the same technical reasons - however, the NFU was the only one of the three singled out for additional criticism about structural issues - ie the autonomy (or lack thereof) from the national organization, as well as accounting procedures which weren't compliant with CICA guidelines. In other words, while the OFA and the CFFO both have a relatively short trip to get re-accredited (dotting I's and crossing T's) the NFU has a long way to go because the accreditation panel has effectively said the NFU not only has to dot their I's and cross their T's, but the NFU also has to be able to show the panel they actually know which letter is which - something the panel seems to believe the NFU is unable to do now.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton, ON
If he did he would find it was the OFA not someone from the NFU who mentioned technical issues.
anonymous comment modified by editor
Perhaps, instead of being so-eager to chastise Mr. McGivern, you had taken the time to read the article, you would have noticed, right near the top of the article, - "Spokespeople for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and the National Farmers Union - Ontario, say technical issues are behind the decisions, which stem from hearings held nearly a year ago". It appears, therefore, that all three GFOs are taking the position that technical issues are to blame for the tribunal's decision - and, of course, what else would they say?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
That the NFU does not have accounting procedures consistent with those outlined in the CICA Handbook, is a most serious matter, and raises any number of concerns about the NFU's level of due diligence, and responsibility to its members, and to the government which grants GFO certification. This lack of proper accounting procedures is not a technical matter, but a major omission which speaks volumes about the basic capability of the NFU.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
With out the funds from the Ontario FBR program, it will be interesting to see how the western branch of the NFU will run its operations in SASK... hope fully now money paid by ontario farmers can be spent in ontario to work for ontario farmers...
It really would be interesting to see just how much money collected by the FBR program in Ontario since 1993, has been used by the Saskatchewan-based head office of the NFU to defend the Canadian Wheat Board, an entity without any jurisdiction in Ontario at all. But then again, both the CFFO and the OFA fall all over themselves to spend/waste money defending supply management, a program which does little except pit OFA and CFFO members against one-another.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Darn. I was hoping we could get rid of mandatory farm organization membership altogether. Why do I need to belong to any of the organizations. They do not represent me and only use accreditation to enrich their own groups and pet causes. It is just another form of government and another tax.
Election procedural irregularities are not unique to the NFU. Nowhere that I am aware of is there a consolation prize for the looser of president except at the OFA. If you are a failure on the first day of balloting you simply slide down the greased brass ballot pole and run for a vice position. The point is you failed and they don't want you.
How is new thought, direction, or representation introduced in this incestuousness manner?
It would be nice if the tribunal saw fit to examine why this election process is so different than elections in the real world. Although not an NFU member I salute Mr McGivern for taking an ethical stand.
Post new comment