by BETTER FARMING STAFF
A bid by the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CFFO) to be reaccredited as a general farm organization has been dismissed, leaving the future of the organization uncertain less than a week before its annual convention.
“Changes to the CFFO’s by-laws, policies and procedures may be required” and “could take some time . . . to remedy” in order to meet the legislative requirements for accreditation, says the Nov. 7 ruling by the Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.
“If the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to do so, it would provisionally accredit the CFFO for a period of three years, commencing on the date of this decision, to allow the CFFO to make the necessary changes and then apply for reaccreditation,” the order says. “Unfortunately, the Tribunal does not have that jurisdiction, and is therefore required under the existing legislation to dismiss the CFFO's application.”
The CFFO did not immediately respond Friday morning to a request for comment.
Most of the organization’s difficulties arise from the CFFO’s inability to treat people making a payment to the CFFO under Section 21 of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act as members in 2011.
Last May 23, the CFFO, and other general farm organizations, were refused re-accreditation by a different Tribunal panel because an interpretation of the 1993 Act, by the ministry’s legal services branch, concluded that directing a farm business registration fee of $195 to a particular organization did not confer membership in that organization. That would require a separate step, which the panel’s decision refers to as “an explicit membership agreement.” There were also questions about specific membership categories in the CFFO.
The organization underwent another accreditation hearing in July. The panel issued an interim order Aug. 12 which requested the organization to make further submissions. These were filed Aug. 24.
Interviewed last month, Nathan Stevens, the CFFO’s interim general manager, said membership categories had since been rejigged and bylaws were changed to reflect what the membership categories mean. They were endorsed at a June council meeting and were to be adopted at the CFFO convention in mid-November.
However, the Nov. 7 Tribunal ruling notes that those district association meetings may have no legal standing. District associations held their meetings before the dis-accreditation ruling May 23. Because there was no explicit membership agreement in place, the November Tribunal decision notes, the officers of the district associations were elected by people who were not qualified as members of the farm organization.
In addition, the Tribunal points out a substantial number of officers and directors of the district associations do not appear on the CFFO membership lists. For that and a number of other reasons, the affiliates do not meet the requirements under the regulations.
The Tribunal also noted that the CFFO recently amended bylaws to provide that the members of the executive board are “designated delegates.” This provision may conflict with a section of the regulation “which requires all electors to be chosen by members.”
While there is a process for individual members to make concerns known to the executive board, there is “no direct evidence” that the board has a duty to respond to the concerns as required under the regulations.
“The CFFO’s good faith is not in question. The difficulties posed by the legislation however is that the Tribunal has no discretion to accredit the CFFO on the basis of good faith in the absence of a finding that all of the legislative requirements have been met.”
The re-accreditation process for Ontario’s three general farm organizations has been plagued with delays. According to the May 23 ruling, the CFFO, Ontario Federation of Agriculture and NFU-Ontario made a joint submission to the Tribunal at the end of August, 2011, nearly nine months earlier.
Kirk Walstedt, the Tribunal’s chair, says in an email today that “the matters at issue in these particular applications were not simple ones, and merited a very thorough and thoughtful examination of the submissions filed by the CFFO in relation to the criteria that must be met for accreditation.” He notes that decisions for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union – Ontario will be released “once they are completed.”
Douglas Tindal a spokesperson from the office of provincial Agriculture Minister Ted McMeekin, says the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act does not give the minister the right to review Tribunal decisions. (The minister does have this right under other agriculture-related legislation).
“The decision is final,” Tindal says.
In a statement emailed by Tindal, McMeekin says he will take “immediate steps” to ensure that Ontario’s three main general farm organizations “have a stable transition period in which to address the issues raised by the Tribunal.”
Tindal says the ministry is looking at several options, including adjustments to some of the Act’s regulations. As well, the organization can make the requested adjustments and reapply for accreditation, he says.
The Tribunal has raised the same concern about membership with the OFA and NFU-O. These organizations are also awaiting Tribunal decisions. Tindal says he could not speculate or comment on whether the other two general farm organizations’ request for accreditation would fail. However, he called the idea a “reasonable assumption.” BF
General farm accreditation archive
Comments
Hopefully this process will lead to the abilty for farmers to freely associate with any or no organization, and still be eligible to be a farmer.
Kevin Nixon, Ilderton, ON
The current crop of farm organizations represent the best interests of the baby-boomer generation of farmers, not so much of younger farmers facing a difficult road to succeed, yet still must choose and pay to be considered a farmer. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
"must choose and pay to be considered a farmer." In my opinion a tad off the topic of accredition denial. However, the provision for a refund negates your "must pay" comment. Furthermore, all older farmers were once younger farmers, many of whom faced very trying times, yet received very little help getting established. Having said that, the real issue for beginning farmers is if JD builds it... they will come and if JD builds it bigger next year... they will come back. Technology is rapidly consolidating the number of farmers needed.
Now back to the real issue of reaccreditation! I find it tad vindictive and alarming to suddenly after 20 years of reaccreditation, to get so nit picky that it could impact a farm groups ability to lobby about bad government policy! Then again, perhaps the Liberal gov't doesn't respect that the majority of rural Ontario didn't vote for certain Liberal cabinet ministers last election or that farm organizations have been a tad critical of some of the bully bills such as the GEA! Nah ... could never happen eh? In my view stable funding was always susceptable to being nice to government "or else"! It appears the government has played it's "or else" card! Now what?
The way some people take like the older ones that farm had it handed to them and they should hand it over to them , saying you should roll over and play dead.
When I started farming it was tough and the interest was 20+ % but we will hear so what quota and land was cheap.
There is only so much land and they are either paving it over or building on it, so where is the price suppose to go down only in fairy land not in the real world.
The equipment today is so big they cannot farm a 50 acre farm and if we all had to go back to the horse we wouldn,t have enough food to feed one country.
Those farm orgs. are there so people can get a paycheck doing the same thing the other orgs. are doing, so either get back to one org. or get rid of them all.
I,m not educated enough to sign my name ,I,m hoping that some people will agree with what I,m saying.
At least that is the way some seem to think. All you had to do was pick up a brick or two and you had your farm paid. I can remember the exact same complaints about the previous generations back in the 80s during the debt crisis. The sad reality is that farming is a hard way to make a living. It goes through cycles that can knock you hard on your ass through no fault of your own. And someone will always be complaining it was better back in...(take your pick). It sucks and we are probably all fools for doing it- it has always been thus, and likely always will.pr
Always looks so good to young people but they have no idea what it took for mom & dad to get to where they are today . Personal sacrifices and likely hard ships . All many young people see is dollars that equal equity that is many times more than when thier parents started .
Many young people want the life of thier parents today or better . They want it now and think they are deserving of it . Well HELLO ... Wake Up Call !!
The big bills like a mortage is one that you know is there and when it is coming . It is all of the little life of today bills that end up helping people go under . Problem is that every one gets sold on the You have to have it to be competitive BS or the you can't think of working or running a business with out it . How we ever made it this far in life with out is just beyond me .
The division between some older and younger generation farmers is ultimately what led up to the audit of re-accreditation of these farm organizations. To imply current farm groups are being punished for not supporting the GEA is absurd at best. The former leader of the NFU represented the views of young generation farmers that conflicted with the single desk systems more so supported by some older generation farmers and the NFU. This caused a signifant amount of uproar and is why this situation arose. Also every farmer above a prescribed gross income must choose and pay. After payment you can opt for a refund for specific religous reasons only. While these farm groups have done many good things for the farming community at the end of the day they don't fulfill all the needs of or represent the best interests of every farmer, yet I still have to pay. Don't forget to put your full name on your comment next time. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, On
I think you have things mixed up .
Re your qoute below
"The former leader of the NFU represented the views of young generation farmers that conflicted with the single desk systems more so supported by some older generation farmers and the NFU. This caused a signifant amount of uproar and is why this situation arose."
The problem arose for the NFU because someone wanted total control of the sand box .
For OFA & CFFO it is by all means a McGuinty control tactic because of losing two ministers , not coming out of the election with a majority , and not getting total support for his GEA . Both OFA & CFFO put out things condemning wind turbines so this is his way to slap them back . He did not and does not understand that Rural is not only Agriculture . Ag groups do not speak for rural residents . McGuinty thought that by OFA ( or at least an OFA VP and researcher ) falling all over the GEA would give him cart blanche to do what he wanted to rural Ont. with his money hungry greedy off shore deals like Samsung . There must be more that will be found out other wise why are so many jumping ship like rats afraid to drown !!
Why not give the orgs. another year to sort things out?
While we may not agree with everything they stand for, we still have a choice of one of three.
Also, if you don't like any of them, you can ask for your $$$ back.
Without an organized farm organization, government can just do whatever it wants, which it generally does anyway, but at least a member can go to his/her org. and can complain, make suggestions, etc.
The Fiberals have already done so much damage in rural Ontario that this whole accreditation issue is the icing on the cake!
I maintain that they are doing this in retaliation to the orgs. NOT supporting McGuinty in regards to the horse racing debacle and none of the orgs. fully support the wind turbine take over. This is to remind them who indeed has the "authority" and power.
pure rubbish, this has nothing to do with McGuinty or any other political party, it has everything to do with organizations like the NFU not following the rules and then having everything reopened up for a much deep look, if you want to blame any one blame the NFU not some political party.
Sean McGivern
PFO
It is the McGuinty government which has caused this problem for all 3 organizations.
If the NFU was not following the rules for accreditation then they should have been penalized. Now CFFO and OFA are also penalized so in that regard it IS a political problem. The system worked fine for 20 years, but now all of a sudden there are problems.
Is this the first step towards one farm organization? One farm group would be easier to deal with than 3! Maybe more political meddling. Surprise, surprise.
Expecting a flood of Thank You Not cards for being the one to bring this to a head ? If you are then I think you are giving yourself too much credit .
Accreditation is some thing that happens every three years . The only thing that changes is who sits on the tribunal and how pissy the Gov is at the Farm Orgs .
So my vote goes to McFlinty being a spoiled brat and trying to flex what he did but no longer does not have . Thing is if the GFO's allowed this to happen to them selves but think they really failed to see the error of their ways .
Francis
what planet do you reside on the McGuinty, has ZERO to do with the GFO's not being reaccredited, get a grip, your conspiracy theory has zero logic to it,
Sean McGivern
PFO
Young man you have alot to learn as a farm policy expert,just look back 15 years of wonderful Ontario farmleader got legislation and policy and you see the mess we have, with boom bust cycles, Very interesting the newly elected USA president and congress are now saying they are on a finanical debt cliff ready to falloff of this year end
OFA no longer a gfo
Comment - "Nah ... could never happen eh? In my view stable funding was always susceptable to being nice to government "or else"! It appears the government has played it's "or else" card! Now what?"
Fact - did you bother to actually read the article as laid out. The three GFOs approached the Tribunal (a separate entity from "the government") in August 2011 - months before the election was called. The errors with the way the GFOs handle membership through the legislation was articulated then. The Act is intrepretation, process, and evaluation.
Comment - ". . . the Liberal gov't doesn't respect that the majority of rural Ontario didn't vote for certain Liberal cabinet ministers last election or that farm organizations"
Fact - After three different governments of different stripes have been involved in the demise of rural Ontario over the past 20 years, do you really think that the "vindictive" nature of a government led to the issues with the tribunal? Now who is petty? The wrath of Liberals towards 14.3 per cent of its population (which is what rural Ontario consists of), is reflected at organizations that represent about 1.4 per cent of that population - and are ineffective at "lobbying" just like the other 300 plus farm organizations in this province. Perhaps it is leveling the playing field but then, you'll be able to hear some of the great farm leaders talking about this at their upcoming AGMs this month - in Waterloo or Toronto. Bonus points if you can name the head of the "Ontario Farmers' Association" as federal AAFC Minister Gerry Ritz indicated mere weeks ago.
Now that's the force of lobbying by these GFOs.
Is it just me or what,ever since all this accreditation stuff happened does it not seem pretty quiet with what the farm organizations are saying towards government?
I would say the Liberals have farmers right where they want them.
Holding OFA right by the jewels !
And squeezing ever so slightly !!
Did you really expect any different ? Just look at how long it takes to get some things done that they say they are working on . All that on the memberships behalf . Don't rock the boat .
Just how many who are engaged here or read this site have called their organisation of choice and asked what they are doing ?
Is the lack of membership participation because no one really cares or because it has not affected Farm tax rebates ?
I would guess most members do not really care unless there is some thing that they want for them and then they will use their membership to complain and ask for changes . Other than that it is when you look at the trivial price you pay for a membership and look at the farm tax rebate dollars recieved back per farm assesment you would be a fool to complain . Some get it on "A" farm and some get it on " MANY " farms so why give a rats a$$ about the next guy or the organisation . This too is a system that needs to change .
The Tribunal also noted that the CFFO recently amended bylaws to provide that the members of the executive board are “designated delegates.” This provision may conflict with a section of the regulation “which requires all electors to be chosen by members.”
While there is a process for individual members to make concerns known to the executive board, there is “no direct evidence” that the board has a duty to respond to the concerns as required under the regulations.
It is good to see some new legal blood on the trbunal to straighten out the above. You can certainly see the babyboomers failures in farm organizations and is not much different to politicians failure. Young farmers dont come out to farm org meetings cause they have no confidence in the old boy click, but we had better watch the new young leaders and guard against theit potental selfish self interest. There had better be checks and balances watching fickle government and farmleaders
This tribunal has gone in a direction no other one has gone before. Reading hearing reports it is clear they often acted very unprofessionally in the way they handled the hearings and testimony. This is not about one organization, or another. It might be a vindictive action by government, but I see no evidence of that either.
This is a bureaucratic 'court' that has taken upon itself to decide farmers are stupid. The very core of the decision is this- the tribunal is saying that you as a farmer are too stupid to understand that every year when you pay your fee under the farm business registration program that you are also joining the organization you are directing your fee towards. That's it. You're dumb and these smarter than thou tribunal members are going to help you figure out the obvious, damn the consequences for the organizations.
It isn't about the job the organizations are doing or not doing. It isn't about one organization doing things rightly or wrongly according to some individual's perception of how things should be run. Nor is it a generational battle. It isn't even, as far as I can see, a particular brand of political party trying to punish farm organizations that dared to question them. It does seem to be about a tribunal trying to show it is boss on an issue that has been resolved at years of previous hearings and a Minister not showing much leadership.
If you farm in Ontario you should be offended by this decision and contacting the Minister to do something and to tell him regardless of what the tribunal seems to think you aren't as dumb as a post. Regardless of what you think about this organization or that organization, or all of them- this is a very bad precedent and may some day come back to bite you on your tractor sitting part in ways you can't currently predict.
On some of what you say but you are all out wrong on some also .
The problem likely stems from not every farmer and rural citizen keeping quiet and drinking the OFA GEA koolaid . I don't know where the OFA gets it facts but it sure is not the majority of members who are embracing the the big bully GEA . Sure all members will have to help pay for it as energy users but not all will benefit as energy producers . CFFO got that right right from the start .
McGuinty is throwing a hiisy fit and Ag which he thinks is all rural citizens will pay the price .
With 26 people on the tribunal , you'd think they would have been able to solve the probs long before this. Although I have no idea how many tribunal members attend a specific hearing. The website said that they conduct about 50 hearings per year.
1 chairman
10 vice chairs
And 15 regular members. Going by what I read last night on the tribunal web site.
At least 6 or 7 lawyers. A couple of engineers and several farmers make up the membership of the tribunal.
Most of the tribunal members have been appointed since McGuinty's reign began some 8-9 years ago. Most appointments to these types of tribunals are political appointments.
Just Google - Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal and read up on this yourselves. There is also a section which includes the names and bios of the tribunal members.
There are 3 adjudicators for a tribunal hearing of which one is a lawyer the other 2 are lay people.
Sean McGivern
PFO
Anyone who thinks Mr. McGivern and myself are wrong in our fingerpointing at the NFU ought to read a Sep 13th story in a major farm newspaper titled "NFU re-accreditation hearing re-opened". It is online. CFFO has been denied re-accreditation because they also, did not follow the rules regarding membership issues as laid out in the 1993 act. All the details are on omafra's website (omafra.gov.on.ca/french/tribunal/cffo2012-de). It's rather long, you may want to skip to conclusion, it sums it up. Now CFFO finds itself between a rock and a hard place because it can't go back in time to correct these issues and even though the tribunal wants to give them re-accreditation, it does not have the authority to do so. Any of these nameless posts claiming it to be related to McGuinty and the GEA are unfounded. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
I'm thinking if McGuilty can shut down 2 gas powered power plants at a cost of 100's of millions of dollars, he and bureaucrats could intervene and work with the farm groups to "fix" whatever seems to be wrong with how things were done before. But of course having the farm groups compliant or non-existent is in his best interest now. Good riddance Dolton.
Who cares about the NFU . Get them gone already . CFFO and OFA are the only ones named in the legislation .
How do you know that some nameless posts are not Gov employees ?
The bigger question is who did Sean pay his fee to this year ?
Answer must be no one because he does not want any Gov program assistance which means he does not want to get his farm tax rebate !
Correct, i submitted my fee to agricorp and that same day i sent a letter to the NFU with requesting my money back in full and with in 2 weeks my money was returned.
It should not be allowed where you have to pay and then get the money returned. What,s with these free loaders think everyone else should pay their way?
I actually send my money to a farm organization that does some thing the 3 gfo's have a gravey train and basically do nothing for the money you pay them...
sean
s
Yourself and others a porky .
You can only ask for a refund from a GFO after you have paid to them . So to say that you did not pay it to any one of the three is an all out "porky" . So then I would ask how can you expect others to trust you to be the head of an organisation ?
So you did pay a fee to the NFU .
I did not ask whether or not you asked for a refund .
I know there is a possibility that some some of the the nameless posts are Gov employees, and really don't care. I mention the nameless situation often in my posts to fuel more responses from those people and people like yourself and you fell for it "hook, line and sinker". I then use that fuel to further point out the flaws in government supported agriculture. The fuller the tank tank, the better. The truth is that many of the nameless posts are most likely disgruntled GFO leaders feeling embarrassed about the current situation they find themselves in over re-accreditation. As far as "who did Sean pay his fee to this year", it is my understanding that the answer is, he does not have to be a member of any GFO, yet can still pay the fee, and he can still get Gov assistance and his farm tax rebate, if he chooses to do so. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
Isn,t it time they close down the want-a-be and has been org. and have one only. It seems that they want to have their little group so they can all get their paycheck and have a little power, go figure and they talk about how the goverment likes to waste money. Its time for a level headed person step up to the plate and take charge for the farming community and not just for one group, if thats possible. Hopefully none of the ones that write in all the time and figures they have the right answers and the rest knows nothing or doesn,t get it. Letts get the goverment acting out of the farm org. and stand for the farmers not for themselves.
your post doesn't make sense please re-read it ....
Sean
I,m saying is taht there should only be 1 farm group that stand up for all the farming community not just for a small group of farmers- sm farmers - big farmers - small or medium farmers ,it should be for everyone. The different groups is just putting money into a few pockets and doesn,t seem to get things done because they are to busy fighting one another. We are not voting for libs,con,ndp or green its for a group to us fight the goverment BS that they give some of us and the golden hand shake to others. The ones that seems to wirte alot of letters are for a group of people and figures all other are evil farmers and should step aside and let the young ones farm for nothing. Together we stand divided we fall , which is the way its be going on for decades to much greed.
Post new comment