Manitoba Committee Hansard — 14 December 1988 (Agriculture and Food Committee, Sitting 1, 34th Legislature, 1st Session)

34-1-ag1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 First Session - Thirty-Fourth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on AGRICULTURE 37 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. Ed Helwer Constituency of Gimli VOL XXXVII No. 1 - 8 p.m., WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1988. ISSN 0713-9632 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fourth Legislature Members, Constituen cies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ANGUS, John ASHTON, Steve BURRELL, Parker :CARR, James 'CARSTAIRS, Sharon :CHARLES, Gwen :cH EEMA, Gulzar CHORNOPYSKI, William CONNERY, Edward.Hon. COWAN,Jay ,CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. �DERKACH, Le onard, Hon. ' DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James Hon. ,,DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DRIEDGER, Herold, L. DUCHARME, Gerald, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Laurie EVANS, Leonard 'FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen Hon.

GAUDR Y, Neil ;oiLLESHAMMER, Harold :GRAY, Avis ·HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R. :HEMPHILL, Maureen J<OZAK, Richard, J. LAMOUREUX, Kevin, M. MALOWAY, Jim .MANDRAKE, Ed MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. McCRAE, James Hon. MINENKO, Mark MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. OLESON, Charlotte Hon. ORCHARD, Donald Hon. PANKRATZ, Helmut PATTERSON, Allan PENNER, Jack, Hon. PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROCH, Gilles ROSE, Bob STORIE, Jerry TAYLOR, Harold URUSKI, Bill WASYLYCIA-LEIS, Judy YEO, lva CONST IT UENCY Osborne St.

Norbert Th ompson Swan River Fort Rouge RiVer Heights Selkirk Kildonan Burrows Portage la Prairie Churchill Ste. Rose du Lac Roblin-Russell : Concordia Arthur Emerson Niakwa ' Riet St. James Lakeside CharteSwood· · Fort Garry Brandon East Tuxedo Vir den St. Boniface Minnedosa Ellice Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Gimli Logan Transcona .tnkster j:: lmwood Assiniboia 0- --�� /�r\.t�rris -¥; • . · Br�ftqon West ·sel$ n.Q>aks Rivet East l'{qs!?rnere · Gladstone Pembina La Verendrye Radisson Rtiineland Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Turtle Mountain Springfield St. Vital Flin Flon Wolseley lnterlake St.

Johns Sturgeon Creek PARTY LIBERAL LIBERAL NDP PC LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC LIBERAL PC LIBERAL PC PC LIBERAL NDP PC PC LIBERAL PC LIBERAL PC NDP NDP PC NDP LIBERAL LIBERAL NDP LIBERAL PC PC LIBERAL PC PC PC PC PC LIBERAL PC NDP PC PC LIBERAL LIBERAL NDP LI BERAL NDP NDP LIBERAL

lEGISlATIVE ASSEMBlY Of MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE Wednesday, December 14, 1988 TIME - ll p. m. LOCATION - Winni peg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN- Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli) ATTENDANCE - 11 - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Cummings, Findlay, Orchard, and Penner Messrs. Chornopyski, Harapiak, Helwer , Patterson, Roch, and Uruski APPEARING: Bill No. 28: Mr. K. Sigurdson, National Farmers' Union Mr. K. Proven, National Farmers' Union Mr. E. Guest, Western Grain Elevator Association Mr. G. Arason, Manitoba Pool Elevators Mr. E. Geddes, Keystone Agricultural Producers Mr. T.

Dooiey, Keystone Agricultural Producers Mr. A. Dickson, Farmers' Union, Local 514 Mr. G. Jones, Private Citizen Mr. i. Jones, Private Citizen Mr. R. Ages, Manitoba Coalition Against Free Trade Mr. L. Ross, Private Citizen Mr. J. Whitaker, Private Citizen Mr. F. Tait, Private Citizen Bil l No. 29: Mr. R. Munroe, Manitoba Cattle Producers' Association Mr. T. Dooley, Manitoba Cattle Producers' Association Mr. K. Sigurdson, National Farmers' Union Mr. G. Jones, Private Citizen Mr. D. McLaren, Private Citizen Mr. D. Fulton, Private Citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSION PRESENTED BUT NOT READ Mr. E.

Hiebert, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill No. 28 - Th e Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Act Bill No. 29 - Th e Cattle Producers' Association Amendment Act • (2005) 1 Clerk of Committees, Mrs. Janet Summers: We have to elect a Chairman. Are there any nominations? Mr. Penner. Hon. Jack Penner (Minister of Natural Resources): I would like to nominate Ed Helwer. Madam Clerk: Are there any further nominations? Mr. Helwer, will you please take the Chair? Mr. Chairman: We have two Bills to be considered this evening. I have a list of persons wishing to appear before this committee.

Bill No. 28, The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Act. Persons wishing to make presentations: Mr. Keith Proven, National Farmers' Union Mr. Ed Guest, Western Grain Elevator Association Mr. Edward Hiebert, Private Citizen Mr. Tom Dooley, Keystone Agricultural Producers Mr. Earl Geddes, Keystone Agricultural Producers Mr. Ken Sigurdson, National Farmers' Union Mr. Allan Dickson, Farmers' Union Local 514 Mr. Goldwyn Jones, Private Citizen Mr. lan Jones, Private Citizen Mr. Robert Ages, Manitoba Coalition Against Free Trade Mr. Lyle Ross, Private Citizen Mr.

John Whitaker, Private Citizen Bill No. 29, The Catt le Producers' Association Amendment Act. Persons wishing to make presentations: Mr. Bob Munroe, Manitoba Cattle Producers' Association Mr. Tom Dooley, Manitoba Cattle Producers' Association Ken Sigurdson, National Farmers' Union Alien Dickson, Farmers' Union Local 514 Mr. Goldwyn Jones, Private Citizen Mr. Doug McLaren, Private Citizen Mr. David Fulton, Private Citizen Mr. Robert Ages, Manitoba Coalition Against Free Trade Mr.

Lyle Ross, Private Citizen Should anyone else wish to appear before this committee whose name is not recorded, please advise the Committee Clerk and your name will be added to this list. No one else then? Does the committee wish to impose a time limit on the length of public presentations? Mr. Bill Uruski (lnterlake): Mr. Chairman, I think we should proceed to hear the presentations as expeditiously as possible and let them go through. We have agreed that we are going to devote tonight to presentations. We will not be going to clause by clause

Wednesday , Decem ber 14, 1988 so we should not try to limit ourselves or the presenters in their presentations. *

(2010) Mr. Chairman: lt is permissible, if the committee so wishes, to allow out-of-town presenters to speak first, since it may be difficult for them to return if another meeting has to be held to accommodate all presenters. What is the will of the committee? The Honourable Minister. Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): I would suggest you follow by the list as presented. Mr. Chairman: Follow the list as listed? Okay. We will start with No. 1, Mr. Keith Proven from the National Farmers' Union. Mr. Keith Proven (National Farmers' Un ion): Mr. Chairman, my name is Keith Proven.

Would it be in order to allow Ken Sigurdson to have some introductory remarks? He would be finished and then I would continue in this one-time spot. Mr. Chairman: lt is up to the committee here, the will of the committee. (Agreed) No problem, okay. Mr. Proven: I will call on Ken Sigurdson then. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ken Sigurdson from the National Farmers' Union. Mr. Ken Sigurdson (National Farmers' Union): Mr.

Chairman, certainly a lot of National Farmers' Union members would have liked to have been here tonight to make presentations on Bill No. 28 and Bill No. 29, but because of the season and because of the short time, certainly people could not make it in. We certainly would not like to see this Bill passed in this kind of fashion and this type of lack of democracy where people cannot be heard on the legislation. I would say that farmers out in the country scarcely know what Bill No. 28 and Bill No. 29 are all about.

To us in the National Farmers' Union, Bill No. 28 and Bill No. 29 represent unwarranted Government intrusion into the affairs of farmers and farm organizations in Manitoba. Bill No. 28 and Bill No. 29 will provide legislative funding for virtually every farm organization or commodity group in this province, with probably the exception of the National Farmers' Union. We see a lot of problems in the farm community; we see the drought; we see the lack of drought payments going out to farmers. Yet the priority seems to be to fund private groups and hurry on with this type of legislation.

We sort of question where the Manitoba Government has been in the whole drought issue, which is a real crisis, and we also question where some farm organizations have been on this issue. Priorities seem to be in other places. Clearly this legislation was drafted by the Keystone Agricultural Producers and no input was provided by 2 any other farm organizations, or no input was even requested by any other farm organization. We have had a lack of consultation; we have had a lack of information. Why do we have this lack of consultation and this lack of information?

Really because the Government wants to fund their friends or have made some kind of commitments during the election or otherwise to these people. We recommend that a White Paper be issued, ful! discussion take place out in the country on these t'..vo Bills followed by public hearings. We met with Laurie Evans on Friday of last week. He indicated to us that there was no great rush to proceed with this legislation and that he made the commitment that we could have public hearings out in the country. We were quite pleased Mr. Evans took that position.

I think it would be a real step for democracy in that farmers would have an opportunity to be heard on this issue. ..

(2015) Anyway, we do not take lightly the fact that the Government is legislating one particular group to represent all farmers in this province. We have never requested that one parti cular group, ourselves, represent all farmers. We have never indicated, at any time, that we are the only group that represents farmers. So with that, I am going to now turn it over to Keith Proven, he is right behind me here, and he is going to present a brief, by Region 5 of the National Farmers' Union. I will ask questions, as well as Keith, after his presentation. Thank you.

BilL NO. 28- THE AGRICUlTURAL PRODUCERS' ORGANIZATION FUNDING ACT Mr. Proven: We are not particularly pleased at having to present the Manitoba region of the National Farmers' Union' s position on Bill No. 28, Th e Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Act. Democracy and rural Canada are the things that the National Farmers' Union holds most dear, but this particular piece of legislation contravenes and demeans both of these ideals. The stated objective of this legislation is to provide a unified voice for Manitoba farmers.

Fortunately, you cannot, as yet, legislate the same philosophies for farmers any more than you can for any other segment of society. lt would be as though you could legislate all the political Parties into one, thus eliminating the need for elections. You could also then eliminate the need for any meaningful discourse carried on between different ideologies. This legislation demonstrates a true contempt for the intelligence of farmers. lt dictates to this group in society that you are not capable of electing and selecting your own farm group.

Any time a Government removes an opportunity for democratic actions by any group within society, it weakens all of society. The historical perspective of this legislation does indeed trace its way back for many years and many

Wedne sday, December 14, 1988 farm organizations. There has always been a diversity of opinion within farm groups, historically. In western Canada, 70 to 75 years ago, not everyone supported the idea of wheat pools. Hard work and organizing were the keys to providing the collective bargaining tool that farmers needed.

As it is today, no organization can possibly be responsive to its membership as long as that membership is forced by law to belong to that organization. lt is very difficult for us to provide a critique of this leg islation and not be accused of criticizing the organization which is most closely attached to it. This legislation is remarkably similar to the position paper that the Keystone Agricultural Producers (KAP) gave many candidates during the last provincial election. KAP must invariably be drawn in as co-authors of this legislation and therefore will also suffer the political fall-out.

We, as an organization, have worked together with KAP and other farm organizations on specific projects and have been pleased to do so. However, the political reality of the farm community is one of diversity of approach and end goals. We, in the National Farmers' Union, wish farmers would have a common thoug htfulness for rural Manitoba' s future. Unfortunat ely, this legislation reeks of 25 years of none too subtle manipulation by the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Manitoba. As an undergraduate in the middle 1960s, I was very aware of the contradictions in the Faculty of Agriculture ap proach.

On one hand, we had a maligning of cooperative marketing (Canadian Wheat Board, supply man agement marketing boards and cooperatives) combined with the idea that farmers could and should join an organization for all farmers. If the Faculty of Agriculture had presented a cooperative approach to marketing and rural living, we probably could have had a single organization that would have represented farmers and rural Manitoba's views. *

(2020) Instead, we have farmers and farm groups at each other's throats in an effort to be the last person or group left in rural Manitoba. To say we are upset by the cultural genocide of the last 10 years would be an understatement. Farmers leave, services leave, and rural communities leave. When is there ever going to be a Government that would address this problem? When will there be leadership in rural Manitoba that will say "enough is enough"? Every time a farmer is lost, we are lessened as a cultural group.

You cannot legislate this attitude change, it must come from all of those factions involved in agriculture and rural Manitoba. lt must start soon, as we will have one large city in Manitoba with no rural roots left. To actually offer a critique of Biil No. 28 is giving it far more attention than it deserves. However, if we are accept the normal means of expressing concern over the proposed legislation, then a critique we must offer. ln Act, we go to

Part 11, Agricultural Producers' Organ:zation Certification Agency. This concept is 3 probably the most destructive part of the legislation. it would allow, quite possibly, for four urban men with no direct involvement in farming to choose the farmers' organization. If I was a KAP member, I would be quite ashamed to know that a majority of farmers did not choose my group, but a group of "city folk" did. The actual choice of this method by KAP shows how insecure they are about their position in rural Manitoba. lt also shows that this Government has not thought through the process at all.

Picture this scenario il we have a new Government in a couple of years. Change the legislation to have the president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, president of the Consumers' Association of Canada, Manitoba Branch or maybe the president of the Manitoba Medical Association choosing the farm group. These people would be certainly classed as farmer neutral and would not side with any one group, but what the hell would they have to do with what farmers need? The question of criteria for choosing the certification group are ludicrous.

If membership numbers are a criteria, then the Manitoba Pool Elevators should be eligible. MPE has more members than any other farm group in Manitoba. If being anti-cooperative is a criteria, the Manitoba farm business groups would be the most qualified. If an inability to make a crucial policy decision is a criteria, KAP would qualify (witness free trade, Meech Lake, etc.). So where does this leave farmers, with no criteria and no effective voice in the choice of their organization?

This whole certification-recertification is so undemocratic. lt is completely unbelievable that any Legislature would consider the control of this legislation.

Part 3-Collection of Memberships. The incredible weakness of this concept is who is going to pay for the collection process? We understand that a number of businesses have already expressed a concern over the added bookkeeping costs to them. Again, who pays? I guess every farmer does, member or non member. Other questions must be asked. When will collection agencies know when they have exceeded $75.00? How will farmers get the excess back? What will be the percentage taken at any one time? Obviously, this process has not been thought through at all and will not be workable. *

(2025) Part 4- Funding of Designated Producer Organizations. If Bill 28 has a conception of one unified voice for farmers, then why would you want to fund other farm organizations? This can only lead to more antipathy between farm groups. Commodity groups become very insular to other farmers. This leads to more competition and does not allow farmers to share common grounds and address common problems. If commodity groups can vote to be checked off, why cannot every farmer involved in this legislation have the same right? If a 60 percent majority is good for one organization, why is it not good for the general farm organization?

Wednesd ay, Decembe r 14, 1988 Referring to

Part 5-General Provisions. Sort of tongue in cheek, I say to you, appointment of inspectors, we notice in the legislation, appointment of inspectors to check the bookkeeping. Questions to ask: will they be called Keystone KOPs or KAP KOPs? Will they wear black hats with white printing? Will they carry guns? For a Government that espouses getting off the back of the average citizen, they have a strange way of showing it. In

summary, if this Government and KAP really want to do something for rural Manitoba they should: 1) Admit that there is a crisis of monumental proportions in rural Manitoba; 2) Stress that farmers must learn to work and market collectively for the betterment of all; 3) Help put marketing procedures in place that will allow for a Cost of Production formula; 4) He lp educate consumers to the true costs to society of the Cheap Food Policy; 5) Move in a direction of sustainable ('!griculture, one th.at is less c:tependent on high cost inputs; 6) Foster an attitude of caring about one's fellow citizens in rural Manitoba rather than one of competitive survival; 7) Pull the farm groups together to start a dialogue of common interest if it is not too late.

Bill 28 in no way addresses the underlying problems of rural Manitoba. lt will simply further institutionalize fear, greed , apathy and the exodus out of rural Manitoba. Submitted by, National Farmers' Union. Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions for Mr. Proven? Thank you very much. We have one question. Mr. UrUl>ki. Mr. Uruski: You criticized Bill 2a in its entirety. If one was to ask you should farmers have the right to have a farm organiza tion in the province-one farm organization-what would your answer be? Mr.

Proven; My answer would be that if 50 percent plus one of farmers vote for a checkoff and a farm organization, then that would be the will of the farmers. Mr. Uruski: So that you would be advocating a vote if there was to be a vote amongst farm organizations. There are provisions in Ontario which allow for more than one farm organization to rece ive a checkoff, as I understand. How dO you view that type of a proposal? Mr. Proven: If you are to listen to the legislation, then the aim of the legislation is the one voice, so it would be difficult to fund a number of organizations to provide a unified voice.

Speaking as our organization, we would neit!ler quality nor would be able to apply for any funding under this legislation. *

(2030) Mr. Uruski: Mr. Chairman, why would you not qualify to be certified as one organization under this legislation? Ntr. Proven: Our national Charter would preclude that as a national organization. Mr. Laurie Evans (Fort Garry): Mr. Chairperson, I believe it was Mr. Sigurdson in his address indicated 4 that he had been talking to me and I had made the statement that public meetings could be heard. This is correct, but what I would need to know from you is what justification do you feel there is for having public meetings.

My statement that there could be public meetings was based on the necessity of getting more information out there. I am wondering whether you still feel that there is lack of understanding of what is the intent of this motion that would justify having public hearings? Mr. Proven: Cer tainly, Laurie, there is a lack of information among farmers. If you ask farmers what Bill 28 or 29 were, I would hazard to guess that 75 percent to 80 percent of them would not know what you are talking about. They probably will start noticing it when they get it deducted off their cheque.

That is the road we are heading on right now. When they will find out, their first reaction will be what in the world is hap pening? Really, I think Government has a responsibility to find out what people think. KAP has never had 50 percent of the farmers � in Manitoba, the National Farmers' Union has never had 50 percent of the .farmers in Manitoba join to it.

Really , what we are entering here is a totally undemocratic situation wher-e Government is picking somebody out and saying we are going to provide you with legislated funding just because we sort of like you, or I do not know what exactly the criteria was. Mr. Laurie Evans: I was wondering, Mr.

Sigurdson, whether you would speculate as to what percentage of the farmers in Manitoba, if I walked up to them on a single basis and said do you understand Bill 28, and know the implications of it, could they give me a fairly detailed understanding of Bill 28, and what percentage of it would be prepared and able to do that? Mr. Proven: Like I said, Laurie, I figure that probably 75 percent would not know. Mr. Laurie Evans: Would not know. Mr. Proven: Yes, that is right. Again, I am just guessing, it is just a ballpark figure. Mr. Findlay: I would like to ask Mr. Proven a couple of questions, please.

You indicate that you would prefer a vote of 50 percent plus one determining if there should be a general farm organization. If that vote was held, you would say then that 100 percent of the farmers would have to be checked off. They would have no right to object to that checkoff. Is that right? Mr. Proven: We consider that if the majority votes in favour, then the majority would rule. Mr. Findlay: That means that everybody would be forced to pay a levy. Is that right? Mr.

Proven: We said that if they vote in favour of a farm organization, then we would discuss whether the compulsory checkoff would be a part of that. I assume the question would be, are you in favour of a compulsory

Wedne sday, December 14, 1988 checkoff for a farm organization? If 50 percent plus one said, yes, then that is what we get. Mr. Find lay: You realize this legislation requires anybody to have a continuous vote, called an up front opt out, if you are a true objector, which you obviously are, that you will never be checked off or never be forced to be checked off, because you have that right to opt out or exercise your vote; to opt out or opt back in later on if you so desire. I would consider that somewhat more democratic than forcing everybody to have to abide by 50 percent plus one. Mr.

Proven: What you are saying here, though, is 25 percent of the farm population-if KAP represents 20 to 25 percent-are dictating to the other 10 0 percent, because it is a tune of semantics. If you want me to define voluntary and compulsory, I will. Voluntary to me is when somebody asks me if I want to join and then I sign up. Compulsory to me is when you are already on the list and you have to write a letter back saying, I do not want to be on the list. Mr. Findla y: I consider that pretty voluntary if you have the right to say you do not want to be checked off. Mr.

Proven: Necessarily, we are going to agree to disagree on what the terms voluntary and compulsory mean. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. No further questions? Mr. Penner. Mr. Penner: One question. Are you of the view that this will restrict other organizations from existing in the province? Mr. Proven: I do not think there is any question that it will restrict. If you give one organization the kind of war chest, the compulsory war chest that they will have, then the difficulty in organizing farmers is going to be made a hundredfold harder, no question. Mr. Penner: Again, one step further .

Do you see that this would restrict a national organization from existing in the province? Mr. Prove n: Absolutely not. We will exist for as long as we have members, but also we have to speak for farmers of Manitoba and that is what we are doing now. Mr. Penner: Do you say that the provisions that are provided under this Bill which give the right to any farmer to indicate that they would like their contribution to a farm organization to be subtracted from income derived of a farmer, is that a right that a farmer should have? Mr.

Prove n: I guess the discussions we have had are, if you market one hog, do you take the whole $75 off that one hog which would then leave you with $5 plus your stabilization payments? If you market two sheep, does that take the whole membership? Again, what we are saying to you is, in the legislation you have given 5 the farmers no chance in selecting the farm organization. You have given four people with no relationship, other than an academic one to farming, to choose the organization. Mr. Penner: I would still like Mr. Proven to answer the question. I would still like to know from Mr.

Proven whether he thinks that farmers should have the right to indicate that they would like a deduction to be made off of income to support a farm organization? Mr. Proven: If they vote for it, yes. Checkoffs are not an anathema towards the farmers' union policy. Checkoffs in favour of a marketing action are favoured by us. This has no marketing action. lt does not strengthen the farmer in the marketplace at all. But if 50 percent plus one voted for the privilege of being checked off from their sales, then that would be democracy. Mr.

Penner: Are you of the view that you have, if you are given the right to object to whatever, that that is a right that you should maintain? Mr. Proven: I think the right has to come up front. That is a voluntary right, not a compulsory right. Mr. Penner: Would you agree that if a deduction is made off your income, for whatever means, that you be given the right to ask for a refund or an indication that that deduction should no longer be made? Would that be a clear indication that you no longer want that to happen? Mr.

Proven: I think again, as the Minister of Agriculture asked if I voluntarily say that I want to be checked off, then that becomes voluntary. This is not voluntary. Mr. Allan Patterson (Radiss on): Am I correct in assuming from what you say that you are against the concept of one, more or less, single voice for Manitoba farmers, or is it that you seem to have an antipathy towards the KAP. Mr. Prove n: To say I have an antipathy towards KAP would not be true.

Some of their viewpoints we have agreed to disagree on but we do function together, as I mentioned in the brief, and we have functioned together on a number of occasions. What I am against is the fact that there has never been any groundwork done to provide farmers with a common way of meeting the problems head on. As I said in the start of our brief, that without having common goals, without having some common view to what we want, then you cannot legislate that common view. You cannot do it.

We are so divided now that I would estimate it would take 10 years of hard work to bring farmers around to one looking at what we need in rural Manitoba to save rural Manitoba, just by talking with each other. Once we thrashed it out as farm organizations then maybe we could be looking at legislation that would make it compulsory for there to be one organization. Mr. Patterson: What would you advocate, just various commodity groups?

Wedn esd ay, December 14, 1988 Mr. Prov en: I am not in favour of just commodity groups. As I mentioned in the brief, commodity groups become insular. lt always has been that way amongst farmers. The National Farmers' Union does not operate in that function. We have all commodity groups who are involved in making policy. I sit beside apple growers from Prince Edward Island, potato growers from Prince Edward Island, apple growers from Nova Scotia, and we make a common agricultural policy that we think will work for all farm operators.

We realize that there are differences in our marketing and our markets but we also realize that we have a common goal in wanting to retain what we have In rural Canada. So I am not against everybody being together. I am for that. But historically we have always had the play off of different commodity groups, one against the other. Cattle people want cheap feed barley, so they will work for cheaper feed grain . Feed grain people want the export price. We have the commodity groups working against each other now but we cannot legislate them together. Mr.

Palteraon: Well, what do you mean specifically by retaining what you have in rural Manitoba or any other province, for that ma tte r, how do you see this as attacking that? Mr. Proven: lt does not address the fundamental problem and that fundamental problem is you cannot legislate an attitude of cooperation. You cannot legislate unity. *

(2040) Mr. Patterson: Yes, but in what specific way does this attack what we have in rural Manitoba today, and that presumably you feel is desirable to maintain? Mr. Proven: What do I believe we should retain in Manitoba? Mr. Patterson: In what specific way do you feel this attacks what you are trying to protect- Mr. Proven: Well, by legislating- Mr. Patterson: -what you have in rural Manitoba? Mr. Pr ove n: Okay . By legislating one particular philosophy you do not allow the other philosphies to have a discussion or input into formulating farm policy, and that is exactly what will happen. Mr.

Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Uruski, you had one final comment. Mr. Uruski : Mr. Chairman, in your brief you talked about the appointments of the certification agency being the most destructive and being urban-oriented, or just about urban-oriented, as President of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities was an elected politician. If you were to have a group which was to do any kind of viewing or determining, who would you recommend as being appointed to a group, or would you? Mr. Proven: I would not allow any farm organization to give up the right, or farmers to give up the right, 6 to elect their own organization.

This is pu rely undemocratic that you would allow four people with no relationship to agriculture other than I said, purely coincidental, to select a farm group for farmers. lt is ridiculous. There is not another segment of society which would allow that to happen to themselves. Teachers would not; ML As would not; you would all go back to the voters to be selected. I think that is all that farmers could ask for. Mr. Penner: Mr. Proven, under what

section of the Act do you see the rights to elect the organization taken away? Mr. Pr oven: Under the Agriculture Produce rs' Organization Certification Agency which is appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Penner: Unless I misunderstand that

section of the Act, that

section would only identify the organization that would be provided with the funding mechanism. I am not sure whether I understand correctly what you are trying to say. I wonder if you are trying to indicate to the committee that other organizations would not have the right to exist or be funded by whatever mechanis m they chose to in this method. I am wondering, the question is to you, do you see the right to elect organizations, or the directors of an organization, being taken away from farmers through this method? Mr.

Proven: I am certain that the directors within the organization would be elected in the same way as they are now. But given that if you choose the one organization, KAP, with 5,200 members, if they were selected by the Ministers or this legislation's selection group, then they would be selected for the 20,000-plus farmers which, to me, means that you eliminate 75 percent of the farmers from having an actual vote on a group that will represent them. Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering under

section of the Act you would find that it is indicated that all farmers must belong to this organization, or any given identified organization. Mr. Proven: Again, we will enter into the semantics of compulsory and voluntary. I know I am not allowed to ask. questions but, Mr. Penner, what is your definition of voluntary and what is you definition of compulsory? Mr. Penner: The other question, Mr. Chairman, is what

section of this Act do you see philosophies enshrined? You indicated in your remarks a little while ago that a certain philosophy was enshrined by the Act. Could you identify for us, please, which

section of the Act you see the philosophy that you were referring to enshrined in this Act? Mr. Proven: No, I do not think I mentioned it. Mr. Pen ner: I am sorry, Mr. Chair man, then misunderstood. Mr. Proven: I never mentioned that any philosophy would be enshrined. Just a group.

Wedne sday, Decem ber 14, 1988 Mr. Penner: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Find lay: Just one quick question. You represent the National Farmers' Union. How many paid up members would you have in Manitoba right now? Mr. Prove n: Eight hundred. Mr. Patte rson: I feel a little concern with what seems to me to be your attack on the Faculty of Agriculture at the university.

I speak, first of all, not as a farm boy, and I have not worked in agriculture or agribusiness, but nevertheless, I am an agricultural graduate from the Ontario Agriculture College and a recently retired faculty member of the University of Manitoba. lt seems to me that the dean of any Faculty of Agriculture in Canada would have a significant farm background as with any directors of the various schools and the president of the Manitoba Institute of Agrologists.

The only individual! see here whose office's name conceivably could not be a farm boy, so to speak, or farm girl, would be the president of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities who may not have that experience. I would like to speak somewhat in defence of my two colleagues here, the the Honourable Minister, a former member of the faculty, and my colleague, the Member for Fort Garry (Mr. Laurie Evans), who still is. Persons of this ilk, I think, have the interests of agriculture and farmers generally very much at heart. I cannot understand your, as I say, what I perceive to be your attack on them. Mr.

Proven: I will try and draw an analogy. Did you say you were part of a faculty once? Mr. Patterson: Not of agriculture. Mr. Proven: Not of agriculture. Mr. Patterson: The University of Manitoba. Mr. Prov en: As I recall, the U of M has a number of labour unions along with the faculty association that involve themselves in bargaining for their respective bodies-the people who work within the buildings, the cust odians, the guards, controllers, a number of different unions.

What you are saying to me is that with legislation, if we took the University of Manitoba, threw all those unions together but had a certification body, the certification body would then be allowed to choose the particular organization within that university that would represent all of the unions together. To me, that would be analogous to what you are doing here. Therefore, there would be no faculty organization, no Canadian Union of Public Employees. There would just be the certification agency choosing which one would best represent all the unions on the University of Manitoba campus.

If we took numbers, it would not surprise me, but CUPE might be the largest organization and would therefore represent Mr. Evans or Mr. Findlay if he was still there working. 7 *

(2050) Mr. Patterson: I do not quite buy your analogy. The proper analogy you should be making is with the faculty itself. Where we have in the university several faculties Agriculture, Engineering, Management, of which I was a member, and Arts, Science and so on-they are all the professoriate, all with different specific interests but nevertheless directed towards the same goal of education, research, teaching and service but in different specific areas in the same way that farmers have different commodities, but to throw the other support groups in, the analogy falls down. Mr.

Proven: I think we will probably disagree because I would think that in the labs that I can remember at the University of Manitoba, if it were not for the staff who cleaned the labs up and worked with the projects, then you would have had no operation of that university. So it seems to me that you are all together in one. Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. I call the next speaker, Mr. Ed Guest of Western Grain Elevator Association. Before you start, Mr. Guest, we would request of committee members and presenters to wait until they have been recognized by the Chair to speak.

By recognizing each speaker, it enables our recorder to activate the proper microphones. Mr. Ed Guest (Western Grain Elevator Association): Honourable Ministers, Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, Ladies and Gentlemen. I would first like to point out that I have one of my senior principals here with me today, Mr. Greg Arason, and if dur ing question period you have some questions for either one of us, we would be more than pleased to answer them. We welcome the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss this Bill which is extremely important to both the agricultural producer and our industry in total.

We are here today representing the Western Grain Elevator Association. Our association consists of the major grain companies that would most seriously be affected by The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Act, Bill No. 28. A list of our member companies is attached to the paper that you have been presented with today for your ready reference. You can well imagine that we are fully dependent on the success of the agricultural community for our existence. In that regard, we are compelled to address the issue before you.

In order to be in a position to market grain, there must be an elevator system in place, a system that can respond to the needs of the producers and the marketplace. This system, commonly called the country elevator system, is subjected to the many cost factors facing all other industries in Canada and we must recover those costs in order to stay in business. Over the years, rules and regulations have been placed on the industry that cost operational dollars. There is only one source for that revenue and that source is the agricultural producer.

Wedne sday, December 14, 1988 Many stories have been circulated in the media lately as�to the producers' plight due to ever-increasing costs of doing business. One of these cost items has certainly been elevator tariffs. Grain companies, over the years, have been asked or told that they must perform function s that are not related to grain company operations. In an effort to cushion the effects and to still remain in business, tariffs to producers have been increased as marginally as possible.

We certainly have no.difficulties in justifying tariffs to cover our operating COl!ltS, but we are being forced to include many costs over which we have absolutely no control, such costs as those proposed by Bill No. 28. Produc ers should know up front what their costs are and what services they are paying for. Let us first say that we are not opposed to a producer check- off system if that is what producers want. If such a system provides funds .. or research and development that assists producers in their operations, it may well benefit the entire agricultural sector, including our member companies.

To collect funds on a compulsory basis for any other reason should be at the discretion of the individual producers. The Bill before this committee today generates confusion and will be costly to our industry. We are also certainly concerned with the potential producer resentment it may cause. Bill 28 will cost producers a considerable amount of dollars. According to the 1986 Government of Canada Census, there were 27 ,300-plus agriculture producers in Manitoba. At $ 75 per producer, that raises in excess of $ 2,000,000.00.

Of that total, there are over 20,000 grain producers and their share of the up-front costs will be in excess of $ 1.5 million. This, of course, does not take into consideration the hidden costs to producers that are certainly associated with this Bill.

Our member companies and others are being told that they must: - maintain and scrutinize a list of producers selling $ 500 or more of agriculture products; - they must make the dollar collection; - they must record the transactions; - they must be responsible for banking the monies; - they must pay those monies out within 30 days of receipt; - they must maintain records for 2 years; - they will possibly be required to collect fees and maintain records for multipurpose organizations; - they will be subject to inspections; - and they will be subject to fines and liability for fees and interest for something that is not in our company's operations.

These records and tran sactions cannot be accomplished at no additional cost. At the absolute extreme minimum, our companies will be out of pocket between $ 6 and $ 10 for each transaction handled. In total, this provides again, at the minimum, extra costs from $ 120,000 to $ 200,000 with a potential costing of as much as $ 275, 000. 00. Th ose are pretty high administrative costs. Bear in mind, gentlemen, that these are minimum numbers. This could end up costing Manitoba producers for the checkoff as much as $ 2.25 million. 8 Our companies must be reimbursed for their costs of operations.

Producers should certainly know what their costs are. The costs should not be hidden, which creates false impressions if they are hidden in tariffs . The Agricultural Producers' Organization Certification Agency should have to reimburse the companies for their expenses. Regardless of how the reimbursement is made, it is still a cost to producers. Bill 28 imposes financial burdens on the grain companies for non-grain business and then makes the companies liable for fines of up to $1,000.00. This is extremely unreasonable and certainly unacceptable.

There is definitely no justification whatsoever for imposing liability on a company for procedures that have nothing to do with their business operations. Our elevator personnel are employed to carry out the business of operating a grain elevator and not to be a collection agency for other agencies. The formation and maintenance of lists will cause confusion and marketing problems for both producers and grain companies. As the program is not mandatory, our member companies will have no way of verifying who has written, on short notice anyway, to have their names withdrawn from the list.

With only partial lists, producers may deliver to companies where their names do not appear to avoid payment. To add to the problem, many producers sell both grain and other products such as livestock and dairy products. Further, of the 24,000 permit bookholders in Manitoba, many hold more than one permit book. Companies should not be confronted with the confusion and ill will that could be caused by such circumstances. *

(2100) In

summary, Mr. Chairman, we feel The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Act, Bill No. 28, will be detrimental to the grain industry; be a costly program to administer both for producers and grain companies; will not provide the companies with reimbursement for their time and services; will provide for unacceptable liability on the companies; will certainly be confusing and generate ill will. Producers should be aware of all the costs they are being faced with. They should be able to see the returns for those dollars. We are strongly opposed to hiding costs to producers.

If hidden, all Manitoba producers will pay whether they have opted out or not. Agricultural companies should not have administrative costs levied on them for non grain business. Grain companies should not be made liable for operations which have nothing to do with them. Producers and grain companies should not be put in a potential adversary position as these lists may put us. Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is our recommendation that Bill No. 28 creates too muc � confusion and is too costly to producers alld agricultural companies to be passed, at least in its current form, at this time.

We will certainly be pleased to answer any questions you may have and would, at your request, work with you further on this matter. Thank you. Mr. Findlay: I would like to ask Mr. Guest if he takes any checkoffs now on a producers grain check?

Wednesday, December 14, 1988 Mr. Guest: I alluded to that earlier in that there are a number of checkoffs that the companies have to perform that are costing the companies money, that are hidden costs to the producers, and it does generate ill will to the grain companies because the farmer says, why are your tariffs so high? We are not like the gas companies who have a sign on their gas pumps saying our share of the revenue is "X" and the Government's share of the revenue is this, or the other agency's share of the revenue is such. Mr. Findlay: Would Mr. Guest like to identify those checkoffs? Mr.

Guest: You put me in a little bit of a spot. I cannot answer all of them. I might defer to Mr. Arason for some of them. Mr. G. Arason (Manit oba Pool Elevators): The main checkoff or levy that we collect and forward is the Western Grain Stabilization. � Mr. Findl ay: What does that cost you per transaction? Mr. Arason: The cost that we have and the cost that we developed here, which are cited in our brief prepared by one of our member companies, indicate that these kinds of bookkeeping efforts cost us in the range of $6 to $10 when we do it. Mr. Findlay: Are you reimbursed for those costs for WGSA? Mr.

Arason: Partially. Mr. Findla y: What amount? Mr. Arason: Right off the top of my head I cannot tell you Mr. Findlay. I know we do receive some return. Mr. Find lay: You say $6 to $10.00. Would you like to itemize those figures for me to see how you come up with the $6 to $10 cost? Mr. Arason: I will not break the cost down. I will tell you the things that we foresee having to do, keep records, which involves people, probably take up space on our computer systems, which are already overtaxed as far as capacity goes.

We are currently rationing our operational systems, and in the light of the farm situation and what we have done with our costs, we have held back on computer expense but it is a significant expense. The fact that we will be subject to review at any time. The subject that will be liable to fines and I know who any person is when it comes to fines in our organization because I am the guy that is at the end of the line. The cost of providing staff and the elevator is a significant cost. The more bookkeeping and the more transactions they do, the more people we have to have around.

These things tend to happen at times of the year when other activities, grain comes in when we are selling farm supplies and we are selling fertilizer. lt cannot be evened out through the year. So we have peaks in our workload. Mr. Find lay: You must have done some analysis to determine the $6 to $10 per transaction. I would like 9 to ask you how many people you would have to hire in addition to what you presently have on staff now? Mr. Arason: As I said, this is an association presentation. Those numbers were prepared at the association's request by one of our member companies.

I was not the member company that provided that information. Mr. Findlay: In other words, you are saying you cannot verify these figures? Mr. Arason: Not specifically. We gave you a range. We think it is reasonable. Mr. Findlay: If you were to receive reimbursement for your true costs of doing this, would that satisfy the gist of your presentation here tonight? Mr. Arason: lt would go a long way towards satisfying our concern, yes. We feel that we have been ignored and not consulted on this as an industry and as organizations in businesses that will be responsible for a large part of the workload. Mr.

Cha irman: Other questions? Mr. Uruski. Mr. Uruski: In your brief, Mr. Guest, your association, does it cover all the elevator companies operating in the Province of Manitoba or are there any companies operating outside of your association? Mr. Guest: There are two or three small elevators other than represented by our members. Mr. Uruski: Would Mr. Guest indicate that the majority of the 20,000 grain producers that are in the province would be deliver through the organizations that support this brief? Mr. Guest: Yes. Mr. Uruski: In your brief, you talked about confusion.

We have had earlier presentations indicating that most farmers really do not understand what is actually going on at the present time. Would your association recommend that there be public hearings on this legislation and to hear farmers views and others who may wish to present views out in rural Manitoba? Mr. Guest: I think I stated earlier that our concern is that (1) it will costly to the system; and (2) that there can be confusion for member companies. Whatever is done to eliminate both of those things would be fine. Mr. Laurie Evans: I would like to ask much the same question- that Mr.

Uruski asked, and that is, of the farmers that your represent, what percentage of them do you feel are adequately informed about Bill 28 and the implications of it to them as individuals? Mr. Guest: I am sorry, I really cannot answer that question. We are not here representing farmers and farm organizations. We are here representing the grain

Wednesday, December 14, 1988 compan ies tha t would, under this Bill, have to handle the tran saction, so I really canno t answer tha t qu estion. Mr. laurie Evans: Can you gi ve an opinion, based on the farm mem bersh ip of the compan ies tha t belong to your organ izati on? Are you satisfied tha t there is good under standing of this leg islation with in the farming commu nity? Mr. Guest: I can only answer your fi rst question, tha t I cannot gi ve an opinion because I do not have one at this time, I aiTI sor ry. Mr.

Penner: Do all the com panies tha t you represent in your association hold the views tha t have been expressed here by you and Mr. A rason? Mr. Gues t: Yes, they do. -Mr. Penner: Mr . Chairman, how many of th ese companies operate in Manitoba? Mr. Guest: All except Saska tche wan Wh eat Pool and Alberta Wheat Pool, I am sor ry, and Weyburn Termina ls. There are thr ee. Mr. Penner: Are the majority of the se compan ies farmer owned, tha t operate in Manitoba? Mr. Guest: No, they are not. Mr. Penner: Excuse me, the que stion is are the majority of the compan ies farmer owned? Mr. G uest: No. Mr.

Penner: Do the companies tha t are rep resented by your association lobby on behalf of the farmers? Mr. Guest: The companies that I represent are certai nly supportiv e of farmers, because without them and without them being successfu l our compan ies would not be in busi ness. Mr. Penner: Thank you . Mr. Findlay: I would like to ask Mr. Arason . Ma nitoba Pool , which is where he works, had a meeting of its dele gates here not too long ago. Was Bill No. 28 add ressed by the delega tes? Was there a posit ion taken by the deleg ates with regard to the presenta tion you are making here tonight? Mr.

A.rason: No, as Bill No. 28 was not the su bject of deba te at our annual meeting. The position that I am repres enting here tonight is the position of an associ ation of which Manitoba Pool is part, and it is in association of operating compan ies. Mr. Findlay: Your former owned cooperative, I would unders tand: Mr. Arason: Tha t is correct . Mr. Findlay: The farmer, or the de legates that represent those farmers, were not asked on this imp ortant question? 10 Mr.

Arason: The pr ocess we go thr ough in our organ iza tion, as far as taking pol icy positions or positions on questions such as this, are not normal ly in itiated by management. They are norma lly ini tia ted by the mem bers thems elves. The delega tes, if I can explai n, our polic y positions and the deba tes tha t take place at our annual meeting are based on resolutions tha t come from the grass roots. The y are no t res olutions in troduced by mana gement and we did not ask them. Mr. Penner: Tha t is my next que stion.

Did you , as mana gement, ask your delega tes if th ey sup ported the position you are bringing forward here tonight? *

(2110) Mr. Arason: No, we did not. I can tell you that I had di scussed this issue with our board of dir ectors and informed them tha t I was going to be here tonight in my capacity as a member of the Western Gr ain Elevator Associati on, and I am here, if that clarifies anyth ing. I should say tha t while the association suppor ts this brief, in its pr esent form, it is a br ief that is representative of a group of varying opinions. Th ere is some opinion , I think, in our association it is fai r to say tha t would say, stop the Bill altogether .

Wha t we are sayi ng, as an associa tion, is tha t we think it has some deficiencies; we think th ose deficienc es should be add ressed . We are not objec ting to the princi ple as much as we are object ing to the mechanics. Mr. Findlay: I will repeat my earlier question. If you receive compensation for a fair cost, would that add ress your major concern? Mr. Araso n: I think tha t is the su bstance of our brief. Their major concern is the cost and the fact that th ose costs are not obvious, and those costs will be absorbed or passed through our tarif f structure. Mr. laurie Evans: Mr.

Arason, are you in the position to answer the question tha t was asked of Mr. Guest? Wha t percentage of the farmers that belong to the Man itoba Pool Elevators are adeq uately informed about Bill No. 28 and the impl ications of tha t Bill to them? Mr. Arason: I am not sure I am in a sign ificantly better position to answer tha t Mr. Evans.

I can say tha t from reading our min utes that come in from our locals thr oughout the provi nce, and we have just gone thr ough a series of annual meetings, tha t this has not been a su bject that has been dis cussed at length in tho se meetings, from my read ing of th ose min utes. You will appreciate, I think, if you understand the process tha t Man itoba Pool is goin g through right now, we have had another su bject on the agen da whic h has tended to domi nate the di scussion of tho se meeti ngs. lt is a larger que stion for us as an organiza tion, tha t is the amalgama tion. Mr. laurie Eva ns: Mr .

Cha ir pers on, I am very concerned . I support this leg islation in principle, but I am very concerned about any legislation th at is going

Wednesday, Dec em ber 14, 1988 to move through the system rapidly and then find out after the fact there are a significant number of farmers who did not understand the nature of the legislation. 1t is my view, with a Bill that has been in various stages of preparation for a long period of time, I personally do not have any difficulty seeing it slowed up for a period of time, if the majority of farmers feel there is merit in public hearings. What is your view as to the merits, or lack thereof, of public hearings? Mr.

Arason: Certainly, representing Manitoba Pool here now, if I can speak-1 think I am being asked on behalf of Manitoba Pool -we are an organization, I think, that would support full public discussion of any legislation that affects farmers. We have had hearings on major issues before and I think our members, from discussion, I think if I read our board of directors feeling on this issue, they feel that there would be some merit in delaying the implementation of this legislation so that there could be full discussion with farmers and a better understanding, and not a lot would be lo st if we did see that happen.

In fact, it could be some significant gain. Mr. Findlay: I would like to ask Mr. Arason if he is aware of there ever having been any meetings out in rural Manitoba by organizations talking about a funding mechanism through a checkoff? Mr. Arason: Ye s, I am aware of that. Mr. Findlay: How many of those meetings might there have been in rural Manitoba over the last two to three years? !l\llr. Arason: I am aware that, for instance, KAP meets reg ularly.

I am also aware that a numb er of our mem bers, a good portion of our mem bers, belong to that organization and, as such, have had discussion of the general issue through that process. Mr. Findlay: Yo u did not give me a number of meetings, but would you say there has been a general discussion, over the last two to three years, on this particular topic amongst farmers in general, through meetings of all shapes and descriptions? Mr. Arason: I would not disagree with the suggestion that there have been mee tings around the country.

Where I would question was whether there has been significant discussion of the various aspects of this Bill and, in particular, the way it was worded. As I said, it is not our intention here to object to the notion of a general farm organization or the funding of such. lt is some particular aspects of this legislation that gives us concern. Mr. findlay: I am just going on the statements to the previous answers. I think you have indicated some interest in whether the legislation should continue or not continue.

So I would have to ask you if you, as a representative of Manitoba Pool, support the concept that there should be a funded farm organization that can speak on behalf of farmers in Manitoba? Mr. Arason: I think our organization would generally support that. We have had various discussions, in our 11 annual meetings in the past, perhaps not this year but in the past we have had discussions of the concept. As you can appreciate, there have been opinions on both sides, and you are probably going to hear those tonight, because we do represent a broad cross

section of farmers. But in general, I would think that- and I am on a little thin ground being a management person trying to speak on a policy issue. I think, in general, we could say that. Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Arason, and I see that one of the directors of MPE is also here, if he feels too uncomfortable answering some of the questions I certainly would not blame him. Maybe one of his directors might answer in his place seeing we are dealing with some of the questions that deal, or that deals specifically with the membership. I am wondering, Mr.

Arason, if your company being a-and we are all aware- being of farm member-owned company and also are quite aware that you do lobby on, specifically your company, lob bies on behalf of farmers at times. Do you see that it would be possible for your company and your board of directors to enter into the kind of lobby efforts, on behalf that they do periodically, and belong to organizations that they do and enter into various discussions at various levels, even into world organizations?

Would it be possible for them to do the kind of work they do, on behalf of farmers, if they were forced to depend on voluntary contributions to fund those kinds of activities? *

(2120) Mr. Arason: Certainly, there is no doubt the pool and the pools have had a significant interest in farm policy issues and will continue to do that. I think through our de legate struct ure and through our mem ber ship structure, local committees and subdistricts, whoever, they see that as a cost of doing busine ss in a cooperative and that is part of and it is up front. We present them with a statement every year that says what prairie pools cost them, and they know to the nearest dollar what our fees for organizations like CFA and our input into prairie pools is.

They accept those costs and they recognize them as part of the operations in Manitoba Pool Elevators. They, whether they are voluntary or not, it may be a moot question because they recognize that as part of the cost of Manitoba Pool and hence portrayed directly to them. Mr. Penner: Can you tell us how you collect those fees? Mr. Arason: They are part of the budgets that we present, and they are assigned to our various operating departments as overhead costs on a percentage basis. Mr. Penner: In other words they are collected through the marketing of grain? Mr. Arason: Partially. Mr. Penner: Thank you.

Wednesday, December 14, 1988 Mr. Findl ay: Could you give us a figure as to what it would cost for every member to carry out your lobb y efforts on behalf of farmers? Mr. Arason: I do not have a grants and donations budget in front of me, but it is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, I can assure you of that. With our fees to prairie pools and CFA, the costs of having our di rector s attend me eti ngs, tr avel costs, our president, the vice-president, et c., preparation, research. We have a policy research analyst that does work on policy issues as a staff person, that is a cost. Mr. Findl111 y: Those costs, would you call them voluntary or compulsory, going by the previous

definitions we heard here this evening? Mr. Arason: They are costs that mem bers of Manitoba Pool have accepted as being legitimate. They put forward resolutions. They expect us to carry them to the various levels of Government. They recognize the costs that are involved in doing that and they have continued to indicate they want us to do that. I would say that we do not put a per person dollar amount on that, but they are well aware of the costs when they see our annual statement every year, and our delegates are presented with those numbers. Mr.

Findlay: Does an individual producer delivering to your organization, delivering grain or doing business with the organization have any opportunity to opt out of those costs? Mr. Arason: Only to the extent that he can choose not to do business with Manitoba Pool Elevators. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Arason. Our next presenter is Mr. Edward Hieb ert. Mr. Harapiak: Mr. Uruski has a brief that was given to him by Mr. Hiebert to be read into the record, and I am wondering if maybe we should leave that until the last. Mr. Chairman: Okay. ls that the will of the comm ittee? (Agreed) Our next presenter is Mr.

Tom Dooley from the Keystone Agricultural Producers. Mr. Dooley. Mr. Earl Geddes (Keystone Agricultural Producers): Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dooley is with us as an assistant, as our solicitor. I am Earl Geddes, and I will be the next presenter, I believe. Mr. Chairman: Go right ahead then. Mr. Geddes: Forgive me for the glass of water. I have a bit of a cold. Mr.

Chairman, Members of the comm ittee, those of us representing Keystone Agricultural Prod ucers here this evening, I have my first and second vice-presidents here with me, as well as one of our other executive people, our general manager, Bob Douglas; our assistant in the office, Mac McCorq uodale; and also 1 2 our solicitor, Mr. Doo!ey, with us this evening. We have chosen lo represent one presentation from our organization at this time, although there are many producers out there who would love to be with us this evening.

Keystone Agricultural Producers, more formally called "the KAP," are pleased to have this opportunity to express a number of views for consideration as you deliberate the disposition of Bill No. 28, The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Act. Our remarks will be relatively brief because the KAP, over some years, has sought this type of legislation embod ied in Parts I to Ill of Bill No. 28 and, therefore, fully supports the adoption of this Bill by the Legislative Assemb ly.

The KAP believes this is becoming ever more evident to agricultu ral produc ers in Manitoba that their livelihoods and their resulting quality of life are often influenced more by decisions which are made by others "b eyond the farm gate" than those production and marketing decisions which they make on their individual farming operations.

The KAP belie ves, as wel l, that it is becoming increasingly evident to agricultural producers that if their contribution as a highly productive sector of society in Manitoba is to be appropriately recognized, they collectively need to provide themselves with effective, unified, adequately funded, representative vehicles to protect their interests whenever and wherever decisions which affect their lives are made. In raising these two thoughts, we are not suggesting for a moment that they represent a totally new revelation for agricultural people in Manitoba.

Quite the contrary, there is a long history beginning at approximately the turn of this current century of attempts by forward thinking people in the farming community to establish united organizations to effectively represent their policy interests. A glance at the history to which we refer indicates that while some farm policy organizations did achieve some considerable successes for a time, their fortunes eventually waned and new ones were established to replace them.

A closer look at the history reveals that more often than not the organizations to which we refer fell victim to the repeatedly proven reality that funding based on an annual, individual solicitation basis is extremely costly and difficult to maintain. There are some who feel that if memberships in a general farm policy organization are not obtained by means of an annual membership solicitation campaign, such an organization might " lose touch" with its constituents, those being individual farmers.

The KAP, to the contrary, believes that with more adequate funding a general farm policy organization could be much more effective in the two-way communications process with its constituents with the added benefit that the significant resources, both being human and monetary, previously de dicated to member ship solicitation activities could be directed to the more important tasks of developing sound agricultural policies and working toward the enhancement of farm life off the farm.

Wednesday, December 14 , 1988 * (2 130) Si nce its inception in 1984, KAP has maintained a publicly stated objective of striving to achieve the development of a more adequate and stable means of gener ating adequate funding to operate an efficient gen eral farm policy organization. Mem bers of the Leg islature have, on a number of occasions since that time, been asked to assist farmers in achieving this objective by creating a mechanism to facilitate the coll ection of membership fees. The legislation provided in Bill No. 28 would provide such a mechanism.

Some mem bers of the committee will be aware that since 1972, farmers in the Province of Quebec have benefitted immeasurably from the efforts of a very effective general farm policy organization, I' Union des Prod ucteurs Agricoles, (UP

A) to which all agricultural prod ucers in Queb ec are req uired to belong and contri bute membership fees. In the course of the discussions which have taken place over time preceding the introduction of Bill No. 28, there have been some who have expressed a belief that farmers should be asked, by referendum, whether or not they would favour the establishment of a mem bership collection mechanism for a general farm pol icy organ ization, based on deductions from agricultural marketings.

We would remind the committee that other important agricultural entities in Manitoba have been put in place without a vote amongst those affected. The KAP belie ves Bill No. 28, as drawn, provides for an ongoing referendum amongst producers. First of all, specific provision has been made for any certified organization to be challenged for the right to use the fee collection mechanism.

Secondly, with producers having been left the right to choose whether or not to participate, unwilling ness on behalf of any prod ucer to allow his or her mem bership to be renewed in any given year would be a very effective way to indicate a lack of confidence in a certified organization.

We understand that a number of purchasers of agricultur al commod ities, whose assistance and cooperation would be required by the adoption of Bill No. 28, have raised some questions relating to the extent of additional effort required on their behalf by the legislation and also its implications with respect to the confidentiality of their business dealings with their clients.

The KAP believes that those who buy farm produce must be assured that the responsibil ities of the purchasers would be restricted to those delineated in the Bill, and th at responsibility for the development of mem bersh ip li sts, including the elimi nation of duplication of deductions, etc. , would be totally that of the certified organization. The KAP would envision that the effecting of the collection mechanism across the various commodities would take place gradually, beginning with those purchasers whose records of transactions with produc ers were most readily accessible.

The KAP also believes that the certified organization would also be obliged to consult very closely, and be 13 prepared to establish both agreements and special procedures designed to ensure the confidentiality of producers and purchasers, a term missed out of your presentations, business dealings. The KAP belie ves a general farm policy organization, aided by the mechanism provided in Bill No. 28, could truly ha ve its finger on the pulse of the farming community in Manitoba.

I will stray here, a wee bit from the text in that never before in this province have we had an opportunity to take a look at any particular area of this province and say, how well are they being represented by a farm organization? The action in this Bill that provides the opportunity for an individual producer to say, no, I do not want any part of your organization, very clearly allows us to go to that area and say, why not? What did we do wrong? Is the elected person the wrong person? Are the policies of the organization wrong? Have we misrepresented something that you wanted us to do?

We have never had that ability before in the history of this province. I do not believe Quebec has it now. This legislation in Manitoba would do that very clearly and that is the mo st posit ive part, personally, that I see in the legislation. We believe the existence of a strong general farm policy organization would raise the consciousness of farming people regarding the importance of their act of participation in the consideration of issues which affect them. We belie ve farmers would want to participate because of the realization that they were contributing towards helping themselves.

Particularly, in ti mes of di fficult economic ci rcumstances such as those curr ently being experienced by agricultural producers, the business of farming can seem to be a somewhat solitary one for those engaged in it. We believe the existence of a strong general farm policy organization would gi ve farm families an extra degree of confidence, a feeling of belonging, a feeling that someone other than themselves was looking out for their interests.

The KAP believes additionally that an adequately funded general farm policy organization could also be of major assistance in a non-partisan manner-and I highligh ted that in my text -to the provincial Govern ment and Opposition Parties both in the identification and development of sound agricultural policies which would serve the interests of farming and non-farming Manitobans alike, and in providing valuable support in discussions and negotiations with other Governments and agencies, a support to Government itself.

The KAP has made the Minister of Agriculture aware of a number of minor amendments to Bill 28 which .the KAP believes should be made to strengthen its ability to accomplish the objectives for which it was intended. We would like to briefly mention a number of those proposed amendments for your consideration as a committee.

(1) First of all, we believe that in

Section 37( 1), it should be amended to ensure that no one, other than a purchaser, could be prosecuted under

Part 3 of the

Wednesday, Dece mb er 14, 1988 Act. In our view, the thrust of

Part 3 of the Act is to regulate purchasers, not producers, organizations, the agency or indeed the Minister, and only purchasers should be liable to a prosecution under

Part 3 of the Act.

(2) We would recommend that t he word "maximum" be eliminated from the heading in the second lirie of

Section 26 and the word "ot her" be replaced with the word "greater" in order to ensure that any organization which structures itself as a qualified organization is reasonably prepared and able to carry out programs of consequence to the farming com munity. We do not believ e that an adequate job can be d one of representing the farming community by an organization charging a very mitlimal annual fee. Purchasers should not be asked to participate itl a collection system unless the amount being collected significantly surpasseS the cost of coll�tion.

(3) Although

Part 4 does not pertain directly to general farm pol icy organizatiOn , we beli ev e some wording changes should be made to clarify potential questions such as the status under this

section of entities which have plans under The N atural Products Marketing Act. Clauses 31(2)(

h) and 32(1)(

b) attempt to deal with this conflict by identifying whether or not a program is funded under the Act . However ,

Section 34( 1) fails to provide a method of monitoring or supervising whether or not the fees collected are used on the proposed program. We would also suggest that Clause 34( 1)(

h) be modified to state that only organizations must furnish their financial statements to the agency, not purchasers. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, Bill 28 represents a historic legislation for Manitoba. Bill 28 contains legislative provisions which are of major importance to the agricUltural commun ity i n Manitoba and which, as such, we believe should be adopted by this Assembly prior to the recess of this Session. •

(2140) Those currently holding leadership responsibility i n Keys tone Ag ricultur al Producers bel ieve Bil l 28 represents a major step towards the achievement o f the stability in general farm policy representation in Manitoba which has been so diligently sought after by agricultural leaders in Manitoba for the past 85 years.

On behalf of the farming commun ity, we would like to express both our appreciation and congratulations to those Members in Government and those Mem bers of the Opposition Parties for both their foresight and support in recognizing the importance of this legislation and their courage and pioneering spirit in putting it into place. Thank you very much, and I would be prepared to answer whatever questions you may have. Mr. Findlay: I would just ask Mr. Geddes. On how many occasions has the general concept of what is embodied in this legislation been discussed across Manitoba at farm meetings? Mr.

Geddes: I could do a rough calculation for you, but I know that back in 1983, when the concept of a 14 general farm policy organization was initiated by a group of people, that group of people met in 23 communities around the province in I believe December, or I think it was January' 84 -l am sorry-a nd then again in April of'84 in 16 commun ities. I know that since that time, on an annual basis, there have been 12 meetings around the province, and I would venture to guess that this topic has been discussed at each and every one of those meetings, so you can do the calculation. I think quite a few times.

If 1 might add to that, and I am anticipating a question further to that about the awareness in the commun ity of this proposed action, this type of a fUndin g mechanism for general farm policy organization, an d if I might, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just make a comment on that. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ge dde s , go ahead. Mr.

Geddes: In this past month of November, following the introduction for second reading of Bill 28 and Biil 29, but specifically Bill 28, we have held 12 district meetings across this province-which is I suppose Similar to the number of meetings and probably in excess of the number of meetings that would be held in public hearings- where o¥e r 1, 400 people participated in those meetings and there was a very clear delineation of Bill 28 in those meetings and what its implications were for the farm community.

Early in November, there was a CBC Radio noon show that offered the entire population of Manitoba an opportunity to understand that Bill 28 was done for that purpose. Our newsletter, which goes to in excess of 5,0 00 farm family homes, more than that many farmers, had a very clear delineation of Bill 28 in it. I have a file o f media coverage here right from the Manitoba Co-operator Editorial through several other papers that have very clearly explained the implications of Bill 28. That is over a history of four years now. 1t is not like it happened yesterday.

I will go back to the question that was asked and I think Mr. Proven answered it for us. When we talked about volu ntary or compu lso ry, his defini tion of voluntary was that you have to ask each person whether or not Bill 28 does that. That is voluntary in my mind. I would say the general farming public has a better perception -a nd it may be not specific detail but a general perception-o f 13ili 28 than they do of any other piece of legislation that you will pass in this Session or any other. Mr. Fin dlay: Q uebec h as an organization with a compulsory checkoff.

Do their producers have a vote to achieve that checkoff? Mr. Geddes: Ye s, they did. lt was held in 19 71, I believe. The process has been in place since 1972. The significant difference is, however, that in Quebec the formulation used to supply the funding mechanism for UPA is that of the Rand formula which means if you have the majority vote, you must participate. Producers i n Manitoba told us very clearly that they did not want that. They told us for the last four years, or four -and-

Wednesday , December 14, 1988 a-half years now, they do not want an organization that they have to participate in. They want to be able to say no. They can with Bill 28. Mr. Uruski: Mr. Geddes, I spoke to the former Min ister of Agriculture approximately a month ago regarding the collections of dealing with UPA. He indicated to me that there was no vote at the time that it was brought in, as well that there was no legislation, but he also ind icated to me that although the UPA would want to have a mandatory checko ff, all farmers do no t contri bute to UPA. Some do not pay.

Basically, they in fact opt out unofficially. I think that is generally the position held. I thought there was a vote as well when the checkoff came in. Going through your brief, I would like to ask you how you read the legislation or your legal counsel reads the legislation for opting out. How do you interpret the procedures for producers to opt out as are written in the legislation? What is your

interpretation? According to your brief on page 3, you say, "producers having been lef t the right to choose whether or not to participate." Could you take us through your understanding of how you see this Bill working in that opting-out provision? Mr. Geddes: Not wishing to disagree but in the development of Keystone Agricultural Prod ucers, one of the resource people that we used outside of our many contacts inside of UP A was Albert Elan who lives at St. Laurent, Manitoba. We visited with him in his home and we had him in meetings in Winnipeg with us.

I am quite sure that there was a vote. lt may not have been a specifically government-sponsored vote, Mr. Uruski, but there very definitely was a vote in Quebec in regard to that legislation. I agree that some producers do not pay in Quebec, but it is approximately 3 percent of the producers and they are essentially outside of the law in that province by not paying. They do not have a legal right to opt out. lt is just very simply the fact that farmers are not apt to take their neighbours to court because they are not participating in that action.

They do however publish those names in some of the municipal offices and there is a fair degree of peer pressure in Quebec to participate. My perception, and it is a very simple one, of how the opting-out me chanism inside the legislation works and if I am incorrect in my perception, I would ask Mr. Dooley to give me a correct

interpretation, is that upon receiving a membership list, a list of names and- that is all you receive is a list of names from a purchaser, nothing else, people that have sold more than $500 to them. This certified organization's responsibility would be to take all of those names and ensure no duplication and, in written form, go to the individual producer and say, your name appears on this list We are going to submit that list to that purchaser to withhold your annual membership fee. The producer then has the option of saying, no, I would rather it came from another area, or saying, no. Mr.

Chairman: Do you have another question, Mr. Uruski? Mr. Uruski: Ye s, I have a number of questions, Mr. Chairman. Is Mr. Geddes famil iar with the check-off 15 legislation in Ontario? Is my understanding of it fairly accurate that more than one general farm organization is allowed to receive funding under the Ontario check off legislation? Mr. Geddes: My

interpretation of the present situation in Ontario, and it is having discussed it with members of the Ontario Federation ol Agriculture yesterday, is that they are hopeful that a Bill will be entered into the leg islature there. Certainly it has not been drafted at this point. The concept that had been put forward was a joint effort between the Christian Farmers' Federation and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in Ontario; Christian Farmers' Federation, being a very select and designated mem bership group, the Ontario Federation of Agricu ltur e being a wide open membership organization.

I am not sure there has been a commitment by that Government yet to the type of legislation that they are asking for. I think they are also asking for mandatory legislation, Mr. Uruski, but I may be in error there. Mr. Uruski: Would you be supportive of having more than one agency certified under this legislation if it was possible? Mr. Geddes: Mr.

Chairman, the standing policy of Keystone Agricultural Prod ucers has been since our annual meeting in 1985, the first one, that there would be a funding mechanism for one general farm policy organization in the province of Manitoba and I guess that we hear rumours that this Bill is somewhat suspiciously like di fferent proposals that our organization has put forward. *

(2150) We see no problem whatsoever with there being more than one organization in the Province of Manitoba, and Bill 28 allows that. But, we do have a problem by designating more than one farm organization to use the mechanism. In our discussions, in our research in putting this organization together, it was painfully obvious which organizations were most successful in Europe, in the Un ited States and in Canada, and they were the ones where there was a good funding mechanism for one organization to represent a particular region.

There was nothing in that research which showed that one well funded organization had a particular philosophical leaning throughout its history; but that had it been able to maintain a secretariat, a research and a so-to-speak lobb y

section that could be effective on behalf of farmers, plus a commun ications network that is so necessary today, the quick answer is, no. Mr. Uruski: Mr. Chairman, you spoke about the $500 limit in terms of where the checkoff begins. In your presentation you sugge sted some chan ges to the portion of, or the amount of checkoff based and it relates to the amount that a producer sells of $500 or more. Do you have some views as to-is the $500 limit the cutoff? Should it be something different? Many would argue that sales of $500 would clearly constitute hobby farming. In fact, you could have one

Wednesd ay, Dece mber 14, 1988 cow and sell it, and would yo u envis age a $75 check off if I had one cow? Or, yeah, one breeder turke y, tha t will be worth $75, but it will not be worth $500, or do you view some other amount that should be a genera l start ing off point for a checkoff? You know, where are you at in terms of an organ ization?

I remember in speaking with your executiv e director that $500 at the time s�emed like going after really, r eally those who cannot be conside red as be ing actively involved in farmiflg tQ any sign ific ant degree. l\lr, Gedde•: I tllink my reference to $500 in our presentation or in m y commen t!l, sorry, was a reference to tile point wllere a purcha se r would have to supply a name not, to the point where the checkoff began . I would suspect it would be in the by-law Qf whichever organiza tion was certified , the level, or the point at which you would be gi n a checkoff from producer!! .

The important piece in the Leg islation in that reg;:�.rd is in th e sect iQ n which deals with qua lif ying an organiza tion. In the by- law, an organiza tion must accept into it& m em bershi p any pro d u ce r of agriculture products in the Province of Man itoba. In my mind , tha t is what is important there. All farmers have a right to belong regardless of what level they participa te in. I guess, jokingly from time to time, we have suggested that if you only sell $500, but you have an "F" p late on you r farm truck you are takin g advantage of farm policy. So maybe you should cqnt ribute. l\lr.

Uruski: Of Governmental policy, maybe not farm policy. Mr. Geddes: I thin k agricultural policy is a cooperative effort; Mr. Uruski, as we emphasize i n our presentation that a good strong farm organi zat ion can be very useful to good agricu ltur al policy in the Province of Manitoba. I thin k if we look in the history books, some of the governmental policy is really policy developed from a farm organizational position . Mr. Uru•ki: Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe I am not un derstanding Mr. Geddes clearly.

Are you saying to me that the $500 figure as far as you are concerned, in the legislation, is a guideline to which the certified farm organiza tion will then decide to, whether or not it wishes to collect-1 am not unde rstand ing you on that b ecause I just do not know. The legislation is not clear and I am not sure we will be debating that and discussing that

section tomo rrow, those sect ions tomorrow, but I am just not sure where KAP is in this area. Mr. Geddes: M r. Chairman, I guess the numb er $500 is not Keystone Agricultural Producers number in the Bill itself. Our organizational perspective of who is a farmer is one that anyone who is actively involved in the prod uction of agri cultur al p roduc e for pr ofit essentially is a farmer. I think we can go through our membership list and we can find a number of people who are very much hobb y farmers who produce $1,0 00 or $800 or $2500 worth of produce and want to belong to the organization .

They are very much farmers in their own minds and the y are havi ng the benefit of good agrcultural policy, so certai nly we welcome them into our membership . 16 I am not sure it is proper from our perspective to sugge st at what level a prod ucer is a farmer or at what level of sales. All tha t leg isla tion does in my mind is provide a lis t of names which a certified organi zation would consider as farmers, to ask. Mr. Tom Dooley (Keystone Agricultural Producers): If I could just bring into focus a couple of p rovisi ons in the statute I think they may help Mr. Uruski in the course that he is pursuing.

This really does tie into a que stion asked five or so min utes ago and that is, how does the fee coll ection mechanism work?

Section 25 of t he statute indicates that if a purchaser receives from a cert ified orga nizatio n a request to withhold from the mone y tllat is owing for product delivered by a particula r producer that that purchaser must withhold the mo ney and must remit it. Now, Sec tion 28 of the Act indicates that at the same time a notific atiqn goes 0ut to a purchaser of prod uct to make a deduction with respect to that particular individual, an identical notice m ust go out to that farmer so that farmer is on notice that there has been a request to make withholding so that there is full knowledge by both the purchaser and the vendor that there is a request. *

(2200) Next ,

Section 29 of the Act indicates that when that member gets the notification that he can object. He can object through the procedure set out in

Section 29 saying, no, I do not want this deduction to be taken off. I do not want to become a membe r of the organization. That individual does not have to become a member. No deduction will be made. If through inadvertence of any kind a deduction has been made, he is entitled to a refund of it. The qu est i on become s ho w do es a cert ified organization know who to ask to rnake a deduction with respect to any

part icular individuals. That is wher e tha t $500 concept comes in. The certified organization must know who does business with who. What it would do, as an example under

Section 25, it would write a letter to the Hog Produc er M arket ing Board s aying I would like a l ist of all of the farmer s maybe tha t is not good. We will use the Milk Board , okay, a letter to the Milk Board saying we would like to have a list of all of the milk produc ers who sell milk through your board . When notif ication of th at comes out, the Milk Board must provi de a list of produc ers who sell m ore than $500 a year worth of milk. No w that gives them the in forma ti on that they can send the request out tha t we referred to earl ier.

Real ly, the $500 concept is jus t a trigger mech anism for trying to find out who is sellin g to who, and then the whole mechanism works from there. lt is not a th resh old, it is not a plateau of any kind. lt is simpl y a method of being able to put this fee collect ion mechanism into place by knowing who buyers are and who the farmers they are doing busi ness with are. Mr. Uruski: Mr. Chairman, do you see a staggered fee structure based on annua l sales of produc ers and

Wednesday, Dece mb er 14, 1988 having a cutoff after a certain point? There are producers who probably sell $2,000 or $3,000 or $5,000 worth of product a year. Does KAP envisage saying to those that they will contribute proportionately or equally in terms of fees? Mr. Dooley: Mr .

Chairman, this statute does not establish a certified or a farm organization. 1t does not establish the mechanism by which people become mem bers or cease to become mem bers of organizations. lt does not establish a democratic control structure for an organization. lt does one thing and one thing alone, and that is it provides a mechanism for collecting fees from purchasers of farm products. The only intrusion into the organization that occurs is that if you want to have the benefit of this Act, you cannot charge more than $75 a year in a fee without permission from a certified agency.

Secondly, when the money comes in, you may treat it as an application for membership. Those are the only intrusions. In answer to your question, Mr. Uruski, this Bill does not interfere with how an organization establishes its mem bership structure and its fee structure, and any organization making use of this Bill could establish any kind of fee structure, including the kind you are referring to, as long as it does not go over a $75 per annum threshold without permission from the certifying agency. Mr. Uruski: lt is possible though that fee could be increased if the agency approved it. Mr. Dooley: Correct. Mr.

Chairman: Mr. Evans. Mr. Uruski: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I just have about three more questions of Earl, if I could. Earl, do es your organization oppose having a referendum or a vote on this legislation to see whether producers in fact will support a particular organization that is to be certified . Let us say there is only one organization that comes forward. Would KAP still be favourable to having a referendum to see, to test the tide of the mem bership of producers in the province? Mr. Geddes: Mr. Chairman, the correct answer is, yes, we would be opposed to that.

We feel that the drafting of the Bill makes it completely unnecessary. Mr. Uruski: Mr. Chairman, would you oppose having legislative hearings throughout the province on this Bill during the break over the next, say, 60 days to 90 days-the re will be hearings on other matters and if we were to hold comm ittee hearings throughout the province. Mr. Geddes: it would have to be demonstrated that there would be value to such hearings before we would consider it. it is not something we have considered as an organization. Mr. Uruski: You spoke about Bill 29. Does your organization support Bill 29? 17 Mr.

Geddes: Ye s, we are on record as supporting Bill 29. Mr. Uruski: Are you aware that Bill 29 confers different powers than those conferred in

Part IV of Bill 28 and, if you are in favour of 29, are you also in favour of

Part IV in Bill 28? Mr. Geddes: Mr. Chairman, I am aware that there are some differences between

Part IV in Bill 28 and Bill 29. Bill 29, as I understand it, is an amendment to an existing Act. Bill 28 creates a new situation. Mr. Uruski: Is there any reason in your mind to say that any commodity group, including cattle producers, could not or should not fall under Bill 28 now that it is coming in, likely to pass about the same time as Bill 29 or otherwise? If you were in, say, the pulse growers in Manitoba, you would be looking at the provisions of

Part IV of Bill 28 if you wanted to check off for promotion purposes, as I read the legislation. Would you look favourably to, being a member of pulse growers, having to get the majority of your members to support a checkoff under

Part IV of Bill 28, while at the same time you would be looking over your shoulder and saying, why would a Government give the cattle producers a completely different provision under Bill 29? Is that not an inconsistent position to take? Mr. Geddes: I do not see anything in Bill 28 in

Part IV that forces any commodity group to use that structure to gain a funding mechanism. 1t is an option. Any group could proceed as MCP A has with Bill 29. Mr. Uruski: Mr . Chairman, in terms of farm organizations and the difference that does exist in the farm community in terms of opinions, it is inevitable that there will be times when farm organizations will take stands which obviously will get into a political area and are not agreeable to all.

That has already happened this fall in terms of the farm school tax issue and is being de bated in your organization, where the organization has taken the position that the change in school tax assistance of moving to the flat 25 percent has, in many areas, reduced benefits to farmers, and yet you support this method. lt has been pointed out in one of the municipalities that the full-time farmers there have-and we discussed this with you, this area in the RM of Brokenhead where about 249 farmers received $50,000 less this year than they did last year.

Does that not ultimately get into an area which I believe will have to occur, and that is the area very much in terms of how and who you represent in terms of the political sphere of the policies of an organization? Mr. Geddes: Mr. Chairman, I think it is a fair question. Obviously, in that one particular policy issue, there are areas of the province that would feel that they fared rather unfairly out of that but I think, if we count many of the other municipalities, quite the opposite is true in that case and in that policy decision that was one of a fair way to share education tax, not one of the

Wednesday, December 14, 1988 way of putting money into the agricultural community, and we based our policy on that. What I like about the legislation that we are debating here this evening or question ing is that .it allows those produc ers in Brokenhead municipality to very clearly register their disapproval with a policy iniatitive of a general farm organization. In th at way then, the general farm organization has that pulse that I talked about. You cliri go back into the area and see what you did wrong. Mr.

Uruski: Am I hearing you correctly, Earl, that if there were a number of other situations in which the number of producers in various municipalities who would come forward and show that in fact the change in pOlicy that has occuFred year o ve r year has been detrimental to their benefits, directly to the benefits tl:'lat Ul&y received year over year, and they in fact are -losing money by the new policy. Your organization, you are saying, may in fact change its policy? Mr. Geddes: Mr.

Chairman, our organization is having an annu al mee ting on the 11th, 12th and 13th of January, and what our 160 delegates tell us to do, we witt do. Perhaps that is our policy structure. lt has very little to do with Bill 28. Mr. Laurie Evans: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, just a couple of questions to Mr. Geddes, I gather from your comments that you are satisfied that the level of understanding of this legislation is adequate in the rural areas. Mr.

Geddes: I am satisfied that as an organization Keystone Agricultural Producers has done everything possible to educate as many producers in the Province of Manitoba as we can. Having been involved in policy development for a period of time and yourselves as legislators, I am sure that you realize it is impossible to bring everyone up to a 10 0 percent understanding on these types of issues.

I think the demonstration of the exercise we have gone through for four years in a row of discussing this concept in 12 different districts each year, our annual meeting each year has passed a resolution supporting the concept of the funding mechanism. The press has covered that every year since we started the organization. I am not sure what else we can do. We can hold public hearings around the province but you will probably get less than the 1, 400 we had at our district annual meetings and most likely the ones in attendance will be the ones we had there already.

I feel that unless you do a mailing, as is required in the legislation, to every farm home, there is very little else you can do that has not been done now. * (22 10) Mr. Laurie Evans: I have a little difficulty with the concept. You have indicated that in the initial decision as to which would be the certified agency, assuming there is more than one that applies, that you would not be in favour of a ballot.

Now, the difficulty I have with this is at the end of two years, if there is a challenge, assuming that KAP were the first one to be certified or the one that was 18 granted certification in the first case, at the end of two years you were challenged by some other organization and the decision as to which one would be certified at the end of that two years is left up to the certifying agency, which uses primarily the decision as to how many mem bers belong to the two organizations that are then being considered.

If everyone who has not opted out is identified as then being a member of the original certifying agency, it would in effect make the first one that was certified the one that would be certified forever because the membership would always be all of those who had not decided to opt out. Therefore, I cannot see how any other agency could ever replace the first one that was certified. If you are not prepared for a plebiscite at the first instance, it would seem to me that a plebiscite would have to be held if a second agency sought certification after the first term. Is there a· flaw in my argument? Mr. Gaddee: Mr.

Chairman, in response to the argument and I would not suggest there is a flaw in the argument, what Bill 28 does is provide a funding mechanism for a certifi ed farm organization. To replace the organization, and now I speak from a prod ucer perspective, you can do two things. You can form another organization and bring membership into it and challenge every two years. You also can, because it is a democratic process, get duly elected to the certified organization and change it in that fashion. That is very much open to change.

That is similar to any union in the country, any organization that represents, that has a funding mechanism. You have the right to get elected and to change policy direction or whatever. But what Bill 28 does allow is the option for myself. When Mr. Uruski 10 years from now has decided he will leave politics is the president of Keystone Agricultural Producers and I do not like the direction he is taking the organization, I can start another organization and challenge him eventually and take the certification away. That is what the Bill allows to happen. Mr.

Laurie Evans: My understanding of this is if you are satisfied that there are 27,0 00 some odd producers, and I am not going to argue with that figure, my

interpretation would be that in order for the first organization that is certified to be effectively challenged you would have to have over 50 percent of that 27,0 00 having opted out. Otherwise, they would be still identified as mem bers of the first one. Then the certifying agency would look at that and they would say, "Well, there is still more than one half of farmers who have not opted out of the original and they are still mem bers. " I cannot see the mechanism. Mr. Geddes: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would let Mr. Dooley make a comment there. Mr. Dooley: Mr. Chairman, there is one mandatory provision in the Act that I would like to point out, and that is in

Section 18 of the Act on page 8. lt indicates in making a decision as to which of two competing initial organizations that are qualified should be certified , "that the agency shall-"s hall" reads "must"-"c ertify the certified organization which in its opinion represents the greatest number of producers."

Wednesday, December 14, 1988 That is the only thing it must do. lt must choose the one tha t in its opinion rep resents the greatest num ber. What process does it go thr ough in attempting to determ ine which rep resents the greatest numb er? Tha t is found in two areas. The tempo rary one, for the fi rst certifica tion, is in 18 (3) and the more permanent one is in 20(3). What tha t says, Mr. Evans, is tha t in making its decision "the agency may," not shall, "(

a) review li sts of persons who ha ve currently paid annual member ship fees, and (

b) take wh atever steps or pr oceed ings whi ch it consid ers necessary or desirable to make Its decision, including holding heari ngs." I think you could read furt her, because tha t is permis siv e and expansive, including havi ng plebis cites if it chooses, etc. * (22 20) lt can do whatever it wishes to dete rmine which organization the prod ucers of Man itoba wou ld wish to sup port between the two that are competi ng. So its opini on represents the greatest numb er of produc ers. So that is the only thing it must do. lt must choose the one that, in its opinion, represents the greatest numb ers.

Now, wha t process does it go th rough in attempting to de termine which rep resents the greatest num ber if it chooses, etc. lt can do wh atever it wishes to determine which organ ization the produc ers of Manitoba would wish to sup port between the two tha t are compe ting. So, it is not a matter of matching mem bersh ip li sts. lt says the agency may look at them, but it does not say that is a determ inant. lt says the agency may hold hearings, but tha t is not a determinant; it may do wh atever it wishes.

The only thing it must do is, once it has formed its opinion as to which represents the gr eatest majori ty, it must certif y tha t organ ization. Mr. Laurie Evans: I would like to ask Mr. Doole y a qu estion then.

If in the in itial stages you get two groups seeking certifica tion, one of them claims to have roughly 5,000 memb ers and the other one claims to have roughl y 1, 000 mem bers, but you know the total mem bersh ip is 27,000, are you satisfied that because one has five out of 27. and one has one out of 27 tha t you can say automa ti cally that one tha t has 20 percent of the farmers as opposed to the one that only had 5 percent of the farmers sho uld, in fact, be certified without a plebi scite. I have problems with that. Mr. Dooley: What I am sayi ng, Mr.

Evans, is that under the statute the certif ying agency must take or may take whatever steps or pr oce edings tha t it considers appr opria te in order to determine which of th ose two organiza tions the 27 ,000 would prefer. lt may take wh atever steps it deems necessary. lt may choose to hold a plebis cite; it may choo se to hold hearings; it may choo se to review memb ership lists. Who kno ws what it may choose to do? lt may choose to do all th ree of them. lt is not going to be determine d by mem bersh ip li sts.

That is the jud gement and the faith and confidence that we have to have in the statesmen who will form up the cert ifyi ng agen cy. Mr. Laurie Evans: Well, I gue ss my question is to Mr. Geddes. If the certif ying agency in its wisdom or lack 19 th ereof decided tha t a ballot shou ld be held, if ther e are two or more groups seeking certifica tion, wou ld you see any problem? Wha t wou ld be the negativ e impl ications as far as you are concerned with them making tha t type of a decision if, as Mr. Dooley says, it is with in their realm of doin g tha t? Mr. Geddes: Mr.

Chairman, we wou ld have no problem with that. We sup port entirely Bill 28 as it is dr afted . Ob vious ly, if tha t is one of the avenues tha t a certif ying agency feels is requir ed to dete rmine which organizat ion should be certified, we sup port it because it is part of the legislation tha t provi des for a fundin g mechanism for a general farm policy organiz ation. My earlier answer was that we did not think it was necessary to hold a plebis cite at this time. Mr.

Laurie Evans: WeH, this may sound as though I am becoming academic, but wou ld your attitude be qu ite dif ferent if the two organ izations, one had 3,000 and one had 2,000. I mean 5,000 and 1, 000 seems a long way apart but 3,000 and 2,000 wou ld be close enough tha t I think any group wou ld want to have a ballo t on tha t before they made the decision , if 3,000 versus 2,000 were being picked to represent 27,0 00 farmers. I guess my preference wou ld be to see tha t in the legisla tion . Mr. Geddes: Mr.

Chairman, if that were the case, tha t wou ld be the responsi bil ity of the certif yin g agency to dete rmine. lt is not my perception tha t is the case. Mr. Findl ay: lt was rais ed by Mr. Guest, the cost of collecting the checkoff. If his costs were close to right or wh atever the costs may be, wou ld you see any problem with them being paid whatever the costs were to carry out th ose adminis trative functions? Mr. Geddes: Mr.

Chairman , I think, in earl ier prop osals tha t we have made to dif ferent Govern ments, our organ iza tion has sugge sted it wou ld be perfectly reaso nable for a general farm organ ization to bear the cost of colle ction of fees. I cannot make a comment on Mr. Gue st's assumption of numb ers. The y seem a little high to me, but I do not have any way of knowi ng whether they are or not. We have offered to me et with him and dis cuss it. Mr. Findlay: Is any purchaser presently carryi ng on a check- off program for your organ ization ? Mr.

Geddes: Yes, certainly there is more than one organ ization or purchaser n9w carrying on that function for us. Manitoba Sugar Company is one of them. There are others ready and prepared to perform tha t function as this legislation is proclaimed . Mr. Findlay: What charges are they charg ing for that service? Mr. Geddes: Mr. Chairman, th ose who are perf orming the function at this point are passing no charge on to the organ ization. Mr. Uruski: Mr . Chairman, to Mr . Dool ey. Is the determ inant factor- 1 am just follo wi ng up on the

Wedne sday, Dece mber 14, 1988 que stion Mr. lau rie Evans ra ised about what the certif ying agency can do-is not the determ ining factor as to which organ izat ion is to be certified , contained in 20( 1) at the end the re, th at the organ izat ion as the certified organization which in the opinion of the agency represents the gr eatest numb er of produc ers in Mani toba, if th ere is a challenge to certifica tion? Is tha t not the determ ining factor, not whether or not the y have the most mem bers, or they may not have the most mem bers or other factors?

Is tha t not the dete rmi nant factor, tha t it is the num ber of mem bers will be the determ ining fact or of which organ izat ion shall be certified ? Mr. Dooley: I was about to agree with you r last statement, Mr. Uruski. The determ ining factor is exactly what it states in both 18 (1) and 20( 1) and tha t is tha t the agency must certify the competing organi zation that in its opinion repres ents the gr eatest num ber of prod ucers. lt does not say in its opinion has the greatest num ber of mem bers. lt says, represents the greatest num ber of produc ers.

Then , in 20(3) or in 18 (3) on the tem pora ry side of things, it indic ates that in order to make tha t dete rmina tion, the agency may, not must, do certa in things including looking at who has paid mem bersh ips and also taking wh atever steps or proceed in gs it considers necessary or desirable to make its decision including hold ing hearings. Both of tho se sections could if it would be sym bolic and make a dif fere nce, both of them could go on to say or conducting a refer endum.

I do not think it would add anything to the statute becaus e I think it is imp licit that it may do wh atever it wishe s in order to make the dete rmi nation as to which rep rese nts the greatest numb er of produc ers. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Gentlemen. Our next presenter will be Mr. Allan Dickson, Farmers' Union. Mr. Allan Dickson (Farmers' Union, local 514): Mr. Chairman, lad ies and gentlemen, pardon my cold tonight. I am here before you represe nting Local 514 of the NFU and we have met and di scussed this particular leg isla tion. I do not have a lengthy brie f at this time.

We have not had very much time to prepare for this but we have a couple of concerns which I would like to bring before you tonight. Our general position is in agreement with the NFU executiv e which has spoken before me. We are against the general checkoff. Amongs t our local, tho ugh, we have dis cussed some "what ifs" and how we wou ld feel if th ere was to be a check off. We felt that if this legislation were to proceed tha t we think that farmers should be allo wed the option of a choice as to which organ izat ion they should like to fund.

For exam ple, if a farmer wanted to choose whether he was going to have his money go toward KAP or whether he was goi ng to have his money go towards the NFU tha t the farmer should be allo wed tha t choice. Farmers need the freedom of choi ce and they have to be allo wed some expres sion as to wha t their will wou ld be. If an organ ization , perhaps, did not rep resent their int erests 20 on a particular issue that they could direct the funds to go where they would like them to go to. Our present Government is an example of how things can work if you do not have a majori ty.

We do not have a majority Government at the moment but if the people in the Leg isla tiv e Assembly can work together , the y can still govern. We do not want to talk strictly about num bers. If you talk strictly about num bers, I could see why one particular farm organiza tion wou ld want to come before and say, well let us jus t look at the num bers and fund the organ ization that has the bi ggest num bers. The particular governing body we have in power at the moment does not have a majority of seats but tha t does not mean the y are not the best people for the job.

The y ele cted more Memb ers than any other Party and, as such , they are sit ting here tod ay. I guess one other person I recall talking about mino rity rig hts and tha t was Charlie Mayer when he was talking about Bill C-92, that even minor ities have rights. I will limi t th ose comments for my presenta tion then and try to entertain any que stions you may have. Mr. Chairman: Thank you , Mr. Dicks on. Mr. Uruski: I wi ll take Mr. Evan 's question and ask you , wha t area is Local 51 4? Mr. Dickson: The general area of Lowe Farm which would be south and west of Wi nnip eg . Mr.

Uruski: Would you feel that farmers in your area would be generally knowled gable about the provisions Bill No. 28 and the check-off provisi on? Mr. Dickson: lt wou ld be my general feeling tha t if you are referring to Bill No. 28 tha t there are a lot of farmers who are not fully aware of all the impl ications invo lved here and that ther e could be something gained to having fu rther dis cussion on this matter. Mr. Uruski: Your local talked about the option of farmer s dir ecting their check-off or their fees to the organ izat ion of their choice.

Are you basically saying tha t if there were th ree organiza tions that were up for certifica tion, would you leave all thr ee names for the farmers to decide which one of th ose wou ld be eligi ble for their funding? *

(2230) Mr. Dickson: You are posing a question which we dis cussed , although we were talking about whether a farmer should have a right to fund KAP or the NFU or whether -(Int erjec tion) - We did not di scuss another organiza tion but we did say and we did think tha t in Canada we have a multi- Party system and we do not have to vote either Republ ican or Democrat here in Canada. So we had thought that there are di fferent Parties in Canada, there is room for them and possibl y if ther e were another organ ization tha t wished to represent farmers and farmers wished to suppor t that organ ization, then I could not see a problem. I would not want to stop them.

Wednesday, December 14, 1988 -------------------------------��-- Hon. Clay ton Manru� s11 (Minister of Finance): Mr. Dickson, I wou ld jus t like to add one question as a sup plement to Mr. Uruski's. Using your logic of -and you put in the analo gy of political Parties and I und erstan d what it is you are sayi ng, but would you stili support tha t concept if th ere were as many as iO or 12 or beginning of regional groups, groupings coming together in the guis e of being pu blic farm pol icy spoke speople and requesting funding, would you extend it bey ond tha t?

In the conte xt of the pol itical Parties as we unde rstand it -1 und erstand your analo gy-but if you di d not have rest rictions, tha t could very qu ickly multiply into large num bers. Would that be a concern to you ? Mr. Dickson: So I under stand your qu estion is, at what point do you dr aw the lin e? How many organiza tions can you h ave there? That is a good qu estion. I do not kno w if I have the answer for you .

Our main concern was tha t with the particular legisla tion, it appeared to us from lool<ing at it there was going to be no choice. !t was going to be one organ ization or nothing. 1t looked to us tha t it was a foreg one conclusion as to which organ ization it was going to be. So we felt tha t if the legislation were going to have to pass, the least we could ask for was that at least the farmers wou ld be offered a choic e as to which organ ization he wou ld like to fund and the two that came to mind for us were KAP and NFU. Mr. Chai rman: Thank you, Mr. Dickson. Mr. Gol dwyn Jones, our next presenter . Mr.

Jones, go ahead . You can start . Mr. Goldw yn Jones (Pr ivate Citizen): Mr. Chairman, Members of the Legisl ative Comm ittee. Hats off to the arch itects of the Repor t of the Manitoba Commis sion on Farm Organ izations designed in 1962 by Messrs. J.C. Gil son , J.M. Nesbitt and E.J. Tyler. The repor t was a follo w-up to strateg izing by farm organi za tions of the da y t o tr y and devise an organ ization to fit the needs of Manitoba farmers. At tha t time of great farmer di scussion and deba te, the archi tects felt it was time tor all farmers to be part of !he same organ ization.

I would like to quote br iefly from tha t report: "With the rise of the provincial farmers' unions dur ing the latter part of the 19 40s, the stage was set for a decade of conflic t and contro versy between the se organi za tions on one ha nd, and the provi ncial federations of agricultur e on the other . lt is this conflic t to which we will now turn our attention.

We will attempt to demons trate tha t the issues tha t sepa rated the two !arm organizations in Manitoba during the 19 50s had many paral lels in the preceding 40 years of farm organ izat ion his tor y in western Canada. lt would seem to ind icate tha t if we are to achie ve lasting unity in the years ahead , we will have to seek for a fund amental change in the structur e of farm organ izati ons." The two organ izat ions struggled with ho w to amalgama te their dif ferences in to one organ ization.

What was found was that "the present confl ict of philo sophy between the Man itoba Federa tion of 21 Agriculture and the Mani toba Farmers' Union is by no means uni que. Most o! the issues which presently separate the two farm organ izations have also been the basis for conflict and di ss ension within farm organ izations of the past.

Any action taken to reconcile the present dif ferences of opinion between the Manitob a Federa tion of Agricultur e and the Manitoba Farmers' Union mus t include every possible precaution agains t a repetition of the mis takes of the past if farm un ity is to have any degree of permanenc y." The goal of the 19 62 report was to somehow dimi nish the di ffe rence s of the two organ iza tions. Those dif ferences, if anything, have been manif ested , not dimi ni shed .

They have been manif ested not because the re were two organ izations, but because there were two separate philo sophies which could and wou ld not be welded into one organ ization. Even thoug h the old Mani toba Federa tion of Agricultu re be came the Manitoba Farm Bu reau and then the Keystone Agricultu ral Produc ers and the Manitoba Farmers' Union became Region Five of the National Farmers' Union, phi losoph ies remained separate and apart. The di stinction between th ose two farm phi losoph ies is very clear.

The National Farmers' Union asked for and received its federal charter to be a national farm organ ization in 19 69. lt was establ ished on the prin cipl e tha t farmers would voluntarily and de mocratically organ ize thems elv es . it was unde rstood tha t the organizi ng was to be done by farmers. Bill No. 28 makes no attempt to help farmers organ ize th emselves. In stead it establishe s a "cer tific ation agency," which will choose the farm organi zation it feels most lik ely will repr esent the needs of farmers. Has the Manitoba Govern ment lost faith in the demo cratic process?

Has the Manitoba Government decided that farmers cannot nor should not have the right to make tho se decisions on their own ? The idea th at a "certific ation agency" outside of the farm commu nity would choose the farm organ ization for that communi ty is lud icrous. While Bill No. 28 provides farmers the right to opt out in protest, it gi ves a certified organ izat ion a legitima cy which could be used by Government to dimini sh any other organ izatio n's opinion. In t

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-1-ag1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 1st hansardpdf ag1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	cc5d27b5c68b4374e0c67000d6112703f6524698

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).