Guelph – The appeals tribunal bombarded leaders of the
Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario with detailed questioning during its
first-ever Saturday hearing, this one to deal with the CFFO application for
accreditation under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act of
1993.
The hearing followed similar ones for the National Farmers
Union – Ontario and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
All three flunked in their initial attempts at
re-accreditation that began with public hearings in June, 2011, and ended with
tribunal decisions released May 23 this year.
The Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal picked at technical details, such as absolute
proof that farmers choose to be a member of one of the general farm
organizations and funding from the provincial head offices to locals or
districts spread around the province.
The National Farmers Union’s main challenge, judging from
tribunal questions this week, will be its ties with the national organization
headquartered in Saskatoon.
Ann Slater struggled to distinguish Ontario
policies from national policies and could not guarantee that the national
office might intervene again to reject an elected Ontario leader and appoint
someone of its own choice.
That happened when Sean McGivern was dismissed and Slater
was chosen, then later elected at the next Ontario general annual meeting.
McGivern is now trying to organize another general farm organization.
All three organizations use the legislation to garner $195
per year from farmers who choose which of the three organizations they want to
represent them; they can also choose after registration to apply for a refund.
When they lost their accreditation on May 23, all three organizations had
to scramble to sign up a minimum of 250 members and/or 10 per district (or
local) to meet the registration minimums. They had to collect $195 plus GST from
each of them and a signed affirmation that they want to be a member of the
organization.
The CFFO came with 301 signed applications and accompanying
proof of payment of $195 each.
It has 21 district associations, but only 14 of them
qualified by July 5 under the legislation’s criteria. Some don’t have the
minimum 10 members and some haven’t held an annual general meeting since this
January.
Since July 5, two more have qualified, reported CFFO general
manger Nathan Stevens.
 |
| CFFO general manager Nathan Stevens |
The CFFO has amended its bylaws to more clearly define
membership and election procedures and has signed service agreements with its
district associations, basically to prove that at least 25 per cent of the CFFO
revenues flow to district associations.
They get $10 per member in cash and can apply for more.
Those requests have usually been granted, testified president Lorne Small.
The service agreements cover items such as fieldman salaries
and expenses, local meeting and travel expenses and 25 per cent of the CFFO
executive and staff salaries and expenses which are deemed to be spent on
behalf of the district associations.
The NFU-Ontario and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture
have chosen to give their locals straight cash to meet the 25 per cent minimum
requirement, then the locals buy services from the provincial organizations.
Both changed their funding systems after the May 23 tribunal rejection of their initial re-accreditation applications. They, like the CFFO, had counted head-office services in meeting the 25 per cent standard.
The CFFO intends to negotiate service-agreement renewals
every year, an option that the tribunal mentioned in its May 23 decisions.
The CFFO stumbled over a detail in a footnote to its annual
financial statements. When tribunal panel chairman Nicholas Richter asked where
he could find an entry to match a footnote claim that more than $8,000 cash was
distributed to district associations this year, Stevens could not find it.
After the lunch break, he furnished a two-page listing of
disbursements, but Richter noted that the list has not been subjected to a
professional audit.
The CFFO is under tribunal instructions now to produce an amended audited
statement to cover that issue, plus a letter from the auditing firm to indicate
that it applied the handbook of the Chartered Accountants Association in
preparing its audit report.
 |
| CFFO president Lorne Small |
Under close questioning by panel member Dr. Jane Sadler
Richards, Stevens and Small explained how the CFFO has added a new category for
“supporters” who pay the $195-per-year fee, but for religious reasons do not
want to be members of the CFFO.
Small said this has been an issue for more than 20 years
with some farmers “who support our principles” but don’t want to become
members.
Members will, from now on, be those who specifically
indicate they want to be members. The details of how they will make that membership choice clear have yet to be nailed down via
negotiations with AgriCorp, assuming the tribunal grants accreditation so the
annual fee collected by AgriCorp can be forwarded to the CFFO.
Farmers who want a break on provincial property taxes and
access to many of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs’
programs and services, need to pay the annual fee to obtain a Farm Business
Registration number.
The process involves writing a cheque for $195 plus HST to
an accredited Ontario farm organization and mailing it to AgriCorp which then
forwards the money and information to the organization chosen. The farmer then
has 90 days to apply to that organization for a rebate of the fee, if desired.
The new category of “supporter” prompted Richter to suggest
that the CFFO carefully consider the implications because, Richter said,
legislation usually applies a single definition for terms, but the CFFO seems
to be using multiple definitions for membership.
Another category is personal (or signed) membership which is
for those who apply directly to the CFFO for membership and pay $195 plus HST.
They do not go through the AgriCorp farm business registration process. There
are 35 of them now and 30 of them are active farmers, Stevens said.
Five are either retired or the CFFO doesn’t know their
status relative to farming.
Richter promised to provide a decision as soon as possible,
noting that the tribunal is well aware of the upcoming Sept. 1 deadline for
property taxation and OMAFRA’s interest is getting Farm Business Registration
numbers out as soon as possible.
