Test Airdrie Landowners Task Force Stake holders Meeting Test

Beef Production


Airdrie Landowners Task Force Stake holders Meeting

Dec 19, 2011 | 16:34 1 Stakeholders:
Canadian Natural Resources
Eastern irrigation Districts
Alberta Grazing Lease holders
Alberta intensive Livestock
Mountain view County
Alberta Rural municipalities
Alberta freehold owners Association
Alberta Surgface Rights Group
Alberta Beef Producers

The plan was for anyone who wanted to put their concerns out there. Many suggestions on various topics.
In the end the dominant theme was cabinet shouldn't be making these decisions on property rights without properly consulting, and they definitely shouldn't be passing legislation that expropriates property, without proper compensation or access to the courts. At times the anger and frustration with the government was very apparent. Another general theme was people are sick of government always siding with Big Oil and Big Energy at the expense of Alberta landowners.
If they didn't get the message today at Airdrie....they never will!
The public meetings are as follows:
Grimshaw Jan 9/12 1-3:30 pm
Grande Prairie Jan 9/12 6:30-9pm
St Paul Jan 10 1-3:30 pm
Westlock Jan 10 6:30- 9pm
Olds Jan 11 1-3:30pm
Rocky Mt. House Jan 11 6:30-9 pm
Brooks Jan 16 1-3:30 pm
Hanna Jan 16 6:30- 9 pm
Medicine Hat Jan 17 1- 3:30 pm
Lethbridge Jan 17 6:30-9 pm

You can also submit a written submission:
propertyrights@gov.ab.ca (available in January)

Property Rights task Force
c/o Diana McQueen
Minister of Environment and Water
425 Legislature Building
10800-97 Ave

or phone: 310-4455 Toll free
Edmonton, AB, T5K 2B6 Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2011 | 18:30 2 Thank you ASRG for you efforts on Landowners behalf, also the others that take time and energy to make a difference. Makes me optimistic that by pulling in the same direction we can make a difference. It is nice to have company on the trip. Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2011 | 19:03 3 I echo per's thank you , with out the two representatives from ASRG many issues would not have been brought forward, my neighbor also attended the Airdrie meeting . I am impressed with what the ASRG put on the table especially telling ABP they do not represent him as a cattle producer and the fact he pointed out that CAPP attended both meetings which indicates to me that its the same old get in bed with o&g industry. Bill 24, I understand was a hot topic this carbon capture is nothing but a scam and waste of Alberta taxpayer's money Thank ASRG Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2011 | 19:49 4 When I called Bill 24 nothing more the "Regulatory Theft" it was met by silence. Not one of the other groups wanted to go there. Thanks again for bringing it in round 2. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2011 | 00:12 5 There were lots of guys hitting them pretty hard. Bill 24 did get a lot of attention. Our group decided a long time ag Bill 24 was the hill to die on.....and we will never give up until we get it rescinded.
I failed to mention the "Alberta cattle feeders" were there also.
The report I gave was pretty brief, but I think the important thing was this: There was a lot of very united people in that room....less of course the oil boys and one producer group.
Upon completion of this meeting we immediately contacted our friends over at the Western Stockgrowers to let them know how it went.
We are going to make a major effort (along with WSGA and Keith Wilson) to make sure we have a strong landowner presence at every last one of the public meetings in January. We need full rooms at every meeting! We do have strong contacts all across the province.
If you care about your property rights, there is an opportunity to bring this government to their senses, but you must make the effort to attend your local public meeting and/or send in a written submission.
There is a bit more information on our website: www.albertasurfacerights.com Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2011 | 08:40 6 ASRG are you sure you have got the task force public meetings right. Noticeable absence of meeting locations in Berger's riding,ie PincherCk,Ft.Mcleod , and Red Deer north to Grand Prairie,the whole east slopes ranching community has to travel a great distance to have their voice hear. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2011 | 09:20 7 Yes that is the schedule.....and yes the old ranching areas were definitely excluded! The eastern slopes (especially south of Calgary in the old ranching areas) are a hotbed of property rights advocates...and the only conclusion we could come up with was, the Task Force knew they would get a rocky ride in those areas? There was no stakeholder input into where these public meeting would be held....the government dictated them!
In talking with the two representatives from the Grazing Leaseholders, after the meeting, they felt this was the work of Evan Berger? It was their belief he does not want the embarassment of meeting a hostile crowd at High River, or Fort Maclead, or Pincher Creek.
It probably wouldn't hurt to contact your MLA and share your opinion?
We will be sending a memo to Diana McQueen.....expressing your very concern about the exclusion of certain areas within the province! It will be a strongly worded memo!
It is unlikely anything will be changed but if you find it impossible to attend any of these meetings (and who know what the weather will be like in mid January) you can certainly email our group with your submission and we will read it out at one of the meetings? We want all landowners to have their say and let this government know things MUST change! We need to rock their world!
email: albertasurfacerights@gmail.com Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2011 | 10:29 8 I noted the comment re ABP not representing a particular producer.

Ultimately the only one who can represent me personally is me. For the most part I tend to agree with me. But not always. After all I am a farmer.

Unfortunately "me" cannot attend all the meetings and government can easily dismiss or even discredit what I would say if "me" did not agree with what the government wants to happen anyway. Me has a vote during elections but our rural ridings are so huge and dominated by the urban voter I seriously question if the me vote really carries any weight.

It seems as if the mes of this world have to come together in some fashion in order to change a me to an us. There are a lot of uss out there as we see can by the list of groups attending these meetings. It is a bit like a flocks of birds cackling away. Is it effective messaging or just a lot of noise? To the extent that it is just noise government will chose not to listen.

Really government does not have to listen to any particular group of uss. They have a mandate (yes even Redford has a mandate by virtue of being leader of the party that won a majority election) from the biggest group of uss (the electorate) to govern and they can do it.

It seems to me that the way to be heard above the noise is to form the largest possible flock of uss and speak with one voice. Farmers seem to be terrible at doing that. Other species such as oil and gas (the CAPP flock), wildlife lovers (the Sierra Club flock), environmentalists (Greenpeace flock) and of course the wackos (PETA flock) seem to have considerable success in getting government to hear them above the noise.

Do you think every bird in the CAPP flock agrees with the CAPP song? Doubt it. There will be voices within CAPP that want to sing louder or even want to sing a different song. But even those birds know that the only way they will be heard is to join the flock.

Like it or not, ABP is the largest flock. Even though a me can and probably does disagree with what ABP is singing, ABP is democratic and does have a structure that allows producers from all over the province to come together to make democracy happen. Producers, elected by producers, come from corner to corner of this province and somehow form policy. And it does influence government when that happens. The other species know how effective that is. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2011 | 12:17 9 Farmers son ABP effort to derail and roll over like a lap dog is doing other organization more harm than good. Seems they don't have the balls to speak up on what is right. Only suck hole to the government. Strong words I know but are they only siding with the government on these bills to get the check back? Or have they made a back room deal with Berger that if they support him he will reinstate the check off that George Greonveld took away. I support the mandate of ABP but they have to come out of closet and speak up about property rights . Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2011 | 12:17 10 forage, There was an indication at our last local NFU meeting that there would be a meeting possibly happening in conjunction with the Warburg-Pembina Surface Rights Group monthly meeting around Jan 10th. Dissapointing if we don't get a meeting in this area given the strength of landowner interest - or maybe that's why there isn't a meeting? I guess we will need to travel further to be heard. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2011 | 14:35 11 First of all I am not going to beat up on the ABP.......and it wasn't me who made the statement that the ABP does not represent me at the Task force meeting in Airdrie.
I will admit I am not a great fan of the ABP......and I'd better leave it at that!
The point I am trying to get across here is that real grassroots type landowners have pretty well had a bellyful of this government running all over our property rights.....and it isn't helpful when one group represents itself as "the voice of ALL cattle producers within the province".......when in fact that is clearly not the case?
The Alberta Cattle Feeders? The Western Stockgrowers? The Grazing Lease holders?
Who are these guys?
It is our desire the ABP, builds bridges with their fellow cattle producers....rather than snuggle up to the government and their bosses? Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2011 | 14:47 12 grassfarmer: Please keep me informed on the possibility of a Pembina/ Warburg meeting? I am a member of that group and if you can indicate it is a possibility I wiil be in contact with Karl as soon as possible?
Incidently we have drafted a memo to Diana McQueen expressing our dismay that there will be no public meetings on the southern eastern slopes! In conjunction with our "friends" in that area......we will be issuing a press release if meetings are denied!
If we are going to have an authentic discussion on property rights....everyone has to be at the table? If Evan Berger is embarassed....it is a small price to pay for a real excercise in democratic rights? Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2011 | 15:23 13 I think there is a point to be made that while CAPP represents the entire oil and gas sector, agriculture and even more specifically cattle are completely divided and does not speak before government with one voice. No other industry would tolerate that. It leaves agriculture weak, divided, ineffective. When countless groups go before government saying listen to me frankly government is left free to listen to who ever government chooses.

Influencing government is not as easy as getting on your high horse and riding off to do battle. You would be surprised how few people, ministers or not, are impressed by being embarrassed or belittled.

And is anyone considering the possibility that this entire process is a farce and government will do what it darn well pleases. Or that this is not about agriculture or that government does not give a damn about what we think. I think producers angst is best directed towards government in this case and not towards each other. If these bills go ahead unchanged it is not because this group said this or that group said that. It is because government never intended to listen anyway. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2011 | 16:23 14 I'm not in much of an argumentative mood lately where Beef industry groups are concerned. Either we agree on things or not and where we agree we go forward together. Certainly the group I represent the WSGA has given any takers information on this issue and made an effort with cooperating with the ABP.

CAPP and CAPL were both at the Nisku meeting and for sure were not on the same page on everything there. That is why there are different organizations in every industry including several more I know of in the Oil and Gas Sector. That will always be a reality.

For sure f_s we have considered the likely possibility that this is a PR exercise. As you know though, if we don't step up to the plate we will not get anywhere with these bills. Better to have tried and failed than to not have tried at all. At least for me. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2011 | 16:23 15 "more specifically cattle are completely divided and does not speak before government with one voice. No other industry would tolerate that. It leaves agriculture weak, divided, ineffective. When countless groups go before government saying listen to me frankly government is left free to listen to who ever government chooses." f_s this is exactly what I am talking about, countless groups are voicing there concerns on property rights and these recent bills that have totally removed them ,then to have ABP one of largest groups stand up and destroy ever thing the many smaller groups have been lobbying for is not acceptable. I firmly believe that is why we are left with more and more people asking for their refund back because they see ABP is in self destruct mose. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2011 | 18:00 16 I think the ABP suffers because of the SRM removal issue. They seem to lack spine, brains or guts.
But seriously it's a problem when "commodity groups" are linked to the Government by virtue of being on the payroll. As far as I'm concerned once you start getting substantial Government funding your have just lost your political voice. You become impotent.
I raised that over on the commodity forum re the Alberta Barley Growers - a group with 130 members that receives well over $300,000 a year from Government. How can you be anything other than a mouthpiece for Government ideology when you are funded in this manner? Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2011 | 20:25 17 ASRG, I called someone tonight who is involved with the Warburg group. It looks like the Gov. side would not be drawn to Warburg, they also tried to get them to Lakedell with no success. So I don't think there is going to be a meeting in that area and it appears to be an avoidance issue. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2011 | 21:04 18 The ABP is taking a stance that supposedly they believe in? When a government out and out expropriates private property without compensation or due process, like they did with Bill 24....most people would have a problem with that? One has to wonder how the ABP thinks so differently?
When the government brought in the first land grab bill (bill 19), our group started the ball rolling at Innisfail. The ABP was busy cheerleading the government and clapping them on the back! Two years later Bill 19 was gutted....almost everything we pointed out as being wrong was changed. Four months before Bill 19 was changed Evan Berger and Ted Morton were trotting around the country saying it was the best thing since sliced bread!
We fully realize this Task Force is probably nothing more than a pre-election scheme. We hope Premier Redford is sincere when she states she wants change? We have talked to her personally before the leadership vote and she certainly understands Bill 24 isn't going away and she knows if there aren't changes, there will be a legal challenge.....we made that very clear.
The legal advice we are getting is there is a case to get Bill 24 overthrown...maybe....very costly and a risk! The lawyers exact words "a political solution would be better".
Redford isn't some kind of dummie. She knows the Wildrose is knocking on the door and she knows landowners want some changes or they will walk?
If we fill those buildings for the public meetings with angry landowners, she will get the message loud and clear!
If no one shows up...or the ABP types stand there and fawn all over Berger and kiss his butt......nothing will change....well I shouldn't say that...... maybe the government will reinstate the check off for their pals! Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2011 | 08:46 19 The gov't meetings have been scheduled on some of the same dates as Keith Wilson's meetings. Which meeting does a person go to? The gov't meeting where we will not be heard anyways, or to Keith's meeting where numbers could speak volumes. Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2011 | 08:56 20 Same towns at the same time? Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2011 | 09:24 21 Sounds like the government has K.Wilson schedule all fiqured out.Maybe we should have him change his schedule and attend the public task force meetings. Would love to be see Berger challenge Wilson on the bills, I have heard he made Berger look like a complete fool at a meeting in Eckville.That way you kill 4 bills with one lawyer. Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2011 | 10:28 22 I should have said in my previous posts thanks to all the people, everyone, who are taking the time to go to these meetings and speak up for our property rights. I have made property rights a priority all my adult life but have not attended any of these meetings. I guess I am cynical after too many years of seeing property rights eroded in this province and believe nothing will come of it.

What is the schedule of meetings? I will go if one is close enough.

I do see where a strong ag group can influence govt policy. I remember when I was a kid my dad organized FUA meetings and some meetings were held in our home. Those are some of my earliest memories actually. The U.S. has some strong ag lobby groups like the American Farm Bureau. It is my impression that to lobby govt effectively first takes a long time and a lot of effort. It also takes a organization with enough membership that politicians will listen and the organization needs to be well funded as lobbying done effectively comes at a dollar cost.

I am not impressed by Bill 24 but it never surprised me. My thing personally is pipelines and the Pipeline Act. Like why does a private for profit company get to apply to appropriate my property to build a pipeline? The company gets a right of way that is industrial property and I get paid ag land price, more or less. If it were not for government we would be getting ten times as much for a P/L ROW as we do now. But hey thats just me.

I have attended a lot of property rights meetings in my time, Alberta Surface Rights Federation and a host of others. I can tell you the ABP delegates I know are every bit as committed to property rights as are the people working to improve property rights through other groups. But there is more than one way to skin a cat or should I say influence a government. Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2011 | 10:29 23 No sooner did I hit send than I saw the list of meetings at the top of the thread. I have marked a date on my calendar. Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2011 | 11:16 24 Notably absent from the Provost, NE AB
I believe a lot of these bills work in
concert and in the long term they will
continue to try to find another way to
skin the proverbial cat if you will.
We are concerned as our entire (100%) of
our operation operates in areas
designated as being of national
I am concerned with oil development, and
water. The problem with water is that
it is free until there isn't any, and
then its' priceless.
We are a province hell bent on
development without developing. Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2011 | 12:49 25 No meetings in any of the task force ridings, Berger is deathly afraid to have one in the Macleod Livingstone riding in case it goes sideways like his and Ted Morton's defending the
Bills against Keith Wilson in Eckville. It was a long drive but it was worth it, side comment , never before have I ever heard a comment from a audience of over 500 when one rancher stood up and ask the crowd does anybody has a rope. Just not done in Alberta. Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2011 | 14:18 26 The initial report we put out, listing the schedule of public meetings did not include the actual places those meetings would take place at? You can find a more complete listing on our website: www.albertasurfacerights.com

farmers son: I know you have worked long and hard for property rights and I know a lot of individual ABP members do as well. I hear you on the pipeline thing. Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2011 | 14:21 27 Forage next time you drive a long ways for an Eckville type meeting give me a call and we can car pool. That meeting was a memorable one for sure no matter who's side you were on. Only going to be a few of those in a lifetime. Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2011 | 14:43 28 Eckville was certainly an experience! We had another in this area a few years ago with an oilfield waterflood project. After some meetings and back and forth with the authorities, letters in papers it came to a head at a meeting at Last West Hall. A large vocal crowd basically swept the floor with the company. The company did not appreciate the level of opposition until they saw it but once they did they backed down as they knew they were in a no-win stuation.
It's great to witness these moments where "the people" gain the upper hand but it's also disappointing to see complacency preventing people from uniting on other issues. I really believe in "people power" and think we can win again with it in AB against these land bills.
That's why I have no time for the "lets work with them" attitude of the likes of ABP. This is no time for appeasement - there is too much at stake. Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2011 | 16:38 29 Recent article with the three rep's from ABP they are going to handle the issues of the Bill 36 by the three"C".Consulation,compensation,and courts. Maybe they should read Bill 24 there was no Consulation (introduced to legislature nov 2,introduced closure and passed with royal consent dec 2)
Requlatory taking of property rights with NO Compensation.
No rights to the Court written into the act. So much for ABP's 3 "C"
Thanks for the offer to car pool , more of us need to fill our pickups with bodies at the price fuel and gas Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2011 | 18:20 30 I guess the message would be to make sure your neighbors know?
We're getting a lot of feedback from people up at Grand Prairie.....They're getting the word out and intend to fill the building with a large angry crowd.
We'll be running radio ads in central Alberta starting right after the new year. Issuing a press release at the same time and a bulk email message and phone out to our membership list.
This is no time to sit back and let the other guy do it! Reply With Quote