• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bill 43

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Bill 43

    http://alberta.ca/acn/200904/25814EE517C8E-0359-BD99-F64D42CCB3F44F63.html

    The Government of the Province of Alberta has introduced Bill 43. Bill 43 takes away the ability of four producer groups to collect a non refundable checkoff… those groups being cattle, hogs, sheep and potatoes. Three of those groups would fall directly within the reaches of the ALMStrategy and ALMA.

    Now I know there are contributors to Agri-ville that will be celebrating over that news that they can get their three bucks back. That $3 amounted to $.004 a pound on a 650 weight calf or less than ½ of 1 cent per pound. The issue is not the three bucks. The issue is the political clout that 3 bucks gave the average cow calf producer who, although individually small, together amounted to a lot of cattle, a lot of checkoff and a lot of political influence. There are mega feedlots and other lobby groups that were jealous of the political influence that checkoff gave the average cow calf producer and they have been working for some time to see that political influence reduced. Not to mention the government who viewed ABP as the only group that stood up to the ALMS strategy and as such ABP was opposition that needed to be squashed.

    Predictably there are lobby groups, the National Farmers Union and others who will immediately start to fight over the scraps to see who gets to pick up the pieces of whatever political influence cow calf producers have left. Meanwhile the Alberta Government gets to stand back and do nothing about the crisis that is facing our livestock industry and thousands of men and women who make their living with cattle.

    The sad part, and quite possibly the reason behind Bill 43, was that producer support of ABP was at an all time high. Had the producers been allowed to decide whether the checkoff should be refundable or not through a plebiscite vote the expected outcome was producers would vote in favour of the present checkoff structure. That clearly would not sit well with this Government who needed ABP out of the picture so that there was no opposition to ALMA. It is not just a cattle issue, the hog people are hit too. Any opposition to this Government from livestock producers has effectively been crushed.

    #2
    This will turn out to be a very positive move for the Alberta cattle industry and in fact the ABP in my opinion. F.S., I don't understand why you think this reduces the political "clout" of the cow calf producer at all. Surely the ABP will remain the voice of the industry. I don't see a connection between a refundable checkoff and reduced political clout.

    Comment


      #3
      I think you know that the feedlot producers will use their checkoff as a political weapon to control and direct ABP policies. Either ABP meets the demands of the 40 big feedlots or they pull their checkoff dollars which would amount to $5 million or more. My checkoff as a cow calf producer only amounts to only a few hundred dollars. You do the math on who will control ABP. As few as 40 feedlots will control ABPs policies not only provincially but nationally through CCA too.

      But the real crime is cow calf producers were denied the opportunity to have a plebiscite vote on the checkoff and who controlled the future of the organization. The Government has taken ABP away from the cow calf producer and handed it to the big feedlots.

      Comment


        #4
        Please explain how it is a crime to give any producer, regardless of size, the option of what to do with their money. Your position here is paranoid and poorly thought out. Give me a policy scenario where these 40 "mega" feedlots could becase of this new found political clout, do any harm to the cow calf sector.

        Comment


          #5
          Yea, Finally an AB Government bill that producers can get behind! Three cheers!!
          How do you know ABP support was at an all time high F_S?, you were too scared to actually allow a plebiscite so you'll never know.
          And you can drop all the "working for cow calf producers" B.S. ABP has done nothing for cow/calf producers in recent years. Your organisation fought tooth and nail to prevent to prevent the "cow/calf" committee being established within ABP so that cow/calf producers would have a voice again. Who was controlling that decision? was it the big feedlots you now paint as the enemy or was it your secret bed mates the packers?
          Well done George Groeneveld, thank you for restoring an element of democracy to beef producer politics in this province.

          Comment


            #6
            Why not let the producers decide through a plebiscite if it would do them any harm?

            Big feedlots like you probably deduct the checkoff from what you pay for calves anyway but now you will be able to make ABP jump to your tune. As a large operator you will control a great deal of checkoff while still deducting that checkoff from what you pay me for my calves. I guess as an average size operator I have a huge problem with that.

            A plebiscite on the checkoff would have been democratic.

            Comment


              #7
              The last time we had a plebiscite very few people bothered to vote and it was a near even split. How does that resolve anything in the end. I agree with Grassfarmer, kudos to Minister Groeneveld for having the courage to go out on a limb for the beef industry in this province!!

              Comment


                #8
                Grassfarmer:

                See:
                http://albertabeef.org/t/-/-/external/albertabeef.org/res/MAPA%20changes.pdf

                ABP asked for a plebiscite so producers could decide the fate of the checkoff and who controlled that money, cow calf or big feedlot. The government not allowing a plebiscite is do undemoctratic I am in disbelief.

                If there had been a plebiscite we would know if I was right in saying ABP had a lot of producer support. I think the government was afraid to let producers decide because they knew producers hated ALMA and supported ABP. However without a plebiscite we will probably never know.

                Comment


                  #9
                  I said in my original post that some Agri-ville contributors would be celebrating the news of Bill 43 and I certainly expected BFW and Grassfarmer to be among the happy ones. I anticipate this will be a hot topic with lots of posts.

                  I will leave it with this comment: I know not everyone supported ABP but I know some did and I believe quite a few did. Why not have a plebiscite and let producers decide the issue themselves? Lets have this debate in the context of a plebiscite vote where producers themselves decide. And if producers decide to let the big feedlots run ABP than that is the democratic decision.

                  Why not let the producers decide their own fate on this issue and why does the government have to introduce a bill that means producers will not have the chance to vote on a very important issue. ABP asked for a plebiscite...I question the government's motives in not allowing that plebiscite vote to take place.

                  I look forward to lots of comments...

                  Comment


                    #10
                    The question of timing is critical in the plebiscite discussion. The press release you posted was dated April 28th 2009. When did ABP demand a plebiscite "before legislative action was taken"? - last week when they got wind of this? - or last fall when they were getting nervous that their continual brainless opposition to ALMS looked like it threatened to bring today's development about? - precipitating one of the fastest backtracking operations ever seen in Alberta farm politics.

                    One thing for sure ABP has been steadfastly opposed to a plebiscite on the levy issue for at least the last three years. This issue has been raised time and again by producers - cow/calf producers farmers_son, and it has been soundly rejected by ABP on every occasion. Perhaps looking back the culture of arrogance within ABP wasn't such a clever idea?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I got this press release yesterday and have been thinking about it a bit. I am not sure how ABP and CCA will guarantee their funding base, but I know that MB has a similar policy and is very responsive. They also do not have a very big feedlot sector.
                      I think the procedure to reclaim checkoff will be an important one. It needs to be straightforward but not so easy that you just call and ask for your money back.
                      These are interesting times indeed. As far as GG and the AB gov goes, I am of the personal belief that they are heading down a path that is hurting the cow/calf producer, although maybe I am just missing the big end picture.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I'm not sure I understand you Sean - you want the refund procedure to be straightforward but not so straightforward that a phone call will suffice? If you mean that you don't want it too easy so that the dummies who can't fill in a one page form can't get their money returned isn't that a bit elitist? These same folks, dummies or not, have been paying the mandatory levy for years. I think Bill 43 is fair - now every one gets the chance to control their checkoff dollars and this will bring greater accountability.
                        Here is a suggestion Farmers_son - if you want to make the refund procedure complicated and unworkable just lobby to get AFSC to implement it, LOL.

                        Talk about Bill 43 being undemocratic doesn't wash with me. I'm sick of going to ABP fall producer meetings where we are told the intention is for producers to air their opinions and give direction to the ABP organisation but what happens is anything but. Last year at my zone meeting the chairman of proceedings was our zone director who also took it upon himself to speak in opposition to nearly every resolution I proposed and in some cases moved a counter resolution. And this was democracy??? what a joke, it must have broken every rule of "parliamentary procedure" in the book. That kind of nonsense is what brought about GG's sweeping move to restore democracy to this defunct organisation - painting it as a feedlot operator takeover is nothing but another bogus distraction campaign to hide the truth.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Too bad the ABP didn't wake up until it was too late. Unwillingness to work with the B5 was the beginning of the end. I applaud the Minister for taking some bold steps to change the industry. It may be too little too late but what we do know is that the status quo wasn't sustainable.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Peronally i find this bill to be a positive move.To many years I would go to the fall meetings liking to see change from the ABP but it was the same propaganda every year.The ABP have no one to blame but themselves.I have no problem giving three dollars to a group that will lookout for the cow-calf guy.Maybe I am just tired of a group that was using my checkoff dollars to fight battles like cool , r-calf .Instead of maybe helping cowcalf producers gain more strength in our own country by supporting producer owned packers.I believe in fixing your own problems before you worry about the guy across the fence.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              GF - What I mean is that by the way I read it a refund means you get a cheque and don't have to contribute anything to any agricultural lobby if you so choose. A method such as a phone call has no documentation of the request, so it needs to be a bit more formal.
                              As well, I am not sure how to stop freeloading. Currently I benefit from the policy and presence of several organizations I do not choose to support. That said some that i do and do not support may also harm or benefit my business.
                              I think to be fair the issue revolves around freeloading.

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...