Letters to the editor

New spin; Second payment; In my business; Grain act

New spin

I am calling on the Alberta government to act responsibly and immediately by withdrawing Bill 19, the Land Assembly Project Act.

Bill 19 is undemocratic and morally wrong.

Sections 7 and 12 state that the minister no longer needs to apply to the court for a judgment. A minister will now have the power to file with the court, “as if it were a judgment.”

ow, if in the minister’s opinion a person is doing something, or is going to do something, the minister can order a person to stop or do something else, as if it was a court judgment.

Read Also

How counter-tariff policy cans Canadian choice

The unavailability of the storied Canadian pickle brand Bick’s, now processed and jarred in the U.S., shows how well-intentioned counter-tariff policy can turn sour on Canada’s consumers and cucumber growers.

This bill gives to that minister the power to levy against citizens fines up to $100,000 and/or two years in jail for imagined crimes, and up to $1 million to a business, without any due process of law.

Many farms and ranches are incorporated. Bill 19 bestows to any minister absolute, undemocratic rule by decree and/or regulation, and most notably removes from the existing legislation… “necessary in the public interest.”

The potential to abuse this much power is terrifying.

Despite the government’s misdirection in the Legislature, to the press and at public meetings, Bill 19 makes the expropriation of privately owned property less open and eliminates the legislative requirement to consult and provide notice.

I am strongly opposed to my government having unbridled power to confiscate private property for anything it so chooses, including, and especially for, the pursuit of private corporate profit.

Bill 19 is not only an assault on the property rights of urban and rural Albertans, it is an attack on the public interest and strips the public’s right to question or protest proposed projects….

Bill 19 further tips the scales of fairness and justice in favour of province wide industrialization for the benefit of the corporate machine, while putting the needs of all Albertans and the environment second or even lower down the list. …

– N. Donna Wise,

Rockyford, Alta.

Second payment

My husband and I recently received our second payment for the age verification and premise identification program.

We were shocked to discover that the payment amount indicated was less than one third of the initial payment. The accompanying letter indicated that the government had failed to anticipate the high level of participation by Alberta’s beef producers and had therefore miscalculated the total amount of funds required to finance the program.

Only a small portion of the original $300 million remained so final payments were reduced accordingly. We were to console ourselves in the knowledge that had the government correctly calculated producer participation, the original cheque would have been much smaller. Producers should apparently be grateful that any money was left for a second payment.

Producer support was quoted in the letter as being more that 95 percent. Why would the government believe it to be anything less?

The cattle industry in this province is under enormous strain. Any opportunity to improve cash flow, however marginally, is going to be seized by producers. In his letter to producers (July 7, 2008), (Alberta agriculture) minister (George) Groeneveld clearly states, “Recently eligible producers received a cheque which represented half of the $300 million provided to help sustain the Alberta livestock and meat industry as it transitions under the new Alberta Livestock and Meat Strategy. In January 2009, the second half of the $300 million will be made available.”

Any reasonable person would assume that if half was being paid in June and the other half was being dispersed in January, that the amount initially received would also be received in January.

Initial cheques were processed in June 2008. Minister Groeneveld’s letter is dated in July. How could he not already know that he was over budget?

Instead he let producers believe that in exchange for complete compliance with program conditions, they would receive cheques equaling the amount of the initial payment in January.

o one from the minister’s office ever informed producers that the payment amounts were not going to be the same as previously received until the cheques arrived in March 2009.

I can only surmise that the government did not share this information because it still wanted program compliance and that would have been potentially jeopardized if producers knew the government had no intention of fulfilling its promises.

Producers ,too, need to estimate expenses and revenue when planning for the coming year. We do appreciate the difficulty in determining accurate estimates. However, we do not share the luxury of being able to say we made a mistake in our calculations so we cannot honour our commitments. …

I hope the premier, the minister and the government will reconsider its recent decision to lower the final payment amount. Next time around compliance may not be so willingly gained.

– Cecily Knodel,

Seven Persons, Alta.

In my business

Draconian, Orwellian or just plain absurd? Which is the real government of Alberta?

Instead of the Alberta government addressing the real issues facing cattle farmers – captive supply and captive markets – they choose to put forward a distractionary plan that will add little or no value to Albertans or Alberta farmers….

In agriculture the desire of the regime is to use draconian measures to force livestock farmers to comply with an ill thought out program: the Alberta Livestock Meat Strategy or Farm Recovery Plan.

In this plan all farmers must be numbered to buy, sell or possess livestock and must register their premises with the province if they wish to receive deserved aid for depression era prices on livestock or continue to raise and sell livestock on their farms.

The minister of agriculture has told farmers to either get on board or get out of the industry.

For a government “not in the business of being in business,” they seem intent of being in my business.

In an unprecedented invasion of privacy, farmers must submit any and all records at some bureaucrat’s whim and be subject to on-farm inspections.

This program is mandatory and anyone who owns livestock must register with the province, and tell the province where livestock is kept, and how many head are owned.

This includes horses, bison, elk, cattle, sheep, goats, bees, chickens, hogs, etc. Farmers failing to comply and sign up for premise identification risk large fines and possible imprisonment.

Food safety and livestock disease control are cited as the reasons for this intrusive behaviour, yet looking at the food safety issue over the last year and Canadian fatalities from unsafe food, it would be corporate food processors 21 and farmers O.

BSE and traceability are used for another excuse, but farmers are already required to use Canadian Cattle Identification Agency ear tags, a system supposed to deliver traceback to the farm of origin.

Were the government serious about food safety, BSE and the losses suffered by cattle farmers, BSE testing would have been mandatory years ago.

Alberta Agriculture is telling farmers that if they age verify their calves, exports markets will open for the corporations and this will somehow magically improve farmer’s bottom line.

The “trickle down” effect has not worked for the past 20 years….

Either the government needs to include guaranteed pricing for livestock in this plan or make it voluntary and let their beloved market determine farmer participation….

– Neil Peacock,

Sexsmith, Alta.

Grain act

The government seems bent on eliminating the Canadian Wheat Board and now wants to amend the Canada Grain Act.

Why? Who will benefit from these proposed changes? Certainly not the western grain farmers. The Canada Grain Act has always protected producers through bonding and licensing of small grain companies.

We are also concerned regarding changes in grading and inspection of our grain. …

Any change in the system could lower the quality, thereby causing loss of customers, and in today’s circumstances, we cannot afford to lose customers.