You Might Be Interested In What the ABP Says About Private Property Rights?

[ASRG]

Landowner Private Property Rights

Mr. Groeneveld: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, at the
annual general meeting of the Alberta Beef Producers a number of
resolutions related to the previous land-use legislation were raised.
My first question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development.
Can the minister please tell us about the resolutions
and what the outcome was of these resolutions?

The Speaker: Does this have to do with government policy, or is
this the result of a private meeting? Find the connection.

Mr. Berger: This has to do with land-use policy, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Go ahead.

Mr. Berger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There were resolutions
brought forward to the floor of the annual convention of the
Alberta Beef Producers requesting the repealing of the acts for
land use, being respectively bills 19, 24, 36, and 50. I'm pleased to
say that those resolutions were soundly defeated. This is very
significant. These acts and these resolutions were brought forward
and voted on by cattle producers all across this great province.

The Speaker: The hon. member, please.

Mr. Groeneveld: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My next question is
also to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. In
spite of this good news were there any other resolutions out there
that we would like to hear about?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Berger: Yes. Mr. Speaker, there was also another resolution
calling for a review of those acts, including the Alberta Land
Stewardship Amendment Act, 2011, referred to as Bill 10. That,
too, was soundly defeated.
Also, I would like to congratulate the new board members,
those being Doug Sawyer, Dave Solverson, and Greg Bowie.
These folks represent grassroots cattle producers all across this
great province, and I thank them for the job they do.

Mr. Groeneveld: In spite of the question, it's very important, Mr.
Speaker, certainly. Obviously, this government is on the right
track.My final question is to the Premier. Can the Premier tell us in
light of these resolutions what actions this government may be
considering as we move forward?

Ms Redford: Well, Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to see
that resolution at ABP, and the reason is that we know these are
pieces of legislation that property owners in Alberta are very
concerned about right now. We've already announced a property
rights task force as well as a review of transmission with respect
to needs north-south. We know that in Alberta we need to grow
economically. We know that one of the ways to do that is to
ensure that we have an integrated land management system. We
know that that has to respect property rights, and what we know is
that the best way to ensure that we're doing that is to listen to the
people that have those rights and then make subsequent
amendments to the legislation.

[farmers_son]

It is interesting how George Groeneveld, who by any standard is not a friend of ABP or most cattle producers and will go down in history as being on record telling cattle producers they should exit the industry, has chosen to spin the outcome of those resolutions.

The resolutions were exactly not as Gorgeous George Groeneveld represented to the Legislature. They were not “clean and simple” resolutions. Those resolutions all had an extra provision such as until something else happens. If the government wishes to believe that the cattle producers assembled at the ABP AGM were in any way in favour of these bills then the government is deluding itself. And governments that choose to live in a delusional world are soon replaced.

ABP has chosen to on the inside working to improve these bills rather than to be on the outside. I too know the allure of going to government pitchfork in hand and shouting my anger at something the government has done. Unfortunately that seldom, if ever, gets any results. The government can simply chose not to listen. Even though it is not as much fun, formulating reasoned responses and working with government tends to be more productive.

I for one cannot wait for Gorgeous George Groeneveld to be gone once and for all. Danielle Smith is running in his riding. Good riddance to George.

[grassfarmer]

I'd be interested to read the wording of those resolutions F_S - is there any way you could post these? I'd be interested also in reading the supply management one that I queried in another post if indeed it existed. TIA

[farmers_son]

I searched the ABP site but could not find the 2011 resolutions. The 2010 resolutions plus a video of the debate is there but that is not what you are asking for. Lori C. was really good at getting that kind of information up on Agriville but I think she is still on maternity leave.

What does TIA stand for...

[smcgrath76]

It is either Thanks In Advance or a form
of stroke.
I think ABP is treading on very thin ice
with these bills (not necessarily from
their own making). On the one hand Gov
essentially restricted them in a
previous go round and on the other
producers may feel their interests in
regard to these bills are not being
dealt with so will pull their funds
back. A tough row to hoe.
I too would be interested in seeing the
resolutions.

[farmers_son]

I am reminded that several years ago there was a resolution before ABP to the effect that ABP ask George Groeneveld to resign as Ag Minister. That resolution was defeated. I suppose George Groeneveld would take that as meaning ABP supported him. Not so!

It is wrong to brand any organization on the basis of resolutions that are defeated. When the ABP delegates defeated the resolution asking the Ag Minister to resign it could be that ABP was choosing other means to work with the Ag Minister to improve what was a very difficult situation. Even though they might privately wished he would have resigned.

Now I do not know, but I think it more reasonable to assume that when ABP defeated the resolutions on those Bills that ABP was looking to improve those bills some other way than asking for them to be repealed or rescinded. To do that would have totally excluded ABP from ever being able to lobby for improvements.

It does not surprise me that Groeneveld tried to spin it some other way.

[smcgrath76]

FS - agreed, however nuance does not
always engage public opinion. That is a
real difficulty in politics and a world of
soundbytes. Nuance requires understanding
to be effective, and the challenge is that
funding often comes from more obtuse
methodologies...

[ASRG]

I think we have to realize they didn't just reject "repeal" but also resoundingly rejected "review".....which is totally against Premier Redfords stated purpose of the upcoming task force to "address landowners concerns with the four land bills"? ABP and Evan Berger are obviously not operating on the same page as Premier Redford?
It is unfortunate that tommorrow in Nisku the ABP will be standing before that very task force saying they are not opposed to the task force reviewing the land bills?
Incidently I will be addressing that same task force in Airdrie on Dec. 19th. I will not be supporting both a review and a repeal! I will be in good company with Keith Wilson.

[grassfarmer]

So can you provide the wording of the defeated resolutions ASRG?

[Kathy]

This is all I have to say:

A request for a refund must be submitted:
* during the month of July each year in respect of the $1.00 non-refundable levy and a $2.00 Alberta service charge, paid from January to June of that year, or
* during the month of January each year in respect of the $1.00 non-refundable levy and a $2.00 Alberta service charge, paid from July to December of the previous year.

A producer is not entitled to a refund if the request for a refund of the service charge is not submitted to ABP in the months of July and January, as the case may be, unless ABP decides to accept the request on being satisfied that extenuating circumstances warrant doing so. : Timing of the payment of the refund
* Refund requests submitted in July will be paid by October 31 of the year in which the request is submitted, and
* Refund requests submitted in January will be paid by April 1 of the year in which the request was submitted.

Requests for refunds must be submitted to the ABP office, Attention ABP Controller

by Canada Post or courier,
320, 6715 8th Street NE
Calgary, AB T2E 7H7,
by fax (403) 451-1188, or
by e-mail to refunds@albertabeef.org

[farmers_son]

A quick call to my ABP delegate confirmed that the word "review" was never part of those resolutions. Mr. Berger was mistaken. I guess he is still learning the job or else some government staffer attending the AGM got his wires crossed.

[ASRG]

The AGM report isn't out yet, however Evan Berger spoke to the AGM on land issues (agenda) on Dec 6/11, followed by a debate on the ABP position.
On December 2/11 Berger, John Knapp, and a represntative from Alberta Environment met in a "special session" with Doug Sawyer(new chair) and Dave Solverson (vice chair) to discuss land issues.
The post above involving Groenveld/Berger was from hansard Dec. 7th.
If Berger was giving false information in the legislature (on purpose or in error) the ABP should be contacting the house leaders? They get excited when information they get in the house isn't correct.

[ASRG]

Reflecting further on this I find it hard to believe the delegates would be so dumb to "resoundingly defeat" a motion to review.....especially when Redford had already named a task force to review the bills?
Berger misled the house (intentionally or otherwise).......I hope not intentionally.....but when you are at the ABP AGM one day...and report incorrectly on it the next day in the legislature....Uh, that doesn't look very good?
I suspect he'll get called on it tommorrow at the task force meeting in Nisku? The ABP is presenting tommorrow at Nisku....I would assume they will straighten Berger out? I'll report tommorrow.

[farmers_son]

I have to believe my delegate when he tells me the resolutions in question did not include the word review.

I am not sure if this is hijacking a thread or not (property rights versus water rights) but I was very interested when I read further down the same Hansard report for December 7.

There was a question about water rights that really raised some red flags for me. Is the province looking to sell our wather to the Americans?

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/Documents/isysquery/f0a5beef-6333-4bba-bc98-e97ea35cf61d/1/doc/

2:20 Water Management

Ms Notley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Parkland Institute report
that I tabled yesterday states that to date the Tories have only
explored market options to water allocation and are intent on
moving towards a deregulated provincial water market. Such a
move would leave the allocation of water up to the highest bidder.
My question is to the Deputy Premier. Given that this move would
extend water rights to foreign ownership and other private
interests and would pit them against ordinary Albertans in a
bidding war that, at the very least, would result in higher water
prices, will this government commit to legislation that declares
water a public trust and protects Alberta consumers?

Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it's pretty obvious that
Albertans value their greatest resource in this province, which is
water. Right next to that the greatest resource is people, and when
you put the two things together you can come up with some
research and some planning that will protect our most valuable
resource and build for the future of this province, and that's
exactly what we intend to do.

Ms Notley: Well, Mr. Speaker, given that in the current water
allocation system Alberta Environment is taking only 10 per cent
of its holdback clause for environmental purposes only 60 per cent
of the time and given that water markets are priced only on
economic indicators, why won't this government commit to a
water allocation strategy that makes environmental integrity a
priority over the free market and guarantees environmental
sustainability for Albertans now and in the future?

Mr. Horner: Mr. Speaker, environmental sustainability is extremely
important to this province for a whole raft of reasons, not the


December 7, 2011 Alberta Hansard 1721

least of which are our economic and our social reasons. In fact,
that's why Alberta, I believe, was one of the first provinces to
come out with a water for life strategy, which we are pursuing.
That strategy is an overarching strategy that combines not only
securing water for the future of Alberta's economic development
but also environmental protection and agriculture.

[ASRG]

Water pricing is going to be a big deal. I participate in the water for life stratedgy through the Red Deer River Watershed Alliance. At a recent workshop the "government moderators" were definitely pushing us toward a pricing structure.
I recently got a memo from a synergy group reporting the town of Sundre was selling waste water to hydro fracking companies for $5.50/cube. I got a further note that Drayton Valley was doing the same for $7.50/cube.
Yes it is waste water...but it will be taken out of the water cycle forever?
I assume both of these towns have licenses to draw water......and they are selling it? What is with that!
Why can't you and I sell water (not access to water....but actual water)? I sell "access" all the time, in the 2000 cubes range....if I could sell that water for $5.50-$7.50/cube.....which is the market price range established by Sundre and Drayton.....I should be getting between $11,000 and $15,000 per well? Believe me I'm not getting that! If I was I'd be busy building more dugouts!