Directional Levy

[rkaiser]

Lots of talk at the ABP policy review meetings about the potential for a directional levy.

The folks on the policy review committee from outside ABP talked about it at the AGM.

Two resolutions concerning the levy at the AGM were defeated of course, but it sounds like almost everyone outside of ABP is looking at change.

Any thoughts farmers_son? Do you think that ABP could conduct an independent poll or maybe even put the question to the producers themselves rather than the delegates, board members, or executive?

[gcreekrch]

Ohhh, you guys are are stirring it up over there. Went to a sale yesterday. Am hearing some talk about a directional levy over here now, it would be nice to determine where my $ go.

[gwfl]

The suggestion of a “Directional levy” would suggest that producers would have the option to continue to support the ABP as we are now, or direct all, or perhaps a portion of their check off dollars to some other entity. At the moment there are no clear alternatives that will enhance the well being of producers in the cattle business. It would seem a little premature to suggest that any decisive question be asked until a clearer picture immerges for an alternative.

It is very clear that the present relationship of producers to the market place cannot be sustained. Either the cow numbers have to decline to where we are able to serve the domestic market in Canada or we have to seek alternative markets for our beef. The Canada Gold concept is about the only viable alternative at the moment. Until we have more information and a better understanding of how it will benefit producers, the “Directional Levy” question should be put on hold for a while.

[per]

gwlf, you talk about the most encouraging thing to happen in our industry being the Canada Gold Concept. I agree. The concept was born outside of and even bucked and stonewalled by the ABP. Not just recently but for several years. I can think of several places that our checkoff dollars could go to good use. Not the lease of which could include one of the other four groups that were tenacious enough to continue without the support of the ABP.

[per]

No disrespect meant getting your name wrong, gwfl.

[grassfarmer]

I don't understand the thinking in this province - so much is stated about marketing choice, free enterprise, the right to choose and the wish to keep Government out of our lives.
Why then do we seek to change the destination of the current ABP levy to anything other than "to any organisation of the producer's choosing or to no organisation at all if the producer feels that way."
I don't think we have to "pick a winner" - one group that represents all producers interests best and award it sole levy funding. I know this is how Albertans seem to choose their Governments but it is not a wise use of democracy. A better option is to remove the levy funding from ABP and any other producer groups that are similarly funded and then all groups are on a level playing field. This way the groups would compete to represent producers interests and they would actually listen to their members or they would be out of business pretty quick. This is the way to ensure dynamic and democratic representation of producers interests. You only have to look at ABP to see the result of awarding sole levy funding to one group - an irrelevant, empire building group that works against the interests of it's producer members as often as it works for their interests.

One thing is clear we can have no Government or Corporate involvement in deciding which if any groups receive levy funding. The recent case of the Wild Rose producer group's treatment by Minister Groenveld should set alarm bells off in everyones heads. Not considering a group's eligibility for funding until they have changed their views to mirror those of the Government is absolutely undemocratic and unacceptable. Far better that no group receive funding than some be picked to acts as puppets of Government and Big Business.

[rkaiser]

I won't agree that there are no currently viable alternatives to ABP right now. There are lots of them. The key will be how to decide which ones are allowed. I agree with grassfarmer saying that the government should not decide. The number of alternatives need to be limited simply due to accounting and administration.

I will not agree with a refundable levy. Far too much apathy in this industry as it is. Those who pay will be rewarded by the group they support, and if the group is not performing, the producer will have the option of redirecting to a group he feels will do a better job for him/her. Choice is a concept left out of the current ABP/CCA system.

I would suggest that the list would only include organisations that are solely structured to benefit the beef industry.

Like I have said before - don't worry about BIG C looking for funds, we are going to slowly let Canada Gold take over our time and commitment and will let groups like the Western Stock Growers and Alberta Cattle Feeders lead the political charge.

[grassfarmer]

Whoa Randy - "The key will be how to decide which ones are allowed." and "The number of alternatives need to be limited simply due to accounting and administration." are rather socialist ideals surely? How can this be in redneck Alberta - what happened to freedom of choice etc?

The NFU exists at the moment as a directly funded producer representative group. It gets no levy money and has no source of income other than producer memberships - why can't the other groups be the same?
I don't quite follow how allowing a refundable levy promotes apathy. If you don't allow that but instead have a directional levy how do you address the apathy problem? Would the apathetic suddenly become enthusiastic and start deciding which group to direct their funds to? I suspect not and if they don't what happens to their levy share - does it remain with ABP - would ABP continue as the default producer group for those who choose not to direct their money anywhere in particular?

I think the suggestion that "the list would only include organisations that are solely structured to benefit the beef industry." is dangerous. First it should be the aim to benefit "beef producers" not the "beef industry" - too much of the work ABP undertakes is done to aid the "beef industry" which in fact is the "beef packing industry". Nothing against beef packers but their campaigns should not be funded by beef producers dollars.
Second do I take this to mean groups like the NFU, Wild rose producers etc wouldn't be eligible for funding because they represent producers from all sectors of agriculture? I think that is a big mistake, I feel the idea that producer groups must be commodity specific is detremental as they spend most of their time fighting with commodity groups involved with other sectors of agriculture. If farmers are ever to unite and achieve anything politically they might be better uniting under one banner - producers - not beef producers, dairy producers and grain producers.

[rkaiser]

I'll stand corrected on Beef Producers vs Beef Industry. You are right about that one grassfarmer.

I may have chosen the wrong word when I said apathy as well. What I mean is that if the levy becomes refundable, many will simply opt out of paying anything. Mostly due to their disgust with ABP/CCA I would suggest.

The "producers" in our industry need a fund to deal with issues that affect beef producers. And I don't think that a voluntary checkoff will cut it. We all still have the "option" of paying membership to the organisation we feel represents our personal needs the best, ie NFU or Wild Rose, but do not see how directing the beef producer levy to one of these two organisations will find those dollars working only for the beef producers.

As far as farmers working together---- great. But I think that is a separate issue to the beef producer levy. If the NFU or the Wild Rose groups feel they need more funding, they will need to find alternate routes other than directional levy funding from particular industries.

If the NFU or Wild Rose would like to request funding from the ABP/CCA, I think they have the right now. (as profound as that may seem)

This is the system that I am talking about needing change.

I would not call my ideas socialist grassfarmer, unless you want to call the current ABP/CCA one party direction and control of the levy communist.

I feel that it is simply a matter of choice while continuing to cause a certain amount of monetary involvement from all beef producers.

[grassfarmer]

Communist, socialist or extreme capitalist call it what you like, the result is the same - democracy is not, and will not prosper in this province until people learn to use it.

I don't know that I would agree that producers need a "fund to deal with issues that affect beef producers". I know this is the way producer or "commodity" groups are set up but what does that fund actually buy you?
At the level that could be funded by voluntary membership dues I would suggest that a minimal staffed office could be run to co-ordinate dialogue between producers and the organisation and dialogue between the organisation and Government on the behalf of said producers. This is what I see as the role of producer organisations. Bear in mind that whether we have ABP or another producer group the Government has a democratic duty to meet with representatives of producers.
This should not be seen as a privilige that only one government approved organisation is entitled to.


It should not be the role of the levy funded producer organisation to fly salesmen around the world promoting Canadian or Alberta (Cargill and Tyson) beef - remember producers are sellers of live cattle not beef. As such the packers/retailers need to fund their own sales drives. Retailers could equally foot the bill for the BIC activities that deal with consumer advice/school programs.
Programs like the environmental "producer of the year" should not be producer funded - this could equally well be funded by Government through the Environmental Farm Plan program.

I really question how many of the producer funded activities currently undertaken are of any benefit to producers. How many million $ were spent suing R-CALF - did that achieve anything for anybody? Having a "political presence" in Washington costs a lot of money but does it achieve anything? - for producers?

Having a $13 million annual budget like ABP has maybe fooled a lot of producers into believing the idea that we are all part of this big, efficient "industry" growing cattle on our Alberta ranches that "we" supply to "our" customers in Asia or New York.
Look around at what's happening and it tells a different story. A cow-calf sector crippled by below cost of production prices forced on them by an increasingly concentrated and desperate feedlot sector. Feedlots themselves either sitting pretty on very small margins if they chose/were forced into, a captive supply/contract feeding arrangement with a packer or out in the cold if they didn't ally with a packer and instead only get one bid on their cattle each week and have about 30 seconds to accept it.

Until we accept the reality that producers are in an unfair, un-winnable battle with corporate packers and processors and decide to use our democratic process to alleviate that situation our troubles will continue.
We must make Government accountable for the situation their poor legislation and corporate puppeteering has created.

[rkaiser]

As most of your post concerns ABP/CCA grassfarmer, I wont' argue.

I would like to discuss democratic policy in our industry however and how far out of touch the current ABP/CCA system is.

Taxes are a form of levy - are they not? When the government of Canada or the government of Alberta collects Tax, the party's that have shown they have a certain amount of public support receive some of that tax money to operate. We may not have the perfect democracy here in Canada but it is a hell of a lot better than most countries in the world. This sharing of funds with party's that do not tow the ruling party line is what makes government accountable (or at least party accountable).

We have nothing like this with ABP/CCA. The levy (tax) goes in to the one party coffers and is dealt with as this small and often arrogant group feel right.

What I am trying to suggest is a more democratic model for the levy (tax) which I do feel is necessary for our "Cattle Industry".

I do not agree with the current model any more than you do grassfarmer, but see potential for groups like Canada Gold or even the Alberta Cattle Feeders Association to help the entire cattle industry with money from a levy.

I do not believe we will see the levy removed. We can either keep paying the boys over at ABP/CCA to spend it foolishly suing or smooshing Americans, or we can challenge the government to allow us choice.

If you think that all organisations need to be member organisations grassfarmer -- I will have to agree to disagree.

[grassfarmer]

Fair enough, my idea of voluntary membership funded organisations may be idealistic. I agree it will be a big enough challenge to get any of the levy refundable, or directable by producers and that scrapping the levy all together is unlikely to happen.
If that is the situation how do you address my earlier question of whether ABP would remain the default recipient of levy funding in the case of producers who choose not to redirect their levy?

[rkaiser]

Good question grassfarmer. Don't have any suggestions. I assume that there will be die hard ABP/CCA folks that will choose to stay with the status quo ---- Hell old farmers_son might even throw in an extra buck a head just to help pay for the office space and the board table that rivals any lawyers office in downtown Calgary.

I might say that leftover funds from those who do not chose an organisation get split between the representative groups in a fair way. Maybe go by the previous years monetary direction.