Alberta Animal Health Act (unproclaimed)

[Kathy]

You know I really don't have time to do this today, so bare with my short notes on the subject of implementation of the new "Animal Livestock and Meat Strategy" VIA the as yet, unproclaimed Alberta "Animal Health Act" which was pushed through in the first half of 2007.

Link: http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Acts/A40P2.cfm?frm_isbn=9780779728060

There are approximately 89 references to the word "premises". MOST of the references referring to this subject are prefixed by the word "QUARANTINED".

The Animal Health Act (Bill 32 - 2007)gives the Minister the right to grant "LICENCES".

Under Part 9 Licenses, section 43(4)it reads:

"(4) The Minister may issue a licence under this section for any purpose specified in the regulations and subject to any terms and conditions the Minister considers appropriate."

Think about this one for a while.

Similar to wording in the "Declaration of Applicant" for AgiStability, where-in all the rules and decisions are at the "discretion of the AFSC".

So maybe for now, the Minister says ranchers don't have to have a licence to raise cattle on their land - but really, how long will that last?

(Not just cattle)

At the Minister's discretion via "regulation" this can be changed; a "production licence" will be MANDATORY.

Remember, the AB government can change the regulations without any debate in the Legislature. That's what they like to call "enabling" legislation.

According to the government's website, these are the dates for Bill 32 the AB Animal Health Act:
[note dates are all 2007] -

Bill 32 — Animal Health Act (Groeneveld)
First Reading — 670 (Apr. 19 aft.)
Second Reading — 754-57 (May 1 aft.), 1070 (May 10 aft., passed)
Committee of the Whole — 1520-25 (Jun. 4 eve., passed)
Third Reading — 1710-11 (Jun. 12 aft., passed)
Royal Assent — (Jun. 14 aft.) [Comes into force on proclamation; SA 2007 cA-40.2 ]


Bill 32 HAS NOT been proclaimed as of today (July 23, 2008). What are they waiting for? Just take some time to review the act, while keeping in mind that licencing of "animal and/or meat producers" IS (in my opinion) the end-game. Perhaps even a "supply management system" similar to the dairy industry.

That's the Alberta Advantage folks, NO property rights!!!!!!!!!

I'll be back next week. IF any of you are in the Hanna, AB area for this weekend, please come to the 11th Annual Old Time Music Jamboree, hosted by my hubby's band "Yesteryear" July 25-27.

[smcgrath76]

I think the issue is not so much premises ID as it is the word Mandatory.
Does Mandatory mean, if I participate in the program and take cheque #2 then I have to do the list of things, or does mandatory mean, everyone has to do this regardless?
The mandatory list we recieved at home included:
age verification
premises registration
movement tracking
carcass data reporting
on farm food safety
etc.
I don't argue with these concepts (they are good management tools). If these cattle really are in such hot demand then all someone has to do is offer me a contract and a cheque. Pretty easy.

[Kathy]

I didn't make an important comment earlier.

I spoke with Marshall Ellison of the AB Gov. He was "the guy" who was supposed to have the most info on Premise ID.

He stated that the Livestock and Meat Strategy will be implemented under the AB Animal Health Act. He didn't say this act was not proclaimed yet.

He was of the understanding that this program, with all its Mandatory requirements would eventually be legislated (law); and that this government would implement it soon (presumably) before the Jan 2009 dead-line to comply.

All I can tell, is the LM strategy will likely be pushed through as a regulation under this act. However, I will again try to get the truth from our Minister and/or my MLA. Ultimately the legislature members are the ones that have to move to make this mandatory by law.

How do you push it through as a regulation, when the act it is under has not been proclaimed yet.... and this same act references "premises" without any "definition" for premises.

Where is the legal definition of premises for this Act?

However, if you can get the ranchers to voluntarily sign up for a premise ID, then it is a heck of alot easier to implement the definition/legislation than if the legislature has to be the heavy. The cash payouts, which Groenveld says will be the very last, are a bribe. Add his little comment about doing things his way or the highway, and that money and this program becomes extortion.

So why rush to cash your cheques, wait for the government to make the requirements mandatory by law. See what the legal jargen is, before you sign away your future. You know alot of guys aren't happy with this program. 80% of the 300 people at the Woodland Ranchers Association meeting are reported to have voted against this plan.

I know when the Oil and Gas industry sit down at my kitchen table and lie to me, and try to screw me on rentals - all say that they will only do what the law requires them to do - no more.

Marshall also said Quebec has this program up and running all ready. Of course, most of the beef in Quebec is dairy and already under a supply management system.

I'd be interested in seeing data from Quebec since they implemented their traceability program... what has it done for their cattle prices? What are the rules they are glued to?

[loric]

I should have put this on earlier- but it's been advertised elsewhere. There are some town hall meetings taking place across Alberta regarding the strategy plan. You can find them on the ABP homepage www.albertabeef.org as a link. There may be more added as they are scheduled. I'll be at the Rimbey meeting this evening.

[sagewood]

Having just finished hours of haying work, I have just had time to read all you are saying about the 'honorable' George's edict to the cattle people. I got the letter a few weeks back and was concerned about the tone of it then and further--there was no explanation about the mandated requirements--just a word or two of description and then a deadline to be met. I suspected that when BSE hit this country that it was the beginning of the end for the cattle industry as we knew it. The fact that eventually there will be a marketing board for cattle in this province is not too much of a surprise I guess given that the big operators would like to take control of the industry and the 'mom and pop' operations who run 60 to 100 head will be forced out. The Alberta Disadvantage is alive and well. Small wonder cattle people are selling out and moving to Sask. Sask.'s brand of socialism is way milder than that being practised here in Ab. of late. Keep up the good work and let us know what is happening with this bill and what all this compliance mumbo-jumbo means. For sure the government edict just gave demands and deadlines, with no explanation of what any of it meant.

[smcgrath76]

Don't forget the sheep and goat guys will also be affected. Additionally if the move is legislated then it won't matter if a producer takes their cheque or not, they will still have to comply (pending enforcement).
Another interesting thing that people have stopped talking about is cattle out of province. I have really been thinking about this and see two possible scenarios.
Everyone will be subject to costs related to MCOOL, regardless of location, for cattle going to the US.
Producers in other provinces who send cattle stateside will have a cost advantage if they market cattle into the US as they will not have to face all of the compliance costs Albertan producers do, however producers who wish to market cattle into AB, will likely face the same costs as AB producers with no government assistance.
I have maintained all along that from a strictly management point of view all of the proposed "mandatories" can be described to have some value, however no one has yet been able to explain to me where the extra $ to cover the cost of implementation is going to come from. I fail to see these magical new markets that are being discussed. Particularly in light of current WTO negotiations and the Canadian governments untenable negotiating position. If someone wants cattle that meet all these criteria, then they need to show up at my house with a contract and a cheque.
Forcing everyone into the same mold eliminates a lot of opportunity for niche marketers. Additionally, I have a personal issue with something that forces a lot of producers to give up their herds when they built it and paid for it with their own money.
Further I have a real fundamental problem with governments throwing monkeywrenches into the works when there is enough to do with long term business planning and day to day adjustments of that plan. It is extremely difficult to risk manage the government's effect on our operation.
I appreciate that the dairy guys never ask for money, they just raise the price of milk, but I personally don't think it is socially responsible for Canadians to only supply the domestic market given our vast wealth of resources.
I was pissed when I heard the announcement and I am still that way today, however moving forward I am trying to figure out how our operation and myself can work within the new system (however stupid I think that system may be).
Frankly, if I had known I could purchase the entire AB Beef industry for a mere $356 million, I might have tried to borrow the money myself.

[Kathy]

I strongly urge everyone to download and print out the AB Animal Health ACT (AAHA).

As things stand right now, the ALMS strategy is still going to be implemented as a regulation under this ACT (unproclaimed).

The AAHA is designed to make the owners of cattle obey the rules set forth in this act, which can include applying for a "qualification license" for being a rancher.... if the Minister should see fit.

The ACT illegally gives the Minister the power under section 9 (43)(1) to "issue or refuse to issue any of the following licences:.... (e)any other licence prescribed in the regulations."

43(1)(e) is illegal and deceptive. It gives the Minister powers over ANYBODY involved with the Livestock and Meat Industry (at his discretion without a vote in the legislature). This illegal power must be "reigned in"... Section 43(1)(e) must be removed!

Also note that compensation payouts are also at the discretion of the Minister, and if producers and other licensees don't "co-operate with the strategy"... they will ensure that upon a reportable disease (or syndrome) scenario - those that don't comply will be left out to dry.

I'd say this pretty much gives up all control of your ranching operation to the government.

I note that the ads in the paper say this is what you'll have to do "in order to qualify for the second payment"... However, there is no documentation as to when the LAW granting them 'supreme power' over our land and activities... will be proclaimed.

"30(2) The Minister may refuse to authorize compensation or may reduce the amount of compensation authorized

(a) if the owner has failed to comply with an order, direction or request made by an inspector,

(b) if the owner had failed to implement biosecurity measures as specified in the regulations,

(c) if the owner has failed to comply with this Act,

(d) if the owner has failed to comply with a statutory duty directly related to the animal or the reportable disease, or

e) for any other reason provided for in the regulations.

(3) Neither the owner nor the operator of a vehicle, railway car, aircraft or watercraft is entitled to compensation in respect of anything required to be done under section 37."

[Kathy]

We received our packages for premise identification this week. Oddly enough, the sheets included a reference to "stable" - that would include horses then, I ass u me.

The idea of paying the ranchers, et al. in the meat industry to sign up for the premise identification number by December 30, 2008 is very similar to paying the Canadian public to go and get their passports BEFORE the new law comes into play that will require us to have passports to cross the Canadian/American border - on land - . Do you see the governments paying people to get their passports? NO. So the true purpose of having the rancher VOLUNTARILY apply for their premise identification number, must have some significance.... as they are willing to pay big bucks to have it done before the law is enacted.

Perhaps the recent ads in the papers on the new zones for mandatory and voluntary deer/elk head submissions for CWD has some connection. ALL the hunting zones on the border with Sask, between Cold Lake and the USA border are "mandatory submission zones", and the ones just to the west are all now "voluntary submission zones".

Perhaps this zoning will be passed onto the cattle industry. AS per the AB Animal Health Act which declares [in the case animals are diseases or exposed to the disease causing agent] it will impose "Surveillance Zones", "Control Zones", and if a positive is found "Quarantine Zones"....

Just remember something important here.

Your animals do not have to be sick, they do not have to have a specific disease. They need only be EXPOSED to an agent, which can include a toxin or chemical - and not just the conventional agents: bacteria & virus.

As many as 12 of the 55 CWD positive deer found in Alberta were NOT found to have prions in their brain tissue, but did have a positive signal in their lymph nodes. This is important, because it shows they did not have CWD, but were only exposed to the AGENT.

So, if for example, the government in their infinite wisdom determines there was something in our fertilizer, drilling mud, city waste etc. that was applied to the land where cattle graze, or on crops which are fed to cattle(all livestock) are raised/grown,.... they can "monitor" and potentially restrict the movement of your animals or feed.

This is not a marketing strategy, ALMS, it is a 'control strategy'. Considering the litany of potential toxins and chemicals that could be on the list..... the game is a crap shoot, no land is guaranteed safe.

There is a significant meaning in having you VOLUNTARILY submit for the program requirements BEFORE the law is enacted.

If I have my way, it will not be enacted for a long time. A judicial review of the AB Animal Health Act is in order.