ABP meeting

[grassfarmer]

I'll give my view of last nights meeting for those that couldn't attend.
Crowd was around 60 excluding ABP speakers and directors - better than I expected seeing they managed to miss the print deadline of every paper in the zone.
We had a speech from Eric Butters telling us that ABP have hired a top Washington law firm to represent us. He explained the timelines of possible court proceedings etc. He also seemed totally convinced that R-CALF are the only ones wanting to keep the border close.

We had a speech from Kee Jim, an obviously intelligent guy but working off an old script. I suspect he was using a speech written for the AGM last December as it spoke of the good prices producers had received last fall for calves given the exchange rate and that feedlots would be in a profitable position fattening these calves. Personally I thought everyone reckoned that all the calves sold after November will bring losses to the feedlots at current fat prices. He was assuring us that the system we had pre BSE worked fine and that if we just wait those conditions will reappear.

Next we had Lloyd ??? an Alberta MLA who was a real piece of work. Absolutely supports the packer monopoly and seemingly doesn't understand the difference between competition and monopoly. Insisted also that we should concentrate on the US market as it was the biggest and best paying market in the world. He even stated why would you want to export $2 beef to places like Japan and Asia when you have the good ole US right next door. (Damn those Americans must be stupid trying to break back into that $2 Japanese market!)

Then we had a talk by Chris Giffen of CCIA which was predictably rather dull - outlining the stuff we already know.

The panelists then made a real politicians job of not answering the questions asked from the floor. Mr Butters seemed particularily slick in this respect.
After that we managed to raise two resolutions - one that a plebisite should be held on the issue of the BIG initiative and it's checkoff. (Correct me if i'm wrong on the details of that one Randy)
Secondly a resolution that US cattle imported into Canada be subjected to the same ridiculous rules they are proposing on our cattle going south.
Both were carried with no opposition.

So there we have it - thanks to the local organisers who created the opportunity to discuss. No thanks (in my opinion) to the clowns that hold the power - it's clear producers are on their own.

[kpb]

Kee Jim is one of the big players in the Sunterra proposal. I'd like someone to show me how any calf bought in December, January or February is going to even break-even for the feedlots. There's going to be big losses on those. The ones bought before December should break-even or make a little.
With Kaiser's plebiscite proposal getting passed, does that mean we'll actually get to vote on the BIG C packing plant idea? Or are there a few more lengthy steps to take for that to happen?

kpb

[farmers_son]

Just curious, given there were 60 people in attendance I am wondering if the discussion here in Agri-ville helped build awareness of this meeting. Any thoughts?

[grassfarmer]

Don't be ridiculous kpb! the resolution will be taken to the mid summer ABP meeting where it will be decided whether the directors want to submit it or not (my understanding).

Farmers_son, there were certainly 4 Agriville folks there, don't know if Emrald made it. This is the only place I saw the event mentioned as I still never heard a radio ad. Other than than there were about the usual 6 outspoken individuals, mainly from this immediate area plus their quiet but faithfull supporters from nearby. There were also a few NFU members that travelled from the Camrose area plus some individuals from elsewhere that I didn't know.

[grassfarmer]

grassfarmer, I really appreciate your synopsis of the meeting. I was all ready to leave and my darn cow that usually has twins decided it was time to calve, so I thought I better stick around home.
The MLA you spoke of is Lloyd Snellgrove, the Chair of the Standing Policy Committee on Agriculture and Municipal Affairs. I plan on attending Saturday's meeting at Northlands, so it will be interesting to see if there are any changes to the 'messages'
Good for you, Randy and the rest of the attendees for getting resolutions passed. Do they now go to the AGM in the fall or will the be dealt with earlier than that ?

[pandiana]

I was told the head count was 76. Not that different than 60 when we were counting on 200. Without a doubt, advertising in the local papers would have helped. Many individuals said they had not heard the radio ads. This was a serious shortcoming.

I thought the structure of the meeting was very good, with over 1 hour left open for questions from the floor followed by an opportunity for resolutions. Talks were restricted to 15 minutes.

Personally, I was very disappointed that the government representative was, by his own admission, not very well informed on many of the areas of most concern to producers in attendance.

Regarding the 2nd resolution: resolution that US cattle imported into Canada be subjected to the same ridiculous rules they are proposing on our cattle going south.
Both were carried with no opposition. I notice that CFIA has its' new rule posted re import of US cattle. : The proposed regulations were posted for comment in Canada Gazette, Part 1, on January 30th and will be posted to Canada Gazette, Part II, on March 31st. " Under the circumstances, with the March 7 rejection of Canadian cattle, this is a real sore spot for many Canadians producers. Canada again is taking the 'high road' while the US laughs.

[rkaiser]

Step 1 kpb. Looking back to last falls producer meetings, I guess we could have had a request for a plebicite then.

Hind sight.

The resolution called for ABP to conduct a plebecite among all Alberta Beef Producers to either accept or reject the New Business Model proposed by Beef Initiative Group Canada.

Yes it was passed at this level unanimously, but so were dozens of other resolutions last fall. It will go to the Semi Annual meeting by the sounds of it, to be accepted or rejected by the delegates.

It will be a while yet kbp, but at least we've made a step.

I was somewhat encouraged by the response from Eric Butters and Kee Jim. Kee talked of ABPCCA favouring BSE testing to satisfy customer demand, and Eric had one holdup from accepting the BIG C proposal; that being a mandatory checkoff. Had a good talk after the meeting with Eric Butters, and thanked one of the organizers, Arnold Hanson, for helping get Cam invited to speak at the next ABP Forum in Edmonton on the 2nd of April.

Farmer_son - turnout was likely affected by agriville, and I will say again that what we say on this site is being seen by more people than the few of us that post.

I was told that my initial question (in all of it's length) was pasted and emailed to more ABP delegates including the current chairman.

I find it a lot more comfortable to sit at home and discuss things with you guys while others check in on us now and again. I am talking about the comparison to public meetings where my blood boils one moment, and I fall asleep the next. Damn bipolarity. Just kidding, but not really. Some folks like Cam can stand in there whether challenged by a heckler or George Bush himself (like that would be a real challenge), but I tend to nerve up, and handle the one on one's much better.

Overall I would say a succesful meeting for ABP, and those with opposition to the norm. Conversation and discussion like this is vital to forward movement.

[pandiana]

Sorry I didn't get back to report on this meeting sooner, but had a bit of farming to catch up on.

Yes, farmer_son, I think Agri-ville had a significant influence on the meeting. There are still a number of idividuals who read Agri-ville but don't post. I was aware of at least a few of these that were there.

[farmers_son]

The ABP semi annual is 3 months away.

This is a time for action. Sitting back and waiting for 3 months is not action, it is inaction. It is a poor excuse to do nothing.

When that border did not open March 7, the ABP should have considered holding an emergency meeting of the delegates to decide a new course of action. Our organizations need to get busy on solutions. The people south of the border see our inaction and take comfort and strength in knowing that they can take their sweet time in opening the border to live cattle.

As I understand the timelines for the various appeals and court dates, nothing is going to happen between now and July especially if the NMA appeal is squashed. There is nothing to be gained by waiting. The border will have been closed for 2 years in a couple of months and precious little headway has been made on the opening the border or the increase packing plant front. That kind of inaction is irresponsible and should not be tolerated by producers.

If the ABP strategy is just lay low and wait for Japan to resume trade with the U.S. than for goodness sakes just say so. The uncertainty is killing the industry.

Next June is way too long to wait for any pretense of action. When that border did not open March 7, our organizations should have been getting real busy on finding real solutions that would work. Legal action is neither here nor there. We need packing capacity now, not later and either the ABP is part of the solution or they are part of the problem. We’ve got enough problems.

I ask you, when is the ABP going to actually do something. What does it take to get their attention. For goodness sakes the border not opening on March 7 should have been a call to arms for any responsible organization that even pretends to represent producer’s best interests.

Wait another 3 months for a meeting? Our industry will not survive such a lack of initiative and our lack of motivation will be our downfall.

[farmers_son]

I am hearing the radio ads for the meeting at Northlands on a regular basis on CFCW. I think that it is a good move on ABP's part to hold this session during the Farm and Ranch show, although the 10:00 AM start might be a bit early for folks that have any chores to get done and travel to Edmonton.

[gwf]

Good for you Randy. It sounds like you made the motion at the ABP meeting. I think that is great and what is even better, is that it was not opposed. I agree with your “hind sight” and I hope that there can be some success with other ABP meetings. As far as your conversation about the mandatory part of the levy, it has to be pretty obvious that everyone can afford the $3, but not everyone can afford the 20, 50 or 100 that it might take if it was voluntary. If Alberta were to take the lead, it would be a lot easier for the other provinces to accept the concept and be willing to participate. At $3 it going to take more than just the Alberta producers. I firmly believe that the majority of producers will accept and vote for this type of funding given the opportunity, and if the wording of the question is, clear.

[pandiana]

I agree, farmers_son, that we need to resolve this issue and that adding Canadian owned packing facilities is the one part of the solution that virtually everyone agrees with.

Assuming that ABP declared an emergency meeting of delegates, and working within the existing mandate of ABP, can you tell me exactly what you would expect to achieve at this meeting.

On this forum, we have debated this issue (packing plants) ad nauseum and I don't think we have found a concensus. If we could decide on one solution and could lobby for it I could see we might expect a resolution. I ask myself, is it producer, delegate input that is lacking or is it leadership? Or both?

farmers_son says "when is the ABP going to actually do something. What does it take to get their attention. For goodness sakes the border not opening on March 7 should have been a call to arms for any responsible organization that even pretends to represent producer’s best interests.

Wait another 3 months for a meeting? Our industry will not survive such a lack of initiative and our lack of motivation will be our downfall"

Since March 7, I believe that ABP is actually doing something. They have held several 'emergency' board meetings. They have taken more control of the legal process. It seems to me that there approach is much more aggressive than previously seen. They are putting in numerous hours working on your behalf travelling to Washington, Ottawa etc. They have supported regional Town Hall meetings to try to involve producers directly in the process.

Are they doing what is necessary to 'resolve' the situation. I don't know. I would agree that the legal aspects could take months...years to work through with no guarantee that we will win.
Therefore, I would agree that working on packing capacity would seem to be were the emphasis should be. But how? What specifically do you think ABP should be doing to support packing plant initiatives?

[rkaiser]

pandiana - I would like to say that debating the issue of packing plants on this forum HAS formed a consensus.
I do not know of anyone on here who ultimately opposes the idea of a bridge financed plant owned by producers and paid down by some sort of levy which ultimately turns into shares for producers in the said plant or plants.

Possibly the only sticking point here, and I will say at the ABP level as well, is the mandatory levy.

Kee Jim shook his head in agreement for most all of my (speech) question the other night, and stood up and defended BSE testing for market access when that dumb ass politician questioned me on the need for it.

Eric Butters outright said that the only thing that bothers him is the idea of forcing his neighbor to pay a levy. (Kind of a strange stance from someone who supports a mandatory checkoff for ABP) However his opinion is one opinion, as discussed after the meeting. If mandatory is out, then make an alternate suggestion that holds the clout of a levy across this country.

I truely beleive, pandiana, that we have a viable business model to work with here. I also believe that SOME of the executive and certainly most delegates see a lot of merit in this New business model. The groundwork is laid, focus can now be administered, and we (ABPCCA and the grassroots producers of this country) can move ahead with a common lobby.

[farmers_son]

“Assuming that ABP declared an emergency meeting of delegates, and working within the existing mandate of ABP, can you tell me exactly what you would expect to achieve at this meeting”.

The ABP through the CCA has a stated goal of increased packing capacity in Canada. However they have no action plan to carry out that policy. I do not think it is up to producers to find a consensus on how best to achieve the goal of more capacity. It is a challenge our leaders must meet. Assuming our producer organizations are sincere about increasing packing capacity, the minimum they could do is form a committee charged with the responsibility of putting three proposals before the delegate body who would choose the best two. Those two proposals could be taken to the producers in the form of a plebiscite to be voted on.

It should not be assumed that there are not viable solutions within the present mandate of the ABP. I believe there are several possible solutions and ways to see producers participate in value added opportunities in the packing plant industry. However I would point out that the ABP Plan Regulations are changed on a regular basis and if changes are necessary that is not an obstacle to any solution that would be chosen by the producers through a plebiscite.

I despair that the legal route will not be effective from this side of the border. But even if the border were to open we still need increased packing capacity in this province and there is absolutely no doubt that producers want to participate. The question is how and I think it is up to the ABP to answer that question.

The ABP has a responsibility to answer that question and not leave it up to a non functioning market place. I would suggest that the 'emergency' board meetings, the legal process, the traveling to Washington, Ottawa etc. and the regional Town Hall meetings are ineffective at creating solutions to the problem of not enough packing capacity. The time for talk passed a long while ago and we do need action.

What would I hope to achieve at that meeting? I would hope to hammer out a plan of action to see more packing plant capacity built in this province and that this plan would then be carried out. Up to March 7 the focus was on opening the border and a lot of effort went into that. I am suggesting that about all that can be done by our organizations has been done in that regard and that the focus from here on should be increases in packing plant capacity. Producers are looking for direction and a proposal they can hang their hat on. It is time to get busy on that.

It is not leadership to simply turn thumbs down on every suggestion for change that comes before the ABP. Producers have given the ABP direction, the ABP now needs to take that direction and turn it into action.

[grassfarmer]

I'm pleased to see we seem to be making some progress on the BIG initiative - producers may get to vote on a plebisite at some point in the future and after that a plant may be built.
Reality is what 2-3 years from now? This in itself will not solve our problems although it is a move in the right direction and would set a precedent.
Immediate action is what we need, I think the only thing that will work fast enough to save the majority of producers from going under is immediate Federal intervention. Take three weeks to formulate a ten year plan to rebuild and recapture our beef processing industry. Decide that we need more players in the market - at least 10 major packers (some producer owned) plus small local plants to serve local/niche markets. The problem of funding disappears if you rule that the current monopoly is broken - they will be forced to reduce their kill to maybe 10% each of the national kill over a period of time. Money would be appearing from all corners the next day - there is plenty of investment capital in Canada.
Although this will be deemed crazy and a socialist idea it is anything but as it is creating an arena where free enterprise and it's most crucial element - competition, can flourish. Having a permanent monopoly of two foreign corporations controlling the destiny of all producers in this country is more socialist or communist to me.