Bill 43

[farmers_son]

I think the real point is the undemocratic and heavy handed approach by the government when they moved ahead with this legislation instead of allowing a plebiscite vote where the producers could decide for themselves.

I have a pretty good idea how, if the regular contributors to Agri-ville were the only ones to vote, which way the vote would go. However unless a Province wide vote was held the producers will never get to say.

I think there is a clear reason for that and that reason is the Province wants Alberta Beef Producers, Alberta Pork and Alberta Lamb out of the way so that there is no effective opposition to the mandatory aspects of ALMA that we are going to see next year.

Refundable check-off does not give you more choice – it allows money to vote instead of people.

There is a reason why the Government went with Legislation instead of allowing producers a plebiscite. When producers understand what is at stake and what the issues are they would vote in favour of the present checkoff structure and these three livestock organizations would be able to offer opposition to ALMA.

It is about producers being able to stand up to ALMA or being totally dominated by ALMA.

[BFW]

This isn't about democracy. This is purely about the business of raising, feeding,etc in Alberta. Why are we afraid of ALMA. Why then is their no worry about MAPA ( Marketing of Agricultural Products Act) which actually allows all these boards and commissions to exist. This is a refundable checkoff FS, the right to collect it has not been removed. I guess if it appears heavy handed ( and i disagree) its because we have as an industry been unable to solve this on our own.

[vagabonddreamer]

this is a very interesting socio/demographic discussion...much like the CWB debate on the commodity side of the board...

it has long been held that the propensity of those "against" a particular issue, to formulate into cohesive groups...is much larger than "supporters" to do the same...supporters of an issue dont really get their backs up until their position is threatened...

so although one reading this board for the first time might think all prairie farmers are against the CWB...or all beef producers are against ABP...that may not indeed be the case given a "forced turn out and vote" situation...this discussion board like many others has become a place to roil and vent over an issue...lots of good discussion as well...but i dont think agriville is necessarily a good example of the cross section of the population...vs

[per]

You are correct vg that Agriville is not a true cross section on any issue but I have over the last year been polling fellow ranchers and there is a decided advantage to choice where the check-off is concerned. Still not scientific but most folks I know wouldn't mind a discussion to change my mind if they could so I expect they were honest responses. This won't decimate the ABP, it will change it. Although I have fought to have choice, I most likely will leave my check-off with them as most others will too. It does however provide leverage for when they loose their way.

[farmers_son]

The ones who will have the leverage with a refundable check off are the big feedlots. All of whom have no problem with the mandatory aspects of ALMA because it is the cow calf producer who has to jump through those hoops. Bill 43 takes ABP away from the cow calf producer and hands it to the big feedlots... lock, stock and barrel.

Refundable check-off does not give you more choice – it allows money to vote instead of people. And the feedlots are the ones who would control the most check off. Lets not forget they would be voting with dollars they deducted from the value of your weaned calf. The big feedlots would be controlling your organization with your money and the cow calf producer could go jump in the lake.

However the real issue is the government, through Bill 43, is not allowing producers to decide this for themselves through a plebiscite vote. This debate, the pros and cons of a refundable check off is a debate that needed to happen in the context of a plebiscite vote. If there were to be a plebiscite vote and given there is more cow calf producers than feedlot operators there is a high probability this government and their the big feedlot friends may not get their way.

I think producers can connect the dots for themselves. And those dots show a government that is trying to ram ALMA down the throats of Alberta's livestock sector, not only the cow calf producers but pork and lambs too. Bill 43 is clearly an attempt to get rid of the main opposition to ALMA with its socialist mandatory undemocratic control of this provinces livestock industry and its primary producers.

[Sawbones]

FS..ABP is not democratic. If it were so then resolutions that were passed at the general meeting should be acted upon and not changed at the discretion of a few on the board. If they were acting for the industry and not merely puppets for the packers, they would not be lobbying the federal government to have the $50 million spent on SRM removal costs instead of supporting producer packing initiatives. I'm a cow/calf producer and I welcome the choice.

[farmers_son]

I understand you feel that way.

However I feel differently and I would like to have a choice myself. I could exercise that choice if the Province would allow a plebiscite on the issue.

As it is the Government is not going to allow me a say or any chance to vote in a plebiscite to determine the future of the only organization that would have had the resources needed to stand up to ALMA and the Government. Not to mention the only organization that could have defended our industry against a countervail challenge.

I think the pork and lamb people would like to have the same opportunity to make a choice through a plebiscite vote.

[grassfarmer]

"This debate, the pros and cons of a refundable check off is a debate that needed to happen in the context of a plebiscite vote."

Absolutely Farmers_son, too bad ABP didn't realise that sooner when producers were calling for just just such a debate/plebiscite. You can blame Government, ALMA and the feedlots all you want but this decision was ultimately brought about by the ABPs own policy off arrogantly ignoring the wishes of it's members. You reap what you sow.
You never did answer my question on when ABP changed their policy and decided a plebiscite was needed - care to share?

[Sawbones]

There actually will be a plebisicite..it will be the number of producers that leave their funds with ABP. If as you claim, ABP has been doing a good job, then they have nothing to fear. If on the other hand, producers feel there is a better way to invest their dollars, they will have the choice of making that happen.

[farmers_son]

It is like this.

Prior to Bill 43 ABP represented the entire cattle industry. Everyone paid their three bucks a head check off. Everyone paid their fair share. There were no free riders or people not pulling their load. ABP was a democratic organization where every producer could vote for delegates who then voted on how their checks off dollars were spent.

The structure of ABP was one producer one vote.

In addition to voting for delegates producers could ask for a plebiscite on the check off and that happened at least once. I voted in that plebiscite.

What Bill 43 does is dramatically change how ABP functions. Instead of one producer one vote control of the organization will be determined by check off dollars. The more check off you pay the more influence you will have in the direction of the organization. The problem with that, in this province, is that 40 mega feedlots pay about $5 million in check off or more than 1/3 of the budget. Those forty feedlots will then effectively control all the beef promotion, all livestock and forage research, all the policy direction for ABP. Those forty feedlots will determine whether or not we defend our industry against a countervail challenge, national policy through CCA, even the policies and direction of the Cow Calf committee as no doubt those 40 feedlots will control at least the makeup of the Board of Directors if not who is actually a Director. Those forty feedlots will determine policies regarding export and import of feeders. Those forty feedlots will set ABP policies regarding lobbyingg government on what mandatory requirements you as a cow calf producer have to meet and where any future program payments should be paid. You can pretty much guess what the feedlots will decide there.

And those forty feedlots will be doing that with check off dollars that they deducted from what was paid for your weaned or backgrounded calf. Those forty feedlots will be controlling your cattle organization with what really is your money that they held back from you and those 40 feedlots will insist on changing the direction of ABP so that it is in their best interest. Or else the feedlots will pull their check off.

No longer will everyone be paying their fair share. No longer will everyone be contributing. No longer will ABP be democratic and one producer one vote.

Bill 43 amounts to a dramatic change; it will not be business as usual. This is about who controls ABP, Alberta's 20,000 to 30,000 or so cow calf producers or 40 feedlots. This is a change that cow calf producers did not approve through a plebiscite vote. It will not matter the number of producers who leave their funds with ABP, all that will matter is how much check off an individual or feedlot controls. As a cow calf producer, my vote helped determine the direction of ABP. Now my vote will count for nothing and my check off is not enough to influence any direction that ABP might take.

Bottom line, the Government has handed control of ABP to forty feedlots who will then define ABP’s fate and future direction. Why the Stelmach Government did this without a plebiscite is a very interesting question and speaks volumes to how this government views the average sized cow calf operator and democracy in general.

[farmers_son]

Something I think would be well worth checking out is the Alberta Beef Producers Plan Regulations at:

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=2003_336.cfm&leg_type=Regs&isbncln=97 80779733743

Note the word "vote" is used 68 times.

Maybe producers will understand just how much control they individually had over ABP through their individual vote and how much the Government of the Province of Alberta has taken away from them by changing control of ABP from one producer one vote to a situation where ABP will be controlled by whoever pays the most checkoff dollars, in this case the 40 mega feedlots.

We should be able to VOTE on the future of the checkoff through a plebiscite. I am frankly finding it very uneasy living in a totalitarian province where dictator Stelmach makes us dance like puppets on a string. This is clearly something producers should be allowed to vote on.

[grassfarmer]

Maybe the sooner the ABP is gone the better? - if all you can they can do is spew hatred and create division with other sectors of our beef industry. Funny enough that was what ABP were originally accusing the Beef Industry Alliance of.
How quickly things change...speaking of which you never did tell us when ABP changed their mind on wanting a plebiscite farmers_son. Shouldn't be a difficult question to answer or is it like Al Gore's epic - "an inconvenient truth"?