Government Should Not Be Running Agriculture

[coppertop]

folks, while you are arguing about Bill
43, Bill 36 is on the horizon and it is
the most overarching, top down piece of
legislation in years.
It is the Bill that will put into effect
the Land Use Framework, and I agree with
the concept and the need for this
initiative but there are some areas in
the Draft Bill that concern me.
One being, there is no appeal once the
Minister makes his or her decision on an
issue.
I encourage you to check out this Bill
and attend an Open House in your area if
they aren't all completed.

[farmers_son]

I agree. My impression was you seemed to be familiar with the workings of Government. What is the best way to influence Government to change or amend proposed legislation.

[per]

fs, if you don't mind I would like to take a stab at the how to influence the government. I am sure Coppertop can add to this so here goes.

It is all about relationships. I don't mean buddy buddy, but quiet respectful get to know your MLA, Premier and Deputies and ADM's long before there is an issue. No matter whether you agree or viamently disagree with them, never poke them in the eye with a virtual stick, especially in public. Whether you respect them or not, never treat them with disrespect and earn their respect. If you have their respect, their ear, you will have their phone number and they will take your call.

Then there is the numbers game, phone calls, letters and emails to the various MLA's and Ministers. They have to pay attention to these. Form letters and letters from out of jurisdiction have much less weight than individual personal letters from voters. Of course usually only negative letters are written and I imagine that is taken into consideration as well, especially if there is an opposite campaign happening at the same time with the other view point.

Never gang up on a Minister or your MLA. 2 or Max 3 people at a meeting are better the 5 or 6. They usually have limited time so don't beat around the bush too long and get to business and let them think about what you said. Try to get follow up meeting at that time.

You can sell you opposing position but somehow have to keep it respectful and I think you would be heard better. In the case of the ABP and the Minister, get Chuck and GG to start talking again. If nothing else it will make for better family reunions in the future. I have heard your chairman (who I know and like and respect) say on the radio that he told the Minister such and such. Asked would be a better approach. I think Rick has the relationship skills and personality to turn this around for you, but some how a different approach is needed soon.

These are just my honest thoughts on the subject. I hope they are of some use to you.

[coppertop]

per, I agree with you 100%. Some years
ago when I was a green municipal
politician I attended a seminar on
influencing government and much of what
I learned there still holds true today.
Sending nasty letters to the editor of
rural newspapers is NOT the way to get
co-operation from government.
Getting on Rutherford to bash the
government isn't the right way to bring
about change either.
ABP has some good people in their
organization that are articulate and can
get their message across in the media,
sad to say their new Chairman isn't one
of them. He has a gruff voice for one
thing, and it sounds like he is wanting
to do battle, vs wanting to change
government's thinking without having any
blood spilled !
George needs to go, I think that most
thinking cattleprodcers would support
that. His MANDATORY age verification,
then his volunteer check off don't send
a consistent message to the producers or
the public, and the Premier telling the
Legislature that we need voluntary check
off to market our cattle shows that he
is out of touch with what is really the
issue. You can love or hate ABP, but the
one thing that I have no time for is
government telling me as a producer what
is good for me. Hold a plebicite and let
the producers decide whether the check
off should be mandatory or voluntary.
Government should not need to bring in
legislation that is costly,and divisive
.
I have worked for the PC government as a
volunteer, have earned the trust of some
of the most senior people in the party,
and have no problem looking them in the
eye and telling them if I think that
proposed legislation is wrong, and not
in the best interest of Albertans.
Unfortunately the majority of MLA's know
nothing about the livestock industry,
and care less, they take their cue from
the Minister. MLA's that do understand
the issues, are likely all angling for a
cabinet or significant committee
appointment so they aren't going to make
waves.
By and large I am hearing nothing but
negative comments about this government,
and it really saddens me. I had high
hopes for Ed Stelmach because of his
rural background, but I fear that some
senior bureaucrats are running the show.
I liken it to a county or town where the
administration controls everything and
keeps councillors in the dark, instead
of council setting policy and
administration taking their direction
from council.

[grassfarmer]

Coppertop, It seems to be the nature of Government in most developed countries today that they are run by the beurocrats rather than the politicians. I don't know how you change that. GG is going against that tide, he is a minister with a clear idea of what he wants to do and the guts to do it. We certainly don't need to replace him.

[perfecho]

I am not replying to whether George should be replaced or not, however, I do believe he is heavily influenced by the packers and large operators. (The way our political system is set up, we are screwed anyways!) I will, however, state, he is not looking out for producers or sustainable agriculture.
Again, age verification ( George’s ALMS)helps the majors get premium for their product, not ours (producers). There is no system to share this premium. (And free market doesn't cut it in a monopoly market.) If age verification/premise ID were meant for producers as well, we would have that info available in our grocery stores or a plan to eventually have it. As in the words of John Knapp, “This will have to be consumer driven…”, but age verification/premise ID is mandated for primary producers…….come on! ( I was totally in favor of AV and PID until I questioned Mr. Knapp on this ) It does not make sense to have one but not the other.
Another tidbit, with age verification, there will be on file the number of calves coming up through the system, number of calves still "in producers hands". Do you think this may give "another advantage" to large operators?
Sorry, things are only adding up in one column, the majors. They are doing their job well, we are not…and until we do, the producers that rise above the “system” and sell in a direct or value chain will do well. And when/if those operators get too much of the market share, another “ALMS” will be born.
But hey, a lot of money is generated in the cattle/processing industry…so that’s a good thing, right? (Also, tired and cranky this morning as pastures are bare, hay gone and not looking real favorable for moisture at this time ;-)

[farmers_son]

Thanks for those comments. I might add that one other way to have influence with government or a particular elected official is to contribute a lot of money to their campaign fund. If you can afford to throw big parties that helps too.

As a struggling cow calf producer I can't do that. However there is a small group of producers in this province who have received a lot, I mean a very great deal (I am speaking of multiples of millions of dollars) of direct government support from this Government. It seems to me this small group has the ability and resources to have more influence than I do as an individual.

Just another example of how we are at a crossroads here. It could be one producer one vote (non refundable check off) or it could be dollars that vote. If it is dollars that vote then I and people like me will not have very much influence or say in the policies and programs that will impact Alberta's cattle industry going forward.

[grassfarmer]

farmers_son, I don't understand the fuzzy logic all you ABPers are afflicted by on this issue.
You claim on one hand as a struggling individual rancher that you have no voice with government yet on the other hand that you are served very well by the ABP who speaks for you. Which is it?
If you in fact don't feel well represented by the multi-million $ funded ABP why are you trying to convince the rest of us to support ABP?

Especially ironic given that the multi-million dollar government funded individuals like Bern Kotelko whom one of your colleagues is bad mouthing in our local paper today and is presumably one of the "handful" you allude to in your post above probably got a lot of his millions through CAIS which ABP spend so much time campaigning to raise the ceiling per farm to $3 million.
Your/ABPs arguments just make no sense. Why would a cow/calf run organization like you claim ABP to be do such a thing?




Reply posted May 27, 2009 8:18 Thanks for those comments. I might add that one other way to have influence with government or a particular elected official is to contribute a lot of money to their campaign fund. If you can afford to throw big parties that helps too.

As a struggling cow calf producer I can't do that. However there is a small group of producers in this province who have received a lot, I mean a very great deal (I am speaking of multiples of millions of dollars) of direct government support from this Government. It seems to me this small group has the ability and resources to have more influence than I do as an individual.

Just another example of how we are at a crossroads here. It could be one producer one vote (non refundable check off) or it could be dollars that vote. If it is dollars that vote then I and people like me will not have very much influence or say in the policies and programs that will impact Alberta's cattle industry going forward.