Canadian ChoicesWheat Letter - December 2, 2010

[TOM4CWB]

Grassfarmer,

Who said I agreed with this?

I clearly stated, time after time, for decades; that we NEED a Property Rights Bill in Alberta.

DO NOT put words in my mouth... that I NEVER said.

[grassfarmer]

I think it was summed up perfectly by Parsley and the follow up from mustardman on another thread.

Parsley "I cannot understand why it is that only two farmers who are socialists, are upset over property rights legislation in Alberta, yet the farmers who advocate for strong property rights are not actively and loudly speaking out against this legislation.
What is wrong with this picture? Pars"

mustardman: "Parsley ITs a little thing called Partisan Politics. This is when a government puts a policy forward that is wrong but You are willing to Overlook simply because it was You who put them in power -
so you say to yourself what they are doing must be right because it is my beloved xyz party."

I'm not a socialist by the way pars, I'm a life long Conservative.

[Fransisco]

Which pretty much sums up whats wrong with the conservative party.

[TOM4CWB]

Grassfarmer,

"I'm not a socialist by the way pars, I'm a life long Conservative."

You believe the CWB should be able to take our wheat and barley WITHOUT fair compensation...

No wonder the Provincial PC Party is not afraid to pass the provincial land use/reform legislation!

[FarmRanger]

<i>"Compensation limited
19 No person has a right to compensation by reason of this Act, a regulation under this Act, a
regional plan or anything done in or under a regional plan except either
(a) as expressly provided for under Part 3, Division 3, or
(b) as provided for under another enactment."

Part 3, Division 3 of the Act deals only
with “conservation directives". That part of the Act does not deal in any way with the loss of rights or restriction of rights triggered by the sections listed above. </i>

Thanks for that Grassfarmer.
It looks to me like they aren’t going to compensate you if they deem your place is in a protected area of some sort. You pay taxes on it and can still sell the land, but your use of the land would be severely restricted? If I’m reading it right it is still disgusting piece of legislation for a supposed “conservative” government to enact.

What really torques me off is that if the elected government thinks that protecting the environment is so important, why is it the landowner who gets to pay for what the government deems is “an environmental good”. The tyranny of the majority should never apply to property rights.

That being said, CWB legislation has still cost me far more (so far).

[grassfarmer]

Farmranger,
The regional plans being developed cover the entire Province, including urban areas so don't think that this act affects only a few scenic areas of wilderness.
It goes deeper than dictating what you can do on the land - they give themselves the power to "extinguish" (their choice of words) instruments under the Land Titles Act which includes your title deeds.

To the other two muppets - I am a life long Conservative - that doesn't mean I support either the Federal or Provincial Conservative parties in this country - they are not Conservative, more a type of fascism and communism combined. Your natural allies of course, along with Walmart.

[TOM4CWB]

Farmranger,

I see this as the forerunner to the new credits that will be offered when a land owner sells wet lands (an easement)to industrial and municipal projects that destroy wetlands.

I propose this is the legal framework to go forward with this new market; the Alberta government is creating... to sell private wetlands to those who need to replace existing wetlands with reserves from private land.

So land owners who own farm land can in the future, sell the wetlands they now have on this new system being created.

Hope this helps a little in explaining the logic behind these legislative acts.

[grassfarmer]

What nonsense TOM - justifying your buddies bad law. If it is "So land owners who own farm land can in the future, sell the wetlands they now have on this new system being created."
Why does the Government have to write a law that allows cabinet to extinguish your land title, with no compensation and no recourse through the courts? How is that needed to facilitate a land owner selling their wetlands? It absolutely isn't - that's pure bunkum. Is that what your MLA told you it was about? ask him if he read the legislation - none of them did not even the minister whose legislation this was.

[TOM4CWB]

Grassfarmer,

I have spent hundreds of hours working at this... over the past 3 years... and I was simply trying... in a 'farmer' common sense explanation... let you understand how we got to where we are.

As with Carbon Credits... these environmental easements are being developed to prove Alberta is the leader... in the world... in creating this new economy market for environmental goods and services.

If any one else can better explain this than I have... be my guest.

This was not at all meant to be a justification... these are simply... in layman's terms... what has been developed.

Recommendations from Ken Nichol and team being readied for implementation.

When I bring up your concerns... GRASSFARMER...

Eyes glaze over... folks thinking I am over dramitising farmer reactions... and am just a silly 'Eskimo' farmer spouting off again.

[grassfarmer]

Ah, now the truth is coming out not only do you support the legislation but you were involved in it's development. No wonder you were so reluctant to comment initially.
There is the guy who can explain it better - Keith Wilson.
Read his detailed report at: http://www.landownerassociation.ca/rsrcs/wilsoncritique.pdf

[FarmRanger]

<i>I see this as the forerunner to the new credits that will be offered when a land owner sells wet lands (an easement)to industrial and municipal projects that destroy wetlands.
</i>
Actually Tom, if you look at the current Act, a land owner doesn't sell wet lands in the way you describe. If you are able to create a wetland, then industrial or municipal projects must replace every wetland acre they destroy with 3 newly created wetland acres, which they could purchase from you, but it can't have been wetland already.
If you have a slough with cattails in it, then it might not belong to you at all under the current legislation.
Grassfarmer is right on this one as far as the abuse of land property rights goes.

[TOM4CWB]

Farmranger,

As far as we have been told... the three to one principal has been replaced with a one to one agreement.

Agriculture worked to get into the process determining these water resourse actions. We growers have been granted permission to be a part of the Alberta Water Council to work through these issues.

FYI; "www.agpartners.ca." is the web site.

These documents are avaliable on the www. Alberta Beef, the Intensive Livestock working group, ALMA, the Crop sector working group, virtually all producer groups have had an opportunity to comment on these purposals.

Grassfarmer, Call Alberta Beef. Talk the Rich Smith. Find out if they have been concerned... and working on your behalf... to retain as many property rights as can be possible!

"Landowners Providing Ecosystem Services
Agriculture producers have to look at the bottom line when it comes to deciding what land to
farm and what land to leave in a natural state. For example leaving buffers along creeks or
around wetlands (riparian areas) can mean a loss of revenue to a crop farmer. Leaving these
riparian ecosystems in their natural state provides the water bodies with a filter to reduce runoff
pollution which can be a benefit to society as a whole. The problem is who is going to pay
for the loss of production to the farmer to benefit society. Up to this point the agriculture
producer has accepted this as a loss to production and a cost to doing business.
Ecosystem services (ES) can be defined, most simply, as the benefits humankind receives
from the ecosystem. These benefits include clean water, a break-down of wastes, reduced
soil erosion, wind breaks and wildlife habitat among others. Alberta's agriculture industry has
the potential to benefit from the provision of ecosystem services through a market-based
system. The Alberta Land Stewardship Act enables the creation of a market-based system as
an alternative to a more regulatory approach to protecting the ecosystem. The Act is expected
to create financial opportunities for producers to ensure their land use has a positive impact
on the environment.
Alberta's agricultural producers have a history as capable stewards for the land. This
stewardship, and its positive impact on the environment, should be rewarded. Producers
recognize that ES have potential value, and they will need to have a voice in the development
of market based approaches. AEPA has worked with the researchers who are looking into
market-based opportunities for Alberta and have provided ongoing feedback. A voluntary
market for ES that provides real opportunities for producers would be supported by the
agriculture industry, with some conditions. Producers would need to know exactly how a
voluntary market would function, including an understanding of the potential outcomes and
unintended consequences. This would include any restrictions on competitiveness of the
industry. Rules and regulations need to be clearly defined from the outset. The process for
evaluating and trading ES has to be fair, effective and equitable. Each assessed ES would
require its own unbiased evaluation process. This information would enable farmers to make
the best possible choices for their operations. The creation of an educational model would
help the agriculture industry to make the necessary changes, and to fully understand the
system.
It is clear that the agriculture industry needs to have its say when the market is becoming a
reality. Early engagement, education, and involvement in the creation of an ES system are
vital, if the agriculture industry is to have the confidence to participate in the system. Within
the system, supports for farmers need to be in place. For example, on-farm support for ES
assessments would enable producers to make the best choices for their businesses.
Ultimately, a full review of the entire system would be required at a minimum of five year
intervals, in order to ensure the process is delivering maximum benefit to its participants. If
designed and implemented correctly, the voluntary market system for ES has great potential
for Alberta's agriculture industry.
For more information on this issue, or to find the latest news on the AEPA’s involvement in
the process, please please visit their website at www.agpartners.ca."

[grassfarmer]

Oh TOM what have you done? Bad enough that we thought a power crazed dictatorship was introducing these communist rules but to discover that they have been aided and abetted by folks like yourself on advisory committees.
Did you not read Bill 36 either or were you hoodwinked into playing along?
It's right there in the Advisory Team guidelines:

"the Advisory Team operates with the following guiding principles:
• Minimize any negative impact or unintended consequences to the agriculture industry
• Maximize the benefit to both the agriculture industry and the environment
• Respect individual business decisions and private landowner property rights

So what went wrong? why did it turn out that they implemented exactly the opposite?

From the AB Governments own website announcement at the tabling of Bill 36

"It will make Alberta the first jurisdiction in Canada to compensate landowners whose property values are affected by conservation and stewardship restrictions under regional plans."

Yet the act states "19 No person has a right to compensation by reason of this Act, a regulation under this Act, a
regional plan or anything done in or under a regional plan....."

It was interesting to read the Alberta Beef Producers reservations on the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan - one comment was that "the LARP seems to be hiding the oil sands in the mixed use resource land classification" Now we are getting closer to the true agenda of this Government and Bill 36 - it is not about saving or protecting a few wetlands it is about selling out further to big industry - oil, gas, any form of resource asset stripping that can be imagined is allowed under this act.

Of course Bill 50 (Electric Statutes Amendment Act) will operate easier with Bill 36 in place. It will allow for the building of transmission lines with 8 times the current capacity, entirely at taxpayers expense, to facilitate export of electricity with the proceeds going directly into the pockets of the for profit companies like AltaLink. This will at least double household and farm power bills and increase industrial and retail businesses power bills by 4 or 8 times. Of course the companies will be able to put the lines where they want without having to deal with pesky landowners - your land title will just be extinguished by the cabinet, you will get no compensation and you can't appeal it. And finally I ask you is it a coincidence that Leigh Clarke, senior vice president of Altalink is also the vice president of the Calgary Conservative party?

[TOM4CWB]

Grassfarmer,

PLEASE Call Rich Smith, as I asked you to do.

I will certainly take your concerns forward.

Thanks for your time!

[per]

Very interesting Tom. My conservative socially leaning friend is tearing you and your arguments up and you bring in the ABP, the one group that us cattle producers have no choice but to belong to as your back up. If you aren't at the ABP AGM you can catch it on the net if you need some more Kool Aid. Although well intended, this legislation will turn out to be a disaster for this Province. Thank goodness for a few enlightened individuals like Kieth Wilson and others for pointing out the folly and the reasons why we best get off our duffs to right this wrong.