asb 2020 - aaaf · 1974,january special1 areas#2,3&4split into 3 special area #2 special area...

ASB 2020Central Region AAAF

“AGRICULTURE, INNOVATION & PIONEERS” CELEBRATING 75 YEARS

ASB 2020Tuesday, January 21

• REGISTRATION

• WINE & CHEESE

• TRADESHOW

• WELCOMING REMARKS

• TOWN OF BANFF - COUNCILLOR PETER POOLE

• MLA FOR BANFF - KANANASKIS - MIRANDA ROSIN

• MP FOR FOOTHILLS - JOHN BARLOW

• PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARD COMMITTEE -

CHAIR - COREY BECK

• ASSOCIATION OF ALBERTA AGRICULTURAL FIELDMEN -

PRESIDENT - SEBASTIEN DUTRISAC

• RURAL MUNICIPALITIES OF ALBERTA - PRESIDENT - AL KEMMERE

• AGRICULTURAL PLASTICS RECYCLING GROUP UPDATE - AL KEMMERE

4:00 PM – 9:00 PM

6:00 PM – 9:00 PM

6:00 PM – 9:00 PM

7:00 PM – 7:15 PM

7:15 PM – 7:30 PM

7:30 PM – 7:45 PM

7:45 PM – 8:00 PM

.

8:00 PM – 8:15 PM

.

8:15 PM – 8:30 PM

@AAAFieldmen

AAAF Association of Alberta Agricultural Fieldmen

https://agriculturalserviceboards.com/

VAN HORNE FOYER

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

PRESIDENT’S HALL

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

.

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

.

VAN HORNE BALLROOM


Early Agricultural Service Boards consisted of twomembers of the Municipal Council, two ratepayersand the local District Agriculturist.

ASB 2020“AGRICULTURE, INNOVATION & PIONEERS” CELEBRATING 75 YEARS

Wednesday, January 22

• BREAKFAST

• GREETINGS - MASTER OF CEREMONIES, DIANNE FINSTAD

O’ CANADA - FALLON SHERLOCK

• HISTORY OF AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS - BRENT HOYLAND

• EVERYTHING IS ABOUT TO CHANGE - DOUG GRIFFITHS

• BREAK / TRADESHOW

• AUTONOMOUS AGRICULTURE (DOT) - CORY BEAUJOT

• HANDS FREE HECTARE ‘HANDS FREE FARM’ - JONATHAN C E GILL

• LUNCH / TRADESHOW

• PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARD UPDATE

RESOLUTION SESSION 1

• BREAK / TRADESHOW

.

• SOCIAL MEDIA FOR FARMERS - NICK SAIK

7:00 AM – 8:00 AM

8:00 AM – 8:05 AM

AM

8:05 AM – 8:45 AM

8:45 AM – 9:45 AM

9:45 AM – 10:15 AM

AM

10:15 AM – 11:00AM

11:00 AM – 11:45 AM

11:45 AM – 1:15 PM

PM

1:15 PM – 2:45 PM

2:45 PM – 3:15 PM

PM

3:15 PM – 4:00 PM

75

@AAAFieldmen



VAN HORNE FOYER

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

PRESIDENTS HALL FOYER

PRESIDENTS HALL

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

VAN HORNE FOYER

PRESIDENT’S HALL

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

VAN HORNE FOYER

PRESIDENT’S HALL

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

ASB 2020Although it was not mandatory that localgovernments establish Agricultural Service Boards orCommittees, they began to be established willingly. By 1945 there were 13 Agricultural Service Boards,twenty years later there were 55 boards in Alberta.

ASB 2020Thursday, January 23

• BREAKFAST

• GREETINGS - MASTER OF CEREMONIES, DIANNE FINSTAD

• ANIMALS WE EAT: ESSENTIAL ON THE FARM AND PLATE -

NICOLETTE HAHN NIMAN

• PUBLIC CONCERNS ABOUT FARM ANIMAL WELFARE: HOW SHOULD THE

INDUSTRY RESPOND - DR. MARINA VON KEYSERLINGK

• BREAK

• PRAIRIE PROUD - IT’S TIME TO GET LOUD AND PROUD ABOUT

. ALBERTA’S BEST! - GRAHAM SHERMAN & DAVID FARRAN

• LUNCH

• FARMING FOR THE FUTURE - EMMETT SAWYER

• ASB UPDATES: 2018-19 ASB REVIEW, 2020-22 ASB GRANT PROGRAM -

. DOUG MACAULAY

• AGRICULTURE: HANG ON FOR A WILD RIDE - KEVIN HURSH

• BREAK

• RESOLUTION SESSION 2

• COCKTAILS

GROUP PHOTOS FOR INTERESTED ASB’S

. PHOTOBOOTH + CARICATURIST

• SUPPER

• AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS - AAAF PRESIDENT

• 2021 PROVINCIAL ASB SUMMER TOUR - BRAZEAU COUNTY

• ENTERTAINMENT - FAMILY FEUD STYLE GAME SHOW

7:00 AM – 8:00 AM

8:00 AM – 8:05 AM

8:05 AM – 9:00 AM

.

9:00 AM – 9:45 AM

AM

9:45 AM – 10:15 AM

10:15 AM – 11:45 AM

11:45 AM – 1:00 PM

1:00 PM – 1:15 PM

1:15 PM – 1:30 PM

.

1:30 PM – 2:30 PM

2:30 PM – 3:00 PM

3:00 PM – 4:00 PM

5:30 PM – 6:30 PM

.

6:30 PM - 8:00 PM

8:00 PM - 8:15 PM

8:15 PM - 8:30 PM

8:30 PM - 10:00 PM

@AAAFieldmen



VAN HORNE FOYER

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

.

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

PRESIDENT’S HALL FOYER

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

.

VAN HORNE FOYER

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

.

VAN HORNE BALLROOM


VAN HORNE FOYER

VAN HORNE FOYER


VAN HORNE FOYER

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

VAN HORNE BALLROOM


ASB 2020Friday, January 24


• BREAKFAST

• DEPUTY MINISTER - AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

ANDRE CORBOULD

• UNHARVESTED ACRES & GOING FORWARD - ZSUZSANNA SANGSTER

• CATTLE MARKET UPDATE - ANNE WASKO

7:00 AM – 9:00 AM

9:00 AM – 9:30 AM

.

9:30 AM – 10:00 AM

10:00 AM - 10:45 AM

75

@AAAFieldmen



VAN HORNE FOYER

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

.

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

VAN HORNE BALLROOM

ASB 2020In 1967 Agricultural Service Board regional and provincial conferences were established to allow for more time for deliberations on agricultural concerns and gave the work of Agricultural Service Boards and the Association of Alberta Agricultural Fieldmen a higher profile in the province.

Safe Travels Home!

ASB 2020Welcome

Join us in the cele-bration of agricul-ture’s innovative spirit exemplified by the early pioneers and the unique formation of Agricultural Service Boards.

As farming operations expanded in Alberta during the period from the 1920's to the 1940's, two significant production problems emerged. One was the introduction and spread of new weeds, and the other, wind drifting and water erosion of good agricultural land.

Municipal governments became concerned; heavily infested or eroded land was unproductive and being abandoned, the taxes unpaid. Some municipalities met with the Department of Agriculture in a series of meetings in 1942, seeking ways and means of best coping with the situation. Both parties recognized and agreed that effective weed control and soil conservation measures could best be carried out by local governments because they were the closest to the problem. In 1943, through the efforts of Dr. O. S Longman, Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Arthur M. Wilson, Field Crops Commissioner and President of the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts, two municipalities - the M. D. of Red Deer and the M. D. of Conrich at Calgary - volunteered to set up special agricultural committees in an effort to find more effective ways of coping with the weed and soil problems. The committee concept proved to be far superior to anything that had been tried before. It created genuine interest among all municipalities. In 1944, the idea of committees or boards at a municipal level to provide service in the area of weed control particularly, through preventive means, was initiated by a resolution at the Municipal District Convention. The concept became the forerunner of the present Agricultural Service Board Act.

The Agricultural Service Board Act was formulated and passed by the Provincial Legislature to become law in February, 1945. It was meant "to provide for extension of agricultural services in association with municipal authorities. "It provided for a co-operative and coordinated effort between the Department of Agriculture and Municipal or Improvement Districts in developing agricultural policies and programs which were deemed to be of mutual interest and concern. This legislation is unique in Canada in that it provides for supervision and reclamation of debilitated land due to weed infestations, soil erosion (water and wind) or other causes.

Excerpt from the "The First Forty Years"

AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS LISTED BY YEAR OF ESTABLISHMENT

1944, April 20 Rocky View County

1945, January 1 Red Deer County

1945, February 15 County of St. Paul #19

1945, February 17 Beaver County

1945, May 4 Camrose County

1945, May 28 County of Grande Prairie #1

1945, June 1 Sturgeon County

1945, June 5 Lamont County

1945, July 5 Foothills County

1945, July 5 Smoky Lake County

1945, July 9 Kneehill County

1945, July 16 Starland County

1945, September 15 Parkland County

1945, August 23 Lacombe County

1946, February 1 County of Paintearth #18

1946, February 9 County of Minburn #27

1946, February 22 Wheatland County

1946, March 13 County of Two Hills #21

1946, March 23 M.D. of Pincher Creek #9

1946, April 1 County of Wetaskiwin #10

1946, April 3 Leduc County

1946, February 16 Strathcona County

1946, May 6 M.D. of Wainwright #61

1946, July 9 Mountain View County

1947, March 5 M.D. of Bonnyville #87

1947, March 12 County of Vermilion River

1947, April 2 Westlock County

1947, May 31 Athabasca County

1948, April 14 Cardston County

1949, Birch Hills County

1950, December 1 County of Northern Lights

1951, July 13 Lac Ste Anne County

1952, February 1 County of Newell

1952, April 3 Vulcan County

1952, May 22 M.D. of Peace #135

1952, September Flagstaff County

1953, April 29 Ponoka County

1955, March M.D. of Smoky River #130

1955, March 14 M.D. of Taber

1955, April 7 Stettler County

1955, December M.D. of Willow Creek #26

1956, April 27 Thorhild County

1956, June 12 County of Barrhead #11

1957, Clearwater County

1958, June 23 Lethbridge County

1958, February 26 M.D. of Provost #52

1959, April 16 County of Warner #5

1959, May 6 M.D. of Spirit River #133

1959, May 6 Saddle Hills County

1959, November Yellowhead County

1960, April 5 County of Forty Mile #8

1960, July 28 M.D. OF Fairview #136

1960, September 7 Clear Hills County

1960, December 19 Cypress County

1961, September 1 Special Areas #2 & Special Areas #3

1962, April 25 Big Lakes County

1964, June 9 Northern Sunrise County

1966, June 6 Mackenzie County

1967, February 23 M.D. of Greenview #16

1968, January 1 Lac La Biche County

1971, March Woodlands County

1974, January 1 Special Areas #2,3 & 4 Split into 3

Special Area #2

Special Area #3

Special Area #4

1983, September M.D. of Lesser Slave River #124

1984, May 14 M.D. of Acadia #34

1988, M.D. of Bighorn #8

1988, July 1 Brazeau County

1996, March M.D. of Ranchland #66

2010, Municipality of Crowsnest Pass

Hon Hon Jason Kenney, Premier of Alberta

On behalf of the Government of Alberta, it is my pleasure to send greetings to the

2020 Agricultural Service Boards Conference as members celebrate 75 years of

“Agriculture, Innovation and Pioneers.”

Alberta’s agriculture industry helped to build our province, and thanks to the

long-standing collaboration between government and Agricultural Service Boards, it

will be a key part of a prosperous economic future. Local Agricultural Service Boards

are one of government’s strongest links to the farm and ranch industry, and are

valued partners in conservation and pest and weed management.

I am grateful to the hardworking Agricultural Service Board members and staff who

support producers, strengthen rural Alberta and help protect millions of acres of

farmland. Thank you for your commitment to maintaining and improving

agricultural production in our province. Thank you as well to the Association of

Alberta Agricultural Fieldmen and the uniquely qualified individuals who carry out

the priorities and policies set by their agricultural service boards.

Congratulations on this remarkable milestone anniversary, and

best wishes for another 75 years of serving Alberta farmers.

MESSAGE FROM THE PREMIER OF ALBERTA

ALBERTA

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

Ojjice ofthe MinisterMLA, Innisfail'Sylvan Lake

MESSAGE FROM THE MINISTER

On behalf of Premier Jason Kenney and the Government of Alberta, I would like to congratulateour Agricultural Service Boards on 75 years of being a key resource to our rural communities.

Alberta's ASBs provide pest surveillance programs that support market assurance, conservationand educational programming that allow industry sustainability and growth and this year'sconference theme of 'Agriculture, Innovation, and Pioneers" really captures the legacy of yourwork and exciting opportunities for future growth.

Alberta's farmers and ranchers, agri-businesses and rural landowners form the backbone of thisprovince. During this period of fiscal restraint, we share a continued commitment to fight for thelong-term sustainability of an industry that helped shape who we all are today.

Thank you to Alberta's agricultural service boards and the agricultural fieldmen for being astrong voice on behalf of the agriculture sector. My best wishes for a great conference and asuccessful year ahead.

Honourable Devin Dreeshen

Minister, Agriculture and Forestry

229 Legislature Building, 10800 - 97 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2B6 Canada Telephone 780-427-2137 Fax 780-422-6035

Primed on recycledpaper

December 19, 2019

The Provincial ASB Committee welcomes the ASB delegates to the 2020 ASB Conference celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the establishment of the ASB Program.

ASBs have a lot to celebrate! The ASB Program is unique to Alberta and is recognized for its’ efficiency and effectiveness. One of the primary strengths of this program is the ability of municipalities to identify and develop solutions to meet local producer needs. This model was first established in 1945 after a pilot program in 1944 when provincial specialists realized that local municipalities were closest to emerging problems and could respond more quickly to producers’ needs than the province could. This established a true partnership between municipalities and the province that has been able to adapt and remain effective throughout the 75 year history of the ASB Program.

The Provincial ASB Committee is pleased to represent the 69 ASBs in the province. The Committee was first established in 2005 to assist ASBs in fulfilling their role to act as advisors to the Minister. The Committee continues to gain recognition for their advisory role which helps ASBs to accomplish their duty “to promote, enhance and protect viable and sustainable agriculture with a view to improving the economic viability of the agriculture producer.”

The Committee would like to congratulate ASBs for their dedication to protecting Alberta’s agriculture industry over the past 75 years. ASBs should be proud of their contributions such as helping Alberta remain rat free, reducing the impact of diseases such as clubroot and Fusarium graminearum, and addressing the threat of invasive species quickly and effectively to ensure a viable and sustainable agriculture industry in Alberta.

The Committee looks forward to the next 75 years of the ASB Program in Alberta!

Box 490, Two Hills, AB T0B 4K0

Celebrating the Alberta Agricultural Service Board (ASB) 75 years is wonderful, which makes being the President of the Association of Alberta Agricultural Fieldman, an even bigger privilege. Let’s take a moment to reflect on how ground-breaking ASBs are. They are the original producer driven organization, a grass root management system, where the Boards could implement local solutions to meet local producer needs promptly. We now have 69 think tanks to identify issues and concerns, create solutions and programs, direct extension and research, provide boots on the ground for our provincial and federal agricultural ministries. At the same time acting as an advisory body and to assist the council and the Minister, in matters of mutual concern making everyone aware of obstacles, threats, strategies, expectations, limitations, programs and services. During those 75 years, the Agricultural industry changed beyond what the government at the time could have ever dreamed of. The original framework that gave the province the ability to reduce red tape while increasing the flexibility and responsiveness necessary to advise on and to help organize and direct weed and pest control and soil and water conservation programs, is still relevant today. The ASBs continuously evolve so they can promote, enhance and protect viable and sustainable agriculture with a view to improving the economic viability of the agricultural producer. Proudly promoting and developing new and updated agricultural policies to meet the changing needs of the municipality is what keeps us pertinent as a grassroot organization. Our future leaders of tomorrow are looking to us for guidance. In true Alberta Ag Producer fashion, let’s continue to sow cooperation where there is discord, sow hope when there is uncertainty, build new relationships, fix burnt bridges and create new solutions to ensure they can reap as we did from our predecessor’s labour. Working for a better agricultural industry in all parts of Alberta,

Sebastien G Dutrisac AAAF President



SESSION SPEAKERS

Dianne FinstadDianne Finstad is a familiar face and voice in Alberta’s farm community. She spent over 30 years covering agriculture and rodeo from Red Deer through TV, radio and print. Now working as a communications specialist, she does a variety of projects; ranging from writing agriculture stories, to hosting at conferences, to interviewing rodeo champions at places like the Calgary Stampede. Dianne is a Board Director for Lakeland College and Red Deer’s Westerner Park. She grew up in Southern Alberta, where her family has ranched for more than a century.

Wednesday January 22

Cory BeaujotCory Beaujot is the Manager of Business Development of SeedMaster Manufacturing Inc and Dot Technology Corp. and is a part of the ownership group of both entities. As a member of the SeedMaster and Dot Tech Corp ownership group and Executive, Cory is responsible for the vision, direction, and execution of SeedMaster’s Global Business Development strategies by engaging with all of their internal and external stakeholders.

Brent HoylandBrent Hoyland is currently the Assistant CAO for Flagstaff County. He began his career in Municipal Government as the Assistant Ag. Fieldman for the County of Camrose and was Flagstaff County’s Ag. Fieldman for 20 years. Brent is a past president of the AAAF and served as their historian prior to leaving the association in 2010. Brent has been involved with numerous heritage projects for Flagstaff County and appreciates and values the contributions made by ASB’s that have enriched our agricultural industry.

Doug GriffithsDoug Griffiths is the President and CEO of 13 Ways, Inc., a company he founded to provide consultation to struggling North American communities. He is co-author of the book 13 Ways to Kill Your Community, now in its 2nd edition. This book has become the go-to manual for community building in North America. He is an instructor with the Executive Education program at the University of Alberta School of Business. Griffiths is a former Canadian politician and Member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta representing the constituency of Battle River-Wainwright as a Progressive Conservative. He has since taken a step back from municipal politics, in favour of his role with 13 Ways and his teaching duties, where he has found an ability to make profound change in communities across North America.

Jonathan GillJonathan Gill is a qualified robotic engineer specializing in mechatronic systems starting out in the offshore industry supervising the ROV team in harsh underwater environments. Now working at Harper Adams University as a researcher his main focus is aerial drone systems and their role within agriculture. Operation, design, and programming, not limited to aerial inspection, his focus has been directed to precise spraying operations with large drone systems. The ‘Hands Free Hectare’ which has been the boldest attempted fusing automation, agronomy and agriculture together operating drones and drone technology to achieve a world’s first in 2017, from the projects 3 year success the land to plant and tend has grown from 1 Ha to 35 Ha, the first ‘Hands Free Farm’ started in 2019 this 3 year project is at the heart of his research. He is also a 2018 Nuffield Scholar with his report focusing on ‘How we embrace Automation in agriculture’.

Wednesday January 22 (cont.)Nick Saik

As the driving force behind KNOW IDEAS MEDIA, Nick is a communicator in the fields of agriculture, food, and their related sciences. In addition to articles, and public speaking engagements, Nick has a very active social media presence and YouTube channel that features original videos every week. Those videos are often shared by significant food and agriculture sites, in addition to trending as high as #2 on popular sites like Reddit, with collective views for a single video on various major sites reaching as high as 35 million. Nick is proud to be known for being fair-minded, well-researched, and for presenting facts with both grace and humour. Nick is also very proud to be a source that is highly trusted within the agriculture industry, as well as outside of it.

As an educator, Nick is neither a scientist or a farmer, which allows him to better understand the average consumer’s perspective. Thanks to many years of direct experience doing communications work, Nick has learned a great deal about what truly changes minds and how to build genuine consensus. The usual challenges that range from zealous, aggressive activists, to misinformation that refuses to die. You’ll find Nick’s enthusiasm to be quite infectious, and you should walk away from his presentation feeling more empowered in your food choices.

Nicolette Hahn Niman is a writer, attorney, and livestock rancher. She authored the books Defending Beef: The Case for Sustainable Meat Production (2014) and Righteous Porkchop: Finding a Life and Good Food Beyond Factory Farms (2009), as well as numerous essays for the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Los Angeles Times. She has also written for The Atlantic, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Earth Island Journal, among others. She is a frequent keynote speaker at regional and national conferences, and was one of just 23 speakers from around the world at the Nobel Week Dialogue 2016 in Stockholm, Sweden. She has appeared on The PBS Newshour, The Dr. Oz Show and in numerous films and documentaries, including Eating Animals (2017) and Sustainable (2016). Previously, she was Senior Attorney for the environmental organization Waterkeeper, where she focused on agriculture and food production; before that, she was an environmental lawyer for National Wildlife Federation. Hahn Niman served two terms on the City Commission for Kalamazoo, Michigan. Today, she lives in Northern California with her two sons, and her husband, Bill Niman, founder of the natural meat companies Niman Ranch and BN Ranch, acquired by Blue Apron in 2017.

Nicolette Hahn Niman

Thursday January 23

Dr. Nina von KeyserlingkDr. Marina (Nina) von Keyserlingk is a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Industrial Research Chair in Animal Welfare. Her interdisciplinary approach has focused on identifying measures and ways of improving the lives of animals under our care. She is also among the first in her field to combine experimental and qualitative methods when addressing animal welfare issues. She has published over 250 peer reviewed publications and has received numerous awards, including the 2018 Hans Sigrist Foundation Prize, administered by the University of Bern, Switzerland, for her outstanding achievements as an international leader working in the field of sustainable food animal production. She was also awarded the American Dairy Science Association Extension Award in 2018 and is the only woman to have received the American Dairy Science Association Award for Excellence in Dairy Science.

Graham Sherman Graham Sherman is a self-professed “high level geek” who has used his love of technology to help him master the craft of brewing artisan beer. Together with his partner, Graham launched the Tool Shed Brewery four years ago, and has never looked back. Speaking on what it takes to be a successful entrepreneur, Graham’s passion comes through in every talk. Prior to starting Tool Shed, Graham and his Tool Shed partner worked on contracts for the Canadian and US governments and military forces, installing encrypted, tactical communication networks. By day, they rolled around Afghanistan in armoured vehicles, “geeking out” in the world of satellite communications. By night, they aimed their obsessive, high-level thinking at mastering everyday tasks such as coffee, learning to control their homes in Canada remotely with their iPhones, and finally, perfecting batches of beer. Now sold in over 1000 locations in Western Canada, Tool Shed has its 15,000 square foot headquarters in Calgary, and the team behind the brand has also been nominated as Canadian Entrepreneur of the year, the world’s most prestigious business award for entrepreneurs, with programs in 145 cities in 60 countries. They were also named as two co-winners of the “40 Under 40” recognition from Avenue magazine.

David FarranDavid’s passion for Eau Claire Distillery began with a sincere belief that Alberta’s world class agricultural bounty should be the home to a strong distilling industry. When we ship our grain worldwide for spirits production, it seemed extraordinary that Alberta didn’t have a craft distillery producing local, handcrafted spirits. Combined with deep historical roots in Alberta farming and ranching, David’s hobby of farming with draft horses seemed to be a perfect combination – thus Eau Claire was born with an immediate pedigree – a true farm-to-glass, certified farm distillery, where grain was produced using 100 year old horse farming methods – a first in North America.

Thursday January 23 (cont.)Emmett Sawyer

Emmett Sawyer grew up on his family’s grain and cattle farm west of Acme, Alta. Emmett is currently in his second year at the University of Lethbridge taking Agricultural Enterprise Management. Emmett is extremely passionate about the agriculture industry and considers himself to be an “Agvocate”. He loves to speak about agriculture and is a 4-H Alberta provincial public speaking champion as well as the Canadian Young Speakers for agriculture national public speaking champion. Emmett first got his start as an agriculture advocate by being apart of Ag More Than Evers media campaign titled “Be Somebody” where he was selected to be the face of youth in agriculture across Canada. Emmett is a proud 4-H Alumni as well as a L.E.A.D scholar. He is also a past delegate at the Youth Agriculture Summit that was held in Brazil this past November. Emmett’s most recent adventure has been creating a podcast called “Ag Thoughts With Emmett” where he shares his thoughts and opinions on different agriculture issues. Emmett loves any opportunity to talk about all things related to agriculture from his personal perspective growing up on his family farm in the hopes he can be part of the conversation dispelling the myths running rampant through social media.

Doug is a native of Barrhead where he grew up on a small farm and has always had a passion for Agriculture. This interest brought him to the University of Alberta where he acquired a Bachelor of Science Degree. Virtually the day after graduating, he started his career in agriculture and has gained experience in many different areas ranging from weed science, entomology, plant pathology, agriculture extension, agroforestry, grant programming, agriculture research associations and most recently with the Agriculture Service Board Program. Doug currently lives in Devon with his wife Mèlanie their four children.

Doug Macaulay

Kevin Hursh, PAgAs an agrologist, journalist and farmer, Kevin Hursh is one of the best-known agricultural commentators in the country. Kevin and his wife Marlene run Hursh Consulting & Communications based in Saskatoon. Kevin writes a weekly newspaper column for The Western Producer and contributes to many other farm publications. He also serves as executive director of the Saskatchewan Mustard Development Commission, the Canary Seed Development Commission of Saskatchewan and the Inland Terminal Association of Canada. Kevin and Marlene own and operate Hursh Farms Inc. near Cabri in southwestern Saskatchewan growing a wide array of crops.

Zsuzsanna SangsterOver her 14 year career Zsuzsanna continues to place a high value on relationships within the agriculture community and is honored to be a service provider with AFSC working with Alberta’s agriculture producers to ensure they have the tools they need to be successful and grow. Leading with a strong sense of integrity and management her day is not complete until she has learned something new and tried to make a difference.

Friday January 24

Anne WaskoAnne Wasko has been a market analyst for 35 years focusing on the Canadian cattle and beef industry. She is currently the Market Analyst for Gateway Livestock Exchange based in Taber, Alberta. Anne is also the President of Cattle Trends Inc., and consults for companies and individuals in the cattle business making numerous presentations to conferences across the country. She is a regular contributor to RealAgriculture.com and RealAg Radio on Sirius. Prior to Gateway Livestock, Anne was the Senior Market Analyst with Canfax for 21 years. Anne is also the Chair of the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef and sits on the Saskatchewan Agriculture Development Fund Advisory committee. Anne keeps her feet on the ground working alongside her husband at their ranch in Eastend, SK.

Andre CorbouldPrior to joining government, Andre had a 28-year career in the Canadian Forces holding various high-level positions before retiring as a Brigadier General. His did tours in Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, East Timor, Afghanistan and several domestic operations, including the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games. While in Afghanistan, he worked with 24 Afghan ministries to develop a national reconstruction plan and spent time as Deputy Commanding General of the US Army 10th Mountain Division. Andre is a graduate of civil engineering from the Royal Military College of Canada and has a master in management from the University of Canberra, as well as a master in defence management and policy from the Royal Military College of Canada. • April 2012 Assistant Deputy Minister of Regional Services in Alberta Transportation• June 2013 Chief Assistant Deputy Minister for the Southern Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force, Alberta

Municipal Affairs• Cannot for the life of me see when he was appointed DM at Transportation• July 2015 Deputy Minister Jobs Skills Training and Labour• February 2016 Deputy Minister Alberta Environment and Parks• March 2018 Deputy Minister Alberta Agriculture and Forestry



AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARD PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Chair Corey Beck, Peace Representative Email: [email protected] Vice Chair Marc Jubinville, Northeast Representative Email: [email protected] Secretary Jane Fulton, AAAF 1st Vice President Email: [email protected] Morgan Rockenbach, South Representative Email: [email protected] Wayne Nixon, Central Representative Email: [email protected] Dale Kluin, Northwest Representative Email: [email protected] Brian Brewin, RMA Representative Email: [email protected] Sebastien Dutrisac, AAAF Representative Email: [email protected] Doug Macaulay, AF Representative, ASB Program Manager Email: [email protected] Pam Retzloff, Recording Secretary, ASB Program Coordinator Email: [email protected] Maureen Vadnais-Sloan, Executive Assistant Email: [email protected]

Alternates

Shawn Rodgers, Alternate, South Region Email: [email protected]

Brenda Knight, Alternate, Central Region Email: [email protected]

Kevin Smook, Alternate, Northeast Region Email: [email protected]

Vacant, Alternate, Northwest Region Email:

Dale Smith, Alternate, Peace Region Email: [email protected]



RESOLUTION RULES & PROCEDURES

Approved: January 22, 2019

PROVINCIAL RULES OF PROCEDURE 1

Provincial Agricultural Service Board Conference Resolutions Rules of Procedure

1. Provincial Resolution Committee a. Shall consist of members of the Provincial Agricultural Service Board (ASB) Committee.

Specifically: i. Five Regional Resolutions Committee Chairs

ii. Director or executive member of Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) iii. First Vice President of the Association of Alberta Agricultural Fieldmen (AAAF) as

Secretary iv. Manager of the ASB Grant Program representing Alberta Agriculture and

Forestry (AF) v. Provincial ASB Committee Executive Assistant

2. Responsibilities of Provincial Resolution Committee Members a. Chairman

i. Chairman of the Provincial ASB Committee shall chair the presentation of Resolutions at the Provincial Conference

ii. Present a report card on previous years’ resolutions b. Secretary

i. Receive resolutions from Regional Conferences within five working days of each conference

ii. Provide copies of draft Provincial resolutions to Provincial ASB Committee iii. Provide copies of approved Provincial resolutions to each ASB by December 1 of

each year iv. Record proceedings of Provincial ASB Conference Resolution Session(s) v. Maintain minutes from Provincial ASB Conference

c. Manager ASB Grant Program i. Time speakers to ensure each ASB member has adequate time to speak to the

resolution ii. Provide support to the Chair, Secretary and Executive Assistant

d. Executive Assistant i. Provide support to the Chair and Secretary

ii. Ensure resolutions are in appropriate format e. All other members shall:

i. Assist with presentation of resolutions at the Provincial Conference f. All costs incurred by the members of the committee for attending meetings will be

reimbursed by each individual member’s employer



3. Authority a. The Provincial ASB Committee, in its’ entirety, has authority to review Provincial

resolutions b. Responsibilities include:

i. Request clarification for a resolution from the sponsoring ASB in terms of wording, intent, etc.

ii. Amalgamation of two or more resolutions between jurisdictions if several resolutions are of similar topic and content after consultation and approval of the sponsoring municipalities

iii. Request withdrawal of a resolution if the resolution: 1. Has no bearing whatsoever with the agricultural industry 2. Has been resolved prior to the resolution screening meeting, or 3. Has been covered by another resolution

c. Determine order that resolutions will be presented in i. In the event of receipt by the Committee of two or more contradictory

resolutions, the Committee will order the resolutions in such fashion that the contradictory resolutions are presented consecutively

ii. If the first of the resolutions is passed, the contradicting resolution(s) will be deemed defeated, and will not subsequently be brought to the floor

iii. If the first resolution is defeated, the contradictory resolution(s) will be brought to the floor of the conference for consideration

d. Resolutions passed at an ASB Provincial Conference will be advocated on for a period of five years from the date of approval. A list of expiring resolutions will be placed in the report card annually.

i. If an ASB wishes the resolution to remain active, the resolution must be brought forward for approval again at the next ASB Provincial Conference

ii. Only resolutions from the previous two years will be reported on in the annual Report Card on the Resolutions

4. Resolutions a. Provincial Resolutions

i. Resolutions Provincial in scope and having been passed by simple majority at a Regional Conference shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Provincial ASB Committee within five working days of the Regional Conference. Each resolution submitted for consideration must be accompanied by background information consisting of the history of the issue and potential impacts for the sponsoring municipality and province-wide impacts for municipalities.

ii. After resolutions Provincial in scope are received by the Provincial ASB Committee Secretary, the Provincial ASB Committee will meet to review them

iii. The Provincial ASB Committee shall forward resolutions to each ASB by December 1 each year. Each ASB shall provide sufficient copies for their delegates and staff. Hard copies of Provincial resolutions will be included in the Provincial Conference package available at registration.



b. Regional Resolutions i. Resolutions that are Regional in nature and that have been passed by a Regional

Conference shall be sent by the Secretary of the Regional Resolutions Committee to whomever they are directed to for reply and a copy of the resolution and resolution response sent to the Provincial ASB Committee for information only.

c. Emergent Resolutions i. A resolution received by the Provincial ASB Committee that was not presented

and voted on at a Regional ASB Conference may be considered by the Committee as a potential Emergent Resolution. It may be recommended for acceptance by the Provincial ASB Committee if the resolution is deemed an emergency issue of provincial significance regarding Agricultural Legislation or Agriculture Policy that has arisen since the Regional ASB Conferences, or if the sponsoring ASB can justify to the Committee why the resolution did not come to the floor of a Regional Conference.

ii. If a resolution is denied Emergent status by the Provincial ASB Committee, the sponsoring ASB may appeal this ruling through the Chair to the floor of the Provincial ASB Conference Resolution Session, where it may be reconsidered as Emergent at the pleasure of the Voting ASB Conference Delegates. The vote for acceptance of an appealed Emergent Resolution must be carried by a 3/5 majority of voting Provincial ASB Conference delegates.

iii. Sufficient copies of resolutions accepted as Emergent must be made available by the sponsoring ASB to all conference delegates.

iv. Emergent Resolutions must be submitted to the Secretary of the Provincial ASB Committee 24 hours prior to the start of the Provincial Conference.

5. Procedures a. Approved Provincial Resolutions

i. Resolutions approved for debate at the Provincial Conference by the Provincial ASB Committee shall be handled in numerical order as recommended by the committee unless 3/5 of the voting delegates on the convention floor agree to accept a resolution out of that numerical order.

ii. Each resolution must have a Mover and a Seconder iii. Only the “Therefore Be It Resolved” section will be read iv. The Chairman shall call on the Mover and Seconder to speak to the resolution

and then immediately call for anyone wishing to speak in opposition. 1. If there is no one to speak in opposition, the question shall be called 2. If there are speakers in opposition, the Chairman shall at his discretion

call for anyone other than the Mover or Seconder to speak to the resolution before the debate is closed

v. Anyone wishing to amend a resolution must then speak to the resolution as written, or anyone wishing clarification must speak up. All amendments must have a Mover and Seconder.



vi. Only one amendment will be accepted at a time and only one amendment to the amendment will be accepted on any resolution.

vii. The Chairman has the discretion to request a written amendment. viii. The Mover and Seconder are allowed five minutes in total to speak to the

resolution or amendment. The Seconder may waive his right to speak and the Mover would be allowed the full five minutes.

ix. The Mover and Seconder have the right to close the debate and a maximum of two minutes each will be allowed for this.

x. All other speakers, for or against the resolution, are allowed a maximum of two minutes.

b. Emergent Resolutions i. Resolutions approved as Emergent according to Section 4 shall be dealt with

last. ii. Chair will advise delegates of the ASB Committee comments with respect to

recommending the resolution as emergent. iii. Chair will ask delegates is they wish to accept the resolution for debate.

1. A mover and seconder are required to put a motion on the floor to accept the resolution for debate as emergent.

2. Delegates have the right to speak to the motion regarding whether or not to accept the emergent resolution for debate.

iv. A mover has the right to close debate. v. Chair will call the question.

vi. 3/5 majority required for acceptance of the resolution as emergent vii. If accepted as an emergent resolution, follow procedure for Provincial

Resolutions (Section 5a)

6. Voting and Speaking a. Two municipal delegates at the conference from each municipality who shall display the

voting credentials shall be recognized voters on any resolution. b. An Agricultural Service Board member may have any person speak to a resolution by

their request. c. All Resolutions are passed or defeated by simple majority except where a change to

legislation is asked for or acceptance of an emergent resolutions for debate, when a 3/5 majority is required.

7. Procedures for Approved Resolutions a. Secretary of the Provincial ASB Committee shall submit approved resolutions to the

Provincial ASB Committee members. b. Executive Assistant and Secretary of the Provincial ASB Committee will submit

resolutions to appropriate agencies and organizations for response.



i. Responses will be compiled, returned to the Secretary for distribution to the Provincial ASB Committee and individual ASBs, and posted electronically.

c. Chairman of the Provincial ASB Committee shall: i. Hold a committee meeting to review and discuss responses to resolutions.

ii. Request a committee meeting with RMA Resolutions Committee. iii. Request a committee meeting with the Resource Stewardship Committee to

discuss or clarify resolution responses if deemed necessary. iv. Request a committee meeting with the Ministers of appropriate ministries to

discuss resolution responses if deemed necessary. v. Direct the ASB Committee to prepare and circulate a Resolutions Report Card

itemizing actions that have been undertaken by the Committee in response to resolutions passed at previous conference.

8. Roberts Rules of Order a. The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall

govern the procedure of the Resolutions Committee in all cases for which they are applicable, except if the rules are not consistent with the Provincial ASB Conference Rules of Procedure. The Provincial ASB Conference Rules of Procedure will take precedence. Attached are example excerpts from Robert’s Rules of Order that apply directly to the Resolution Process.

9. Amendments to Provincial Rules of Procedure a. An amendment to these Rules of Procedure may be made by a simple motion from:

i. The Provincial ASB Committee, or, ii. Any voting delegate at the conference

b. Amendments must be accepted by a simple majority of all voting delegates at the Provincial ASB Conference

c. Amendments that are “Carried” will take effect at the next Provincial ASB Conference

.



Provincial Resolutions Format

TITLE

WHEREAS

WHEREAS

WHEREAS

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST

SPONSORED BY:

MOVED BY:

SECONDED BY:

CARRIED

DEFEATED

STATUS

DEPARTMENT

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Background information should include the history of the issue, potential impacts for the sponsoring municipality and the province-wide impacts for municipalities.



The Provincial ASB Committee offers the following excerpts from Robert’s Rules of Order as well as a few other suggestions for clarification of the resolution process. The intent is for the entire assembly to have a clearer understanding of the rules of procedure in order for each member to participate to the fullest extent.

MOTIONS & RESOLUTIONS • A motion is a proposal that the assembly take certain action, or that it express itself as holding

certain views. • It is made by a member obtaining the floor and saying, "I move that,” and then stating the

action he proposes to have taken. • Thus a member "moves" that a resolution be adopted, or amended, or referred to a committee,

or that a vote of thanks be extended, etc.;

HANDLING OF A MOTION What precedes a debate?

• Before any subject is open to debate it is necessary for the following 3 actions to occur; 1. A motion is made by a member who has obtained the floor; 2. The motion is seconded (with certain exceptions); 3. The question is stated by the chair.

• The chair must either rule the motion out of order, or state the question on it so that the assembly may know what is before them for consideration and action, that is, what is the immediately pending question.

Stating of the question by the chair: • When the motion that is in order has been made and seconded, it is the duty of the chair to

formally place it before the assembly by “stating the question”; that is, he states the exact question that is before the assembly for its consideration and action.

o For example, in the case of a resolution, the chair may state the question by saying, “It is moved and seconded to adopt the following resolution”.

• Until the chair states the question, o the mover has the right to modify his motion/resolution as he pleases, or to withdraw it

entirely. o when the mover modifies his motion, the seconder has a right to withdraw his second.

• After the question has been stated by the chair, the motion becomes the property of the assembly,

o the maker can not modify or withdraw his motion/resolution without the assembly’s consent.

• While the motion is pending or being debated, o the assembly can change the wording of the motion by the process of amendment.

ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER – Excerpts & CLARIFICATION OF PROCESSES



Debate • After the chair states a question, it is before the assembly for consideration, debate and action. • No member should speak twice to the same issue until everyone else wishing to speak has

spoken to it once. • Any member who wished to force an end to debate (prior to the chair) must first obtain the

floor by being recognized to speak by the chair. Once the member has obtained the floor he must then move to “Call or put the Question (before the assembly)”. This motion must be seconded, and adopted by unanimous consent.

• All resolutions, reports of committees, communications to the assembly, and all amendments proposed to them, and all other before final action is taken on them (unless by a two-thirds vote the assembly decides to dispose of them without debate). debatable motions may be debated

Modifying a Motion • A motion can be modified or amended after the chair states the question. • Friendly amendments will only be considered for punctuation or spelling corrections.

o As the chair would already have stated the motion, it is now the property of the assembly and therefore the chair will ask the assembly if there are any objections.

o If no objection is made, the chair will declare the amendment adopted. o If even one member objects (which includes the mover and seconder), the amendment

is subject to debate and votes like any other amendment. • The chair will determine if an amendment is germane.

o An amendment must be germane to be in order. o To be germane, an amendment must in some way involve the same question raised by

the motion to which it is applied. o An amendment cannot introduce an independent question. o An amendment can be hostile to, or even defeat the spirit of the original motion and

still be germane.

Putting the Question and Announcing the Vote: • When the debate appears to have closed, the chair asks,

o "Are you ready for the question?" If no one rises he proceeds to put the question – or to take the vote on the question.

• In putting the question the chair should make perfectly clear what the question is that the assembly is to decide.

o For example, "The question is on amending the resolution by [insert amendment]. Those in favor of the amendment, etc. The question is now on the resolution as amended, which is as follows [read resolution as amended]. Are you ready for the question?"

• The vote should always be announced, as it is a necessary part of putting the question. The vote does not go into effect until announced.

• If a vote is too close to call, a standing vote will be required. Voting delegates are to remain standing while the count is taken. The Chair will indicate when to sit once the vote is counted.



REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW OR MODIFY A MOTION • Conditions for withdrawing or modifying a motion depend upon how soon the mover states his

wish to withdraw or modify it. o Before a motion has been stated by the chair, it is the property of its mover, who can

withdraw it or modify it without asking the consent of anyone. Thus, in the brief interval between the making of a motion and the time when the chair places it before the assembly by stating it, the maker can withdraw it.

o After a motion has been stated by the chair, the mover requires permission from the assembly to withdraw or modify a motion.

SECONDING A MOTION • A motion is seconded by a member saying, "I second the motion," or "I second it.”

o Members seconding a motion are also required to stand and identify themselves. This is especially important in large assemblies where non-members are scattered throughout the assembly.

“The assembly rules – they have the final say on everything!” (Robert’s Rules of Order)

“Silence means consent!” (Robert’s Rules of Order)

Note: Content is taken from Robert’s Rules of Order as well as clarification of processes suggested by the Provincial ASB Committee.



MINUTES FROM 2019 ASB CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS

SESSION

2019 Agricultural Service Board Conference Resolution Session Hyatt Regency Hotel, Calgary, Alberta

January 22, 2019

Corey Beck introduced the members of the ASB Provincial Resolutions Committee.

Corey Beck, Chair, Peace Representative Steve Upham, Vice-Chair, Northeast Representative Sebastien Dutrisac, Secretary, Association of Alberta Agricultural Fieldmen (AAAF) Representative Morgan Rockenbach, South Representative Wayne Nixon, Central Representative Dale Kluin, Alternate, Northwest Representative Doug Macaulay, Agriculture and Forestry Representative Maureen Vadnais, Executive Assistant, ASB Provincial Committee

1. Call to Order

Chairman Beck called the meeting to order at 3:42 pm.

2. Adoption of the Agenda

Chairman Beck presented the agenda for the resolution session.

Dan Boisvert, County of Northern Sunrise moved the agenda be adopted as presented. James Nibourg, County of Stettler seconded the motion.

Motion carried.

3. Adoption of Minutes

Glen Belozer, Leduc County, moved that the Minutes for the 2018 Resolution Session be adopted as presented. Kelly Vandenberghe, Leduc County, seconded the motion.

Motion carried.

135 Sunrise Road, Bag 1300, Peace River, AB. T8S 1Y9

4. Adoption of the 2018 Report Card on the Resolutions

Soren Odegard, County of Two Hills, moved that the 2018 Report Card on the Resolutions be adopted as presented. Kevin Smook, Beaver County, seconded the motion.

Motion carried.

5. Amendments to the Rules of Procedure

Chairman Beck reminded ASBs of the significant changes that were proposed at the 2018 Provincial Conference regarding the Provincial Rules of Procedure.

Steve Upham, County of St. Paul, moved that the amendments to the Provincial Rules of Procedure be adopted as presented. James Nibourg, County of Stettler, seconded the motion.

Motion carried (90%).

Chairman Beck reminded ASBs that the changes would come into effect for 2020.

6. Review of the Rules of Procedure

Chairman Beck reviewed the Rules of Procedure for the resolution session.

7. Emergent Resolutions

Chairman Beck reviewed two emergent resolutions that came forward to the Provincial ASB Committee and recommended that the two emergent resolutions be accepted by the Assembly.

The Committee recommended the following resolutions be accepted as emergent:

1. Access to Agriculture Specific Mental Health Resources 2. No Royalties on Farm Saved Seed

Ross Bohnet, Lac Ste. Anne County, moved that Access to Agriculture Specific Mental Health Resources be accepted as an emergent resolution. Robert Esau, M.D. of Lesser Slave River, seconded the motion. Motion carried (86%). Access to Agriculture Specific Mental Health Resources was added to the order of resolutions as Resolution E1.

Neal Roes, Special Area 2, moved that No Royalties on Farm Saved Seed be accepted as an emergent resolution. Terry Ungarian, County of Northern Lights, seconded the motion. Motion carried (89%). No Royalties on Farm Saved Seed was added to the order of resolutions as Resolution E2.

8. Proposed Order of Resolutions

Chairman Beck reviewed the proposed order of resolutions. Terry Carbone, Birch Hills County, moved to accept the order of the resolutions as presented. Terry Ungarian, County of Northern Lights, seconded the motion.

Motion carried.

9. Resolution Debate

Resolution 1-19: Loss of 2% Liquid Strychnine

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST Health Canada and Pest Management Regulatory Agency reconsider their decision and leave 2% Liquid Strychnine on the market available on a permanent basis to agricultural producers to utilize on their farms for control of Richardson’s Ground Squirrels.

Moved by: Dustin Vossler, Cypress County Seconded by: Jason Wilson, Wheatland County

The resolution was voted on as presented.

Motion Carried: 94%

Resolution 2-19: Wildlife Predator Compensation Program Enhancement

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that the Ministers of Environment and Parks, Justice and Solicitor General, and all other relevant government ministries implement an enhanced Predator Compensation Program that could utilize the GPS location and date time features and photo capabilities of smart phone technology to provide photographic or video evidence to assist in the confirmation of livestock death and livestock injury in a timely and prompt manner, and reduce the number of physical site investigations Fish and Wildlife officers must conduct.

Moved by: Brian Harcourt, Clear Hills County Seconded by: Baldur Ruecker, Clear Hills County


Motion Carried: 93%

Resolution 3-19: Deadstock Removal

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that the Provincial Government compensates producers fifty percent (50%) of the deadstock pick up fees with producers bearing the remainder of costs.

Moved by: Mike Schmidt, County of Wetaskiwin Seconded by: Rick Smith, Leduc County


Motion carried: 57%

Resolution 4-19: Carbon Credits for Permanent Pasture and Forested Lands

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that Alberta Agriculture and Forestry develop a process to allow farmers and landowners to access carbon credits for land used for permanent pasture or land that is left forested.

Moved by: Doug Hunter, Clearwater County Seconded by: Brian Rodger, Mountain View County

The resolution was debated and an amendment was suggested to add “perennial forage crops” to the Therefore Be It Resolved after permanent pasture.

Amendment Moved by: Amendment Seconded by:

The amendment was debated and Chairman Beck called for a vote.

Amendment carried: 91%

The amended resolution was then presented to the floor for debate. The amended resolution read:

AGRICULTURAL THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that Alberta Agriculture and Forestry develop a process to allow farmers and landowners to access carbon credits for land used for permanent pasture, perennial forage crops or land that is left forested.

The amended resolution was then voted on.

Motion carried: 96%

Resolution 5-19: Multi-stakeholder Committee to Work at Reducing the Use of Fresh Water by the Oil and Gas Industry in Alberta

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that the Provincial Agricultural Service Board Committee request the Government of Alberta to immediately strike a multi-stakeholder committee to work at reducing the use of fresh water by the oil and gas industry in Alberta

Moved by: Bart Guyon, Brazeau County Seconded by: Kevin Grumetza, Thorhild County


Motion carried: 67%

Resolution 6-19: STEP Program Agricultural Eligibility

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that Government of Alberta review its Summer Temporary Employment Program to include farms and small businesses that are not incorporated.

Moved by: Conny Kappler, Cypress County Seconded by: Jason Wilson, Wheatland County

The resolution was debated. Chairman Beck called for the debate to close and for the motion to be voted on.

Motion carried: 69%

Resolution E1-19:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that the Provincial Government of Alberta facilitates the formation of a free, year-round, all hours, mental health crisis hotline, dedicated to the agriculture industry, providing farmers with direct access to uniquely qualified professionals and resources, whom have both an understanding of mental health issues and agriculture-specific stresses.

FURTHER THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that the Provincial Government of Alberta secure long term, sustainable funding for the operation and maintenance of this mental health crisis hotline.

Moved by: Ross Bohnet, Lac Ste. Anne County Seconded by: Robert Esau, M.D. of Lesser Slave River


Motion carried: 78%

Resolution E2-19:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency abandon the proposal to implement the adoption of End Point Royalties (EPRs) or farm saved seed “trailing royalty contracts”.

FURTHER THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that existing funds which are already farmer funded and and in the hands of farmer directed organizations be utilized to fund variety development programs.

Moved by: Neal Roes, Special Area 2 Seconded by: Terry Ungarian, County of Northern Lights

Chairman Beck called for opposition to the motion and Barry Bruce suggested that the Further Be It Resolved contradicted the Therefore Be it Resolved. Chairman Beck asked if he would like to amend the resolution and Mr. Bruce recommended the following amendment:

Strike Further Therefore Be It Resolved That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Request that existing funds which are already farmer funded and in the hands of farmer directed organizations be utilized to fund variety development programs.

Amendment moved by: Barry Bruce, Beaver County Amendment seconded by: Mike Schmidt, County of Wetaskiwin

There was debate on the amendment. Chairman Beck called for a vote on the amendment.

Amendment carried: 74%

The amended resolution was presented as follows:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency abandon the proposal to implement the adoption of End Point Royalties (EPRs) or farm saved seed “trailing royalty contracts”.

Chairman Beck called for debate on the amended resolution. The amended resolution was voted on as presented.

Motion carried: 94%

Matt Sawyer, Kneehill County, moved to adjourn the 2019 Resolution Session.

Motion carried (90%).



2020 RESOLUTIONS

Agenda for 2020 Resolution Session

1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes from 2019 Resolution Session 4. Adoption of 2019 Report Card 5. Amendments to Rules of Procedures 6. Review Rules of Procedures 7. Emergent Resolutions 8. Order of Resolutions

a. Alberta Agriculture Website b. Weed and Pest Surveillance and Monitoring Technology Grant c. Clubroot Pathotype Testing d. Education Campaign for the Cleanliness of Equipment for Industry Sectors e. AFSC Clubroot f. Beehive Predation g. Agricultural Related Lease Dispositions h. Emergency Livestock Removal i. Mandatory Agriculture Education in the Classroom j. Reinstate a Shelterbelt Program k. Compensation to Producers on Denied Land Access to Hunters l. Proposed Amendments to Part IV of the Federal Health of Animals Regulations m. Canadian Product and Canadian Made

9. Motion to Adjourn

ROPIN’ THE WEB

WHEREAS: The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is responsible for the policies, legislation, regulations, programs, and services that enable Alberta’s agriculture, food, and forest sectors to grow, prosper, and diversify;

WHEREAS: The Ministry of Alberta Agriculture and Forestry’s Ropin’ the Web provided relevant and reliable information from knowledgeable specialists and experts and a general store for agricultural and forestry related supplies and services;

WHEREAS: Rural businesses and organizations were provided opportunities to facilitate business networks with assistance from the Ministry through the Ministry website Ropin’ the Web;

WHEREAS: As part of a larger Government of Alberta web consolidation project, Agriculture and Forestry’s web presence, including Ropin’ the Web, moved to Alberta.ca and by March 31, 2019, online government directories and some relevant agricultural information was no longer available;

WHEREAS: The intent of the consolidation of the various Alberta Government websites on Alberta.ca to provide a one-stop shop for government information and services that is useable and accessible to all Albertans, is no longer providing a valuable services and information for Alberta’s farmers;

WHEREAS: The former Alberta Agriculture Website “Ropin the Web” was easy to use and navigate for farmers and those involved in agriculture;

WHEREAS: Many farmers and people working in the agriculture sector appreciate web-based learning, information sources, and web-based tools;

WHEREAS: The current revised Alberta Agriculture Website is difficult to navigate and with some of the useful extension material no longer available;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED

THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST

That the Government of Alberta review its Agriculture section of the website ensuring that extension material, online

courses and other useful items are easy to find and access for farmers and those in the agriculture industry and

reintroduce the general store.

SPONSORED BY: Mountain View County, Cypress County

MOVED BY:

SECONDED BY:

CARRIED:

DEFEATED:

STATUS: Provincial

DEPARTMENT:

about:blank

about:blank

BACKGROUND

The former Alberta Agriculture website “Ropin’ the Web” is no longer available. The new Alberta Agriculture website is no longer user friendly, has many broken links, and useful materials are no longer available.

Examples of resources no longer available:

• General Stores – within a few clicks you could access a list of books available;

• Tools and calculators;

• The food safety course for farmers market vendors;

• The list of available Agdex

• The Hort Snacks newsletter

• Links for Associations involved in agriculture (i.e., Alberta Farm Fresh Producers Association and theAlberta Farmers Market Association)

In 1999 there were 1.32 million user sessions on the Ropin’ the Web Department website. User feedback was very positive and constructive for the information and service channel.1

The Ministry Internet website, Ropin’ the Web was independently classed as pre-eminent among provincial government web sites and was recognized as one of the best educational sources on the web. The average usage of the site has increased from 1.3 to 1.7 million sessions per month. Over 100 marketing websites, gathered from the North American Farmers Direct Marketing Conference, were tested for website address accuracy, book marked and added to the Direct Market Web Page on Ropin’ the Web. 2

The 2001 – 2002 annual report identified that Ropin’ the Web was rated the best Alberta Government web site for the third consecutive year by an independent survey, and usage increased by 47 per cent to 2.5 million visitors a year.3

In 2003 when the Province confirmed that a single cow had tested positive for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) the public was directed to the Ministry’s Ropin’ the Web site for information on the status of this situation.4

Ropin’ the Web became the trusted website for data and information to support producers, agricultural and agri-food related businesses and their networks. The site contained risk management decision making tools, opportunities, services and programs in the primary and value-added agricultural sectors.

The Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development Annual Reports in 2008-20095 and 2009-20106 identified that rural businesses and organizations are provided opportunities to facilitate business networks with assistance from the Ministry. The General Store provided a platform for allowed rural businesses, custom operators, farmers, rural residents and the general public to easily access agricultural related projects and services. This provided opportunities to assist producers in growing their businesses by increasing marketing opportunities. The General Store offered buy and sell listings for Alberta Hay and Pasture, Wood Biomass, Custom Services Listings, Livestock, Manure and Compost Directory and Food Processing Equipment.

In 2011 Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development information management division created a designated posting and search function for Certified Weed Free Hay on the Alberta Hay and Pasture Directory on the Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development Ropin’ The Web. This is the promoted method to purchase Certified Weed Free Hay as per the Alberta Weed Free Hay Program.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is responsible for:

• policies, legislation, regulations and services necessary for Alberta’s agriculture, food and forest sectors to

grow, prosper and diversify

• inspiring public confidence in wildfire and forest management and the quality and safety of food

• supporting environmentally sustainable resource management practices

about:blank

about:blank

about:blank

about:blank

about:blank

about:blank

• leading collaboration that enables safe and resilient rural communities

“We also have a clear mandate to help job-creators create jobs and increase investment and economic activity for

the province.”6

Municipalities continue to hear from producers that the loss of the Ropin’ the Web site is a major challenge for their

continued operations. As eluded above, the site provided a variety of valuable services to producers that cannot be

replicated by the new direction to use Kijiji or Facebook Marketplace.

Resources

1. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. (2000, September 7). 1999-2000 Annual Report of theMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (pp. 26). Retrieved fromhttps://open.alberta.ca/dataset/61751a19-69d1-4ce1-b430-80bc435950a9/resource/fbe68d78-7589-470c-93dd-3b10224b6ab6/download/21952171999-2000.pdf

2. Deputy Premier and Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. (2001, September 12). 2000-2001Annual Report of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (pp. 22-27). Retrieved fromhttps://open.alberta.ca/dataset/61751a19-69d1-4ce1-b430-80bc435950a9/resource/51f07f03-02d9-4ac1-bf80-cdf29d67bfa1/download/21952172000-2001.pdf

3. Deputy Premier and Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. (2002, August 29). 2001-2002 AnnualReport of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (pp. 41). Retrieved fromhttps://open.alberta.ca/dataset/61751a19-69d1-4ce1-b430-80bc435950a9/resource/3f30233c-e43d-4f6e-a7ad-a2b49241bf75/download/21952172001-2002.pdf

4. Deputy Premier and Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. (2003, September 2). 2002-2003Annual Report of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (pp. 23). Retrieved fromhttps://open.alberta.ca/dataset/61751a19-69d1-4ce1-b430-80bc435950a9/resource/eb952b8b-94c5-49c0-85dc-23a5a08e08a3/download/21952172002-2003.pdf

5. Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2009, September 8). Agriculture and Rural Development AnnualReport 2008-2009 (pp. 60). Retrieved from https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/b36f8f34-1ca0-448b-8777-fe7d3ffebd4e/resource/a2f19ef9-49bc-43ef-aa29-d95fcd2f5fd0/download/6849045-2008-2009-ARD-Annual-Report.pdf

6. Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2010, September 8). Agriculture and Rural Development AnnualReport 2009-2010 (pp. 31). Retrieved from https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/b36f8f34-1ca0-448b-8777-fe7d3ffebd4e/resource/308d6606-ae95-42e4-adc9-d9dbb97f90b9/download/6849045-2009-2010-ARD-Annual-Report.pdf

7. Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. (2019, June 28). Agriculture and Forestry Annual Report 2019-2019 (pp. 4).Retrieved from https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/3bd2d2b9-6ccd-4d8d-a8a2-a5c15da00c2a/resource/bda692e4-785d-4864-9acc-c0263ffd2813/download/agriculture-and-forestry-annual-report-2018-2019-web.pdf

WEED AND PEST SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING TECHNOLOGY GRANT

WHEREAS: Agricultural Service Boards (ASBs) advise on and help organize direct weed and pest control;

WHEREAS: ASBs promote, enhance and protect viable and sustainable agriculture with a view to improving the economic viability of the agricultural producer;

WHEREAS: ASBs promote and develop agricultural policies to meet the needs of the municipality;

WHEREAS: All ASBs must report weed and pest monitoring and surveillance as part of their grant requirement;

WHEREAS: The compilation of data collected from the 69 different Agricultural Service Boards requires extensive labour and time on the part of Alberta Agriculture and Forestry and municipalities;

WHEREAS: The information received may be for up to 2 growing seasons and has become dated for municipal and provincial use;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that Alberta Agriculture and Forestry provide a technology grant and personnel resources to

assist municipalities in establishing a provincial pest and weed surveillance and monitoring

system to improve timely access to data for all the Agricultural stakeholders.

SPONSORED BY: Woodlands County

MOVED BY:

SECONDED BY:

CARRIED:

DEFEATED:

STATUS: Provincial

DEPARTMENT:

BACKGROUND

A Provincial/Municipal Pest and Weed Software initiative would reduce administration cost and also give the Province an “up to date” view of what is going on in the province. Considering the current process for 2019, the files will be gathered and sent to Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (AAF) in spring of 2020 then compiled and released by mid to late summer. This becomes difficult for the municipalities, producers, and industry partners to make informed decisions and secure market access when pest and weed data is dated and up to two growing seasons old.

Many counties and municipalities are using various software or methods to track weeds and pests for their ASB operations. The software provides data information including maps, data sets, and other attributes that can greatly help for surveillance and monitoring activities and help make decisions based on actual field data. Currently, many counties and municipalities do not possess GIS software to track weeds and pests as it is cost prohibitive. The use of hard copy county maps and excel tables to track activities is common in these municipalities. Tracking software can range from $10,000 to $20,000 for initial setup fees and additionally involve an annual subscription fee of $10,000. If each municipality were able to obtain a uniform and compatible software system, the entire province would be able to collect cumulative data that can be used for various surveillance and monitoring purposes (e.g. rate of spreading of weeds or disease, pinpoint specific area in case of outbreak, etc.). This uniform software would provide full assurance for the industry for market access and strengthen surveillance and monitoring activities while at the same time assisting decision makers regarding policies and management activities to reduce the cost of their operation of controlling weeds and pests.

Sharing this data would also reduce municipal and provincial administrative duties as the access to limited information could be regularly and perhaps automatically shared. ASB’s in turn, could monitor situations locally, regionally and provincially with more ease.

This would allow for identification of trends and concerns so the local ASBs could more effectively as per the Agricultural Service Board Act Section (2) a,b,d,e

• act as an advisory body and to assist the council and the Minister, in matters of mutual concern, (with both parties having the same information)

• advise on and to help organize and direct weed and pest control,

• promote, enhance and protect viable and sustainable agriculture with a view to improving the economic viability of the agricultural producer, and

• promote and develop agricultural policies to meet the needs of the municipality

Concerning privacy protection, access to information would be limited to broader, less focused details. This information could be uploaded or accessed remotely by AAF quite easily and still provide privacy protection. The sharing of information would have no bearing on how a municipality would address any infestation for Pest or Noxious Weeds. One municipality could

still issue notices while the neighboring municipality could have a different communication strategy, program and policy.

Providing grant support for the purchase and maintenance of a uniform and Provincially

compatible monitoring software system would increase bargaining power for municipalities in

accessing the system. Such a system would be mutually beneficial for both municipalities and

the Government of Alberta with increased accuracy, timely data delivery, decreased workload

and reliable data for secure market access.

CLUBROOT PATHOTYPE TESTING

WHEREAS: Canola production generates over $7 billion in revenues in the Province of

Alberta annually, is adversely impacted by clubroot;

WHEREAS: Clubroot surveillance and pathotype testing completed by the University of

Alberta Clubroot Research Team led by Dr. Strelkov is the only testing of its kind

being done in Western Canada, and is used to inform the Industry, Alberta

Agriculture and Forestry and producers;

WHEREAS: The unbiased, world recognized testing conducted by the University of Alberta

has been vital to the agricultural industry in breeding canola cultivars resistant to

the ever-evolving number of pathotypes being found in Alberta agricultural

fields;

WHEREAS: Alberta Agriculture and Forestry recently denied a Canadian Agricultural

Partnership (CAP) Project funding application which would allow this extremely

important research to continue;


THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUES

the Province of Alberta commit to consistent and sustainable funding for the Clubroot

Surveillance and Pathotype Monitoring conducted by the University of Alberta.

SPONSORED BY: Big Lakes County

MOVED BY:

SECONDED BY:

CARRIED:

DEFEATED:

STATUS: Provincial

DEPARTMENT:

BACKGROUND

Clubroot was first found infecting a canola crop in 2003 in Sturgeon County. Since that time,

much has been learned about clubroot with a great deal of this knowledge coming from the

efforts of the research team at the University of Alberta, led by Dr. Strelkov.

In 2009, the first clubroot resistant cultivar was released and by 2013, the resistance had been

overcome by a new pathotype. “Pathotypic Shift”, selected for by the very resistance used to

safeguard canola crops had been positively identified. The number of known pathotypes within

Alberta fields ballooned from 8 to our present-day total of 22 separate pathotypes. A new

Canadian Clubroot Differential set was developed, primarily by Dr. Strelkov and his team to allow

for the differentiation of the new pathotypes.

In 2017, clubroot was positively identified in the Peace Region of Alberta for the first time. Big

Lakes County was fortunate to be offered pathotype testing by the University of Alberta research

team and sent 20 samples to their lab. Of those samples, 3 novel resistance breaking pathotypes

were discovered.

Due to the “clubroot free” status enjoyed by Big Lakes County producers until 2017, clubroot

resistant cultivars were not being deployed in the field in any great numbers. In 2018, that

changed with over 95% of producers utilizing the technology. Big Lakes County was again invited

to submit samples for pathotype testing to the University of Alberta. 2 novel resistance breaking

pathotypes were discovered on the 5 submitted samples.

Clubroot is a quickly evolving pathogen that requires an integrated management approach to

deal with. If no pathotype testing is available for these samples, Alberta Agriculture and Alberta

Producers will only have part of the picture. To protect our canola industry and agriculture, pests

must be taken seriously.

On October 18, 2019, Dr. Strelkov informed Big Lakes County that the University of Alberta

Clubroot team would have to pause on pathotype testing as the Canadian Agricultural

Partnership grant application they submitted jointly with Alberta Canola had been turned

down. The reasoning given in the denial was that comprehensive networks already exist on the

topic of clubroot. Currently, the University of Alberta Clubroot team is the only team

conducting in depth, specific to Alberta research on this pathogens pathotypes. The research

has informed agronomists, commissions, Alberta Agriculture and the World. The work being

done at the University of Alberta is of vital importance to the future of the canola industry in

Alberta and needs to continue, unimpeded.

EDUCATION CAMPAIGN FOR CLEANLINESS OF EQUIPMENT FOR INDUSTRY SECTORS

WHEREAS: Farm and construction equipment can be purchased from any dealership and moved to any area;

WHEREAS: Equipment dealerships could play a better role in ensuring weeds and pests from one area stays out of another area;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST Alberta Agriculture and Forestry create an education campaign directed specifically at equipment dealerships that outlines their role and promotes the importance of moving clean, uncontaminated equipment.

SPONSORED BY: Cypress County

MOVED BY:

SECONDED BY:

CARRIED:

DEFEATED:

STATUS: Provincial

DEPARTMENT:

BACKGROUND

Through the Canadian Council of Invasive Species there is a current program called “PlayCleanGo” which is an initiative created to stop or slow down the spread of invasive species directed at the recreation industry.

This initiative is widely recognized and would be beneficial if there was education campaign created to target equipment dealerships specifically.

From the Canadian Council of Invasive Specie website: (https://canadainvasives.ca/programs/playcleango/)

“What is PlayCleanGo?

PlayCleanGo started as a Minnesota State, education initiative to stop the spread of invasive species in parks and natural areas.

The goal is to encourage outdoor recreation while protecting valuable natural resources. The objective is to slow or stop the spread of terrestrial invasive species (those that occur on land) through changes in public behaviour.

The Canadian Council on Invasive Species entered into an agreement with Minnesota in late 2-16 that enabled Canadian Council on Invasive Species to adapt and implement PlayCleanGo: Stop Invasive Species in Your Tracks, as a national branded program across Canada.

Degradation of Our Natural Environment

Natural areas such as forests, prairies, wetlands and lakes provide many ecosystem services and benefits. Natural areas provide shelter and food for wildlife, remove pollutants from air and water, produce oxygen and provide valuable recreational and educational opportunities.

Invasive species threaten and can alter our natural environment and habitats and disrupt essential ecosystem functions. Invasive plants specifically displace native vegetation through competition for water, nutrients, and space. Once established, Invasive species can:

• Reduce soil productivity

• Impact water quality and quantity

• Degrade range resources and wildlife habitat

• Threaten biodiversity

• Alter natural fire regimes

• Introduce diseases

Invasive species threaten many rare and endangered species and now those species are at risk of extinction. Once established, invasive species become costly and difficult to eradicate. Often, the impacts are irreversible to the local ecosystem.

https://canadainvasives.ca/programs/playcleango/

Impacts on Agriculture

Invasive plants can have a wide range of impacts on the agricultural industry. Invasive plants can act as new or additional hosts for new or existing crop diseases and crop pests, they can cause reductions in crop yields and may require increased use of pesticides to control them. This increases costs for farmers and reduces crop values. Estimated crop losses in BC agriculture industry of over $50 million annually. Species such as knapweed infest rangelands and reduce forage quality. Many other species out-compete desired species in cultivated fields (Source: BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. 1998. Integrated weed management—an introductory manual). The estimated annual economic impact of invasive plants on Canadian agriculture is $2.2 billion (Environment Canada, 2010).

Interference with Forest Productivity

Invasive species, specifically invasive plants, can interfere with forest regeneration and productivity through direct competition with tree seedlings, resulting in reduced density and slowed growth rate of tree saplings. Reduction in forest regeneration and productivity results in the loss of wildlife habitat, and decreases the diversity of a stand, making it more vulnerable to insects and disease.

Economic Impacts

Invasive plants can have a large economic impact on individual landowners and municipalities. A recent study shows that property values for shoreline residences in Vermont affected with Eurasian water-milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) were down as much as 16.4 % (OMNRF, 2012). Due to the explosion of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), Manitoba has experienced a $30 million reduction in land values (CFIA, 2008). Leafy spurge infests 340,000 acres of land in Manitoba, costing taxpayers an estimated $19 million per year to protect grazing land, public land, and rights-of-way (CFIA, 2008). In Ontario, the MNRF has been involved with invasive Phragmites control pilot projects since 2007 and to date control costs range between $865 and $1,112 per hectare (OMNRF, 2012). Invasive species have an impact on approximately 20% of Species at Risk in Ontario (OMNRF, 2012).

Invasive plants directly affect municipalities with reforestation projects and recreational trails. They increase management costs (e.g. project planning and monitoring) and they increase operational costs (e.g. mowing, pruning and hand pulling). They also complicate reforestation projects as they need to first be removed, and then the gaps created through removal must be addressed by using large, potted plant stock, or additional site maintenance to prevent the risk of re-invasion.

The economic impact of invasive species in Canada is significant. According to Environment Canada and Climate Change:

• The estimated annual cumulative lost revenue caused by just 16 invasive species is between $13 to $35 billion.

• Invasive species that damage the agricultural and forestry industries results in an estimated $7.5 billion of lost revenue annually.”

The PlayCleanGo is a widely recognized and highly successful initiative. The PlayCleanGo website contains resources and relevant information targeted for the recreation industry but could also be applied for other industries as well. With a successful campaign like PlayCleanGo, there should be another campaign to target other industry sectors to remind them the role they play in the prevention or spreading invasive species and diseases.

AFSC ASSIST IN PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF REGULATED CROP PESTS

WHEREAS: Crop diseases are becoming more prevalent and wide spread in Alberta due to shortened crop rotations;

WHEREAS: Disease resistance is breaking down more quickly due to shortened crop rotations;

WHEREAS: Longer crop rotations can significantly decrease pest and disease infestations;

WHEREAS: Most crop producers carry crop insurance through the provincial crown corporation Agricultural Financial Services Corporation (AFSC);

WHEREAS: AFSC has the ability to promote better and longer crop rotations by declining or pricing insurance in a manner that discourages short crop rotations;

WHEREAS: Other jurisdictions such as Saskatchewan use their provincial Crown corporations for crop insurance to promote recommended crop rotations;

WHEREAS: The Minister has the ability under the Agricultural Pests Act Section 3(d) to enter into an agreement with AFSC to prevent establishment of or control or destroy pests;

WHEREAS: During the 2015 ASB Provincial Conference Resolution #1 ADAPT CROP INSURANCE TO PROTECT CLUBROOT TOLERANT VARIETIES was passed. The resolution requested similar actions to be taken, the response report card deemed actions taken to be unsatisfactory;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST That the Alberta Minister of Agriculture and Forestry per section 3(d) of the Agricultural Pests Act enter into an agreement with AFSC to decline insurance on canola acres under their program if canola has been planted back to back in rotation.

FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST That the Alberta Minister of Agriculture and Forestry per section 3(d) of the Agricultural Pests Act enter into an agreement with AFSC to impose an insurance premium on land which has been planted to canola in contradiction to the Province’s Clubroot Management Plan.

SPONSORED BY: Kneehill County

MOVED BY:

SECONDED BY:

CARRIED:

DEFEATED:

STATUS: Provincial

DEPARTMENT:

BACKGROUND

Kneehill County has recently confirmed clubroot in its borders, and in addition nearly all surrounding municipalities have also confirmed clubroot. As an Agricultural Service Board we constantly promote and emphasize the importance of good crop rotations to prevent yield loss due to disease, pests and other invasive species that are detrimental to crop production. Despite these efforts many producers have actually tightened rotations so much so that some are growing canola and other crops back to back. The introduction of resistant varieties has provided a false sense of security for many producers reducing their fear of contracting clubroot or other diseases.

In 2003, the first report of clubroot in a commercial canola field in Canada was identified near Edmonton. In April 2007 clubroot was declared a pest under the Alberta Agricultural Pests Act and the province developed a Clubroot Management Plan to assist municipalities in dealing with this pest. In 2011 the first clubroot resistant varieties of canola were introduced in Alberta. However, due to continued poor rotational cropping practices, breakdown in resistance of these varieties occurred, which has led to the establishment of new pathotypes. In 2013 the first pathotypes were identified in two fields- this has since multiplied substantially to over 192 fields and 17 different pathotypes, 11 of which can break resistance as of December 2018.

Since 2003, clubroot has spread and is now found in over 3000 fields in this province affecting 40 counties plus the cities of Edmonton, Medicine Hat, and the Town of Stettler, and continues to spread at a rate of 20km/year. The map below shows where clubroot has been found and the color code indicates the number of fields that have been found in the affected municipalities.

AGRICULTURAL PESTS ACT - Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000, Chapter A-8

Current as of November 1, 2014

Section 3 Powers of Minister

3(1) The Minister may

(a) investigate any matter,

(b) conduct surveys,

(c) establish programs, or

(d) enter into agreements with any person, local authority, agency or government,

for the purpose of preventing the establishment of, controlling or destroying a pest or

nuisance and preventing or reducing damage caused by a pest or nuisance.

(2) The Minister may exempt any land from the operation of all or part of this Act.

1984cA-8.1 s3

Figure 1. Alberta Clubroot Map: Cumulative clubroot infestations as of December 2018. Map courtesy of S.E. Strelkov, University of Alberta and M. Hartman, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development.

BEEHIVE DEPREDATION

WHEREAS: Alberta agriculture has a spectrum of different farming and ranching operation;

WHEREAS: The Ungulate Damage Prevention Program, offers producers advice and assistance to prevent ungulates from spoiling stored feed and unharvested crops;

WHEREAS: All commercially grown cereal, oilseed, special and other crops that can be insured under the Production and Straight Hail Insurance programs are eligible for compensation;

WHEREAS: The Wildlife Predator Compensation Program provides compensation to ranchers whose livestock are killed or injured by wildlife predators;

WHEREAS: Alberta Beekeepers, as an Alberta Agricultural Producers, also experiences wildlife damages such as hive destruction every year by bear depredation but is not covered by a program;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST That Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Alberta Environment and Parks work with Agriculture Financial Services Corporation to amend the Wildlife Compensation Program to include coverage for hive destruction by bear activity.

SPONSORED BY: Northern Sunrise County

MOVED BY:

SECONDED BY:

CARRIED:

DEFEATED:

STATUS: Provincial

DEPARTMENT:

BACKGROUND

Source: https://afsc.ca/news/wildlife-damage-compensation-program-what-you-need-to-know/

With the onset of harvest season, an intense effort by producers around the province is underway to ensure the crops are being taken off the field in a timely manner.

Circumstances surrounding harvest may not always be suitable for a swift completion of the effort. There might be some damage to crops stemming from the presence of wildlife in the area.

Wildlife Damage Compensation Program (WDCP), administered by AFSC in Alberta and funded completely by the federal and provincial governments, provides coverage for producers who suffer crop loss or degradation due to wildlife.

To benefit from this program, a producer does not have to have an insurance policy with AFSC, but it is important to know that not all crops are eligible under WDCP.

Here are some basic guidelines of how WDCP works:

– WDCP compensates agricultural producers for wildlife damage to eligible unharvested crops, wildlife excreta contaminated crops, silage or haylage in pits and tubes; and stacked hay.

– While producers pay no premium to be eligible for indemnity, a non-refundable $25 appraisal fee per inspection is required for each section of land (or portion thereof) on which the damage has occurred with at least 10 per cent wildlife damage and a minimum of $100 loss per crop must be assessed for payment eligibility.

– All commercially grown cereal, oilseed, special and other crops that can be insured under the Production and Straight Hail Insurance programs are eligible for compensation. Swath grazing, bale grazing and corn grazing are eligible for compensation only up to October 31.

– To initiate a wildlife claim on Stacked Hay and Silage or Haylage in pits and tubes, a producer must first contact a provincial Fish and Wildlife (FW) Officer who will provide the producer with appropriate recommendations to prevent further damage prior to a claim being paid.

– Crops under the following circumstances are not eligible: Crops in granaries, bins, stacks or bales left in the field (exception: silage in pits and tubes are eligible); crops seeded on land considered unsuitable for production; crops seeded too late in the season to produce a normal yield; volunteer crops; crops left exposed to wildlife damage due to management practices.

Source: https://afsc.ca/crop-insurance/perennial-crop-insurance/wildlife-damage-compensation-program/

The Wildlife Damage Compensation program compensates agricultural producers for damage to eligible unharvested hay crops that is caused by ungulates, upland game birds and waterfowl.

about:blank

about:blank

about:blank

about:blank

Producers wishing to participate in the Wildlife Damage Compensation Program are not required to have insurance to qualify for a claim. All costs for this program are paid by the federal and provincial governments; producers pay no premium or administration cost except for the appraisal fee. A non-refundable appraisal fee of $25 per inspection type is required for each section of land or portion thereof on which the damage has occurred.

In order for a producer to be compensated under the program, there must be at least 10 per cent wildlife damage and a minimum of $100 calculated loss per crop. Damaged hay crops must not be harvested until an AFSC inspector inspects them.

The following crops are not eligible: grazing land or native pasture; crops seeded on land considered unsuitable for production; crops left exposed to wildlife damage due to management practices.

For stacked and haylage in pits and tube, producers are responsible to notify Fish and Wildlife and AFSC as soon as possible after first noticing damage to request an inspection. A provincial Fish and Wildlife (FW) Officer will provide the producer with appropriate recommendations to prevent further damage prior to a claim being paid. Source: https://www.alberta.ca/wildlife-predator-compensation-program.aspx

The Wildlife Predator Compensation Program provides compensation to ranchers whose

livestock are killed or injured by wildlife predators.

Funding for the Wildlife Predator Compensation Program comes from dedicated revenue from

the sale of recreational hunting and fishing licences in Alberta and from the federal

government.

about:blank

Compensation is paid only for Compensation is not paid for

Cattle, bison, sheep, swine and goats.

Any other animal, including horses,

donkeys or exotic animals, such as

llamas, alpacas or wild boar.

Attacks by wolves, grizzly bears, black bears,

cougars and eagles.

Attacks by other types of predators,

such as coyotes.

The costs of veterinary care and medication

associated with the incident or the loss of an

animal, up to the value of the animal based on the

average for the type and class of livestock.

Incidents of feeding on livestock

that had already died of disease or

other causes not related to wildlife

predation.

AGRICULTURAL RELATED LEASE DISPOSITIONS

WHEREAS: Agricultural Lease Dispositions on Public Lands are an integral component of many

livestock operations throughout the Province of Alberta;

WHEREAS: The demographics of the Province of Alberta’s Agricultural Producers indicate

that the sector is experiencing and will continue to experience the rapid

succession of livestock operations for the foreseeable future;

WHEREAS: The sale and/or purchase of Agricultural Lease Dispositions represent the

transfer of an asset and the capital used to develop that asset;



a transfer of the management of Public Lands- Agricultural Related Lease Dispositions to the

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to streamline and/or provide increased resources to

expedite the disposition of Agricultural Leases within the Province of Alberta.

SPONSORED BY: Big Lakes County

MOVED BY:

SECONDED BY:

CARRIED:

DEFEATED:

STATUS: Provincial

DEPARTMENT:

BACKGROUND

Grazing leases have existed in Alberta since 1881 and were created to encourage economic

activity utilizing forage on Crown Lands, allowing producers to grow their herds by utilizing large

swaths of Provincial grass resources. This system has been an integral component of the Alberta

Livestock Industry’s success.

Grazing Leases are managed by Alberta Environment and Parks and can be issued for terms not

exceeding 20 years, though 10 years is the typical allotment. Once assigned, lease holders have

exclusive rights to the use of the specified land(s) for grazing purposes. In Alberta, there are

approximately 5,700 grazing leases utilizing approximately 8 million acres of range for livestock

through various dispositions.

Once a grazing lease has been issued, the lease becomes an asset to the lease holder. The lease

holder is responsible for fencing, necessary outbuildings and other capital expenditures. If a lease

holder wishes to transfer a grazing lease to an arm’s length entity through the sale of the lease

rights, an “Application for General Assignment of Disposition” must be completed, all fees must

be paid, and the completed package submitted to Alberta Environment and Parks, Operations

Division. Fees for this process are dependent for the Zone the Grazing Lease is locate in. Zone C

in the Northern portion of the Province of Alberta fees are $5 per animal unit month (AUM). An

AUM is defined within the Public Lands Act, RSA 2000 cP-40 s104;2009 cA-26.8 s91(49) as the

forage required to sustain a cow of average weight with a calf at foot for the period of one month.

Approvals of a grazing lease had a wait time of 12-16 months for transfer to the arm’s length

entity in 2015. Livestock producers within Alberta have reported that final approval of grazing

lease disposition transfers is taking more than 3 years to complete. This presents a challenge to

producers as the sale of grazing lease rights represents a transfer of asset from one producer to

another. While the final approval remains incomplete, the current lease holder cannot collect

on the funds from the sale of the grazing lease disposition rights. These funds are held in trust

until the disposition application is approved.

With the current demographics of Alberta Livestock Producers, this protracted process

represents undue hardship for both the lease holder and the arm’s length entity purchasing the

rights to the grazing lease disposition. Succession of livestock operations is an ongoing process

throughout the Province. Consolidation of these operations is also a very active concern. By

protracting the period of completion of these transfers, the purchaser has no responsibility to

improve or maintain the grazing lease and the lease holder is still responsible for payment of

rent.

With an anticipated increase in pressure of multiple succession of operations over a short period

of time and continued consolidation, coupled with almost 5,700 active leases that may require

transfer throughout the Province of Alberta, the current FTE for transfers of Grazing Lease

Dispositions of 2.0 is inadequate.

Within the Public Lands Administration Regulations, 30 days are given for the Director to provide

notice to the applicant that an application for formal disposition has been accepted or rejected

and 1 year after this notice the Director is to issue a notice of the issuance of the disposition or

refusal to issue. Currently the Crown is not complying with the Public Lands Administration

Regulation.

EMERGENCY LIVESTOCK REMOVAL

WHEREAS: Maintaining livestock health, viability and profitability during emergency situations such as, but not limited to, disease, fire and flooding is a major priority to livestock producers;

WHEREAS: Livestock removal during emergency situations pose major challenges to producers’ safety, livelihoods and animal welfare;

WHEREAS: Major challenges arise from transportation, acquiring pasture and red tape from various departments to access grazing reserves;

WHEREAS: These major challenges restrict the ability of these producers to evacuate rapidly and pose serious risk to life and property;

WHEREAS: Removal of red tape and rapid access to grazing reserves and/or created areas allotted for the use during emergency situations would improve the evacuation process, protect life and property;

WHEREAS: Currently Municipal Affairs and Agriculture and Forestry do not coordinate an effort to make livestock removal a priority under the Emergency Management Act in rural areas;

WHEREAS: The purpose of an Agricultural Service Board is to improve the economic welfare and safety of producers and by not having a provincial streamlined system to safely and effectively remove and rehome livestock; emergency situations will continue to plague the life and property of producers;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARD REQUEST that Municipal Affairs, Agriculture and Forestry and Environment and Parks—Public Lands work together to improve access and provide all necessary resources to create separate allotments at grazing reserves and/or other created sites designated for livestock during emergency management situations and recognize livestock removal as an important part in the Emergency Management Act.

FURTHER THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARD REQUEST that Municipal Affairs and Agriculture and Forestry work together to research and develop best practice procedures in the event livestock are to be left behind due to an Evacuation Order issued under the Emergency Management Act.

Sponsored by: County of Northern Lights

Moved by:

Seconded by:

Carried:

Defeated:

Status: Provincial

Department:

BACKGROUND In May of 2019 we saw widespread fires and emergency situations erupt throughout Northern Alberta. One of many fires was the Battle Complex Fire (PWF 052), which led to an evacuation of the Northern half of the County of Northern Lights. It became apparent that the removal of livestock and willingness of livestock producers to leave would become a major challenge to emergency management staff at the County of Northern Lights as the County is not equipped to provide assistance in removal of livestock to increase the likelihood of producers evacuating. Two reoccurring themes emerged from producers.

1. “Where could I even move my livestock if I wanted too?” 2. “I can’t remove my livestock, what is the best practices if I have to leave them and get

out?”

It would remove a major hurdle to livestock producers if it was public knowledge that they had a place to rehome livestock during emergencies, if they chose. The initiation of sound research and development of standard operating procedures regarding what to do if you cannot remove the livestock would reduce the stress for producers and first responders in the event of an evacuation. Dealing with the immediate threat of the fire, the staff realized there was little they could do to help and few resources to offer in this situation other than reaching out to intermunicipal contacts and Alberta Environment and Parks to find pasture or reserves with space to rehome livestock. If areas were designated for emergency use provincially and producers were aware of these sites, they would act before immediate threat to life and property was posed. This would not only be beneficial to producers but also the brave emergency responders that work tirelessly to keep our community safe. Livestock producers who are under immediate threat of evacuation must be given viable options for their animals if we expect them to evacuate, by addressing this threat to life and property it allows emergency responders to perform their jobs more effectively and does not create another hazard of livestock running loose.

The County of Northern Lights would like to thank all the emergency responders that risked their lives to save our community. We would also like to thank all the volunteers for their time, resources and trucks to rehome livestock of affected producers. It’s families like these that help to build strong, robust and vibrant communities but provincially we shouldn’t have to rely solely on great volunteers. A structured and targeted Inter-Ministerial Provincial Plan on how to respond during an Agricultural Emergency needs to be created. That is why we need to make Emergency Livestock Removal a priority and provide the necessary funding and areas required to protect life and property.

MANDATORY AGRICULTURE EDUCATION IN THE CLASSROOM

WHEREAS: Agricultural production in Alberta has historically been and continues to be a major economic force and employer of workers;

WHEREAS: Generations ago, most Albertans grew up on the family farm and had an intimate knowledge about how livestock, crops, and other agricultural commodities were raised;

WHEREAS: Most Albertans now live in urban non -farm environments and do not have the same level of knowledge about how livestock, crops, and other agricultural commodities are being raised;

WHEREAS: The general public has historically had a high regard for agriculture and farmers as they put food on their table in Alberta, Canada, and the rest of the world;

WHEREAS: Modern agriculture in Alberta is being severely tested by concerns about how livestock, crops, and agricultural produce is being raised, especially regarding environmental impacts, animal cruelty, and farm safety;

WHEREAS: Many of these concerns stem from a lack of knowledge about agriculture in the general community;

WHEREAS: Alberta Education is currently reviewing the teaching curriculum making it very timely to consider this resolution;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta and Alberta Agriculture & Forestry work with other rural stakeholders, Alberta Education, and the Alberta Teachers’ Association to request that mandatory agriculture education be implemented in the school curriculum in Alberta.

SPONSORED BY: Lac La Biche County

MOVED BY:

SECONDED BY:

CARRIED:

DEFEATED:

STATUS:

DEPARTMENT:

BACKGROUND Lac La Biche County, like most Alberta rural municipalities, has a significant world – class agricultural sector that is a Canadian success story sometimes unknown to the community at large. Grade 4 students in schools in Lac La Biche County, (public, Catholic, or Francophone) may be taught agriculture in the classroom so long as the school approves. The Classroom Agriculture Program (CAP) is a well-known and highly respected education program currently reaching over 20,000 Grade 4 Alberta students annually. Since its beginning, CAP has reached more than 570,000 Alberta youth. CAP is about creating a broader understanding of the food we eat and where it comes from.

Students start to understand the value and important of agriculture in Alberta, the vast

opportunities, and the people and producers that drive this industry. Volunteers deliver the

program through storytelling, engaging props and fun activities. With the support of

Agriculture for Life, the program’s goal is to expand and reach 30,000 Alberta students

annually over the next two years. This initiative is endorsed by Alberta Education and Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. “Agriculture is vital. We are getting further and further from the farm. It is imperative that people understand that their food comes from farms – not just the grocery store. That message can begin at school,” states CAP General Manager Don George. Lac La Biche County Council believes this message needs to be delivered to all schools in Alberta. The Provincial ASB Committee is currently working on Resolution 3-17: Incorporating Agriculture and Agri-Food Education in the Classroom. This shows that Classroom agricultural education is very important to the entire province and to the Provincial Agricultural Service Board. This resolution seeks to emphasise the urgent need to actively implement agriculture education throughout classrooms in the province. Further, Alberta Education is currently reviewing all grade school and high school curriculum so it’s a perfect opportunity to have agriculture education incorporated as part of the overall curriculum.

REINSTATE A SHELTERBELT PROGRAM

WHEREAS: The Government of Canada cancelled the Prairie Shelterbelt Program in 2013, a program which ran successfully from 1901-2013;

WHEREAS: Shelterbelts provide many direct benefits to landowners, including snow trapping, reducing soil erosion from wind, and acting as visual screens;

WHEREAS: Shelterbelts provide indirect benefits to all Canadians by providing ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, and pollinator habitat;

WHEREAS: Weather conditions and high levels of pest pressure has taken its toll on existing shelterbelts;

WHEREAS: Municipalities bear the extra cost of road maintenance (snow clearing, dust

control) when shelterbelts start to die;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that Alberta Agriculture and Forestry implement a shelterbelt program

SPONSORED BY: Brazeau County

MOVED BY:

SECONDED BY:

CARRIED:

DEFEATED:

STATUS: Provincial

DEPARTMENT:

BACKGROUND

Previously, the Government of Alberta provided trees and shrubs to Alberta farmers for shelterbelts. Various government departments managed the program over the years, but starting in 1951, the Department of Agriculture took over. In 1997 the nursery was privatised. It is estimated that over 60 million trees and shrubs were planted through the lifetime of the Alberta Shelterbelt Program.

The federal government also provided free tree seedlings to farmers from 1901-2013. The year the program was disbanded, it still distributed more than three million trees per year to 7000 clients. From 2000-2013 the federal program distributed 14.5 million trees and shrubs to Alberta’s farmers. It is estimated that over the lifetime of the program they distributed over 600 million trees to prairie farmers.

While farming practises have improved and decreased soil erosion across the prairies, shelterbelts are not just for preventing the loss of soil. While traditionally thought of as rows of trees adjacent to a yard site or field, shelterbelts can be planted in many areas to attain different goals. Shelterbelts can be planted adjacent to riparian areas, livestock facilities, and dugouts.

Benefits of shelterbelts

• Carbon sequestration

• Reduction of soils erosion by wind

• Protects adjacent buildings, assisting in the reduction of energy consumption

• Increased soil moisture adjacent to the shelterbelt

• Wildlife habitat and shelter

• Pollinator habitat and shelter

• Snow trapping

• Improved soil moisture

• Improved winter safety and reduced cost of snow removal on adjacent roadways

• Rural landscape beautification

• Screens for odours and dust from farm operations

• Screens dust from road traffic into rural residences

• Increase bank stability in riparian areas

• Water filtration in run off areas

Many shelterbelts are reaching the end of their lifespan or are over mature. The former

program provided incentive to plant new shelterbelts or replace dying ones. With government

concerns over the climate and carbon capture, the prairie shelterbelt program would assist in

those goals. While farmer’s received direct benefits from the program, Canadians as a whole

receive many indirect benefits from shelterbelts.

COMPENSATION TO PRODUCERS ON DENIED LAND ACCESS TO HUNTERS

WHEREAS: Damage to livestock fencing, stacked feed, green feed or silage pits has increased

due to the growing deer and elk population;

WHEREAS: Damage caused by deer and elk may be reduced through best management

practices including issuance of additional hunting tags;

WHEREAS: Controlled reduction of the ungulate population cannot be undertaken on lands

where hunting is not permitted;

WHEREAS: No compensation should be paid to landowners for damage to fences, stacked feed,

green feed losses or silage pits and tubes if land access to hunters is denied;

WHEREAS: Landowners can develop their own system to allow land access to hunters;



that Alberta Environment and Parks withhold compensation for damage caused to fences, stacked

feed or green feed to landowners that do not permit access to land for hunting of wildlife.

SPONSORED BY: Municipal District of Willow Creek No. 26

MOVED BY:

SECONDED BY:

CARRIED:

DEFEATED:

STATUS: Provincial

DEPARTMENT:

BACKGROUND

Over population of wildlife (deer and elk) causing destruction of crops and feed.

PREAMBLE

Producers incur additional expenses for damage to crops, silage and feed that is destroyed by deer

and elk as well as fence repairs and replacement. In areas where the population of deer and elk

has increased dramatically, Alberta Fish and Game has proposed to increase the number of cow

elk tags issued to each hunter to control the population. Hunters that are drawn for cow elk will

receive two tags instead of one. This will not increase the number of hunters, only the allotment

of tags issued to them.

The intent is not to allow trespassing by anyone, permission will need to be granted by the

landowner. The landowner is in control of when, who and how many hunters are allowed on their

property at all times. Landowners must work with hunters to decease the deer and elk population

which in turn will provide relief from the damages done and the hazards of overpopulation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Landowners that deny access to any hunting on their lands also not qualify to receive

compensation from any sources for damages or preventative measures due to the overpopulation

of deer and elk in their area.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PART XV OF THE FEDERAL HEALTH OF ANIMALS REGULATIONS

WHEREAS: Under the authority of the Federal Health of Animals Regulations, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is proposing significant amendments to the reporting requirements regarding the movement of livestock in Canada;

WHEREAS: The “data requirements” as identified by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are exhaustive, unreasonable and seriously taxing to many livestock producers and farm operators;

WHEREAS: Dependable, long range, high frequency identification tags and consequent readers are not currently readily available;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST The Canadian Food Inspection Agency postpone their proposed amendments to the federal Health of Animals Regulations until such a time that the identified “data requirements” can be accurately collected by livestock producers and farm operators.

SPONSORED BY: Municipal District of Pincher Creek

MOVED BY:

SECONDED BY:

CARRIED:

DEFEATED:

STATUS: Provincial

DEPARTMENT:

BACKGROUND

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is proposing amendments to federal traceability regulations which would require reporting of information referred to as “data requirements” any time an animal is moved from one premise to another. The proposed amendments are identified explicitly in the Livestock Identification and Traceability Program (TRACE) – Regulatory Update. No 5, June 1st, 2019.

The Agricultural Service Board of the M.D. of Pincher Creek submitted the following letter to outline our concerns on July 22, 2019:

The following response was received from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency:

CANADIAN PRODUCT AND CANADIAN MADE

WHEREAS: The guidelines for "Product of Canada" and "Made in Canada" claims promote compliance with subsection 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act and subsection 6(1) of the Safe Food for Canadians Act, which prohibit false and misleading claims;

WHEREAS: A food product may use the claim "Product of Canada" when all or virtually all major ingredients, processing, and labour used to make the food product are Canadian;

WHEREAS: A "Made in Canada" claim with a qualifying statement can be used on a food product when the last substantial transformation of the product occurred in Canada, even if some ingredients are from other countries;

WHEREAS: Products will qualify for a “Made in Canada” when at least 51% of the total direct cost of producing or manufacturing the good must have occurred in Canada;

WHEREAS: Some of our “Made in Canada” raw products such as honey could be mixed with up 30% of imported honey which is misleading to the Canadians consumers;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST That Canadian Food Inspection Agency amend the Guidelines for "Product of Canada" and "Made in Canada" claims to not include pure products such as honey.

SPONSORED BY: Northern Sunrise County

MOVED BY:

SECONDED BY:

CARRIED:

DEFEATED:

STATUS: Provincial

DEPARTMENT:

BACKGROUND

May 2013

Competition Bulletin James B. Musgrove

The Competition Bureau's Enforcement Guidelines as to "Product of Canada" and "Made in Canada" Claims (the "Guidelines") came into effect as of July 1, 2010. The Guidelines apply to all goods sold in Canada, including those that are imported. The Guidelines, like their predecessors, are designed to assist in evaluating compliance with misleading advertising prohibitions as applied to the identification of Canadian content requirements in the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, and the Textile Labelling Act.

In the predecessor version to the Guidelines, The Bureau expressed the view that "Made in Canada" claims could be made as long as the product met a 51% threshold of Canadian content and had its last substantial transformation in Canada.

Despite no changes in legislation or jurisprudence the current Guidelines set higher thresholds and draw a distinction between "Made in Canada" and "Product of Canada" claims. For a good to qualify as a "Product of Canada", the Guidelines take the position that the last substantial transformation must have occurred in Canada and at least 98% of the total direct costs of producing or manufacturing the good must have incurred in Canada.

For a good to qualify as being "Made in Canada", the Guidelines provide that the last substantial transformation must have occurred in Canada, and at least 51% of the total direct costs of producing or manufacturing the good must have been incurred in Canada. In addition, the representation must be accompanied by an appropriate qualifying statement such as "Made in Canada with imported parts" or "Made in Canada with domestic and imported parts". This could also include more specific information such as "Made in Canada with 60% Canadian content and 40% imported content". The Guidelines go on to advise that use of specific terms that reflect the limited production, manufacturing, or other activity that took place in Canada would be most appropriate (for example, "Assembled in Canada with foreign parts" or "Designed in Canada").

Terms such as "produced in Canada" or "manufactured in Canada'" are likely to be considered synonymous with "Made in Canada" and should also, according to the Guidelines, comply with the above "Made in Canada" requirements. Sellers must also be cautious of implicit declarations (such as logos, pictures or symbols) that could be considered to give the same general impression to the public that a product is "Made in Canada" as an explicit declaration.

By contrast with the approach in the Guidelines, under the United States' "Made in USA" rules, total domestic versus foreign costs are analyzed on a case-by-case basis, according to the Federal Trade Commission's guide Complying with the Made in USA Standard, which expressly states that there is not a fixed point for all products at which they become "all or virtually all" made in the United States; the nature of the product, consumer expectations, how far removed

about:blank

the finished product is from the foreign content and the proportion of domestic costs are all taken into account.

The hard and fast quantitative thresholds contained in the new Guidelines are not prescribed by legislation or regulation. They are not the result of court decisions. They simply represent the Bureau's view of the issue. Furthermore, some aspects are impractical. For instance, having to state in advertising materials such things as "Made in Canada with domestic and imported parts" may be problematic for many companies. It is simply too long a claim to be concisely articulated.

Additionally, it would appear that the transition from 51% to 98% was without significant public support. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, after receiving extensive representations, recommended only an increase to an 85% threshold, in their June 2008 report on "Product of Canada", in order to achieve the appropriate level of transparency and accuracy in these claims for food products.

There are obviously peculiarities inherent in rigid "Made in Canada" rules. Consider the case of jam, sausages and pickles. The fruit, pork and cucumbers, the essential ingredients, can all be locally grown in Canada. But the requirement for sugar, salt and spices, in transforming the essential ingredients into their finished product may require qualifying statements such as "made with imported sugar". It would be difficult to argue that consumers, who take pride in Canada made or produced goods, would think that the incidental addition of such ingredients not available in Canada would rob the finished product of its "Canadian-ness". Such producers and manufacturers, who cannot take advantage of the beneficial "Product of Canada"/"Made in Canada" claims, are negatively affected. Consumers are affected, because they are deprived of knowing that certain goods are essentially made in Canada, yet do not qualify for technical reasons.

The Guidelines take a very narrow, and mathematical, view of what is Product of Canada/Made in Canada. Much more so than the U.S. equivalent. They do so without the legislative, regulatory, jurisprudential or stakeholder support. They suggest clarifications which are impractical. The difficulty, however, is that if advertisers do not accede to the Bureau's view, they run a serious risk of prosecution or civil challenge – with fines up to $10 million. With such serious consequences, it is submitted that the Bureau's Guidelines should reflect a more flexible approach – consistent with the legislation and jurisprudence. by C.J. Michael Flavell and James Musgrove

a cautionary note

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2013

asb 2020 - aaaf · 1974,january special1 areas#2,3&4split into 3 special area #2 special area...

Documents