2018 Agricultural Service Board Resolutions

 
 
Subscribe to our free E-Newsletter, "Agri-News" (formerly RTW This Week)Agri-News
This Week
 
 
 
 2018 Agricultural Service Board Resolutions
Resolution #1Environmental Stream Funding of the Agricultural Service Board Grant
Resolution #2Appeals to the Minister under the Weed Control Act and Agricultural Pests Act
Resolution #3Requirement to report certain pests to the local authority - DEFEATED
Resolution #4Weed Control on Alberta vacant public lands within green areas
Resolution #5Wildlife Predator Compensation Program Enhancement
Resolution #6Review of Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) Crop Insurance Program
Resolution #7Crop insurance for Alberta Fruit Producers
Resolution #8Increasing limits for Farm Direct Marketing of chickens for all Farm Direct Producers - DEFEATED
Resolution #9Farm Direct Marketing of eggs and products using eggs
Resolution #10Proposed Federal tax changes
Resolution #11Organic Food Testing and Labeling
Resolution #12Chemical control of Wireworms - DEFEATED

Resolution #1 - Environmental Stream Funding of the Agricultural Service Board Grant

Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
that the funding provided by Alberta Agriculture and Forestry align with the Provincial Government's fiscal year of April 1 until March 31 to ensure that Rural Municipalities are able to maintain their Extension and Education Programs while retaining professional staff.

Response:
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
The 2017/2019 Agricultural Service Board Grant Program is composed of two funding streams: the Legislative Funding Stream, which support legislative activities, and the Environmental Funding Stream, which supports environmental activities. The payment terms for both funding streams are the same, as outlined in the program Terms and Conditions and grant agreements. The term of the current three-year agreements are January 1,2017, to December 31, 2019. Consequently, no changes are being considered until the next agreement.

Agriculture and Forestry understands that grant program funding is important to each municipality, and that a delay puts a strain on the municipality and their staff who rely on these funds. The Department is willing to work with the Agricultural Service Board Provincial Committee and their representatives to determine if moving from a calendar year to a government fiscal year will prevent future funding delays.

Resolution #2 - Appeals to the Minister under the Weed Control Act and Agricultural Pests Act

Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry amend the Weed Control Act and the Agricultural Pests Act and applicable Regulations to give the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry 30 days to hear and determine appeals.

Response:
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry recognizes that weeds and agricultural pests are an important issue to the economy and environment of Alberta. The Government of Alberta is committed to the control of weeds listed on the Alberta Weed Control Regulation and pests listed on the Pest and Nuisance Control Regulation. Agriculture and Forestry supports the efforts of local municipalities in the control of regulated weeds and agricultural pests.

Both the appeal process and the Ministerial review process are important elements of legislative schemes of the Alberta Weed Control Act and the Alberta Agricultural Pests Act. As such, these processes must be transparent, objective, robust and evidence-based. Careful consideration must be given to all appeals under the Weed Control Act and Agricultural Pests Act due to the potential for setting precedents that may impact the province.

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry also recognizes timing can be an important consideration in the hearing and determination of appeals under the Weed Control Act and the Agricultural Pests Act. We are committed to a review process that is timely and effective as possible, given the specific context. Consideration of appeal timelines must be balanced with the overall purpose and structure of the legislation, the issues at hand in any given review, and the overall priorities and timing of the Department.

Resolution #3 - Requirement to report certain pests to the Local Authority - DEFEATED AT THE ASB PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE IN JANUARY, 2018

Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry amend the Agricultural Pests Act and applicable Regulations to require all persons to report any instances of Norway Rat, Wild Boar when at large as well as Clubroot to the local authority

Further therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry amend the Agricultural Pests Act and applicable Regulations making it an offence to not report the aforementioned specific pests to the local authority.

Resolution #4 - Weed Control on Alberta vacant public lands within green areas

Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
Alberta Environment and Parks immediately implement a permanent program, with adequate allocation of staff and funds for weed control on vacant public lands within green areas as part of a comprehensive framework to address invasive species in Alberta.

Response:
Alberta Environment and Parks
I am pleased to report that Environment and Parks is looking to provide additional resources in support of weed control efforts in the Green Area for 2018-19. We are very aware that weeds can cause significant impacts to both the environment and the economy if they are not adequately controlled.

In the interim, Environment and Parks will continue to work in partnership with municipalities in the White Area to fund high-priority weed control projects on vacant public lands, as well as the bed and shore of water bodies. These projects include monitoring, spraying, biocontrol and hand-picking activities designed to eradicate or control site-specific infestations on public land. If the municipality is not willing to partner with Environment and Parks, the department contracts third-party licensed contractors, which generally results in higher weed control costs and involves additional department staff time, ultimately reducing the size of area the department can complete weed control on.

Resolution #5 - 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 trained Municipal Problem Wildlife staff to assist in the confirmation of livestock loss, both livestock death and livestock injury in a timely and prompt manner.

Response:
Alberta Environment and Parks
I am also pleased to report that additional resources and tools to assist ranchers in reporting suspected predation cases will be rolled out in 2018. Currently, Environment and Parks, and Justice and Solicitor General are reviewing public services related to nuisance wildlife, including the delivery elements of the Wildlife Predator Compensation Program. Any significant changes to the services will involve stakeholder engagement and consultation.

On an annual basis, department staff evaluate the field investigative response times for the Wildlife Predator Compensation Program. Only on rare occasions do response times exceed the operating protocols, and measures are taken to ensure that the livestock owner is not denied compensation due to any delay in response. To maintain the credibility of the program, livestock losses must be confirmed by Fish and Wildlife Officers as killed or injured by predators.

Ultimately, most municipalities in Alberta do not experience a significant number of cases of predation on livestock by eligible predators (the annual provincial total is around 300-400 investigations). Supplemental investigative staff, such as seasonal problem wildlife technicians, are stationed in those municipalities which receive the highest number of predation occurrences on an annual basis.

Thank you again for your letter, and the opportunity to provide a response to these two important resolutions. We value the input of agricultural service boards and recognize the importance of working together to ensure the effective delivery of weed and predation programs into the future.

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
To maintain the credibility of the program, livestock losses must be confirmed by Fish and Wildlife Officers as killed or injured by predators. The protection of life and property is a priority for our government, which means providing a response to reports of problem wildlife may sometimes shift the efforts of Fish and Wildlife Officers away from the predator control mandate.

Alberta Justice and Solicitor General
Alberta Justice and Solicitor General's response was included with the response from Alberta Environment and Parks.

Resolution #6 - Review of Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) Crop Insurance Program

Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
that Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (AF) and AFSC work collaboratively to review and revamp AFSC's Annual Crop Production Insurance products and processes.

Further therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
that AF and AFSC review procedures for conducting assessments for severe weather events to expedite claims processing.

Further therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
that AF and AFSC annually review production costs and unseeded acreage benefits to align with current production costs.

Response:
Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC)
The crop insurance program delivered by AFSC is reviewed internally through producer consultations on an annual basis to ensure the program design and delivery remain relevant to both producers and government. In addition, every five years the program is also reviewed nationally as part of the discussions leading up to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Agriculture Policy Framework. The most recent framework, the Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP) takes effect on April 1, 2018. In the preamble to your resolution you refer to some situations that you feel warrant review, specifically:
  • The ability to conduct claims in a timely manner;
  • The programs response to the extreme moisture conditions in parts of the province in 2016 and 2017;
  • The relationship between costs of production and insurance coverage; and
  • The cost of crop insurance relative to expected returns.

I will address these concerns in the order they were raised:

Firstly, AFSC has processes in place to ensure that insured producers are able to do whatever they feel is appropriate with their crops. Producers who would like to put their crop up for feed, or any other alternate use, are required to contact their local AFSC office. Once they have contacted the office an Adjuster will be assigned to conduct a pre-harvest inspection to assess the yield of the crop. Once this has occurred, the crop is released and the producer is free to put the crop to an alternate use. If the volume of claims is high and AFSC is not able to get an adjuster to the farm within a reasonable amount of time, producers can leave representative strips which can be used to assess the yield.

In the fall of 2016 and the winter of 2017, there was a concern expressed by producers that AFSC would delay producers from being able to conduct their spring harvest and subsequent seeding operations. AFSC responded by developing expedited adjusting procedures, and communicating with producers through public meetings, media and regular conference calls with representatives of all the primary commodity groups. These expedited procedures were effective in working through claims quickly without unduly delaying harvest and seeding operations.

There was also a concern that the coverage available under crop insurance does not cover the costs of production. As you are aware, crop insurance is a production guarantee where the yield coverage is based on an individual's yield history. This yield coverage is then multiplied by a spring insurance price to establish "dollar coverage". When we compare the 2015 AF AgriProfit$ direct expenses for the four major crops to the average coverage on dryland, we find that in crop insurance coverage exceeded direct expenses by 11 percent. This amount will vary depending on commodity prices and input costs.

The last concern mentioned was crop insurance premiums are unaffordable relative to returns. Alberta has experienced generally good growing conditions recently and as a result premiums have been coming down with a further provincial reduction coming in 2018. Premium rates are based on actuarially sound methods designed to ensure that the program breaks even over a 25 year time horizon. Also, premium rates are cost shared between producers, the federal government and the Government of Alberta with producers paying between 35 percent and 40 percent of the cost depending on the coverage level elected. It is also important to recognize that both levels of government pay for all the administrative costs of delivering crop insurance. Crop insurance should not be evaluated on the basis of a return on investment but rather a way to transfer some of the risk associated with crop production in Alberta.

AFSC believes the programs are relevant and effective based on input from producers, however, there are always opportunities for improvement and we would welcome an opportunity to sit down and discuss these opportunities with your organization.

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
The crop insurance program delivered by AFSC is reviewed internally through producer consultations on an annual basis to ensure the program design and delivery remain relevant to both producers and government. Crop insurance is a production guarantee where the yield coverage is based on an individual's yield history. This yield coverage is then multiplied by a spring insurance price to establish "dollar coverage". This amount will vary depending on commodity prices and input costs.

Premium rates are based on actuarially sound methods designed to ensure that the program breaks even over a 25 year time horizon. Premium rates are cost shared between producers, the federal government, and the Government of Alberta. It is also important to recognize that both levels of government pay for all the administrative costs of delivering crop insurance.

Crop insurance should not be evaluated on the basis of a return on investment, but rather a way to transfer some of the risk associated with crop production in Alberta.

Resolution #7 - Crop Insurance for Alberta fruit producers
Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
that Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) review its AgriInsurance Products list and consider providing crop insurance coverage for fruit producers in Alberta including saskatoons, haskap, strawberries, raspberries, sour cherries, currants and other fruit and change their AgriInsurance Products listing to include multi-year or long-term crops.

Response:
Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC)
AFSC is willing to work with any producer organization to develop risk management products for any commodity including fruit. There are, however, some data requirements that need to be met to allow us to establish coverages and premium rates. We would suggest that a meeting be arranged between the group representing fruit growers and AFSC to assess the feasibility of developing an insurance program for the fruit sector.

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
AFSC is willing to work with any producer organization to develop risk management products for any commodity, including fruit. There are, however, some data requirements that need to be met to allow AFSC to establish coverages and premium rates.

AFSC is willing to meet with the group representing fruit growers to assess the feasibility of developing an insurance program for the fruit sector.

Resolution #8 - Increasing limits for Farm Direct marketing of chickens for all farm direct producers - DEFEATED AT THE ASB PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE IN JANUARY, 2018

Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
that the Alberta Chicken Producers allow non-communal groups to produce, market and consume up to 6,000 chickens in a calendar year.

Resolution #9 - Farm Direct Marketing of eggs and products using eggs

Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
that the Egg Farmers of Alberta review its Poultry Products Regulations to allow farm direct marketers to use their own uninspected eggs in their processed products provided these products are sold direct to the end consumer and that the farm direct marketer follow standard food safety handling procedures.

Further therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
that Egg Farmers of Alberta review its Poultry and Poultry Products Regulations to allow farm direct marketers to increase the ownership from 300 hens to 600 hens.

Response:
Egg Farmers of Alberta
The Egg Farmers of Alberta Board of Directors (EFA) has reviewed the Agricultural Service Board (ASB) Resolution 9: Farm Direct Marketing of Eggs and Products Using Eggs, and has reached the following conclusions.

With regards to the first point, concerning the use of uninspected eggs for processing, the ASB will need to consult with the Government of Alberta, since this item falls under the Purchase and Sale of Eggs and Processed Egg Regulation. EFA does not have jurisdiction over this regulation.

With regards to the second point, concerning the number of laying hens allowed to be owned by unregulated producers, EFA has decided to maintain the current limit of 300 hens. Alberta is proud to provide the broadest access for unregulated producers anywhere in Canada, having the highest allowance (less than 300 laying hens) without any caps or other special rules. Other provinces have limits as low as 99 hens, while some provinces allow up to 500 hens for a very limited number of people drawn at random each year.

The intention of the regulation is to balance the management of the provincial egg industry with the ability for individuals to produce food for personal consumption. The regulations were not designed to provide an opportunity to commercialize hobby farming. If an individual wants to raise more hens for commercial purposes, then they are encouraged to take the necessary steps to become a registered egg farmer and join the Alberta egg industry, which includes: holding quota, adhering to mandatory guidelines such as the national Animal Care Program and the national food safety program Start Clean - Stay Clean.

Our staff would be happy to answer any questions regarding joining Egg Farmers of Alberta.

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
The Purchase and Sale of Eggs and Processed Egg Regulation states that uninspected eggs can be sold direct from the producer to the end consumer for their own or household consumption. The sale of uninspected eggs can occur in any location and not just through Alberta approved farmer's markets.

All commercial food establishments, with the exception of Alberta approved farmers' markets, must obtain their food from approved sources that are subject to inspection as per Part 2, Section 23, of the Alberta Food Regulation. Uninspected eggs are not expressly prohibited as an ingredient at Alberta approved farmers' markets as per Part 3 of the Alberta Food Regulation. The Alberta Food Regulation is under review by Alberta Health.

If the Purchase and Sale of Eggs and Processed Egg Regulation were amended to allow producers to use their own uninspected eggs in their processed food products destined for sale to end consumers, these products would only be allowed to be offered for sale at Alberta approved farmers' markets.

Explore Local, the Department's New Venture Specialists, and the Alberta Approved Farmers' Market Program can assist with communication if changes are implemented.

Resolution #10 - Proposed Federal Tax changes

Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
that Alberta Agriculture and Forestry and the Premier of Alberta advocate for the Family Farm and small businesses of Alberta to revoke the proposed tax changes in the"Tax Planning Using Private Corporations" document released by Department of Finance Canada on July 18, 2017.

Response:
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
The Department of Finance Canada released the "Proposed Tax Changes for Private Corporations", which addresses three tax practices, including Income Sprinkling, Passive Investment Income, and Capital Gains. These changes were released to the public on July 18, 2017, with a 75 day consultation period. The federal Department of Finance has primary jurisdiction over implementing tax policy changes, as it is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Canadian Income Tax Act.

With respect to the proposed federal tax changes, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry shares concerns similar to those expressed by the Agricultural Service Board and other industry stakeholders. To date, over 21,000 individual responses from across Canada have been submitted to the federal Department of Finance on their impact to Canadian Businesses.

Specifically for farm families, a series of announcements were made from October 16 to 19, 2017, indicating that the federal government would not proceed with the measures that restricted the lifetime capital gains exemption on the sale of business shares by non-active shareholder, nor on the measure that would restrict the use of the lifetime capital gains exemption when selling shares to a family member. The federal Department of Finance also stated that they will decrease the Small Business Tax Rate to ten percent in 2018 and nine percent in 2019.

As of December 13, 2017, the federal Department of Finance released an updated provision to the Tax on Split income proposals to lessen the impact to Canadian businesses. The other proposed changes are expected to be released in the federal budget on February 27, 2018.

Many individual farms, farm advisors, and producer organizations have submitted responses directly to the federal Department of Finance on the impact to their businesses. We encourage farms and farm organizations to stay involved in the release of future proposed legislation, and to actively seek professional advice on the impact to their farm businesses.

Resolution #11 - Organic Food Testing and Labeling

Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
that Alberta Agriculture and Forestry advocate for clear and concise labeling and testing of products claiming organic authenticity.

Further therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
that testing by CFIA is increased to assure all products sold in Canada with organic claims are relevant.

Response:
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
The federal Organic Product Regulation (OPR) is referred to as the Canadian Organic Standard. Organic certification is now mandatory and federally regulated. It regulates all food and feed products that move across a provincial or federal border. Certification is the best guarantee for consumers to verify the organic integrity of a product from field to fork, even for those who know the farmer and farmer's production practices.

The Canadian Organic Regime (COR) applies to all organic products that cross a border and/or carry the Canadian Organic Logo. This applies to international and inter-provincial trade, but it does not apply to intra-provincial trade (products made and sold in Alberta). The COR certifies that products making the organic claim have met the Canadian Organic Standard, and followed the certification process, including the third party audit by an accredited certifying body. The COR does not require product testing. The assurance that products sold with organic claims comes from the certification process.

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry is currently working on the intra-provincial gap through the development of a Local Food Act. This act intends to endorse the national standard into the province, and stop the selling of mislabeled organic products.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency
As you know, the Organic Products Regulations apply to intra-provincially sold products bearing the Canada organic logo, as well as all products sold inter-provincially and internationally.

The CFIA investigates all allegations of false and misleading labelling and takes enforcement action if evidence of deception is found. This includes false organic claims. It also follows up on complaints received from consumers by inspecting the product and/or label using a risk-based approach. Random inspections are conducted for monitoring purposes,while targeting inspections focus on areas where non-compliance is suspected. This would include verifying that a product is certified when it should be.

The CFIA routinely tests products with organic claims for potential contamination. Industry adherence to regulations has generally tested at better than 95%. CFIA local offices review complaints about food products that are believed to violate regulatory requirements. Inspectors investigate these complaints based on inspection and compliance principles. Local CFIA offices can be found at www.inspection.gc.ca/about-the-cfia/offices/eng/1313255382836/1313256130232.

The CFIA understands that some provinces are in the process of establishing provincial organic regulations that would apply intra-provincially and we encourage you to work with the provinces to establish these regulations.

Thank you for writing with the concerns of the Agricultural Service Board Provincial Committee.


Resolution #12 - Chemical control of Wireworms - DEFEATED AT THE ASB PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE IN JANUARY, 2018

Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
that the previously registered pesticide knows as LINDANE be again allowed for controlled treatment by certified Seed Cleaning Plants regarding seed which they have actually cleaned for special cereal grains and which may only be planted for the restricted use of livestock feed, with sufficient oversight and accountability of the grower to prevent any crops produced from such LINDANE treated seed to be directly consumed by humans or to be sown year after year on the same field.
 
 
 
 
Share via AddThis.com
For more information about the content of this document, contact Pam Retzloff.
This information published to the web on January 30, 2018.
Last Reviewed/Revised on May 10, 2018.