| |
Resolution #1
Alberta Rat Control Program
Be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Boards request that Alberta Agriculture and Food continue to show leadership and direction through developing a suitable program structure that includes appointing a Provincial Rat Control Inspector/Coordinator that has the expertise and authority to implement training sessions and respond to rat calls and infestations throughout the Province.
And further be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Boards request that Alberta Agriculture and Food continue to adequately fund the Alberta Rat Control Program and the municipalities that perform rat control inspections and control work throughout the Province and take a lead role in developing and funding new awareness materials such as pamphlets, videos, training material and the upgrading of existing displays as well as ensuring two-way communication between all partners and the inclusion of existing rat control expertise in the Alberta Rat Control Program’s policy and programming decisions.
Response:
Alberta Agriculture and Food
The resolution calls for Agriculture and Food (AF) to continue showing leadership through training, etc. Attached is part of a letter to Vermilion River Agricultural Service Board, dated August 29, 2007, from the Premier.
“You can be confident that the Government of Alberta has no intention of reducing or withdrawing any funding currently provided to municipalities participating in the Rat Control Program.
As you indicate in your letter, communication and training are very important to the success of this program. Recognizing this, we have recently embarked on a new awareness and training initiative which will consist of videos, brochures and posters. This material will be used to educate people at existing and potential locations that rats may appear in the province. As well, a training video of new and current Pest Control Officers will be offered.”
Resolution #2
Monitor Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Boards request that Alberta Agriculture and Food monitor notices issued by CFIA and distribute them to all municipal agriculture staff for notification of any regulatory changes to rules or regulations.
Response:
Alberta Agriculture and Food
All notices issued by CFIA are posted on their website. Should there be any significant issues specifically affecting Alberta’s agriculture producers, these could be analysed and communicated by Alberta Agriculture and Food to municipal agriculture staff at that time. We are unsure what else would be necessary and would be concerned about the time/resources necessary to communicate all information.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
While the resolution passed at the Alberta Agricultural Service Board conference specifically called for follow-up action by Alberta Agriculture and Food, I am pleased to inform you that the CFIA has several mechanisms in place to notify Canadians about regulatory and policy changes that could be used by departmental staff when sharing information, as requested in the resolution.
The CFIA has a biweekly “What’s New” listserv to summarize content – including regulatory changes – that has been added to the CFIA website. The email notification service is open to the general public and provides an excellent summary of content that may be of interest to Alberta Agricultural Service Board clients. This subscription service and several other specialized email notification lists can be joined through the CFIA website.
Also, the CFIA manages a “What’s New” Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed that provides immediate notification of additions to the CFIA website. The public can subscribe to several RSS feeds on the CFIA website.
These on-line tools will provide Alberta Agriculture and Food staff with the information required for distribution, as requested in the resolution passed at the Alberta Agricultural Service Board conference.
Resolution #3
Specified Risk Materials (SRM) & Deadstock Handling & Disposal
Be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Boards request that CFIA discontinue their current polices for disposal of deadstock cattle and their associated SRM in light of the exclusively costly burdens on the cattle industry, and the likely encouragement of improper deadstock and SRM disposal resulting from these increased costs.
DEFEATED AT 2008 AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARD PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
Resolution #4
Emergency Registration of 2% Strychnine
Be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Boards request that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) make 2% liquid Strychnine available to farmers/ranchers for a minimum of the 2008 season either by means of distribution of concentrates to farmers directly or by distribution, from the local Ag Service Boards, of a mixed product on an as needed basis.
Response:
Pest Management Regulatory Agency
Health Canada is working with stakeholders, including grower groups, provincial extension specialists, researchers, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) to find a solution to the ground squirrel infestation in Western Canada. It is apparent that, in heavily infested areas, there is no single pesticide available to control this problem and that an integrated pest management solution is needed. This would include research on alternative products and practices. In the spring of 2007, Health Canada, in cooperation with Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food, hired a researcher to conduct field trials to examine the relative efficacy of a number of products including 2% strychnine, ready to use strychnine, Phostoxin, and Rozol. Results of the research indicate that those products are not likely to be effective in extremely infested areas. However, recognizing that there are limited options in the short term, Health Canada has granted emergency registration recently, at the request of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, for 2% Liquid Strychnine Concentrate. This is for use only in extremely infested areas and is under strict supervised use conditions to mitigate the significant human and environmental health risks this product can pose if used improperly.
Health Canada considers the emergency registration of two percent liquid strychnine and its associated conditions of registration to be the best interim approach for addressing the localized high populations of Richardson’s ground squirrels while further research is being conducted to find a more long-term sustainable solution.
Resolution #5
Permanent Registration of Strychnine Use for Control of Richardson Ground Squirrel
Be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Boards request that Alberta Agriculture and Food urge the Federal Government to permanently re-instate the use of Liquid Strychnine for the control of Richardson Ground Squirrel.
Response:
Alberta Agriculture and Food
The resolution calls for AF to urge the Federal Government to re-instate Liquid Strychnine for control of Richardson Ground Squirrels. Attached is part of a letter dated December 4, 2007 from the Minister to Wheatland County.
“Thank you for your November 16, 2007 letter regarding the permanent registration of 2 percent liquid strychnine concentrate.
Health Canada is responsible for the registration and regulation of pesticides in Canada through the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA). Currently, the PMRA only allows a one-year term for the registration of 2 percent liquid strychnine to control pests. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Health Canada, for his consideration.”
Pest Management Regulatory Agency
Health Canada is working with stakeholders, including grower groups, provincial extension specialists, researchers, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) to find a solution to the ground squirrel infestation in Western Canada. It is apparent that, in heavily infested areas, there is no single pesticide available to control this problem and that an integrated pest management solution is needed. This would include research on alternative products and practices. In the spring of 2007, Health Canada, in cooperation with Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food, hired a researcher to conduct field trials to examine the relative efficacy of a number of products including 2% strychnine, ready to use strychnine, Phostoxin, and Rozol. Results of the research indicate that those products are not likely to be effective in extremely infested areas. However, recognizing that there are limited options in the short term, Health Canada has granted emergency registration recently, at the request of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, for 2% Liquid Strychnine Concentrate. This is for use only in extremely infested areas and is under strict supervised use conditions to mitigate the significant human and environmental health risks this product can pose if used improperly.
Health Canada considers the emergency registration of two percent liquid strychnine and its associated conditions of registration to be the best interim approach for addressing the localized high populations of Richardson’s ground squirrels while further research is being conducted to find a more long-term sustainable solution.
Resolution #6
Alberta Agriculture and Food Specialist Availability at Producer Meetings
Be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Boards request that Alberta Agriculture & Food immediately remove current restrictions, and allow Ag-Info Centre technical advisory staff the freedom and resources to fully and directly participate in grassroots producer gatherings they are invited to, in an effort to promote educational, productive, and cooperative dialogue between grassroots producers, other industry stakeholders, and Alberta Agriculture and Food, in keeping with the directions outlined in the Ministry’s 2007 Business Plan.
Response:
Alberta Agriculture and Food
By way of background, in 2002 Alberta Agriculture and Food (AF) changed its delivery model and established the Alberta Ag-Info Centre in Stettler to provide information directly to the agriculture industry. Information is provided from specialists at this centre or by referral to industry contacts.
Due to the Centre’s limited resources, criteria have been established to determine the kind of events that it is most appropriate to have specialists attend. The criteria are as follows:
- The session involves a significant geographic area and responds to a provincial concern.
- The session provided the opportunity for significant leverage. For example, the audience is comprised of technical and professional staff that will provide one-on-one interaction with the end user of the information.
AF continues to explore effective solutions for delivering information and technology for the agriculture industry. Current advancements in video conferencing and web seminars are making direct contact with industry more widely available. AF would also like to work more closely with the agriculture community in the early stages of an event to ensure the availability of appropriate staff.
With improved communication technology and collaboration at the local or regional level, AF will assist you to find specialists for events based on the criteria outlined above.
Other specialists within the Department will resource requests for attendance that cannot be honoured by the centre. To ensure this process will work effectively, the Agricultural Service Boards community will need to ensure sufficient notice is provided to the Ag Info Centre to allow for appropriate arrangements to be made.
Resolution #7
West Nile Virus Mosquito Surveillance and Targeted Larval Control
Be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Boards request that the Government of Alberta reinstate the West Nile Virus Targeted Mosquito Larval Control Program and once again provide funding for municipalities to be ready and able to implement control strategies.
Response:
Alberta Health and Wellness
We know that larviciding decreases mosquito numbers, however there is still no conclusive scientific evidence that larviciding is effective in decreasing the risk of West Nile virus in humans.
The choice to continue larviciding is a municipal decision. Municipalities that received funding in the past have the training and equipment required to larvicide if they deem it a priority.
Alberta Health and Wellness is collaborating with Alberta Environment, Alberta Agriculture and Food, and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development to plan the provincial response to West Nile virus.
In addition to supporting human and adult mosquito surveillance programs, government funding focuses on an enhanced education campaign, particularly in high risk areas, to encourage the public to use the personal protective measures we know are the most effective defence against West Nile virus.
Alberta Environment
Alberta Environment’s annual mosquito surveillance program has confirmed the activity of West Nile virus is closely linked to the activity of one mosquito species, Culex tarsalis. The peak activity of this species is typically between mid July and mid August, with the amplification and spread of the virus dependent on cumulative temperatures leading up to and during this period. Alberta Environment agreed to continue the surveillance program for the 2008 season to provide health professionals with information for public messaging around the greatest risk period and areas of risk.
Funding from Alberta Health and Wellness was provided during 2004-2006 to municipalities in an effort to build their capacity for mosquito control programs. The most effective means of control continues to be taking personal protective measures, including water management on private property. Municipal larviciding programs can reduce Culex tarsalis populations in their designated control areas, but it is not feasible to prevent Culex tarsalis development on private property or migration into communities from outside control area boundaries.
The allocation of funds towards education, surveillance and control remains the decision of Alberta Health and Wellness, as West Nile Virus is a public health issue. Municipalities, particularly those in higher risk areas, have been supplied with training and equipment to undertake control programs. Alberta Environment staff will continue to provide guidance to those municipalities that wish to update their knowledge of the mosquito-virus relationship, and to assess the feasibility of undertaking control of Culex tarsakus in their communities for the 2008 season.
Resolution #8
Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) Approval Process
Be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Boards request that the NRCB review and decide upon applications for confined feeding operations from a complete, holistic perspective, and not fragment the decision making process amongst multiple government agencies.
Response:
Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB)
The current approval process of the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) is governed by and fulfills the requirements of the Agricultural Operation Practices Act (AOPA). The NRCB does not have legal jurisdiction to issue licenses or permits outside of AOPA.
Applicants are advised of their responsibility to have all appropriate licences and permits in place prior to commencing construction. AOPA does not mandate that licences from other regulators be in place before any AOPA permits are issued.
The issue of multi-regulatory requirements has been raised during discussions of the Policy Advisory Group (PAG). PAG is a multi-stakeholder advisory group to both the NRCB and Alberta Agriculture and Food for policy issues related to the delivery of AOPA. Members have indicated that they would like all regulatory requirements streamlined and synchronized.
These discussions will continue with PAG members, and this issue could be brought forward for discussion during the next review of AOPA.
Further information follows:
Current Status:
- The appropriate disposal of dead livestock is the jurisdiction of Alberta Agriculture and Food. Water licencing is the jurisdiction of Alberta Environment.
- The NRCB does not have legal jurisdiction under the Agricultural Operation Practices Act (AOPA) to issue licences or permits outside AOPA. AOPA does not mandate that licences from other regulators must be in place before an AOPA permit is issued.
- The NRCB works closely with both Alberta Agriculture and Food and Alberta Environment when responding to complaints about the disposal of dead livestock, or concerns about water licencing.
- Applicants are advised of their responsibility to have all appropriate licences and permits in place before they begin construction.
Background:
- Regulation of Alberta’s confined feeding operations was a municipal responsibility prior to January 1, 2002.
- From January 1, 2002 until November 2005 the Natural Resources Conservation Board provided a one-window service for operators to obtain their water licence and their NRCB permit. The NRCB did not issue the water licence but facilitated the process for the operator with Alberta Environment. The NRCB did not issue an AOPA permit until Alberta Environment indicated that it would issue a water licence for the operation. The one-window approach linking the issuance of the water licence and AOPA permit was changed in late 2005 in response to industry concerns that NRCB permits were delayed as a result of backlogs in Alberta Environment. While operators may still request this service, most prefer to deal directly with Alberta Environment
- The issue of multiple regulatory requirements has been raised by the Policy Advisory Group (PAG). PAG is a multi-stakeholder advisory group to the NRCB and Alberta Agriculture and Food for policy issues related to the deliver of AOPA and for the legislation. Members have indicated that they would like all regulatory requirements to be streamlined and synchronized.
Resolution #9
Farmers Hail Insurance coverage
Be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Boards request that Alberta Agriculture and Food revamp the Farmers’ Hail Insurance coverage relating to the time line of the notification of loss policy from 3 days to 2 weeks.
Response:
Agriculture Financial Services Corporation
AFSC accepts the Agricultural Service Board (ASB) Resolution that insurance policy holders have adequate time to inspect fields, determine the extent of hail damage and report their loss to an AFSC office.
The Hail Insurance policy states:
- The policy holder must provide AFSC notice within 3 working days after the occurrence.
- AFSC, in its sole discretion, may accept late filed claims.
- The policy holder is expected to inspect damaged fields, identify hail damaged areas and take the adjuster directly to the damaged area to assess the damage.
These requirements are consistent with AFSC policy governing Hail Endorsement coverage provided by Production Insurance and hail coverage provided by private hail insurance companies.
In situations where a policy holder was not aware of the occurrence of the hailstorm, weather conditions did not allow access to the damaged fields, wide distribution of landbase, health reasons, etc., AFSC has established a corporate procedure for acceptance of late filed claims. Acceptance of late filed claims are subject to:
- Agreement to pay a $50.00 late filing fee.
- The stage of the crop at the time of damage and number of days since the storm date.
- The appropriate staff authority.
Prior to the 2007 hail season, AFSC prepared and issued a communication release informing clients of their responsibilities in reviewing hail damage, reporting insurable losses and accompanying adjusters during the completion of hail damage assessments. During the 2007 hail season, AFSC accepted 3,308 straight hail claims and 6,262 hail endorsement claims of which less than 2-3% were late filed.
It is critical that we gather claim requests within 3 days, rather than 14 days, as the information is used to determine expected workload, to establish priorities, and to schedule movement of adjusting staff.
Considering AFSC policy is consistent with industry standards, that we allow exceptions to policy in reasonable situations, and the importance of knowing earlier rather than later, AFSC is not prepared to extend the traditional filing time of 3 days or 72 hours to 14 days or 336 hours.
Resolution #10
Clubroot Education and Awareness
Be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Boards request that Alberta Agriculture and Food undertake a substantial and immediate education and awareness program with Alberta’s oil and gas exploration, reclamation and production companies, as well as the construction industry companies of Alberta to make them aware
- of the severe negative impact Clubroot can have on Alberta’s agriculture industry,
- how the equipment used in oil & gas exploration, reclamation and production as well as construction equipment can spread the disease, and
- how those industries can implement Best Management Practices that will prevent the spread of Clubroot.
Response:
Alberta Agriculture and Food
Alberta Agriculture and Food (AF) recognizes the threat that this disease represents to the canola industry in Alberta and western Canada. Over the past few years, canola has been the first or second most valuable crop in Alberta and western Canada, and supports a considerable crushing and refining industry. Future prospects for canola oil in food or biodiesel remain strong, and any threat to sustainable production is treated seriously. In response to the continuing spread of clubroot and the threat to our canola industry, this disease was included as a designated pest under the Alberta Agricultural Pest Act in April of 2007. Significant research funds have been awarded to various researchers to find economic control measures and to breed for resistance.
Since the detection of clubroot disease in canola in 2003, AF staff have made considerable effort to increase awareness in the agriculture and oil/gas sectors. Awareness has reached high levels in the crop sector. Although awareness in the oil and gas sector has lagged behind the crop sector, recent activities show that interest has sparked:
- Oil and gas publications such as “Pipeline News” have carried articles on clubroot disease and the implications for that sector.
- Murray Hartman, AF’s Oilseed Specialist, spoke to 750 participants at the spring conference of the Canadian Land Reclamation Association on February 29, 2008 about clubroot disease, the value of the canola industry, and equipment cleaning requirements to reduce disease spread.
- Consultants in oilfield land reclamation have begun to attend clubroot information meetings organized by counties for crop producers. Some consultants are beginning to discuss their cleaning protocols with Agricultural Fieldmen.
- AF staff have fielded many inquiries from oil/gas companies about clubroot and appropriate equipment cleaning protocols. Large companies such as Encana are developing protocols and best management practices to guide all their staff and contractors.
- More representatives from the oil/gas sector are being added to the Alberta Clubroot Management Committee.
- Many individual landowners have brought clubroot concerns and awareness to the forefront during lease negotiations with oil and gas companies.
AF will continue to increase awareness in both the agricultural and oil/gas sectors. We anticipate that service organizations such as the Canadian Land Reclamation Association and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers will work with us to encourage adoption of appropriate measures to reduce the spread of this devastating disease.
Resolution #11
Improvement in Quality of Fencing provided by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development
Be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service boards request that Alberta sustainable Resource Development increase the quality and quantity of fencing provided to farmers and to also provide them with fence posts.
Response:
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development
Producers who experience ungulate damage to feed supplies may receive assistance from Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) through the Ungulate Damage Prevention Program. Materials such as scaring devices, repellents, intercept feed, stack wrap fence and, for chronic problem areas, permanent big game fence may be provided to producers. In 2006/07 over $1,100,000 was dedicated to assisting producers experiencing ungulate damage and to-date in 2008 an additional $400,000 has been dedicated for ungulate fencing.
The type of permanent big game fence that SRD provides has been in use for several years and in many cases is the same fencing used by big game farmers to keep their stock in and wild ungulates out. Although there may be the rare occasion where the fence is breached, there have been very few incidents reported to SRD regarding the quality of the fence provided. SRD staff will monitor and verify complaints regarding fence quality and if necessary a change will be recommended on future orders.
The compensation and prevention programs have recently undergone an external review. While we are only considering the recommendations of the consultant in-house at this stage, the provision of posts is an item addressed in those recommendations.
The Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) administers the wildlife damage compensation programs in the province. Recommendations for enhancements to the program to include compensation for damage to silage and crops cut for swath grazing should be directed to AFSC for comment.
Resolution #12
Wildlife Damage Compensation Program for Silage
Be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Boards request that Agriculture Financial Service Corporation and Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division include damage from wild ungulates to silage in the Waterfowl and Wildlife Damage Compensation Program that the departments now offer.
Response:
Agriculture Financial Services Corporation
AFSC accepts ASB Resolution that wildlife ungulate (deer, moose and elk) populations are increasing, that the practice of storing silage in an open pit is common practice, and that crops stored in these pits are subject to damage by wildlife.
On an annual basis, AFSC district offices receive several requests for wildlife damage compensation in these situations. These requests have been denied, as program regulations exclude damage to feed, other than stacked feed sources.
During the past year we cooperated with Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) in the completion of an external review of these compensation programs. This review identified the need to provide fencing materials to prevent feeding and to establish procedures to fairly and efficiently identify loss and damage caused by wildlife to crops stored in pits. AFSC will continue to work with the review committee to understand producer issues and develop effective solutions.
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development
Producers who experience ungulate damage to feed supplies may receive assistance from Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) through the Ungulate Damage Prevention Program. Materials such as scaring devices, repellents, intercept feed, stack wrap fence and, for chronic problem areas, permanent big game fence may be provided to producers. In 2006/07 over $1,100,000 was dedicated to assisting producers experiencing ungulate damage and to-date in 2008 an additional $400,000 has been dedicated for ungulate fencing.
The type of permanent big game fence that SRD provides has been in use for several years and in many cases is the same fencing used by big game farmers to keep their stock in and wild ungulates out. Although there may be the rare occasion where the fence is breached, there have been very few incidents reported to SRD regarding the quality of the fence provided. SRD staff will monitor and verify complaints regarding fence quality and if necessary a change will be recommended on future orders.
The compensation and prevention programs have recently undergone an external review. While we are only considering the recommendations of the consultant in-house at this stage, the provision of posts is an item addressed in those recommendations.
The Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) administers the wildlife damage compensation programs in the province. Recommendations for enhancements to the program to include compensation for damage to silage and crops cut for swath grazing should be directed to AFSC for comment.
Resolution #13
Wildlife Damage Compensation for Swath Grazing
Be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Boards request that Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division and Agricultural Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) include crops cut for Swath Grazing as an eligible crop under the Wildlife Damage Compensation Program.
Response:
Agriculture Financial Services Corporation
AFSC accepts ASB Resolution that wildlife ungulates (deer, moose and elk) populations are increasing, that the practice of swath grazing for livestock is becoming more popular and that these crops may be subject to significant overwinter damage by wildlife.
On an annual basis, AFSC district offices have experienced an increase in the number of requests for wildlife damage compensation in these situations. These requests have been denied, as program regulations exclude damage to crops on grazing land.
Crops intended for swath grazing are excluded, as it is generally not possible for the producer to take preventative measures to limit wildlife damage. Furthermore, it is difficult for AFSC to ascertain whether cattle or wildlife ate the damaged swaths.
During the past year we cooperated with Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) in the completion of an external review of these compensation programs. AFSC will continue to work with the review committee to understand producer issues and develop effective solutions.
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development
Producers who experience ungulate damage to feed supplies may receive assistance from Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) through the Ungulate Damage Prevention Program. Materials such as scaring devices, repellents, intercept feed, stack wrap fence and, for chronic problem areas, permanent big game fence may be provided to producers. In 2006/07 over $1,100,000 was dedicated to assisting producers experiencing ungulate damage and to-date in 2008 an additional $400,000 has been dedicated for ungulate fencing.
The type of permanent big game fence that SRD provides has been in use for several years and in many cases is the same fencing used by big game farmers to keep their stock in and wild ungulates out. Although there may be the rare occasion where the fence is breached, there have been very few incidents reported to SRD regarding the quality of the fence provided. SRD staff will monitor and verify complaints regarding fence quality and if necessary a change will be recommended on future orders.
The compensation and prevention programs have recently undergone an external review. While we are only considering the recommendations of the consultant in-house at this stage, the provision of posts is an item addressed in those recommendations.
The Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) administers the wildlife damage compensation programs in the province. Recommendations for enhancements to the program to include compensation for damage to silage and crops cut for swath grazing should be directed to AFSC for comment.
Resolution # 14
Provincial Support for Specialized Extension
Be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Boards request that Alberta Agriculture and Food provide sufficient funding to support the provision of a provincial extension horticulturist to assist rural landowners and local extension service providers with concerns about disease, insects, and fungal agents in landscaping and horticultural plantings.
Response:
Alberta Agriculture & Food
Alberta Ag Info Centre has staff in place to support horticultural crop farming operations of all shapes and sizes, including market gardens, berry operations, and operations that focus on producing or marketing products for a customer/consumer. Specialized staff can assist with all production and pest management questions. Staff can and will support the industries and personnel that provide services and product to the rural landowner. AF has not had the resources or mandate to provide support or services directly to the home or private horticulture client for many years.
Private horticulture clients and rural landowners can be directed to the industries that supply the products that they require (such as garden centres, nurseries, greenhouses) or can contract a private horticulturalist.
Resolution #15
Weed Control of Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation roadways
Be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Boards request that Alberta Infrastructure & Transportation allow and pay any interested Agricultural Service Board throughout Alberta to provide weed control on provincial highways.
Response:
Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation
Weed Control within all highway right-of-ways is a priority for government. The department has contractual obligations to have weed control work done by the highway maintenance contractors. Staff from Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation (INFTRA) and Alberta Agriculture and Food work closely with Agricultural Fieldmen and highway maintenance contractors to determine the weed spraying and mowing requirements along each roadway within their jurisdiction. Also, Agricultural Fieldmen identify problematic locations that need special attention and ensure they are addressed.
In 2006, a resolution was passed at the provincial Agricultural Service Boards conference regarding responsibilities under the Weed Control Act (WCA). Subsequently, INFTRA responded to the resolution stating the need for continued communication and cooperation with municipalities, their weed experts and Agricultural Fieldmen.
The partnerships your department maintains between municipalities, government departments, and corporate landowners remain the best way to ensure compliance with the WCA.
Agricultural Fieldmen can also undertake weed control using their own forces if mutually agreed that this would expedite the work. In these cases, the department pays the municipality directly for this work. On a province-wide basis, this process has proven to be successful. In urgent situations, where weed control continues to be an issue, the Agricultural Service Board retains the option, under Section 27 of the WCA, for the Agricultural Fieldman to order weed control work directly from the highway maintenance contractor and charge the cost of the weed control to the owner of the land, even if the owner is a government body.
I encourage all Agricultural Fieldmen to work closely with INFTRA’s district staff to ensure these roadways receive appropriate attention.
Resolution #16
Export Timothy Minor Use Herbicide Registration
Be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Board request that the PMRA expedite the Minor Use Label Registration of Frontline (Florasulam + MCPA Ester) for forage and seed production to assist timothy producers in ensuring quality timothy forage is exported, with minimal weed contaminants, and reduce the spread of broadleaf weeds locally.
Response:
Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)
The minor use registration of Frontline XL Herbicide for use on timothy is a project through AAFC’s Minor Use Program that was initiated in 2007. No application has been submitted to Health Canada for this use, therefore, no guidance can be provided regarding the ability of Health Canada to expedite the review. I have, however, taken the liberty to express your interest in this product with our federal colleagues at the Pest Management Centre of AAFC.
Emergent Resolution 1
Alberta Weed Control Act
Be it resolved: That Alberta’s Agricultural Service Boards request that Alberta Agriculture and Food make the necessary amendments to Section 38 of the Alberta Weed Control Act that improves the effectiveness of this much needed option for Act violations without the inherit risk of going onto the land to control or eradicate the weed problem.
Response:
Alberta Agriculture and Food
The ticketing option as outlined in the background of this resolution does not require for Section 38 of the Weed Control Act to be amended. Ticketing for offences occurs pursuant to the Provincial Offences Procedure Act.
It would be advisable for the Provincial Agricultural Service Board Committee to investigate the Provincial Offences Procedure Act and the Procedures Regulation in order to understand the implications of having the Weed Control Act included. The Committee could then make a recommendation to the provincial Agricultural Service Boards on whether or not the Weed Control Act should be included in the Procedures Regulation of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act.
If the provincial Agricultural Service Boards decide to request ticketing as an option necessary to effectively deal with non-compliance issues of the Weed Control Act, they could make a formal request to Alberta Agriculture and Food to initiate the process of including the Weed Control Act in the Procedures Regulation of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act. Further stakeholder consultation may also be necessary prior to initiating this process. |
|