“Modernization” has relieved the current minister of agriculture of any responsibility for the reported annual increases in Crown land lease rates. The unseen hand of the marketplace has established true value. Any protest from leaseholders as to the affordability and future security of their leases is deflected by the reminder that a “more flexible” market-driven system of Crown land evaluation is what MBP (Manitoba Beef Producers) lobbied the Pallister government to deliver.

Any objection arising from these changes is best directed towards the organization that lobbied for the abandonment of the points-based system.

My records show a strong majority of delegates attending the February 2017 Manitoba Beef Producers Brandon convention supported a resolution presented by District 13 delegate, Mary Paziuk, seconded by then-District 5 delegate, Ramona Blyth, directing MBP to lobby the government of Manitoba to implement a “more flexible system” of Agricultural Crown Land (ACL) transfers.

Paziuk described the points-based system as “lacking in transparency, complicated, bureaucratic and difficult to understand.”

The Pallister government was quick to respond to MBP lobby efforts, announcing changes to the ACL program two weeks following the September 2019 provincial election.

The March 2022 issue of the MBP publication, Cattle Country, ignores the organization’s role in replacing the points-based system. However, the written history of events is well recorded in issues of Cattle Country. Past MBP presidents and staff produced comforting prose, lavishing praise upon the pending “modernization” of Crown land leasing.

The 2017 resolution opened the gate to the creation of a market-driven system of Crown land allocation. Unfortunately, Crown land leaseholders are experiencing exactly what I predicted when I spoke against the intent of the resolution. I warned, “be careful what you ask for.”

The benefits provided by the earlier points-based system of Crown land allocation have been permanently replaced by a system that reflects the political-ideological belief that the marketplace provides true freedom and sustainability.

The question is, how much more of this type of freedom can the leaseholders afford?

And finally, I do not anticipate that people responsible for creating the problem are capable of solving the problem. This is definitely not a case where you want to be driven home by the one who brought you to the dance.

Fred Tait
Rossendale

The post Letters: ‘Be careful what you ask for’ on Crown lands appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The expense borne by the workers at the plants is the greatest of all, their health threatened so severely, even causing death to two Cargill workers in Alberta. However, the expense doesn’t stop there, as consumers are expected to see meat prices jump, farmers have seen the prices paid for their animals drop by more than 30 per cent and taxpayers will ultimately pay the price to help bail out this sector.

Several decades ago when the move to close smaller slaughterhouses in favour of building huge single-entity plants was happening, the rationale was that there were going to be tremendous efficiencies in doing this.

National Farmers Union studies showed that the promised efficiencies of consumers seeing cheaper meat and farmers making a decent living simply did not materialize. The spread between what farmers are paid for their animals and what consumers pay for meat has grown. The working conditions at the plants with thousands of animals being slaughtered each day are stressful at the best of times and downright dangerous now.

Farmers suddenly have nowhere to sell their animals and consumers are starting to see less meat on the shelves.

Now is the time to look at how we can build a meat-processing system that will not cause these massive problems. A move to build smaller, safer slaughter plants in each province would help to disperse the threats to food security. We could assure meat supply from local farms to meet local demands. If one plant was forced to close it would not disrupt the food chain across the entire country.

Providing safe, secure food from local farms to local consumers is entirely possible without putting meat-packing workers at risk.

Surely we’ve learned that bigger is not always better.

Vicki Burns
Winnipeg

Fred Tait
Rossendale

The post Letters: Bigger not better appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

A resolution was presented to the convention demanding MBP lobby the provincial government to replace the points-based system of allocating grazing and forage leases with a more open and transparent system. The mover of the resolution made an impassioned presentation describing the points-based system as lacking in transparency, complicated, bureaucratic, involving a process that was difficult for applicants to understand and lacking in fairness.

I spoke against the resolution, reminding convention delegates that the points-based system had a number of attractive features. It gave an advantage to young producers, took into consideration off-farm income, considered proximity, considered herd size and required the leaseholder to own livestock to utilize the Crown land under lease or being applied for. Unit transfers were an important part of the system. Manitoba livestock producers had exclusive access to Manitoba Crown land grazing and forage leases while rental fees remained attractive. I advised delegates to be careful what they asked for. A market-driven system would not offer any respect for the various priorities available under the points-based system.

The resolution passed with strong support from convention delegates. Less than one per cent of the total Manitoba Beef Producers membership in convention attendance had directed the MBP president and elected directors to lobby the provincial government to replace the allocation of Crown lands leases through a points-based system with a market-driven system. In the same time frame the newly elected Conservative Manitoba government had identified its priorities as reducing red tape, shrinking the civil service and lowering the number of provincial boards and commissions. The MBP proposal met or exceeded all of the provincial government’s stated objectives. It was a love-in.

The drafting of a new Crown lands policy began immediately. Consultations were by invitation only. The chair of the Appeal Tribunal and I attended two consultation sessions and used our knowledge of the points-based system to move the various proposals from the theory stage of the discussion paper to consider the actual impacts on producers. Unfortunately our projection of negative impact and producer reaction was largely correct and ignored. The past president of MBP lavished praise on the process and the organization’s publication, Cattle Country failed to raise any serious alarm bells.

By the fall of 2018, an odd producer was becoming concerned, and by the 2019 MBP convention it was the subject of a resolution from District 6, which requested the whole process be delayed by a year, allowing producers time to become informed and engaged in the whole process. The presenter made a well-prepared and reasoned argument in support of the call. MBP’s current and past presidents both spoke against the resolution and it was defeated. MBP leadership wanted these changes, and wanted them now, not next year.

Modernization of Crown land access has unleashed the uncertainties of future access and casts doubts upon the wisdom of making future investments. The economic uncertainties of not knowing if you will be outbid for your Crown land sometime in the future may be affected by what I call Phase 2 of modernization. In a chance meeting with former provincial agriculture minister Ralph Eichler in December 2018, I inquired as to the possibility of Manitoba following Saskatchewan in privatizing Crown land. The minister indicated that this option was not open at the time due to outstanding land claims issues. Privatization of Crown land would remove the uncertainty of tenure. Buy in or bow out. Real estate agents and financial institutions would be most appreciative of such a development. MBP is also on record by previous convention resolutions supporting the privatization of Crown land.

The turmoil that has been unleashed upon the holders of Crown land leases is a direct byproduct of the actions and convention priorities of their own organization. Checkoff funds flow in, but were it not for a free lunch being offered at district meetings, producer attendees would be outnumbered by MBP staff, provincial government staff and perhaps media. Annual MBP conventions are poorly attended, complex issues are given superficial attention and critical analysis is not tolerated. The guiding principle at every MBP convention is the forces of the marketplace must be given a free hand to determine the structure of our industry.

The long shadow of BSE still lingers over us as does the effects of the 2011 and 2014 floods followed by declining prices post-2015 and the drought of the current season, followed by an early-winter storm. We were never in a position to change the course of most of these events. But that is not the case with Crown land modernization. Some will find fault with the current leadership of the MBP, without acknowledging that leadership has simply accomplished what was asked of it by convention delegates — end the points-based system of Crown land allocation.

We now have before us the best Crown lands allocation policy that money and marketplace worshippers can supply. Let the bidding begin.

We are about to get — and own — exactly what we asked for.

Fred Tait farms nears Rossendale, Manitoba and is the former regional vice-president for Manitoba of the National Farmers’ Union.

The post Comment: On Crown Lands, we get what we ask for appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.