My Speeches

Second Reading of Bill 43 Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Act, 2009 (No. 2)

Posted on Apr 29, 2009

Bill 43
Marketing of Agricultural Products
Amendment Act, 2009 (No. 2)

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Battle River-Wainwright.

Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise today
and move second reading of Bill 43, the Marketing of Agricultural
Products Amendment Act, 2009 (No. 2).
The proposed amendments to the legislation will give producers
of four commodity groups the same choice as other producers, a
choice which they do not currently have. It will make our legislation
consistent. It will help ensure accountability, it will help ensure
leadership, and it will help ensure responsiveness of the commissions.
Under the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, or MAPA
for short, agricultural producers are able to form boards and
commissions. Twenty producer boards and commissions currently
operate under MAPA, including seven supply-managed marketing
boards, which Bill 43 does not impact or change in any way.
The remaining are commissions that collect mandatory per-head,
per-acre, or per-pound levies, commonly called check-offs, for
producers. Producers belonging to nine commodity groups have the
option of requesting a refund. However, producers in the remaining
four commodity groups are legally obliged to pay the check-off but
have no means to ask for a refund. Bill 43 would change that and
give beef, pork, sheep, and potato producers that fundamental right
of choice. These producers would now have the ability to request a
refund from their respective organizations, particularly if they are
not satisfied with their association. Very simply, Mr. Speaker, what
is being proposed is to give these producers the right and the ability
to choose, to have a voice if they do not feel the organization has
delivered value or met their needs.
It is important to note that the nine commissions with refundable
check-offs all operate successfully and are thriving organizations
that still have the financial means to support their members’ needs.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, some producers will request refunds when this
change is made, but not every producer will. On average in the other
nine commissions only about 7 to 10 per cent of the producers
request refunds. Making the check-off srefundable for the remaining
four commissions will encourage the commissions to remain
relevant by being responsive to their members’ needs and help
ensure accountability. Producers who feel that their needs have been
represented will see value in those commissions and likely won’t
request a refund. Perhaps for some of the commissions it will help
them regain an active and engaged membership.
Beef, pork, sheep, and potato producers, like the rest of the
producers paying check-offs in Alberta, should be able to decide if
a commission is representing their needs, if they’re getting value for
their hard-earned dollars that laws are requiring them to pay for their
respective commissions. If the answer is no to either of those two
questions, those producers should not be forced under law to
continue to provide financial support to a commission that they don’t
feel represents them.
I know we’ll hear from some vocal individuals that will say that
making these four check-offs refundable will destroy the associations,
Mr. Speaker, but this is not about the industry associations.
This is about the future viability of the industry itself and the future
success of all of Alberta’s producers, whether they’re big or small
and regardless of the commodity that they produce. Keeping the
status quo and allowing commissions to be complacent will not
allow for a profitable future for our producers and will not drive the
industry ahead. This is about allowing new leadership and realistic
market-based strategies to re-energize the industry. It’s also about
fairness. It’s about choice. It’s about a successful
future. As a Conservative government our law should not dictate
what Albertans do with their money, what group they have to pay
dues to, and whom they have to support with their own funds.
It’s also important that our legislation is consistent, and Bill 43 is
just the way to accomplish this. If passed, this change would not go
into effect until each commission’s 2010-2011 fiscal year. This time
frame gives the commissions adequate time to make the necessary
adjustments internally and to secure their members’ willing support
rather than legislated support for their organization. The Agricultural
Products Marketing Council will continue to work closely with
each commission and support them through the transition.
I look forward to the debate and receiving the support of members
for this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With that, I would like to move that we adjourn debate.

[Motion to adjourn debate carried]