By James Wood And Chris Varcoe, Calgary Herald May 26, 2014

CANADA-U.S. MEAT DISPUTE TAKES A FREE-SPEECH TWIST
Alexander Panetta
THE CANADIAN PRESS — WASHINGTON

Canadian livestock producers were in a U.S. courtroom Monday fighting against labeling requirements blamed for having devastated their exports. Their case invoked one of America’s most cherished principles: the free-speech guarantee in the First Amendment of the Constitution. The public gallery was filled as close to 200 people came to hear the argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals, the second-highest court in the country.  According to a coalition of industry groups from the three North American countries, foundational speech rights are violated when meat companies are forced to stamp, “Born in Canada,” or “Born in Mexico,” on their packaging.  They say country-of-origin labeling isn’t just costly, from a logistical standpoint. They say it also amounts to the government forcing them to divulge information, against their will and without justification, in breach of the principles espoused by America’s founding fathers. The multiple parties with standing in the case were represented by a pair of attorneys: a federal lawyer who argued on behalf of the U.S. government, against an opponent who represented meat-industry groups.  The industry attorney argued that the
rules are nothing more than protectionism, disguised as an attempt to help consumers learn about the origin of their food. She said the rules did not meet the standard set by past court cases about what corporations need to disclose.  “We’re here representing ranchers who are feeling a colossal impact,” said Catherine Stetson, arguing for the American Meat Institute and its Canadian-Mexican allies. “(Proponents of labeling) want to favor meat that is born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S.”  U.S. rules on country labels, introduced in 2002 and enforced since 2008, are blamed for reducing Canadian cross-border meat exports by half. The provisions are opposed by various elements in the U.S.
meat industry — but are supported by some border-area ranchers who compete with Canadians and Mexicans, and by their allies in Congress. The labeling rules are also being fought at the World Trade Organization. In the U.S. court system, a lower court judge sided against the meat coalition’s speech argument. District Court judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Barack Obama, concluded last year that free speech standards applied differently to corporations.  In a rare reversal last month, however, the country’s second highest court agreed to hear the case.  The surprise announcement from the U.S. Court of Appeals came just a few days after a panel of three judges declared they would not take it on.  Oral arguments were held Monday. Attorneys for the opposing sides answered questions from 11 judges at the Court of Appeals.  The lawyer speaking for the U.S.  government insisted the labeling rule had legitimate aims. He said the goal was to help consumers — not give the domestic industry a protectionist advantage.  “It’s furthering consumers’ ability to act on their own preference,” said Daniel Tenny, the U.S. Department of Justice lawyer.  “We’re not directly trying to help American ranchers . . . (although) it might have that effect.”  That federal lawyer received a rough ride from one judge appointed by George W. Bush. Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly pressed Tenny to explain
how the rules did anything to help consumers.  He suggested the legal precedent says governments cannot force companies what to say, except under three circumstances: to protect health, safety, and consumers from being deceived.
Kavanaugh suggested the labeling rules did not meet that standard — but served other purposes.  “This is a bias against Mexican and Canadian ranchers,” the judge said.  “It’s a traditional protectionist impulse. What’s the difference?”
Later in the hearing, he added:  “The implicit message is to buy American.”

By The Canadian Press on May 19, 2014.

Cowboys move cattle northwest of Calgary, May 28, 2013. Canadian cattle producers were in a U.S. court Monday, arguing for their right to free speech under the First Amendment. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh

WASHINGTON – Canadian livestock producers are in a U.S. court, arguing for their free-speech rights under the First Amendment.

The case centres on whether the country-of-origin labelling rules that have harmed the meat industry are a violation of one of the most sacrosanct provisions of the American Constitution.

The Canadian companies and their U.S. and Mexican allies are arguing that they’re being compelled, by the American government, to divulge information for illegitimate reasons.

They say that violates their free-speech rights.

Numerous parties have standing in the case, which is being argued on the anti-labelling side by a lawyer for the American Meat Institute. Opposing arguments are being made by U.S. government lawyers.

Attorneys for both sides are being grilled today by 11 judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.

By Student on May 15, 2014.

Shelby Craig

FOR THE HERALD

A Farm Credit Canada (FCC) report recently released shows there has been a rise in the value of Alberta farmland.

Values continued to rise nationally in 2013, and the average in Alberta increased 12.9 per cent since then and is part of a continued trend which began in 2011. Supporting the increase is the growing food demand and low interest rates.

Across Canada, average values of farmland have increased by 22.1 per cent in 2013, in which the majority began in the first half of the year.

This annual change represents the largest increase since FCC began reporting in 1985, according to the FCC report.

Kenneth Gurney, senior appraiser at FCC Lethbridge, said this kind of rise doesn’t just affect small operations.

“Increases in land prices impacts all types of operations, both large and small. Those operations that are not able to purchase land at the higher values still have the ability to rent land.”

However, Gurney added the rise could be beneficial to some smaller operations as well.

“Some land owners may want to hold onto the land and not actually farm the land. This often happens when farmers retire but are not wanting to sell the land yet. This creates opportunities for other farmers to rent the land. Renting land can be a good fit for some operations.”

Rental rates usually take a little time to adjust downward following lower grain and oilseed prices, according to the report, and multi-year leases are gaining in popularity.

J.P. Gervais, FCC chief agricultural economist, said although rentals are gaining in popularity, they can expect to change over time.

“For the next several years, we expect the demand for farmland to slow down.”

By Letter to the Editor on May 14, 2014.

Re: “Wind energy has proven to be reliable and cost competitive” (May 6 Letter to the editor).

It is a serious abuse of the English language to use the words “reliable” and “cost competitive” to describe wind energy. Webster defines “reliable” as “trustworthy; there when needed; dependable” – all the things that wind is NOT.

The “current supply and demand report” for Alberta ( May 6, 1 p.m.) www.aeso.ca, showed total net generation as 8,605 MW with wind supplying 415 MW (4.8 per cent of what Albertans were using).

To examine what wind had being doing in the 48 hours before, I went to www.cns-snc.ca for easy-to-read graphs based upon Alberta (AESO) data. Twenty-seven hours ago (10 a.m. May 5) wind was producing ZERO for three hours in a row; six hours ago it was providing 879 MW and now, 415 MW as I write. This performance does not fit any definition of “reliable” or “there when needed.”

“Cost competitive?” Indeed the Alberta Electric System Operator shows “wind energy is consistently the lowest cost” but why?

The Alberta market is based upon supply and demand. Prices change by the hour. Big demand means higher price. Small demand – lower price. Wind blows when it will, often during the night when demand is low. Occasionally wind might blow during a period of high demand and then it gets the higher price but on average, it typically blows during off-peak hours when demand and prices are low. It is “consistently the lowest cost” because it often comes on the market when Albertans are asleep. In Ontario unuseable wind is sold into the U.S. at a loss.

In Alberta legislation requires that wind power MUST be bought. If wind is available coal and gas MUST make room on the grid while standing by to help if wind dies. Wind gets preferential treatment at every level but still can’t capitalize on it because it frequently generates when few need to buy.

Hence the CanWEA push for bigger subsidies, higher carbon taxes, longer term contracts and more preferential legislation. Wind investors are finding “life challenging.” They need higher prices.

As I close this letter wind is now contributing 354 MW to the grid. Down 61 MW. Please don’t tell me anymore how “reliable” wind is. The correct words are “unreliable,” “erratic,” “unpredictable” and a bad deal for Albertans.

Shaun Ward

Lethbridge

By Letter to the Editor on May 7, 2014.

In reply to Alvin Shier’s letter of March 27, “Owner of mineral rights controls the land”: Many individual Canadians and foreigners own mineral rights in Alberta and cannot trespass on private land. What gives conglomerates that right?

The constitution belongs to the people, as does the jurisdiction of powers of Section 91 and 92 of the British North America Act.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Rinfret, in a ruling on a 1950 case, Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Attorney General of Canada, said (page 33): “The Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the several provinces are sovereign within their sphere defined by the British North America Act, but none of them has the unlimited capacity of an individual. They can exercise only the legislative powers respectively given to them by Sections 91 and 92 of the Act, and these powers must be found in either of these sections.

“The Constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or the legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled.”

Supreme Court Judge J. Kerwin, on page 36 of the same ruling, said: “But the federal Parliament cannot amend the British North America Act, nor give, either expressly or implicitly to the local legislatures, a power which the Imperial Act does not give them. This is clear, and has always been held in this court to be the law.”

Under the above, Prime Minister Trudeau did not have the right, power or jurisdiction to amend the BNA in 1982.

There is a law protecting us from the pollution of air, water and land that also applies to polluting and fracturing the subterranean strata. Pumping in millions of gallons of poisonous liquids in same can pollute the aquifers. If the governments don’t have the guts or fortitude to stop this, the people do, by right.

I know my rights and one of them is the Trespass Act and provincial governments cannot change it. I will challenge any company or anyone else to trespass without legal authority onto my property. Land or property owners also control the atmosphere above the said land.

As a property owner, I can drill a well, dig a dugout, put in a fence line, trench, dig a basement, etc., so don’t tell me I own just the top six inches of soil.

Dean Oseen

Lethbridge