McIver fined by ethics boss ALTA. PC LEADER FINED OVER ELECTRICITY RATE COMMENTS

January 5, 2017 By

5 Jan 2017
Lethbridge Herald
Dean Bennett THE CANADIAN PRESS — EDMONTON

Alberta Progressive Conservative Leader Ric McIver has been fined for a conflict of interest for publicly calling for changes in electricity pricing in a way that could benefit his wife’s company. “I do not believe that Mr. McIver was intending to protect his wife’s business in asking the question,” said Ethics Commissioner Marguerite Trussler, in a written ruling issued Wednesday.

She said while she believed his comments were likely part of the normal political give and take, “there could be unintended consequences that could benefit his wife.”

Trussler fined McIver $500, directed he apologize to the legislature assembly, and refrain from future comments or votes on the electricity file as long as Christine McIver is involved in the industry. McIver said he will abide by the decision. “MLAs need to be held to a high standard,” McIver said in an interview.

“The ethics commissioner says I fell short, even if it was (done) unintentionally, so what can I do but accept the decision.”

Trussler launched the investigation after receiving a complaint from NDP legislature member Heather Sweet in late November.

Sweet, the chair of the NDP caucus, said the Progressive Conservatives retain the me-first ethos from their days in government.

“The PCs haven’t changed their ways,” Sweet told reporters at the legislature. “They’re looking out for their friends and family and not out for the best interests of Albertans.”

Sweet said it’s the first such fine levied by the ethics commissioner’s office.

The investigation arose after Premier Rachel Notley’s government announced in November it would cap electricity prices in the short term as it transforms the power grid away from coal-fired electricity to one based on a mix of renewables and natural gas by 2030.

Filed Under: News

Analysis ‘It’s tricky’: Why there’s no magic number for an effective carbon tax

January 3, 2017 By

A look at 25 years of carbon tax
history around the world to see
what works

By Tracy Johnson, CBC News Posted: Jan 03, 2017 3:00 AM MTLast Updated: Jan 03, 2017 8:16 AM MT

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley’s climate strategy includes a carbon tax that went into effect on Jan. 1. (Amber Bracken/Canadian Press)

Related Stories

It’s Day 3 of Alberta’s new carbon tax regime. Are you driving less? Putting on a sweater and turning down the thermostat? Considering solar panels, perhaps?

Because a carbon tax, after all, is supposed to make us change our behaviour and lead less carbon-intensive lives.

But will it work?

Fortunately, there’s 25 years of history to help us answer the question.

Finland introduced the very first carbon tax in 1990. The share of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions that are taxed has since increased to 13 per cent, having roughly tripled in the past decade.

But evaluating and comparing the impact of different carbon taxes is complicated for several reasons.

First, governments charge very different prices for carbon dioxide emissions. Sweden, for example, charges $150/tonne, while Japan charges just $3/tonne.

Sweden’s carbon tax is $150/tonne. The country has lowered its greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels, while still growing its economy. (REUTERS)

Secondly, it’s not always possible to compare the carbon prices of different governments because some charge a tax, others use emissions trading systems and many European countries do both.

And finally, different governments charge different sectors of their economy. B.C.’s carbon tax, for example, covers 70 per cent of CO2 emissions, while Alberta’s will cover 78 per cent by 2020.

With all that in mind, the evidence does suggest it’s easier to change the way people heat their homes than how they get around. The examples also show it’s definitely possible for a government to grow its economy while imposing a carbon tax, but it’s tricky to lower emissions with a growing energy sector.

Sweden and its $150 tax

Sweden’s greenhouse gas emissions from 1990-2012 (CBC)

Sweden puts the highest price on carbon. It first levied a tax in 1991 and the price has risen to $150/tonne. Swedes pay around $2 for a litre of gas — roughly 35 cents of which is carbon tax — but it hasn’t stopped them from driving. Emissions from the transport sector are down five per cent since 1990.

The major shift has come in the way Swedes heat their homes, with a move away from the burning of fossil fuels to the use of hydro- and nuclear-powered electricity and the burning of wood fibre and household waste.

Sweden’s annual direct greenhouse gas emissions dropped by 22 per cent between 1990 and 2013. At the same time, its economy grew by 58 per cent, which shows you can grow your economy and still decrease emissions.

The Norway example

Norway’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen in the past 25 years. (CBC)

Norway is close to Sweden geographically, but is more similar to Canada and Alberta in that its economy depends on fossil fuel extraction.

Like Sweden, it imposed a carbon tax in the early 1990s, but has kept its tax quite a bit lower. It was recently increased to around $64/tonne on the energy industry, but just $8/tonne for fisheries, while some other industries are exempt. Drivers pay 14 cents tax per litre of gasoline.

Despite a relatively high carbon price, Norway’s emissions continue to increase because of a boom in energy extraction. (Statistics Norway)

Norway hasn’t been as successful in lowering its emissions, in part because of the rapid growth of its energy industry, which saw emissions increase by more than 80 per cent between 1990 and 2015. Manufacturing and mining emissions are down nearly 40 per cent and heating emissions by nearly 60 per cent. But transportation emissions from road traffic are up 32 per cent since 1990.

As a result, Norway’s overall greenhouse gas emissions have grown by four per cent in the past 25 years. That’s quite a bit better than Canada, which saw its emissions increase by 20 per cent over the same period, but it does show the difficulty of controlling emissions with a growing energy sector.

The debate over B.C.’s tax

B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions have dropped since it introduced a carbon tax in 2008. (CBC)

B.C. is often offered up as shining example of a carbon tax done right. It’s simple and broadly applied. At $30/tonne, it covers 70 per cent of the province’s emissions.

But there is a debate as to whether it actually works. The tax has been in place since 2008, so the province uses 2007 as its base of comparison. That year, B.C. emitted of 66.3 megatonnes of greenhouse gases. In 2014, that number had dropped nearly three per cent to 64.4 megatonnes. It’s interesting to note that Canada’s emissions dropped 3.4 per cent over that same period, which included the 2009 recession.

The B.C. example shows how hard it can be to isolate the impact of a carbon tax. The province’s population grew over that period, as did its natural gas industry. Overall emissions from road transportation were higher, but less energy was used for home heating.

“What we’d like to do is compare a B.C. that implemented the tax to the exact same province in which everything is exactly the same, but they did not implement the tax,” said Nicholas Rivers, Canada research chair in climate and energy policy at the University of Ottawa.

Nicholas Rivers, Canada research chair in climate and energy policy at the University of Ottawa, says there’s evidence B.C.’s carbon tax has helped reduce gas consumption. (Nathan Denette/Canadian Press)

Nonetheless, Rivers says estimates suggest the tax, which equals less than ten cents per litre of gasoline, contributes to a 5-10 per cent reduction in gasoline consumption.

So far, B.C’s carbon tax hasn’t caused a large-scale shift to public transit, but Rivers says his research shows carbon taxes are more likely to encourage people to move closer to work or to buy more fuel-efficient cars.

He says the bigger impact of a carbon price, particularly in Alberta, will be in electricity generation and heating, specifically a move away from coal.

Search for a magic number

History shows the higher the tax, the more incentive there is for people and industry to use energy more efficiently. While it’s difficult to compare jurisdictions, it will come as no surprise that Japan’s emissions have gone up with its $3/tonne tax, while Sweden’s have gone down with its $150/tonne tax.

Having said that, it’s hard to come up with a magic number for a price on carbon, according to Janet Milne, director of the University of Vermont’s environmental tax policy institute.

“It’s tricky for the economist to figure out why people’s behaviour changed,” she said. “In countries like Sweden, they’ve seen a significant improvement in their emissions profile, but you have to question whether that’s because of the tax or other policies.”

“In Japan there’s a very low-level tax, but the revenue is all dedicated to green energy or energy conservation purposes. It’s not a behavioural tax, but it’s pinning a cost on something that’s environmentally damaging and using the revenue to try to address the problem.”

‘It’s tricky for the economist to figure out why people’s behaviour changed.’ – Janet Milne,University of Vermont

Alberta’s tax starts at $20/tonne and will increase to $30/tonne in a year. If the federal government follows through on its commitment to impose a tax nationally, Canadians will pay $50/tonne by 2022. Other measures have also been promised to reduce emissions to meet our 2030 commitment of a 30 per cent reduction below 2005 levels.

We’ll need them, Rivers says. Without other policies, $50/tonne is probably not enough to reach our targets.

“You’d need a pretty high price,” he said. “We would want a price somewhere between $100 to $150 … to get us to our goal.”

Filed Under: News

Site C uproots farm family

December 14, 2016 By

13 Dec 2016

Lethbridge Herald

THE CANADIAN PRESS — VICTORIA

A farmer in northeast British Columbia is still hopeful that he’ll get to stay in his home, despite an announcement by BC Hydro that the company plans to seize the property to make way for a controversial hydroelectric project.

Jessica McDonald, BC Hydro’s president and CEO, said Monday that the company is expropriating Ken and Arlene Boon’s property to allow for the start of highway realignment work linked to the $8.8-billion Site C dam project.

The Boons must be out of their home by May 31, but they will be allowed to continue farming their land for two more years, McDonald said. The agreement allowing the Boons to stay on the property temporarily was not reached by consent but was signed last week by the family and the B.C. government, she said.

Ken Boon said Monday that he and his wife have not turned over their property, but did sign an agreement that will allow them to stay as long as possible.

The process has been a frustrating lesson in what rights landowners actually have, said Boon.

 

Filed Under: News

Pipelines go two-for-three

November 30, 2016 By

30 Nov 2016

Lethbridge Herald

Bruce Cheadle THE CANADIAN PRESS — OTTAWA

Trudeau walks high wire on pipeline approvals

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau approved two major oil pipeline expansions Tuesday, including the deeply controversial Trans Mountain line through suburban Vancouver, while maintaining his government remains on course to meet its international climate commitments.

The announcement ends the new Liberal government’s year-long highwire act seeking to balance environmental stewardship and expansion of Canada’s resource economy.

“We are under no illusions that the decision we made today will be bitterly disputed by a number of people across the country who would rather we had made another decision,” Trudeau — flanked by a number of his senior cabinet ministers — told a news conference in Ottawa.

“We took this decision today because we believe it is in the best interests of Canada and Canadians.”

The Liberals have been setting the stage for pipeline approvals for months, highlighting environmental policy moves like a national carbon price while making the case that the jobs, economic boost and government revenues from fossil fuel exports are critical to the transformation to a low-carbon future.

It’s been a tough sell.

Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion has become a lightning rod for climate protests from coast to coast, with opponents from among Trudeau’s own caucus of Liberal MPs and his political ally, Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson.

Climate campaigners and indigenous groups immediately attacked the government decision as a betrayal, while B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polak issued an anodyne statement noting the province’s own environmental assessment of Trans Mountain continues.

The fight overshadowed quieter deliberations about Enbridge’s proposed replacement of Line 3, a half-century old pipeline from Alberta to the United States that Trudeau approved Tuesday, effectively doubling its current working capacity.

Between the Trans Mountain and Line 3 expansions, the Liberals have approved the export of almost a million additional barrels of oil per day — and the production of between 23 and 28 million tonnes of additional greenhouse gases annually. Line 3 can actually handle another 155,000 barrels per day, but Enbridge would have to apply for a new permit.

The Liberals hoped to leaven those numbers with Tuesday’s decision to permanently shelve the stalled Northern Gateway pipeline across northwestern B.C. and impose a promised oil tanker ban on the northwest Pacific coast.

But the prime minister also left the door open to more pipeline approvals, saying each project would be examined on its merits. The “vital element,” said Trudeau, is the climate leadership of Alberta’s NDP government, which has imposed a 100-milliontonne cap on emission increases from the oil patch.

Trudeau said the Kinder Morgan approval, which includes 157 binding conditions set out by the National Energy Board, would create 15,000 new middle-class jobs.

“And as long as Kinder Morgan respects the stringent conditions put forward by the National Energy Board, this project will get built — because it’s in the national interest of Canadians, because we need to get our resources to market in safe, responsible ways, and that is exactly what we’re going to do,” he said.

Conservatives, however, immediately accused the government of providing less than half a loaf.

Interim Leader Rona Ambrose said the Liberals should have left Northern Gateway “on the table” and must now actively promote the other approved lines, particularly the beleaguered Trans Mountain expansion.

“I see very little prospect, politically speaking, that this pipeline will get built,” Ambrose said.

Alberta’s NDP premier Rachel Notley, who met Trudeau following the announcement, lauded the prime minister for his “extraordinary leadership” — crediting the Liberals for building the economy and moving forward aggressively on the environment while “understanding that you can do both at the same time.”

Notley called the Kinder Morgan approval “very good news

for Albertans” at a difficult time for the province.

“It means that we can diversify our market, we can get our product to China and we can get more money for our product and we can enhance our economic independence not only in Alberta but all of Canada,” she said.

However, Tom Mulcair, leader of the federal New Democrats, said Trudeau “betrayed” British Columbians by breaking his “solemn promise” to never approve Kinder Morgan without redoing the Harper government’s flawed environmental review process.

“He still doesn’t even have a plan to deal with greenhouse gases after the Paris conference,” Mulcair said. “So, there’s no excuse for what he’s doing here today.”

Climate advocates such as Patrick DeRochie of Environmental Defence said the approvals raise “grave doubts” Canada can meet its international 2030 climate goals, and that much deeper emissions cuts will have to be made elsewhere in the Canadian economy.

Many indigenous leaders, with whom the Liberals have promised a new nation-to-nation relationship, were scathing.

“The struggle will simply intensify,” said Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of British Columbia Chiefs. “It will become more litigious, it will become more political and the battle will continue.”

There are no conditions under which the chiefs would have been willing to agree to the project, Phillip added.

“The risks are just too grave. The tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet will increase by 700 per cent and it’s inevitable that there will be a collision in a very congested inlet.”

Trudeau made a point of saying overall ship traffic in the inlet would increase by only 13 per cent, but critics said the government clearly lacks community approval for the decisions.

“He doesn’t have social license,” cracked the NDP’s Mulcair. “Heck, he doesn’t even have a learner’s permit.”

Earlier Tuesday, the broad strokes of a year-long Liberal government effort to position the government between fossil fuel development advocates, indigenous groups and climate policy hawks played out during question period in the House of Commons.

Ambrose challenged Trudeau that it is not enough for the government to approve major pipelines; it must then “champion them through to the end” in order to see that they actually get built.

Mulcair, by contrast, accused the Liberals of a “Goldilocks approach” that has browbeat the Liberal party’s own environmentally conscious, antipipeline MPs into silence.

Trudeau was happy to claim the middle ground.

“One side of this House wants us to approve everything and ignore indigenous communities and environmental responsibilities,” he said.

“The other side of the House doesn’t care about the jobs or the economic growth that comes with getting our resources to market.”

The pipeline decisions follow weeks of Liberal government announcements designed to show it is serious about combating climate change, including an accelerated coal phase-out, a national floor price on carbon emissions starting in 2018 and $1.5 billion for ocean protection and spill cleanups.

 

Filed Under: News

Changes for Alta. electricity

November 30, 2016 By

30 Nov 2016

Lethbridge Herald

Dean Bennett THE CANADIAN PRESS — EDMONTON

The Alberta government is making more changes to how it handles electricity as it transitions out of coal-fired power.

The province is giving the entity that brokers the electricity system — known as the balancing pool — the ability to borrow money from the province to manage its funding obligations so those costs don’t get passed on to consumers.

The changes are in Bill 34, the Electric Utilities Amendment Act, which was introduced Tuesday.

The balancing pool was set up when Alberta deregulated electricity two decades ago, but Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd says that was a flawed approach.

She says power companies have been returning moneylosing power contracts to the balancing pool, with any outstanding costs to passed on to ratepayers.

“We inherited a volatile electricity system that did not look out for consumers,” said McCuaig-Boyd.

“We are correcting that and giving the balancing pool the tools it needs to limit cost impacts on consumers and enable greater predictability and stability.”

As it stands, the average electricity consumer gets a credit from the balancing pool each month of $1.95.

Without the proposed changes, the province says that $1.95 credit would become a monthly fee of $8.40, adding up to about $100 a year starting in 2017.

But opposition Progressive Conservative energy critic Rick Fraser said the province is once again using taxpayers’ money to backstop ill-conceived experiments that have contributed to this year’s $10.8-billion deficit.

“Allowing government to borrow unlimited funds from general revenue to keep the balancing pool afloat is a gross misuse of hard-earned taxpayer dollars,” said Fraser.

“We are facing electricity price volatility and a depleted balancing pool because of aggressive and ideological NDP policies.”

 

Filed Under: News

Alberta to revamp its electricity plan

November 24, 2016 By

24 Nov 2016

Lethbridge Herald

Dean Bennett THE CANADIAN PRESS — EDMONTON

PROVINCE MOVING AWAY FROM ELECTRICITY DEREGULATION

Alberta is changing how it produces and pays for electricity as it enters a new era of greener energy sources.

Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd announced Wednesday the province is moving away from electricity deregulation, which ties investment to volatile swings in spot prices. It has been in place in Alberta for two decades. “The system must deliver affordable, stable prices and reliable energy,” McCuaig-Boyd said.

“(Alberta’s) current electricity market is an outlier among North American jurisdictions.

“This built-in volatility isn’t enough to make sure there’s incentive to build and pay for the necessary infrastructure to power Alberta’s future.”

McCuaig-Boyd said officials will begin creating the framework, expected to be ready in 2021, for a new system known as a capacity market.

In the new system power producers will be paid for spot prices, as before. But now they will also get contracts to build up capacity — even if it isn’t all needed.

The plan is to ensure there is always enough electricity in reserve to offset any potential shortages as Alberta moves to replace coal-fired electricity with a mix of natural gas-fired power along with renewables like wind and solar.

The province estimates it will need up to $25 billion in new investment in electricity generation to support this shift.

The new approach carries a risk that ratepayers will have to pay more for excess capacity, but it is expected to reduce market volatility.

McCuaig-Boyd said prices will remain affordable.

On Tuesday, Premier Rachel Notley announced prices will soon be capped at 6.8 cents per kilowatt hour through to 2021 to protect homeowners from any price spikes during the transition.

Alberta’s power prices are currently about half that 6.8 cent rate, but have spiked much higher over the past decade.

If they go over 6.8 cents, power producers would be compensated.

Don MacIntyre, energy critic for the Opposition Wildrose party, called the changes unnecessary, and said all risk will ultimately be transferred from power producers to consumers.

“Today’s announcement puts the burden entirely on electricity consumers and taxpayers,” said MacIntyre. “Make no mistake — this feels a lot like Ontario.”

In Ontario, electricity rates for homes and small businesses jumped an estimated 70 per cent between 2006 and 2014 as coal was being phased out.

Progressive Conservative energy critic Rick Fraser said he is cautiously optimistic the new market will work.

But he said it’s a decision driven by the Notley government’s desire to extricate itself from problems it created by rushing through major changes to the economy with its climate change plan.

 

Filed Under: News

Alberta government caps power prices at 6.8 cents per kilowatt hour

November 23, 2016 By
By Online Journalist  Global News

The Alberta government is introducing a cap on electricity prices, which it says will protect consumers from “volatile energy prices” as the province moves away from coal-fired electricity production.

READ MORE: Phasing out coal: good for the environment, bad for your wallet

The cap, which will be fully implemented by June 2017 and run until 2021, will ensure Albertans pay no more than 6.8 cents per kilowatt hour.

That’s about twice what most Albertans pay now.  The current regulated rate stands at about 3.8 cents per kilowatt hour.

The province said when the rate ceiling is in effect, consumers on the Regulated Rate Option (RRO) will pay the lower of the market rate or the government’s ceiling rate, and it will be automatically applied to bills.

Albertans may also choose to continue to take advantage of an offer from any private supplier they believe better suits their needs, the province added.

Premier Rachel Notley said the cap, along with other reforms, will ensure stable and affordable prices during the transition. Notley’s government is working to phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030 and replace it with renewable energy such as wind, solar and hydro.

READ MORE: Alberta NDP’s plan to phase out coal could triple power bills: Coal Association

The province is still working out what will happen if the spot price goes above 6.8 cents. Energy Minister Margaret McCuaig-Boyd will hold consultations with distributors, RRO providers, retailers and consumers, beginning in December.

Notley said one option to cover higher power prices us to use the carbon levy fund.

So is this a step back towards regulation?

“This is part of a plan that will move Alberta back towards the mainstream of electricity production, distribution and sales in North America,” Notley said. “And in so doing it will provide greater stability in prices for consumers and ultimately it will provide greater stability for investors as well.”

Enmax said electricity is essential to Albertans’ lives and the economy and any policy that impacts one part of the system affects all the others.

“Restructuring this system therefore demands proper understanding, planning and consultation,” the company said in a statement.

The rest of the statement reads:

“We appreciate the need to protect consumers in anticipation of the future volatility that is inevitable with Alberta’s shift to renewables and the costs of taking out coal-fired generation. However, the government’s announcement today on a price cap was short on details and ignores the fact that retailers have been providing this protection from price volatility for a decade.

“To put this in context, ENMAX Energy and other electricity retailers have competitive fixed rate contracts that are already protecting customers against the potential volatility of the RRO electricity rate.

“Moving forward, ENMAX intends to be fully engaged in the government consultation, keeping the interests of our customers front and centre.”

The province said historically, regulated electricity rates have been extremely volatile: the price increased 65 per cent in a single month in April 2011, and dropped 42 per cent in June 2014.

“Previous Alberta governments experimented with a risky and volatile form of electricity deregulation,” Notley said. “This experiment left families, businesses and our economy at the mercy of sudden price spikes and uncertainty like we’ve seen in the past and need to protect against in the future.”

A study done at the beginning of this year said that Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan would result in big reductions in emissions, but that the cost of boosting renewable energy usage would mean significantly higher electricity rates.

READ MORE: Carbon price won’t be determining factor for oilsands development: report

That triggered a backlash from power companies.

A number of private operators, including Enmax and Capital Power, sought to return to the province money-losing electricity deals they say were made more unprofitable by the new climate rules.

The PPAs, or power purchase arrangements, are the backbone of the deregulated electricity system created under the former Progressive Conservative government in 2000.

The idea was for power companies to buy electricity from generators at auction via the PPAs, then re-sell it to consumers for profit. But the rules stipulate that no matter what happens to prices, generators always get a reasonable rate of return.

The power buyers were, in turn, promised that if the government made changes to make the deals unprofitable or made money-losing deals “more unprofitable,” they could effectively turn the contracts back over to consumers through a neutral third-party entity.

In recent months, companies that buy electricity off coal-fired plants have done just that.

READ MORE: Return of Alberta power contracts to cost $600M, says study

They say the decision by Notley’s government in June 2015 to hike the cost of carbon fees on large emitters made money-losing contracts “more unprofitable,” triggering the give-back.

The government is arguing that low power prices, not government action, triggered the decline in PPA value.

READ MORE: Alberta government open to talks with power providers over electricity dispute

— With files from The Canadian Press

*EDITOR’S NOTE: This article originally stated the cap is higher than any price spikes going back more than a decade. However, the province said that was not correct. In 2012, price spiked up to 15 cents and in 2014, prices averaged above 7 cents.

© 2016 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Filed Under: News

Ottawa property owners concerned about farmland protection changes

November 23, 2016 By

City planning for housing

population of 1.2 million

by 2036

By Kate Porter, CBC News

Posted: Nov 22, 2016 5:43 PM

The City of Ottawa has assigned scores to land parcels based on the quality of the soil for farming. Some properties will be downgraded to a general rural designation, while others at set to be protected at prime farmland.

The City of Ottawa has assigned scores to land parcels based on the quality of the soil for farming. Some properties will be downgraded to a general rural designation, while others at set to be protected at prime farmland. (Kate Porter/CBC)

Ottawa is redesignating parcels of land to protect prime farmland, and that’s left property owners challenging new limits to what they’ll be able to do with their land.

The Ontario Municipal Board required the city to update its 20-year-old system for evaluating land, known as LEAR, to reflect changes in farming and soil mapping.

Now, the city has assigned scores to properties based on the soil’s quality for farming and followed up by making on-site visits and taking aerial photos.

Some 300 property owners were sent notices in recent weeks alerting them their land could change from general rural to an agricultural area, or vice versa.

On Tuesday, councillors heard stories from players big and small, all affected in different ways, from housing developers with fields on the edge of suburbia to a Constance Bay resident with a woodworking and pottery studio who’s concerned he won’t be able to ply his craft on land deemed a farm.

‘I don’t want my rights infringed upon’

Tony Faranda was shocked to learn the city thinks his 200 acres in the Munster area should no longer be labelled simply “general rural.”

Tony Faranda, rural property owner

Tony Faranda, who owns 200 acres in the Munster, was shocked to learn his property would soon be deemed prime farmland. He doesn’t think his property is good farmland and is concerned about how that will limit what he’s allowed to do with it. (Kate Porter/CBC)

“You can grow hay on it. That’s not prime farmland,” he said.

Faranda, who’s a carpenter, said he’s been losing sleep thinking the redesignation could limit his options on his own property.

“I’d probably sever a lot for each child in the future. That’s my intention — nothing bigger. But I also don’t want my rights infringed upon. It’s not fair if it’s not prime farmland,” Faranda said.

He said he’s hired an expert to do independent testing of the soil to fight the new designation.

Protecting farmland more important than housing, councillor says

On the other hand, a parcel at the edge of Orléans at Trim and Innes roads has been scored lower than in the past and can become general rural area rather than an agricultural area, staff noted.

Meanwhile, Cardel Homes went to city hall Tuesday to ask the city to consider downgrading land it owns at the edge of Riverside South, where it plans a subdivision, from agricultural area to general rural.

But Coun. Scott Moffatt said there’s little chance that will happen because the soil on that Rideau Road parcel is excellent.

The city thinks differently now about farmland, he said.

“We saw growth, between Kanata and Stittsville that looks like it’s really good farmland. The policies didn’t exist to protect the farmland, and now we’re working harder to protect the prime agricultural farmland,” said Moffatt.

Moffatt said if the city’s going to grow — and the city projects it will need another 130,000 dwellings over the next 20 years to accommodate a population of 1.2 million in 2036 — it will have to happen on marginal soil, not prime farmland.

 

Filed Under: News

Quarantine comes with a ‘devastating’ cost

November 23, 2016 By

There are roughly 10,000 cattle under quarantine, and every animal can cost as much as $3 a day in feed and yardage

 By
Published: November 21, 2016
Alberta Farmer
Many of the cattle now under quarantine would have been sold this fall. Now cash-strapped ranchers must feed them at a time 
when cattle prices are moving downward. Many of the cattle now under quarantine would have been sold this fall. Now cash-strapped ranchers must feed them at a time 
when cattle prices are moving downward. Photo: Thinkstock

Ranches under quarantine in southeastern Alberta could be collectively losing $15,000 to $30,000 per day feeding and caring for the roughly 10,000 cattle they can neither move nor sell.

And much of that money may never be recovered, which is prompting calls for a new approach to compensating producers whose herds are being investigated for bovine tuberculosis.

“These are cow-calf producers, and they’re not able to move their calves at exactly the time of year that you would be moving them to sell them,” said Rich Smith, executive director of Alberta Beef Producers.

“Now they’re having to hold and feed their calves, and they don’t have facilities or feed for wintering their calves. And because they haven’t made any sales, they don’t have any money to purchase feed.

“It’s been devastating for those producers.”

In late September, the USDA confirmed a case of bovine tuberculosis in one cow from a farm near Jenner, and since then, around 33 farms in Alberta and two in southern Saskatchewan have been quarantined. The positive case of the disease will not change Canada’s tuberculosis-free status and should not affect trade, said Smith.

 Read more: When it comes to bovine TB, a closed herd is a safer herd

“The tuberculosis case does not have huge significance for the industry as a whole, but it’s devastating for those producers who are affected by it,” he said.

“We’ve asked the provincial government to look at AgriRecovery — which is disaster funding — to offset the costs to producers and also look at some short-term financial support to get them through this crunch.”

Producers receive fair market value for any animals that test positive for the disease and are destroyed, but “there’s no federal compensation in place to pay for those animals in terms of yardage and feed,” said veterinarian Dr. Cody Creelman.

“There are some resources available within each province — like AgriStability — that can potentially help offset some of those costs, but it’s very difficult,” said Creelman of Veterinary Agri-Health Services in Airdrie.

These guys are going from day to day, and these applications aren’t processed overnight. You have living creatures that need these resources, and I don’t know of a good solution in terms of making sure these farmers are taken care of.”

And as the quarantine stretches on, the costs will continue to climb, he added. Costs will vary depending on the price of feed and the type of winter feeding system used, but at a minimum, producers can expect to pay around $1 to $2 per head per day to feed cattle over the winter — not counting yardage costs.

“You could expect on a per-animal basis to be running between 50 cents and $1 per animal per day to keep those animals in terms of yardage,” said Creelman.

“Then it’s really dependent on what you have available for feed — whether you’re buying it, able to use some forage, or still have some saved. But it gets more and more expensive as you get into the winter.”

And for those producers who don’t have the facilities or cash flow to feed their cattle over the winter, this quarantine is quickly becoming a crisis.

“The majority of the producers on the cow-calf side is going to be lucky to break even with every factor working in their favour,” said Creelman.

“For producers, cash flow is strapped already right now because calf markets are down, but these guys have lost the ability to sell into the higher markets earlier on.

“Emergency is the perfect word for it.”

Long investigation

And the CFIA doesn’t yet know how long the quarantine will last as it begins testing the 10,000 cattle, but in a Nov. 10 statement, it said it “is not expected to be completed for several months.”

“We don’t know what the final timelines will be, but I don’t see the timelines shortening up,” said Creelman.

The “sheer size” of the herds being tested is slowing down the process, he added.

“We’re talking about very progressive producers who are running very large operations, so the logistics of being able to move those animals and implement protocols — well, I don’t think this scale was ever imagined from a regulatory standpoint,” said Creelman.

The protocols were likely designed for average cattle herds of around 100 to 200 cows, he said, and with that number, “it’s logistically feasible to run those animals through and do the tests.”

“But now we’re talking about very large herds, and I don’t think anyone thought of this scenario,” he said.

Initially, the CFIA sent only two teams to test the animals, but it has since added three more.

“That will speed the process along, but once again, we’re talking about massive amounts of cattle, and it’s very difficult to scale that test. There’s nothing you can really do to speed up the results either.”

But it’s unlikely that many more farms will be quarantined in the weeks ahead, said Smith.

“They think they’re getting close to the number of herds that will end up being quarantined, though they may have a few more,” he said. “They will be doing trace-outs of the animals that were part of the infected herd over the last five years, but that typically won’t result in quarantines of facilities. It will just identify specific animals that need to be watched.”

But the CFIA has committed to improving the “information flow” to affected producers, said Smith.

“Producers are concerned and they have a lot of questions about how the investigation is proceeding,” he said. “They made a commitment to us that they’re going to do a better job of communicating with the producers who are affected by the investigation.

“The challenge is that they’re doing an investigation, so until you get the results of the investigation, you don’t have much information to impart to people.”

Too early to blame elk

One of the unknowns is the origin of this particular case of bovine tuberculosis.

“We have no sense of where this came from,” said Smith. “This is a strain of TB that hasn’t been detected in Canada before in either livestock or wildlife, so we don’t have any sense right now of the origin of this disease.”

But the industry needs to be careful about drawing conclusions from that, said Dr. Eugene Janzen, a professor at the University of Calgary faculty of veterinary medicine.

“Other countries in the world have reported different strains than we’re familiar with,” he said.

“The science of examining those organisms — the molecular tests that we’re able to do — have probably pointed out differences that we might not have been aware of in the past.

“We’re still awaiting completion of that investigation, and while we’re awaiting that, we’re speculating quite a bit.”

The prime suspects are the 7,000 or so wild elk that roam on the Suffield military base directly south of where the infected cow came from, said Janzen.

“There’s lots of precedent for wildlife acting as a reservoir or contributing to the persistence of the problem within the cattle herd,” said Janzen. “But we have to be careful not to incriminate wildlife simply because, at this stage, we don’t know.

“Until we know for sure, (culling) is probably not a discussion we want to have.”

Creelman agrees

“It’s too soon to tell, and really, without evidence of TB within that native herd of elk or deer by culling or testing, it would be impossible to tell or do any tests on the cows to determine if that’s the case.”

Right now, the CFIA is focused on testing cattle — not elk — and aside from some “advanced passive surveillance during this hunting season,” that’s unlikely to change, said Smith.

“Ultimately, we expect that the investigation will extend out to the wildlife, but other than this enhanced passive surveillance, the current focus is on trying to get the cattle tested.”

 

Filed Under: News

Alta. MLA to join NDP – FORMER ALBERTA TORY LEADERSHIP CANDIDATE SANDRA JANSEN CROSSES FLOOR TO NDP

November 18, 2016 By

18 Nov 2016

Lethbridge Herald

Dean Bennett THE CANADIAN PRESS — EDMONTON

Alberta Progressive Conservatives embracing a far-right ideology, says Jansen Aone-time candidate for the Alberta Progressive Conservative leadership has crossed the floor to the governing NDP.

Sandra Jansen, a Calgary member of the legislature, quit the Tory race last week. She said personal and online insults aimed at her progressive views had become intolerable.

She said the abuse peaked at a recent Tory policy convention when her nomination forms were vandalized and supporters of another candidate harassed her in the hallways.

Jansen, a two-term MLA, had openly indicated she was mulling whether to leave the Tory caucus and party.

She also accused leadership candidate Jason Kenney, a cabinet minister under former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, of bringing “Trump-style politics’’ to Alberta.

“I don’t believe that there has been anything moderate or pragmatic being offered or even being discussed by the people intent on taking over the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta,” Jansen said Thursday.

Seeing the legacy of former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed being “kicked to the curb by extremists who are taking over the PC party has been heartbreaking to me,” Jansen said.

“The tone that has been brought into Alberta politics belongs in our past,” she said.

“Most parties would describe themselves as big tent … It wasn’t big enough to fit me and I was told that over and over.”

Premier Rachel Notley said Jansen has always been a voice for moderate and progressive politics.

“We share some very important values and priorities that serve Alberta well in government,” Notley said.

Notley said the province is facing challenging times and it’s important to pull together.

“We don’t divide ourselves from each other. We don’t call each other names. We don’t harass each other. We don’t try to pull each other down,” she said.

 

Filed Under: News
« Previous Page
Next Page »