|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
For The Record Hon. Sterling Belliveau Nov. 18, 2009 Subject: EAC Opposes Extension of Consultations for Wetland Policy Dear Minister Belliveau, The Ecology Action Centre (EAC) is aware that some representatives of the forestry sector are seeking to extend the time period for industry consultations on the draft Wetland Conservation Policy. The EAC feels strongly that such an extension should not be granted. Any delays will prevent will prevent your government from meeting a key deadline as prescribed in the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act. The Wetland Conservation policy must be approved by Cabinet in December to fulfill your government's goals to achieve a no-net-loss of wetland policy by 2009. There is strong public support
for this wetland policy. Groups such as NSEN, Coastal Coalition
of Nov Scotia, Public Lands Coalition and EAC have urged their
members to support this policy. One issue the forestry industry has opposed is the requirement of an independent wetland assessor for wetland alterations. The EAC feels this is an entirely reasonable measure that will speeds up the process, reduce conflicts and liability, ensure accuracy, and create green jobs. This is what other jurisdictions do, and it works. There are many concessions to forestry interests in this policy that environmental groups do not support. The EAC feels that cutting trees in a wetland should be considered an alteration, and that roads through shrubs or wooded wetlands should not be exempt from the approval process. We also think an independent assessor should be required on all wetland alteration applications. NSE has done extensive stakeholder consultation in the past as well as during the development of the wetland policy. Since 2008, NSE wetland specialist has been actively seeking input and feedback from stakeholder groups, including industry, municipalities, environmental groups, students, and business. The transparency and openness of this process are benchmarks by which similar initiatives will be evaluated. Why are forest interests complaining publicly when other sectors feel they had a chance to have their say? Although the consultation period for draft wetland policy closed November 6th, NSE is still accepting comments on the proponent's guide, which will guide the implementation of the policy. It is extremely worrying that pressure from industry groups might lead to an extension of the consultation process. Other sectors have been able to review and comment on the policy in the allotted time. It hardly seems fair that one sector might get extra time to pressure government at the expense of other sectors. We hope you will take these issues into serious consideration and uphold the commitments made under EGSPA , which are supported by all political parties.
Sincerely, Jocelyne Rankin, B.Sc., M.E.S. Jennifer Graham Jamie Simpson (Re: "Give forestry a future," Aug. 15) There is no question this is a difficult time for Canada's forestry sector. Supporting those who depend on this industry is our government's first priority. Our government's economic action plan builds on the $1 billion Community Development Trust with the $1 billion Community Adjustment Fund. More than $100 million of this new fund is being invested in Atlantic Canada. But we all know that just getting through the recession is not enough. Our action plan invests $170 million to promote Canadian wood products for now and in the future. We are also upgrading federal laboratories, including $800,000 for Fredericton's Atlantic Forestry Centre. We're also investing in the $1 billion Pulp and Paper Green Transformation Program to improve energy efficiency and environmental performance. Our plan also helps business with difficulties accessing credit. From Jan. 1 to June 15, 2009, EDC provided $7.6 billion in forest industry financing. Last year, the Business Development Bank of Canada provided assistance to some 1,112 small and medium-sized forest industries. These investments are generating economic activity and jobs now, when we need them most. These investments are also helping to give this sector a future - a future where Canada's forest industry can compete with anyone, anywhere. HON. LISA RAITT
Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper Dear Prime Minister Harper: Some years ago I wrote to you in an appeal for better understanding of the environment that family farms of Canada struggle with. You chose to let Chuck Strahl, your Agriculture Minister, to deal with the issue. The problems have escalated to the point where they are critical and now we face extermination of family farms that were and should still be the backbone of our nation's economic security. Canada is the envy of the world for its ability to put most of the burden of agriculture subsidy on its farmers. In no other country do the farmers subsidize the food system to the extent as in Canada. Farm families work off the farm to support themselves in order that they produce below costs to feed the citizens of this country safe food. Wonderful for everyone but the farmer who struggles to survive global economics, drought, flood, hard winters, hail, grasshoppers, disease and a controlled market. Farm family income has been in a depression for approximately 20 years with spending power ever eroded by rising costs. Farmers who have no spending power cannot support other industries who eventually are hurt by recession. Farms are the "engine" that keeps an economy thriving; they are the consumer who utilizes products the most per capita from ALL industries. A farmer with money makes prosperous markets for all not necessarily the other way around. We recognize that it is more popular to look to the "oil sector" and "automotive and steel" as the "engine". A strong agriculture sector means prosperity - Third World countries know the value of this and successful rebuilding always starts at grassroots agriculture. Agriculture products have been used too often as a "trade bargaining chip" in marketing other products and has paid a high price-the result for family farms of Canada has been loss of control of market of food supply to large corporate business. Global giants have extracted so large a piece of agriculture that they have convinced a generation that they are the only future and after many years of lobbying and squeezing others, they have numbers on a balance sheet to prove their way is viable, the method by which they arrived there is ignored. Our present circumstances quite clearly proves this and the NFU's 2005 report, "The Farm Crisis and Corporate Profits". All agribusiness corporations have done record business while all farmers' returns from the market have been negative. The efficiency, productivity and cost cutting of farmers is being exploited by powerful agribusiness in the food chain. Our profits are there but taken by others with market power and greed. If agribusiness intended to leave a portion of the industry to family farms, they wouldn't use captive supply to suppress the market to the degree they do. The object is to completely eradicate ALL or they would share a portion of profit to continue a supply; they want absolute dominance and control. The focus on export markets is to the benefit of agribusiness and not ordinary family farms. The "check-off" dollars we pay is a tax that benefits those destroying us. Large packers and captive supply has taken over our livestock industry by 80% and added to the demise of family farms by negatively controlling our markets and giving need for off-farm employment. Farmers working off the farm has become common-place giving a whole generation of Canadians and government the wrong impression and expectation of agriculture. They do not seem to grasp that this activity is not just to acquire televisions, quads, motor-homes, boats or another car but rather to stay in business. Farm families work for others to feed themselves just as every citizen does then in turn impoverish an agriculture system to provide food for an evermore unappreciative nation which allows global giants to take control of 80%. Farmers are insulted with words like "handout" "you have to do something to justify assistance" "get another job" and "get out if you're not making a living". A slow-down in the economy has drastically reduced off-farm income with additional BSE, several years of drought and now grasshoppers have put livestock producers to the breaking point. Overburdened by debt, bad credit ratings and exhausted, producers have liquidated their herds while some struggle to keep a basic herd. Deferral of monies from herd liquidations are much appreciated but are only a band aid for it doesn't address the cause or need for selling the herds. Livestock numbers have dwindled to the point that a decision must be made, not just by the producer, but also by the government of our country-do we want a livestock industry? Programs to date have many believing that "No", the nation wants a future without a viable safe food supply and wants corporate captive supply supported by imported sources. In previous discussions with government representatives (bureaucrats, MPs and MLAs), I have been advised that MOM & POP farms have had their day, that it is a world of big business. MOM & POP did just fine until employees (government) started to wheel and deal and allow global giants to beggar the farm. This is a grassroots assessment of what is really happening at the producer level. We are tired of our hardships being exploited and trivialized by organizations using "check-off" funds who basically don't relate to what is happening to us but are accepted as representing family farms. In truth, they are more closely allied with global giants who control our markets and with no Free Market farmers are trapped in a system with no voice to change. Many producers are members of the National Farmers Union. I am not but have read their reports, funded by their membership, of an extensive study and constructive solutions. Their voice to date is trivialized and ignored. I suggest this government take a closer look at the NFU Farm Crisis series of five reports. Our pain is real as we face extermination of our livelihood and industry. We need immediate aid-not agristability but real immediate programs for dollars to keep us in business. For livelihood and survival of a nation, not for politics, let it be a time for policymakers to listen to us, the farmers who want to make a living from the farm. If packer monopoly were reduced or eliminated, the control this sector has taken of our markets cannot be called Free Market, our industry would have been better equipped to handle the past and present crisis, programs like Farm Option and Agristability would probably function as intended. Until "free market" exists, the nation will have to accept subsidizing to a larger degree or have a reality of global corporations eventually (near future) controlling their food supply at high cost. We realize the issue of World Trade challenge but there comes a time for a country to take a firm stand in defending and keeping its citizens safe be it war, food, or economics. Survival of the fittest should mean good health and not extermination of Canadian farmers losing to global giants. If Canada chooses to have a viable agriculture sector and thereby stimulating the economy, the following suggestions might apply but not necessarily as multiple choice: In the short term: (1) Hay and Feed Grain Certificates - Alberta had a Feed Grain Certificate Program in the 1970s. (2) Trucking Feed Assistance that begins at a minimum of 30 kilometres. Alberta has used this in the past but at higher mileage (costs have changed). (3) Program for Drought/Grasshopper/Flood based on number of acres owned. Alberta in the past processed for lease and land owned - cultivated, pasture, and natural land. Many producers are so crippled financially by past events that insurance wasn't affordable. Those insured are hurt by the location of weather stations. In the long term: We recognize short-term programs are most beneficial if processed with long-term solutions: (4) Addressing the monopolies of captive supply and thereby helping create "free market" makes all the money spent finding export markets available to ALL producers. (5) Assist by partially or completely funding the tracking system attached to livestock producers. The burden of tagging and record keeping has fell on producers who, if anything, continue to sell on an eroding market. When stability of system is established this could be reviewed. (6) Make a credit rating pardon - overlook the credit rating of farmers applying for government-supported repayable loans. All farmers would have the opportunity to stabilize their present circumstances created by crisis. A portion of the repayable perhaps could even be forgiven at the end of the loan term. (7) Address our banking sector, Bank of Canada, Government of Canada and its relationship with private banks. Debt is crippling all sectors, perhaps Canada should look at its history with Bank of Canada and what role it played in sorting the depression of the 1930s. We have a problem like a torn-apart jigsaw puzzle created by choices that affect our economy. Our suggestions may look like a wish-list to your government but in reality are pieces of a big picture that has many parts and needs to be put together to realize a solution. If the Government of Canada continues to stay the course with only existing programs, we as an industry will realize the harsh reality that our voice as citizens was heard, rejected and ignored. We will have to acknowledge that Canada doesn't care. If Canada has decided they do not want a strong Family Farm base, then the government must be honest with its citizens and declare such and not prolong the agony for hard-working farmers. Canadian family farms have had enough betrayal. Sincerely, Sandra White cc: Hon. Gerry Ritz
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
| About | Contact |
|
|
|
Design/Programming by Scott Joudry © 2007 Last Updated December 2, 2009 |
||
