• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Real CWB lovers dont hold grain over

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #37
    You know willagro not only did your grandpa not vote away my property rights because they are inalienable. He didn't get a vote on it period.

    From the CWB website...

    "During the First World War the federal government was eventually forced by wartime conditions to become directly involved in grain marketing by establishing a body called the "Board of Grain Supervisors " (BGS) for the 1917-18 and 1918-19 crop years. Wheat futures trading in Winnipeg was suspended in 1917 and the BGS assumed complete control over the purchase, sale and pricing of wheat for export.

    After the war the federal government replaced the BGS with the first Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) to market the 1919 wheat crop. "

    " The CWB of 1919-20, like the BGS before it, was seen as an extraordinary measure by both the federal government and its political supporters in the Canadian grain trade, one that it was felt could not be justified as a permanent marketing arrangement under peacetime conditions, so it was disbanded in 1920 after one year's operation. "

    "From 1930 onward, the federal government had to step in and provide the bankers of the Wheat Pools with a federal guarantee on their loans to the Wheat Pools, and had to guarantee the Pools' initial payments to farmers. In this situation, it decided to put its own representative in place as the general manager of the Central Selling Agency. In the early 1930s the federal government still hoped that its involvement in grain marketing would be temporary and that it would be able to extricate itself from this in time and return all grain marketing activities to the private sector. When it became clear by 1935, however, that its involvement was going to be longer-term than originally envisaged, it decided to formalize that involvement and enact the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which was signed into law on July 5, 1935. "

    "Then, during World War II, the CWB was empowered to market all Canadian grains, including oilseeds and Ontario corn. Wheat futures trading was suspended in 1943 in the conditions of wartime and deliveries to the CWB became compulsory.

    In 1949, Parliament amended the Canadian Wheat Board Act to extend the CWB's marketing responsibility to encompass oats and barley, but retained a clause that required the Act's renewal by Parliament every five years. In 1966, this clause was removed and the Canadian Wheat Board Act."

    Comment


      #38
      Well put Francisco. Let me vote with my truck.

      Comment


        #39
        Not wanting to get in the middle of this but , the root of the problem is the lack of property rights Fransisco and you have none in Canada so I don't know which inalienable ones youre referring too. Your dead right if we DID have property rights none of this discussion would take place. However as we do not have property rights the gov't can do what it pleases to you which includes taking your grain ,your land, and even your home if some paper pusher decides it is is the best interests of the crown. Simple as that.
        You want things to change start with that.

        Comment


          #40
          Sorry to leave you out there Franny !!!!Seems the lefties can`t get the thought of socialism for the socialists and freedom for the rest!!!!!!! Oh, sorry your Grandparents missed the train Aggie!!!!!! Now those same weeds are growing here!!!!!!!!

          Comment


            #41
            Since my user name was on origanal post and this conversation has gone from commodity marketing to racial slur, I think I will clear up what I was saying.

            I do not know DePutter, this was the first time I had heard any of his statements. I still don't know if he supports single desk marketing or not, nor do I care. I didn't agree with his advise on how, we as farmers should blow out our grain at any price. Nor do I understand what interest he has in my or your crop or what price we should get for it.

            Does he feel we should do the same with all our production cattle, hogs, peas etc. If so, is this the kind of advise the markets are listening to? Keeping the value of all farm commodities at depressed prices.

            I can tell by comments on here, that there are producers out there that would sell thier crops at any price and fallow his advise. That is your choise and it is my choise to hold grain for a better price.

            It does concern me of the fact that some people want out of the single desk marketing and openly agree that we should be dumping our grain to make way for new production. That is your choise. But, How is this going to help future prices?

            We have an over supply in the world so we will fill every bin in the world with cheap grain, then grow more. Then ask what for it? Sorry higher markets are going to be there.

            We do have a choice to sell or not, at these prices. We also have a chance to give the world signals that we demand more for our products, by holding and staying off the markets we give that signal.

            I don't think these advisors are working in my best interest when they give signals like this and God forbid if anyone listens to them, again. It reminds me of advisors giving advise to "kill the crow". That worked out just DUCKY didn't it.

            CWB or no CWB, my advise is, don't give away production at just any price, this will not improve future prices and signal that we as farmers need more for our production or we can't produce.

            By the way I ride a tractor, pick rocks, shovel grain, produce ag commodities for sale. Just like every other farmer. Justify our existance not DePutter's and PLEASE leave the racial slur out of Agriculture.

            Comment


              #42
              Oh, mustard contracts! That brings back fond memories, CP. I love a crop where dockage determines grade; where an independent buyer claims that the mere sending of a 2kg sample to them to establish a grade represents a binding contract, as that sample is the first delivery part of a specific tonne commitment; doesn't matter about your terms; or that you never signed their papers. I want your mustard, or else. Does that beat your fubar, cotton?

              It was the reason that we happily moved production to flax. Now, the fubar is coming from the industry leaders that said they would protect us from Triffid. Meanwhile, my crop options are shrinking.

              Comment


                #43
                Well wmoebis that was a well thought out articulate response. Still dont agree with you stealing from my (forced)participation in the 2010 or 2011 pool though.
                Its amazing how something as simple as being forced to sell our production through the CWB (I am not going to get into their competancy here) brings out anger in people. Kind of like being mugged, again and again.
                Anyways before I digress into ranting again, thanks for your response and this thread was entertaining for the weekend.
                SCREW THE CWB

                Comment


                  #44
                  I just tuned in on this interesting thread. Note that Fransisco posted the CWB history from the CWB website and between the last two paragraphs is the purposely missing key to the CWB situation - the 1947 amendments to the 1935 CWB Act.

                  It was in these 1947 Amendments when the so-called "monopoly teeth" were inserted into the Act as Part IV.
                  They were originally intended to function as a import/export tax, (payable to the government) so that the government could set the domestic price in Canada. The CWB now has farmers believing that it is monopoly legislation, however beyond that, even if it did authorize confiscation of farmers' grain and therefore a property rights issue, the fact is that only government (through Parliament) can take away property rights, and only if they clearly state they are taking property and not going to pay (fairly) for it. That's what the courts consistently say.

                  Prairie farmers, even if a majority of 99%, do not have the right to take anyone's property. Wrangling with collectivists like agstar77, jagfarms, wilagro, wmoebis, etc is not only futile but a waste of time. The Conservatives are the government and they are in charge.

                  Comment


                    #45
                    Wilagro,

                    HISTORY LESSON:

                    Dateline 1974; ALberta government removes CWB legislation form Prov. Gov. statutes... opening up the domestic feed grain market in Canada.

                    Agstar: Put yourself in your neighbours shoes for one second...

                    $500,000.00 lost because CWB refuses to issue no cost wheat or durum export licenses... in late Feb 2008.

                    How frustrated and annoyed do you think those farm families feel...

                    BEcause arrogant greedy left winger monopoly supporters refuse to allow the ownership benefit to those who worked hard to have the right grain... at the right time... and should have been able to pay all farm loans off in 2008-09... plus the tax payable on top.

                    To say some are offended...

                    SOME have very strong angry feelings towards your monopoly


                    ... WE bite our tongues almost every time you post... sometimes it just gets the better of us...slips out... how evil, unfruitful, and undeserved we believe this deceptive condescending.... CWB.... system is.

                    We all will die. What do you want your legacy to be... on the other side... AGSTAR77????

                    Comment


                      #46
                      mcfarms you are right that property rights are not enshrined in our constitution or in our charter of rights and freedoms. I believe there are some property rights elements in our common law but would have to double check that one to be certain.

                      However the question you have to ask is what is the source of our rights? Is it government? Or government law? The answer is no. While it's true that the proper role of government is to protect our rights it does not create them.

                      Inalienable means -incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. Property rights are inalienable, as is the right to life, and these rights don't disappear when a government decides to violate them.

                      Genocide doesn't suddenly become okay because it is some governments policy and likewise it is not okay to take someones grain away from them because of the wheat board act.

                      Comment


                        #47
                        BTW- I'm still waiting for someone to argue against my earlier statement that "One's life and one's property are not mutually exclusive or separate, they are linked and vitally important to each other."

                        Comment


                          #48
                          wmoebis said, "CWB or no CWB, my advise is, don't give away production at just any price"

                          The CWB does exactly that time, after time, after time, and you have no choice about that.

                          Comment

                          • Reply to this Thread
                          • Return to Topic List
                          Working...