The gov't does not provide me property rights on my wheat, so whats left, the acutal physical money in the CWB bank account that is mine and you got these rinky dink operators THE RATS f... with it, the abuse of power by these f... is off the scale, and who ever defendings the actions of THE RATS, please feel free to add yourself to the list of "PINKO COMMY LEFTIES F..." I know my language is bad and I agree I sound like a nut case, somebody needs to stir the pot, I guess I pick myself, nobody else is defending my rights. These directors were in trusted with the operation of this board to market my wheat in an orderly way. Where in thier mandate does it say to fight the boss at all costs, could somebody answer that question and if you can't that proves they are criminals.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
wilagro, Integrity_Farmer, agstar77, and for people like you
Collapse
Logging in...
Welcome to Agriville! You need to login to post messages in the Agriville chat forums. Please login below.
X
-
Johnsmith is upset that his property is being
confiscated and the proceeds are used against
him. I_F is upset that a government would have
the audacity to end this tyranny.
Even though I don't condone the language,
Johnsmith has a lot better reason.
Comment
-
Old news from the cwb newsroom
Newsroom
2011
CWB outlines critical business requirements for new organization
October 17, 2011
Winnipeg - The CWB has outlined six key business requirements critical to the success of any potential new organization that might be created if Prairie farmers' current wheat-marketing structure is disbanded by the federal government.
"After extensive work by the CWB to analyze all possible alternatives for farmers, we identified concrete requirements for any new entity to succeed - and the federal government needs to address them," said Allen Oberg, chair of the CWB's farmer-controlled board of directors.
"This information was shared with Minister Ritz in July, but we continue to be stymied by the government's inability to provide answers - despite its stated objective for a 'strong and viable' grain-marketing entity in an open market. While the Minister attempts to paint CWB directors as being uncooperative, we have in fact been taking these issues very seriously, without any meaningful response from government regarding these basic requirements."
The CWB board of directors had invited Minister Ritz to attend its meeting in Winnipeg last week for detailed discussions, but he was unable to attend. Oberg said the offer for the Minister to meet with the full board remains open.
"Legislation will be introduced this week that will destroy the CWB," he said. "Meanwhile, any chance for a successor organization is being crippled by this government's reckless approach.
"We call on the Minister to live up to his promise to broadly consult with farmers - not just with his hand-selected group, but also among the tens of thousands of producers who have clearly stated their desire to retain the CWB single-desk."
Sixty-two per cent of western Canadian farmers voted to retain the single desk for wheat in a CWB plebiscite conducted over the summer. Fifty-one per cent voted to retain it for barley marketing.
Oberg said consultations about the new legislation - and associated business requirements - should involve federal standing committee hearings held in Western Canada. He also urged the Minister to resist an anti-democratic process that would limit consultation and debate.
The six requirements (see attached backgrounder) were identified after extensive analysis by CWB staff and external business consultants KPMG. They were shared with government in response to the Minister's request for the CWB's views on implications of the government's policy decision and what elements would be needed to establish a new organization. The Minister had also asked for assessment of costs to government of winding up the current CWB, which were also shared during the summer. In addition to outlining key requirements, the CWB expressed concerns to the Minister about the extremely short timeframe to establish a new entity, which seriously threatens its ability to compete.
"The government has provided no framework for a path forward," Oberg said. "To run a business, you must have certainty about your capital and equity base, your means of borrowing money and managing risk, your ownership structure, your access to grain-handling terminals and the regulations that would be in place. None of this has been forthcoming."
-30-
For more information, please contact:
Maureen Fitzhenry
CWB media relations manager
(204) 983-3101
Cell: (204) 227-6927
maureen_fitzhenry@cwb.ca
Backgrounder
Six key business requirements for a new grain-marketing entity:
1.Capital/equity. Government would need to contribute sufficient capital in the order of magnitude of $225 million, to finance grain inventories and conduct business operations. Under the circumstances and given the proposed timelines, it would not be possible for a new entity to raise equity from the private sector.
2.Financing/borrowing. Government would need to provide guarantees of borrowings by the new entity for a period of at least five years. In addition to a base level of equity, a new entity would require debt financing. It would not be possible for a new entity to access debt financing without government guarantees, given that any new entity would have no business track record to provide comfort to lenders.
3.Risk management. Government would need to provide a risk reserve in the order of magnitude of $200 million to replace its current guarantees of initial payments that are made to farmers (payments made before sales returns have been fully generated). A risk reserve would be necessary to enable a new entity to offer price pooling to farmers with initial payments that could attract sufficient grain deliveries.
4.Ownership structure. Government would need to act as the initial owners of a new entity with a share-capital structure. Under the circumstances, and in view of the short timeframes, a new entity would be unable to operate under any other ownership structure. An appropriate exit strategy would have to be put in place to enable the government to divest its shares in a new entity in due course.
5.Access to country and port grain terminals. Government would need to ensure regulated access to grain-handling facilities to ensure competitively priced access with service levels that would enable third parties to effectively compete.
6.Export access. Government would need to provide a new entity with regulatory authority to direct its own grain to port terminals of its choosing.
Wilagro what part of this is the cwb not getting? I thought they are getting all the six requirements. What the hell are your talking about compusory anyway, with the current cwb's monopoly that is compulsory to use the cwb. So I do not understand your talk of compulsory cwb.
By the way I think the most dangerous is not people with restricted or non restricted weapons but moreso cwb supporter actions as they put the best of us to the brink. Thank goodness John Smith vents with some minor language.
Comment
-
<i>"Sixty-two per cent of western Canadian
farmers voted to retain the single desk for wheat"
</i>
If I hear that lie one more time I think I'm going to
scream.
On our farm there were 4 ballots sent out. One of
which went jointly to my father and me. The other
3 went to landlords who haven't set foot on a farm
in 20 years. Farmers voted, my @##.
The best thing you could say about that so called
plebiscite is that it tells you whether a bunch of
landlords think their farmer renter should be able
to exercise ownership rights to his grain or not.
Comment
-
some of you guys are out of control....
wilargo raises a point which you guys dont ever seem to want its called middle ground.
cotton has been banned for far less....
Comment
-
I will note the evolution in Australia started with deregulating the domestic milling market. It continued to allowing farmers to do direct/small export business in containers. The Aussie experience was evolution - not revolution.
The process of change that wilagro talks about could have started with the CWB doing the above plus allowing farmers to do business in the US with no cost export licences or offering the same opportunities that organic farmers get.
Been beat up by both sides many times for offering middle grounds (have existed all along) but not the outcome either side wanted. From my experience, compromise does not exist on this issue. Win or go home.
Comment
-
charlie we don't want to deliver 50 miles across the border to get an extra 2 bucks we want it here at the local elevator. The americans will be upset at our deliveries and both our prices are set by export markets, we should be same price on both sides of the border.
Comment
-
Post nine hopper or am I way off thinking
wilargro stament was fair and rational and don't
put me on the hate list because I listen to all
views........
Charlie is right Australia stated offf with small
changes every year for about 5 yes before full
deregulation but I reckon you guys will short
circuit everything and have change by 2012
probably the best to just get it over and done
with.
Just make sure have r and d stuff worked out
plus quality assurance and payment assurance
that is why we had a accredited liscense system
here until just last week it's now been sc****d
no real need anymor
Comment
- Reply to this Thread
- Return to Topic List
Comment