Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

Oil is clearly trending down and will stay there. But anyone who complains about grain prices is just not paying attention.  There are good prices available if you watch the markets and forward contract. And, you can get specialty contracts for crops like high quality oats and malting barley.  And all that has nothing to do with ANY government. 

Harper, at the urging of his followers dismantled the small farmers' best friend- the Wheat Board. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not quite if this belongs here, but.....                                 

Probably safer to just never bring it up again.

For me being fiscally conservative means being fiscally responsible. Keeping deficits low/nil when not in a crisis. Using science and research to fund social programming. Using deficit spending to kee

25 minutes ago, Tracker said:

Harper, at the urging of his followers dismantled the small farmers' best friend- the Wheat Board. 

Wheat is just one crop - multiple factors have led to the demise of small farms, including corporate buyers showing up on doorsteps with offers that farmers just can't refuse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no constitutional expert but this seems like the appropriate decision. It recognizes that there is overlap in jurisdiction on the environment and that provinces are not solely impacted by their own environmental decision. 

I appreciate that this was challenged. Even though I support the carbon pricing, I think it's important to test the boundaries of Fed-Prov jurisdiction and POGG. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think it was a massive waste of provincial money to challenge it, because it's obviously something that needs to be supported. It's not the 1950s.... climate change is an accepted fact of science and carbon pricing is the new normal, the world over. Fighting it makes you seem like a dinosaur...it's laughable...and sadly, that's Alberta in a nutshell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Noeller said:

I personally think it was a massive waste of provincial money to challenge it, because it's obviously something that needs to be supported. It's not the 1950s.... climate change is an accepted fact of science and carbon pricing is the new normal, the world over. Fighting it makes you seem like a dinosaur...it's laughable...and sadly, that's Alberta in a nutshell.

I'm sure the Gov'ts of Alberta and Saskatchewan, now that they've lost this challenge, are about to unveil their plan to tackle climate change imminently. ;)

Any day now...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JCon said:

I'm sure the Gov'ts of Alberta and Saskatchewan, now that they've lost this challenge, are about to unveil their plan to tackle climate change imminently. ;)

Any day now...

Kenney's already on TV whining to the media about the decision and the "Eastern Elites" disrespecting the west again. This clown's tune never changes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the man is a total lunatic.... he says they fought the carbon pricing because Albertans are opposed to it and wanted him to fight against it. Well, you dummy, Albertans are opposed to it because you constantly tell them that it's a bad thing. If we had leadership that explained why carbon pricing is actually GOOD, then maybe they'd get on board....ffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JCon said:

It's all he has. All he's ever done is try to split the country, like Harper did. 

His dog-whistle bullshit is just nauseating already. It's like watching a washed up comedian try to bounce back but all he has is old, played out material that nobody found entertaining in the first place. 

I'm sure the RedNexit talk has been ramped up again the last few hours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2021-03-24 at 8:50 PM, Tracker said:

Harper, at the urging of his followers dismantled the small farmers' best friend- the Wheat Board. 

Not really. I know lots of smallish farmers that wanted it gone. Lots wanted it kept. Often the split was aged based. Young farmers are pretty savy about marketing their crops. It really didn't make sense that a couple of their crops couldn't be marketed like the rest. Canola, corn , soybeans, and special crops have shrunk the wheat acreage anyways. The wheat board was a good way to battle the big grain companies but it had also morphed into a gigantic bureaucracy.  I was producing non wheat board products at the time so had no dog in the race. I could see both sides of it. But I did find it odd that you could grow wheat in Ontario and market it however you wanted. But not here. You could market your canola however and where ever you wanted. But not your wheat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, the watcher said:

Not really. I know lots of smallish farmers that wanted it gone. Lots wanted it kept. Often the split was aged based. Young farmers are pretty savy about marketing their crops. It really didn't make sense that a couple of their crops couldn't be marketed like the rest. Canola, corn , soybeans, and special crops have shrunk the wheat acreage anyways. The wheat board was a good way to battle the big grain companies but it had also morphed into a gigantic bureaucracy.  I was producing non wheat board products at the time so had no dog in the race. I could see both sides of it. But I did find it odd that you could grow wheat in Ontario and market it however you wanted. But not here. You could market your canola however and where ever you wanted. But not your wheat.

There were pros and cons to the the Wheat Board- the main thing was that teh cons came in and dictated what was going to happen to it. I feel it should have been left up to the farmers to do away or keep it. 

I think what's left of the WB is now owned by a Saudi corp... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

I'm surprised MB still making their argument they have the right to their own carbon tax system. The SC probably will say go ahead. After all, we have GST/PST and now we'll have FCT and PCT :D

 

 

And we will be FKT.

Edited by Tracker
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

There were pros and cons to the the Wheat Board- the main thing was that teh cons came in and dictated what was going to happen to it. I feel it should have been left up to the farmers to do away or keep it. 

I think what's left of the WB is now owned by a Saudi corp... 

Yes, Harper dealt with the Wheat Board the same way he dealt with most everything else...

But the writing was on the well, no matter who pulled the plug.  How is an entity going to continue helping the small farmer when said entity is not adapting to major shifts in the market?

More people eating gluten free = less wheat

Demand for canola = less wheat

Growing corn and soy with increasing success on the prairies = less wheat

A demand for high quality oats = less wheat

The CWB was beyond pros and cons - it was rapidly becoming irrelevant. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the issues with having the farmers decide was that there is a huge amount of older farmers who aren't actively engaged in farming but are still technically farmers and permit holders. Most of them were pro wheat board. And dont forget , the Conservatives didn't abolish the Wheat Board. They just allowed farmers the option of marketing wheat and barley on their own like the rest of their crops. This issue is one that alot of people had opinions on because of the propaganda put out by BOTH sides. Alot of disinformation. Alot of misunderstanding by people who really had no understanding of the issues or had any hand in the game.. As far as farmers it was  a real split down the middle. I had my own farm at the time and worked for my neighbor.  He was %100 anti Wheat Board..  Hated it. He figured he lost 30,000 one year because of the wheat board. I also had a neighbor on the other side that was % 100 Pro board. If you want to pick something Harper screwed up on the Wheat Board  probably isn't the one. Despite what non farmers in the city were led to believe. As I said previously I had cattle and sold hay so I had no dog in the race. I suspect if actual farmers had got to vote and not just permit holders it probably would have went open market. It certainly would today if it happened

Edited by the watcher
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, the watcher said:

One of the issues with having the farmers decide was that there is a huge amount of older farmers who aren't actively engaged in farming but are still technically farmers and permit holders. Most of them were pro wheat board. And dont forget , the Conservatives didn't abolish the Wheat Board. They just allowed farmers the option of marketing wheat and barley on their own like the rest of their crops. This issue is one that alot of people had opinions on because of the propaganda put out by BOTH sides. Alot of disinformation. Alot of misunderstanding by people who really had no understanding of the issues or had any hand in the game.. As far as farmers it was  a real split down the middle. I had my own farm at the time and worked for my neighbor.  He was %100 anti Wheat Board..  Hated it. He figured he lost 30,000 one year because of the wheat board. I also had a neighbor on the other side that was % 100 Pro board. If you want to pick something Harper screwed up on the Wheat Board  probably isn't the one. Despite what non farmers in the city were led to believe. As I said previously I had cattle and sold hay so I had no dog in the race. I suspect if actual farmers had got to vote and not just permit holders it probably would have went open market. It certainly would today if it happened

 

The Wheat Board was effective because it was a monopoly. The cons used legislation to break the monopoly, thus ending the WB. 

The plebiscite was a farce. 

Conservatives didn't abolish the WB, they broke it. In turn it became unsustainable and thus was sold off. 

The Cons were 100% the reason for the WB breaking up.  They brought in Ian WHite for a reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Harper dealt with the Wheat Board the same way he dealt with most everything else.

what are now called Conservatives, are people who hate government, regulation, and any restriction on them.

and they hate it when governemnt intervenesmto help the little folk. industrial health and safety laws. car recalls. healthcare. postal service. food inspection, water testing.

yet perversely they also depend on government to save them, whenthe greed goes too far, and the system fails.

and they get help.

but help for anyone else, is said to be bad for the "moral fibre"

socialism for the rich, unfettered capitalism for the rest.

and they even hate it when the rest try to help themselves, by forming unions. 

whichnhave basically been battered to a pulp in North America.

also,

if Alberta doesnt face up to reality, they are going to suffer badly. in the near future.

energy transition is not stopping for them.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Mark F
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

The Wheat Board was effective because it was a monopoly. The cons used legislation to break the monopoly, thus ending the WB. 

The plebiscite was a farce. 

Conservatives didn't abolish the WB, they broke it. In turn it became unsustainable and thus was sold off. 

The Cons were 100% the reason for the WB breaking up.  They brought in Ian WHite for a reason.

You can't really believe that's the only reason the CWB was unsustainable.

Do I like how it was done? No.

Was it inevitable? Yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark H. said:

This is all very interesting. We're not saying the CWB was completely ineffective, or that it wasn't more effective in earlier decades, we just outlined some reasons why it had gradually declined. 

My biggest beef with the CWB is lack of transparency- they refused to open up their books to the stake holders,  and I feel that was a huge mistake. 

 

The producers were footing the bill and were not allowed to see how it was being spent. 

It was a great equalizer, but needed an over haul in the way they treated the stakeholders. 

 

But the way the cons went about it... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

My biggest beef with the CWB is lack of transparency- they refused to open up their books to the stake holders,  and I feel that was a huge mistake. 

 

The producers were footing the bill and were not allowed to see how it was being spent. 

It was a great equalizer, but needed an over haul in the way they treated the stakeholders. 

 

But the way the cons went about it... 

Agreed- for the Harper government, it was an item of politico-religious dogma, not economics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...