Cruisin' for Deals May 31 2019

Current Until June 28, 2019

Your Buying Guide

Cruisin’ for Deals

Your Buying Guide

Cruisin’ for Deals

Current Until June 28, 2019

2011 GMC Sierra 2500 SLT CREW

2008 Chevrolet SILVERADO 2500HD LTZ 6.6L DURAMAX 4x4, air, alloy wheels, bed liner, Bluetooth, Bose sound system, cruise, heated leather, keyless entry, pdl, pm, ps, pw, rear view camera, sunroof, tow pkg. $20,999.

Dealer permit #4222. Call Kyle 204-822-3047.

2011 Dodge Grand Caravan

2007 Pontiac Solstice GXP EDITION CONVERTIBLE

3.6L 6 cyl auto, keyless entry, air, cruise, pw, and more! 189,583 kms. $11,597. Call Steinbach Dodge at 1-888-458-5094.

2.0L Turbo, 5 spd manual. Air, alloy wheels, pdl, pw. 62,802 kms. $15,999.

Dealer permit #4222.

Call Kyle 204-822-3047.

6.6L DURAMAX 6 spd auto, 4x4, crew cab, power sunroof, leather heated, air, cruise, keyless entry, pdl, pm, ps, pw, tow pkg and more! 360,000 kms. $16,999. Dealer permit #4222. Call Kyle 204-822-3047.

Current Until June 28, 2019

2008 Gulfstream Canyon Trail

Your Buying Guide

Cruisin’ for Deals

2011 Honda Civic

Coupe. 220,000 kms. Automatic. $7,900. Call Pete at (204) 331-3326 Pembina Valley Auto.

Sedona Edition with triple slide. $17,900.

Call Pete at (204) 331-3326 Pembina Valley Auto.

2008 Heartland Bighorn 5th Wheel

2013 Ford F150

Ecoboost, camper shell, 230,000 kms. $13,900. Call Pete at (204) 331-3326 Pembina Valley Auto.

2014 Ram 1500 ST

Triple Slide 3100 RL. $17,900.

Call Pete at (204) 331-3326 Pembina Valley Auto.

5.7L 8 cyl auto, air, cruise, power heated mirrors. 88,950 kms. $24,797.

Call Steinbach Dodge at 1-888-458-5094.

2013 Ford Focus SE

2011 Ford Escape

2013 Ford Focus Hatchback

PW, PDL, CC, AC. 125,000 kms. $8,999.

Skyline Autobody at 204-325-8155.

6 cyl, auto, cc, pw, pdl, loaded. 121,000 kms. $8,999.

Skyline Autobody at 204-325-8155.

4 cyl auto, PW, CC, PW, PDL. $7,850. Skyline Autobody at 204-325-8155.

2016 Ford Fusion

2012 Chevy Malibu

2014 Ford Fusion

2.4L, 4 cyl, AC, PW, PDL, CC. 137,000 kms. $6,999.

Skyline Autobody at 204-325-8155.

4 cyl auto, AC, CC, PW, PDL. 160,000 kms. $8,999.

Skyline Autobody at 204-325-8155.

4CYL Turbo, AC, CC, PW, PDL, Command Start. 35,000 kms. $13,999. Skyline Autobody at 204-325-8155.

Cruisin’ for Deals

Your Buying Guide

Current Until June 28, 2019

Current Until June 28, 2019

Your Buying Guide

Cruisin’ for Deals

Cruisin’ for Deals

Your Buying Guide

Current Until June 28, 2019

The Origin of the “No Mixing” Rule of the grade of grain that was best well as producer cars. So grain in a A recent Manitoba Agricultural bin came from a variety of sources able to be loaded on the vessel Museum article on loading a spread across the prairies and regardless of which port terminal producer car mentioned the “no could then be seen as being the had stored the owner’s grain and mixing” rule which was in force in “average standard of the grade” the early days of western Canadian had issued a port terminal receipt which then resulted in the grain when the grain was unloaded. grain trade. This mention resulted when properly dried displays no the face, a statement defining the being of higher quality than the Once the vessel was loaded, in a question from a reader as differences in quality to an identical various grades entering into the minimum of the grade as defined inspected and on its way, the port to the origin of this rule. The “no grain harvested dry. Grains affected composition.” by the Grain Act of that time. terminal receipts for grain issued mixing” rule meant when grain While the no mixing rule enjoyed with other issues when properly The average standard of the to the various owners of the grain was graded it was to be stored in cleaned and / or treated would support from the industry there grade emphasized to the grain would be swapped around to bins with only grain of that grade. also be similar in quality to grains were pressures on the rule. A growers the importance of No other grades of that grain were regularize the situation. Fluidity without the afflicting problem. significant issue with the rule was producing grain of high quality by of port operations was further allowed to be mixed into these To complicate the no mixing rule the problem of tough grain as well assuring them the reputation of enhanced with this method. bins. This rule was not imposed issue, private port terminals could Canadian grain to customers rested as grain affected with smut, rust While fluidity of port terminal upon the industry by some far off do whatever they wanted with their and other diseases. in the hands of the industry which operations was important, a bureaucrat in Ottawa but rather it property and were only allowed included grain producers. The no was agreed to by the entire western more important reason for the to handle their own grain so the emergence of the “no mixing” rule mixing rule Canadian grain industry including no mixing rule was not applicable was the belief that the the farmers. to them. After 1905, private The no mixing rule came about port terminal elevators began for two reasons. In the to appear and handled an very early days of the increasing volume of grain. western Canadian grain Between 1912 and 1929 trade, the terminals at the there were a number of Lake Head were public revisions to the Canada Grain terminals and not owned Act of 1912. These revisions by grain companies. produced some ambiguity Public terminals were to the rules which allowed forbidden to own or hospital elevators to legally market grain. Public mix grain. This resulted in terminals were responsible private and several public for the safe return of grain port terminals changing their to the owners of the grain classification to hospital stored in the terminals. elevators. A further revision While the terminals could to the Act saw the hospital have stored separately the elevators change to being various parcels of grain a classed as semi public placed into their charge, terminals since this type of practical considerations terminal could mix grain. ruled against this. Keeping However in 1929 after separate the various discontent by farmers the parcels of grain, all of Act was revised again various tonnages and all ily was primar t with the no mixing rule en with different and perhaps nm er by the Gov ery phase affirmed but only for the d about ev e terminal th an s unknown shipping dates of or n at io ev at el . The oper rt terminal 14 po 19 of top grades of wheat. With in n r tio would have resulted in an hu uc at Port Art and constr ic terminal ion on cost bl the emergence of the at pu rm a expensive terminal system that fo ad in an ith first hand nment of C Canadian Wheat Board ernment w The Gover ov was not fluid.

G e th e ain. ovid orage of gr st meant to pr ic in 1935, farmer support bl pu Because of cost and ness of of the busi Under the for the no mixing rule weakened convenience of storing grain and by the 1950s the rule was no rules in place, railcars containing in bulk led to the idea that longer in force. grain with these problems were and the idea of average any entity storing grain in a While it can be debated as to graded at Winnipeg on their way to standard of the grade enjoyed interests of the public terminal would receive port. Once the grade was assigned whether the no mixing rule was support from the majority of western Canadian grain growers back grain of the identical grade it was not allowed to be graded at wise policy, the rule appears to western producers. but not necessarily the same grain and of the Canadian grain trade a higher grade even when the grain have contributed significantly to the As well, other segments of the would be best served by marketing delivered by the entity. In other had been dried or otherwise treated reputation that western Canadian industry supported these ideas. properly cleaned grain of the words, if an entity delivered into a grain, particularly wheat, built with to address the problem.

Van Horne, General Manager of public terminal, Manitoba Northern “average standard of the grade”. customers in the early days of the The volume of tough grain and The average standard of the grade the CPR, wrote in 1892 that he Number 1 wheat, the public western Canadian grain trade. grains with other issues was such held the manipulation (mixing) of required a no mixing rule to be in terminal would store this wheat This reputation remains useful in grain at terminal or transfer stations that the first “Hospital” elevator place. in a bin that may contain wheat marketing. came into existence in 1905 and to be wrong. He thought the The “average standard of the from another entity which was In the early 2000s the Canadian others soon followed. Hospital grade” is not a term familiar to the practice of mixing in many of the also graded Manitoba Northern Wheat Board found that it was elevators cleaned, scoured, modern grain trade and so requires private elevators in the US was a Number 1. a useful marketing strategy to source of scandal. Van Horne also treated with lime or sulphur, some explanation.

The companies and individuals bring up the old grade name washed and / or dried grain and publicly stated that the only western While grain inspectors may grade that delivered grain into the public “Manitoba Northern” as this name in doing so improved the grading Canadian grain that customers a boxcar of grain as a particular terminal, marketed this grain and, characteristics. With the no mixing was remembered by the wheat were interested in obtaining were grade, this carload may show when a customer for the grain millers and bakers of the world as rule in place “improved” grain was found, then this entity ordered considerable variation in quality as the higher grades. Lower grades representing high quality wheat coming out of a hospital elevator compared to other carloads which of grain were available to the the public terminal to load a that never let them down. Since customers from other sources which was not eligible to be placed in also fell into that grade. Some vessel to deliver the grain. While the demise of the Canadian Wheat a cargo unless the inspection carloads would have just crept into were closer to the customer and it may or may not be the exact Board, the industry has been certificate for the cargo noted this which resulted in lower transport the grade while yet other carloads grain the entity had delivered, it reminded of the need for quality as grain. of the same grade would have just charges to the customer. was the tonnage the entity had witnessed by the reclassification of Few customers were eager to The Winnipeg Grain and delivered and of the same grade so missed getting into the next highest various wheat varieties allowed into Produce Exchange in 1899 passed accept such cargoes unless it was minimizing disputes. This method of grade. But the various carloads of production plus current experiences discounted in price. This, in turn, operation also resulted in fluid port the same grade would be dumped the resolution: “The Exchange in marketing grains. meant farmers with such grain expresses its positive conviction into bins in public terminals with terminal operations.

The Manitoba Agricultural were offered correspondingly lower that no mixing of grain should be no other grades allowed to be The system further evolved so Museum is open year round. mixed in. Railcars would be coming permitted at terminal elevators and prices. In addition this grain had that when an owner of grain at a also no mixing should be permitted to be kept separate in the handling Visit ag-museum.mb.ca for more into the port terminals from all port public terminal requested a information on Museum and the system which negatively affected in a cargo shipment unless the vessel to be loaded, the vessel was over Manitoba and the Northwest Reunion including location and the fluidity of the system. One inspection certificate issued Territories and from multiple grain directed to the public terminal at hours of operation. has to remember that tough grain therefore shall have written across companies and grain dealers as this port with an adequate stock

Current Until June 28, 2019

Your Buying Guide

Cruisin’ for Deals

Elevators as Works for the General Advantage of Canada

While the “no mixing” rule has long been discarded, a legacy still remains in the form of the 1925 Government of Canada declaration that elevators are “works in the general advantage of Canada”.

This declaration is still in force and sometimes rears its head causing bureaucrats, farmers and others in the grain trade to scratch their heads as to how this rule came about and what it means to the issue at hand.

While the ink stained wretches who write for the Manitoba Agricultural Museum cannot address what this rule means in relation to current and future issues, we can cast some light, however dim, on how this ruling came about.

Readers of Museum press releases will remember that the “no mixing” rule meant that when grain was graded it was to be stored in bins with only grain of that same grade. No other grades of that grain were allowed to be mixed into these bins. This rule was in force during the early days of the western Canadian grain trade finally disappearing in the 1940s.

Towards the end of WWI, rumors began to circulate among farmers that the public terminals at the Lakehead were making large profits from grain surpluses. The farmers believed that the only way the public terminals could make this sort of money was from violating the rules governing the terminals which included the no mixing rule. The farmers were not pleased with this development and the discontent grew to the point that the Government of Canada investigated the issue.

The investigation revealed that an important source of income for public terminals was “overages” in grain grades, that is after the port terminal had returned grain in terms of tonnage and proper grade to those people and companies who had shipped grain into the port terminal, the port terminal was still in possession of a significant tonnage of grain. These overages occurred chiefly in the higher grades of wheat. Further investigation pointed out that the chief source of overages was the result of the dockage assigned to the grain as a result of “rounding up”.

For example when inspected a car load of grain might reveal foreign matter from 2 to 3 percent but the inspector would assign dockage of 3 percent.

While a small difference on a car load, over the hundreds of thousands of tons of this grade of grain that a port terminal may handle in a year, the difference would come out to a significant tonnage. And while the percentage of dockage assigned to a car was calculated to eliminate all foreign matter, it was known that the grain left the port terminal with a small percentage of dust or foreign matter even though the grain was deemed as commercially clean. Again, while a small difference, over the thousands of tonnes of grain shipped

out, the tonnage involved became a significant amount so adding to the overages.

As to why the higher grades of wheat consistently showed overages, this came about as carloads of higher grades of wheat were consistently assigned a dockage of 1 percent when in fact the dockage was usually much less in these grades.

Investigation also showed further sources of overages came from shrinkage and from the recovery of grain from the screenings which were paid to the public terminals in lieu of charges for the service of cleaning grain unloaded into the public terminal.

While the Government accepted the port terminals contention that overages were a normal, if accidental, result of normal operations, the Canada Grain Act was amended in 1919 to require the public port terminals to take stock of the quantity of each grade of grain in the terminal in August of every year. If, in any crop year, the surplus of grain was found to be in excess of 1/4 of 1 percent of the gross amount of the grain received by the port terminal during the crop year, then the surplus was to be sold annually by the Board of Grain Commissioners with the proceeds to be paid to the Board and applied to the cost of administering the Canada Grain Act. The validity of this amendment was soon challenged by a port terminal which had produced an overage that was in excess. This overage was sold by the Board with the monies realized applied to Board expenses. The port terminal took their case all the way to the Exchequer Court of Canada pointing out that it had delivered to the owners of grain all grain inspected and weighed into their terminal so extinguishing the right and title of all persons in both the grain and screenings. So the remainder, represented by the overage, was the port terminal’s property. The port terminal held that the title to this grain could not be taken from the company by any legislation enacted by the Government of Canada.

The case was taken all the way to the Exchequer Court of Canada where, after hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial judge held that the 1919 amendment was obviously meant to limit the amount and value of the grain surpluses earned in a crop year and was an attempt by the Government of Canada to regulate profits by public terminals. This attempt was in

conflict with property and civil rights powers assigned to the provinces.

So the judge dismissed the case against the public terminal as the 1919 amendment was not within the powers of parliament. The Government then appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court which agreed with the Exchequer Court. The Government then appealed to the Privy Council.

However Justice Duff of the Supreme Court in his opinion on the appeal to this court, pointed out

that the Government of Canada could acquire authority to regulate a local work, such as a public port terminal, by declaring elevators as a work for the general advantage of Canada. An amendment to the Canada Grain Act in 1925 contained this declaration along with a re-enactment of how overages in port public terminals were to be treated. When the appeal to the Privy Council came up for hearing, the case was not argued as the appeal dealt with legislation that had

been replaced by the 1925 amendments. The 1925 amendment was not challenged in court.

While the case dealt with public port terminals and this class of terminal is now extinct, the 1925 declaration remains in force and firmly places elevators, both port and country, within the power of the Government of Canada to regulate.

For more information visit the Manitoba Agricultural Museum at ag-museum.mb.ca.

Cruisin’ for Deals

Your Buying Guide

Current Until June 28, 2019