Who speaks for Sask. pulse growers

[grower99]

Those who support a refundable levy would
also be ones who go to a Rider game and
after the game stop at the ticket office
and request a refund on their tickets.

[ColevilleH2S]

I haven't spent much time on this in the past, so after reading this thread I decided to peruse Pulse Canada's financial statements from last year.

Considering how processor/exporter focused they are, I was shocked to find Pulse Canada is primarily funded by grower check-offs. Secondly by government dollars, various operating projects, and lastly and leastly by Industry players. So how come it is supporting the off-loading of the expense of bonding/insurance from buyers to farmers. As I have often suspected, and now am blatantly aware of because of this, in respect to Pulse Canada, he who pays the piper does not call the tune. Wrong wrong wrong.

This is an excerpt from the statement;

REVENUE

Saskatchewan Pulse Growers $ 1,037,740
Alberta Pulse Growers 213,750
Canadian Special Crops Association 213,252
Manitoba Pulse Growers Association 80,000
Ontario Coloured Bean Growers 20,000
Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board 4,500
Pulse Value Chain Member Funding 140,360
Government Funding
Agri-Flexibility Funding 1,301,416
Bean Dessication Project 186,735
Pulse Miling Project 186,735
Agri-Marketing Funding 128,582
Bean Dessication Project 40,975

FOR A TOTAL OF $ 3,554,045 Revenue

[TOM4CWB]

I think you folks have been misled!

Here is the statute. I see noWHERE that growers need to take out insurance on grain co's!!!

Who is saying this? NOT Pulse Canada this is complex I know... but I don't get where this is coming from!

Here are the purposed changes:

361. Subsections 45(1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following:
45. (1) If a person who proposes to operate an elevator or to carry on business as a grain dealer applies in writing to the Commission for a licence and the Commission is satisfied that the applicant and the elevator, if any, meet the requirements of this Act and any conditions that the Commission may specify, the Commission may issue to the applicant the licence of a class or subclass determined by the Commission to be appropriate to the type of operation of that elevator or the business of that grain dealer.
362. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 45:
45.1 (1) Unless exempted by regulation or by order of the Commission, a licensee shall obtain any prescribed security for the purpose of covering the licensee’s potential obligations for the payment of money or the delivery of grain to holders of cash purchase tickets, elevator receipts or grain receipts issued under this Act and shall maintain that security for as long as they are a licensee.
(2) The licensee shall, on request, provide the Commission with proof of that security.
45.2 The Commission may enter into agreements with third parties in respect of any prescribed security.
363. (1) The portion of subsection 46(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
46. (1) The Commission may refuse to issue an elevator licence if the applicant has not obtained security as required by subsection 45.1(1) or fails to establish to the satisfaction of the Commission that
(2) Subsection 46(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) The Commission may refuse to issue a grain dealer’s licence if the applicant has not obtained security as required by subsection 45.1(1).
364. Section 49 of the Act is replaced by the following:
49. (1) If the Commission has reason to believe that any security obtained by a licensee under this Act is not sufficient, the Commission may, by order, require the licensee to obtain, within any period that the Commission considers reasonable, any additional security that it considers is sufficient.
(2) Despite any other provision of this Act, the Commission may prescribe by regulation the percentage of the value of a cash purchase ticket, an elevator receipt or a grain receipt that may be realized or enforced against security obtained by a licensee, and the security may be realized or enforced in relation to the cash purchase ticket, elevator receipt or grain receipt only to the extent of the prescribed percentage.
(3) If the failure on the part of a licensee to meet the licensee’s payment obligations is a result of their giving to the producer a cash purchase ticket or other bill of exchange that the bank or other financial institution on which it is drawn subsequently refuses to honour, that failure occurs when the cash purchase ticket or other bill of exchange is given to the producer.
(2) Paragraphs 116(1)(k) and (k.1) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(k) respecting the security to be obtained, by way of bond, suretyship, insurance or otherwise, for the purposes of subsection 45.1(1);
(k.1) specify the person or class of persons who may realize on or enforce security obtained by a licensee;
(k.2) specify conditions related to realizing on or enforcing security obtained by a licensee;
(k.3) exempt a licensee from the requirement to obtain security;

Cheers!

[dave4441]

Anyone wants to know what was actually
said at this meeting call me 306-460-
9272. I have the presentation. It was
not about the preferrence of the bond.
The bonding system is gone. It is about
designing least cost system after the
bond. The government has made the
decision to kill the current system.
Gordon Bacon is also the CEO of CSCA
(special crop trade association). I am
pretty sure his only comments at this
meeting where about developing least
cost solutions in the new environment
(meaning no bond situation). I know
Gordon quite well and he just would
simply not get involved in a issue that
goes against Pulse Canada stakeholders.
And, read the article. I doesn't say he
supports a removal of the bonding
system. It states that "most" of the
participants support most of the
changes. The bond is only part of the
changes the are being made and discussed
at the meeting in question.

[ColevilleH2S]

Does that mean I can put my pitchfork away ;-)

[sumdumguy]

The bond system didnt work well enough. The
audit process comes way after the fact. Large
companies could be way over their bond and no
one would know. I was somewhat involved a
while back in trying to design a plan that would
provide better security for producers very
cheaply. Actually at that time, the insurance
option was so cheap and I had suggested that
the cost be shared as in not fully born by the
producer. I would like to be a fly on the wall
while this issue is being discussed. There is an
organization called the Western Canadian
Marketers and Processors Association that was
involved in the negotiations when the bond was
accepted 1994 to 2012. I think producers should
be very interested in the direction of this
legislation. Wonder what the timeline for
implementation is? The Pulse Board is a
producer organization - make your voices heard.

[grower99]

To quote the article by Barry Wilson
"witnesses invited to speak at the short
session largely supported the proposed
changes". My question was simply: what
was Pulse Canada's position on these
changes? Was this position presented to
the Pulse Canada Board or to the grower
groups? One can debate the merits of the
changes as well but perhaps as important
is the communication between Pulse
Canada and the PC Board and the grower
groups when PCanada is invited to speak
on major ag issues. If there was no
communication on this very important
issue I would suggest that this approach
is a concern for many growers.

[dave4441]

To my understanding, and I am a director of
Canadian Special Crops Assn, Gordon was
speaking on behalf of CSCA and not Pulse
Canada. You should call me. Bet you won't
though.

[gustgd]

Saw this come across my email. Not sure of all
the candidates. Hundaby lives close by and I
know him well enough to talk. He has spent a lot
of time on the board of Gardner dam terminal but I
don't know if hewas a good board member or not?

I know Simpsons sister I served on a board with
her and the family has been involved with pulse
for a generation. This is also a perceived
handicap, how much processor influence do we
want on a farmer board? Also he is younger. I
think he would bring a different perspective to the
board than some of the old war horses. Hope he
can assert himself and form his own opinions if
elected.
Dutton I know a bit am told she's a bit of a shit
disturber. Sometimes that's a good thing
sometimes not.
Wiens I'm told has been a very good director from
Sask Canola. Asks lots of questions. Don't know
about other guy.

This running as a slate and being endorsed
makes me wonder about director independence?
Will they make tough decisions if the decision has
already been predetermined? Hope so!

I'm working on a Sask wheat commission and
cotton I'll send your nomination forms in, when
the call for directors happens. If your idea has
merit,you get the credit.

2012-11-19 Corrected
Pulse candidates Robert Hundeby and Trevor
Simpson are endorsed by current directors
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – Monday,
November 19, 2012 to Saskatchewan Farm
Media
Issued by: Saskatchewan Pulse Growers
Directors Buhr, Moen and Vandenberg

It’s Saskatchewan Pulse Growers (SPG) election
time again, and candidates Robert Hundeby and
Trevor Simpson are being endorsed by current
directors Shawn Buhr, Jim Moen and Dr. Bert
Vandenberg. A key duty of elected SPG directors
is to identify and encourage people to let their
name stand for election as director. The directors
assisted them in the nomination process and ask
pulse growers to vote for these young farm
businessmen in the election which is underway.
Two spots are open on the SPG board.
Robert Hundeby (37) is married with three
children and has operated a 3900 acre farm
business at Elbow, Saskatchewan since 1996.
Rob is a select seed grower and a third of his land
has been in pulses, including lentils, peas and
chickpeas. Among other endeavors, he is
currently vice president of the Gardiner Dam
Terminal.
Trevor Simpson (31), also married with one child,
is a select seed grower and manages the
Simpson family 8500 acre pedigreed seed farm at
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. Over the last 7 years,
Trevor has gained extensive experience in the
production, processing and value adding of
pulses, including the construction and
management of a red lentil splitting plant.
“It is encouraging to see this new generation of
young pulse growers run for our board”, says
Shawn Buhr, SPG Director. “We need their input
and new ideas to move our pulse industry
forward. It is so beneficial to our industry to have
an election which provides choices and stimulates
discussion.”
Buhr, along with Moen and Vandenberg, asks
pulse growers to support Robert Hundeby and
Trevor Simpson during the election which is now
underway. Ballots have been mailed out and
should be received by all Saskatchewan pulse
growers the week of November 19th. Completed
ballots need to be received no later than 4pm on
December 6th.
For more information please contact:

Shawn Buhr, Lucky Lake cell (306) 858 7256
office (306) 858-2408 srbuhr@sasktel.net
Jim Moen, Cabri cell (306) 587-7452 office (306)
587-2214 jim.moen@sasktel.net
Bert Vandenberg, Saskatoon cell (306) 221-2039
office (306) 966-8786 bert.vandenberg@usask.ca
Robert Hundeby, Elbow cell (306) 260-8338 office
(306) 854-4702 rob.hundeby@gmail.com
Trevor Simpson, Moose Jaw office (306) 693-
9402 trevor@simpsonseeds.com

[LEP]

This is BS. Running a press release endorsing two
candidates so they can carry their agenda at the board
table.

If you ask me even though I don't know these guys
personally, I won't vote for them because I don't like
how the three amigos ran on a slate last year.

I know John Bennett and have the greatest respect for
him. He makes reasoned decisions and has been an
innovator his entire life.

Vicki can be a shit disturber, but won't be run over by
the three amigos.

The pulse growers are in control of many millions of
dollars. We can't let the three amigos gain control of the
board.

I too would push for a voluntary checkoff if this
happened.

[bucket]

I hate old boys clubs. Arrogance.

If they want to be politicians they should go to another calling.

[Rareearth]

No individuals will let their name stand in the next
election, with out the endorsement of the board,
why would they? Shame

This is wrong, another conflict of interest,
manipulation. What is the risk, why the push to
maintain "control", what's broken?

Looks like a public meeting should be held to get
the conflicts, policies with wants and needs in the
open.

Shame, the negative campaigning. It looks like a
personal attack on all work, and effort of the other
candidates, a attack on their integrity?

Some times the easiest decision is not to make
one. Is youth really the experience and
contribution a organization with needs wants or
requires.

I vote for voluntary levy.

I believe exclusive varieties, with my levy dollars
should be available for all to grow. Many
companies now have International exposurure. I
have to wonder how many of our newest, latest,
and best varieties are in other countries at the
same time I have access to them? I see a
opportunity to generate a new revenue stream, at
what cost? Undermining our Sask and national
competitiveness, while the shameless promotion
benefits the company's promoting the varieties.

Looks to me like all candidates are qualified, and
with opions. Thanks to all for putting your good
names and integrity forward.