Who speaks for Sask. pulse growers

[grower99]

In the Nov.15 issue of the Western
Producer(pg 14) it appears that Pulse
Canada's Executive Director, Gord Bacon,
has given his approval to the recent
suggested changes to the Canadian Grain
Commission. One significant change will
be the necessity of farmers to use
insurance as a way of securing their
delivery to a grain terminal,
processor... Several years ago, the
Saskatchewan Pulse Growers had lengthy
discussions and surveys to determine the
best way of making sure that they would
get paid for their deliveries. As a
result of their efforts, the vast
majority of Saskatchewan farmers wanted
to make sure that the companies buying
their grain were bonded. It appears that
Gord Bacon and Pulse Canada now support
an insurance program to safeguard farmer
deliveries; this was rejected by
Saskatchewan pulse growers several years
ago. When did Pulse Canada's Board give
Mr.Bacon the direction to support an
insurance scheme over the existing bond
requirement? I don't believe that he
received that go ahead nor do I believe
he speaks for the majority of
Saskatchewan pulse growers. Saskatchewan
pulse growers are represented on Pulse
Canada Board. Did they give their
permission for him to speak in favour of
these changes which will cost us for
these insurance contracts? Maybe Pulse
Canada has become too politicized and
has forgotten who supplies a large
percentage of their funding!

[dave4441]

Pulse CAnada has gotten political?? What about a group of directors of SPG reccommending particular directors in the upcoming SPG election?? I thought people where supposed to come to a board independently??? I thought people where supposed to act independent on a board. Refunable levies will be the result of this kind of colusion amd i am starting to believe this more and more.

[dave4441]

And to be quite frank, it would really be nice to see all farmers on the board of Sask Pulse Growers then breeders who recieve farmer investment dollars. Talk about conflict of interest!

[parsley]

Every single pulse checkoff dollar should be
refundable.

There should not be one single bloody
compulsory non-refundable checkoff pulse dollar
in this day and age.

Disgusting process and disgusting Board of
Directors, and disgusting legislation
Parsley.

[Burbert]

In Albertie, there is probably some phoney
bs organization, that takes a refundable
checkoff, every bushel of pulses sold.
The money goes into the phoney
organization which claims to do research
and market development, butt in fact its a
political slush fund, used to re-elect
progressive c's provincially and
federally. Heil Harper

[grower99]

Can anyone please answer the questions I
raised regarding who speaks for Sask pulse
growers regarding these changes to the
CGC? Does the Pulse Canada Board support
an insurance program over the existing
situation where companies have bonds which
ensure farmers will get paid if a company
goes broke?

[dave4441]

I am not sure of what the board of Pulse Canada has to say on the issue, but if you read the article it states that Gord spoke. Doesnt say what he said or Pulse Canada's position on the change from the current CGC bonding as the discussion was about the insurance scheme AFTER the government changed to an insurance based system.

This is like debating the loss of the CWB on Nov 20, 2012. Its over and done. I have to admit that i hate the current system. Does the government force farmers to pay for a bond to ensure that fertilizer dealers get paid? That's the same situation as the current bonding system and when companies go broke there seems to never be enough dollars to pay the grower payables anyway. Hopefully the new system is more bankable.

[cottonpicken]

HMMMM..if only we had a CWB-Canadian Western Brokerage

HMMMM..an umbrella brokerage system for farmers,owned by
farmers,run for farmers

HMMM...protecting buyers and sellers

HMMM...

[dave4441]

And yes, Pulse Canada does speak for the grower organizations in Canada on federal issues and i also cant imagine that he would be deviating from the position of those organizations.

[cottonpicken]

Just incase anyone is to stupid to realize that"it"
would be nothing like the old system go outside and
punch yourself in the nuts.

It would work perfectly.

[cottonpicken]

Seriously,does anyone have a clue what we could have
accomplished,if we would have done this?

[grower99]

Can we get a copy of Pulse Canada's
speaking notes as the WP article by Barry
Wilson says that witnesses who spoke were
largely in favour of the proposed changes.
These must be readily available.

[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!