Who speaks for Sask. pulse growers

[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!

[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.