Thank you, Mr. Lemieux. It's an excellent question. It's one that the commission has grappled with for decades.
When I assumed my position and did some research, I found that for quite some time, committees, other professional research groups, and other stakeholders, had a lot of input into what the Canadian Grain Commission should look like and what we should be.
I don't want to get into the policy area because it's the role of parliamentarians to do that, but the minister has suggested that further changes are required to streamline the Canadian Grain Commission and to make it what it should be. In the consultation processes we've been involved with over the last couple of years, we have heard from stakeholders. Even in this last consultation, to which I referred, the response has been that the job is not yet finished. I can report that to you.
An area under consideration, which we hear a lot from our stakeholders and producers about, is that we should move from three commissioners to a president, appointed by the Governor in Council, in order to streamline the top level of the Canadian Grain Commission.
A non-binding decision review mechanism should be established to review CGC decisions. There's a debate on whether it should be something like that or whether there should be a board that makes us larger rather than more streamlined. There are complications around a board which I think a lot of stakeholders are concerned about, and they see the other process being a wiser move.
Authority should be provided to oversee the existing system of declarations in the grain handling system. I referred to that. So far, that's an industry initiative, but there's no government endorsement or authorization of that process. It could be placed within the Canada Grain Act. It seems to be the right fit and the right place because that's the kind of role we play.
The Canadian Grain Commission should be allowed to use the Administrative Monetary Penalties Act. The CFIA and the PMRA have access to that act, but we don’t. It makes it very difficult for us to enforce the act. We have to be persuasive, or else we have to be heavy-handed, and there's nothing in between, and we're hearing that.
The subject to inspector's grade and dockage service should be extended. That's one of the producer protection instruments we have. That should be extended beyond not only primary elevators but also to process elevators and grain dealers. Currently, the playing field is not perceived to be level. Farmers have that right when they go to a primary elevator, but if they're hauling their canola to a process elevator or hauling their wheat to a flour mill or some other processing facility, they don't have access to that right. Grain dealers, who are particularly involved in the special crops area, aren't required to submit to that producer protection.
There are a couple of other points. Perhaps a new class of licences for operations such as container loading operations could be created. The last time the act was overhauled, no grain was shipped by container. Now, 10% to 15% of the grain exported from Canada is shipped by container. The act is silent on that, at the current time.
Also, the CGC's role in collecting and disseminating statistical information should be clarified. It's deemed very important. We've consulted with the industry, and they very much want to remain in place our statistics which are published weekly, monthly, and annually. Statistics Canada appreciates that information. Again, with some of the changes and modernization within the industry, we need to have it clearly established how we do that because things have changed a bit.
Finally, the role of the CGC with respect to grain safety should be clarified. We find that customers of Canadian grain, both domestic and foreign, are more focused on grain safety than they've ever been. That is our responsibility as part of grain quality assurance. Perhaps the act could clarify that a little more clearly.