Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and respecting certain regulations made pursuant to that Act. As you know, the Canadian Grain Commission has the responsibility to guarantee to purchasers of Canadian grain the quality and the quantity that they order, and to ensure the reliability and the wholesomeness of products intended for domestic and foreign markets.
The government wanted to give more operational flexibility to the commission by amending the act. The amendments include changes to the current provisions on licensing and security. The Official Opposition tabled a motion regarding the appointment of the commissioners to the Canadian Grain Commission. Let me tell you that the public has had enough of partisan appointments and is tired of seeing heads roll as soon as a new government takes office.
The amendment to clause 2, which will be discussed more thoroughly later on by a colleague of mine, must be adopted for reasons of transparency. Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 5, tabled by the NDP, deserve some consideration.
The hon. member for Mackenzie proposes that the deadline set in clause 12 be changed. We cannot accept that amendment.
The Canadian Grain Commission requires producers to do what is necessary to get paid for their grain, within 90 days of delivery to an elevator operator or a grain dealer. After this 90-day period, a producer who did not get paid has 30 days to notify the commission. The 90-day period is fixed by regulation.
In its amendment, the NDP proposes to set that period at 180 days in the act. Thus, it would no longer be possible to change that period by regulation. The Canadian Grain Commission would see its flexibility to ensure payment for the grain within a reasonable period of time and especially to avoid bankruptcy be reduced.
Do we need to remind the NDP that this time limit was set up following a Federal Court ruling in 1990, which held the Canadian Grain Commission responsible for the bankruptcy of two of its licensees? The security given by these two licensees was not enough and the taxpayers had to make up the difference, which came to $3.8 million in this case.
Let us just say that it would be better to avoid such incidents from now on. The 90-day time limit provided for in the regulations seems fair. This is why we urge members to vote against this motion.
Motion No. 4 to amend Clause 19 is inappropriate, since we are not talking about the same type of elevator receipts. In the case of terminal elevators or transfer elevators, a receipt can be resold. The last holder has the priority to receive the grain. However, in the case of a primary elevator, the purchase or the sale is handled directly by the producer and the terminal operator.
The elevator receipts are redeemable immediately. Even the Canadian Grain Commission does not see the need to add primary elevators to Clause 19 of this bill, because we are not talking about the same type of transactions.
In Motion No. 5 concerning Clause 22, the NDP proposes that the commonly used name of some types of grain be stated on the grain receipt, or the elevator receipt, if no Canada grade name is applicable to the grain. After checking with the Canadian Grain Commission, it seems that almost every grain has a Canada grade name, even though it is not always well known.
The amendment as proposed by the NDP could cause even more serious administrative problems than if everybody used the grade names. Greater responsibility is imposed on grain producers and operators to state the grade name, grade and dockage of the grain in order to help assess the value of the grain.
Anyway, the Commission can exempt an elevator operation from using the grade. If the Commission releases the lesser known grades of some grains, people should be able to manage. In this case, we do not think the bill needs to be amended in this way.