Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the three amendments put forth by the hon. member for Mackenzie.
The purpose of Motion No. 2 is to limit the time period for a grain dealer to meet the paper requirements to 180 days from the flexible type of arrangement under the Canada Grain Act right now. I do believe flexibility is needed.
The Canadian Grain Commission has to be given the power to set different lengths of time for the different transportation situations and for the different types of dealers in the industry. It takes and requires that flexibility. The 180 days would end up setting a maximum which is too long for some grains and may be too short in the rare case. Flexibility is needed.
We cannot support this motion because that flexibility is needed for the commission to operate properly.
The intent of the motion is good. However we must consider the Canadian Grain Commission's overzealous enforcement in some cases and its unwise laxness in others as in the case of ensuring that companies are operating within the bonding level. While those concerns are there with some of the past dealings of the Canadian Grain Commission I believe it does need the flexibility in this case. Therefore we will oppose this motion.
Motion No. 4 adds primary elevators to the list of terminal and transfer elevators in terms of facilities where the seller will have top priority. If the company that is operating should become bankrupt or insolvent the seller has the top priority, the first right to receive payment for grain that he has in storage in those facilities. This is a good amendment.
It never did make sense to me that a farmer with grain in an elevator of a company that went bankrupt and was out of business would not have the first right to receive payment for his grain that was sitting in that facility. That is the case right now. Therefore we do support the amendment.
Motion No. 5 adds the additional stipulation that in cases where no official Canada grade name is applicable to a grain under the Canada Grain Act, then the grain dealer shall immediately issue a receipt stating the name, the value and the dockage of the grain.
While its intentions are good, this amendment will make it virtually impossible for speciality crop dealers along with others to operate. This is especially so in cases where farmers are loading directly on to a dealer car or a producer car or for truck pick up in the yard and these shipments are going into the United States. In cases like that it would make it virtually impossible for the sellers, the farmers and the dealer to do business.
This recommendation restricts too much. Again the intention is good in that the concerns the member has are legitimate. In some cases now grain is being loaded on trucks without a grade given and without a value assigned.
If that grain does not make it to its destination, what compensation can the farmer get? What proof has the farmer that the grain has been shipped other than the bill of lading, which a farmer should get from a trucker before loading?
In the case of loading directly on a rail car, whether it be a dealer car or a producer car, it is just a copy of the paperwork that the farmer sends to the company and the Canadian Grain Commission. The company they are dealing with has not really been verified by anyone. How much weight would that carry in legal terms? Probably very little.
In practical terms, how is the farmer going to weigh the grain that goes on to the car? How is the farmer going to weigh the grain that is put on a truck and is moving into the United States? There is no practical way.
The cars of course are weighed when they go over the first scale on the track but in terms of grade and dockage, that has to be determined from the spill. In case of a spill, samples can be taken from the product.
My personal experience with this is from people I have talked to who have had spills. One happened a couple of years ago by Innisfree in my constituency. The farmer felt that the compensation was fair. Dockage and grade was taken from the spill. A weight had not been taken but the farmer was paid out at the maximum load that was allowed on the car. Therefore the railways have treated farmers fairly in this regard.
For those reasons I oppose this amendment.