moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-51, in Clause 13, be amended by adding after line 15, on page 8, the following:
"49.2 (1) A person who proposes to operate a primary or process elevator or carry on business as a grain dealer without being licensed under this Act may apply to the Commission to be exempted by order under paragraph 117( b ) from the requirement to be licensed.
(2) Unless the Commission has reason to believe that the elevator is not suited to handling grain or that the person is not a suitable person to carry on business as a grain dealer, the Commission shall make an order under paragraph 117( b ) exempting the person from the requirement to be licensed.
(3) A person who is exempted from being licensed under subsection (2) shall display prominently a statement in the prescribed form that the person is not licensed under the Canada Grain Act to operate an elevator or carry on business as a grain dealer a ) at every place of business operated by that person at which a contract for the delivery of grain may be executed; b ) at every place where grain may be delivered to the person as an elevator operator or grain dealer; and c ) on every document that is, relates to or solicits a contract to deliver or handle grain.''
(4) Section 83 does not apply to a person who is exempted from being licensed under subsection (2).
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-51, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting lines 9 to 15, on page 15.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 34.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to these three motions which have been put forward by the Reform Party.
The purpose of Motion No. 3 is to allow grain dealers or the operators of primary or process elevators the ability to opt out of licensing under the Canada Grain Act. This amendment would remove from these operators all of the requirements and restrictions under the Canada Grain Act.
This amendment also imposes certain conditions for opting out to make sure that it is very clear to people using these services that this particular dealer or elevator operator is not licensed and therefore meets no bonding requirements under the Canada Grain Act. That is an important protection which I think is necessary to make this opting out work.
The Canadian Grains Commission must allow the opt out on the part of the dealer unless it can show good reason that this person should not be allowed to carry on business or that the facility is not a proper facility to carry on a business.
All we are talking about there is the individual who is applying to carry on business should have a good credit rating, one that would not interfere with allowing him to carry on a business, and should not have a criminal record which would restrict him, which the commission would feel would not allow him to carry on his own business.
Those are the only restrictions. Barring those restrictions an individual who wants to opt out should be allowed to opt out.
This amendment would also allow those who have opted out to deal under the Canadian Grains Commission with grading and inspection services, to use its services. Unfortunately, it was not possible as far as I could tell to make this amendment require that the Canadian Grains Commission allow these opted out individuals to use its inspection and grading services. I would hope that the Canadian Grains Commission would feel an obligation because these people are in the grains industry and the Canadian Grains Commission says it is important to have the integrity in our business by having grading and inspection services. I would hope that the Canadian Grains Commission would allow for this grading and inspection even for those who have opted out.
That is the purpose of this amendment and I believe that it would allow these opted out people to operate. They can of course provide security on their own through some type of private insurance, some type of bonding. It would also allow groups like the special grains people who have expressed a real concern with this bill to opt out and then, especially small dealers, opt out as a group and form their own group, put their own bonding or insurance in place. They could be under the umbrella of a special grains group for example. It would allow these individuals to operate still using official Canada grain names where it applies.
I believe the purpose of this amendment would be allowed under these changes. Still, it would depend on the goodwill of the Canadian Grains Commission to allow for the grading and inspection services to be used because these people would have opted out completely from the requirements under the Canada Grains Act. That briefly is amendment number three. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster is going to speak later specifically about the special grains end of it later.
I think we can talk about Motions Nos. 7 and 8 together. Both of these motions are simply there to delete the changes that have been made through Bill C-51 to the act. What it would do is have these sections revert to the old language of the Canada Grains Act which does not specifically state that the governor in council, the cabinet, has the power to overrule the Canadian Grains Commission in these areas.
These two changes that were put into the Canada Grain Act under Bill C-51 specifically state that cabinet does have the power to overrule the Canadian Grains Commission.
It is political interference with a body that is supposed to be an arm's length body, a regulatory body. Those who are in favour of making the change under Bill C-51 which gives the cabinet the final say state that really all it does is give cabinet a power that it has over the entire Canada Grain Act anyway. That is true to some extent because the cabinet does have control. The minister and the cabinet do have control of the Canada Grain Act.
When I was in committee my question to the people in the Canadian Grains Commission who administer this act was why put these amendments in Bill C-51 which specifically designates this power to cabinet. I was given no answer.
All I am asking is that these powers which are specified under these section of Bill C-51 are again left out as they originally were in the act. I cannot understand why the Liberal Party would oppose this change. I would like to trust that the exclusion of this was an oversight on the part of the people who drafted this new legislation. The only other reason for adding it is to give cabinet hands on, more direct control over the Canadian Grains Commission in these specific areas of the act. That is the only reason to leave them in.
I would ask for support from all parties in the House.