Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on these three motions.
First I will comment on Motion No. 2. As has already been said this motion which has been put forward by the member for Mackenzie sets out a definite date on which settlement would have to be made. Other members have commented today that there needs to be some flexibility. After a long period of consultation which has taken place on this the industry feels it should be 90 days. That is why it is there. If we were to prescribe in the bill that there be a set number of days, no matter what that was, there would be difficulty in the future. If the industry
deemed it should change, it would take a change in the legislation to do so.
By doing this in 90 days, as will be suggested and done by the commission without having been carved in stone in the legislation, one of the things we have to keep in mind is to keep the money getting to the producers as quickly as it possibly can. If the producers were allowed to leave their grain in an elevator for a longer period of time those elevator operators would probably have to have a greater amount of security posted at all times because of the volume that might be there.
Also, we want to get the dollars back to the producers as quickly as we can. We do not want to put the temptation out there for producers to leave the grain in the elevator a long period of time and start using it as a storage facility to hold their product so they might be able to speculate on the market as it goes along and maybe have some distorting influence on the price of the market.
We certainly cannot support Motion No. 2 for those reasons if no others.
On Motion No. 4, I want to point out to the member for Mackenzie that if he looks at section 112 of the act it already provides protection for the holders of primary elevator receipts. The section that he is referring to or suggesting that they make an amendment to is the section that deals only with terminal and transfer elevators. The provision that the member is requesting is looked after.
The member for Vegreville raised the issue that the producers should have first claim. The producer does have first claim. The producers have first claim in any situation if the producers still maintain their receipt. If the producers wish to assign their receipt to somebody else well that may very well differ the situation. The producers do have first claim as long as they have that receipt.
Motion No. 5 refers to the use of grades on a receipt when it is received. What we want to avoid here is the temptation that has been there in the past to not list the grade name. The elevator operator in the past, when they did not have to list the grade name, it was not necessary that they post security for that product in the elevator.
We want to close that loop and close that possible gap, also recognizing that there may be times when that has to take place and that can take place and that the grade name does not have to be there. The elevator operator in that case, if it were a feed grain or something, could have that without a described grade on it providing that they agree with the commission that they provide security so there would have to be specific recognition and co-operation made in that case.