Canada Gazette

The Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) derives its authority from the Canada Grain Act (CGA). The CGC's mandate as set out in this Act is to, in the interests of producers, establish and maintain standards of quality for Canadian grain and regulate grain handling in Canada and to ensure a dependable commodity for domestic and export markets.

The Canada Grain Regulations (CGR) exist to help the CGC fulfill its obligations under the CGA. The Regulations are updated annually to ensure that the CGC has consistent policies that meet the needs of producers and industry in marketing Canadian grain domestically and abroad.

The changes to the CGR outlined below are of either a substantive or housekeeping nature. Substantive changes include setting the maximum shrinkage allowances at licensed primary elevators to zero and repealing the 90-day payment regulations.

Other changes are of minor significance; for example, amendments to update, provide clarification, improve readability, and ensure consistency of form and language. None of the changes increase the regulatory burden on the grain industry.

Shrinkage is defined in the CGA as "the loss in weight of grain that occurs in the handling or treating of grain." Such gross weight loss is due to several factors, including loss of grain and dust during handling, transportation, and processing, and loss of moisture during handling, storage and drying.

Paragraph 116(1)(f) of the CGA states "the Commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, make regulations fixing the maximum shrinkage allowance that may be made on the delivery of grain to an elevator." Establishing allowances through regulation is intended to discourage the use of informal and discretionary measures by elevator operators to compensate for shrinkage losses.

Schedule X of the CGR, summarized below, sets out the maximum shrinkage allowances for primary elevators; allowances are expressed as percent of scale weight. Although these are maximum allowances and primary elevators are allowed to charge less, the typical practice has been to deduct the maximum.

Schedule XI establishes the maximum shrinkage allowances for terminal elevators (see footnote 1) (these are currently set at zero for all grains). Shrinkage is not regulated on grain delivered to licensed process or transfer elevators or grain dealers, (see footnote 2) deductions are negotiable in the contracts between the owner of the grain and the facility.

In 2001, the CGC reviewed maximum shrinkage allowances at primary elevators in response to several requests and recommendations from producers and the grain industry for a review. In addition, the CGC wanted to determine whether the allowances were still relevant given the improvements in grain handling technology and changes in the primary elevator grain handling infrastructure over the past ten years.

The review included an analysis of primary elevator weighover data (see footnote 3) submitted to the CGC from licensed primary elevator companies for the period 1990/91 through 1998/99. The analysis determined that there is a high degree of variability in the losses and gains reported in the primary elevator weighover reports. Variability was evident in the gains and losses experienced between elevators, as well as at individual elevators, on a year-to-year basis. The majority of elevators experienced both gains and losses throughout the nine-year study period.

The variation in gains and losses can be attributed to numerous factors such as differences in efficiency, operating practices, scale calibrations and monitoring and/or due to upgrades, cleaning and blending activities or variations or errors in weighover reporting by elevator managers. The impact of these variables cannot be isolated and captured in the analysis and/or primary elevator weighover data thus making it impossible to set shrinkage allowances on the basis of weighover results.

In addition to the data analysis, the CGC conducted extensive consultations with producers and the grain industry. In May 2001, the CGC prepared and distributed a discussion paper to stakeholders that incorporated the data analysis and identified three options for consideration. The CGC also solicited input via a virtual consultation site on the CGC's Web site and through face-to-face meetings. Consultations revealed strong producer opposition to elevator companies being allowed to deduct shrinkage on producer deliveries while licensed elevators and grain dealers supported deregulation or retaining the status quo.

Based on the analysis of data that were inconclusive in respect of actual shrinkage losses in the grain handling system and the views of producer organizations that argued that elevator companies should be responsible for weight losses of the grain they have purchased from producers, the CGC has decided to set the allowable weight deduction at zero. Schedule X is being repealed and section 30 of the CGR is being amended to state that the maximum shrinkage allowance that may be deducted from grain delivered to a licensed primary elevator is zero.

Subsection 43(1) and section 46 of the CGR require that licensed primary and process elevators and grain dealers automatically provide payment in full to producers for grain after 90 days from delivery, whether or not the producer wants to defer payment beyond that period of time.

The 90-day pricing regulations were introduced on August 1, 1989, at the request of the Western Grain Elevator Association (WGEA) to: reduce the amount of unpriced, stored grain that was becoming a constraint on declining elevator space; reduce the amount and cost of security that licensees had to post with the CGC to cover outstanding liabilities to producers; and eliminate pricing distortions in the canola market resulting from large quantities of unpriced canola.

The CGC received complaints over the years about licensees and producers contravening these regulations. Licensees and producers often agreed to avoid the regulations and defer payment beyond 90 days from delivery (primarily for tax deferral purposes). Producers and elevator operators and grain dealers have indicated that they want the flexibility that would allow producers to defer payment for longer than 90-days from delivery or accept partial payments.

Many changes have occurred in the agricultural environment since the inception of the 90-day payment regulations:

— The CGC no longer sets elevator tariff maximums. (see footnote 4) As a result, primary elevator companies can set their own tariffs and have the ability to establish storage tariffs to either encourage or discourage producer deliveries.

— The eligible period for producer security (see footnote 5) was revised in August 1995 to reduce the period from one year to 90 days. This should act as an incentive for producers to price out their grain within 90 days of delivery.

— The canola futures contract (see footnote 6) was restructured and alternative delivery points and pricing mechanisms were introduced as another producer marketing alternative.

The CGC has decided to repeal the 90-day payment regulations because they are ineffective and difficult to enforce and are no longer warranted as a result of the industry changes noted above. Repealing the 90-day payment regulations should result in increased marketing and pricing flexibility for licensees and producers.

Subsection 43(1) and section 46 are being repealed. Licensed grain dealers and primary and process elevator operators will continue to be required to pay in full for grain received, on request by producers, at any time after delivery, but will not be obliged to do so if producers do not request payment. Producers are entitled to full payment on delivery, or any time after, but will be able to defer payment for more than 90 days.

Extensive consultations were conducted prior to the decision to seek repeal of subsection 43(1) and section 46. In October 2002, the CGC informed producer organizations and the grain industry in writing of its intention to repeal the 90-day payment regulations and invited comments. The CGC received only six replies, either seeking clarification of the proposed regulatory change or supporting repeal. The WGEA supports this change.

Subsection 43(1) and section 46 are unrelated to the security provisions of the CGA (section 49.3) and the CGR (section 17), often referred to as the "90-day security rule." Licensees will still be required to post security and producers will still be protected for 90 days from the date of delivery or for 30 days after a failure or refusal by the licensee to pay. Producers who defer payment for grain beyond 90 days from delivery will not be protected by security for that delivery.

A number of changes have been made to regulations for the purposes of updating, clarification, ease of reference, and reordering for affinity purposes. The following sections have been affected: s.2(1); s.3; s.4; s.4.1; s.6(1), (2); s.6(3)(b); s.7(4); s.9; s.11(2), (3)(c); s.16(f); s.21(3); s.28; s.33(1); s.35(1)(b); s.36(4); s.37(3), (5)(c); s.38(2)(b); s.39(1); s.40(3)(a), (b); s.44; s.45(2); s.56(1); s.57(a); s.58(1); s.60(1)(b); s.68(1); s.71(1), (4); and Schedules I, II, V, XIV, and XV.

Sections 32(a) and (d) and Schedules X and XI are repealed and section 32(c) is amended consequent upon setting maximum shrinkage allowances at licensed primary elevators to zero.

The CGC considered three options in its discussion paper on maximum shrinkage allowances: status quo, i.e. retain maximum shrinkage allowances at primary elevators through regulation; deregulation, i.e. eliminate the maximum shrinkage allowances for primary elevators; and set all primary elevator maximum shrinkage allowances, including tough and damp, to zero.

Under the status quo option the shrinkage deductions remain visible, although as indicated earlier, the typical practice for primary elevators has been to deduct the maximum shrinkage allowance regardless of the actual loss. With the industry's switch to newer high-throughput elevators, there is a large variability in handling results among primary elevators, and it is no longer possible to set shrinkage allowances on the basis of weighover results.

By contrast, setting the maximum shrinkage allowances to zero will encourage primary elevators to shift the revenues previously earned from shrinkage to elevator tariffs. In turn, this is expected to increase competition among primary elevators as producers are in an improved position to negotiate for the best price. Setting the maximum shrinkage allowance to zero decreases the flexibility of elevator operators and may limit their options with respect to recovering shrinkage costs.

Deregulation could result in four possible outcomes: elimination of shrinkage deductions in response to producer demands; reduction of deductions as a result of competition; retention of deductions at levels close to existing maximums; or higher deductions.

During the review, two additional options were proposed in several stakeholder submissions, i.e. reduce current shrinkage allowances on "other crops" to a level indicative of actual losses; and adjust shrinkage levels for all crops to levels indicative of actual losses. These options were considered irrelevant due to the inconclusive data analysis.

The alternative to this change was to maintain the status quo. The status quo is unacceptable since it reduces payment flexibility for licensees and grain producers; its also ineffective and difficult to enforce. In addition, the 90-day payment regulations are no longer necessary, due to significant industry changes.

No alternatives were considered for the housekeeping related changes because they are routine in nature.

It is the CGC's view that setting the maximum shrinkage allowance to zero will improve competitiveness among primary elevators and thus increase returns for producers. To the extent that actual shrinkage occurs in the grain handling system, setting the shrinkage allowances to zero will force any existing shrinkage losses to be dealt with by the companies involved. This will allow more efficient primary elevators to reduce their basis and offer better prices to producers. Producers are in support of this.

Some primary elevator companies may incur financial losses if they are unable to recover costs associated with shrinkage.

Based on a nine-year average of weighover data, the financial impact on industry and producers due to shrinkage allowances is approximately $18 million.

Repealing the 90-day payment regulations should result in increased payment flexibility for licensees and producers; reduced enforcement costs and elimination of the confusion between 90-day payment and 90-day security. The risk associated with this change is that producers will not seek payment within 90 days and will not be protected by security held by the CGC.

The housekeeping changes should assist the industry in complying with the Regulations.

In May 2002, the CGC prepared and distributed a discussion paper on primary elevator maximum shrinkage allowances to all major stakeholders, including producer organizations and the grain industry. The paper incorporated data analysis of primary elevator weighovers for the nine-year period 1990/91 to 1998/99 and included three options for input: (1) status quo; (2) deregulation; and (3) setting all primary elevator maximum shrinkage allowances to zero. Prior to the paper's release, the CGC had also been compiling feedback since July 2000 on the issue of primary elevator maximum shrinkage allowances. Feedback was solicited via an on-line discussion forum on the CGC Web site, written submissions, meetings at the request of stakeholders, CGC annual producer meetings, and phone calls.

Over the 17-month consultation period, 59 responses were received, with some stakeholders responding multiple times. Based on the total number of stakeholder responses, 71 percent of the respondents favoured option 3, 15 percent supported option 1, while 3.3 percent favoured option 2. Two other options were identified during the consultations: reduce current shrinkage allowances on "other crops" to a level indicative of actual losses; and adjust shrinkage levels for all crops to levels indicative of actual losses. With respect to the former, 8.5 percent of respondents supported this option; 5 percent favoured the latter. Producers or producer groups composed 93 percent of the stakeholders who supported setting maximum shrinkage allowances to zero.

During the consultations, the underlying argument put forth by producers was that shrinkage is the responsibility of the purchaser and that once grain has been delivered producers should no longer bear the costs of weight losses incurred by elevators. Producers felt that setting the maximum shrinkage allowances to zero would force companies to deal with any existing shrinkage losses as a competitive factor in the price they bid for producers' grain.

Most marketers, buyers and processors opposed setting allowances to zero, including the Western Grain Elevator Association, the umbrella organization of licensed Canadian primary and terminal elevators. Instead, they supported deregulation or the status quo.

The CGC has consulted periodically with producers and the grain industry on the 90-day payment regulations. The CGC issued a memorandum to the trade in July 1999, advising them about the complaints regarding non-compliance with these regulations and seeking comments as to whether or not the regulations should be retained or repealed. Another memo was issued in September to clarify the meaning of the 90-day payment regulations. Response was minimal, so the CGC contacted all major stakeholders. Response was mixed but generally supportive. The WGEA originally suggested that the regulations be put in place to address specific conditions regarding risk exposure and the canola market. As conditions have changed, the WGEA supports repeal.

In October 2002, the CGC issued a memo to the trade advising of its intention to repeal the 90-day payment regulations. Feedback was solicited. Again, response was minimal; six responses were received either seeking clarification on wording or supporting repeal.

The changes considered to be housekeeping in nature do not impose any additional regulatory obligations or costs. Accordingly, no opposition is anticipated and no consultations were conducted.

The proposed changes will have no impact on compliance and enforcement responsibilities. No new enforcement mechanisms are being implemented in respect of these changes.

For further information contact Valerie Gilroy, Legal Counsel, Canadian Grain Commission, 600-303 Main Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 3G8, (204) 983-2733 (Telephone), (204) 983-2751 (Facsimile), vgilroy@grainscanada.gc.ca (Electronic mail).

Notice is hereby given that the Canadian Grain Commission, pursuant to subsection 116(1) (see footnote a) of the Canada Grain Act, proposes, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Canada Grain Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations to the Canadian Grain Commission within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice and be addressed to Cari Gray, Canadian Grain Commission, 600-303 Main Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 3G8.

1. Subsection 2(1) of the Canada Grain Regulations (see footnote 7) is replaced by the following:

2. (1) The applicable fee set out in column III of an item of Schedule 1, except as otherwise provided in that Schedule, shall be paid to the Commission by or on behalf of the person for whom a service set out in column I of that item is performed.

3. A commissioner's oath or solemn affirmation of office shall be taken as it appears in Form 1 of Schedule 2.

4. The oath or solemn affirmation of office of a member of a grain standards committee who is not a commissioner and who is not employed in the public service of Canada shall be taken as it appears in Form 2 of Schedule 2.

4.1 The oath or solemn affirmation of office to be taken by each member of a grain appeal tribunal, except a chairperson employed in the public service of Canada, shall be taken as it appears in Form 3 of Schedule 2.

5. (1) Subsections 6(1) and (2) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(a) a mechanical sampler; or

(b) manual sampling, if there is no mechanical sampler in the place of sampling.

(2) No official samples shall be taken by means of a mechanical sampler unless it is

(a) of a type authorized by the Commission; and

(b) installed, tested and maintained under the direction of an inspector.

(2) Subsection 6(3) of the Regulations is amended by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a) and by repealing paragraph (b).

(4) On receipt of a sample forwarded in accordance with this section, a regional inspector shall examine the sample and determine its grade and dockage or its condition and transmit a copy of the determination in writing to each person named on the shipping tag.

(a) in the case of Canadian grain other than the cases set out in paragraphs (b) to (d), in Form 12 of Schedule 4;

(b) in the case of Canadian grain to be exported by ship, in Form 13 of Schedule 4;

(c) in the case of Canadian grain to be carried by ship to domestic ports, if grade and weight only are certified, in Form 13.1 of Schedule 4; and

(d) in the case of Canadian grain to be carried by ship to domestic ports, if grade only is certified, in Form 13.2 of Schedule 4.

11. (1) An application for reinspection of grain made under section 39 of the Act shall be made in writing and include the following information:

(a) the identification of the parcel of grain from which the official sample was taken;

(b) the name and location of the elevator or place where the official sample was taken;

(d) the grade and dockage assigned to the grain by the official inspection and any reinspection.

(2) If the decision of a regional inspector is appealed under section 39 of the Act, the regional inspector shall without delay forward the application and the official sample to the chief grain inspector for Canada or the grain appeal tribunal for the Division, as the case may be.

(3) If the decision of the chief grain inspector for Canada is appealed under section 39 of the Act, the chief grain inspector shall without delay forward the application and the official sample to the appropriate grain appeal tribunal.

9. Paragraph 16(f) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) Each applicant for a licence shall submit to the Commission, at least 10 days before the commencement date of the licence period, the licence fee set out in Schedule 1 and the security fixed by the Commission under section 45 of the Act.

28. If a word or expression set out in column I of an item of Schedule 5 is to be used in a form, elevator receipt, grain receipt, contract or other document referred to in the Act or these Regulations and the word or expression is to be abbreviated, the abbreviation shall be that set out in column II of that item.

30. The maximum shrinkage allowance that may be deducted from grain delivered to a licensed primary elevator is zero.

31. The maximum shrinkage allowance that may be deducted from grain delivered to a licensed terminal elevator is zero.

(2) Section 32 of the Regulations is amended by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b), by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) and by repealing paragraph (d).

33. (1) Every cash purchase ticket or primary elevator receipt issued by the operator of a licensed primary elevator shall be in the appropriate form set out in Schedule 4.

(4) On receipt of the representative portion, the chief grain inspector for Canada shall examine it, determine its grade and dockage and transmit a copy of the determination to each person named in the request.

(3) The operator shall keep the container in a locked storage cabinet or storeroom at the elevator, for not less than 30 days.

(b) transmit a copy of the determination to the operator of the elevator and the owner of the grain.

39. (1) If, in accordance with section 63 of the Act, grain is lawfully offered for storage at a licensed primary elevator and a request is made that it be cleaned, the elevator receipt that is required to be issued under that section shall be a special bin primary elevator receipt in Form 2 of Schedule 4, or a combined primary elevator receipt in Form 7 of that Schedule, endorsed as follows:

19. (1) Paragraph 40(3)(a) of the French version of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(2) The portion of paragraph 40(3)(b) of the French version of the Regulations before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

44. A grain receipt or a cash purchase ticket that is required by subsection 78(2) of the Act to be issued by the operator of a licensed process elevator on the receipt of grain from a producer into the elevator shall be issued on delivery of the grain by the producer and shall be in Form 1 or Form 6 of Schedule 4, as appropriate.

(2) A grain receipt or a cash purchase ticket that is required by subsection 81(1) of the Act to be issued by a licensed grain dealer shall be issued on receipt of western grain delivered by a producer or on being entitled to western grain delivered to an elevator by a producer, and shall be in Form 1 or Form 6 of Schedule 4, as appropriate.

24. Section 50 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following before paragraph (a):

56. (1) The operator of a licensed transfer elevator may mix any grade of eastern grain being received into, in or being discharged from the elevator with any other grade of eastern grain of the same class.

(a) the operator and the person wishing to specially bin the grain or grain product enter into a special bin agreement in the form set out in Form 15 of Schedule 4;

58. (1) A terminal elevator receipt, transfer elevator receipt or interim transfer elevator receipt shall be in Form 9, 10 or 11, respectively, of Schedule 4.

(b) after the weighover, supply to the Commission a report of the stocks in store in Form 8 of Schedule 4.

68. (1) One or more producers of grain who wish to apply for a railway car under section 87 of the Act shall send to the Commission a completed application in Form 14 of Schedule 4.

71. (1) An end-use certificate referred to in section 87.1 of the Act shall be in Form 1 of Schedule 6.

(4) The consignee referred to in an end-use certificate shall provide the Commission, every three months after receipt of the grain referred to in the end-use certificate, with a report in the form set out in Form 2 of Schedule 6, until the grain has been fully consumed at the processing facility of the consignee.

32. The portion of subparagraph 1(a)(i) in columns II and III of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

33. (1) Paragraph 2(a) of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) The portion of paragraph 2(b) of Schedule 1 to the Regulations in column I is replaced by the following:

39. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

Regulations Amending the Food and Drug Regulations (1354 — Picolinafen)

Under authority of the Pest Control Products Act, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), of Health Canada, has approved an application for the registration of the pest control product (pesticide) picolinafen as a herbicide for the control of broadleaf weeds in barley and spring wheat (including durum) as a post-emergent treatment. This proposed regulatory amendment would establish Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) under the Food and Drugs Act for residues of picolinafen resulting from this use in barley and wheat, in order to permit the sale of food containing these residues.

Before making a registration decision regarding a new pest control product, the PMRA conducts the appropriate assessment of the risks and value of the product specific to its proposed use. Pest control products will be registered if: the data requirements for assessing value and safety have been adequately addressed; the evaluation indicates that the product has merit and value; and the human health and environmental risks associated with its proposed use are acceptable.

The human health risk assessment includes an assessment of dietary risks posed by expected residues of the pest control product, as determined through extensive toxicological studies. An acceptable daily intake (ADI) and/or acute reference dose (ARD) is calculated by applying a safety factor to a no observable adverse effect level or, in appropriate cases, by applying a risk factor which is calculated based on a linear low-dose extrapolation. The potential daily intake (PDI) is calculated from the amount of residue that remains on each food when the pest control product is used according to the proposed label and the intake of that food from both domestic and imported sources in the diet. PDIs are established for various Canadian subpopulations and age groups, including infants, toddlers, children, adolescents and adults. Provided the PDI does not exceed the ADI or ARD for any subpopulation or age group, and the lifetime risk is acceptable, the expected residue levels are established as MRLs under the Food and Drugs Act to prevent the sale of food with higher residue levels. Since, in most cases, the PDI is well below the ADI and lifetime risks are very low when MRLs are originally established, additional MRLs for the pest control product may be added in the future.

After the review of all available data, the PMRA has determined that an MRL for picolinafen of 0.05 parts per million (p.p.m.) in barley and wheat would not pose an unacceptable health risk to the public.

Under the Food and Drugs Act, the sale of food containing residues of pest control products at a level less than or equal to 0.1 p.p.m. is permitted unless a lower MRL has been established in Table II, Division 15, of the Food and Drug Regulations. In the case of picolinafen, establishment of an MRL for barley and wheat is necessary to support the use of a pest control product which has been shown to be both safe and effective, while at the same time preventing the sale of food with unacceptable residues.

The use of picolinafen on barley and spring wheat (including durum) will provide joint benefits to consumers and the agricultural industry as a result of improved management of pests. In addition, this proposed regulatory amendment will contribute to a safe, abundant and affordable food supply by allowing the importation and sale of food commodities containing acceptable levels of pesticide residues.

Some costs may be incurred related to the implementation of analytical methods for analysis of picolinafen in the foods mentioned above. Resources required are not expected to result in significant costs to the Government.

Registration decisions, including dietary risk assessments, made by the PMRA are based on internationally recognized risk management principles, which are largely harmonized among member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Individual safety evaluations conducted by the PMRA include a review of the assessments conducted at the international level as part of the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization Food Standards Programme in support of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, as well as MRLs adopted by other national health/regulatory agencies.

Compliance will be monitored through ongoing domestic and/or import inspection programs conducted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency when the proposed MRL for picolinafen is adopted.

Geraldine Graham, Alternative Strategies and Regulatory Affairs Division, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada, Address Locator 6607D1, 2720 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9, (613) 736-3692 (Telephone), (613) 736-3659 (Facsimile), geraldine_graham@hc-sc.gc.ca (Electronic mail).

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to subsection 30(1) (see footnote b) of the Food and Drugs Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Food and Drug Regulations (1354 — Picolinafen).

Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations within 75 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Geraldine Graham, Alternative Strategies and Regulatory Affairs Division, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health, Address Locator 6607D1, 2720 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9 (tel.: (613) 736-3692; fax: (613) 736-3659; e-mail: geraldine_graham@hc-sc. gc.ca).

Persons making representations should identify any of those representations the disclosure of which should be refused under the Access to Information Act, in particular under sections 19 and 20 of that Act, and should indicate the reasons why and the period during which the representations should not be disclosed. They should also identify any representations for which there is consent to disclosure for the purposes of that Act.

1. Table II to Division 15 of Part B of the Food and Drug Regulations (see footnote 8) is amended by adding the following after item P.4.1:

2. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

A terminal elevator is an elevator, usually located at a port location, which receives grain on or after official inspection and official weighing. The grain is cleaned, stored and treated before it moves forward, usually but not always to a cargo ship.

Process elevators include elevators such as flour mills, feed mills etc. where further processing of grain is done. Transfer elevators are commonly found along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway and receive grain and discharge grain by boat. Grain dealers typically buy and sell grain for profit and may or may not operate a physical facility.

Weighovers are defined as weight and inspection of all grain of any grade in an elevator for the purpose of determining the amount in stock of grain of that grade in the elevator.

Each grain company determines the maximum tariffs (fees) which they will charge for services. These services include elevating, cleaning, drying and storing grain. All companies are required to file a schedule of tariffs with the Canadian Grain Commission before the beginning of each crop year and before any increases are made during the crop year.

Elevators are required to post security to cover producer debts in case of bankruptcy. Under the Act, security may be provided by way of bond, insurance or otherwise.