This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in September 2008.
Gerry Ritz Conservative
Second reading (House), as of March 3, 2008
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
This enactment amends the Canadian Wheat Board Act to clarify that the Governor in Council has the authority to amend or repeal any regulation made under section 47 of that Act. The enactment also provides for an arbitration process to resolve disputes respecting commercial transactions or proposed commercial transactions relating to grain. It also repeals section 25 of An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Canadian Wheat Board ActRoutine Proceedings
Battlefords—Lloydminster Saskatchewan
Conservative
Gerry Ritz ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and chapter 17 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You accepted the introduction of a government bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act that is clearly illegal. We know that the minister, in an answer during question period, said that he was going to do this, but section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act is very clear in terms of what is required prior to a bill being brought into the House by the government.
The section is unique. It says that the minister cannot do what he is trying to do, that is, introduce legislation to diminish the Canadian Wheat Board single desk unless and until two conditions are fulfilled.
First, the minister must consult the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors. The directors say that has not happened and they said that as recently as Saturday.
Second, the minister must hold vote among prairie grain producers about the specific legislative change the minister wants to propose. That vote has not happened.
The minister cannot say that his barley vote of a year ago satisfies that requirement. There was no voters list. There was only a fraction of eligible producers who voted. The ballots were marked and traceable. Three general options were raised and they were counted as only two.
More importantly, their questions might have been a multiple choice survey of general marketing philosophy, but they were most definitely not the specific and focused questions required by section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
If the minister is allowed to introduce this barley bill, he will break the law. The act is clear. The Speaker must be satisfied, it seems to me, that section 47.1 has been fulfilled before this bill can be legally introduced. Again I say, the act is very clear. The minister therefore should not be allowed to proceed at this time, because in doing so he is breaking the very law that he took an oath of office to uphold.
Canadian Wheat Board ActRoutine Proceedings
York—Simcoe Ontario
Conservative
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, I admire the member for Malpeque's very enthusiastic critique of a bill that he has not even read yet, because of course it has only now just been introduced. I invite him to actually review the bill at some point. Then he could actually make some representations with some basis of knowledge, but that is nothing new from over there.
The reality is that the two points he raised about consultation were then refuted by his very own arguments. He said there was no consultation and then went on to explain at length the consultation that took place and why he did not like the consultation that took place. Clearly the necessary conditions have been satisfied. In both cases, the consultations that were required took place. As to whether or not he likes the form the consultations took or the outcome the consultations had, that is not the question. The fact is that the statute has been complied with in every way. The bill is in order and we would ask that it be allowed to proceed.
If the Speaker is not fully satisfied and wishes to have detailed submissions provided on the nature and the quality of the consultations that occurred, in order to satisfy the statute, we would be happy to provide that to you at a later date, Mr. Speaker. However, I really think that on its face that is not necessary.
Canadian Wheat Board ActRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Peter Milliken
The Chair will take the matter under advisement. Normally questions of law are not matters for the Chair to decide. The arguments by the hon. member for Malpeque, at first glance to me at this moment, appear to be arguments as to legal obligations that the minister may or may not have. I have not looked at the law. I have not seen the bill. Until we see it, I cannot say whether the bill complies with the law. Who knows, it may have a provision in it that repeals the previous law. I have no idea.
I think we will need to have a look at this before we can proceed, but in the meantime I believe the bill now has been read the first time and ordered to be printed.
When shall the bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House.
I hope before it is called for debate at second reading, I will have had a chance to review the necessary provisions in the law.