The only difference is that the directors presently are elected. And if they actually were to decide to follow through on something they didn't necessarily agree with, they might end up being unelected. These folks are appointed, so if they're taking direction from the person who appointed them, they're hardly going to suffer any consequence related to that appointment. I think the distinction is there.
But the bill continues with “Plans, Borrowings and Guarantees”. I quote proposed subsection 26(1):
The Corporation must submit annually a corporate plan to the Minister for the approval of the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance.
You're setting up a corporation and suggesting to it, “You should act like a corporation, but oh, by the way, we want you to take a plan to the Minister of Agriculture first for approval, and then take your business plan, when it comes to actual money—what you might want to borrow—and have it approved by the Minister of Finance as well.”
Now, I heard earlier that there might be taxpayers' dollars involved. I get that piece, that taxpayers' dollars are involved. But why is there a need for the Minister of Agriculture to make a decision on what business the board should carry out? If you indeed want this board to be an entity unto itself at the end of five years, would you not want it to learn how to stand on its own two feet so that it actually can do what it is the government wants it to be at the end of the day, which is a voluntary, successful board that people want to use? If the minister is going to intervene all the time, how do they learn to do that?