Bill C-18 Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2011

[John Knubley]

Is that a question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Ms. Ashton, the NDP time has expired.

If you cares to comment on that comment made, I'll leave that up to you Mr. Knubley. If not, then we'll move on to Mr. Valeriote.

Would you like to--

[John Knubley]

I think I would simply say, again, that the intent of the act and the intent of the transition period is to give a full opportunity to the Wheat Board to reinvent itself. The plans will be developed by the directors themselves in consultation with farmers, and there are various business models that are open to them in that case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Valeriote, for five minutes, please.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, again, Mr. Knubley, and Mr. Meredith, for appearing before us.

Yesterday you mentioned taxpayer money with regard to my question about directors who are non-elected but appointed and managed in some way by the minister. The minister, interestingly, made reference to the same thing, that is, taxpayer money, and I've heard you say it again tonight.

I see references to the contingency fund, and other references. Can you undertake now or later to tell this committee exactly what sections of the legislation expose taxpayers to an expense? You keep making reference to that, and I'm curious.

Right now the board doesn't cost taxpayers any money. Can you explain your reference to taxpayer money and what exposure there is?

[John Knubley]

Government guarantees.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Is that the only section of the legislation where you feel--

[John Knubley]

In addition, as the legislation indicates, the government is willing to look at transition costs as the new entity moves forward, in terms of supporting where it might head as a farmer co-operative or a private entity. So again, transition costs will be considered.

Until the time that we can sit down with the governance of the new entity and work through the details of these transitions costs, I can't be more specific than that.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

So you haven't determined in advance what those costs might be, or explored the possible outcomes?

[John Knubley]

We haven't done it for precisely the reason you've been asking about; that is to say, we want the Wheat Board itself to advance its business plan, not the government. Nor do we want the minister to design that plan.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Help me, because I'm not a farmer, and I'm not from the west. You keep using the term dual market. As a person in business, I only understand either an open market or a single desk. Where does this term dual market spawn from? Is this new language that you or the minister has created?

[John Knubley]

Again, I'm from a beef farming background in Ontario. What I certainly understand in this long-standing debate, which I have observed for many years, is as we discussed earlier when the minister was here: that there has always been this middle option called dual marketing—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It doesn't exist. There's no such thing. You either have an open market or you don't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Knubley, you have the floor to answer the question.

Mr. Valeriote, Mr. Knubley has the floor.

Please proceed.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Chair, a point of order.

[John Knubley]

Again, the surveys that were referred to earlier--

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Knubley, according to our rules, I have to observe a point of order by Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Chair, we're hearing Mr. Easter speak, and I don't think he has been given that opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Zimmer, you've raised a point of order. The ruling.... On page 1029 of O'Brien and Bosc are the rules pertaining to legislative committees that we have adopted. They only allow for members or their substitutes to make representations to vote, or to have interventions at a legislative committee.

As Mr. Valeriote is the member for the Liberal Party here, it would be inappropriate for Mr. Easter to have an intervention at this committee, unless he substitutes for Mr. Valeriote. So I would respectfully ask Mr. Easter to continue observing this committee and observe the rights that he is entitled to as a parliamentarian, but not to interfere with the rights of other parliamentarians at this table who were duly assigned to this committee.

Mr. Knubley, please continue.

[John Knubley]

Mr. Chair, I'll be straightforward. There have been surveys run by the Wheat Board itself, and I think they were referred to earlier by members, which included this third option called dual marketing. Those surveys have been run for some years.

I can give you some of the details on the results of those surveys, if you like.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

No, that's okay. If we can go back to the directors--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[John Knubley]

Because the results, of course, show that most farmers favour the dual marketing—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I was just curious where the term came from, for all the laughter on the other side.

If I could ask another question, and that's again with respect to directors. This is respectfully submitted.

We're making a transition here. Would you recommend to the minister that the directors be elected as opposed to being appointed—nevertheless, still under the supervision of the minister—in the interim board? Second, would you consider in section 42 permitting the board, in its discretion, to apply for articles of incorporation or otherwise, without first seeking the permission of the minister?

Those are two specific questions.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Chair, I know you ruled on this yesterday, but I do think it's important to point out for the witnesses that page 1068 of O'Brien and Bosc states:

The role of the public servant has traditionally been viewed in relation to the implementation and administration of government policy, rather than the determination of what that policy should be.

In my opinion, it would be inappropriate to ask what they would recommend to the minister. That would be between the public servant and the minister and, therefore, would protected under parliamentary privilege.