Evidence of meeting #4 for Bill C-18 (41st Parliament, 1st Session) in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was board.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Would you like a recorded vote en masse for each and every one of them?
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Okay. That's fine. For clauses 47 through 64, this is a recorded vote.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
(Clauses 47 to 64 inclusive agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
We have a proposed new clause 64.1 through amendment NDP-14.
Mr. Martin, do you wish to move your amendment?
9:35 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
This is fairly standard boilerplate language to introduce a mandatory review at the two-year anniversary and subsequently every five years thereafter. That's the way this is phrased. It's normal, but it's necessary in our view given that this is being downplayed by the Conservatives.
Those of us on the opposition benches recognize that these reforms to the Canadian Wheat Board, which we believe are going to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, are sweeping major radical changes to the economy of the prairie region. This shouldn't be entered into lightly. It should have been given more than two days of testimony by witnesses. We should have been given more than one day for us to prepare the amendments for the clause-by-clause treatment of this bill.
Surely the government owes the Canadian farm economy and community the mandatory two-year review and a report to Parliament of the findings of that review, so that we can track and monitor in an official way, not only through the standard instruments as they exist, but to track it and respond to the impact. Especially in the absence of any meaningful impact study, it would be irresponsible not to legislate a mandatory review at the two-year and five-year anniversaries.
The amendment also goes on to say that “the Minister must have a report on the review laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 30 days on which it is sitting after the report is completed”. Again, this is standard boilerplate language that any veteran MP would recognize in many different pieces of legislation.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Thank you, Mr. Martin.
There are about two and a half minutes of NDP time left.
Mr. Atamanenko.
9:40 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I would like to reinforce what Pat said. If the government is so sure of what it's doing, then surely it will support our amendment to have a review. We're saying that there should have been an analysis. There hasn't been. If the members opposite are sure, then let them support this amendment and add to the act so we can have a review. It's as simple as that.
9:40 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The government would only actually have to do two reports. I know the amendment talks about more, and we would hope you would do more, but your expectation is that the corporation will be on its way in a private way within five years--or within five years it doesn't exist. So the government would only have to do one at the two-year anniversary. If the corporation, by the minister's own hand, says “on your way” at year four, the government will not actually have to do two.
At the very most, the government is only going to have to do two reviews done by the minister and reported to the House. That's it. That's all it has to do, no more than that. The government's own legislation says it's on its way anyway. It's not going to be around in perpetuity, because that's what is decided in the legislation itself.
So the cost factor is two reports. I'm sure my colleagues over there are saying they have to watch the taxpayers' dollars. Well, they'll have to do two reports. That's basically all they'll end up doing.
As my colleagues have pointed out, it's normal for the House to understand, when legislation has an impact, what that impact is, normal to report it back to the House so the House can understand what happened.
If the impact is as great as the government says it will be, surely it would actually want to make that report and that review, to give it back and say that everything is wonderful, that the government told everyone it would be wonderful, and it is, and here's a report to prove it's wonderful. It would actually support the government's own belief that it's actually a wonderful thing.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Is there anybody else who would like to speak to this proposed amendment?
Mr. Zimmer.
November 3rd, 2011 / 9:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Chair, I would like to know if it's the intent to have only two reports. Or is it to report back in perpetuity. Can you clarify?
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
The New Democratic Party is out of time to respond. If I have the consent of the committee, I would grant a brief answer from the sponsor of the motion.
9:40 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
As I read it--and we can let the technical people respond as well--it says, “Two years after the coming into force of this section and subsequently every five years...”.
As Mr. Allen says, in all likelihood the second report would never have to take place because the Wheat Board as we know it would cease to exist.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Actually that used up your time, Mr. Zimmer, but keep going.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
I'd also like to ask the witnesses to answer the same question, please.
9:40 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
The way I would read it, it would be in perpetuity if the organization continued to exist. I think the interpretation that there would be two reports is probably accurate.
9:40 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Technically, the way it's drafted, it would survive, but subsequent reports may be pro forma, may be very minimal, I expect.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative