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.