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.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
It has occurred to me, in listening to the conversation, how draconian this proposed section 25 is that Mr. Martin and the NDP are trying to deal with.
The current board was and is working on behalf of producers. It's our proposition that in fact the intent of the legislation is to place producers at the whim of large agribusiness, the railway companies, and all the others who are salivating over the profits they're about to take from producers.
This proposed section would actually allow the minister—if he doesn't like the fact that the new or interim Canada wheat board is successful—to give direction to shut it down. That is the latitude given to the minister in this instance, and that ought not to be the case. The minister, whoever it might be, ought not to have that kind of latitude. That's why we'll be supporting these particular amendments.
November 3rd, 2011 / 8:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Thank you.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this amendment?
I see no hands, therefore I will call the question: shall amendment NDP-11 carry?
(Amendment negatived)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Moving along, the next amendment proposed for this bill is amendment LIB-4, which affects proposed section 27 of the bill in clause 14. That begins with this sentence: “In this Part, 'pool period' means any period or periods...”.
Mr. Valeriote, do you wish to move your amendment?
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Essentially, the amendment would cause proposed section 27 to read:
In this Part, “pool period” means any period or periods that the Corporation may set as a pool period in respect of grain.
Essentially, it is really about latitude. It's about flexibility. I won't belabour the point except to say that in this newly competitive environment in which the Wheat Board will find itself, we believe, given that it will now, upon the passage of this bill, lack any physical grain handling assets or such, the interim board will in fact require some flexibility in its ability to offer pools that get the full benefit of initial payment guarantee.
We're hoping that the merit of that flexibility will be seen by the government. It's not intended to undermine the minister's discretion given by proposed section 25, not all. In fact, that minister's discretion given in proposed section 25 could cause the directors to indeed have to comply with the particular words that I'm suggesting be removed, but it enables the minister and the board, under particular circumstances and if there is a need, to extend the pool period beyond a year if necessary.
So I'm urging the government to consider that in this circumstance that kind of flexibility may actually be helpful. If you think it's not helpful, I'd like to hear why from anyone on the other side who thinks that kind of flexibility shouldn't be given to the minister, to the directors, and to the Wheat Board under this new environment.
Conservative
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Well, I'm going to ask Mr. Valeriote a question, but then I would like to talk to Mr. Meredith about this section.
Mr. Valeriote, can you give us a reason why we need to exceed one year in the aggregate for the pool? Could you explain that to me?
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
I can't anticipate an actual circumstance at this point, but I don't know why one would handcuff a new corporation, handcuff a new board, and even handcuff the minister should they decide in their interests to extend it beyond one year.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
There's obviously no reason why it needs to be. Typically, the pools operate as year pools or six-month pools. The legislation allows the Wheat Board to set those up in whatever structure they want.
I'm just wondering if Mr. Meredith can fill us in. Does the present wording give the flexibility the board is going to need to establish the pools that it will likely need for the grains it's dealing with?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
I think it's fair to say that the board does tend to work within these constraints already. I do think that the wording provided here gives the board more latitude.
Conservative
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
No, I'm done. I think our wording is adequate from what I know of how the pools have operated over the years. I've been a part of that for most of my life, so I think this is typically the way farmers will expect it to operate.
Conservative
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Do you see, Mr. Meredith, any risk either to government backing or to the pool account by extending it as we suggest in this amendment? I hear what Mr. Anderson is saying, and that is typically the way, but this does give, as you said, Mr. Meredith, a little more latitude, a little more flexibility? Do you see any risk on the other side of assuring that this latitude is there?
Paul Martin Director General, Policy Development and Analysis Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
The flexibility that CWB staff have mentioned to us in discussing this section is the possibility of running a number of concurrent pools, which in aggregate might add up to more than a year. I think our reading of these words is that it would be allowed because what you're talking about is the definition of “pool period”.
As for the question of whether a multi-year pool is a greater risk for the initial payment guarantee than a shorter pool, that's something with which we don't have a lot of experience, so I'm not going to try to offer a factual answer to that.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
If there's not a down side and it applies some latitude that the board believes it needs--and it has had extensive experience in this area already--then I can't see why it wouldn't be supportable by the government, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Thank you.
However, that's the decision of the committee.
Mr. Dreeshen.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer, AB
Thank you.
I have just a quick comment. When you have a one-year pool, for the length of time the farmers are going to end up waiting for their money, I think that's something significant. So certainly the length of time that we have here would seem to make it work out properly.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I would just like to point out that Mr. Easter is putting words into Mr. Martin's mouth. That is not what he said.
Also, I did not hear any of the directors of the board who were here state that this is what they needed--not one. We had pro-choice and pro-board guys here and not one of them stated that this is a fact. Unless Mr. Easter can enlighten me on that, I've not heard the board say that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Okay, I appreciate the arguments that have been made. The decision rests with the committee, but thank you to our guests here for your answers.
Shall the amendment carry? All those—
Liberal