[English]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, November 6, 1997
• 0900
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)): Order.
We resume consideration of Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Before we reintroduce the witnesses, we have a point of privilege from Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): For my own information and for that of all my colleagues, especially from the official opposition, I would like you to confirm that people we hear as witnesses are neutral and remain totally neutral when they give testimony. Yesterday I asked Gerry Byrne, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, if he will be answering our questions objectively or as a partisan of Bill C-4.
I'm asking you that question, Mr. Chairman, so that it is clear. Is it normal? Yesterday, I realized that he is a voting member of the committee and both Parliamentary Secretary and witness. I would like you to tell me if it is customary and if it is normal, in which case I will accept it. If not, I would like us to find more neutral witnesses.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, it is customary. He's the parliamentary secretary to the minister. I would doubt that he is neutral, but it is customary that he can be a voting member of the committee and a witness.
I stand to be corrected, but I think that's the rule.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, in the interest of Mr. Chrétien's points, what I'll be doing this morning is deferring many of the technical questions to expert witnesses who are sitting with me, if that's satisfactory.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mine is a point of privilege probably, and a point of information.
As you know, we had a little squabble over my being in conflict of interest. Before I asked the question of the minister in the House, I had checked out with my legal people whether it would be in line to ask the minister an issue on the wheat board definitions, and they felt it was very much so.
After I was hassled here the day before, I went back to my drawing board and looked at all the information that is there and looked at what Judge Huband said in his ruling. Judge Huband said that the issue I was dealing with should be handled by Parliament, that it was too bad farmers didn't have recourse through the courts and either this should be changed by Parliament or the issue should be addressed.
So yesterday I filed a complaint with the Solicitor General, asking for a criminal investigation into the documentation that I presented to the courts. The judges have never ruled that it isn't criminal. The only thing they have said is that it is up to Parliament to deal with it. So that is what I did yesterday after the committee meeting here.
I also filed complaints with the three attorneys general in the provinces to back up the issue that farmers should have these complaints investigated by police for criminal activity.
When I see one of my neighbours paying $50 more per tonne to buy back the same grade of feed wheat; when I see documents where the tonnage has been changed, where the price has been changed—
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. In terms of Mr. Hoeppner's point related to the question that was raised the other day on the court case, it's appropriate for him to talk about that on a point of privilege. But for him to get into his allegations against the wheat board in that point of privilege is out of order.
• 0905
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Chairman, all the statements I've made here have been filed with the courts. It's there for public information. You can have it if you want to see it. I am just saying that while this thing is before the courts, this bill should be tabled until such point as we know whether the Solicitor General will deal with it or not, because in my opinion, Bill C-4 will change the Canadian Wheat Board Act that we had previously and it will be interfering with the rulings of the court or the investigation.
That's my opinion, and I will remove myself from the discussion of this bill. I will not be part and parcel to passing this bill.
The Chairman: That is your privilege, if you want to come or stay.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Yes, and I also would like to move a motion that we table this bill until such time as the government has made a decision on whether they want to follow Judge Huband's ruling or whether I have to take other action.
The Chairman: I suppose that motion will have to be dealt with, but the legal opinion that we—
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. He's withdrawn himself. How can he withdraw himself and then come back and—?
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: I will after this.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: But you just withdrew yourself.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: After this motion I said I would withdraw myself.
The Chairman: We will deal with this motion and then we're going to begin our meeting, okay?
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Sure.
The Chairman: The motion is that the committee meeting suspend until such time as—
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: The dealings with this bill. Not committee meetings, just the dealings with this bill.
The Chairman: Do you have the motion in writing?
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: No, I don't have it in writing. I just brought it.
An hon. member: I think we understand it.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: I thought it was simple enough: that we just table the bill until we know whether the Solicitor General will take action on my request or not.
The Chairman: You've heard the motion.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Do we not need a legal opinion on that, Mr. Chairman?
Some hon. members: Why?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Can we just make that ruling?
The Chairman: My decision is if Mr. Hoeppner wants to leave the meeting, he can.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: I will after, because I know what's—
The Chairman: He's here as an appointment from the House of Commons. If he wants to attend the meeting, fine. If he doesn't want to attend the meeting, he doesn't have to.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Well, I was ruled out of order a number of times during the last week because I was asking questions of witnesses who were supposed to explain this bill and they didn't.
The Chairman: We know the background.
Mr. Gerry Byrne: I'd like to call the question, if I could, just to get this over.
An hon. member: So you're taking over as the chairman?
Mr. Gerry Byrne: I'd like to call the question. That's a privilege I have as a member.
The Chairman: I'm calling the question. The question is called.
Mr. Chrétien, are you...?
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I would like a bit of information before voting on this amendment. However, I don't want to unduly lengthen this meeting. I understand that Mr. Hoeppner would like us to suspend our meetings until such time as the Sollicitor General makes a decision on his complaint. I would like to know what decision and what complaint he is talking about. I have no idea.
I found out yesterday and was told again this morning that Mr. Hoeppner had filed a complaint with the courts. Apparently he is asking for a criminal investigation. I don't know what's happening nor the reason behind all that. You are asking me to vote on that motion, but if I don't get any information, I will simply refrain from voting.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay. We'll put the motion again. Mr. Hoeppner's motion is that we not deal with this bill at all until such time as the Solicitor General deals with his request.
(Motion negatived)
The Chairman: The motion has been defeated.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: I'm not voting on that, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege—and I won't take very long—I would like to state at this time my thanks to the committee for taking a little sober thought and giving a little breathing space yesterday.
• 0910
Every time I tell the committee that I'm in a
learning process and in a learning mode, I get heckled
from the other side. The fact of the matter is that we were
inundated with quite a bit of information yesterday. We were
inundated with reports that had simply been filed.
We were inundated with a lot of amendments we had
not seen previously.
I've had the opportunity over the last 18 hours to go
over those and I feel much more comfortable in being
able to deal with them. I would like to thank
the committee for allowing us that very short breather,
and hopefully we can deal with those amendments.
In saying that, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say as well that there are a number of amendments I have submitted but because of the timeframe and because of the urgency I will not be putting them forward as motions today. So I'm sure we can get through this committee meeting within the next two hours. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Borotsik.
I'll introduce the witnesses before we begin.
From the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Gerry Byrne, the parliamentary secretary to the minister; Mr. Howard Migie, the director general, policy branch; Don Adnam, deputy director, international markets analysis; and David Byer, legal counsel, legal services.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): On a point of order, I think you have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.
The Chairman: To the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board.
Mr. Murray Calder: Exactly.
The Chairman: Yesterday we dealt with amendments to clause 1 and clause 2 and also the NDP-1 amendment in your booklet. So the ruling on NDP-1 amendment is that the amendment was defeated, and because the rest of the amendment was consequential, the rest of the motion was deemed defeated also.
We'll now go to—
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Chair, I have a point on that. Before the vote was taken on that amendment, Mr. Breitkreuz asked a question on my 19 and 20, which is paragraph (c) of that amendment. He was ruled out of order because...the comment was that it didn't apply. I think the vote taken was on (a) only.
The Chairman: The question was put.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: I understand that. So the vote was taken on (a) only. We're not allowed to debate the other, because they're irrelevant—
The Chairman: The debate was over before that. The question was called and it was defeated.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: What wasn't explained is that we'd be voting on one at a time. It was sequential—
The Chairman: Yes, there was a mistake. It wasn't made clear that this was a sequential amendment.
So we'll now deal with BQ-1, because we're going from line 7 to 9, and that is Mr. Chrétien's motion.
(On clause 3—Corporation continued)
The Chairman: Would you like to speak to it, please?
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: This concerns paragraph 3.02(1) on page 3. I suggest to my colleagues that we make the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board a little more democratic by replacing the word "four" with the word "two" when talking about the directors to be appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister and by replacing the word "ten" with the word "twelve".
Let me explain. Instead of electing 10 directors to represent the grain growers, 12 would be appointed and the Governor General would appoint two, including the president.
This is a wish that was expressed to me several times by members of the agricultural community who would like to have a better control over the board of directors. I think that all my colleagues of the government party, especially Wayne Easter, would be happy if all members supported this recommendation.
• 0915
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Harvard.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—Assiniboine, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'm sure Mr. Chrétien is quite sincere, but this particular matter has a lot of history. It's been discussed for a long time. It's a question of judgment and a question of balance. The balance has been struck, as the bill reflects, at ten and five, and we believe that reflects a consensus in the agricultural community. Naturally, not everybody will agree, but we think it's the right kind of balance. So naturally I would oppose the amendment.
The Chairman: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Borotsik.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dealing with consensus of the farm community in speaking in favour of the amendment, what I heard from the consensus of the farm community and the stakeholders was that they would like to see a total board elected by the producers for the producers. I find this a fairly reasonable compromise, where there still are appointments to be made on behalf of government, yet it is seen and perceived to be a fairer opportunity for producers to say exactly what it is they want to say with respect to the operation of the board.
So I will be supporting the amendment. Again, as I say, it is perceived to be more than fair to have appointments as well as a truly elected board.
We've all heard from members from both sides of this table that we want to make sure the board is in fact a tool of the producers, the farmers, the stakeholders. This goes a little further to make it that tool.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Mr. Breitkreuz.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When we began participating in this process of hearing witnesses on Bill C-4, I had the understanding that the witnesses would have an impact on this legislation and the witnesses told us this board should be controlled by farmers. Now, this amendment moves in that direction. It's not as good as it should be, but at least it's moving in the right direction and I think that's why we should support it. In order to maintain the credibility of this committee, I think we have to support it because that's what the witnesses told us.
The Chairman: Mr. Easter.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, I do oppose the amendment. I'm actually surprised it's coming forward from Mr. Chrétien, because if he knows the history—and as John has already mentioned, it's quite long—in the previous bill, Bill C-72, the make-up of that board wasn't set up in terms of the balance between government and producers. Out of the discussions and after the hearings on the road, it was determined that in order to have the proper balance we would need to go to two-thirds producers, one-third government appointments. The government appointments are there in part because of the risk to the taxpayers of Canada, the government guarantees in three major areas.
So from our side and from what we have heard in the discussions previously and in the discussions this time, we believe it to be the proper balance and support what's in the legislation, and therefore we have to oppose the amendment.
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Benoit.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: On this amendment, it does move toward what we should have, which is a fully elected board. We heard that from witnesses and I see it in my stack of briefs I've received from farm groups. Many called for a completely elected board.
There are so many checks already in this system, including the approval of the annual report by the minister, including the whole process you have to go through with ministerial approval at every step, that clearly gives government more control than it should have over what the board decides. So why do we need appointed members on the board at all? That's what farmers are saying.
The Chairman: Any further discussion?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: One more point, just to counter what was brought up here about balance.
Does this committee realize that if three of the elected members side with the five that the government appoints, they can overturn anything, even though the majority of the elected members—the other seven—don't agree with it? That's why we need a fully elected board.
• 0920
The Chairman: We'll vote, then, on Mr. Chrétien's amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 4)
The Chairman: The next amendment is the new government amendment. Maybe Mr. Byrne would introduce this amendment and give the background of why it's there.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: There is another one, PC-1, listed on page 2. We haven't dealt with it.
The Chairman: It's being dealt with next.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: It's line 7, and this one is line 9. The new government amendment on page 4 is line 9, and this one is line 7.
The Chairman: In the French version, it's line 7 at page 3.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you.
Mr. Gerry Byrne: This is in direct response to Mr. Chrétien's request that due respect be given to traditional francophone language in dealing with the French descriptor for “président directeur général”, as opposed to the original bill, which simply read “président”.
So in response to Mr. Chrétien's intervention yesterday, the government is pleased to move this amendment.
(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chairman: We'll go now to Mr. Borotsik's amendment, PC-1.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I would like to say that I will not be moving this amendment at this time.
The Chairman: All right. We'll delete that amendment and go to page 4, to G-1.
Mr. Calder, would you like to speak to that amendment?
Mr. Murray Calder: I move to amend clause 3 by replacing line 9 on page 3 with the following:
So the new proposed subsection would read, in part:
The reason for this change is that as currently worded, the provision does not state who would elect the directors. This specifies that the directors are elected by the producers.
As we heard when we travelled, Bill C-72 specified that directors would be elected by the producers. This phrase was basically left out of Bill C-4. We're just going to correct this defect.
The Chairman: Is there any discussion? Mr. Borotsik.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't have any objection to the amendment, but I would like to ask Mr. Calder a question. Can he define what in fact a producer is? Then I have some questions.
Mr. Murray Calder: It's in the regulations.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Regulations to be tabled at a later date. Could you explain a little bit what a producer is?
One of my questions would be that during the year of an election, if I should be a producer and not grow that commodity wheat in that year, but I have grown wheat in the previous year, would I still be identified as a producer? Would I have an opportunity to vote?
Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Migie could probably help me out once we get past this, but chapter C-24 lays out that a producer includes, as well as an actual producer, “any person entitled, as landlord, vendor or mortgagee, to the grain grown by a producer actually engaged in the production of grain or to any share therein”.
Maybe Mr. Migie can go a little bit further with that.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: So the regulation would not say that you have to have a permit book for that year in order to be a registered electorate or producer?
The Chairman: Mr. Migie.
• 0925
Mr. Howard Migie (Director General, Adaptation and Grain Policy Directorate, Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): The regulations could make things more specific. These two words were in Bill C-72, and accidentally have been moved from one page to another. They did get dropped.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Did “inclusion” get in accidentally as well?
Mr. Howard Migie: No, it did get dropped. There is some scope within the regulations to specify exactly who could vote, but it would be within that ambit of producers under the act. If there are issues that legally come up with respect to non-residents or non-citizens possibly, they could be dealt with in a regulation. It might not be exactly the same, but the intent is clear, that it would fall by producer, so it would not be anything that was not—
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Migie, help me on this one. The regulations will be developed by cabinet, is that correct?
Mr. Howard Migie: They'll be approved by cabinet.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: You'll be developing the regulations and they will be approved by cabinet. Will that be with any input, with any consultation?
Mr. Howard Migie: Mr. Goodale has written to a number of organizations so far, and he made the same representation when he was up here asking for views on what should go into the election procedures. That's something that would be public, in advance to a normal regulation, but there are so many details to be worked out on how to conduct those elections that it would be in a regulation with the normal period.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: As I understand it, then, you will develop the regulations based on consultation with those particular stakeholders, based on the consultative processes?
Mr. Howard Migie: The minister is consulting, is getting the views in, and there will be a regulation put forward with the normal notice period. It's something on which certainly more input is desirable.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay.
The Chairman: Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: It is still about this amendment and I would like Mr. Calder to answer that question as he is the one speaking to this amendment. It is possible that it be put to our expert witnesses.
We want to give the grain growers more weight in the administration of the Canadian Wheat Board. If you tell me that we are talking about the producers, I will vote for the amendment with both hands, Mr. Calder.
However, and you might tell me that it will be in the regulation, why not include it immediately in the bill? Does a grower have 10 votes or just one? That question was asked several times from several witnesses. Of course, some wish that it will be one producer one vote. Other groups representing much larger interests wanted us to give them voting rights according to the size of their assets, that is the size of their farm or their volume of production the preceding year.
I therefore ask you, Mr. Calder, if it is already known. Ten representatives from the grain producers will be elected democratically, as 10 is the final number. But if it is already known, why not include it in the bill?
[English]
Mr. Murray Calder: I think we've actually heard over the run of this committee that a grain producer represents one vote, and the definition that's in chapter C-24 states that an actual producer means a producer who is actually engaged in the production of grain.
I'm a chicken grower. I'm bigger than most in Ontario, yet I still have one vote...to the people who are producing less chicken than I do. As far as I'm concerned, the same thing would hold true here with the Canada Wheat Board. That's democracy.
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: That's not true, Mr. Chair. On this issue of “producer”, there's obviously confusion. The member opposite said that “producer” is the person actually growing the grain, yet the Canadian Wheat Board Act definition says it also includes the landlord, the vendor. Moreover, you could include the banker you're renting land from, or someone who has an interest in the grain for some reason.
Further on in Bill C-4, it does say that it's going to be future regulation that determines who can vote, but the member opposite clearly has established in his mind what the regulation will say.
• 0930
I'm concerned that we're voting on something here that
is so vague we can't possibly know what it means
right now.
The Chairman: Mr. Breitkreuz.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I don't know who here is going to answer it.
Why does the cabinet have to make the regulations that govern the election of directors? Why can't the producers or farmers manage this process and make their own guidelines? Why does the cabinet have to do that?
The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Perhaps if the member would read the bill, the recommendations, he would find the answer. Under proposed section 3.06, on election of directors, the minister will refer to the board after the elections in order to allow them input and direction on how the regulations will be set up, exactly what everybody here is talking about. So carrying on and on about it—
On proportionate voting, if it were mentioned you would have a concern. If it's not mentioned you don't have a concern. Show me in any type of legislation where democracy is involved...if it's not mentioned as being proportionate there's no need to be concerned about it.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: With all due respect, that's not my question.
Why does the cabinet have to run the affairs of these farmers? Why do they have to make the regulations? In proposed subsection 3.06(1) it says:
The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick, on a point of order.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Chair, when I have the mike it's my understanding that I have it until such time as you take it away and give it to somebody else. I don't appreciate the honourable member interrupting me every time I go to speak. If he would give us the respect we deserve....
The Chairman: I assumed, and I think the member did too, you had finished your statement and he would respond.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: I had not; and until such time as you acknowledge him—
The Chairman: Mr. Easter, did you have something to add?
Mr. Wayne Easter: No, I'm finished.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, you had directed it to me and he's the one who interrupted me. I had a question and he did not allow me to finish my question.
I'm referring to proposed section 3.06, on the governor in council. That proposed section is referred to in proposed subsection 3.02(1), which we're voting on. The question is why does the—
The Chairman: On a point of order, Mr. Byrne.
Mr. Gerry Byrne: The proposed section he's now referring to is later on in the bill, and of course we're not discussing that, we're still discussing proposed section 3.02.
I would like to point out as well that the inclusion of the two words “by producers” simply puts in limitations that don't exist currently. Exclusion of the two words “by producers” would leave the interpretation completely wide open. Regulations are a normal course of business for all acts Parliament deals with, and I think it's proper—
The Chairman: Mr. Breitkreuz, do you want to finish your statement?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I think the members are incorrect. As a consequence of approving proposed section 3.02 we are saying the cabinet, the governor in council, will approve those regulations. My question is why does the cabinet, the governor in council, have to make the regulations for producers? Why can they not have that power themselves? Why do they have to have someone from another part of the country doing this for them?
The Chairman: If I may interject here, I assume we are following parliamentary procedures which have been laid down for the last 800 or 900 years. It has been the practice in our system that the department brings the regulations to the cabinet, where they are approved. If the people who are affected by those regulations are not happy with them, then they can be debated and brought in at that time. I don't think we're going to reverse parliamentary procedure which has been established for the last 800 years.
Mr. Easter.
Mr. Wayne Easter: I think Mr. Byrne made most of the point on why producers should be in there, Mr. Chairman. It does make it more specific. Certainly one of the reasons why the governor in council is making those regulations is to ensure you do have a fair and balanced election. Clearly, if the Reform Party were running the elections, based on their comments to this committee previously, they would be giving the Conrad Blacks of the world ten votes and the ordinary citizen one, because they are either bigger or wealthier. That was the impression they left with this committee all along. That's why you have to have somebody who is fair and balanced making the regulations: to ensure an election is indeed that.
• 0935
The Chairman: Any further debate?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I can't let that go. Is he implying that the producers, the farmers, would not be fair and balanced, and that the only people in this country who are fair and balanced are in the cabinet of this country? Is that what he just said?
Mr. Wayne Easter: I'm just saying where you're at.
Some hon. members: Question.
The Chairman: The question is on government motion G-1.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas, 10; nays, 1)
The Chairman: We'll move then to page 6, which is NDP-2. It is moved by Mr. Proctor that Bill C-4 in clause 3 be amended by replacing line 9 on page 3 with the following:
Mr. Proctor, would you like to speak to that?
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thank you. I listened with interest yesterday to the member from Prince Edward Island who said that roughly two-thirds... I think the government does have some exposure here, which is why I did not support my colleague from the Bloc on the earlier motion that was defeated a few minutes ago. I do believe that having one more director elected by producers would be logical here. That's the rationale for the proposal before you.
The Chairman: Mr. Proctor, just a point of clarification. In the last amendment, 10 directors were to be elected by producers, which you supported. Would you want to leave this in now that you have 11 elected in there?
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: It was 12, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Proctor was proposing 11 a bit further. Isn't it right, Mr. Proctor? Earlier, you voted against my amendment; you didn't support it.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chrétien's amendment called for 12. He didn't support that; he's calling for 11.
The Chairman: Fine.
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, I think we've gone through this already. I think the government's position is very clear. I call for the question.
The Chairman: If there's no further debate on it, we can call for the question. Those in favour of the amendment?
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Just a question, Mr. Chairman. Why are we continuing this process if, as Mr. Harvard said, the government's position is clear? Therefore, it's a done deal.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, that isn't what Mr. Harvard said.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: That's exactly what he said.
Mr. Wayne Easter: What Mr. Harvard said is that we carried out very strenuous consultations with producers. The committee travelled. We debated this issue many times. We came to conclusions. Our decision is this, and we are making other amendments to the act. We have heard the witness; don't try to imply that the government is not listening to witnesses.
The Chairman: Are you okay with this amendment staying in and voting on it?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes.
(Amendment negatived: nays, 7; yeas, 3)
The Chairman: In NDP-3, it is moved by Mr. Proctor that Bill C-4, in clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 14 on page 3 with the following:
Mr. Proctor would you like to speak to that?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Well, this is very straightforward. The text says currently:
We think it would be a whole lot clearer and much improved in the legislation if the president were elected by the board of directors. That's why we're moving the motion.
The Chairman: Debate? The motion is on the table.
(Amendment negatived: nays, 8; yeas, 1)
The Chairman: One page 8, is motion G-2. It is moved by Mr. Calder that Bill C-4, in clause 3, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 3 with the following:
Mr. Calder, would you like to speak to that?
• 0940
Mr. Murray Calder: Yes, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
That would make the new proposed subsection read:
Basically what we're doing right here is allowing the members of the board of directors to serve four-year instead of three-year terms. We're also having the directors serve a maximum term of four years, which would permit the elections to be held for five of the directors every two years, rather than having an election every year. It would also mean that the same number of directorships would be contested in each election.
With a three-year term, there would most likely be elections each year, with three directorships contested in some years and four in others. With a four-year term, all ten directors would be elected in the first election, with five serving two-year terms and five serving four-year terms. It just makes sure that the whole board isn't being all elected at the same time.
The Chairman: Is there any debate? Mr. Borotsik.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the mechanics and the logistics of having a four-year term. I do have some difficulty, however, with the length of terms being four years, and I think the elections could quite well be done not on an alternated yearly basis, but other elections are done with simply all directors seeking election at the same time in that particular term.
I personally like a shorter term rather than a longer term. Four years is quite substantial. Municipal councils and elections are on a three-year term. It's nice to have the opportunity on a more regular basis to make, perhaps, some corrections to the election process and perhaps remove some people who shouldn't be there in the first place. Four years, unfortunately, extends that period just a little bit too long, in my estimation. I would support the current wording in the act. I do not support the amendment.
I also have some difficulty in the term limitation of three terms. There are some very good people who serve for a very long period of time, not only on boards and commissions but also on other elected bodies such as—
The Chairman: Herb Gray.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: —the House of Commons.
There is something to be said for experience and understanding, and after that particular three-term mandate, if there is an individual who has demonstrated that experience and understanding and would like to stay and would stay at the election process of the producers, I find it very difficult to turf out somebody of that nature simply because it's written in legislation.
So I don't support the term limitations, and I definitely don't support the extension to four years from three years.
The Chairman: Well, there are many times we're happy Herb Gray is still around.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: It's not just Herb Gray; there are other examples, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Unlike my colleague, I am wondering here. So we are talking about a three year term that could be renewed twice, which means nine years altogether in the present text as, in the "improved" version, it would be 12. Therefore, we are talking about a 33% increase. Don't you thing that it would be exaggerated to give someone a 12 year term, even if it is a very good person?
[English]
Mr. Murray Calder: They don't have to be. That's up to the individual, if they want to run.
This is a democracy, Mr. Chrétien. If that individual on the board does not want to run any more, if they've had enough on the Canadian Wheat Board and they want to get out, they can get out. But it also sets down that the individual can only be there for a certain period of time, too.
The rest of it, as I've already explained, makes the elections a very clean process. It's not confusing where, if there are new people who are coming on the board, you still have people who have been on the board who know how the board operates and can train these new people.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: It is true that we are a democracy, just like the United States, but why in this case do we need to limit the terms?
• 0945
[English]
Mr. Gerry Byrne: It has been standard practice in other crown corporations operated by the federal government that limits are placed on directorships, for the simple reason that in this particular case 12 years is a significant period of time and it allows for consistency. It's a bit of a balance between this amendment and this clause, providing consistency from year to year plus an opportunity for new ideas and new blood.
Mr. John Harvard: With all due respect to Mr. Borotsik, I don't think you can have it both ways. On the one hand, you express faith in producers. In fact, you would like to have all the directors be directly elected from the producer community. Yet, on the other hand, when it comes to this particular clause you express doubts about their staying for a four year term. You can't have it both ways.
It's a judgment call, and we on this side think that the farm community will pick good directors and they'll be able to serve for four years. I don't think we should cast any doubt on these people serving good four year terms.
The Chairman: Mr. Breitkreuz, we'll give you the final word.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Four years is a bit too long. If something doesn't work out, if there are some problems, it takes too long to correct. The municipal councillors and so on are all in for three years, and I think we could be consistent with that. So I would really oppose extending the term from three to four years.
Mr. Wayne Easter: On Mr. Harvard's point on Mr. Borotsik, I think, Mr. Harvard, you can understand this. As Mr. Borotsik already said, he didn't get much sleep last night, so you can understand why he's taking the position he is.
You have to understand what the amendment is really saying here. It is saying for a maximum term of four years. It's not specifying the four years. So as supply management legislation on other marketing boards does, it sets various maximums of which the terms can be established.
You have to keep in mind that with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board you are dealing with an agency that's a $6 billion corporation, one of the great institutions within our country, and this gives opportunity for not too quick a turnover so people can gain experience and expertise in marketing. So that's why the four years is there versus three. It gives a bit more flexibility in consultation with producers on where to go.
Mr. Dick Proctor: I very much support the staggered elections that have been laid out by Mr. Calder. It sounds so far as if it's one of the few proposals that the government side has actually heard a witness come forward with. But I must say to the parliamentary secretary that I'm not encouraged when he hides behind the crown corporation as a logic for the term “limits”, because I thought crown agency status is what this bill is moving away from. I don't think you can have it both ways.
I am not a proponent of term limits and, as I usually do, I disagree with my colleagues to the far right when they say that four years is too long. I like the staggered hours; I don't like the term “limits”, and I don't think it's a strong argument to say that we're doing this because it's a crown corporation rule.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Since I get the last word, Mr. Easter won't be able to insult me after I make my very logical and well-thought-out comment.
When you have your mind made up, it's very easy to rationalize as to why some logical change shouldn't be put forward.
I still do not accept the change from three years to four years. I believe it is too long. I believe that the producers have the right to make their decisions on a more regular basis, as opposed to having it extended to a period where they don't have that choice.
I would also like to say at this time that I have heard the witnesses.
As for term limitations, the current board does not have any term limitations. Does that mean to say that they ran into some difficulties by having people sit on that board for too many years? I would like to hear an answer from the government side. Is there a problem with the current situation with the advisory board, where there are no term limitations? Is that why we're making changes to the legislation and having term limitations right now on the elected board as opposed to the elected advisory board?
• 0950
The Chairman: We have heard the motion.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chairman: On page 9, G-2 is the French version of what we just voted on.
Now we have PC-2 on page 10. I think this might be one we can all support.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: It's the rum, Mr. Chairman. I know—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Rick Borotsik: In fact, I already have support from the other side.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question.
The Chairman: Mr. Borotsik.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: The reason we brought this forward, and again I do apologize, is that I couldn't find any call for quorum in the act with respect to the board of directors. I would like some assistance from the bureaucrats, if I could have it, please. If they can tell me that there is a quorum for the board of directors, I would be happy to withdraw this.
The Chairman: Mr. Migie.
Mr. Howard Migie: The provision on the by-laws lists a number of things, including...it gives provisions up to (g), but it doesn't mean that the board of directors wouldn't determine on its own what the appropriate quorum should be.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. So you're saying that when the board is elected, the board then will have the opportunity of deciding what the quorum of that board is.
Mr. Howard Migie: That's right.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: By the way, there was some confusion here. We were dealing with the commission structure as it's now in place, where there are five commissioners, a quorum of which is two. Normally with a board of fifteen, quorum would be substantially more than two. I don't have any difficulty with a truly elected board deciding by by-law what their quorum would be, and I would hope that they would make sure that quorum is at least seven of the fifteen members.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Will you withdraw your amendment?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I will withdraw this.
The Chairman: Withdrawn by unanimous consent.
Now, on page 11, it's NDP-4, to be moved by Mr. Proctor, that Bill C-4 in clause 3 be amended by deleting lines 26 to 28 on page 4.
Mr. Proctor.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes, some clarification, perhaps, Mr. Chairman. I think this amendment was predicated on some earlier ones which have been defeated and probably should be withdrawn.
The Chairman: Okay.
We will move on, then, to page 12, with amendment PC-3. It is moved by Mr. Borotsik that Bill C-4 in clause 3 be amended by adding after line 33 on page 4, the following....
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The amendment is fairly simple. It deals with conflict of interest guidelines governing the conduct of the directors in relation to the producers. I think it's fairly self-explanatory. There shouldn't be any major difficulty. Again, I suspect the answer could be that if the board of directors wished to develop their own regulations, if you will, through by-law to deal with conflict at their level, they could do that. I don't see any difficulty with this particular amendment.
The Chairman: So you want that added—
Mr. Wayne Easter: Could we have an interpretation?
The Chairman: Sure.
Mr. Howard Migie: Right now, the clause starts with “the board shall make by-laws respecting” a whole bunch of things, and this amendment is specifying conflict of interest guidelines in relation to producers alone. But presumably the board of directors would be making by-laws with respect to conflict of interest in general.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Basically, Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting that this isn't a difficult amendment. It simply gives the board an additional right, if you will, by by-law to put in the guidelines for conflict of interest with a relationship to producers. We talk about this as being a producer-run, producer-operated board of directors and I see no difficulty with this.
The Chairman: Mr. Byrne.
Mr. Gerry Byrne: That might exist now. One of the things that I think may be problematic in this particular amendment is that in essence, instead of expanding the scope of the conflict of interest guidelines, you're actually limiting the scope of the conflict of interest guidelines specifically to producers, whereas banks, other institutions and other types of entities that would have transactions with this board would be now excluded.
• 0955
Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's not true, Mr. Chairman. The board has expanded powers, and they would have the right, obviously, to also be in conflict of interest with respect to those other agencies.
I think this speaks specifically to producers. Again, I can't see any reason why the committee wouldn't want to see that in this particular clause. It's an enabling clause.
The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Just a question, through legal counsel: do they have the authority based on what's in place right now to do this? Without actually—
Mr. Howard Migie: Yes. They have the authority now to have by-laws with respect to confidentiality in general. It could be with respect to producers, and it could be more broadly based.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: And conflict of interest?
Mr. Howard Migie: And conflict of interest.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: It presently exists as it is now?
Mr. Howard Migie: Yes.
The Chairman: Any further debate?
Mr. Howard Migie: But this says “shall”, and it specifies “in relation to producers”. I'm sorry.
The Chairman: It specifies with producers?
Mr. Howard Migie: It specifies with producers, whereas right now they have the by-law authority that they can make with respect to conflict of interest.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is there's some difficulty, Mr. Migie, that specifically relates to producers?
The Chairman: Does it say “shall”?
Mr. Howard Migie: Right now the by-laws say the board may make by-laws. So it has the authority to make by-laws for a whole number of things, including with respect to conflict of interest. It will be up to them to make those by-laws. By specifying that they “shall” make a by-law with respect to one aspect of it—producers—it doesn't tell them what has to be in it. It doesn't really add anything to saying they may make by-laws.
The Chairman: Mr. Byer, would this amendment be limiting anything?
Mr. David Byer (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Justice): I don't think it's so much an issue of whether it would limit anything, Mr. Chairman. I don't believe it would.
I would reiterate what Mr. Migie has just said: that simply stating that they have to make by-laws doesn't really accomplish anything definitive, other than the fact that there has to be some kind of a by-law made on conflict of interest. It doesn't talk about the content of it, or what has to go into it. So the question is, what is the amendment really accomplishing?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, the same is true of all the by-laws that are being developed by the board. We're not saying right now what the content of those by-laws have to be. We simply say that the board will have the opportunity of developing those by-laws. That's a silly argument, as far as I'm concerned.
The Chairman: Mr. Easter, do you want to continue?
Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, I do. I think it's a very important point, Mr. Chairman. Giving the change to a mixed enterprise and electing producers to the board itself—if you recall what Mr. Hehn said the other day, he said that they do divulge the commercial information to the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee at the moment, and the advisory committee has retained its confidentiality in terms of that information.
But in going to a mixed enterprise in a $6 billion corporation, if you do have an individual who for personal reasons and personal gain wants to use that information to play the market, it is pretty serious.
I want assurances from somebody that there is in fact a way of ensuring that the conflict of interest guidelines are going to be established, so that if anybody violates that kind of principle they can be dealt with accordingly. Can it be done without this amendment? I understand it can be.
Mr. Howard Migie: It can be.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Relative to the question that was asked earlier, does this amendment restrict or improve the possibility of ensuring that a producer who violates that kind of confidentiality is dealt with accordingly?
The Chairman: Any further debate? Do you have an opinion, Mr. Migie, on that?
Mr. Howard Migie: Only to say that the rules on this may in fact deal with the appointed directors as well. The same conflict of interest rules may apply to all directors, whether they're producers or not, and they have the scope right now to do that.
Mr. John Harvard: Can I just say one thing? I think that we are simply counting on the new board, whenever it's established, to exercise good judgment. If they do develop guidelines with respect to conflict of interest, those guidelines will apply not only to producers but to anyone who will find himself or herself sitting on the board.
I would only ask you, Mr. Migie, is it reasonable to expect, or we can count on the board to develop proper, correct guidelines? Can we count on them?
• 1000
Mr. Howard Migie: It doesn't require it, but it would be hard to think of a board not putting in place conflict of interest guidelines.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chairman: On page 13, PC-4—
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I will not be moving this amendment at this time.
The Chairman: Okay. NDP-5 is basically the same amendment.
Mr. Proctor.
Mr. Dick Proctor: I'm not moving it.
The Chairman: On page 15, NDP-6.
Mr. Dick Proctor: This is related, and I'm not moving that one either, at this stage.
The Chairman: On page 17, PC-5, a motion by Mr. Borotsik.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, on page 16, we first have to approve clause 3 as amended before you can strike.
Mr. John Harvard: We have to approve clause 3.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Clause 3 as amended.
The Chairman: Just a moment, we have other amendments here. I'm missing page 16.
The Clerk of the Committee: It's on clause 4.
The Chairman: It's on clause 4. That's out of order, so we go to page 17.
Mr. Borotsik.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I find it very interesting that there's an amendment put forward by ourselves and there's a government amendment that is absolutely the same. I would like to see the government not vote for this particular amendment.
The amendment is very simple. It's to deal with indemnification. It's a simple change from “shall” to “may”. As Mr. Migie had indicated, there is a very significant word change from “shall” to “may”. This does give the board of directors an opportunity to indemnify those they wish to indemnify, not force them to do so. As I say, the government has a similar amendment on page 18, and I would move the amendment.
The Chairman: Basically these are the same, are they, Mr. Byer?
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Chairman, with the co-operation of Mr. Borotsik...as you accomplish your objectives with your PC-5 amendment, some legal jargon has to go through. Probably the government amendment would be the more appropriate amendment to move.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chair, if I see this correctly on page 18—
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't think.... The government amendment has been changed. You have a copy of it, I think.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Did you give me a copy today, Mr. Byrne? I see, it was this morning, when we got in here. It wasn't part of this package we had yesterday.
The Chairman: It had to be inserted in the package.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: So there's a new amendment the government is putting forward. Is that correct?
Mr. Gerry Byrne: My apologies, Mr. Borotsik.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, I'm just trying to clarify this.
Mr. Gerry Byrne: You're absolutely correct.
The Chairman: So Mr. Borotsik, it's—
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I would really like to have an understanding and perhaps an explanation for what the government is doing. I would simply like to clarify that this is going to be an opportunity for the board of directors to make the decision, under a minor clause change.
Mr. Byrne, would you like to explain the amendment tabled this morning?
The Chairman: Mr. Calder is moving—
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, Mr. Byrne is impartial.
Mr. Murray Calder: I know it's confusing, Rick.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Well, no, it's not. If this had been tabled yesterday it wouldn't be quite as confusing.
Mr. Murray Calder: What we're trying to do right now to clarify the situation.... As soon as it's changed from “the corporation shall” to “the corporation may” you come under the Canada Business Corporations Act, and you need the addition in front of you right now to clarify the situation and lay down legal parameters such that it would stand up in court if it's challenged. That's all we're doing. If Mr. Migie or Mr. Byer want to go on any further, they are the legal experts, but that's what we're trying to do here.
• 1005
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Can I just ask one question of Mr. Calder, then?
You do have your amendment submitted. It's on page 18. It's G-3. Why could this background not have been submitted with the amendment when it was put into place in the first place?
Mr. Murray Calder: Rick, the simple answer is that we're not perfect.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I would like that on the record, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Murray Calder: It is on the record.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you very much.
Mr. Murray Calder: But the fact is that we have recognized that this does come under the Canada Business Corporations Act and we've corrected that.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have no difficulty with the follow-up clauses as well, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that there have to be some. I will withdraw my amendment, Mr. Chairman, and deal with government G-3.
The Chairman: The amendment to PC-5 is withdrawn.
Mr. Calder. Is there any further explanation required by the mover?
Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Chairman, unless it's necessary from the other side, I think maybe we can call the question.
The Chairman: Maybe Mr. Benoit has something.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: I have a question for the government on this. We pushed for that change in Bill C-72. The government had months and months of warning on this leading up to this legislation before it came to committee. In fact, as soon as it was tabled we asked why that hadn't been changed. Why, all of a sudden, has the government decided to change this? It's a pretty late date. Why were they sticking to the “shall” for so long and now finally they see another amendment that is doing it and then they move.
The Chairman: I guess they've seen the light.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: They're a little slow to see the light, though. It's been months.
The Chairman: You've heard the amendment. Those in favour of the amendment please raise your hands.
(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chairman: So we have two more amendments to clause 3 on page 20; they're both government amendments moved by Mr. Calder.
Still on clause 3, there is G-4, moved by Mr. Calder, that Bill C-4, in clause 3, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 38 on page 6 with the following:
Have you any explanation, Mr. Calder?
Mr. Murray Calder: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
That would mean to say that the new clause 3.13 would read:
The reason why this has been changed is because Mr. Chrétien brought this out a couple of days back, that the English wording in the clause should agree with the French wording. This would bring it more in line and that's the rationale for the change.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 3)
• 1010
(On clause 4)
The Chairman: We'll go now to page 16, amendment BQ-2, on clause 4.
Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, it is a major amendment. It is a very important amendment that alludes to paragraph (2), which says:
It seems that the board would be above an audit from the Auditor General of Canada. Earlier, my friend Wayne Easter was concerned about conflicts of interest, and that is important because we are talking here of billions of dollars. There could be more involved than mere conflicts of interest.
I think that it would be wise, Mr. Chairman—and I'm asking my colleagues from the government party to think very seriously—if the Auditor General could audit the books of the Canadian Wheat Board. Personally, I make it a precondition to my voting in favour of the bill when it reaches third reading in the House.
I therefore propose the new following paragraph (4):
We all wish the Canadian Wheat Board to be above any suspicion and to demonstrate a transparency that unfortunately did not exist in the past, at least according to several grain growers.
Mr. Chairman, I'm looking forward hearing my friend Wayne Easter's comments on this amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Easter.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do oppose the amendment, but I would ask for the comments of the expert witnesses here. As I understand it, the Canadian Wheat Board is a commercial marketing agency in the marketplace. You'll recall that at a hearing here a little while ago I asked for—and it is audited, it's the most transparent annual report you'll get from any marketing agency, very transparent—copies of the annual report, I believe, of Cargill Grain and some other agency. I'd have to ask the researchers, but I believe those reports have not been found as yet.
In essence, as I understand it—and I'd ask for Mr. Migie's expertise on this—the Auditor General could run the risk of putting some of that commercial trading information into the public arena and thereby jeopardize the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to get the best price out of the marketplace and maximize returns to producers. I think that's the reason, but I'll ask Mr. Migie.
Mr. Howard Migie: There is in another section of the act, which hasn't been amended, the provision that the wheat board would be audited by a firm of chartered accountants. That is done already. And with the wheat board moving from a crown corporation even more towards a mixed enterprise, there's less of a reason to consider having the Auditor General do the audit. This provision would mean both, really, that you would have two auditors, one a large corporation that does auditing plus the Auditor General. It seems it would just be duplicated.
The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.
• 1015
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: What Mr. Chrétien is trying to get at here I think is good. Just auditing financial statements given by the board really wouldn't accomplish that much. We have to have an Auditor General who can get inside that board and have a look at everything, as he does in most other organizations.
The wheat board in fact has a level of secrecy equivalent to CSIS, and it's one of only three bodies that has that level of secrecy. It's either dishonest or the member is very naive.... I wouldn't want to say he'd be dishonest, but Mr. Easter has to be incredibly naive to pretend that the financial statement that is presented to us by the board gives the kind of information on the board that farmers want.
The Chairman: Mr. Borotsik and then Mr. Chrétien.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I find it very difficult to have the government not support this particular clause. Mr. Easter has some very weak arguments, I have to admit, when he states that because it's a commercial enterprise, obviously the Auditor General shouldn't and couldn't get involved. Billions and billions of dollars are spent on commercial enterprises in government every year through Public Works and through National Defence, and in fact the Auditor General is asked to come in and make his audited statement and go beyond just the financials.
The Auditor General points out operational issues within those particular departments. I see no reason those operational issues should not be dealt with in regard to the Canadian Wheat Board as well. The government says on one hand there are billions and billions of dollars at risk here, and now all of a sudden it's, “Let's simply do a balance sheet, a credit and a debit accounting function through an audited statement, but let's not get what we consider to be a true read on it, which is that through the Auditor General”.
I agree with Mr. Chrétien. It's a simple amendment to the bill. However, it is far-reaching. I can appreciate that, but in a positive way, not in any negative way. I find it very interesting that the government would not like to see their responsibility in this particular board and their risk in making sure they do have some outside Auditor General and consultant looking after our interest as taxpayers of this country.
So I will be supporting the amendment with Mr. Chrétien.
The Chairman: Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I wish to remind my colleagues that it will be the only corporation, the only board where the government might invest money that will not be audited by the Auditor General. Mr. Migie said that there will be an audit by an independent accounting firm which, by the way, supports my colleague Rick and the party from the other side.
Of course, they do a wonderful job, but why not refer the matter to the Auditor General who is above any suspicion, does not support any political party and is appointed by way of consensus?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Harvard.
Mr. John Harvard: I want to simply say that we have to be careful not to mix apples with oranges. It was Mr. Borotsik who mentioned the departments of public works and defence. Neither of those departments is a mixed enterprise or a commercial enterprise, but the wheat board is. It's not only going to be a mixed enterprise, but very much, and right now, a commercial enterprise, and it's going to be controlled by producers. We have to allow the board, on behalf of the farmers, to enjoy a measure of confidentiality.
As a commercial enterprise, it's involved in a very competitive world. At any given time there are contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. We have to give the board some measure of confidentiality and some measure of manoeuvrability.
Again, this is an attempt to strike a right balance, and as Mr. Migie has pointed out, there will be an audit done by reputable audit firms, and we should be satisfied with that.
The Chairman: Mr. Byrne.
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the spirit of the question, but really what you have to take into consideration is the fact that final pool results must be examined and reported before the final pool payments can be made to the producers.
• 1020
So if we had a situation
whereby a private sector auditing company would examine
the books, and then we'd move over to a situation where the
Auditor General would then examine the books,
the producers would probably find they would not be
receiving their 1997 or 1998 payment until about the
year 2000.
I think the government position is quite reasonable and sensible on this in striking a balance between the needs of the producers and the realities of the day. Using a private sector accredited chartered accounting firm is quite reasonable and responsible.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: We have to address the whole question as to why the Auditor General should be looking at this. The Auditor General does things that other auditors don't do, and that has to be clarified. Most auditors simply give you a financial statement.
The farmers, the producers, in my area are shocked when they find out that the Auditor General is not allowed to look at the books of the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers need to be assured that the board is bringing them the best return on their produce, and other auditors don't do that.
Because you have a monopoly situation, you have a completely different question in regard to who is auditing. That is the reason why the Auditor General needs to be involved and looking at this whole situation.
The Auditor General does things that other auditors don't do, and farmers need to have that assurance that they are getting the best return they can get for their produce. Another auditor does not do that, and that's why I think it's incumbent on all of us to support this.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Certainly it's not a monopoly world-wide. There are competitors.
I think Mr. Chrétien's amendment at the start makes good sense, but there are really basically only two questions, as I see it. That is, is there enough transparency with a full audit being done from a private sector presently the way the act reads? Secondly, is it possible that the Auditor General could compromise the commercial integrity of the wheat board?
If there is enough transparency and if it's possible that the Auditor General could compromise the commercial integrity, then, Mr. Chrétien, I might suggest that you would likely withdraw your amendment.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Just on that, the independent audit that's done first of all doesn't deal with everything that it should deal with. Secondly, it isn't released. The results of that audit just aren't made public. So it certainly doesn't do the job that the Auditor General would do, and that's clear.
Mr. Wayne Easter: By golly, I can't believe what I'm hearing from Reform members opposite. They talk all the time about going to the open market and what corporations can do and how they're transparent and everything else. As I've said earlier, the company, Deloitte & Touche, that does this audit of the wheat board audits the financial books of many corporations. Really what we see happening here is a game being played by members opposite who want to try to find anything to undermine the integrity of the wheat board, and they're using what are clearly false arguments.
If you jeopardize the commercial integrity and the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to market in producers' interests in a competitive marketplace and give that information or make it available to the competitors, farmers will be the losers.
Not only do you get the annual report as a producer—and it's tabled in the House of Commons or with the minister—but also the Canadian Wheat Board holds a series of district meetings where they talk with their producers about what's happening in the board, their financial statements. It's open for everyone to see, more than any other corporation in the world.
And let's put on the record how well they do. Last year their administration expenses were 0.7% in terms of that board. That's better than any other corporation on the go.
Mr. Chairman, call the question.
The Chairman: One moment, please. If the government is going to make intercessions, they're avoiding response from the opposition, and I'm going to allow response from the opposition.
When you make your intercessions, don't be bellowing at me to call the question, because the question will not be called until the opposition has its response.
• 1025
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, appreciate the fairness here.
My comment was directed at this amendment that Mr. Chrétien has put forward directly. Mr. Easter went off and made all these political comments, but my comment is that an auditor only does the audit as instructed, and he only only releases the part of the audit that he has been given permission to release. There's absolutely no doubt—it's clear from the legislation—that the wheat board has a level of secrecy equivalent to CSIS. That is not an exaggeration. CSIS also has audits done, but what's in the audit and what's released are the real issues here.
Mr. Chrétien's amendment, because it will only be auditing financial statements—which are very limited in terms of what's made public—will be of little benefit. I will support this, however, because I guess it will at least give the Auditor General the chance to get his foot in the door. From there, maybe we can move to a real audit by the Auditor General.
The Chairman: Is there anything further? Mr. Borotsik.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I would like a recorded vote on this, Mr. Chairman. I find that the government side's arguments on this are fairly weak, and I would like a recorded vote.
The Chairman: You've heard the motion. We'll have a recorded vote for those in favour.
Did you have anything final, Mr. Chrétien?
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: I want a vote by roll call.
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 5)
The Chairman: We'll go on to PC-6, on page 21, Mr. Borotsik.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: On PC-6, page 21, I will not be moving this amendment at this time, Mr. Chairman.
(Clause 4 agreed to on division)
(On clause 5)
The Chairman: There is an amendment to clause 5, PC-6, Mr. Borotsik.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, I withdraw PC-6.
(Clauses 5 to 9 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 10)
The Chairman: There is an amendment to clause 10.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: On PC-7, page 22, I would not move this amendment at this time.
(Clauses 10 to 17 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 18)
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I would not like to move amendment PC-8 at this time.
(Clauses 18 to 21 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 22)
The Chairman: We'll move to clause 22.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I will not be moving amendment PC-9, on page 24, at this time.
(Clauses 22 to 25 inclusive agreed to on division)
• 1030
(On clause 26)
The Chairman: Government amendment G-5, page 26.
It is moved by Mrs. Ur that Bill C-4 in clause 26 be amended by replacing lines 35 and 36 on page 18 with the following....
Mrs. Ur.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Do you wish me to read the rest of the amendment?
The Chairman: I don't think so. People can read it. Just give the explanation.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay. The amendment would remove oats from the provisions of part V of the current Canadian Wheat Board Act. Currently, oats could be brought back in under the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing mandate through an order in council without having to be subjected to the process as specified in the inclusion clause. This amendment would remove oats from the provisions of part V of the current CWB Act and ensure that any effort to include oats in the CWB's marketing mandate would have to follow the inclusion process in the same manner as other grains, such as flax, canola, rye and rapeseed.
The rationale for this amendment is that it will ensure that the oats commodity is treated in the same manner as any other commodity when it comes to a request to add it to the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing mandate. Since oats is currently covered by part V of the CWB Act, it would be possible for the oats to be added to the CWB's marketing mandate through an order in council without having to follow the steps spelled out in the inclusion clause.
This amendment will ensure that should the issue of inclusion ever arise, oat producers would be fully consulted and treated in the same manner as producers of any other commodity to be considered for inclusion where it should be, with the producers.
The Chairman: You've heard the amendment. Mr. Borotsik.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I thank Mrs. Ur for that explanation, because quite frankly, I didn't quite understand where this amendment was heading. I do appreciate the fact that having oats out, if it's to be included again it should have the same process.
I wonder if Mr. Migie would like to touch on this with some explanation from the department side.
Mr. Howard Migie: Certainly. Right now there's a part that says “barley and oats”. It was used when oats was removed by simply an order in council. Now that there's another section that deals with inclusion of the other commodities, by deleting the word “oats” from this part it automatically falls under the other rule dealing with other grains, because it's still listed as one of the six.
So it just lays out the same process for bringing it back in that you would have for any of the other commodities.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: If one didn't agree with the inclusion clause, then one wouldn't agree with this particular amendment.
Mr. Howard Migie: If this amendment were to pass and the other one did not, then oats would be in the same position as rye, flax and canola.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Migie.
The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: I'll support this government amendment. It's kind of a scary thought, but when we saw what happened with barley, when we had a continental barley market under the former Conservative government, because the order in council was available, in fact that was invoked, and barley was brought back under board jurisdiction for the North American market. This will remove oats, so at least it can't be put back on through order in council.
Unfortunately, unless the government sees the light, finally, on this as well and gets rid of the inclusion clause, there's still that threat there.
The Chairman: You've heard the amendment—
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas, 12; nays, 0—See Minutes of Proceedings)
• 1035
The Chairman: On page 30, an amendment moved by Mr. Proctor.
Mr. Dick Proctor: I won't be proceeding with this at this stage.
The Chairman: NDP-7 is withdrawn.
On page 31, a motion by Mrs. Ur, that Bill C-4, in clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 19, with the following....
Mrs. Ur.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes, Mr. Chair, it reads:
My comment on that is this amendment would require that any request for inclusion made to the minister by the qualified producer associations would be publicized in the prairie farm media and in the Canada Gazette. This amendment would ensure any requests to the minister by a producer—
Mr. Rick Borotsik: We're not dealing with that.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: You have the right amendment but the wrong notes.
Mr. Wayne Easter: You like to hear information twice anyway, Rick. It takes three times to get it through to you.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: My apologies to the committee. I'll start again, with their permission:
The comment is that the proposed new subsection would read:
As currently worded, the provision already states that the association that makes a request must be one that specifically represents producers of the grain proposed for inclusion. The amendment makes this point even more explicit by specifying that all members of the association making the inclusion proposal must be producers of the grain in question. The clause will effectively restrict inclusion proposals to organizations that represent producers of specific grain proposed for inclusion, such as the NFU, CFA, etc.
The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Just a question for the member. Wouldn't it make more sense, instead of having this decision made by the minister in consultation with the board, to have the decision made by the board in consultation with the minister?
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I think it's just a matter of interpretation of words. We're just playing around with words here.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: No. Clearly the board then would have the final decision, though in consultation with the minister. Certainly the minister would have his or her say in the matter, and then the board would take that consultation very seriously in making the decision.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Right, and I appreciate your comment on that, but when we have the elected board with ten farmer-producer people on that board, in my opinion, having been a farmer in one of my previous lives, I can feel quite comfortable that their objectives will be made very clear through to the minister on any set question.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Yes, but the ministry has shown many times it's completely willing to ignore input from anybody.
An hon. member: Oh, come on.
The Chairman: Mr. Breitkreuz.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That's a good point. The minister put together a grain marketing panel and then ignored the results. There's a case in point right there.
It makes a big difference who is in control. If the board of directors is in control, they can consult with the minister, but the way this is worded, the minister is in control and simply consults the board of directors. The minister himself in the House of Commons has supported and advocated that this should be controlled by farmers. So it is very important which one you put first.
The Chairman: Mr. Borotsik.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to vote against the amendment. That's not going to do any good, obviously, because the government side has decided. Their minds are made up. However, I don't agree with proposed section 47.1, and even the amendment doesn't include the clause. Therefore I'll be opposing the amendment.
Before I get jumped on again, and before the question is called, I would like to call for a recorded vote of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
• 1040
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: I think, Mrs. Ur, you defeated your own argument. You just said yourself that this board is very competent. They're quite capable of making a decision. Certainly the board should be completely elected, but even with ten elected farmers there, I believe those farmers would make a good decision.
So why not give the responsibility to the farmers? Why give the minister that override? You've defeated your point with your own argument.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I believe, sir, with due respect, that the information delivered to the minister would be the information the farmers wanted the minister to hear, and that is ten elected board members to one minister. I think that due process will follow, that our producers will make the minister very much aware of what they really want.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Then why not have the board deliver that message themselves? They make the decision—that's it.
Mr. John Harvard: Let me point out, especially for the benefit of Mr. Benoit, that there will be no consideration of a vote by the minister unless he or she receives a positive recommendation from the board. In other words, the board is going to have to be on side even before it comes to the attention of the minister. It's clearly spelled out, as was said by Mrs. Ur. The extension is recommended by the board. If the recommendation is positive from the board, then a vote in favour of the extension by producers of the grain has been held in a manner determined by the minister after consultation with the board.
So I think your concerns are addressed more than adequately in the amendment.
The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, finally.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: I'm talking about several places in the bill.... In fact, in all cases the minister may act on the recommendation of the board. You can have a positive recommendation from the board, and the minister can choose to ignore it or to do something with it.
The Chairman: You've heard the amendment. I'll ask the clerk to take a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 4)
The Chairman: We go now to the final amendment on clause 26, government 7. Mrs. Ur moves that Bill C-4 in clause 26 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 19 the following....
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes, it reads:
This amendment would require that any request for inclusion made to the minister by the qualified producer associations would be publicized in prairie farm media and in the Canada Gazette. This amendment would ensure that any request to the minister by a producer association to include additional crops under the CWB's marketing mandate would receive adequate publicity. Such public notice would encourage industry, producer and commodity groups and producers to make written comments to the minister on the request.
This amendment proposes a process for ensuring that any request for inclusion is widely known and producers in industry have an opportunity to comment on it.
When the minister appeared before the committee, some members questioned him on the transparency of the process for inclusion as spelled out in the bill. At that time the minister outlined such a proposal, adding that it might be a valuable improvement to transparency. This amendment would help ensure that all interested parties, from producers to producer and commodity groups, are fully aware of requests for inclusion and they have an opportunity to provide the minister with their views on this issue.
• 1045
The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask Mrs. Ur how many farmers read the Canada Gazette and just how much transparency that will actually add.
An hon. member: There's additional media there too, such as the Western Producer.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: It's in the Western Producer? Well, if you have it in the Western Producer, then it's—
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: And I read that like the Bible.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Is there something in this amendment that would ensure it is published in other papers that farmers commonly read?
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Mr. Benoit, it's pretty well stated there, and I certainly agree with you. Being a farmer in my past life, I did not take up reading the Canada Gazette that much, but I am a strong proponent of reading my local farm newspapers, and the Western Producer, I must add, would be a viable tool for our great farmers out west.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chairman: Mr. Borotsik.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that there is an opportunity for other periodicals to advertise this particular inclusion. I find it interesting that the members from eastern and central Canada don't get the Western Producer. However, it is a rather interesting paper.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I do.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, fine.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I have been reading the Western Producer, not always every month but for a period of at least 15 or 16 years, and I find it an excellent paper, of great interest.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: The member probably would have heard the two diverging arguments with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Chairman, but my question here is not with respect to the periodicals but more on the timeline that the minister has to deal with this.
The timeline listed in the amendment is 60 days. I appreciate that there's going to be some build-up to the request being made of the minister, but the timeline of 60 days, in my estimation, is somewhat limited. Organizations and opponents to that particular inclusion should be given an opportunity to prepare their opposition to the minister.
It's saying they would like to have it open, they would like to have the opportunity given to these organizations, yet the timeline is somewhat restricted. I would like to move an amendment to this amendment to change the term “60 days” to “120 days”, Mr. Chairman.
An hon. member: I have a subamendment as well.
The Chairman: We'll deal with one subamendment at a time.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is it possible to make an amendment to an amendment, Mr. Chairman?
The Clerk: Yes, a subamendment.
Mr. Borotsik, could I have it in writing, please?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: It's a very simple amendment, Madam Clerk. It's simply to change the words “60 days” to “120 days” in the last line of the proposed amendment.
The Clerk: Okay.
The Chairman: Do our experts want to comment?
Mr. Howard Migie: Only that there still would have to be a vote and a long period for people to make representations. The purpose of the 60 days is really just dealing with that step, so people do know there has been a request. It would be very much in the public domain and they'd have an opportunity to make representations, but there's no legal requirement of 60 days or any number of days.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I'll just a comment on that. This would be a very important issue with producers all through western Canada, if in fact they got to this stage and they were looking forward to inclusion of another grain. I have great difficulty in suggesting that a change from 60 days to 120 days is going to be too much difficulty for producers and government to deal with.
This is forever. When you include this crop, it's forever, and I would like to make sure that opponents and other organizations have the opportunity to prepare properly. It takes longer than 60 days, in most cases, to not only have an organization come together—they obviously have difficulty in setting their meetings—as well as even to make French translations of their presentations to the minister at that point in time, if they have to be in two official languages. I can't see any reason we couldn't extend the 60 days to 120 days.
I appreciate Mr. Migie's concern of timing on this, but quite frankly, whether it be 60 days, 120 days, or two years, that time should be given, as long as the opponents have an opportunity to come forward.
The Chairman: Mr. Breitkreuz, is your comment on this subamendment?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I would simply support it, but I have another subamendment I would like to make after this one is complete.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Calder.
• 1050
Mr. Murray Calder: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As a point of information from Mr. Byer, what is the normal gazetting period? Is it 30 days or 60 days?
A voice: It's usually 30 days.
Mr. David Byer: For what? For regulation?
Mr. Murray Calder: Just regulation.
Mr. David Byer: It's 30 days.
Mr. Murray Calder: So we've already doubled that period as it stands right now.
The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Chair, I have been and am a member of several organizations, and if 60 days' notice is not enough to make some sort of a response to bring together some sort of organization that is effective, it's nothing more than a delay tactic. Sixty days is ample time for any organization to put forward a response.
The Chairman: Mr. Harvard.
Mr. John Harvard: Well, it seems to me, based on representations we heard at committee last week, the chances of a vote ever happening are probably pretty slim, if you can believe the canola people and the flax people.
But the other thing is, Mr. Borotsik, the opposition would come from supporters of the open market. They're very professional people, with strong organizations with strong financial resources, and I would think in regard to any opposition to a move of this kind, 60 days would be quite ample. Besides, if something like this came up—and we're only talking really the initial stage—how long do you want it to drag on?
Why choose 120 days? If you're going to be generous, Mr. Borotsik, why stop at 120 days? Why not go to 240 days? Why not go to a whole year? Why are you so stingy?
The Chairman: You've made your point.
Mr. John Harvard: So I think 60 days.
The Chairman: This could go on forever.
Mr. Benoit.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to say I support Mr. Borotsik's move here; 120 days is far more reasonable.
Mr. Bonwick, if you had any idea about agriculture in western Canada, you would know we're not talking about any one organization. We're talking about thousands of individual businesses. In the businesses you're in, Mr. Bonwick, if there's a change that could affect the livelihood of the people in those businesses to the extent that this inclusion could, it would take more than 60 days for any of those industries to respond, having thousands of businesses involved.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Are you speaking on their behalf, suggesting that they cannot come together in that time?
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Absolutely. I've lived and worked in the—
Mr. Paul Bonwick: I didn't ask that question, Mr. Benoit.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: —farming sector. It can't be done in 60 days.
The Chairman: Order.
Mrs. Ur.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Mr. Chair, on a point of clarification from Mr. Byer, would this change from 60 days to 120 days be more beneficial to the producers?
I'm here hoping to work on behalf of the farmers, who I heard when I was studying the bill out west. In your interpretation, would you feel it would be A-OK, a preference for the farmers? That is my question.
Mr. David Byer: The only response I could make to that is it would depend on the particular circumstances. If, on the one hand, you wanted to include a particular grain right away, the 120 days might be a hindrance because you would have to wait the extra delay. If, on the other hand, you were not in a hurry, then perhaps farmers might feel that they needed or wanted the extra time. It's impossible to predict.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: So you really don't have a problem either way, sir?
Mr. David Byer: No.
The Chairman: Mr. Easter.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chair, I'd like to know what the process would be under this section. I don't see 120 days as being unreasonable. Having been involved in organization in the west for 17 years, I know it is hard to gear up your presentations and get your documentation and have meetings and so on and so forth, and we want to be as fair as we can within the process. Also, we are reasonable. Leon says that we aren't, but we are reasonable.
• 1055
With the 120 days as well, while this process is
going on, if there's the likelihood of the Canadian
Wheat Board taking over another commodity or excluding
a commodity, that time period could be used by the wheat
board to do all the other things. I mean, it's
not wasted time. It could be utilized.
Can you give me a bit of explanation in terms of process, and are there any negatives to this extended period relative to the legislation?
The Chairman: Mr. Migie.
Mr. Howard Migie: The process is still as laid out. The written request would be public and the wheat board itself would be considering at the same time as this notice period, or they could be considering in advance, if they wished. There's no magic to 60 days. It's a judgment call as to what's a reasonable amount of time to allow for comment.
The Chairman: Mr. Byer, did you want to say something?
Mr. David Byer: The only comment I would make is that when we do public hearings we usually allow anywhere from 60 days to 128 days, often 90 days, for comment.
The Chairman: Mr. Harvard.
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Byer or Mr. Migie, if the minister found himself or herself in a situation where the government was receiving complaints about 60 days not being long enough and they wanted another week or two or a month, I was wondering if the minister would be held to the 60 days. A minister could, I'm sure.... It says 60 days, but if the minister wants to take an extra 10, 20 or 30 days, I'm sure he could do it. Who is going to hold him to it?
An hon. member: Call the question.
Mr. John Harvard: Can I get an answer?
The Chairman: He asked a question. Let him get the answer.
Mr. David Byer: The way the section is currently worded, comments received after 60 days would not be deemed to be valid comments.
Mr. John Harvard: Okay.
The Chairman: The motion is on the subamendment moved by Mr. Borotsik. I shall read the sentence:
(Subamendment agreed to)
The Chairman: Mr. Breitkreuz has another subamendment.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I would simply like to make some very small changes. After the words “Canada Gazette and in”, I would like to strike out the word “a” in the amendment and add “s” after “periodical” and then change the word “has” to “have”.
The reason for doing this is to not limit the minister in where he wishes to publish. We know that newspapers come and go, and not everybody reads the Canada Gazette. I do not think we should limit ourselves. We should have the option there. If the minister wishes to put it into other periodicals, he ought to be able do so.
The Chairman: So it would read:
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Right.
The Chairman: Is there debate on that subamendment? Mr. Migie.
• 1100
Mr. Howard Migie: It's an easy one to comment on, because we did make the same comment to the drafters, and what we were told by our drafters was that when they say the singular it does mean the plural. Under interpretation you could in fact use more than one periodical, but there's the possibility that there would be one that fitted it. So the wording they put forward does allow for it to be in several periodicals, even though it seems to a layman reading it that it refers to one. We had given the same wording and we were told that under the Interpretation Act or some other provision, singular can mean the plural.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: The question I would have is whether there is any harm in changing it so a layperson reading it gets the proper interpretation.
Mr. Howard Migie: You couldn't then do it for one, I guess they were saying; that would exclude one, whereas if you have it as a singular you're including both.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'm trying to make it so it will be in more than one place. He could then publish it in only one place, and I would like to see it more widely published. Not everyone gets one paper. There are other papers that are read.
The Chairman: Mr. Byer, do you have an opinion on that?
Mr. David Byer: I would just point out that if the amendment goes through, you are perhaps placing an obligation on the minister to find out the circulation of the periodicals in which he's going to be exercising his discretion to have it published. The minister would be held to establish a standard, if you will, and ensure the publication took place in all the periodicals that had the same level of distribution. So you're complicating the process a little.
In this situation, with the language as it is, the minister could choose if he just wants to have it in one periodical because he feels the distribution is broad enough. If he wants to add a second one, then again that's up to him. He doesn't have to set a standard to which he would have to adhere in order to have a reasonable application of the proposed section.
The Chairman: Mr. Harvard.
Mr. John Harvard: I appreciate Mr. Breitkreuz' concern, but I'm a little concerned that his amendment might impose on the minister to provide for this information in at least two periodicals when in his or her estimation one would suffice.
I suppose there's another way you could rewrite it. You could have that section read:
That might do it. I'm not a drafter, but that could do it.
The Chairman: Mr. Breitkreuz, are you still happy with the explanation here or—
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I would say to go ahead with what I have proposed. I would invite any other comment.
The Chairman: Mr. Easter has a comment.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chair, I agree with the intent but I oppose the amendment, because there's nothing in the proposal from the government here to limit it such that the minister cannot put it in five or ten.... In fact, on this particular bill the minister has mailed out a brochure to every wheat board permit book holder. The problem related to what Mr. Migie said is if you put in “periodicals” and there aren't two or some such thing, through that simple amendment we could open ourselves to a legal challenge on whether or not everything was done according to the law, A, B, C. It could end up in courts and you name it.
So I would oppose it on that basis. It's surprising how one small word can open you up to a legal challenge. What is currently written doesn't limit the minister, but it ensures it will be done in a major periodical.
The Chairman: Do you have a suggestion, Mr. Calder?
Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Chairman, I'll make this suggestion to Garry, and then I would like comments from Mr. Byer.
Instead of the way he has suggested it, it would be:
What is your comment?
• 1105
Mr. David Byer: I don't have any problem with it. It's less elegant from a drafting point of view than what's there. But that's it. It's essentially the same thing.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'd be willing to change my amendment to that wording. I would agree to that wording. It would be fine with me to change it to that.
The Chairman: Mr. McCormick has an opinion to express here.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: The farmers understand that.
Mr. Larry McCormick: I want to make my comment on the basis of what Mr. Byer said. I know he was looking at the legality of all this and the terms.
I don't think the subamendment, whether I vote for it or not, would be of any inconvenience to the minister, just in case you've made that reference. I'm sure no minister would ever want to publish this type of notice without having all of the available facts on the circulation. All of that is a taken and a given. That's been told here, as the minister mailed forms to all producers.
At this time there is only one national paper, be it regional or not.
I just wanted to put on the record that I don't think this will cause any undue, more than normal, work or task for the minister or the minister's office.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Based on Garry's wording or agreement, I think you can accept that the minister will try. But it puts in place a safeguard to make sure that it will be done. Whether it's now or it's 20 years from now, that safeguard will be in place.
The Chairman: I'll try this. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Calder.
It is moved by Mr. Calder:
Mr. Murray Calder: That's right.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I defer to Mr. Calder.
(Subamendment agreed to)
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 26 as amended agreed to on division)
The Chairman: On clauses 27 to 30 there are no amendments. Shall clauses 27 to 30 carry?
Mr. Gerry Byrne: On a point of order, I have a technical question. Do we have to vote on the government amendment to clause 26 from lines 15 to 19, as well?
The Chairman: We voted on the two subamendments. I posed the question, “Shall clause 26 as amended carry?” It carried, it was agreed. So what is the problem?
Mr. Howard Migie: What I heard was that there were two votes, on each of the subamendments. The amendment to clause 26 I didn't hear being voted on, but clause 26 as amended was approved.
The Chairman: It was carried on division. The amendment as amended was carried on division. The question was posed. The subamendment was passed unanimously. I posed the question on the clause. It's on division.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, you're bang-on.
(Clauses 27 to 30 inclusive agreed to on division)
The Chairman: New clause 30.1. Where is that?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't expect that this should take very long. I'm sure that every member of the government side would love to have an open, transparent board, obviously, would like to have access to the information on that board.
• 1110
My clause is one that
deals with the Access to Information Act. It's a
simple amendment that in fact asks that the CWB be
incorporated under the Access to Information Act and
that it be no different from any other mixed enterprise
or crown corporation, unlike CSIS. I would like my
amendment tabled. I can probably call the question and
get the answer from the other side very quickly.
The Chairman: You have heard the amendment. Those in favour—
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chair, I think it should be put in the record that what has really been asked for here is an opportunity for the chief executive officer of Cargill Grain, say, to apply under the Access to Information Act for commercial information in terms of wheat board sales that the company then could use to their advantage and to the disadvantage of farmers. I have to oppose it on those grounds.
The Chairman: Mr. Byrne.
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Chairman, it's just worth noting that the intent of not including the Canadian Wheat Board under the Access to Information Act is very similar to the exemptions that are provided to the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and more particularly, the Export Development Corporation.
We're dealing with sensitive business information just as, I'd like to point out, political parties do. For example, the Reform Party is not covered under the Access to Information Act and there's a very valid reason for that. The Export Development Corporation is not included under the Access to Information Act for a very valid reason.
The Chairman: We've heard the amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clauses 31 to 36 inclusive agreed to on division)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: While the bill is there, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we delete all clauses of C-4 except those that will allow a completely voluntary wheat board—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: —where farmers can choose to market through the board or on the open market as they see fit.
An hon. member: Out of order.
The Chairman: We shall continue.
Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry as amended?
An hon. member: No.
The Chairman: On division, Mr. Breitkreuz?
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: We want a recorded vote.
(Bill C-4 as amended agreed to: yeas 8; nays 4)
The Chairman: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House? On division?
Some hon. members: Agreed, on division.
An hon. member: With alacrity.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, you can report this bill to the House with pride.
An hon. member: With alacrity.
The Chairman: Order, please. Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.