Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 9 - Evidence - Meeting of December 12, 2011
OTTAWA, Monday, December 12, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to which was referred Bill C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts, met this day at 4:02 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
I want to introduce to the honourable senators the two resource people we will have here for the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-18, from four o'clock to eight o'clock. One is Greg Meredith, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. We also have Ryan Rempel, Legal Counsel, Justice Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Meredith and Mr. Rempel, for making yourselves available for the committee.
Now, honourable senators, usually I do ask that we introduce ourselves. I guess we all know each other, but I am informed that Senator Cordy is replacing Senator Mahovlich.
Thank you, Senator Cordy, for being present.
That set, is it agreed, honourable senators, that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration? We have two approaches to our bill, Bill C-18, and I will read you the two approaches.
One approach is that the committee proceed, if it is agreed, to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts. Another approach is that I could ask you to consider, with leave, if it is agreed that the committee be allowed to group clauses by the five parts identified in the bill when appropriate.
[Translation]
The committee can take two approaches: proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration or grouping the clauses by the five parts.
[English]
Therefore, I will ask: Honourable senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18? Can I have comments on clause-by-clause?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chair, when you ask us whether we agree that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration, do you mean each one separately? Is that what you are asking us?
The Chair: Yes, separately, or grouping them by parts. There are five parts.
Senator Robichaud: I understand the five parts, but I would rather go clause by clause, separately.
[English]
The Chair: Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Therefore, clause-by-clause consideration will start.
Shall clause 2 be carried?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I have a question for the witnesses. You are saying that the board has five administrators, including the chair and the president. That means there are three other administrators, correct?
Greg Meredith, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: No, there will be five directors.
Senator Robichaud: Can you tell me what the difference is between directors and administrators in this case, because we talk about administrateurs in French?
Mr. Meredith: Yes, I think that is the word in French for director.
Senator Robichaud: If I understand correctly, the chair and the president are appointed by the Governor-in-Council.
Mr. Meredith: I think so. There will be five directors, including the president and the chairperson, and they are each appointed —
[English]
Mr. Meredith: I am sorry. Excuse me.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: If you want to answer in English, go ahead, Mr. Meredith.
[English]
Mr. Meredith: Each director — five directors, including the president and the chair — is appointed by the Governor- in-Council.
Senator Robichaud: I was under the impression that the president would be another person named by the five directors.
Mr. Meredith: The chairperson will be chosen by the five directors, but he or she is a Governor-in-Council appointment.
Senator Robichaud: Okay.
The Chair: Therefore, shall clause 2 be agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 be agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Peterson: I have an amendment on that, please.
The Chair: Senator Peterson, as we left on Friday, I would like to reiterate the position that for the purpose of efficiency, all honourable senators were encouraged to have any amendments they wish to propose reviewed by the office of the law clerk and also to assure they will be available in both official languages.
Is that the case?
Senator Peterson: That is the case.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
Before considering an amendment to a clause, are there any amendments that a member had planned to move earlier in this clause? If so, we should deal with them before taking up this present amendment. If not, I will consider the amendment put in by Senator Peterson.
Moved by Honourable Senator Peterson that Bill C-18 be amended in clause 3, on page 1, by replacing lines 12 to 14 with the following:
3.02 (1) Two directors are appointed by the Governor-in-Council on the recommendation of the Minister, and two directors are appointed, despite the provisions of any other Act, by the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board, as constituted immediately before this section comes into force, from among the elected members of that board. The president is appointed by the . . .
It goes on. Comments on the amendment?
Senator Peterson: The reason for the amendment, as the government stated, is that when the act comes into force the business plan will have to be prepared on what direction they will go into. They will go out and consult with farmers as had been earlier indicated. It was felt that it would only be logical to have two farmers on the board of directors that have already been elected by their peers to help in moving forward later on in this legislation.
Senator Mercer: It would seem to me that all the honourable senators have listened to the debate over the past number of weeks on this. We have heard witnesses tell us that there has not been an opportunity — and I will not talk about whether it was bad or good will — to talk to people on the inside of the Wheat Board as it currently exists.
One of the fears people have expressed is that there is a five-year window in which what is perceived to be the new Wheat Board will live or die.
I think members of the government side said they hoped that this new Wheat Board succeeds. I think this is a gesture that ensures that they will get a good start. Nothing will guarantee it will survive. That will be determined by how well they work and by the marketplace, whether dire predictions that some people have made come true or do not come true. I think this is a continuity that allows the new Wheat Board to move. It allows the government to get what they want of the five directors. Three of them will be their appointees and two will be appointees selected from the elected members of the current Wheat Board.
It may ease the pain a bit for those who have been involved in this battle — not necessarily around this table, but farmers in coffee shops and across Western Canada — to know that at least for the interim period or first go round, there will be a couple of people there who have the direct support of the farmers.
Whether we agree or disagree on what the voters list looks like, that is history.
This is an opportunity to move forward with an amendment that makes perfect sense to give the Wheat Board every chance of succeeding.
The Chair: Other comments on the amendment?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Without repeating everything that has been said, I think directors of the current Canadian Wheat Board should be represented on the board if we want the new board or this bill to be successful, if we want farmers to be successful. This is about them. It is their livelihood. It is their main work activity and they should have a say in the changes that are going to affect them directly. Needless to say, the minister retains all his power because he will be appointing the two directors and he is also going to appoint the president.
I think that is in line with what we have been hearing. There is a lot of interest in what is going on and, of course, many witnesses do not agree with how things are going at the moment. We have received a number of communications with their concerns. I think the least we can do is to give the two farmers currently elected to the Canadian Wheat Board a chance to be on the transition committee.
[English]
Senator Cordy: I agree with the amendment. Major changes will take place as a result of this bill in the way that wheat will be marketed. I think this amendment would be a goodwill gesture and that the Canadian Wheat Board members would be part of this, would bring their expertise to the new operations. In fact, it would allow the changeover to take place more quickly if we could have those who have been appointed or elected by the Wheat Board be part of the new organization.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Cordy.
Are there any other comments on the amendment? If not, I will now call for the question.
Honourable senators, we are now voting on the amendment of the Honourable Senator Peterson. Shall the amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I see that the "nays" have it, and the amendment is defeated.
Senator Peterson: May we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Honourable senators, we will now be proceeding to a roll call. The clerk of the committee will call member's names, beginning with the chair and going in alphabetical order. Senators should verbally indicate whether they vote for or against, or abstain. The clerk will then announce the results of the vote. It is my duty as chair to declare whether the motion is carried or defeated.
[Translation]
Kevin Pittman, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Mockler.
The Chair: I am against the amendment.
[English]
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: Yes.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Duffy.
Senator Duffy: No.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Eaton.
Senator Eaton: No.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Fairbairn.
Senator Fairbairn: Yes.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Mercer.
Senator Mercer: Yes.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Ogilvie.
Senator Ogilvie: No.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Peterson.
Senator Peterson: Yes.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Rivard.
Senator Rivard: No.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Robichaud.
Senator Robichaud: I am for the amendment, Mr. Clerk.
[English]
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: No.
The Chair: Honourable senators, total yeas, five; total nays, seven.
[Translation]
So the amendment is defeated.
[English]
Honourable senators, shall clause 4 carry?
Senator Tkachuk: Did we do clause 3.02?
The Chair: Please permit me to come back to clause 3, honourable senators, in the spirit of cooperation.
Resuming debate on clause 3, if there are other amendments a senator would like to propose to this clause, this is the appropriate time to bring them forward. If not, shall clause 3 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division, thank you, honourable senators.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
[Translation]
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Senator Robichaud: Just a moment, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Clause 7, Senator Robichaud?
Senator Robichaud: I am just trying to understand it. That is fine, thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 9 carry?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: My question is for the witnesses.
5. The Corporation is not an agent of Her Majesty and, despite Part X of the Financial Administration Act, is not a Crown corporation within the meaning of that Act. The directors, officers, clerks and employees of the Corporation are not part of the federal public administration.
Could you clarify that clause for me?
[English]
Mr. Meredith: The current governance of the board, senator, is called a shared governance corporation, which is relatively unique and, in this new state, it would no longer be a shared governance corporation, but it is not technically a Crown either. The relationship of the employees to the Crown is not that of public servant. It is a relatively unique creature, but it is a creature of government.
Senator Robichaud: When you say "technically," what does that mean?
Mr. Meredith: It is not a Crown corporation, although it operates very much like one. It is not a Crown as defined in the Financial Administration Act.
Senator Robichaud: It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but it is not a duck.
Mr. Meredith: It is not a duck.
Senator Peterson: The total oversight, then, would be the Minister of Agriculture?
Mr. Meredith: It depends what aspect of the act you are referring to, senator. The appointments, for example, and much of the decision making lie with the Governor-in-Council, not with the minister.
Senator Peterson: I am sorry. I was talking about that group that does not have a name. It is not this and not that and not that, but it is something. The person in charge of that no-name group would be the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Meredith: No, I think it is fair to say that the directors and the chair of the board and the president and CEO are in charge of the corporation, but the corporation would take direction from the Governor-in-Council.
Senator Mercer: The logical question is, does the Auditor General have a role in reviewing the finances of this poorly defined entity? This is an act of Parliament that will be put in place, and we are making some significant changes. There is lots of money involved. We are creating a new governance structure of five individuals who will be appointed by the Governor-in-Council. It would seem to me that oversight by the Auditor General is the minimum one could expect and the minimum that Canadians could expect that the Auditor General will be keeping an eye on the activities.
Mr. Meredith: There is no provision in the act for the Auditor General to oversee the corporation, but it does have a statutory obligation to have an independent audit of its books annually and to submit that audit to the government for approval by the Governor-in-Council.
Senator Mercer: Do they have an obligation to make the audit public?
Mr. Meredith: The minister will, I believe, submit an annual plan to the Minister of Finance for their concurrence between the two ministers, and that could be a public document.
Senator Mercer: There is no provision for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to come back and report to Canadians and lay on the table a financial report? You say it provides for independent auditors, and we will have to assume that those independent auditors are indeed independent, as all good Canadian auditors are, and they will do a good job and lay out what they find when they examine the books and activities of this new entity. We have no guarantee that the public will ever see. This will never see the light of day for the public to review.
Mr. Meredith: No. In fact, my colleague has found the provision that requires the minister to submit those audited books to Parliament annually.
Senator Mercer: To lay on the table in the House of Commons and in the Senate?
Mr. Meredith: To Parliament, yes.
Senator Mercer: Both houses?
Mr. Meredith: Is it both?
Ryan Rempel, Legal Counsel, Department of Justice Canada: It just says laid before Parliament, and I am afraid I am not an expert on the procedure involved in laying documents before Parliament.
Senator Mercer: I would have thought that was who we had here today. Okay.
The Chair: Senator Mercer, are you finished?
Senator Mercer: Yes.
Senator Cordy: My concern has been raised by Senator Mercer. My concern is accountability to Parliament. If this bill passes, which it will because the government has the majority, the Auditor General cannot make recommendations. You have said that the independent audit is to be laid before the house of Parliament, but I am still a little concerned because you are saying that the minister is not in charge, the board is in charge. Someone once said that "arm's-length" sometimes means out of reach of Parliament in terms of accountability. My concern is that if the minister is not responsible, I would like to know that someone within government is ultimately responsible.
Mr. Meredith: I was referring to this earlier with the previous question, senator; there are a number of provisions in the act where the minister and/or the Governor-in-Council has to take active decisions to approve of certain actions by the corporation. For example, that would include their annual borrowing plan, which would involve a guarantee by government. There has to be approval for that.
Senator Cordy: The borrowing plan would go the minister, and the minister would bring it to Parliament?
Mr. Meredith: No, he would approve the borrowing plan in consultation with the Minister of Finance. However, that is one provision where the minister has approval power. He has approval of the plan for the corporation to go private within five years, and he has a direction power in the bill that is the same as what is in the current act, which he can use to direct the corporation in the manner in which it operates. There are several provisions where the minister has to become actively involved.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: The existing act simply says that:
4(2) The Corporation is not an agent of Her Majesty and is not a Crown corporation within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act.
But then you added:
The directors, officers, clerks and employees of the Corporation are not part of the federal public administration.
I do not understand why we did not have that to begin with.
[English]
Mr. Rempel: The existing Wheat Board act also says that the Wheat Board is not now a Crown corporation.
Senator Robichaud: I just read that.
Mr. Rempel: At the end of the transitional period, when the Wheat Board has finished its reorganization under one of the statutes of general application, it will, of course, not be a Crown corporation. It was thought that for it to become a Crown corporation in the transitional period and be subject to all of the disciplines under the Financial Administration Act was not a practical or sensible transition, given where it starts and where it end up.
I should also point out that some of the kinds of provisions that you would find in the Financial Administration Act, in terms of the control that the Governor-in-Council or the minister has over the corporation and things like the appointment of auditors and the approval of annual corporate plans, were contained in the existing legislation and are contained in the interim legislation. In a sense, the act is then a more complete code for how the corporation handles itself in the transitional period.
Senator Robichaud: I still do not understand that part about the administrators.
[Translation]
The officers, clerks and employees of the corporation are not part of the federal public administration.
[English]
Mr. Rempel: Yes, that was added mainly out of an abundance of caution and because other similar legislation that excludes bodies from being Crown corporations also tends to exclude the staff from being part of the federal public administration. Strictly speaking, it may well not have been entirely necessary to do that. It is the result that would have flowed from the Wheat Board's not being a Crown corporation, in any event, but to ensure that the effect was entirely clear, the language was added.
The Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division. Shall clause 9.1 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
Senator Mercer: On page 3, it says:
Despite subsection 18(2), the Corporation may agree to buy or sell grain if the agreement provides for purchase or sale to occur on or after the day on which Part 2 of the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act comes into force.
I do not want to jump ahead, but down further it adds "wheat products."
Does this mean that currently there are restrictions on what the Wheat Board markets? Does this mean that everything is open now and that they can sell any products they feel they want to? Canola is something they do not sell now. Can they sell canola? Can they add lentils and pulse products to their list of products? They have a sales force. Does their catalogue of merchandise suddenly potentially become much larger?
Mr. Meredith: Yes, this particular part of the legislation allows the Wheat Board to deal with grains immediately, upon Royal Assent. There is one restriction, and that is that the single desk still survives until the proposed date of August 1, 2012. This clause allows the Wheat Board to contract for grain, for delivery after August 1, 2012.
Senator Mercer: Can I interpret from that that they will be allowed to sell anything they choose to sell?
Mr. Rempel: If I could clarify one point, in the period from Royal Assent until Part 2 comes into force, the definition of grain would still be the seven grains currently in the Canadian Wheat Board Act — wheat, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, rapeseed and canola. It is those seven grains for which clause 9.1 is most relevant.
After Part 2 comes into force, the date of August 1, 2012, is the date that the government has signalled. At that point, the Wheat Board would be free to purchase and sell any of the grains included in the Canada Grain Act, in fact, in regulations under the Canada Grain Act, so that is a longer list of 21 grains that, at that point, they would be able to deal with.
Senator Peterson: To clarify that, on August 1, 2012, then, the single desk disappears, and it becomes an open market, voluntary board; is that correct?
Mr. Rempel: Yes.
The Chair: Therefore, shall clause 9.1 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall clause 10 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 11 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 12 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: To which clause of the existing bill do the transitional provisions apply? When we make changes, we usually refer to the legislation we have before us at the moment; clause 12 mentions nothing at all.
[English]
Mr. Meredith: These changes would apply immediately on Royal Assent and would continue until the board is reconstituted with the act that is contained in Part 2 of this current bill. This is basically saying that elected directors would cease to hold office upon Royal Assent.
Senator Robichaud: It does not say on Royal Assent; it says beyond which this part comes into force, which is not always Royal Assent.
Mr. Meredith: No.
Mr. Rempel: In this case, because the act is silent as to when Part 1 comes into force, Part 1 would come into force on Royal Assent.
The Chair: Shall clause 12 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 13 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 14 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Senators, shall clause 15 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 16 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 17 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: On clause 17, Senator Peterson?
Senator Peterson: On clause 14.
The Chair: Coming back to clause 14?
Senator Peterson: If I could, please.
Senator Mercer: Have a little respect for Senator Peterson's work, here.
The Chair: State your comments on clause 14, Senator Peterson, please.
Senator Peterson: We have an amendment to clause 14 that I believe the clerk has. It followed the same procedure as the first one. It has been through the law clerk and translated.
The Chair: Honourable senators, the chair has recognized Senator Peterson. Are there any amendments that a member had planned to move earlier in this clause? If so, we should deal with them before taking up this amendment.
Therefore, the amendment on clause 14 reads as follows:
That Bill C-18 be amended in clause 14, on page 12, by replacing lines 25 to 30 with the following:
(3) The following losses sustained by the Corporation for which no other provision is made under this Act are to be paid out of monies provided by Parliament:
(a) losses from its operations under Part 2 in relation to any pool period fixed under that part, during that pool period; and
(b) losses from its other operations under this Act during any crop year.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, that the motion in amendment carry?
Senator Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is basically the same as was in the original act, but (b) was taken out. It covers the Canadian Wheat Board on risk management on derivative trading, because counter parties to these arrangements want to know who will backstop this. Originally, it was the Government of Canada. Without this, I do not think it they will be able to operate in this field.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other comments by senators on the amendment?
Senator Eaton: I have a problem.
The Chair: One minute, please, Senator Eaton. Senator Peterson, you are finished?
Senator Plett: On a point of order: Mr. Chair, this amendment was ruled out of order in the House of Commons. They tried to amend this in the House of Commons, and it was ruled out of order, so I would suggest that it is out of order here as well.
Senator Peterson: What was the rationale?
Senator Plett: It requires a Royal Recommendation, and only the Crown can amend.
The Chair: On the point of order from Senator Plett, are there any other comments?
Senator Eaton: I am confused, because it says on page 12, and in my book it is page 9. Does that make any difference? Be amended in clause 14 on page 12.
Senator Cordy: I think it is clause 19.
Senator Eaton: That might make a little difference.
Senator Cordy: Clause 19, I believe.
Senator Eaton: Clause 19, so it is not clause 14?
The Chair: The amendment is on clause 14.
Senator Eaton: Why do they say, senator, here, amended in clause 14 on page 12?
The Chair: I will ask the clerk to comment.
Mr. Pittman: Part 2 actually begins on page 4 under clause 14, but the actual clause keeps going until page 27, if I am not mistaken. That is just one clause.
Senator Eaton: That is not my bill.
Mr. Pittman: This is making reference to lines 25 to 30 on page 12. That 19 is still under clause 14, senator.
Senator Eaton: I thought we were on clause 14, not on clause 19.
Mr. Pittman: The 19 is actually inclusive of 14.
Senator Eaton: Sorry, all right.
The Chair: Thank you. On the point of order, Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: I think, chair, that you might want to get some legal recommendation here because, as I said, in the other place they tried to amend this, and they were told that this requires a Royal Recommendation and only the Crown can amend this. We might want to get our legal friends here to help us.
Senator Ogilvie: Mr. Chair, it seems to me that this extraordinary issue of looking at the ultimate details is not the issue here today. We have an amendment that is before us. It seems to me it is reasonable to consider the amendment and move on. We were told that these amendments went by the law clerk on the way here and are in both official languages. I submit that it is appropriate that we consider it and we deal with it.
The Chair: Any other comments on the point of order?
Senator Peterson: As I said, it was in the original act and was taken out. Possibly the resource people can explain why it was taken out.
Mr. Rempel: Essentially it was taken out because the reference to —
The Chair: Mr. Rempel, I have not recognized you yet, please.
Mr. Rempel: I am sorry.
The Chair: Senator Peterson, you are finished?
Senator Peterson: I was, yes.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Robichaud, do you have a comment?
Senator Robichaud: I do not think it is a point of order. As the Honourable Senator Ogilvie rightly said, these amendments were reviewed by the experts of the Senate and they told us that everything is in the appropriate form. So I would just like to say that it is not a point of order.
[English]
The Chair: Therefore, the chair has in consideration a point of order. Before I rule on the point of order, Mr. Rempel, I will recognize you if you have some comments.
Mr. Rempel: I suppose it is really quite correct that my comments are not on the point of order as such, so I would be happy to wait until the appropriate moment.
The Chair: Therefore, on the point of order that I have received from Senator Plett — Senator Plett, if you withdraw your point of order — I will ask then that we vote on the amendment as presented by Senator Peterson.
Senator Plett: Chair, reluctantly I will do so, but it was ruled out of order in the other place and I do not think we should be dealing with amendments that are not in order. I think that is problematic going forward, but if the chair is requesting me to withdraw my point of order, for expediency purposes I will do that. However, we are voting on something here that we should not be voting on.
Senator Cordy: We are indeed.
The Chair: I will recognize that Senator Plett said "reluctantly."
Honourable senators, we are now voting on the amendment of Senator Peterson.
Senator Peterson: I am sorry Mr. Chair, the resource people were going to make a comment but not on the point of order.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Peterson. Therefore, the chair will recognize Mr. Rempel.
Mr. Rempel: The question had been posed as to why the (b) part had been left out of the interim legislation when it is present in the current legislation. Of course the activities of the Wheat Board under the interim legislation are somewhat smaller than they were under the current legislation. In particular, some of the Wheat Board's regulatory activities and regulatory powers no longer exist.
The thinking behind removing (b) from the interim legislation was that there were no longer any relevant other operations for which losses would be guaranteed by monies provided by Parliament. Any losses suffered by the Wheat Board in the interim period would either be losses due to the pool operations, which are guaranteed under (a), the losses in relation to pool periods. Any other losses — related to the cash trading, losses that are currently covered by the contingency fund — would continue to be covered by the contingency fund.
The derivatives trading that the Wheat Board does would either be in relation to activities under the pool periods or in relation to activities under the other cash trading and such. If there were losses in relation to derivatives trading, they would either be losses in relation to pool periods and covered by the guarantee, or they would be losses in relation to the cash trading and covered by the contingency fund. It seemed that covered the entire universe of possible losses and made the appropriate disposition of each.
Senator Peterson: You are saying that by removing this clause you are almost removing the new board from any type of risk management in terms of grain trading?
Mr. Rempel: The risk management in relation to pool operations would be covered by the government guarantee. Risk management in relation to the cash trading options would be covered by the contingency fund. It has always been the case since the cash trading was first permitted — that the risk of losses on the cash trading would be covered by the contingency fund — and of course it has over the years. There have sometimes been losses and they have been covered by the contingency fund.
Senator Peterson: The operating is just in terms of the initial price guarantee, if there is a loss on that. The other will make it almost impossible for them to operate because the counter parties will not deal with the new Wheat Board without the backstopping of the government; is that pretty well it?
Mr. Meredith: No. The Wheat Board currently operates with a number of guarantees. One is of the initial price and one is of its borrowing plan. Both of those government guarantees continue into the period where the Wheat Board is in transition and in the period where it is operating in the open market. The Wheat Board has the same risk management tools in the go-forward version as it does in the current legislation.
The Chair: I will call. We are now voting on the amendment of the honourable Senator Peterson on clause 14. Shall the amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
Senator Peterson: Can we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Honourable senators, we will now be proceeding to a roll call. The clerk of the committee will call members' names beginning with the chair and then go in alphabetical order. Senators should verbally indicate whether they vote for, against, or abstain. The clerk will then announce the result of the vote. It is my duty as chair to declare whether the motion is carried or defeated.
[Translation]
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Mockler.
The Chair: I am against the amendment.
[English]
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: I vote in favour of the amendment.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Duffy.
Senator Duffy: I vote against the amendment.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Eaton.
Senator Eaton: No.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Fairbairn.
Senator Fairbairn: Yes.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Mercer.
Senator Mercer: Yes.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Ogilvie.
Senator Ogilvie: Nay.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Peterson.
Senator Peterson: Yes.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Rivard.
Senator Rivard: I am against the amendment.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Robichaud.
Senator Robichaud: I am in favour of the amendment.
[English]
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: No.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, the amendment is defeated.
[English]
Shall clause 14 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, when we do pass and I call for each clause, at that point, when I call the clause, if you have an amendment, please advise the chair.
Shall clause 18 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
Senator Eaton: So clauses 16 and 17 are gone?
Senator Tkachuk: They have been passed.
The Chair: They have been passed.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Could you tell me where to look, please? What page are we on?
[English]
The Chair: We are on page 28, honourable senators, clause 19.
Shall clause 19 —
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I think there is a bit of confusion. You are telling me one page, and Senator Plett is on another.
[English]
Am I right, Senator Plett, when you said page —
Senator Plett: Listen to him.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are at clause 19, on page 28.
Would you please consider clause 19, on page 28?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Section 33 of the same act is repealed, is that it?
[English]
The Chair: Yes. It reads, honourable senators, "Section 33 of the Act is repealed." Therefore, I will call clause 19.
Shall clause 19 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division.
Again, on page 28, clause 20.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 21, on page 28, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Honourable senators, shall clause 22 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On page 29, shall clause 23 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 24, on page 29, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 25, on page 29, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Did we skip clause 24, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: No. We just voted on clause 24.
Senator Robichaud: I have trouble following.
[English]
The Chair: On page 29, honourable senators, shall clause 25 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, on page 30, shall clause 26 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 27 carry on page 30?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 27 on page 30 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 28, on page 31, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 29, on page 31, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, on page 32, shall clause 30 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 31, on page 32, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 32, on page 32, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 33, on page 32, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 34, on page 32, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 35, on page 32, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, on page 33, shall clause 36 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 37, on page 33, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 38, on page 33, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 39, on page 33, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 40, on page 33, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Part 3. Honourable senators, shall clause 41, on page 33, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, on page 34, shall clause 42 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 43, on page 34, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 44, on page 34, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I feel we are going a bit too fast. We do not have time to read what is before us. Clause 43 reads as follows:
The Corporation is not entitled to apply for continuance in another jurisdiction.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Meredith, please?
Mr. Meredith: It requires that the Wheat Board, as it goes into the private form, incorporate under one of the federal enabling statutes, not in a province or not in another country. It is as simple as that.
Senator Robichaud: We heard during testimony that it could incorporate itself into a cooperative. Am I correct?
Mr. Meredith: Yes, senator, you are correct.
Senator Robichaud: This incorporation would have to be done under federal jurisdiction?
Mr. Meredith: Yes. There are a variety of enabling statutes that it could choose to pursue, one of which would allow for a cooperative model if it chose to pursue that model.
Senator Robichaud: Cooperatives usually are a provincial responsibility, are they not? You incorporate under a provincial statute as a cooperative.
Mr. Rempel: It is certainly possible to incorporate as a federal cooperative. It may be more common — that is, many cooperatives are provincial — but it is certainly possible to take the cooperative form under the federal Canada Cooperatives Act.
Senator Robichaud: But they would have to be incorporated under the federal law?
Mr. Rempel: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: If people from Manitoba, for example, did not agree with the people from Saskatchewan and wanted to incorporate their activities under the Manitoba legislation, they would be prevented from doing so?
Mr. Rempel: Of course, any group of people can establish a distinct organization if they wish to do so, but the Canadian Wheat Board would not be able to do that.
Senator Robichaud: Well, it would not be the Canadian Wheat Board any more, would it?
Mr. Meredith: If there were, for some reason, a preference to incorporate provincially, I can paint you a scenario where the board would incorporate federally. It is completely a private organization at that point, and then it can choose any of its future steps in and of itself. There would be an avenue if that scenario were to arise.
Senator Robichaud: Why, then, do we have clause 43?
Mr. Rempel: Yes, actually, clause 43 is meant to prevent that.
Mr. Meredith: Well, we want the organization to incorporate under one of the three enabling pieces of federal legislation, so this is the restriction that is put on the corporation as it goes private.
Senator Robichaud: It was going private after a certain time, was it not?
Mr. Meredith: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: After what, the transition period?
Mr. Meredith: It has to develop a plan to privatize within four years, and it has to privatize within five years of the act's coming into force.
Senator Robichaud: When it does, it has to be under a federal statute?
Mr. Meredith: Under one of the three federal statutes that you see in clause 42.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I find that a bit odd, but thank you.
[English]
The Chair: That was for a point of clarification. Therefore, senators, we will look at clause 45, page 35.
Shall clause 45 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Honourable senators, Part 4, shall clause 46, on page 35, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Robichaud will now speak to clause 46.
Senator Robichaud: Could you please explain this to me?
This Part applies only if the Corporation is not continued under Part 3 within five years, or any shorter period specified by the Governor in Council, after the day on which that Part comes into force.
[English]
Mr. Meredith: This clause is there as a provision in the event that the Wheat Board is not successful in developing a private model and moving towards that model.
This provides the authority to wind up the corporation. That is the intent of this clause.
Senator Robichaud: They have to do this within five years.
Mr. Meredith: Right.
Senator Robichaud: They have five years in the bill, have they not?
Mr. Meredith: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: Why is there a provision there: "or any shorter period specified by the Governor in Council." They either have five years or they do not.
Mr. Meredith: You can imagine a situation, senator, where the board is essentially bankrupt. This would allow for dissolution before the end of a five-year period.
Senator Robichaud: That would be specified by the Governor-in-Council, not by the board itself.
Mr. Meredith: That is correct.
Senator Mercer: Let me understand this. In reality, even though there is a five-year plan — and we have seen the outline of that from the department — in which they have to commercialize or the whole operation will wind up, this clause seems to say, as I think Senator Robichaud was getting at, that, in six months' time or 12 months' time, the government can say, "Oh, well, that is enough of that. We are not going to wait for the next two or three years to see a plan, or four years to see it commercialized. We will wrap it up now and take these people out of business entirely." This would allow them to do that.
Mr. Meredith: I do not want to speculate on what the government will do in the future.
Senator Mercer: I do not want you to speculate on what the government might do; I want you to tell us what the government could do if they so chose.
Mr. Meredith: I would have to say yes, then, senator.
Senator Mercer: In other words, after the bill comes into effect, whenever that might be, the government can look at clause 46 and say, "Well, is it not nice that we put this in? We are going to close the place down next Tuesday." Then all of the debate and discussions would have been for naught.
Mr. Meredith: Senator, I have to say that that would be pure speculation and that there are some actions that would have to be taken within the spirit of the legislation.
However, technically, you are correct.
I would have to go further, though, to say that the government has, with this legislation, provided the Wheat Board with a very significant set of tools to avoid the possibility of bankruptcy and to provide a viable choice.
The intent of the act is to establish a viable, voluntary Wheat Board, so I think it is pure speculation that this would be used to subvert that.
Senator Mercer: I am not speculating. I got a direct answer from you that if the government chooses to do what it says here, they could do so any time because it says "within five years, or any shorter period specified by the Governor in Council, after the day on which that Part comes into force."
The day after it comes into force, the government can say, "Well, we have changed our mind. We want to see it wrap up now." There is no fallback, no protection.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Actually, it says:
. . .or any shorter period specified by the Governor in Council. . .
But it does not specify the conditions under which the Governor-in-Council can reduce the five-year period. That is what worries me. The Governor-in-Council can act without any pre-set conditions, correct?
[English]
Mr. Meredith: Theoretically, that is correct.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Meredith, you say theoretically, but either the Governor-in-Council can or the Governor- in-Council cannot.
[English]
Mr. Rempel: The only thing I wanted to add is that, of course, there are no entirely discretionary powers granted under statute. In making a determination to fix a shorter period, the Governor-in-Council would have to act within the spirit and purpose of the act.
I do not want to speculate on possible scenarios, but I do not want to leave the impression that the legal situation would be entirely open to arbitrary action, because it never is. I wanted to add that.
However, it is certainly correct to point out that the provision does not specify any preconditions.
The Chair: Last comment before I call the vote.
Senator Robichaud: I beg to differ with you when you say "arbitrarily." There was a section in the present act, section 47.1, that said that certain conditions would have to fall into place before any action would be taken, and it was arbitrarily discarded.
Do you agree with me? You do not have to.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 46, page 35 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division. Honourable senators, shall clause 47, page 35 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 48 on page 35 carry?
Senator Peterson: It talks about the contingency fund only. What about the fixed assets? The hopper cars, the building in downtown Winnipeg, the ownership in lake freighters — where is that?
Mr. Rempel: Subclause (1) speaks to the property of the corporation in general and would include all of those things.
The reason that subclause (2) speaks specifically of the contingency fund for greater certainty is that the contingency fund has some specific rules that apply to its use. For greater certainty we wanted to ensure it was understood that at this stage, the contingency fund would be considered property of the corporation for purpose of the winding up.
Senator Peterson: I would suggest fixed assets would require clarity, too, and disposition of it.
Mr. Rempel: The fixed assets are part of the property of the corporation referred to in clause 48(1).
The Chair: Any other comments Senator Peterson?
Senator Peterson: No.
The Chair: Shall clause 48 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 49 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 50 on page 36 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 51 on page 36 carry?
Senator Peterson: Mr. Chair, wait please.
The Chair: The chair will now recognize Honourable Senator Peterson.
Senator Peterson: You said the contingency funds on the winding up belongs to Her Majesty in the Right of Canada. There is some debate right now that it does not belong to Her Majesty. What clarification do you have on that?
Mr. Rempel: At this stage, if this clause were to be engaged, the contingency fund would form part of the surplus, assuming any surplus remained after the satisfaction of the debts and liabilities.
Subclause (1) deals with the case in which once you take the assets — including the contingency fund — and satisfy the debts and liability, if there is something left, then that belongs to Her Majesty. Subclause (2) deals with the other logical possibility that if the debts and liabilities at this stage turned out to be greater than the assets — including the contingency fund — they would become debts and liabilities of Her Majesty. Her Majesty gets whatever is left and is also responsible for any shortfall at this stage.
Senator Peterson: That is on winding up. When this act comes into force, who does the contingency fund belong to?
Mr. Rempel: It belongs to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Senator Peterson: Do the farmers have any claim on the contingency fund at the time this act comes into force?
Mr. Rempel: No, it belongs to the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board would be bound to use it for the purposes that are specified in Part 2 of the act.
Senator Peterson: In other words, they can use it other than for the benefit of the farmers, who got it there in the first place.
Senator Cordy: Is this the norm in legislation? Funds have gone into a pot; a contingency fund for fluctuations in currency and so on. If it turned out that money that was put in there — in this case by the farmers — was left over, it is not going back to those who put the funding in, but going to the government. Is that the norm in legislation? When a company goes bankrupt and all the assets are sold off, any remaining assets would be given back to the person when all assets are liquidated.
Mr. Rempel: In many respects, this legislation and the Wheat Board as an institution are quite unique. It can be difficult to come up with appropriate analogies. The one comment that I could usefully make is that, depending on the scenario, there is some possibility of a surplus and there is some risk of a deficit. To the extent that the Crown is in this scenario accepting the risk of the deficit, it is also in parallel benefiting from the surplus.
If it turns out that at this stage there was a surplus remaining, the act does not tell the Crown or government what to do with it. There would certainly be a decision remaining at that point as to — perhaps political is not the right word, but a fresh decision — about what to do with the funds that were coming in at that point.
Senator Cordy: I understand that the bill says that it belongs to the Crown.
I would question whether or not the government would in fact give it back to the farmers.
There is a risk of deficit. That is what this clause deals with. We have to keep in mind that farmers with the Canadian Wheat Board voted in favour of keeping the Canadian Wheat Board. Yet, now that it is being dismantled because of this bill, their money is going to go to the Government of Canada or to the Queen, technically speaking.
You said "unique." I would find that very unusual and unfair.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: The surplus mentioned in clause 51 belongs to the Canadian Wheat Board. If I understand correctly, it is not going to go to the current Canadian Wheat Board, but to the Canadian Wheat Board that will be established after Bill C-18 is passed. Is that right?
At the moment, the surplus belongs to the existing Canadian Wheat Board.
[English]
Mr. Meredith: The contingency fund in the Wheat Board that exists today is the property of the Wheat Board, and will continue to be in the interim operations act as well.
Senator Robichaud: That would the new Wheat Board controlled by five nominees.
Mr. Meredith: Correct.
Senator Robichaud: At the end of the five years — where they are mandated to end the operations or transform themselves — if there is any money left in the pot or fund, then it is quite removed from the farmers because they do not have any elected members there.
Mr. Rempel: On that point, I could clarify that it is possible that at the end of the five-year period, as it is privatized, farmers would have a role in electing directors at that point. That is a matter for the transition plan that the Wheat Board brings forward to determine exactly what its governance structure will be at the end of the day.
Senator Robichaud: You are throwing me off there.
The Chair: Honourable senators, on this, with the information, the chair will now call, shall clause 51 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division. Honourable senators, shall clause 52 on page 36 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division. Honourable senators, shall clause 53 on page 36 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, on page 37, shall clause 54 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 55 on page 37 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I know we have already voted, but I would like to know something about clause 55:
The Corporation is dissolved on a day fixed by order of the Governor in Council.
It is the Governor-in-Council — the minister, among others — who decides the date, correct?
[English]
Mr. Meredith: Yes, and, to clarify, this would be the very last step in the process. First, Part 4 would have to be engaged, and then the various activities to settle the affairs of the corporation would be carried out. Once that was finished, there would at some point be finally a date on which everything was done. By that point, this would be mostly a formality, but one still needs a date by which the corporation would be officially dissolved in this scenario.
Senator Robichaud: The corporation would then have restructured itself into a cooperative or private enterprise?
Mr. Rempel: No. This section only becomes applicable if it has not restructured itself and instead we are down the path of the winding up and dissolution. Part 3 and Part 4 are, in a sense, two alternative paths. If you go down the Part 3 path, then it becomes continued under the other legislation; if you go down the Part 4 path, then, at the end of the day, it is dissolved. It is one path or the other.
Senator Robichaud: Thank you.
The Chair: Honourable senators, on page 37, shall clause 56 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 57 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 58 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On page 38, shall clause 59 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 60 carry on page 38?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 61 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 62 on page 38 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 63 on page 38 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 64 on page 39 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. The following questions will need to be asked by the chair.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chair, I feel that the short title, Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, can be misleading, given the way this bill was introduced. Grain farmers did not have the freedom to choose; they had no say in the marketing of grains.
I think the public is being misled when we say that farmers had a choice. It is not true.
Mr. Chair, if it was in order, I would move that the short title be the Marketing Act, no more, no less. I have not submitted anything.
The Chair: I accept that as a comment on the part of the Honourable Senator Robichaud. Are there any other questions?
[English]
The chair has called, shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division. Shall the title carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall the bill carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
Senator Cordy: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: A recorded vote shall take place.
Senator Robichaud: I would suggest that the chair does not vote on this one.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we will now be proceeding to a roll call. The clerk of the committee will call members' names, beginning with the chair and then going in alphabetical order. Senators should verbally indicate whether they vote for, against or abstain. The clerk will then announce the results of the vote, and then it will be my duty as chair to declare whether the motion is carried or defeated.
Shall the bill carry? That was the question. I ask the clerk to ask for the vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Mockler.
The Chair: Since I am a fan of democracy, I am going to vote against it.
[English]
Senator Cordy: I would like that translated. What did you say?
The Chair: Shall the bill carry? I say yes, the bill shall carry. I will correct the chair. The chair will correct itself.
Senator Robichaud: I almost fell off my chair here.
Senator Tkachuk: Lucky he translated it for himself.
The Chair: The chair will support. Shall the bill carry? The chair will vote for shall the bill carry.
Senator Robichaud: But you are not voting.
[Translation]
The Chair: I am voting.
Senator Robichaud: Is it yes or no?
The Chair: It is yes for the bill.
[English]
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: Thank you, and, for democracy, I will be voting against the bill.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Duffy.
Senator Duffy: I vote in favour of freedom for Canada's farmers.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Eaton.
Senator Eaton: I vote against monopoly and for democracy.
Senator Tkachuk: For the bill?
Senator Eaton: For the bill.
Senator Tkachuk: You better say that.
Senator Robichaud: It is "yes" or "no" here.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Fairbairn.
Senator Fairbairn: No.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Mercer.
Senator Mercer: I am going to vote against the bill in honour of all of those thousands and thousands of Canadian farmers who support the Canadian Wheat Board as it currently exists. I hope that, in five years' time, we are not back here trying to fix the problem that we are about to create.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Ogilvie.
Senator Ogilvie: Yes.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Peterson.
Senator Peterson: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Rivard.
Senator Rivard: I am in favour of the bill.
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Robichaud.
Senator Robichaud: No.
[English]
Mr. Pittman: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Senator Plett: I would like to vote, please, clerk.
Mr. Pittman: My apologies. The Honourable Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Even though obviously someone wanted this vote to be closer than what it really should be, in honour of all those jailed farmers who spent time in jail on behalf of marketing freedom, I will vote in favour of this bill, happily.
Senator Eaton: Hear, hear.
The Chair: The results, clerk?
Mr. Pittman: Yeas, seven; nays, five.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, the bill is passed.
[English]
Honourable senators, before we close, shall I report the bill to the Senate?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division. The bill will be reported to the Senate on division.
Honourable senators, I declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)