FEDS PUSH PACKER CONTEMPT CHARGE
By Barry Wilson Western Producer
Ottawa bureau
When the new Parliament begins Oct. 4, political wheels will begin grinding almost immediately to resurrect the demand that two of Canada's major packers open their books to confidential scrutiny over whether they made excess profits during the early months of the BSE crisis.
If the contempt of Parliament finding is resurrected as expected, Cargill and Lakeside Packers could face stiff fines and even jail time for company managers if they do not comply.
"I can assure you I will be pressing to have this move forward and to have penalties assessed if we do not get compliance," said rural Ontario Liberal and former agriculture committee chair Paul Steckle.
"Farmers have a right to know. Consumers have a right to know what happened to the hundreds of millions of dollars that were paid out."
Conservatives say they will oppose any attempt to resume the parliamentary fight with the packers.
"To rehash this would be a waste," Conservative agriculture critic and rookie MP Diane Finley said. "I am going to be arguing that we look to the future and try to design better programs rather than refight old battles."
NDP and Bloc Québecois MPs on the committee are expected to side with the Liberals who want to resurrect the issue.
When Parliament was dissolved for the June 28 election, the packers had been found in contempt of Parliament for refusing a committee demand that they produce their books for a confidential audit to determine their profits during the early months of BSE.
MPs suggested the books be sent to House of Commons-appointed forensic auditors who would present a report and analysis to MPs. The politicians would not have access to the books.
The packers refused to comply because they said the confidentiality of commercial information could not be guaranteed.
The agriculture committee recommended fines of up to $250,000 per day for non-compliance.
On the second last day of the last Parliament in May, Conservative MPs blocked a Liberal attempt to have the issue debated and sanctions applied. The election call put the issue on hold.
At the time, Conservative critic Gerry Ritz said the packers were merely taking proper advantage of a poorly designed federal aid program that saw cattle prices collapse when federal aid was tied to slaughter. A rush of cattle to slaughter caused a glut and sank the price.
Under the rules of the House, the new agriculture committee will have 30 days to get the contempt charge back on the table.
Take care.
By Barry Wilson Western Producer
Ottawa bureau
When the new Parliament begins Oct. 4, political wheels will begin grinding almost immediately to resurrect the demand that two of Canada's major packers open their books to confidential scrutiny over whether they made excess profits during the early months of the BSE crisis.
If the contempt of Parliament finding is resurrected as expected, Cargill and Lakeside Packers could face stiff fines and even jail time for company managers if they do not comply.
"I can assure you I will be pressing to have this move forward and to have penalties assessed if we do not get compliance," said rural Ontario Liberal and former agriculture committee chair Paul Steckle.
"Farmers have a right to know. Consumers have a right to know what happened to the hundreds of millions of dollars that were paid out."
Conservatives say they will oppose any attempt to resume the parliamentary fight with the packers.
"To rehash this would be a waste," Conservative agriculture critic and rookie MP Diane Finley said. "I am going to be arguing that we look to the future and try to design better programs rather than refight old battles."
NDP and Bloc Québecois MPs on the committee are expected to side with the Liberals who want to resurrect the issue.
When Parliament was dissolved for the June 28 election, the packers had been found in contempt of Parliament for refusing a committee demand that they produce their books for a confidential audit to determine their profits during the early months of BSE.
MPs suggested the books be sent to House of Commons-appointed forensic auditors who would present a report and analysis to MPs. The politicians would not have access to the books.
The packers refused to comply because they said the confidentiality of commercial information could not be guaranteed.
The agriculture committee recommended fines of up to $250,000 per day for non-compliance.
On the second last day of the last Parliament in May, Conservative MPs blocked a Liberal attempt to have the issue debated and sanctions applied. The election call put the issue on hold.
At the time, Conservative critic Gerry Ritz said the packers were merely taking proper advantage of a poorly designed federal aid program that saw cattle prices collapse when federal aid was tied to slaughter. A rush of cattle to slaughter caused a glut and sank the price.
Under the rules of the House, the new agriculture committee will have 30 days to get the contempt charge back on the table.
Take care.
Comment