Evidence of meeting #22 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commission.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Of course I'm certainly not going to support this motion. In hearing the testimony, reading the resumé, which is an excellent resume, and learning something that I found out through the meeting, which was re-endorsed by my colleagues here, Mr. Atamanenko and Mr. Easter, about Mr. Hermanson's integrity, if I'd had a chance for one more question, it was going to be along the lines of what I really heard here today, which as I said was reinforced by two of our members across the way, about that integrity and basically Mr. Hermanson's honesty and shoot-from-the-hip style. I try to be that way--well, I don't know whether I try to be, I am that way--and what I find is that people who have a tendency to do that speak from the heart. They speak the truth. If I'd had one question, it would have been whether the thought ever crossed Mr. Hermanson's mind to change his mind when he saw the recommendation from management, when he first took over his position, when he thought about the political side--and to just take away any possible political heat, if I could use the term, that he's taking here and that I think is unjustified.
I know I can't put words in his mouth, but I think his answer would have been, absolutely not. That's the kind of guy we need here--a guy, person, lady, and what have you. I think it's very credible.
I think this motion smacks and stinks of pure partisanship, and it's unfortunate. This should be about qualifications. Everything right up to and including integrity has been endorsed here about the man's ability. It should be a non-issue.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
If you'll just stay with me, I beg the committee's deference for just a minute.
First of all, I do not believe that the opposition members, in particular Mr. Easter and Mr. Atamanenko, can actually endorse this. Unfortunately, there was much conversation about whether or not a farmer is qualified. I think Mr. Boshcoff has set the record straight that he believes farmers are competent and qualified to hold this position, and he's nodding his head yes.
I can quote Mr. Easter himself. He said he did not doubt your qualifications or competence.
If I can have the committee turn to page 877 of Marleau and Montpetit,
A committee has no power to revoke an appointment or nomination and may only report that they have examined the appointee or nominee and give their judgement as to whether the candidate has the qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated.
This motion, if we report it back to the House, has to be along those lines. We have to be speaking directly to the candidate's qualifications or competence. It is on the blues that several members of the opposition agreed to his qualifications and competence.
So I don't see how this motion can go forward.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
The way the motion is worded, it says that they're disagreeing with the appointment, so it's open-ended.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Standing Order 111(2), Mr. Chairman...and if you refer to Marleau and Montpetit, page 877, just before the topic of subject matter, studies, as I quoted:
A committee has no power to revoke an appointment or nomination and may only report that they have examined the appointee or nominee and give their judgement as to whether the candidate has the qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post....
That is what we have to report back on. It's very clear in the Standing Orders.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
The motion is just saying they disagree with the appointment. It doesn't have a reason why.
Do we have to stipulate the reason it's in there? It does stipulate on page 877 that we have to report back and we have to give our judgment as to whether the candidate has the qualifications and competence to perform their duties. You have to be more specific.
In the past, when Mr. Johnson was appointed to the Wheat Board as a director, we brought forward.... When we reported back that we didn't agree with the appointment, the committee said that they'd failed to demonstrate that they have the qualifications necessary to fulfill the requirements.
So it has to be a lot more specific. I think I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Storseth that this motion is out of order.
I believe that if you guys want to....
Conservative
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I don't have it in front of me, but my amendment would be “as he failed to respond to the concerns of the committee with respect to demonstrating the qualifications necessary to fulfil the requirements expected of the position of chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission”.
That's along the lines of Bruce Johnson's motion.
I would move that amendment. If Brian wants to argue competence, if competence goes to the issue of being independent of the government, that's my concern. We've seen the op-ed piece, which is promoting legislation that is not yet the law and does in fact sway public opinion along the lines that the minister wants it swayed.
The history of this government, the record of this government, is absolutely clear: anybody who stands up to the Prime Minister is fired. What we need in these positions, as chief commissioner of the Grain Commission, or head of Canada's nuclear regulatory authority, or head of the Canadian Wheat Board, is people who are going to be strongly independent of the government. The article that appeared in several western papers leads me to believe this chief commissioner would be more of a spokesman for the government than an independent regulator administering the Canada Grain Act, so that's where I'm coming down on it.
If the record of the government weren't so bad, that it just puts people in place who speak its line, then we could look at it differently. But the record is terrible, so we have no choice but to oppose this appointment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay, I'll just read the amendment. It's an addition. We'll probably have to wordsmith this a bit yet.
This is an addition to Mr. Atamanenko's motion, that after “Canadian Grain Commission”, we add, “as he has failed to respond to the concerns of the committee to demonstrate the necessary...”.
Are we saying “qualifications”?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
So “qualifications to fulfil the requirements expected of an appointee to the Canadian Grain Commission.”
That is the amendment.
Mr. Boshcoff, Mr. Lauzon, and Mrs. Skelton.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
With regard to qualifications, in studying the resumé further, I would have to say that Mr. Hermanson's experience as a farmer is in one of the most noble professions. It certainly lends quite a bit of credence to his application. My concern then becomes one of independence and experience in terms of managing an organization such as the CGC.
Thank you very much.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's a little disappointing that the very motion is concerned, apparently, with the possible partisanship of our appointee, yet here we see partisan politics at its highest level.
The initiator of this motion and the person who amended it both have said, without reservation.... To quote Mr. Easter, he said he has no concern about his qualifications, and Mr. Atamanenko, “I respect your qualifications.”
If this isn't partisanship, how is it possible for a mover and somebody who has amended a motion to be on record as saying that and then put that motion forward? This is hypocritical at best.
Conservative
Conservative
Carol Skelton Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Mr. Chair, I sit here with great disappointment in my colleagues.
As a person from the province of Saskatchewan, I have known Mr. Hermanson over the years. I have known his personal service to his province, to the people of Saskatchewan, to the agricultural community. I know what he did while he was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, and the partisanship I see going on today almost breaks my heart.
I think that being involved in political life doesn't mean that you cannot uphold your pledge when you take a position. When I retire from this place, I hope that just because I served the people of my province, and those people put me in and gave me the privilege of serving here, I will not be taken to task by a group of people saying I'm not qualified to hold this position.
I'm very pleased that Mr. Hermanson applied for the position and received the position that he did receive. He's very well respected in our province. And it gives me great disappointment, because over the years, sitting across from Mr. Easter, Mr. Boshcoff, and Mr. St. Amand when they were in the government of this country, I saw people appointed who I maybe would have called at that time political appointments.
I find this a really partisan position. I really think Mr. Hermanson is a very credible appointment and I believe we should be supporting him totally.
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I have a couple of comments on qualifications.
When I look at this resumé, I admire the involvement with the Christian Embassy goodwill visit to Vietnam and the fact that he did spend time as an MLA and as leader of the opposition. That's major experience. I admire that, and that's what I meant when I talked about admiring his qualifications.
However, whether we like it or not, we are in a very political time. We've got Justice Gomery telling us we should be very careful on the appointments we make because others have made mistakes and mistakes are being made now, so in that sense it is partisan.
I think Mr. Hermanson is a victim of circumstance, and I don't think he should have been appointed by the minister in light of what's happening. For that reason--and his background--I don't support his nomination to this post.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
You know that I am newly elected and I had, just as you when you were first elected, to set up a team of assistants. We receive all sorts of resumes in our offices. Based on their resumes, people can look very impressive and so you invite them to an interview. But it is not only the resume that is indicative of how the person will do the job, there is also what is called judgment. Very often, when we meet people in an interview, it becomes apparent that the best resumes do not always belong to the best people, those who show good judgment. Sometimes, it does not even become apparent in the interview, only later once the person has been hired. Sometimes, things turn out very well, but it happens that people who work for us show a lack of judgment.
Earlier, I asked Mr. Hermanson if he considered himself as political staff or as a senior official. He answered that he viewed himself as a senior official. The job of a senior official is to implement legislation and not to express opinions on a given bill. I am of the view that he showed a clear lack of judgment. This is why I say that we should dissociate his judgment and his resume.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Skelton's comments have really, I think, gotten to the root of what we're talking about here.
I'd like to go back to Mr. Atamanenko's comment. I respect Alex as much as anyone on this committee. I think he's a genuine individual; Mr. Storseth too. But the only way that Mr. Hermanson can be a victim of circumstance here is if we make it that way, “we” being this committee. And I believe we're on the way to that if this motion passes.
Something that Mrs. Skelton said really made me think. A few months back, when the Prime Minister appointed John Manley to prepare and study the issue of Afghanistan and come back with a report, my first thought on it was, “Wow, will he stay non-partisan?” It was just a passing thought. A number of my constituents said the same thing to me. But at the end of the day, I told my constituents, “Look, Mr. Manley was a well-respected MP when he was in Ottawa, to my knowledge, and we have to give somebody with that kind of qualifications the chance to do the job.”
At the end of the day, the fellow came back with a report that I believe was honest. It was not, in any way or shape, partisan or what have you.
The same thing applies here. It's about qualifications. We've had some members across the way talk about his ability. Mr. Boshcoff just re-endorsed that. Mr. Hermanson's experience as a farmer is definitely an asset. His experience as a politician is definitely an asset. He knows how the system works. His integrity has been endorsed more than once. This is a non-issue--except partisanship, if we allow it to be there.
As Mrs. Skelton said, if the fact of being a member of Parliament would disqualify, for instance, Mr. Easter, after his days are done here, from having some kind of agricultural appointment, I think that would be a dang shame--as it would be for me, or you, Mr. Chairman, or anyone else. If the qualifications are there, that's what we should be looking at.
So I would just ask everybody here to really look at this honestly and leave the partisanship aside. The man is qualified. I fully endorse his appointment to this position, and I think history will prove that this is a great appointment.
I think I should leave it at that, Mr. Chairman.