Evidence of meeting #9 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc André Bellavance
Good afternoon and welcome.
You are aware that, in a few minutes, our chair will be tabling the report that, happily, we were able to produce before the break. So I will be sitting in for Mr. Bezan until he gets back.
All today's motions were duly tabled before the committee. The first motion is from Mr. Larry Miller.
Mr. Miller, please tell us about your motion, which is now open for debate.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It's a pretty self-explanatory motion, Mr. Chairman. You, I believe, were present on our APF tour, at least through eastern Canada. Prior to that, one of the things we had was an in camera meeting here back in late May, I believe, this past spring, to deal with some of the issues that were very contentious. It was also to basically deal with some of the perceived monopolies and things that may distort the marketplace, not just for the consumer, at the end of the day, but for small agribusiness, including grocery stores, which are in kind of a bad position.
The motion is pretty straightforward, and I would certainly ask that everyone support it.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc André Bellavance
Are there questions or comments on the motion?
Are you ready for the question?
3:35 p.m.
Some members
Yes.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc André Bellavance
Thank you.
Mr. Atamanenko, your two motions are in order, and both were tabled at the same time. You may therefore choose which one you would like us to discuss first.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
We could start with the one that deals with Mr. Measner.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Yes. It reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food recommend that the government immediately reimburse farmers for an amount equivalent to the severance package of Mr. Adrian Measner, which was incurred when the government fired him from his position as president of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I just want to explain the logic. There were costs.
There were costs incurred when Mr. Measner was fired. It would be logical for the government to assume those costs, as opposed to the Wheat Board and the farmers, and that's all this motion says.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Chair, it's good to be back here talking about an old, favourite subject.
I just have a couple of questions on this, and then maybe I'll have a comment a little bit later.
This is basically impossible to do, so I'm not sure why the motion has been made. Mr. Atamanenko calls on the government to immediately reimburse farmers. I'm wondering what he's suggesting there, because that's pretty undefined. Do they get 10¢ each? How do we go about reimbursing farmers?
Second, it is for an amount equivalent to the severance package. I don't know if Mr. Atamanenko knows what that severance package is, and I don't think anyone else does. I'm just wondering if he can enlighten us a little as to how he would see this motion being carried out.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I'd like to thank my honourable colleague for being here. It's nice to see you back, David.
The intent of the motion is that when we reimburse farmers, we reimburse the Canadian Wheat Board, which is the farmers' organization. They incurred the costs. The Wheat Board spent money, money was spent, and they should be reimbursed.
What is the sum? Obviously, those people in the Wheat Board know what that sum is. That should be a negotiation with the government. So they would get that reimbursement back. It's as simple as that.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Chair, I don't think we have enough information to support this motion.
There may be another direction we should go with this, and that is, rather than immediately reimbursing anyone, we should maybe sit down and take a little bit of time to study Mr. Measner's past package--what he had in terms of salary and benefits, bonuses, memberships, and those kinds of things--and then we would also take a look, perhaps, not just at his severance package but at his retirement package and the benefits the Canadian Wheat Board has extended to him.
I think there need to be some questions asked about the benefits he received, and potentially any benefits his nuclear or extended family may have received.
If you're going to support a motion like this, we need to go much further than this motion of Mr. Atamanenko's. I would actually be willing to make an amendment. If the committee decides that they would like to have that amendment, I'd be willing to make an amendment that we study Mr. Measner's severance and retirement packages, as well as his last two years of salary and benefits, in order to determine whether those numbers are reasonable.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I have a point of order, and you can correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe, Mr. Chairman—and it's along the same lines as what Mr. Anderson was just referring to—that this motion is out of order only because in order to make a decision on this, whether we should or we shouldn't, I certainly don't think it's appropriate. At the very least, Mr. Chairman, how can any of us be expected to vote on this without having the details of the compensation package? I think that needs to be tabled in front of this committee. If we have to deal with that in camera, then so be it. I think it's very irresponsible of us to even consider this question without having all the details in front of us.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
The motion is a recommendation, so on that point of order I'm going to have to rule that it's not a point of order because this is just a recommendation.
I have Mr. Bagnell, Mr. Lauzon, and Mr. Anderson.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My first part is a point of order clarification. Mr. Anderson was talking about two different motions. I think he was talking about two different motions, and at the moment I'm talking about the second one that was handed out in my package, which is related to the extra costs of the Canadian Wheat Board as a result of the government changes to the election rules.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
As the chair said, this is a recommendation. In the grand scheme of the Government of Canada these aren't huge amounts, and the government can sort out the details. I'm quite happy to support this motion as presented.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'm wondering if this is even in order, because it's recommending that the government spend a sum of money, and I understand that's beyond the committee's ability to demand.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes. This would not require a royal prerogative. This is actually due to the government monkeying in affairs of what is not even a crown corporation and costing primary producers money. It's not about a royal prerogative. It's about compensating the Wheat Board for the problems the government created.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I will just go back to Mr. Anderson's point of order. Because this is only a recommendation, and it's not binding upon the government--it is just a motion--it's within the realm of this committee to bring forward such recommendations.
Mr. Lauzon.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
With all due respect to Mr. Atamanenko, whether it's a recommendation or a motion, I have a hard time supporting something that's so open-ended. How do we know whether we're talking about $50,000, $500,000, or $50 million? Until we have some specifics, how do you make a recommendation? I don't feel comfortable committing this government or any government to an open-ended amount, so I would not be supporting the motion in its current form.