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.
Conservative
Carol Skelton Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Mr. Chair, I have something. I'm getting information from the lobby. It says it now may take place sooner than 4:50 and to please proceed to the lobby. That's what I have here.
Conservative
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Chair, we could just stay here. Then there'd be an election and everybody would be happy.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you, Mr. Minister.
I'm going to suspend the meeting because I don't see unanimous consent.
Minister, thank you for attending. We do appreciate it. It was unfortunate that bells started to ring.
The meeting is suspended.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I'll call us back to order.
We're going to return to the motions. We have Mr. Atamanenko's motion and Mr. Anderson's amendment.
Mr. Anderson, would you read that amendment into the record?
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Well, we've had some discussions. The clerk was a little concerned about the way I worded it. I talked to him about rewording it so that it will be in order.
I'd like the clerk to read it, if he would.
Conservative
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Jean-François Lafleur
Thank you.
The amendment proposed by Mr. Anderson now reads that the motion be amended by replacing all the words after “Agri-Food” with the following:
study Mr. Measner's severance and retirement and pension package as well as his last 2 years salary and benefits, including membership, salary, benefits, bonuses, health care insurance coverage and on going obligations, relating to his dismissal by the government from his position as President of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chair, I think you should rule the amendment out of order. It clearly changes the intent of the motion.
The intent of the motion was for the Government of Canada to live up to its responsibilities for having dismissed a CEO against the wishes of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board, which really they had...they could do, but I think it violated their responsibilities to do so.
Measner was left with the choice to either break the law and keep his job or obey the law and be fired by the Government of Canada. He chose to obey the law, live up to his responsibilities as CEO of the board—
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
On a point of order, I don't know if Mr. Easter doesn't understand or if he's deliberately trying to mislead us here.
Mr. Measner was never told to deliberately break the law. If he'd followed the government's directions, he would not have been doing that. So I think we need to understand that.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I don't want to belabour this point, but the fact of the matter is that in Mr. Measner's position, he's obligated, as CEO, to obey the wishes of the board of directors. The Government of Canada asked him to go against what the board of directors was telling him.
So if he abided by the law according to the Wheat Board Act and took his direction from the board, he would be fired. He accepted that, because the government was basically saying to him that he could keep his job if he basically broke the law and went against the wishes of the board.
Mr. Chair, this amendment is out of order because it changes the intent from holding the government to its responsibility and tries to dig into information that the parliamentary secretary already has available to him, since he has responsibilities for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Well, in terms of rationale, I met with the clerk in order to put this—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Just before you go on, Mr. Atamanenko had his hand up.
Is this on the point of order or on the amendment?
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
If the amendment is in order, then I would just like to call the question.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'm willing to go to the question; I just wanted to explain why I made the amendment.
I talked to the clerk in order to ensure that the amendment is in order. It's important. As I pointed out, the original motion is poorly worded. It talks about reimbursing farmers, with no clear understanding of that, in spite of what Mr. Atamanenko understands that to mean.
But specifically here, it's important that we take a look at not just the severance package but also the pension and retirement packages that were offered to him from the board. Those last two years of salary actually set up the pension. We need to understand what was included in the last couple of years that determined the pension and retirement package. Those include a number of things, such as memberships, as is mentioned there.
So we'll certainly go to the question, but it's important that we look at this.
Conservative
Carol Skelton Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
No, I was just going to say that I would like to hear from Mr. Atamanenko on what he thought about it, but he already beat me to it.
I simply wanted to know what you were thinking, whether this was fine with you or not.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I think we should get it over with as soon as possible and vote. That's why I called the question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Are there any other comments?
We're voting on the amendment. Everybody understands what the amendment is?
(Amendment negatived)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Carrying right on, then, we'll go back to the main motion, Mr. Atamanenko.