Evidence of meeting #12 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was organizations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
We are asking this because we are running out of time. We have been trying to adopt this bill for a number of years. It is important that we hear your comments after listening to representatives of Imagine Canada and the Red Cross, who made recommendations. They will have to live with this bill or law every week of the year.
We were interested in hearing if you believe their recommendations make sense. If yes, which amendments would you make to the bill? Do you believe that we have been mistaken with regard to certain clauses and that they should be amended based on their proposals or have you put these recommendations on the back burner while waiting for the end of the process? I do not know, I am just trying to understand.
Earlier, you were asked if you knew that Bill C-4 would be examined clause by clause on Thursday. I did not understand the interpretation of your answer. Did you know that?
5:05 p.m.
Senior Director, Corporate and Insolvency Law Policy and Internal Trade Directorate, Department of Industry
We had heard that it might happen but, since there was no confirmation, we were not sure. By the way, a representative of the department is always present to take note of what is discussed. Therefore, we knew that it was a possibility but it was not confirmed on the web site.
As I already indicated, we have listened to comments about the bill overall. Some of the comments were not necessarily new in that they had been mentioned at consultations. In our opinion, the bill in its current form is good.
I mentioned 50 specific provisions for which the Canadian Bar Association proposed very clear changes. In some cases, it was a matter of wording. Therefore, we need to know whether or not the wording improves things. That becomes an exercise that we had not—
With respect to the questions and issues discussed today, we continue to believe that parts 6 and 7 have a role to play and would clarify the position of a non-profit organization when it finds itself in that situation. That is also the case for the distinction between the definition of “soliciting” and non-soliciting”. We continue to believe that the distinction is a valid and useful one, given the nature of public information in certain cases and not in others.
In general, we are satisfied with the bill in its present form. I was really referring to specific proposals about wording that would clarify the text rather than change the bill.
5:05 p.m.
Senior Project Leader, Corporate and Insolvency Law Policy and Internal Trade Directorate, Department of Industry
The problem we have is the problem we've had from the very beginning of the whole consultation process, which is that this bill applies to the widest possible range of organizations.
You ran into one issue today where you had the CICA and the CGA with diametrically opposed viewpoints on a particular issue. There were differences of opinion on how directors' liability should be handled between Imagine Canada and the Canadian Bar Association. There were also differences between whether soliciting and non-soliciting should be eliminated. The Canadian Bar Association said it was absolutely essential that those distinctions be made.
Since the beginning of this whole process, years and years ago—when I was much younger—we've constantly being trying to get that balance, to try to carve out a statute that does the best possible job for the widest range of corporations. It's really difficult at times to square that circle, to make it so that everybody is happy with the legislation. It's part of the reason we can't necessarily say, yes, we'll make the change because group A advocated it. I say this because group B, who may have appeared before the committee earlier or may not even have been invited, would not like it.
We heard all of those things through the consultations. It's a difficult process.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
You will understand that we may feel disappointed. If I have correctly understood the arguments you just made, you find that the bill is good and will not be amended.
Those who wish to make changes to this bill find themselves in a situation of uncertainty. First, you did not check what they said. Second, you believe the bill is viable and perfect as is. Third, if we include recommendations in our report, they will also be disregarded.
5:10 p.m.
Senior Director, Corporate and Insolvency Law Policy and Internal Trade Directorate, Department of Industry
I would like to clarify one thing: we have listened and considered what they have said, and have been doing so for a number of years.
In some cases, we must try to balance things, particularly the different interests, in order to have a good bill and good public policy. That is what we did. We considered a number of the recommendations, including those made by the Canadian Bar Association.
I stated that it was too early to say whether or not we were in favour of changes to the bill. We believe that it is balanced and that its architecture is good. Some proposals were made about the wording. Is it possible to improve the wording? That is what I was referring to. Otherwise we monitor the discussions and consider the comments.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
All right. Thank you, Mr. Charland and Mr. Vincent.
We will stop here. I would like to thank our three witnesses for their testimony.
We're going to end here. Thank you very much.
What we'll do is ask you to notify the clerk tomorrow morning, as soon as you can, as to whether or not you can get us the department's response to the CBA's proposed changes. We would really appreciate it if you could get it to us tomorrow, earlier in the day, because that would allow the committee to go to clause by clause on Thursday, which would be a nice way to enter the break week. I know this has been many years in waiting for the department.
To help us get this expeditiously through committee and back to the House, it would be nice if you could have that for us tomorrow morning.
Mr. Masse.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I would also like to hear their response to the other witnesses who have proposed changes as well. We would like to hear—
5:10 p.m.
Senior Director, Corporate and Insolvency Law Policy and Internal Trade Directorate, Department of Industry
Are we talking about specific textual propositions? We've been discussing a number of these proposals for 50 minutes.
Just to make sure we can get back to the committee with what it's expecting, are we talking about specific word changes—delete this clause, add that clause—from the CBA?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Mr. Masse, I think it might be a little much to ask the department to come up with suggestions for every single broad-stroke suggestion that witnesses came forward with.
Might I suggest we ask the department for two things. First is a response to each of the specific changes requested by witnesses as submitted to us in the briefs, which are available to you.
Second, I know that Madam Kirby mentioned to us before in committee that they have a transitional plan, once this act is passed, for the not-for-profits involved. Perhaps whatever information you have on that you could also provide to the committee. I know that a number of people voiced concerns about the transitional phase from the 1917 legislation to the new legislation.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I'd also like to hear a response—and they're going to have to provide it verbally here—to what the witnesses, the Red Cross, etc., suggested. We're going to have to go through this, either way, because there have been a number of different suggestions by different organizations here.
If there's no benefit to anything any of them has ever suggested—all of them—I'm certainly going to be asking those questions repeatedly, and to go through them publicly here. Or, if we can, some type of commentary might help expedite whether or not the particular concerns of witnesses are validated, for this or that reason, etc.
We can either do that through clause-by-clause, or if we have some type of help for that now, it might provide the department proper time or opportunity not to have to go through all of that.
If I find that some of this is not acceptable, then I'm certainly going to make sure.... I don't want the process to go through without the United Way, for example, or some other organization, being able to address something that might have been misconveyed somehow, in a sincere way.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
What I'm going to suggest then is that the specific changes requested by witnesses, which we've heard over the course of the last number of weeks, be addressed by the department.
If you could, let us know tomorrow morning whether or not you can get to all members of this committee the department's position on those suggested changes. That would be helpful.
Monsieur Vincent.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
I agree with Brian with regard to his request. The witnesses told us that they feel the bill is perfect, that nothing should be changed. It would be too easy for the department to tell us, in its conclusions, that pursuant to our request, no changes are required and that, in its opinion, the bill should stay as it is. That is not what we want. We want to know why some of the witnesses' recommendations were not retained and why others were. I do not want to hear that out of 50 recommendations, one was retained and that we should have a debate about whether on line two we should use this or that word. I do not entirely agree with that.
I really want these people to be involved in this matter. I want those who testified to get the answers to their questions. They should not just hear that there are no changes to be made to this bill. I want a more detailed answer.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you, Mr. Vincent.
So it's clear that tomorrow morning you'll get back to the clerk.
Go ahead, Mr. Charland.
5:15 p.m.
Senior Director, Corporate and Insolvency Law Policy and Internal Trade Directorate, Department of Industry
And that's regarding wording proposals coming from various witnesses in their briefs to the committee?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
That's right. For the suggested changes they made, we'd like you to address each of their concerns.
5:15 p.m.
Senior Director, Corporate and Insolvency Law Policy and Internal Trade Directorate, Department of Industry
I would also point out that we provided the clause-by-clause analysis of the bill, which indicates the policy rationale and thinking behind every provision. We'd be more than happy, during clause-by-clause, to go into more detail. But we have gone through and explained the rationale and the thinking and the whys behind every one of these provisions. I believe the committee has our clause-by-clause analysis.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
I would also add, Monsieur Vincent and Mr. Masse, that when we do go to clause-by-clause, officials from Industry Canada will be here to address any concerns you might bring up at any time.
Thank you.
Without further ado, we'll adjourn this meeting.
