Industry Committee on Nov. 25th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

A point of order, Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

For the purposes of that—and it's not a debate—I'm just confused in my mind if I have no idea what these amendments are going to do. I'm not absolutely sure, legally, what they provide. I'm not sure I can proceed with clause-by-clause on amendments for which we have no particular definition.

It's in response to your point, because in terms of clarification, we're trying to see here what these really mean in terms of their implications. I don't know. That will come later in my point that I'm going to make shortly.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Once we exhaust the speakers list, then I'll ask for some consensus from the committee. If we don't get it, we'll go to a vote. That's what we've been traditionally used to.

Mr. Rafferty, I have you next on the list, but I have a suspicion you snuck in what you wanted to say on the answer to Mr. Rota. Is that correct?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I suspect so, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. McTeague, you're on the list now too.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, I was going to ask if I might seek the indulgence of the committee to have our legal team here give us a precise definition of the implications of these amendments.

I hear the witnesses. I know Mr. Rafferty's intentions. But I think I'd like to see it legally, from a perspective of what the long-term impacts are. I would request that our researchers and our legal advisers give us that information, if not now, then at some point down the road.

I realize they're not going to be able to do that today.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I sense that you're not asking so much for a casual opinion now but for something that's concise.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

We need to know what this means. There are some definitions here that I suspect, as I raised initially with Mr. Charland, and I'm not convinced that the question of the amendments only clarifies. I think that in fact it does deal with two very different forms of pensions. I'd rather be wrong in pursuing this than have this corrected by individuals other than the department.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. McTeague, our excellent legislative team feels qualified to speak to it post-haste, so go right ahead.

Just a moment, Mr. Rafferty, as we are able to get a response to Mr. McTeague's question right now from our legislative team.

[Mark Mahabir, Committee Researcher]

Basically, what the amendments do is change the definition of “special payments” to include all special payments. The original bill talked about solvency, and the amendments talk about unfunded liabilities as well as solvency deficiencies. So basically, all special payments to liquidate all unfunded liabilities at the time of bankruptcy would have super-priority. Instead of “missed payments”, “all special payments”. So solvency would be at the end of payments. That amount, that difference, would have super-priority.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Rafferty.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Chair, again, I'm not as experienced as many people around the table here, so if we were to forgo the clause-by-clause today, not deal with that, would we hear witnesses next Tuesday and Thursday? Is that how it works? Is there a time lapse? I'm simply not sure of timing, Chair, or how that works.

If we go to clause-by-clause, there'll be a report, won't there? And that's not the intention. The intention is that we continue to listen to.... I mean, Mr. Garneau's intention is to.... Could you give me some idea of timing on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

My prognostication skills about what everybody in this room is going to decide aren't that good, but what I can say is whatever the committee decides, whether they want to go to clause-by-clause today, or whether they want to call the same witnesses, or, as Monsieur Bouchard said, to open it up to a broader set of witnesses is really up to the majority of the committee. Hopefully, by the end of extinguishing of our speakers list, we'll get to that decision.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

So how does the timing work on that? Would we be waiting until February to listen to the witnesses? I really don't know how that works.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Rafferty, that's what I'm saying. There's no succinct answer to that until everybody decides, and I think there's still some debate.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I see, okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Chair, I'd like to get back to the definition given to us.

Could you explain to me the comments on page one of the amendments proposed by Mr. Rafferty? I'm going to paragraph (11): “any amount required to liquidate any additional unfunded liability or solvency deficiency as determined at the time of bankruptcy”. Does that not suggest it's even broader than the issue of special payments?

[Mark Mahabir]

That would be any unfunded liability, any new unfunded liability determined at the time of bankruptcy.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

It would be moving beyond it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes. I think it's clear. It moves beyond special payments.

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Well, that's not the legal opinion right now.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Would that move it beyond the scope of the initial bill?

[Mark Mahabir]

The intent of the bill was to have all unfunded liabilities have super-priority. This clarifies the intent of the original bill.