Industry Committee on Nov. 25th, 2010

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I was going to make the same point that Mr. Lake was making about government: people complain about the government wheels moving slowly. We're certainly contributing to that.

My view is that we shouldn't invite everybody back. We may talk to the organizations that were in front of us. We have one meeting to get a representation from all the different sides of the equation. We have one meeting to talk about these issues.

It's a seven-clause bill, ladies and gentlemen. It's not huge. We're making major changes to the pension program in this country, and now there are seven or eight amendments. Let's be succinct. Let's get it done, so that people, companies, pension planners, and pensioners can continue to work on the issue. I know that both sides of the House are going to continue to work on the pension issue, whether this bill passes or not. But let's be succinct and get 'er done.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

Mr. Rafferty.

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

I want to be on the record that I agree with Mr. Lake's comments about timing. I think that makes a lot of sense. The only proviso I might put in—and maybe the timing doesn't work for this—is to have new witnesses, not the same witnesses. I see the heads shaking there. I guess in the spirit of Mr. Garneau's comments, we should clear up with the people who have already been here. So let me retract that. But let me agree with Mr. Lake's comments about timing.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I can't scrub it from the minutes, but it is retracted.

Mr. Garneau.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have no problems with the suggestion as to timing proposed by Mr. Lake. Let's get this right.

I do have a bit of a problem with Mr. Wallace saying this is only a seven-clause bill and it's only talking about eight amendments. This is a very important bill. It is an extremely important bill for both pensioners and businesses. It is not to be belittled by saying that it's a few pages thick.

Let's look at this in a serious fashion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Wallace, did you want to speak to that?

[Wallace]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Just to be clear, Mr. Wallace never said the bill wasn't important. In terms of extending time to deal with a bill that's fairly short and not overly complex, we've articulated that we don't agree with the need to extend meetings.

I do want to take a moment to express appreciation to Mr. Rafferty. As we've gone through the process, I really do appreciate the style he's brought forward. Whether we disagree on what the bill will or will not do, and what I would deem to be the risks of the bill, I definitely acknowledge that it's been brought forward in a positive spirit--changes he feels are important. I'd like to acknowledge that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, our speakers list has been exhausted.

To get some momentum, I think I have consensus on reporting to the House and asking for a 30-day delay on this bill, as well as Bill C-452.

Is there consensus on that?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I think we're probably going to need more clarity on the witnesses now. We had a suggestion to give all the witnesses we heard from an opportunity to appear.

Mr. Garneau.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Quite right, Mr. Chair, it's to give them an opportunity. If they feel nothing has changed, then that's up to them not to reappear.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

So as the motion stands right now, debate has ended.

Oh, it hasn't.

Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Sorry, I just want some clarification. To me, these changes are serious and significant. If we find that we need new witnesses.... Are we limiting ourselves to the previous witnesses, or can we add witnesses? I don't want to limit it.

As Mr. Wallace said, it's a one-page document; it's not very long, but it is significant. If it's going to change industry, pensions, people's jobs, if we need more witnesses, I want the freedom to call them in if necessary.

I want to make sure we're not limiting ourselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Absolutely. But the motion on the floor that was moved by Mr. Garneau was to give the previous witnesses an opportunity—

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I want clarification on that, whether we are—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Well, if we vote for that motion, that's what we'll decide. Of course it's up to the committee whether they decide to move another motion or debate the issue. I'm open in that regard, to try to find consensus on new witnesses. I'm just trying to deal with what's at hand right now.

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

The motion is for the witnesses we've heard, for the same reasons I've argued, that we don't necessarily need to go through this process. I also agree that if we are going to go through the process, we hear from the witnesses we've heard from. Certainly by way of extension, anyone else who wants to comment can write in their concerns to the committee and have those concerns added to the record.

I believe this will be the longest I've ever spent on a private member's bill in terms of the number of meetings. It's certainly the first time we'll have listened to the same witnesses on multiple occasions. It's already somewhat unprecedented. I think we ought to move forward as the motion presents and schedule the witnesses that came before us to come before us again.

It should take two meetings. I think we only had two meetings with witnesses. Were there witnesses in the second hour of the first meeting? I can't remember. I think we should be able to fit it in over two meetings and then go clause by clause in the third.

I don't think we need to have the officials come before us again until clause-by-clause. They can add their opinions during clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Just as a point of clarification, and I apologize to the honourable member across if he misinterpreted what I was trying to say, he is absolutely right. On the finance committee, I spent all last spring and the beginning of the summer on pension issues at committee for four hours a week for six or seven weeks. It is a significant issue. All I was saying is that this bill has an impact, and should we be relying on making such an impact in seven clauses? That was my point.

That's my point of clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no objection to hearing from some new witnesses, but this raises a question in my own mind which is rather delicate. I would not like to leave the impression with certain witnesses we heard from that we do not value their opinions. I don't want to exclude anyone, but at the same time, I think we need to identify our requirements and the reason why we're requesting an extension. It is likely with a view to improving the bill and making it more effective and efficient. I think we could possibly select more expert witnesses who could talk about the impact of these amendments. We could also hear once again from those who put forward other suggestions. Some witnesses would not be in a position to provide any more details regarding what people affected by these events have experienced or what the outcome was.

I believe that we are now at a very technical stage in the process. Those are the kinds of witnesses we should be hearing from at our upcoming meetings. That way we could arrive at a final wording and make enlightened decisions with respect to the impacts and scope of the bill, as drafted at that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Monsieur Cardin.

Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I agree with Mr. Cardin. I would like there to be an opportunity to invite other witnesses if we see that we are missing certain information and that there are still gaps to be filled. Perhaps an amendment could be made to the motion to allow us to invite additional witnesses to appear, if we deem it necessary.