Evidence of meeting #33 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was back.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
So the department would study the effectiveness of the following amendments “and other related options” to the Income Tax Act.
Okay, I have Mr. Pacetti.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The only thing that troubles me is the fact that we are going to give this to Finance, then Finance is going to give us a letter that's going to say absolutely nothing, and then we're going to have to turn around and start a study. I think we're all aware of the issue. We already had hearings in the last Parliament with a company out west where the tax assessments were waived for just one company in particular, but this seems to be a reoccurring issue.
I think we're familiar with the issue. I don't think we should restart this. I think the purpose, or at least my reason for supporting this, is that at least we're starting almost at the end already, where we're going to hear just from the Finance people and decide what the remedies are going to be. I hate to think that we're not going to get an answer from the Finance officials and then have to start a study, because when we come back in the fall, we'll be tied up with the pre-budget consultations.
I just want it put on the record, if it could be, that Finance should at least give us a specific and detailed answer on how we could remedy the situation. It's not a new file. We have to put some kind of closure on these stock options and purchase plans. I'm just scared that even though we give them 90 days it's not going to be what we're looking for.
I want to put it on the record that I'm talking to the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Menzies, through you, Mr. Chair, if that could be possible. I already hear people around the table saying that we're going to have employees coming here and telling us how they're affected. I think we're all aware. We've already met with them. We've seen correspondence.
Mr. Mulcair, you can correct me if I'm wrong, and again, through you, Mr. Chair. I don't think we have to restart this issue. I just want to put that on the record.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Pacetti.
I don't have any further speakers, so I'll just read this out to be clear:
The Finance Committee requests that the Department of Finance immediately study the effectiveness of the following amendments and other related options to the Income Tax Act and report those findings back to the Finance Committee by August 31, 2009.
(Amendment agreed to)
Now we're on the motion as amended.
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you, colleagues.
I have a second motion by Mr. Mulcair.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This motion is extremely brief and I hope clear. You'll see that the motion in question does not contain the usual reference, “and that we report to the House.” I know that the motion will raise questions with regard to our committee's mandate, if we ever report to the House. That's what we recently experienced with the parliamentary budget director.
To the extent that this is a matter that does not specifically fall within the mandate of a parliamentary committee, I'm taking the liberty of suggesting that we study it. I am moving that the committee hold a meeting with representatives from terminated employees of Nortel Networks and retired employees of Nortel Networks regarding the company's practices toward severance packages and pension payments. This is the theme that we're beginning to see increasingly among businesses in these times of crisis that we're experiencing in Canada. I would find it unfortunate if we decided for reasons of internal economy not to consider this matter.
I'm going to briefly outline the situation. Currently, the most senior managers at Nortel, as was recently the case of the Canada Pension Plan, are granting themselves enormous bonuses, whereas employees cannot even get their severance pay because the company is headed toward bankruptcy. Creditors may only receive 33¢ on the dollar in the event of bankruptcy. If we set that amount at 31¢ on the dollar, all employees would receive their severance pay. This has an enormous impact on the organization of their severance pay, together with their eligibility or non-eligibility for employment insurance. This is the kind of problem we may well be facing.
I've spoken with my colleagues on the other side, in particular Mr. Kramp, who informed me that there are several thousands of former Nortel employees and retirees in his riding, and I know this affects a large number of ridings. We can at least hear those employees and examine the situation. If we subsequently decide that this has to be reported to the House and that it requires specific legislative amendments, we'll then have to take another step and determine which committee will act, if any.
For the moment, I'm not convinced that this can't all be done here. That's why our motion makes no reference to a report to the House.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you very much, Mr. Mulcair.
I'm being strongly advised that this motion is not in order, for a few reasons. Number one, it will deal with the Canada Labour Code, which is under the purview of the human resources, social development, and status of persons committee. Also, it deals with bankruptcy and insolvency, which are under the industry, science, and technology committee. And Nortel's pension specifically is under a provincial pension plan.
Having said that, my own personal view as the chair is that this topic is worthy of discussion, certainly as a motion. I'm just seeking a way to make this motion more general in nature, such that the motion can be allowed. I am sort of hinting to you that if we can make this motion more general in nature, such that I don't, as the chair, have to rule it out of order, I'm willing to accept it based on the fact that it is a subject worthy of discussion.
I don't know, colleagues, if we can be helpful.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
I can answer right away that I am very open to your suggestions, Mr. Chairman, and
I very much appreciate your openness.
So if you have a suggestion, I'm more than open to it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, I'm going to act against advice, then, and allow the motion to be discussed, and I'm going to look to colleagues for amendments to make it more general in nature such that the committee can discuss it rather than have me rule it out of order.
Mr. Pacetti, and then Mr. Stanton.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I don't even think we need a motion. We haven't yet finished the study on pensions and on credit availability. And we don't necessarily need to specifically state that we want to invite Nortel employees, because there are employees of other companies who have appeared, like those from Air Canada. If anything, I was even going to ask that the Nortel executives appear, but if Mr. Mulcair wants only the employees....
I think we'd have no problem asking employees from Nortel to come, but I don't know if we have to be specific. We can just say “the committee requests that representatives from companies affected by company practices towards severance plans, pension payments”. I don't believe we necessarily need a motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
One option, then, is to have a meeting under the current study and have the meeting specifically focus on Nortel, without actually passing a motion saying it's focused on Nortel.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
I was looking for your guidance, and the light is shining down and I've seen it, so I'm more than willing to do that.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
It's understood, though, that we will have a meeting with Nortel.
Do you want the executives as well as the...?
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, as the chair I will invite them, and we'll try to do that before the end of the session in June.
Thank you.
Mr. Menzies.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
On a point to that, Mr. Chair, you suggested you had the option of ruling it out of order. We do need to remember that this is provincial jurisdiction, so we have to be a little cautious in the assumptions we make and in our questioning when these folks come. Because it is provincial jurisdiction. We don't like it when the provinces step on our toes, so let's be a little cautious about that.
The other thing I might just share is...and some of you have heard of this research working group on retirement income adequacy that was brought up at the federal-provincial-territorial finance ministers' meeting. We're starting a research project on overall pension adequacy. It will be interesting, in whatever other meetings we do have on pensions, to actually seek out some advice as to that overall picture of pension adequacy going forward.
But I would just caution on provincial jurisdiction.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, colleagues. That concludes the public part.
Mr. McCallum.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Chair, I don't know quite what's in order or the timing, but I just want to say I think it would be a very good idea if we could invite the finance minister to come and visit us at the time of the estimates, especially in light of significant deficit changes. I'm informed that the only day possible, because of when hearings on estimates have to end, would be Tuesday of next week.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
There's a recommendation to invite the finance minister for Tuesday of next week on the estimates.
The leader of the opposition did....
Do you want to explain?
