Finance Committee on June 16th, 2009

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is a result of our last debate concerning a motion to request that the Nortel employees appear before the committee. If you recall, I suggested that perhaps we could give equal opportunity to the executives to appear before the committee and to provide them with a chance to either reply or present their part of the story as to what is going on in Nortel exactly, in terms of payment, repayments, pension plans, severance payments, or any types of payments being made to present and former employees who would have taken severance pay or who are now on a pension.

I understand that time is limited, and perhaps I am making more of an informal request, Mr. Chair. It's not necessary for me to request that the CEO appear, but I thought that the CEO should be named, because I got my information from reading the Globe and Mail that he was the one who refused to appear. My request was in a total air of transparency to have the CEO appear so that he can give his version. The fact that neither he nor anybody else on the executive wanted to appear makes me wonder what they have to hide. So I am open to any amendments.

The problem that bothers me is the subsequent motion that we have before us, which is to have Mr. Manley appear. If the committee chooses to have Mr. Manley appear, I'm not so sure we need to have both the CEO and the board. I'm just requesting that somebody from management or the executives appear and present their side of the story. I'm not after a witch hunt, but I think the motion we're going to have before us regarding Mr. Mulcair is more like a witch hunt, because he's requesting one specific member of the board of directors, whereas I don't really mind who it is.

If I can leave that open to the committee, perhaps we can find some type of compromise.

The other problem we have is that I'm not sure we're going to be able to get a representative from the Nortel executives or the board of directors here by Thursday.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Menzies, Mr. Mulcair, and Mr. McKay.

Mr. Menzies, please.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I share some of Massimo's concern here. First of all, reading in the Globe and Mail that we're calling the executives to committee.... That was never the intent of the motion. I find that most troubling. We've spoken to a number of employees—my office has and I have personally—and we had agreed at this committee to listen to the employees/retirees. They're our constituents. That was my understanding, and I believe it was all our understanding on this side. They were who we were going to listen to. I was about as shocked as you were to find out that we had actually jumped ahead, not invited the employees, and invited the executives. Most of the people we've talked to—

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

On a point of order—

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Can I finish?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

—because we do have a limited time. Just on a point order, we did agree we were going to have somebody from the corporation appear.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Menzies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Executives were mentioned after we had agreed we were going to listen to employees.

We've talked to many of these employees, and they do not want to be any part of a witch hunt. They want to be heard. They don't want to see the executives brought here.

Number one, it's inappropriate. The pensions at Nortel—and we need to be very clear on this—are provincial jurisdiction. They are subject to Ontario's Pension Benefits Act, which has nothing to do with this committee and nothing to do with the federal government. The only areas of federal jurisdiction are the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the CCAA, and they in fact, Mr. Chairman, are in the sole purview of the Minister of Industry.

So if anyone is going to hear them, if anyone is going to ask those people to appear, it should be the industry committee and not us. The only federal involvement in the Nortel issue should be done via that committee and through that minister. So there's no formal role for the finance committee or the finance minister.

The other point is that it's in legal process right now, so we shouldn't be interfering in it. That's my assumption of why, when the executives were invited, they said thanks, but no thanks; it's in a court proceeding. We need to respect that.

I know that some of the employees may be disappointed that we're saying this, but I repeat, it's the employees we want to hear. The employees I've spoken to don't want to see this committee delve into a witch hunt. They're concerned about their pensions—and only their pensions, in most part. There's a long-standing process in place for this, and I would encourage us to follow that.

We need not, and should not, politicize this. These people are concerned about their futures, their pensions, and their jobs. So the government cannot support bringing the executive to this committee. It's no part of ours. We welcome hearing from the employees and the retirees, and not the executive.

So we will not be supporting either of these motions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to try to do what I can, this morning, to make your life easier. I withdraw my notice of motion. I'm supporting Mr. Pacetti's motion, while repeating that Mr. Pacetti was clear, in fact extremely so. The facts were reported in the newspapers.

I'm a lawyer, and I can tell you that Mr. Menzies' argument doesn't hold water. It is not true that having one or another of Nortel Networks' executives or directors before the committee would be a problem. They have complete immunity and they benefit from all the protection and guarantees imaginable. They are better protected than anyone else, no matter what the situation. In order to understand the context, an explanation by a company representative is essential.

I thought that Mr. Manley was a good choice, for the very simple reason that, in addition to being a senior manager at Nortel Networks, he knows how Parliament works. So, if it will help, I will withdraw my notice of motion, as long as, if ever the other witness couldn't appear for some unavoidable reason, our second choice could be the witness that I had proposed.

I am supporting Mr. Pacetti's motion and I withdraw mine.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you. You can just choose not to move your motion today, then.

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

The issue here is parliamentary supremacy. As I understood it, Mr. Zafirovski indicated he was unavailable to come to the committee; that is, he was unwilling to come to the committee. Parliament is supreme over all matters, including legal matters. Whether or not it is in front of the courts is irrelevant. Parliament can, on demand, require any person to come before its committees.

That's what Mr. Pacetti's motion is all about, so I will be supporting it for two reasons. One, I think Mr. Zafirovski has some serious explaining to do with respect to discrepancies between how the senior executives seem to be treating themselves and the employees seem to be treated; and second of all, with respect to our own supremacy, Parliament is supreme in all matters if it wishes to exercise its jurisdiction, and I would suggest it is an appropriate occasion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Kramp.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you.

I speak with a bit of serious concern on this matter in that I have a few thousand retirees in my riding, from whom I hear on a consistent basis. We can go into a long investigation of why Nortel is in the state it's in. We can bring in all the executives, past and present, and we can delve into all the implications of their actions. But the problem we have right now is our pensioners and the people who are out of work. That is my priority right now.

These are the people I want to hear and take my direction from. They are the people I want to see. After their testimony, then I'd like to be able to set sail on whatever tack we need. But they are the priority, and these are the people I would be supporting. I don't want to go in other directions until we've heard from these people.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I wonder if the clerk can help us out with this.

We have invited individuals before from Nortel, from the management side. They clearly indicated in their response to us that Nortel, on the advice of counsel, declined the invitation to appear because of the court rulings in evidence. What does our moving a motion to summon them do? They could come and say they can't comment because it's in front of the courts. What is the use of having them? What is the law on this?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jean-François Pagé]

I will review the exact procedure.

Any committee member may move that someone be summoned to appear before the committee on a certain date. If the person does not comply, the committee may discuss and adopt a report to the House informing the House of that conduct. The first step is to adopt the motion and invite them. Then we'll see what their response will be.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

We are trying to get that person here for Thursday. Is that correct? This is a waste of time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Jean-Yves.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chair, I don't want to repeat the reasons mentioned by colleagues who speak in favour of the motion, but I fully agree with them and I appreciate the fact that Mr. Mulcair withdrew his motion, which allows us to concentrate on just one. The reasons presented were fully justifiable and justified. So, we agree to support this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll go to the vote, then. I call the question on Mr. Pacetti's motion.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Mulcair is not moving his motion. We will do Mr. McCallum's and Mr. Wallace's motions on Thursday.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Wallace, have you spoken to the people? Can we pass it without debate?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Let's do this on Thursday.

We will adjourn the meeting, and we will call the joint meeting to order in about two minutes.

The meeting is adjourned.