Evidence of meeting #46 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clauses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
As I mentioned, I don't have an amendment from a member until clause 21, so can I group clauses 7 to 20?
Monsieur Giguère.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I have a question, Mr. Chair. It has to do with clause 10. It's a simple request for clarification.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Monsieur, just wait.
So on clauses 7 to 9, can I deal with those clauses?
3:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
(Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 10—Powers of Superintendent)
We'll go to clause 10.
Monsieur Giguère.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Authorities are being granted, but the word "can" is being used, not the word "must". Mr. Brian Jean will be able to correct me on this, but I think there's a major distinction between those two words. The problem is that we are referring to this information that will be necessary later. But how can we use these documents if the superintendent of financial institutions isn't required to produce them?
Perhaps it would be a good idea for the departmental representatives to join us at this table.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay.
Is there anyone from either OSFI or the Department of Finance who would like to comment on that?
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I don't know how many officials are in the room, but if we could have them sit at the table with us, it might save some time.
You're certainly welcome to join us at the table.
3:40 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services for the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Department of Justice
Could I ask you to repeat the question?
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Very well. I'll give you some context.
Clause 10(2) reads:
(2) The Superintendent may (a) conduct studies, surveys and research programs and compile statistical and other information…
The word "may" is used here. The problem is that further on, it says that we must obtain the lowest price possible. So how can we obtain that information, namely, what the lowest possible price is, if the word "must", which would require the superintendent to provide it, isn't used? The word "may" indicates that it's optional.
3:40 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services for the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Department of Justice
The superintendent has a mandate to ensure that the act is being complied with. This is another tool that the superintendent may use to ensure that the act is being complied with. The superintendent also has authority to require administrators to produce information and to examine those administrators. These are all part of the tools.
This is one tool the superintendent may use.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, thank you.
(Clause 10 agreed to on division)
Are there any clauses members have issues with or questions on between clauses 11 and 20? No?
(Clauses 11 to 20 inclusive agreed to on division)
Okay. We will go to clause 21.
Here we have amendment NDP-1. Mr. Marston, I will let you move it, and then I have a ruling.
(On clause 21—Transfer of assets to designated entity)
March 6th, 2012 / 3:45 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
And I have a kind of tip-off to your ruling, obviously.
I so move. You have the written text there.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
The goal is to give the power to the superintendent to protect the assets of the contributors immediately, notwithstanding the delays in potential administrations. It's pretty straightforward.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. I have a ruling. I will just remind members that rulings of the chair are not debatable. If there is a challenge.... The committee can challenge the chair, but I will inform you of this beforehand.
The ruling is as follows.
Bill C-25 creates a legal framework for the establishment and administration of pooled registered pension plans for employees and self-employed persons. A position of superintendent is created to be responsible for the control and supervision of the administration of this act. The superintendent issues licences to corporations to act as administrators of pooled registered pension plans.
Bill C-25 also contains provisions for the superintendent to oversee the actions of the administrators, with the power to transfer a plan's assets to another entity or even to revoke the registration and cancel the certificate of registration of the plan in question. These remedies are clearly defined, as is the system of objection and appeals.
This amendment attempts to transfer the administrative responsibilities and duties associated with the role of the administrator of a registered plan directly to the superintendent through means of trusteeship. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of this scheme is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-25, and the amendment is therefore inadmissible.
That is my ruling. It applies to NDP-1 as well as to NDP-4. NDP 4 is on page 6 of the documents I have. It relates to clause 34.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
There's no point in challenging the chair; we're outgunned.
(Clause 21 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to on division)
(On clause 24—Prohibition—inducements)
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We have clause 24, which is NDP-2.
I'll just hint that I have a ruling, but, Mr. Marston, I will let you move it and speak to it.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Clause 24 reads:…an administrator must not give, offer or agree to give or offer to an employer an inducement to enter into a contract with the administrator in respect of a pooled registered pension plan.
This is the anti-corruption clause. Basically we need to ensure that the employer, who is obligated to accept this plan, will not be tempted, based on a lateral commercial agreement that does not affect employees, to lock them into an agreement they are not participating in.
I'll give you a very simple example. An employer does business with a bank. The bank suggests to the employer that it will increase the employer's line of credit by $50,000 if the employer gives the bank the contract for the employees' voluntary pension plan. Obviously, the employees will gain nothing from this deal the bank is offering. It involves only the bank and the employer.
The clause 24 amendment is there just to strengthen the existing anti-corruption clause.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Merci.
This amendment is actually admissible. My ruling on this is that the vote on this applies to NDP-7, which is page 9, clause 76, so how the vote goes on this amendment determines the fate of the second amendment, NDP-7, page 9, clause 76, just for members' information.
Ms. Glover, please.