Evidence of meeting #65 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Philippe Méla
Neil Mackinnon  Senior Advisor, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the intervention, and I do recall your earlier statements on the record in support, and I thank you for acknowledging those today.

We did hear directly from the Association of Canadian Pension Management, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters and the Pension Investment Association of Canada that this legislation as proposed, with the superpriority as it's written today, would fundamentally alter the risk profile that is assessed by creditors, who in turn would need to adjust their own approaches.

They said, “Should this legislation pass, creditors would likely [need] to adjust for the increased risk profile that would stem from the potential of not having a loan repaid”, and they would adjust in one or more of the following ways: one, “requiring more or different sources of collateral and other credit enhancements from companies that received loans”; two, “applying higher interest rates on loans, which increases the debt servicing costs for companies”; and three, “restricting a company's ability to further draw down credit...thereby potentially precipitating more bankruptcies” and, of course, job losses. They said, “In addition to negatively impacting companies facing insolvency, this would have the broader impact of creating a disincentive for employers to establish—or even maintain—defined benefit pension plans knowing that their access to credit would be constrained compared to maintaining a defined contribution pension plan.”

I think we have heard with great clarity from the folks who are still in the business of operating the companies that are creating the wealth that is required to meet these pension liabilities. I believe we need to listen to those voices just as carefully and perhaps even more so than the folks who are deservedly waiting at the other end of this machine that creates the wealth for the wealth that they've created for themselves over time.

If we proceed with the superpriority, the foundation of that machine that is creating the wealth and the income for retirees and the income for the current workers is irrevocably altered. The credit risk profile is altered. The business proposition for these companies is irrevocably altered. We are playing with fire here, and I am extremely worried for the unintended outcomes that we may cause here.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Thank you, PS Fillmore.

MP Ste-Marie.

4 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As the honourable parliamentary secretary pointed out, it's not the employer creating the wealth and making it possible for that wealth to be redistributed to workers. It is thanks to everyone working together in a coordinated way that wealth is created and redistributed.

The problem is that all the witnesses and stakeholders the honourable parliamentary secretary referred to benefit from not having an obligation to adequately fund a pension plan. The more underfunded it is, the more money they have to put towards other things, and as long as that doesn't change, they benefit directly. The interests of pension fund managers and big businesses are not served if things change. As long as the company is doing fine, it doesn't have to fully fund the pension plan as it should, and when things aren't going well, the company isn't on the hook. The pensioners are.

In economics, that's called adverse selection. That is partly what the bill is trying to fix. The message to employers and pension fund managers is this: fund your pension plans, because if you don't, when you're in trouble, you'll have to fund them, since pensioners have super-priority creditor status. The message we need to send them is that they have to stop disrespecting pensioners and future pensioners. This is money they are owed, and it needs to be secured.

I listened carefully to the honourable member's position. However, if the employer or the pension fund manager does not adequately fund the pension plan, even if the business is at risk of bankruptcy, mortgage creditors still take priority. That is not only my understanding, but also the understanding of union representatives and seniors advocates. A previous loan already granted by the bank may not enjoy the same priority as the pension fund. However, the new loan that is granted so the company can save itself and restructure will bail the company out even if it failed to adequately fund the pension plan.

Mr. Chair, I repeat, I am totally comfortable with the current wording of the bill. It provides the necessary security.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Thank you, MP Ste-Marie.

I see MP Dzerowicz.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Chair, I'm very appreciative of the conversation and the comments. I was going to say something a little later on, but I think I'd like to say it now.

I forgot which of our honourable members officially submitted this into our deliberations as part of our current bill, but we had accepted the INDU report of a study of Bill C-253, which was done in the previous Parliament. I did want to recognize there were some excellent recommendations that were proposed by business leaders, insolvency leaders, pension leaders and advocates, which I think, if we had made the time to be able to consider them, may have been able to create a stronger bill, in my opinion, one that would have maximized the ability for companies to restructure while protecting 100% of the defined benefit pensions of pensioners.

I just want to lament a little bit that we have not been able to have the time. I don't blame anyone. I think there are many things that are before us. However, I do want to formally acknowledge there were some outstanding recommendations that have been coming through and, due to time and space limitations, we've not been able to consider some of them, which I think maybe is to the detriment overall of this bill.

I just wanted to submit that formally, Mr. Chair.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Thank you, MP Dzerowicz.

Shall clause 2 carry?

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Don't we have to vote on amendment G‑1 first?

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

I will correct myself. Shall G-1 carry?

4:05 p.m.

An hon. member

No.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Will it be a recorded vote?

4:05 p.m.

An hon. member

On division.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Okay, on division—

October 31st, 2022 / 4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Can we request a recorded vote, please?

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

We will have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 2 agreed to on division)

Now we're at new clause 2.1 and G-2.

Go ahead, PS Fillmore.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

Mr. Chair, it's the same argument again, isn't it, really? It's the point of the superpriority and its unexpected risks and unmanageable risks. It would be much better replaced with a preferred claim.

I think committee members have heard our arguments on this. Unless any of my colleagues have anything to add at this point, we'll leave it there.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Shall G-2 carry?

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

No.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON

On division.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

That's carried on division. No, not carried—

4:05 p.m.

An hon. member

Defeated on division.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Yes, defeated on division.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

I have a quick clarification. Can you defeat something on division? I didn't think so.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Do we need to go to a recorded vote, Clerk?

It was just defeated.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to on division)

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Mr. Chair, I just have one point.

We did the amendment, so it's with the amendment there. Is that correct?

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

You're talking about clause 4.