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.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Clause 4.... We amended it with new clause 4.1, NDP-1, right? Am I correct there?
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
It doesn't create a new clause 5 because then you'd have to renumber the clauses. It creates new clause 4.1 as an independent clause between clause 4 and clause 5.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
There was no amendment to clause 4 as MP Blaikie just brought up. We went to new clause 4.1. We had gone through that and also through....
(On clause 5)
We're on G-4.
PS Fillmore.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS
I'm just keeping up with you here, Mr. Chair. Your breakneck pace is difficult to keep up with.
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS
We're talking about clause 5. This, again, relates to the superpriority problem; I guess I'm going to call it that today.
Previously, I spoke about the superpriority problem in relation to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. This clause refers to the CCAA, which—if members would like, I can have a look at my little glossary—is the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. It is the exact same point, just under a different act, that the preferred claim is preferable and the superpriority is dangerous.
We would propose replacing clause 5 with G-4 and G-5 in the package of amendments in both official languages.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 5 agreed to on division)
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
I do recall there was a debate on that by the Conservatives at the time, and the suggestion was that we drop clause 6, so I thought that would be what we would be doing today.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Perhaps we could get our legislative clerk to provide clarity on that.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Going back to clause 5, what I heard was that it was carried on division.
4:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS
Did you just say G-5? Haven't we just dispensed with clause 5 and are moving on now to clause 6?
4:10 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Philippe Méla
Yes, but it's your [Inaudible—Editor] amendment.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS
You're not doing them together. I understand.
It's the same argument. I think you've heard it now.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 6)
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Chair, I think the sponsor of the bill put it quite well when she appeared before the committee. There were a number of bills that went into the original drafting of this bill, and her intention was to find a path for the bill to succeed.
The insurance scheme foreseen by this particular clause is not something that would contribute to that, so I'll be voting against this clause.
I think there's agreement by at least a majority of committee members to vote down clause 6, as well as clause 7.
October 31st, 2022 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Chair, I was going to second what MP Blaikie just said.
From our perspective, during the discussions, I think even MP Gladu suggested during her testimony that clause 6 should be removed and clause 7 as well. We support the removal of both of them.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Members, what's been put on the table is the removal of clauses 6 and 7.
Do we have unanimous consent for that?
(Clauses 6 and 7 negatived)
(On clause 8)
MP Baker.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Chair, when we heard from finance officials, they raised the issue of the transparency requirements that are laid out in clause 8.
I do have something I want to say, but I was wondering if we could ask the officials who are with us to reiterate the concerns they expressed here, just to refresh our memories.
4:10 p.m.
Neil Mackinnon Senior Advisor, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
I'm Neil Mackinnon from the Department of Finance. I can answer that.
Our concern here is the requirement to transmit the report to the provincial ministers responsible for finance and provincial security commissions. Those bodies have no responsibilities with respect to federally regulated private sector pension plans, which are the plans legislated by the Pension Benefits Standards Act.
In addition, the OSFI annual report is already available online, so those entities could look at this report if they wanted to.
To reiterate, these plans are under federal jurisdiction and there is no role for these provincial bodies in respect of regulating these pension plans.