Evidence of meeting #47 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
I agree with Mr. Rafferty. The purpose of our presence here is to try to improve the bill. I'm all for that. I'm also very much focused on the process. The process requires us to hear witnesses and then proceed, based on hearing them, with our clause-by-clause.
Mr. Rafferty has described this as being housekeeping. Would you share the opinion that these amendments are clarification that is really just housekeeping? Or has there been a change of scope in terms of what this proposes to do?
11:15 a.m.
Senior Director, Corporate and Insolvency Law Policy and Internal Trade, Department of Industry
In our reading of the motions, it clarifies that Bill C-501 covers all unfunded pension liabilities and provides a super-priority. These amendments only make it clearer that that's what the bill does.
There was, as some witnesses expressed, some discussion as to whether or not the current language was doing this. These amendments make it clear that it's all unfunded pension liabilities. It makes it clearer that that's what the bill achieves.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I just want to get some clarification. In terms of Mr. Rafferty's motion, I don't think it was actually ever raised in the House, so there was never any unanimous consent denied or anything like that, to my recollection.
Mr. Garneau wants to have more time to have the witnesses come before us. I just want to know what the idea is. Will we have all of the same witnesses who have been before the committee and just redo the last three days of meetings? Is that the proposal?
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Well, that was essentially it, yes, because I think they came with the impression that we were dealing with a certain bill and they probably responded based on that bill. It seems we've changed that, so I think it may be useful for us to hear from them, given the proposed changes.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Yes, I've allowed that a number of times here just for clarification. Certainly if you want me to stick to that, I'll have to stick with it for every member. When we get into these situations I've found a little bit of dialogue is usually helpful.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Okay, then, Mr. Chair, if we're sticking to the list, can I just clarify this? Do we have two NDP members on the committee right now, if we're sticking to the rules?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
This is exactly why I prefer in these kinds of cases to have a little bit of dialogue, but if you insist....
Pardon me?
November 25th, 2010 / 11:20 a.m.
Liberal
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
That's for certain. You can't play both ways. So who's going to be the dedicated...?
Mr. Masse, you introduced it.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
We're trying to actually come to a conclusion here; it's not like we're playing games.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Yes, hang on for a second.
Realistically, gentlemen, is there some consensus that we stick with some flexibility? Or do you want to get down to the--
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Then it has to be equal across the board.
So, Mr. Lake, have you finished your--
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you.
As a question of clarification, we had heard from our Liberal members on the committee--actually, I think you were the substitution and did most of the talking on this issue--and their interpretation of the bill was that the missed payments between CCAA and bankruptcy were covered. That's what the bill was addressing, the missed payments to the pension plan. Are you telling me now that based on this, this is all missed payments in the whole piece put together?
11:20 a.m.
Senior Director, Corporate and Insolvency Law Policy and Internal Trade, Department of Industry
As a number of witnesses indicated when they appeared before the committee, Bill C-501 covered all unfunded pension liabilities. The motions don't change that. The motions say the same thing, they just say it in a clearer way. So we're dealing with providing a super-priority for all the amounts needed to bring back the pension plan to a solvency ratio.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Senior Director, Corporate and Insolvency Law Policy and Internal Trade, Department of Industry
All deficits between what the plan's assets are for what it needs to carry all the benefits.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Okay, and that I think was the intent. You don't have to answer. I thank you, and a nod of the head is fine. That was the intent of the bill. There is some interpretation, as with any legal document. I'm not criticizing. There's always interpretation. That's why there are two sets of lawyers in every court case, and a judge, and we're the judge today.
In here, there's no amendment to clause 6, which requires the royal recommendation. Is that correct? Have you seen anything to do with the royal recommendation?
