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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Order.
We're going to be considering Bill C-501. We have received eight amendments, and you should have copies in front of you. They are numbered NDP-1 to NDP-8. We'll be considering those as we consider the clause-by-clause.
I should remind members of the committee that the Speaker has ruled that a royal recommendation will be required for this bill, due to clause 6.
We will begin, then, with the amendments.
On amendment NDP-1, Mr. Garneau.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We find ourselves with a number of amendments, which, to be very honest, in my opinion change the scope of the bill in a fairly major fashion.
When the NDP first presented this bill, they had certain intentions; in fact, there were certain expectations that ended up not being met. But through these amendments, the very limited scope of their bill has now been changed in a very, very major way.
As a result, it is the right thing for us to allow certain witnesses who appeared in front of us based on the previous bill to comment on what we're now talking about, which is a fairly major rewrite of the bill. In fairness, I think that is something we should be considering as a committee. It may require an extension to allow this to happen, because the bill is supposed to go back on December 2.
I put that to my fellow committee members: those who appeared spoke to the bill as it was previously, and there are some fairly major rewrites.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Garneau.
I don't want to interrupt the flow of the debate, but I was remiss in not saying that we have Mr. Matt Dooley and Mr. Roger Charland from the Department of Industry. They are experts who can comment, should you care to call on them.
Thank you very much, gentlemen, for joining us.
Mr. Lake, and then Mr. Rafferty.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I would want to first of all clarify the deadline for the bill to be reported back, which is the December 2.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
We would probably then want to ask for an extension on the other private member's bill we've talked about, which we have scheduled for the next four meetings, Bill C-452. We would need to get an extension on that, as well.
To the officials, could we have a comment on the package of amendments and the impact they have on the bill? Mr. Garneau has suggested it is a major impact. I wouldn't mind hearing from you about how it changes the bill and how major the impact is.
Roger Charland Senior Director, Corporate and Insolvency Law Policy and Internal Trade, Department of Industry
Bonjour.
The way we understand the motions—and this is probably true of all eight of them, because they change the bill in the same fashion but in different circumstances--as a number of witnesses have indicated, the current version of the bill covers all the unfunded pension liabilities, but the language can be open for debate. The motions we see here would make it clearer that we are indeed talking about all unfunded pension liabilities covered by the super-priority that Bill C-501 would grant.
That's how we read and understand the motions.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Actually, Mr. Rafferty is going to take the floor next, so I'll hand it over to him by asking if there are other amendments that are anticipated. They can be moved from the floor.
Are these all the amendments that you intend to move?
NDP
John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Let me just deal with these ones first and then the discussion that's going on on these.
I appreciate the comments of our professionals here that they're really intended as housekeeping. There were some parts of the bill that needed clarification, and that's what these are intended to do. I don't know if it changes the scope of the bill when in fact the bill may not have been entirely clear. There certainly were differing opinions as to what a particular clause meant, so this is a clarification of that, with the exception of clause 6, which of course we would eventually be voting on. Clause 6 is the part that requires the royal recommendation, and of course we'd be voting on that separately. So they're really housekeeping.
I'd like to say that in terms of amendments, we have made every effort, particularly in the last couple of days, to be able to adjust this bill in a certain fashion that would be more acceptable certainly to the witnesses we heard, and not just the witnesses who are in favour of my bill, but those who are not, and to come to some agreement as to a bill that would be better. I think that's what Canadians expect us to do. They expect all MPs to sit down when a bill gets to committee and work on that bill to come up with a bill that's better. We did attempt to do that a couple of days ago with a notice of motion to deal with another article.
In fact, Mr. Garneau, that would have changed the scope of the bill, so we needed to have that motion before the House. Unfortunately, the Conservative House leader didn't agree that this was something he would allow, so we didn't have that opportunity to make a change to deal with the secured status, or preferred status, or whatever it would have been. It was most unfortunate that this happened. We were hoping for unanimous consent and didn't get it. In fact, it was indicated that the bill would disappear if we went ahead.
We found that most unfortunate. That certainly goes against the spirit of what I believe should happen in committee, that we listen to all the concerns. The whole idea is that we hear witnesses and we listen to those witnesses, we take into account what those witnesses have to say, and then we make a better bill.
To answer your question, Mr. Lake, there were some other things that we were hoping to do with this bill. We were unable to do that. The amendments that you see here are the ones we're talking about today and the only ones that we have coming forward.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Rafferty.
We now have Mr. McTeague and Mr. Garneau, and then if you have some rebuttal, Mr. Rafferty, I'll come back to you.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Yes, there are just two points of clarification.
Mr. Rafferty just indicated that someone said the bill would disappear. Would you care to tell us who that was?
NDP
John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
There was a discussion among House leaders about my motion of instruction that I put forward. What I wanted to do in that motion was to open up another article, the BIA, which would have allowed us to at least consider amendments that would remove the major portion of this bill--the pensions from secured into preferred. We needed permission to do that because that in fact did change the scope of the bill. I'm sure that would have been ruled out of order, which is why we put the motion forward.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Rafferty, I just want a name, that's all. You don't have to go--
NDP
John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
The House leaders met, and of course the Conservative House leader is Mr. Baird.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Okay, thank you.
I don't wish to go too long on this.
Mr. Charland, in your initial response to Mr. Lake you had suggested the effect of the amendments was to heighten these or to at least provide in the context of super-priority. Is it not that it's raising this whole issue of pensions to a secured status equivalent with the banks? Did you misspeak there? Or did I misunderstand you?
Senior Director, Corporate and Insolvency Law Policy and Internal Trade, Department of Industry
In our reading of Bill C-501--and I think the witnesses who appeared before the committee also spoke to this--the provisions of Bill C-501 would put the claims for unfunded pension liabilities as a super-priority, and therefore paid before the secured creditors.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Charland, what would the amendment do in this case?
Senior Director, Corporate and Insolvency Law Policy and Internal Trade, Department of Industry
Currently, Bill C-501 has language that speaks to any amounts considered to meet the standard for solvency determined in accordance with section 9 of those regulations.
November 25th, 2010 / 11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Senior Director, Corporate and Insolvency Law Policy and Internal Trade, Department of Industry
This covers the unfunded pension liabilities.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Yes. I'm just wondering if this is now transforming the intent of the original bill.
Senior Director, Corporate and Insolvency Law Policy and Internal Trade, Department of Industry
No, it clarifies the language and makes it even more clear that you're dealing with all the unfunded pension liabilities.
Liberal