Industry Committee on Nov. 25th, 2010

[Roger Charland]

No. None of eight motions we've seen, which are the eight motions we're talking about, amend clause 6 of the bill.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

My point, Mr. Chair, is that I've had a private member's bill myself before, and it required a royal recommendation and it did not pass because it needed a royal recommendation--and I'm on the government side.

Private members' bills, in my view.... This has what, eight clauses, seven clauses, and we have eight changes to it. I think whether it's from a legislative clerk's perspective, it's a significant change, a wording change. Obviously, the wording has been difficult. The public has dealt with it in its present wording, and all of a sudden it's changed. The principles are basically the same. Based on the witnesses we heard, I think the mover of the bill has certainly made a point on this particular topic.

My personal view--and I'm not speaking for my party or my colleagues here--is that the issue has been brought to light. We've talked to witnesses who at first thought this would help the Nortel folks. We heard from many witnesses, including the head of the Nortel pensioners' group, that it is not going to affect them--not going to affect them. So my suggestion is that whether the wording is fixed a little bit or not, to make it a little clearer, I don't think we should be proceeding with this in the form it's in here. I'm happy to send it back in title and let the mover of the motion talk about the issue in the House, which is a very important issue, which I don't think anybody on either side of the House isn't concerned about.

Then a new Liberal private member's bill was introduced in the House to deal with the pensioners' bill of rights. The issue is being presented--I think this is what this private member's bill does--to put pressure on us as legislators to find the solution. I think we heard clearly that Bill C-501 is really not the solution. It may highlight the need for a solution, but it's not the solution.

In my view, whether the amendments pass or not, I think we should be frank with people that this doesn't work and that we need to find a better solution than what is here.

The other concern I have, and I'm going to put it right on the table here, is that there's no amendment to royal recommendation, but to remind my colleagues, if that clause does not pass, then this may not need a royal recommendation, and that will make a difference in the House of Commons.

Those are all my comments at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Lake--I mean, Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I always aspired to be Mr. Lake, but I'm not.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I was just going to say, it's always delightful to hear from you.

Mr. Rafferty.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Let me just make a couple of comments, Chair, about what's going on.

Mr. Wallace is absolutely right about the intent of the bill. These amendments clear up the intent of the bill, and maybe housekeeping was perhaps too lax a word to use, but it makes everything absolutely clear and gets to the intent of the bill. It doesn't change the bill at all; it just clears up the possible interpretations there could be.

Let me just talk about clause 6, which is the royal recommendation, because Mr. Wallace brought it up. We were advised by legal counsel that you can't amend that. The only thing you can do is vote for or against it when it comes to clause-by-clause. For that reason, I think it's important that I reject Mr. Wallace's idea. We need to go clause by clause because we need to deal with each of these clauses. That's what I think needs to happen here.

I'd also like to make a comment to Mr. Lake and indicate, Mr. Lake, that you're absolutely right, I did misspeak. It hasn't been dealt with in the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Rafferty.

Mr. Garneau.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm still not clear on whether this is merely clarification or housekeeping. The bill that was presented on which we had witnesses appear dealt with only a very specific portion, and that was special payments in arrears up to the declaration of bankruptcy. It seems to me that we're dealing with a different set now. If that is the case, I want to make sure that the witnesses who appeared on that assumption are given the chance to again make some comments, given the new definition of what this is touching.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I certainly remember much of that conversation too, Mr. Garneau.

Mr. Masse, did you intend to have your name stricken off before?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

So I'll go to Mr. Bouchard first, and then to you.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to make the same request as Mr. Garneau, who thinks it would be appropriate to hear from other witnesses. We certainly support the idea of other witnesses having an opportunity to express their views. I imagine they could provide additional information.

Would Mr. Rafferty agree to that? Before going ahead with clause-by-clause, we could hear from other witnesses. In any case, that is what I thought I understood to be Mr. Garneau's request.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Monsieur Bouchard, just in case there may have been something in the translation, Mr. Garneau was suggesting all of the same witnesses, not anybody new, simply because they gave testimony regarding this bill before us. His feeling is that it has substantially changed. So we wouldn't be calling any new witnesses, at least according to Mr. Garneau's request.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Yes, I also support Mr. Garneau's idea. Some witnesses could come back and clarify their testimony if we still have questions about certain aspects of their position. It would be a good idea to have them come back. Others could also provide testimony.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to hear again exactly the time limit we have so we are once again on that page. I know the clerk mentioned it earlier, but could we get it again?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

It's December 2, but we can request a 30-day extension on that from the House, which we have not so far.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay, so we have that one tool in our kit again.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's what I was trying to confirm.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

You're welcome.

Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Like Mr. Garneau, from my legal interpretation or the advice I received, the impression I got was different from what I'm seeing now. This is far-reaching and quite large and could be quite disruptive.

I have a question for Mr. Rafferty. We both come from northern Ontario, and we know what struggles we have with industry. How would these changes or clarifications affect AbitibiBowater coming out of bankruptcy protection, and all the employees who work there?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I will answer that in one second, but first of all, let me be absolutely clear that no one more than I wants to make sure that we come out of here with the best bill possible. That's absolutely what is of prime importance.

I'm not opposed to moving forward with a couple more meetings, but it seems to me just from a logical perspective—and I'm not as used to committee work as many of you around this table are—that if we pass or decline all of these clauses and call more people, in fact we'll have the exact piece of paper that people can come and speak on, if there are two more sessions set aside, for example.

Instead of prefacing everything in the next sessions, if these amendments pass, if we deal with this today, if we deal with the amendments and deal with each of the clauses, and go clause by clause, then we'll have the actual bill that we're working on, if we agree to listen to more witnesses. That just makes sense to me.

Mr. Rota, as for your question, AbitibiBowater is well on its way to coming out of CCAA and will be out shortly. We're actually expecting announcements fairly soon. This is not an issue for that particular company.

That just makes logical sense to me that we want to hear witnesses on the changed or adjusted bill, or maybe a better word would be the “clarified” bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Do you have anything else?

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

No, I'm fine, thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I think we need to move on to clause-by-clause.

We've all done several pieces of legislation in our careers here. We've seen amendments before. These amendments are all in one direction. We have the testimony of the witnesses to go on. To be honest, I don't think it really changes the testimony that we heard. I don't think the opinions of the witnesses we heard are going to be different because of the amendments we're hearing here. We've got our departmental officials here. There's no reason we can't go clause-by-clause today.