Industry Committee on Nov. 25th, 2010

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

To be clear, the amendments are in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Oh, they're in order.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I'm only saying the outcome.... They're in order if they deal with provisions opened up by the act. But specifically, my concern is that the intention originally may be much broader than what the bill originally tried to define.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you.

Mr. Garneau.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

As legislators, we have a responsibility, since we're dealing with a very important bill, which affects a lot of pensioners and also a lot of businesses, to very seriously consider the bill that is before us.

It's my understanding from legal interpretation that there is, at least in my mind, a considerable change of scope in terms of what we were discussing before. In order to get this right, I would like to propose a motion in which we invite those witnesses who have appeared before—if they so feel that they would like to come and appear—to once again appear in front of us and give us their interpretation of what they now understand the bill to be wanting to do.

I would like to propose a motion that we take the time to do that, because I believe some of them will want to come back and give their opinions in light of these proposed amendments. We need to get this right.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Garneau.

A motion has been moved. It's germane to the conversation, so now we'll be speaking to the motion that's at hand.

Mr. Rafferty.

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

Mr. Chair, as the proposer of the bill, I have no problem with this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Lake.

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

I would just like to get some clarification, because it's a pretty wide-open motion. What dates and times are we scheduling for the meetings? Right now, according to the schedule, these meetings would occur in February. That does seem like a long time to shelve this, because I think we are looking towards February for our next open meetings.

It seems to me to be a little unfair to the process, if we're going to have a discussion about pensions. We've already had a pretty good debate here in the committee. I really don't believe the changes here alter this bill at all. We've had a really good discussion with witnesses who talked about unintended consequences, which are certainly not changed by the amendments. We had witnesses who talked about the good direction the government is going in general—and certainly members of all parties might have input into how we continue to move forward to strengthen things. We have also heard that this bill doesn't affect Nortel pensioners at all, and the amendments don't change that. There's no retroactivity.

I think we owe it to everybody involved to get on with a real debate about the issues, as opposed to simply.... I don't know what the endgame is here, but it seems that dragging this out to February isn't something that's going to accomplish anything productive at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

On Mr. Lake's comments, there is one other thing to note. Provided, of course, that we finish debate today, the bill is to be reported back to the House by December 2. So the other thing that will be required is a majority of the committee voting in favour of having an extension. That would be a consequence of this motion, if it is approved at the end.

Of course I see you're speaking against the motion, Mr. Lake, but I wanted to make that very clear, since you were talking about times, etc. We'd have to clarify that, there's no question.

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

Is somebody asking for an extension? The extension is separate?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No, and it's a separate issue, absolutely.

Now, Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to make sure that exact point is clear and that the Liberal Party intends to support the necessary extension; otherwise it would, by default, defeat the legislation. I think that is their intent; I don't think their intent is other than that.

I would add that my colleague here has the right intentions on this. The benefit of having the additional meetings is to fix the bill, and you'll still get a break from me, which is a benefit to the committee.

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

I want to change my position.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

Priceless.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Exactly, priceless.

So we want to see this issue resolved and the bill passed. My colleague has really been the vehicle of the generosity of Nortel's pensioners, who know this is not going to change their situation, but who don't want to see Canadians face what they've had to face. The generosity they have offered to Canadians and their commitment behind it mean that we're willing to be a little more patient, if necessary, to get a bill passed that has the support of the House of Commons.

We want to move on this, because we're watching people fall through the gaps. We've felt strongly about this issue for decades. We've attempted to pass similar bills in the past, but they have not made it through the House of Commons. Even if the Liberal Party is still seeking to clarify certain elements, we'll support the process, because we don't believe it would be unreasonable to have a short break.

So as long as we have that extension in the House and we get some clear definitions as to when we're going to have these meetings, then I think we'd be quite pleased to try to make sure this gets done, because too many people are at risk and too much work has been done by the Nortel pensioners. Their efforts, once again, are for other Canadians. Their selflessness needs to be recognized.

So we're hopeful we can see this through, but we just want to make sure that it's going to get back to the House one way or another and have that opportunity. So we're appreciative of the efforts to try to find consensus.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Now we go to Mr. Rota, then Monsieur Cardin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Sweet.

I'd like to agree with Mr. Masse that there is no urgency to pass this right now, which I think is very clear. The Nortel people will not be affected by this. It's not like the situation when we started this. Some of the facts we have received have changed things, or some of the issues that have arisen--or “clarifications” given, I guess, for lack of a better word--have changed my impression of what the bill is about. I'd still like some clarification on it; otherwise, this bill could change quite a bit, basically changing the whole pension system in Canada in one fell swoop. It's almost like we were doing it on the back of a napkin, because it's one short little bill that changes absolutely everything.

So I'd like the bill to be well thought out. If we're going to do something right, let's make sure it's done right and permanently, so it affects pensioners and workers in the right way, and doesn't hurt both. So I think it needs more study.

[An hon. member]

You're a great conciliator. Well done.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Masse and Mr. Rota basically put forward the same arguments. In terms of pensioners, there have been changes to the economy and to the economic status of certain companies. We cannot ignore that. Action is urgently needed. The same thing could happen again, more than once.

There is a flaw in the system and improvements are needed. We would like the bill to cover all of that so that for the vast majority of people, the savings of a lifetime would be protected. As I listened to people's comments, I noted that some do not have a clear understanding of the repercussions of all these amendments. Given all the work that has been done in this area, we can't simply decide we're going to deal with this today, particularly since it is still possible to improve the bill.

I don't know exactly how much time this will take, but it is clear that we will need fewer meetings than the number we have held so far on this. With that in mind, I think we should request an extension and make every possible effort to improve this bill so that people are properly protected.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Monsieur Cardin.

I should advise the committee that we have five meetings left before the House rises.

Mr. Lake.

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

I have said that I don't agree with the process. I decided to run for politics because I actually want to change things, not because I want to look like I'm changing things. I really want to make things better.

I don't think that meeting with the same witnesses, hearing the same testimony, is going to change anything. But it's clearly the will of the committee to go down that road, so my suggestion would be to fine-tune it and make some sense of it. If we're going to do this anyway, let's also ask for an extension for Bill C-452. We might as well continue these hearings now. There's no sense in waiting for two months and then continuing these hearings. Let's continue these hearings for the next four meetings and see if we can come to some resolution on this bill before we move on to another one. That's my suggestion.

Mr. Garneau, I don't know if you're amenable to that as an option.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

At first glance, there seems to be some consensus, so we don't really require a motion. We'll come back to this as soon as Mr. Wallace speaks, unless the list of speakers grows again.