Evidence of meeting #49 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 company.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
NDP
John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
That was a clarification, but here's the point of order--
NDP
John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
The point of order, Mr. Chair, is that she implies that we in this committee, or I, have not made every effort to accommodate all the testimony that we've heard over the last number of weeks. In fact, it's very true. One of the things we tried to do was to reduce this in order to make an adjustment to preferred status; that was stymied, and I think that's most unfortunate. I didn't get a chance to ask—
NDP
John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
—the folks here at the table. The implication from Ms. Sgro that—
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Maybe we could have another meeting and just have a debate among us as to what this is.
December 2nd, 2010 / 11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Just for the committee's information, I tried to stick with the fact that a point of order actually should pertain to the Standing Orders and not the subject of debate, in which case we'll now move on to Mr. Van Kesteren for five minutes.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for coming.
I want to go on from where Ms. Sgro left off. In this whole debate there's a disturbing element of “them against us”. Earlier this week we heard from some of the witnesses from Nortel that this bill could become retroactive and that there was a court ruling in B.C. We on this side and, I think, most people would disagree with that. It shows how the whole drift of the bill is heading in the wrong direction.
We just talked about Bill C-393, and I'll get to that in just a second. I remember being challenged by the grandmothers when I walked out the door, and they told me to do the right thing. I said at one point in this committee as well that we passed legislation in 2006, the Federal Accountability Act, that stopped every one of us in this room and everybody in the House from taking any funds from anybody except from private individuals, and then only to the amount of $1,000. That was a significant bill, because we're no longer tied to any one person or any one group. We can say as parliamentarians, “I want to do the right thing. I don't have a bank or something that bankrolls my campaign”.
There was a time not too long ago.... It was before my time, but if you go back in the records, you can see members who had almost their entire bankroll funded by one group or one individual. Those days are gone.
As a government we try to keep the ship afloat, and I've got to dump on my friend John again.
I like our member across the way. I think he's a great guy, but the NDP consistently comes up with bills that are mischievous. This is another example, and I could give you more. It all sounds good. Affordable housing is an example: we're going to save the housing crisis in this country. We're struggling with that. I say we need to keep the ship afloat. Affordable housing.... There was Bill C-393, the grandmothers' bill. Who would disagree with grandmothers trying to save people in Africa from dying of AIDS? Who would disagree with that? But the fundamental principle, again, is wrong.
Bill C-501 is one of these bills.
Today we have an NDP motion in the House to stop oil tankers from floating down the west coast. There's been one accident. Correct me if I'm wrong, though not at this point, because it's my time. One ferry has sunk, and it's leaking oil, and that's tragic. Again, I could go on.
The NDP constantly wants to shut down the oil sands. They like to call them the “tar sands”. In the end, when everything is said and done, we have to realize that the hallmark of a free and open society is a free and open marketplace.
I think Ms. Sgro was absolutely right. We have to make sure that when we move legislation forward, it's not them against us. We, as a group of parliamentarians and as the government, want to make sure we have a healthy and transparent society that allows the free flow of goods. This bill seriously undermines that. It more than undermines it; it threatens it.
I often say I've seen societies that have attempted this, and it's not pretty. I've been to Cuba. They have everything in common, but it's common misery. I know everybody here doesn't want to see that; I certainly don't.
I had to give my rant because I, like everyone else, feel terrible about what's happened to Nortel. I feel bad when these things happen, but we don't want to do something as a knee-jerk reaction that's going to cause even more grief.
My time is almost up, but I think I've got 30 seconds. If anybody wants to comment, go ahead.
Conservative
President, Tembec Inc.
I'll take a shot at it.
I realize you have a difficult job as parliamentarians, and you're trying to do something that's balanced for Canadian society. Sometimes the decisions are very difficult, and the line is very blurred, but when you look at the balance of this bill, I just don't understand why this committee would want to proceed. We've given you real-life examples of how this bill will kill tens of thousands of jobs and impede the ability of companies to gain capital, to invest, to modernize, to make their mills more energy-efficient, and to invest in green energy. I don't think this is a close call, to be honest with you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Lopez.
Our time is up right now. Monsieur Cardin, if you have a quick question—
NDP
John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I have a point of order, Chair. Given this and my other point of order, I wonder if you would allow Mr. Cardin his full time, if that's possible with the committee's permission.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
We try to work with consensus as much as we can.
Is everybody okay with five minutes for Monsieur Cardin?
Monsieur Cardin, it seems that you have it.
You have five minutes, sir.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, dear members. You are most kind.
I believe that it goes without saying that all our witnesses and committee members are primarily concerned with companies and their ability to operate properly. It's easy for us to say that we're favourable to maintaining jobs in the companies and respecting mutual commitments toward current and retired employees, as far as pension funds go.
However, the reality of the matter may be different. The Nortel situation is a good example. Mr. Farrell clearly stated that this was the worst-case scenario when it comes to pension funds, among other things, and even when it comes to company management and how the company came to an end.
Now, we are discussing a bill whose objective is to help retirees retain their pension fund. However, it appears that the business and finance community sees things differently and, according to its basic principles, pension fund retention is not a likely outcome if the bill passes.
Mr. Robertson and Mr. Lopez, you say that, had Bill C-501 been in force, the companies would no longer exist, but pension funds would have been retained. You also say that, without this bill, meaning as things currently stand, the company is still alive and can become increasingly healthy. The idea is that, once the economic situation improves, the business situation will improve as well, and pension funds will also be retained at 100%.
As for the deficit, will it be absorbed by all the pensioners, on the one hand, and future pensioners, on the other hand, who have retained their pension fund, in your case?
President, Tembec Inc.
I can only speak for my company. It's all the pension funds. It's the existing employees and the retirees.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
I do believe the greatest merit of the bill before us, if there is one, is that it makes all elected members and governments aware of the urgency of protecting pension funds and, thereby, the present and future pensioners.
What concrete suggestions do you have? Of course, we could talk about other types of retirement plans. You said, Mr. Farrell, that you prefer defined contribution plans to defined benefit plans.