Industry Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

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

I just want to say that I'm a little disappointed that this is the direction we're going in here right now, because I'll remind you what was said a little while ago, in the last meeting. Mr. McTeague was speaking to Roger Charland, I believe. He said, when we were talking about the amendments that I had put forth and set up, “I'm just wondering how this is now transforming the intent of the original bill”. And Mr. Charland's response was “No, it clarifies the language and makes it even more clear”. So I just wanted to register my disappointment with what's happened with these amendments, first of all.

Secondly, I think Mr. Wallace is unfortunately trying to muddy the waters here, because one of two things will happen when a company goes bankrupt. And we're not talking about management people here, because they make their own deals when they sign their own contracts with companies. It doesn't matter if it's a Bell Canada or if it's a small corporation or small company in small-town Canada. They make their own deals. But for the folks who by and large work for fixed salaries or for hourly rates, again I just want to emphasize that there's one of two situations. One is that they belong to a collective agreement or they don't have a collective agreement. It's clearly laid out in every collective agreement what happens in the case of termination and severance, and in the case of not having that kind of contract, that kind of protection, as I say, again, the minimum in the provinces and territories of what is required by the Canada Labour Code will kick in. And those minimums are there for a reason.

What this bill now does--and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Dooley--is get rid of all the pension elements entirely in this bill that we were talking about. It leaves us with termination and severance, and simply indicates that rather than companies going bankrupt and nobody getting anything, at least severance and termination will be part of what happens in that bankruptcy. And I certainly think that's more than fair.

Mr. Chair, if I can, I would take 30 seconds to give a brief overview of what's recently happened in my riding with Buchanan Forest Products. Buchanan Forest Products just went bankrupt, and there are thousands of workers we're talking about here. The only secured creditor is Mr. Buchanan himself, through a holding company. Those workers, some of whom worked there for 40-plus years, received no termination pay, no benefit for having worked there for all those years, aside from the pension, which they also lose. So they come out of that with absolutely nothing. And to make matters worse, WEPP, which we mentioned there, the workers' protection, are saying that they don't qualify because they're past the time limit because they were in protection first, that's when they say the WEPP timing started, and by the time they went bankrupt, they were past that time. So they actually get nothing at all.

I don't think it's unreasonable, given what's happened to the bill here now, with the termination and severance, which is now remaining in there.... I don't think we should have any difficulty in this committee saying that's the least that people should get. If there are regulations to be written, they will be written, if it gets to that point. And there may be some changes and the clarifications that Mr. Wallace is talking about will happen.

If we're going to move ahead with this as it is, I just take us back full circle again to my comments at the beginning, that this committee has worked very hard to come up with something. We heard witness after witness come before us and say that something needs to be done. Everyone--it doesn't matter if they were from AbitibiBowater or anybody else.

Now, it appears to me, we have an opportunity to do something—not what I had originally intended with the bill, but an opportunity to do something—that will have not a great impact in bankruptcy proceedings and will allow people who work for that company at least the opportunity to receive $2,000, or $3,500, or whatever the case may be. I know that in the case of Buchanan Forest Products, the longest-serving employee there should, as part of their collective agreement, be getting $13,500. I don't think that's too much to ask for 40 years of work for a company. But now they get nothing.

We have an opportunity here to really do at least something good—not what was intended, but something.

I leave it at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Rafferty.

Mr. McTeague.

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

Chair, I want to thank the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Rafferty, for the good work he has done here, and all committee members for having worked together. Goodness knows that every effort has been made to try to do something.

I don't necessarily agree always with my colleague Mr. Wallace on why he doesn't support private members' bills. I happen to believe they work very well. Today we're celebrating the anniversary of our flag. That too was a private member's bill, as was the Air Canada Act, as were several that I've passed.

I'm thinking that we cannot dismiss a couple of very important facts. The sponsor of the bill, Mr. Rafferty, recognized that there were some shortcomings in the bill, and that's why he moved a motion of instruction to correct, to clarify, and to provide better framework legislation, recognizing the faults of his own legislation—through no fault of his own, and certainly not intentionally. That motion of instruction was denied and blocked in the House of Commons by the government. It was very clear at the time that this is something we would have certainly—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, Mr. Lake.

I'm sorry, Mr. McTeague; there is a point of order.

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

I don't think there's a record of who opposed it. I have no idea who opposed it. I certainly wasn't there. I don't know who was there at the time.

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

Of course you don't.

Maybe I can be clearer. The Liberal Party did not oppose it; we felt it would be the right way to fix this legislation. But the fact that it has not been fixed and that we are here today with a piece of legislation that is going to require us to deliver something that is at least an attempt.... It's not the best attempt; it's certainly not something that we would have cobbled together. We have several points that we would put together, as far as pension reform is concerned.

But considering the history of the circumstances, we all want the best both for business and for the pensioners. This bill regrettably, sadly, misses that point—the author recognizes that—and through circumstances that occurred in the House of Commons, where it did not receive support for the motion of instruction, we are here today having to pass judgment on a very difficult bill.

So I would say, in conclusion for our position, anyway, that this is the best we can do. We support the spirit and the intent. We have supported several of the clauses here. We weren't successful, with the combination of the other parties. The chair did not ask for a recorded vote, and I did not ask for one. But let's be very clear: the Liberal Party stands foursquare for this kind of reform.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, there's no other debate now.

Monsieur Cardin brought up a point that he wanted to go back to the title and amend the title to simply say “An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act” and remove any other reference.

Do I have unanimous consent to go back to the vote on the title?

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

I just have a question, Mr. Chair.

Is the chair entertaining any other sort of title? If it's clearly now about severance and termination, perhaps the title should become the Severance and Termination Act, or something; I don't know. Perhaps there could be some comments on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

It's an act to amend an existing act, Mr. Rafferty, so I think it's quite specific.

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

Could we say, as Mr. Cardin says...and then in brackets “severance and termination”, or something? I don't know. A lot of people, quite frankly, just look at that. It will clarify for people what this bill now is.

I don't know that it needs a lot of discussion, but it's a thought.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Well, it looks as though there certainly is some discussion.

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

Have we voted on the unanimous consent?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No, we haven't returned to the title, no.

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

Seriously, I don't think the title is really going to make that much difference one way or another. If you want to take away, just to make it more correct, the reference to other acts, I understand that argument. But if we're going to have an hour-long debate over a title....

[An hon. member]

It has happened before.

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

It has, actually; I know. That's why I'm disinclined to give unanimous consent to even open it up.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I suspect Mr. Lake is saying that the members of the government are prepared to give unanimous consent as long as we keep the amendment to the specific title at hand and making it more accurate.

Is there unanimous consent to go back to the title, then?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Monsieur Cardin, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but you want to amend the title to say “An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act”. Is that correct?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chair, I don't have a problem with adding “(Termination and Severance Pay)” to the title of the bill. The purpose of “(pension protection)” was in part to summarize what the bill was about.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Well, wanting to be as efficient as I can, let's see if there's some agreement. To repeat for clarity, you'd like it to be “An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act”, and then in brackets “Termination and Severance Pay”.

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Shall the title pass as amended?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

I think it's “indemnités” in French.