Industry Committee on May 25th, 2021

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mrs. Gill, thank you for joining us and for your leadership on this issue—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I was kicked out of the Zoom conference for about the last two minutes, so I just want to make sure that I have the right context of the debate.

As well, I want to bring up a serious issue. We have had this happen in the House of Commons.

Mr. Ehsassi, in his intervention, pointed out that he wanted to get away with not using his headset. I want to remind everyone that this is a health and safety issue for our interpreters, and that's a very serious thing. I don't think he meant it the wrong way, but I think it's important that we convey to the interpreters that we always follow that.

I just want to mention that, because as caucus chair I deal with this and other indiscretions. I don't think it was done in the wrong way. I just want to point this out, though, that it's for our interpreters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much, Mr. Masse.

Just so you know, what we're going to do is try to finish the first round of questions with MP Gill so that each party has a chance to ask its question. Then we will move into the in camera portion of the meeting to talk about the report.

With respect to MP Ehsassi, that is why I stopped him from intervening. Without the headset, we would not proceed. I don't think he meant it with any ill regard towards our interpreters, but I thank you for pointing that out.

With that, I will now go to MP Lemire.

You have the floor for six minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you again, Madam Chair.

My question is for the member for Manicouagan.

First, thank you for your leadership on this issue. We agree that this affects people's lives in practical terms. During the deliberations in the House, you said that, in the event of a company's bankruptcy, pensioners can lose up to 25% of their deferred salary. So their quality of life is directly affected.

What would this change in concrete terms, if Bill C-253 were passed in this Parliament?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

My thanks to my colleague, who is also the vice-chair of the committee, for the question.

If the bill were passed, it would change a lot of things.

I would start by saying that, if this bill were to pass, everyone would win. Earlier, I mentioned the possibility of changing the priority of creditors, in this case the pension plans. In fact, the creditors are not the pension plans, but the workers themselves, since it is their deferred wages. If a company is in financial difficulty, everyone will sit around the same table because everyone has an interest in seeing the company restructured in order to avoid bankruptcy. So that's one of the benefits of the bill.

Also, you mentioned that a worker's pension fund could be reduced by 25% in the event of bankruptcy. That was the percentage in the specific case of Cliffs Natural Resources, but it can be as high as 50%. That's pretty much what happened with White Birch Paper. A 50% cut is huge. The bill guarantees that wage for workers. It provides certain conditions for those who are still working, for those who are retiring and for those who are already retired. So it benefits all workers and the community as a whole.

I'm not sure whether you want a more specific answer. I talked very broadly about wages and insurance and the fact that people will reinvest in the community and all parties are going to try to further prevent a business from going under.

Some say that, if you give priority of repayment to workers' pension funds, it will be a little more risky for the banks, and they might be a little bit worried about it. In fact, if they're worried about a company going bankrupt, they may be more willing to lend money to that company because it could be a way to guarantee the restructuring of the company. If I had something to lose, I would be a lot more willing to do what I have to do to make sure it works, rather than the other way around. In any case, as soon as a company gets into serious trouble, the banks are not inclined to lend it money. That is what we usually see, and this bill will not change that.

I must also mention that, right now, the government comes before the workers. That is not right. This bill would change that as well.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

Your bill essentially seeks to have defined benefit plans, and only defined benefit plans, considered as preferred claims. So we are talking about reimbursing the workers. It also seeks to compensate workers for group insurance losses.

The idea behind this bill has been discussed for a number of years, even decades, as Mr. Masse said. Could you elaborate on the urgency of passing this bill? Why should we pass it quickly, in this Parliament?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

He even talked about generations. That paints a good picture for us.

I think we need to pass the bill quickly because we are ready to do so. Some talked about the need to hear testimony. People have been testifying for 20 years and telling us the same things. Some think it will be difficult for companies, wonder how they are going to do it, and are concerned that it's going to be an additional burden on them. However, I really think that they are crying wolf and just trying to scare people, because there are solutions. In terms of income tax recovery, if it wants to, the government can withdraw from creditors who have a higher priority than workers. It can offer loan guarantees.

I think that, in 2010, we heard from 47 witnesses on a similar bill. I feel like we have to do the work over again every time. I feel that all the arguments have already been made over the last 20 years or so. A lot of researchers have testified. Those who appeared said that there would not be a big impact on the ability of businesses to get loans. This has all been documented before.

I wish we could work with what has already been done and pass this bill. That's where the idea of starting the clause-by-clause consideration immediately comes from. What we need to do now is show leadership and make a decision. We have no idea what the Canadian and global economy will look like after the pandemic or what will happen 20 or 30 years from now. However, we can do something right now.

The bill is reasonable. I would invite your colleagues to read the bills on this topic that have been introduced over the last 20 years or so, if they want to know more. I would invite them to read all the debates in the House and in committee. They will see that we have done the rounds and now we simply have to make a decision. I hope we make it very quickly. I am willing to hear from witnesses, but I think we are beyond hearing from witnesses. The situation has not changed over the past years. In fact, it has only gotten worse for pensioners and workers.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have one last quick question for you.

Do you think that COVID-19 has increased the number of bankruptcies?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Yes, absolutely. We have already seen—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I'm sorry, but the six minutes are up.

I will now turn to MP Masse.

You have the floor for six minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's an interesting meeting and an important one. There are important positions for everybody to get out, and I do appreciate that.

I want to say, though, that I've been a little surprised by this bill in the sense that we've had so much concern exercised on the banks. I've been lobbied. When Manley tried to change the banks under the Paul Martin regime, we had endless streams of banks and the banking association coming to us and saying that they had to be more like the American banks or they'd be swallowed up and that they couldn't compete. Then later on, the word was that they saved Canada, despite getting massive bailouts during the economic downturn under the Harper regime to get their creditors.... Most recently, during the pandemic, they got significant action immediately from the government. In fact, the first act by the government was to protect the banks and some of their nefarious loans, which have actually made them vulnerable in many respects.

I'd like to spend the rest of my time not on the concern exercised on the banks, but on some workers' issues, because I believe workers do deserve some restitution.

My good friend Scott Duvall from Hamilton has a bill, Bill C-259, which is similar to yours, Madam Gill. I want to thank you for your hard work on the bill and for bringing it to committee. One of the differences is that his bill calls for not allowing a judge to suspend the benefits of employees at a time of bankruptcy, under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

Can you talk a bit about why your bill doesn't include that aspect? What are the benefits or negatives of not having that in there? Unfortunately, sometimes pensioners are swizzled during the process too. That's really what the proposed section tries to eliminate.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question and his introduction, which I fully agree with.

My bill is about defending workers and pensioners, not the banks. I was not elected by banks, but by the people, some of whom are workers. That is the first thing.

In fact, my bill is very simple. It's extremely simple, although I have been told that the devil is in the details and it could have a big impact. There are a lot of assumptions about the bill, but only when we pass it can we see what is actually happening and confirm those assumptions. We are working with theories right now. The idea of introducing a simple bill is that it also gets passed quickly. There was a consensus among the central labour bodies that I have been consulting for a number of years. We talked to a lot of people, including workers and pensioners.

As my colleague Mr. Barsalou-Duval, whom I like and with whom I have already discussed this, said in the House, the bill could obviously be improved. However, the more we improve it, the less likely it is to meet the needs of the greatest number of people, because we will be stuck on details and mechanics. I hope that it will be adopted quickly.

What Bill C-259 contains is not bad, quite the contrary. I absolutely agree with that, as does my party. However, as you also mentioned, Mr. Masse, we have seen how it works in committee. It takes a lot of time. If we want to do the job right, we should even sit this summer. I would be willing to come back and testify all summer so that this bill could finally go back to the House. I'm exaggerating, but sometimes you have to be ready to do what it takes to finally get a bill passed.

I think the simplicity of the bill would allow it to be sent back to the House quickly. We can make improvements, but if we can get something done after 20 years, I think that would be amazing.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I understand that. My sports betting bill has taken over a decade. It is for one line in the Criminal Code and stalled for two years in the Senate after it passed the House of Commons, so I get it. Is that the same philosophy?

One of the other things we looked at was the Pension Benefits Standards Act and allowing the superintendent of financial institutions to flag deficiencies of pensions. Is that the same thing? Are you trying to keep the bill clear, neat and simple so it can get broad political support from other parties versus adding a couple of other points that might be more complicated or that may need more political support from other political parties to come to fruition, like those that other countries have? The United States actually has this kind of provision.

I'll leave it to you to answer that part.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you.

There are many parts to your questions.

You made the comparison with other countries. I find that very interesting. It is often and repeatedly said that Canada is lagging behind in this area, and that is true. That's the first thing.

I tried to be fair by taking into account the consultations and people's requests. This bill contains what the unions representing the workers are asking for. They are not asking for more. It is the same thing for the pensioners' federations. That is what they are asking for as well. People want a change. The important thing, the most basic thing, is to make the change. As I mentioned earlier, I am not saying that the other additions are not attractive. However, we are in a special situation. We have a minority government and, of course, as a parliamentarian, I am adapting to the situation.

I would like to talk about another subject, since your questions and comments allow me to do so. You mentioned that your bill spent two years in the Senate. This may be an editorial comment, but I think the process is so cumbersome that it fails to adequately represent people. Your bill deserves to be passed, regardless of the positive or negative outcome it might have. Unfortunately, that is one of the compromises that you have to make as a member of Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you all very much.

Mrs. Gill, I want to thank you for taking the time to introduce your bill to us today. We will be in touch with you on this study.

With that, I will suspend and ask members to use the in camera link and reconnect so that we can go in camera. Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]