Industry Committee on May 25th, 2021

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I know that with this motion I won't have a chance to question the sponsor, let alone other witnesses, but nonetheless I support the motion. I've been part of this debate for a number of years, in fact almost two generations. I believe there has been enough meritorious talk of the benefits of workers getting what is really a deferred wage in contractual agreements, when two people sit down, whether as part of a collective or a non-collective agreement and decide upon the terms of the wage.

I'm not going to take a lot of time in this intervention in order to allow my colleagues to be there. Obviously, though, as a New Democrat I won't even get a chance to thank the witness who is here today with her bill and to speak very strongly to how quickly we should move this through, in that there will be some other opportunities to hear some of the powerful voices who have raised significant issues for workers.

This may be a bit different as a process, but it's not an unfair one. It is not unusual in many respects, too, because of the circumstances faced under COVID. At the same time, the mere fact that this has a long history of working its way through the chamber, through committee and eventually back again through the chamber, but not even bringing the results that are necessary....

I want to thank all those who are participating, but being from the party that's going to be most affected by this because I won't even get a chance to question the sponsor of the bill, I support this, because the value of the workers and those who are supporting them and Canadians is too well documented to pass up yet again.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

We have MP Généreux and then MP Erskine-Smith.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wonder if my colleague has seen the legislative agenda leading up to the end of the session. And by the way, as far as I know, it is not a government priority to fast-track passage of the bill before a possible election or the next session. The chances of that happening are extremely slim.

Personally, I support the bill. However, I am a business man, and I would like to understand some things better. The exchange earlier between Mrs. Gill and Mr. Poilievre showed me that there is a misunderstanding not only of what a plumber is, but also of the relationship between suppliers and large companies. When subcontractors don't get paid, they still have to pay their employees, regardless of the circumstances. So they are not on the same level as the employees, who would keep their pensions.

On the other hand, I regret that Mr. Masse cannot speak in this debate, since he has exactly two decades of experience with similar bills.

I feel we need to study the bill more carefully and hear from witnesses, so that we have a better understanding of the issue and can make sure that the bill is well put together. Mrs. Gill, again, I support your bill. However, similar bills have been met with a lot of opposition in the past. We want to make sure that this time we can get the bill passed. To do that, I still believe we should have witnesses.

We will oppose Mr. Lemire's motion. It's not that we disagree with him and refuse to move the bill forward more quickly. Rather, we think we could easily have two meetings with witnesses and also allow Mr. Masse to speak. In fact, if I have the opportunity today, I will give him my time. Indeed, it is important that all parliamentarians have the opportunity to ask Mrs. Gill questions on this matter.

So, I don't know if my other colleagues agree, but we will be voting against Mr. Lemire's motion. Again, we have nothing against the bill or against Mr. Lemire's motion, but I believe we need to hear from witnesses to make sure that the bill is perfect. There are two sides to every coin. We are inevitably going to run into unpredictables along the way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

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

I have a procedural question, Madam Chair.

Regarding the two meetings, is that an amendment to my motion, a separate motion, or an opinion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

It's an opinion. He did not move an amendment.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

MP Erskine-Smith.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Sébastien mentioned that I voted in support of Bill C-253. I was glad to do so, to bring it to committee for study. It strikes me that if we were to eliminate the prospect of hearing from witnesses, I would miss out on that study, and I think, to speak to Mr. Généreux's point, that we want to get it right. I also think we want to do it as quickly as we can, and I think we can do both of those things adequately, as far as this committee work is concerned.

We should, then, make sure that we return it to the House, ideally before we rise. I think that would be quite a quick but welcome process, if we can get it done, and I think we can, but it shouldn't preclude our hearing witnesses. I think we can do both. We can hear from witnesses—a short list, of course—get the clause-by-clause study done and then return it to the House before we rise.

That would be the aim, but while I supported getting Bill C-253 to committee, I don't support moving directly to studying it clause by clause. I think we should hear from a list of witnesses to make sure we get clause-by-clause examination right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

MP Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I would support an idea of amending the motion in order to allow for several days of hearings so that we can actually get some expert testimony. Having just exchanged with the bill's proponent, whom I respect and whom I thank for bringing it forward, I'm not clear that the answers she provided are necessarily legally accurate. I'm not saying that in a derisive way. It's just that it's impossible for one person to have all of the legal facts related to a very complicated piece of legislation.

I certainly don't have all those facts, but, for example, I would like to know what happens to the claims of small business people who have done contractual work for a business and then the business goes bankrupt. Then the small business whose employees are not covered by the priority listing in either this bill or in the existing bankruptcy and insolvency legislation would potentially be pushed further back still.

I'm also not clear yet on whether or not this bill would provide for companies to continue to issue collateral in order to get loans that are necessary to hire people in the first place. I would like to know more.

I think the goal here that we all share is to protect pensioners in the event of a bankruptcy and to make sure that the bill actually does that and does not unfairly harm other players: small businesses, workers for those businesses, other pensions that have lent to the company that is going bankrupt, future workers who may not get hired if companies can't get financing. All of that stuff needs to be examined. Maybe, when we examine it, we will conclude that the bill is still optimal and needs to be passed, but we can't make this kind of a rearrangement of our bankruptcy, insolvency and creditor protection legislation without a single witness other than the person moving the bill. I have never seen something of this nature pass without a witness. It would be pretty revolutionary to do this without witness testimony, and I think unnecessarily so.

I think everyone here is acting in goodwill to try to get hearings quickly and get us all informed so that when we finally go through clause-by-clause study and, hopefully, pass it, we know what we're doing.

I would support an amendment—not a vote against Mr. Lemire's motion but an amendment—that would allow for some days of hearings and expert witness testimony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

We have an amendment to the original motion on the floor.

MP Dreeshen and MP Lemire, you have your hands up. I don't know if it's to speak to the amendment.

MP Dreeshen, go ahead.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will be quick because I, too, would like to see us move forward with this.

I believe that hearing more from more people would probably be better. Just to go back quickly.... The decision was made that we would send this to the committee to look at. If we had wanted to pass it quickly.... Everyone plays these games with unanimous consent motions in the House. That would have been an option to see if that actually was something that people could have agreed upon, but we agreed upon something different, and that was to come here.

I know what it is like to have a private member's bill that doesn't make it across the wire. I have had one moving into second reading in the Senate when an election was called. I did get another chance to pass one. Anyway, I don't think it's the right precedent because if we start to do that, to say “Once we get it in here, let's try to push it through as quickly as possible,” that isn't fair to other private members' bills that are working their way through the system.

As much as I would love to get the discussion in here, to shut it down now wouldn't be right, so I agree that we should have more meetings rather than fewer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much, MP Dreeshen.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will begin by responding to Mr. Dreeshen's comment by simply drawing a parallel with Bill C-208, which the Conservatives themselves introduced. They were able to prioritize that bill, which was then able to pass third reading last month. That is what happened. It was not a priority bill. Yet, it moved from 17th to 2nd in the order of priority, if memory serves. It was even prioritized again for the second hour of debate at third reading. The Conservatives changed the order of their bills so that some of them were given priority consideration during the debate time they had. These sorts of steps are taken to ensure quick passage.

I would also like to respond to Mr. Généreux's comment. If we don't fast-track Bill C-253 back to the House without delay and an election is called, the bill will be a complete failure.

Remember that a bill was passed under a gag order two weeks ago to enact rules for how elections work during a pandemic. In my view, if the government is passing reforms to the Canada Elections Act under a gag order, that sends a very alarming message to me that it wants to call an election.

This is the context in which we must operate. Based on the indicators we have, we could see a lot of bankruptcies this fall, because right now companies are being kept alive on life support. If we don't get Bill C-253 back to the House quickly, we will not be protecting workers from these bankruptcies. We are exposing them to the consequences.

That's why this motion needs to pass quickly. We need to get Bill C-253 back to the House as soon as possible, to at least give ourselves a chance to get it passed on behalf of the people we represent.

Of course, we can't know in advance who we will save from bankruptcy, which constituencies will be affected, and the circumstances in which it will happen. However, the examples we have seen, like White Birch Papers, really scare me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Are there any other comments regarding the amendment to have meetings to hear from witnesses?

Seeing no further debate, I will ask for a vote on the amendment to hear from witnesses. I want to see if everyone is on screen. If there is a requirement for a recorded—

Hold on. I have hands up.

MP Poilievre, did you want to explain your amendment further?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Yes. I would propose that we have at least three full meetings to hear from witnesses on the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much for clarifying. I appreciate it.

MP Lambropoulos.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

My question was going to be how many meetings you're proposing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

That's perfect. The amendment is to have three full meetings on Bill C-253 so that we can hear from witnesses.

I will turn to MP Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Chair, do we have dates for those meetings? Can we get specific dates?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Right now, if you recall, we circulated a draft agenda for between now and the end of the session. The plan was to hold meetings regarding Bill C-253, so it's already in the books to do so. I had invited all the members to submit witnesses, which I believe some have.

We already have scheduled time in the agenda for this study.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's why I wondered whether this was in order and how it actually conflicts with our current schedule. Depending on the vote on this, it affects our current schedule and it doesn't take away that we've already actually booked time for witnesses. Everybody supports having witnesses, if we're going to actually have that.

Wouldn't it be out of order or would it be amending our current schedule, and does that require us to go in camera for committee business?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

The motion that was brought forward is admissible, as the legislative clerk stipulated.

With respect to the amendment proposed by MP Poilievre, it is admissible. He's amending the motion so that instead of going strictly to clause-by-clause study, we would actually go back to, I want to say, the original plan of seeing witnesses for this study.

As I explained, my hope was that we would be able to get everything done as soon as possible if we were to be tight on time.

I'm going to check with the clerk.

Mike, is there any deviation to the plan?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Michael MacPherson]

Based on my reading of the motion as submitted, it would be amended so that the committee proceed immediately to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-253, as referred by the House on May 12, 2021, after three full meetings of witness testimony.

If we look at our calendar that was distributed, which was tentative, we already have Bill C-253 in there for June 1, 3, 8 and 10. Therefore, it would be June 1, 3 and 8 with witnesses, and then June 10 would be clause-by-clause consideration.