Industry Committee on June 1st, 2021

[Michael Powell]

The one thing is that there are limits to what you can do within the provinces because of the jurisdictional issues. Basically, a pension can be registered in one province or federally, and the business can be regulated somewhere else. What you're talking about crosses those two forms of legislation. That means you have to have a national program, because coordinating all that across all the jurisdictions is impossible, in my view.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to MP Lemire for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to highlight Mr. Lemieux's comment about the importance of prioritizing retirees who do not have the ability to make up their losses in this debate.

I would also like to ask him a question.

Mr. Lemieux, you have seen what is in Bill C‑253, which the committee will have to consider clause by clause. Are there points in the bill to which you would propose concrete changes, or would you strongly suggest that we adopt it as it stands?

[Dominic Lemieux]

Thank you for the question.

I would say that this is not the time to niggle or fret over minor problems; it is time to move forward. The bill is not perfect, but I think we have momentum and we have a duty, as a society, to proceed quickly and protect the most vulnerable people in our society, who have no other resources to be able to get their heads above water.

As I said earlier, often, when a tragedy or an accident happens, like a plane crash, everyone says this must never happen again. Today, you have the power to say that the tragedies our Canadian pensioners go through must stop. We have to seize the opportunity and move forward.

To answer your question, I would say that we are satisfied with the bill as it stands. My life consists of negotiating collective agreements, and I have never negotiated a collective agreement that was perfect for the workers I represented. We have to find satisfactory compromises, and the same is true today. We are satisfied with what Bill C‑253 is proposing.

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

Thank you.

Consequently, Madam Chair, I would like to move a motion, because I have the sincere impression that we have gone all around the question and there is a consensus. I would propose that we move directly to clause‑by‑clause consideration of the bill.

If you find that my motion is in order, Madam Chair, I would like to put it to my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Give me a minute, I am going to check with the clerk whether it is in order, given that we have already discussed this motion at the last meeting.

You motion is in order, Mr. Lemire. Do you wish to move it?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Is it possible to repeat your motion?

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

Of course. In light of the testimony we have heard today, I move that we proceed immediately to clause‑by‑clause consideration of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

We have a motion on the floor to move immediately to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. I'm opening the floor to debate. If you'd like to speak on it, please raise your hand.

I see MP Poilievre has his hand up. Go ahead, MP Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I just wanted to know who remains on the witness list for this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I will turn to the clerk. We have a couple of invitations already sent out. I will turn it to the clerk to clarify.

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

Yes, sorry. Give me one second here.

We have the Canadian Bankers Association appearing this Thursday. Sorry; you'll have to bear with me one moment as I try to get the....

We have an attorney, Mark Zigler, of Koskie Minsky. He's a partner. We also have Cody Cooper, the president and chair of Chrysler Canada Retirees Organization, as well as Robert Thornton, who is with the Insolvency Institute of Canada. We have those four witness groups.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Mike, do we also have any others already invited for the subsequent week?

[The Clerk]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Could you please provide the names to the committee so that MP Poilievre is aware of exactly who is still outstanding among those who have been invited to come?

[The Clerk]

We've sent out some invitations. We haven't actually booked anyone for June 8, but we have sent out some invitations. We normally don't discuss who's been invited and hasn't actually confirmed their appearance yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Okay. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Can you tell us, though, who they are?

[The Clerk]

The practice is not to discuss.... These people may have just received the invitation. Normally, the practice is not to discuss who has been invited before we receive a response from them.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I don't see why we can't break with that practice. It doesn't sound like a particularly sacrosanct practice. I don't see what harm is going to be done by making known who has been invited.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

The practice of—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

It does matter, because we're trying to decide whether or not we're going to hear from them. That's what this motion really determines. If we go straight to clause-by-clause consideration, we're not going to hear from these people who are invited. We have to know who they are. If they're people who don't really have much to contribute to this debate, then that's one thing, but if you tell me that there are a bunch of people who are going to be intimately impacted by the proposal, then that changes how we vote. It is material. We need to know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

MP Poilievre, normally the standard is that we usually don't discuss witnesses in public. It's up to the committee. If we'd like, we can always move in camera and continue the conversation. It's up to the committee.