Industry Committee on June 15th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

We can't do that.

As long as members want to ask questions, we can't end a debate. Members still have their hands raised and they have the right to speak.

Do you have a question, Mr. Lemire?

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

I have a point of order.

Why can we do this for ordinary witnesses, but not for government witnesses whose credibility is being called into question by a government official?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

If I were to end the debate, I wouldn't prevent the witnesses from speaking. Instead, I would stop the members who still want to ask questions. Some members still have questions. Asking questions is part of their privilege and I can't prevent them from doing so. I must give the floor to the members who still have questions.

Do you have a question, Mr. Lemire? If not, I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Badawey.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Mr. Badawey, you have the floor.

There is a point of order on the floor. Mr. Duvall.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Chair, on a point of order, thank you for what you've just explained to us. We don't mind the questions, but they're repeating themselves and we're getting repeat answers. It's just going over and over to run out time. I think that's very unfair to the Canadians who are looking for us to do the proper work and protect their pensions.

If they have anything that's relevant to ask, that's fine, but why are we getting the same questions and the same answers, over and over?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

MP Duvall, I appreciate it, but this is a new amendment that was circulated and just moved in committee about 20 minutes ago by a member of Parliament.

It's the right of all members of this committee to ask questions and debate the amendment that has been put. I completely understand the time constraints, but we also have to be mindful of the fact that it is the right of members of Parliament to debate the amendment that is before the committee. Thus, I have to rule that out of order.

I will turn it back over to MP Badawey, who has the floor on this amendment.

Go ahead, MP Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have to confess that this is my first time dealing with this issue, this bill, on this committee, but I do appreciate the opportunity to weigh in. It is, in fact, something that I've been working on for quite some time, since being elected to the House in 2015, dealing with organizations such as CARP and others that have a great concern with respect to protecting their pensions.

I have to ask a question to Mr. Schaan that begs to be asked with respect to some of the dialogue that has been undertaken already at this meeting, albeit he's probably the most professed in this area of the dialogue and I appreciate his involvement and the—for lack of a better word—definitions today that he's provided the committee.

In budget 2019, the government introduced amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act. It prohibits a pension plan from providing that benefits and members' entitlement to benefits be affected by the termination of said plan.

How does that approach differ from the approach offered here, which we're discussing overall with a broader, holistic view but also specifically with this amendment?

[Mark Schaan]

I would defer to my colleague, Mr. Morrison, to discuss the changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act that were part of the 2019 package related to retirement income security. I would invite Mr. Morrison to indicate what those changes included.

[Paul Morrison]

I believe the amendments that you're speaking of are the clarifications in the Pension Benefits Standards Act that confirm that upon the wind-up or termination of a pension plan, the benefits that will be paid out under that plan will not be amended. It confirms the rights of [Technical difficulty—Editor] on termination to entitlements that they would be on a wind-up or a termination. They clarified what some people saw as a legislative gap that could have allowed for such an interpretation and potentially acted to the detriment of pensioners.

There were also I believe some other amendments that related to the ability, under the regulations, to have employers convert pension liabilities and have them assumed by insurance companies, which would allow them to remove it from their balance sheet and, with the pension regulator's approval, have the ability to have greater security for the pensioners and not be at the same risk of employer insolvency because it was backed by the assets of a highly regulated insurance firm.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you so much, Mr. Morrison.

I apologize to Mr. Badawey. I'm jumping in because I'm getting the signal from the clerk that we have to stop as we can't continue with translation services.

We are on the amendment by MP Poilievre. I'm going to take note of the list. Right now, we still have Mr. Badawey on the list, Mr. Poilievre, MP Jaczek, MP Jowhari and MP Lambropoulos. I believe MP Ehsassi has his hand up as well.

I'm going to take note of that so that when we come back again next meeting, we can continue where we left off.

I want to thank everyone for being here and thank you for your patience. We're trying our best to get everything done. I will work with the clerk to see when we can get this brought back to INDU, and we can go from there.

With that, I want to thank everyone.

I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony and the interpreters for their ongoing hard work, as well as the two clerks and the technicians.

With that, I will call the meeting adjourned.