:
I now call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 40 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website, and so you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entire committee.
We will be devoting the first hour to Bill and will then move in camera for the second hour to review the report.
To ensure an orderly meeting, I'd like to outline the regular rules.
Members may speak in the official language of their choice, as interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of “floor”, “English” or “French”.
As a reminder, all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. Please wait until I recognize you by name. When you are not speaking your mike should be on mute. As is my normal practice, I will hold up a yellow card when you have 30 seconds left in your intervention, and I will hold up a red card when your time for questions has expired.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 12, 2021, the committee is meeting to begin its study of Bill , an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.
I'd like to welcome today Philippe Méla, our legislative clerk, who will be working with us on this study.
Thank you very much for being with us today.
I'd now like to welcome the bill's sponsor, Marilène Gill, MP for Manicouagan.
[Translation]
The floor is yours for seven minutes so that you can introduce your bill.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
My thanks to the vice-chairs, to all the members, and to the committee's entire support team.
I am pleased to be before you today. I would like to thank all the members of Parliament who have worked to bring Bill before a committee today.
I must say that it has been a long haul. In that context, I would like to thank all the members of Parliament before me who have introduced similar bills in the last 20 or so years. It really was in the 2000s that the House of Commons first took up the issue. At least a couple of decades, therefore. But amendments such as the ones I am proposing today have never really been put forward.
I also introduced a bill along the same lines in the last Parliament. Unfortunately, it was not able to make its way through. Allow me to make a quick, critical comment on the legislative process here. Under our rules, some worthwhile bills that could well be in the public interest have no chance of being debated, let alone passed. They do not get through the process if they are not priorities or if, in the case of private members' bills, they simply do not get the luck of the draw.
So, of course, I hope that the government will not be calling an election anytime soon. Then this bill might go even further and go back to the House in order to pass another stage there.
Let me return to the background and the principles that informed the bill as it was being developed. It is basically very simple, despite its title that is almost as long as the bill itself.
In terms of the background, this is a grassroots bill. As members of Parliament, you know that we want to be close to the public and we listen to them. Personally, I make it a point of honour to bring the people's requests to the House. We are conveyor belts. Whether we are in government or in opposition, we are above all representatives of our constituents, not representatives of ourselves or of any particular body.
This bill, therefore, first saw the light of day on the Côte-Nord. But it could equally well have been born in the constituency of my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador, a constituency also affected by the bankruptcy of Cliffs Natural Resources in 2015. Because of that bankruptcy, workers who had paid into a defined benefits pension plan for their entire careers were deprived of 25% of their pension funds and their insurance when the drama, I might almost say the tragedy, occurred. I will come back to that a little later.
The basic principle, on which a majority of members of the House were in agreement when we voted, is one of deferred salary. In the negotiations between the employer and the unions representing the workers, an agreement is reached that, at a certain point in their careers, they will do without some salary, in order to ensure that they have a pension fund when they retire. Simply put, it means that the money belongs to the workers.
Put another way, to repeat myself in the negative, just like in photography, I could use as an example a worker currently earning $20 an hour. Overnight, he sees his hourly rate dropped to $15. We could not accept that. We could not imagine depriving workers of 25% of their salary. A current salary and a deferred salary should be considered in exactly the same way. It's a salary; it belongs to the workers.
That is the very concrete principle on which the bill is based. Of course, as I am the one proposing it, you might agree that I may possibly have, or appear to have, a conflict of interest. But I completely agree with myself. All joking aside, there is still a principle behind this. Depriving people of a part of their pension fund has concrete and direct consequences in a number of areas.
Those consequences might be manifested in a lot of ways, with many examples, but I will simply talk about two major consequences.
The first consequence is a social one. I am talking here about the Cliffs Natural Resources case, which is really well documented. There have been many mental health issues, such as depression or suicidal behaviour. Of course, people were deprived of a lot. We must also think about the surviving husbands and wives. Women are also affected because they receive no benefits.
We must also consider the entire economic impact, of course.
I see that I have to move a little quicker, because I only have two minutes left.
So we also have the entire economic issue. We must not forget that people buy and invest in the communities where they live. The fact that they are not receiving their full pension deprives them but it also deprives the communities of resources. Individuals are affected by the situation, but so is the surrounding society.
I will really not have the time to talk about the two points that my bill seeks to amend, but I can address them very quickly.
The first is about the priority of the creditors. I deal with this in a very balanced, even very humble, way.
The second is about compensation for insurance, because that is what retirees face in the event of restructuring or bankruptcy.
Let me end with a thought that will surely find agreement among those who have hoped for this bill and the former parliamentarians who have tried to put forward solutions such as the ones I am putting before you today. We should be making legislation for our workers, because they vote. Large companies clearly do not.
:
Thank you very much, Mrs. Gill. Congratulations for getting your bill to this stage.
First, I have to tell you that I once experienced a bankruptcy, with Nortel, in Ottawa. It was the biggest company in the national capital.
We learned that, in a bankruptcy, everyone loses. All the creditors lose. We sometimes think that bankers on the other side of the world end up as the big winners, but, in a bankruptcy, more money is owed to the creditors than is available to pay them.
Today, we are debating who will lose most in a bankruptcy. It is not always just a matter of good people against bad people.
With Nortel, for example, thousands of entrepreneurs were working on fixed contracts to provide services, including one plumbing company with 25 employees. When Nortel went bankrupt, those companies lost their money. They had done the work but they were not paid. Everyone had to go to court so that a judge could decide who would lose the most.
Under your bill, would the plumbing company with 25 employees that I just mentioned, be more of a priority, less of a priority, or the same priority as the people receiving a pension from the bankrupt company?
:
Thank you for the question, Mr. Poilievre.
The first thing I would like to highlight is the premise of your question, in which you say that we are not talking about setting good against bad in a dichotomous or polarized way. That is not the intention of the bill. That's the first thing I wanted to say.
You also say that a bankruptcy involves losses for everyone concerned. That is true; it is in no one's interest for a bankruptcy to occur. Ideally, what people want, whether they are employees, retirees or even the banks, is for restructuring to be possible, because it's the only positive way out. No one wants to lose.
As for the end of your comment, I can only emphasize what you said, because I completely agree with you on those two points. My bill would change absolutely nothing in terms of what suppliers can currently expect. They would maintain exactly the same priority.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Gill, for your bill. There's no question that you have the best interests of many of your constituents at heart. The bill is extremely well intentioned.
The issue, I suppose, is the devil is in the detail, as is very common with complex pieces of legislation. This is no doubt why, as you related, it has taken many years of discussion and we don't seem to be any further ahead.
The issue is one of balancing priorities. One of the issues that I think has been raised is that your bill would make it more difficult for companies with defined benefit pension plans to access loans, because lenders would have to assume a higher level of risk as their claim would be given lower priority.
Do you see this as a real risk?
:
Thank you for the question, Ms. Jaczek.
Certainly, we always want to do the right thing and protect people. You said that the devil is in the details. I actually always agree with that, but it must not stop us from taking action. As you said, the issue has been discussed for a number of years, but basically, the situation has not moved forward since the 2000s. For example, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the CCAA, has to be reviewed every five years. In 2018, a committee report said that something had to be done. Everyone agreed on that, but nothing was done. The same happened in 2010. This has been going on and on endlessly.
That answers the first part of your question.
In the second part of your question, you were talking about the risks that lenders incur. Actually, banks are very reasonable. Clearly, they also have their requirements. Of course, when they grant loans, they want to make sure that they will get their money back. Banks already ask for guarantees when they lend to a company. They already make sure that a company is financially healthy enough for it not to be too risky to grant them a loan.
Since banks already work in that way, I do not see it as a risk.
:
I actually feel the opposite.
First, we must not imagine that companies are giving workers a gift by telling them that they provide, for example, a defined benefit pension plan rather than a defined contribution plan. The issue of pension plans must be negotiated between the employer, meaning the company, and the union. Certainly, companies might prefer to provide one type of plan rather than another type. But given that it must be negotiated, I would say that it could be the opposite.
That was the first part of my answer. I would like to add a second point.
As Mr. Poilievre said earlier, it is in everyone's interest, the companies, the banks and the workers, for this to work. This is why a bill such as mine can be helpful. I am trying to put myself in a worker's shoes. A plan of that kind would be looked after and protected, and would become an additional guarantee. In my opinion, a pension plan of that kind would be an advantage. So I actually feel that it will not only protect the pension fund itself, but it will also protect this type of plan, the defined benefit plan.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm going to take the liberty right away of introducing the motion that I previously sent out and that you all received via email. The motion is as follows:
That the Committee proceed immediately to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-253 as referred by the House on May 12, 2021, without hearing witnesses.
I introduce this motion on the basis that this bill does not commit any money from the government. The bill is essentially ideological and does not involve responsible government, for example.
In the particular context of COVID-19, we know that many companies are being kept on life support, as it were. That's what the results of various surveys are showing. The government's wage subsidy and rental assistance programs are very generous. However, when those programs end, we could see a significant number of bankruptcies.
In addition, the election threat weighs heavily on us. An election campaign could be triggered as early as August. We know that if this bill is not sent to the House directly, given the time allotted for debate and consideration by the Senate, it may not receive royal assent before the House wraps up.
If these bankruptcies occur in the fall without us having passed the bill, hundreds or even thousands of workers may not be protected. That is what I'm afraid of. My colleague Marilène Gill's bill covers two areas: priority payment of preferred claims for employers, as well as compensation for the loss of group insurance.
I therefore move that we begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill immediately, in the hope that it will be sent back to the House as soon as possible for consideration at third reading. I also hope that it will be sent to the Senate quickly so that it can be passed in the current Parliament. That will allow us to address the bankruptcies that may occur in many constituencies.
I want to point out that the motion to send the bill to committee was supported by the Bloc Québécois, of course, the NDP, the Conservative Party and 10 Liberal members, including our colleague Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. I am calling on our strategic political sense and compassion for the workers who may be affected by these bankruptcies.
:
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.
:
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.
Sébastien mentioned that I voted in support of Bill . 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 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.
:
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.
:
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.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will begin by responding to Mr. Dreeshen's comment by simply drawing a parallel with Bill , 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 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 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 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.
:
I'll just speak to Sébastien's point.
It might make sense for there to be unanimous consent for us to move on from this conversation. You have a schedule, Chair. You've circulated it. I don't know the number of hours entirely, but I think the full three meetings would take us even beyond what you have scheduled, from my recollection, at least from hearing from witnesses. I know you're including clause-by-clause consideration in your schedule until the end of June.
It strikes me it would be much more efficient to stick to the current schedule that we have, and then to circle back at some point. If we deem that more witnesses are required, that we haven't heard from enough, we can have that conversation and cross that bridge when we come to it. Right now, we should proceed with your expedited schedule that you've already circulated. That would be the fastest for the Bloc, who are concerned about expediting, and obviously that includes hearing from witnesses.
I know we need unanimous consent, but I'm perfectly okay with forgetting we had this conversation for the last 20 minutes and moving on to ask questions of the sponsor.
:
I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I thought you wouldn't catch me.
This has been a very confusing meeting. It's important to highlight one reality. When we voted on the amendment, Mr. Lemire suggested to us—and this was part of the premise of the manner in which we voted—that if we voted in favour of the amendment, he would withdraw his motion. Then, subsequent to that, after Mr. Poilievre's amendment, he changed his decision.
Mr. Lemire, you've really managed to confuse every single one of us, because you've changed your position on several occasions.
Could you, one more time, tell us whether or not you are willing to withdraw the motion? You have to accept the representation you made before we voted on Mr. Poilievre's amendment.
:
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.
:
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.
:
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.
:
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 from Hamilton has a bill, Bill , 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.
:
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 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.
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.