[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, October 2, 1996
.1545 
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please.
Would Mr. Bodnar like to explain - this is once we get to his work - how he would like to proceed so the members of the committee understand exactly what's going to take place?
Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): Whatever is more convenient, Mr. Chair. I'm used to a different committee from this one, but the procedure would hopefully be for us to proceed to clause 1, for example. If there is an amendment, we'll deal with the amendment. If there's a need for an explanation, an explanation can be given. We will certainly express the position that we take on that particular proposed amendment, and we'll then go to a vote if there's no discussion.
The Chairman: I've had some talk with members of the opposition. I think we have a delicate balance here. There are a very large number of amendments, of which most are of a technical nature, as I understand the characterization of them. So we are very much dependent upon you to steer us through what is of a technical nature. If it's the will of the committee, I'd like to deal with those as quickly as possible. We'll just go right through them.
I want to confirm for the record that people have had a chance to meet with officials if they wished.
I think we'll proceed now. The Reform Party has an amendment that has been accepted by the government. It's in clause 1 and also in clause 105. Is it all right with the committee that we change the order to deal with clause 1 and then go to clause 105 to dispose of them together?
The Clerk of the Committee: We'll have to stand all the clauses, from clause 2 to clause 104.
The Chairman: We'll stand clauses 2 to 104, deal with clause 105, and then go back to clause 2. If the member wishes to say a few words to introduce it, I'd like him to put his comments together for both clauses 1 and 105. Is that okay?
We now have a quorum. The first item of business that we'll deal with is a motion by Monsieur Ménard to establish a subcommittee to deal with the conversion of military industries to civilian purposes. This motion is in front of the committee.
These are the Liberal names I'd like you to add: Walt Lastewka is the chair. Bonnie Brown and Morris Bodnar are members. If other members on the government side are interested in this committee, I suggest you approach Mr. Bodnar and have a discussion with him about your participation. Then the Bloc and Reform parties can make their wishes known.
The intent of the member, Mr. Lastewka, is to have an organizing meeting next week. Then perhaps you and Mr. Ménard can figure out a time to get a meeting organized for next week.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Under routine motions, there's the designation of the chair when the chairman is unable to meet.
It is moved by Mr. Bodnar that when the chair of the subcommittee is unable to act in that capacity at or during a meeting of the subcommittee, he shall designate a member of the subcommittee to act as chair at or during the said meeting.
.1550
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Next is the authorization to hold meetings when a quorum is not present. It is moved by Mr. Bodnar that the chairman be authorized to hold meetings in order to receive evidence and to authorize printing when a quorum is not present provided that at least three members are present, including a member of the opposition.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Next is the questioning of witnesses. It is moved by Mr. Bodnar that during the questioning of witnesses at any meeting of the subcommittee there be allocated a one ten-minute period per party for the first round of questions and five minutes per member for the subsequent round, and that, time permitting, every member or substitute member be offered the opportunity to question the witnesses.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Next is witness expenses. It is moved by Mr. Bodnar that reasonable travelling and living expenses be paid.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Mr. Bodnar, perhaps you can introduce us to the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-5.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the matter, if you wish, we'll start with clause 1. It would be my hope that if there are clauses for which there are no proposed amendments, no need for discussion, and of no controversy, then we'll take them in multiples and be able to deal with them in that fashion.
Mr. Chairman, is it your procedure for me to proceed and start with clause 1, or is it for you to do it?
The Chairman: I'll say clause 1, then I'll ask for any discussion. I think this is one on which we have some discussion. Then we'll just pick up momentum.
On clause 1
Mr. Bodnar: Clause 1 has a proposed amendment by Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have the wording of the clause in front of you. Further, for the record, we have a couple of other amendments that fit all together. I'll just basically speak once substantively to what we have before us.
It's certainly a pleasure to be here at the committee today.
This all started a year or two ago. I was approached by a Vancouver area lawyer who told me of a concern that he had with the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The concern he expressed had to do with offenders being released from having to pay damages arising from assault awarded in a civil lawsuit should they claim bankruptcy.
Certainly, we all agree that the plight of the victim should take precedence over the rights of offenders. Victims in this country have suffered enough. For them to then be hit with a blow that no payments for damages will be received because of a loophole in the BIA was certainly not to be supported. In my opinion, it was certainly unacceptable.
Many have been victimized by abusive relationships only to learn that they will not receive the awarded damages because of a loophole in the federal statute. I came across a number of sensational newspaper articles documenting those sad stories by following individual cases. Fines, alimony and fraud aren't exempt from bankruptcy or release. Neither should civil damages from a criminal assault be exempted.
On May 1, 1995, I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-323, in the House. Its purpose was to add civil damages awarded in respect of an assault or battery to the the debt listed in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The result would be that a bankrupt person could not be released by an order of discharge. Changes would have given the victim more rights. As every member of this committee knows, the victim deserves more consideration than the convicted offender.
There are proposed changes now in Bill C-5 that would amend section 178 of the act. However, the way the amendment is worded does not adequately protect the victim.
So on February 28, the Minister of Industry, Mr. Manley, sent me a letter giving me strong support for my private member's bill. As members, we understand how long it can take for one of our bills to get passed no matter how good it may be. That is why I have asked the minister to accept my amendments at the committee stage. I have a letter from him dated February 28. He said in his own hand that I should move this at committee and thanked me for the additional idea.
The basic concept was in the government bill, but perhaps the wording and refinements that I have come up with add some additional nuances that would make the results more effective.
I'd also like to give a notice of thanks to member Carolyn Parrish. She was the chair of the committee that dealt with the private member's bill in the first place. She saw the merit of where I was going and ensured that my private member's bill became votable. This therefore drew some attention to what was attempted.
.1555
I think those are the background comments. I think the merit of the idea speaks for itself. It's just now a matter of putting the technicalities together and passing the motions to make it effective.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I thank you very much.
Are there any comments from Mr. Bodnar?
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Chairman, we've reviewed this in the department. The Reform party can take solace in the fact that we agree with Mr. Forseth on this particular matter. It's agreeable to the government.
The Chairman: Mr. Forseth's amendment is R-1. Is there any further discussion?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Are there further amendments in clause 1?
Mr. Bodnar: G-2 is the further amendment being proposed by the government, which changes clause 1. I believe everyone has it before them. It's just a technical amendment for more clarity.
The Chairman: Mr. Milliken has a question.
Mr. Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): G-1 is similar to R-1. We're not proceeding with G-1. Thank you.
The Chairman: Are there further questions on clause 1 as amended?
Clause 1 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: I want to ask for the permission of the committee to let clauses 2 to 104 stand to give Mr. Forseth an opportunity to introduce the second amendment, which follows the first, if you don't mind. These two are together for him.
Clauses 2 to 104 inclusive allowed to stand
On clause 105
The Chairman: We'll go to R-9. Mr. Bodnar, can you start the discussion?
Mr. Bodnar: Again, this is a proposed amendment by Reform. I believe it just follows on the first one, R-1.
Mr. Forseth: I will simply read it. It says:
- civil proceedings in respect of
(ii) wrongful death resulting therefrom;
Mr. Bodnar: This is one the government agrees with. It just follows the previous one, R-1.
The Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the amendment of clause 105?
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Shall clause 105 as amended carry?
Mr. Bodnar: No, there's a further amendment in clause 105. There is a Bloc amendment as well.
The Chairman: Is this striking out line 21 on page 62?
Mr. Bodnar: G-38 is not needed, so we will not proceed. The next one is the Bloc amendment, which is BQ-3. Perhaps one of the Bloc members would indicate the amendment and their reason for proposing the amendment.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We're discussing clause 105 at the moment, Mr. Leblanc. We accepted an amendment put forward by the Reform Party, and we will now move to your amendment.
[English]
It was proposed; we haven't discussed it yet. Should we let the Bloc explain and then perhaps the government can give its reaction to it?
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Could we postpone this discussion until the next meeting, r. Chairman? Do you intend to complete the clause-by-clause study today? My colleague, who is handling this subject, had to leave to go to the hospital, and I wanted to ask you...
.1600
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Milliken.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would be agreeable to the committee to stand clause 105 in light of the comments made by my colleague.
We've agreed to one amendment already, and since the clause has been amended, it may be difficult for my friend to appreciate the change that has taken place and therefore the effect of his own amendment. To allow an opportunity for him to consult with his colleague and so on, maybe we could agree to stand the clause and come back to it as we work our way through.
We have a number of other amendments we can deal with, and we don't have to deal with that one at this particular time.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Chairman, before we do that, I would suggest we deal.... Immediately after BQ-3 there is R-10, again, Mr. Forseth's further amendment, which deals with the previous two.
It's another one just clarifying...and it's required to give effect to the others. I would suggest we deal with R-10, which deals as well with clause 105.
After we're done with this one, then it could be stood down.
The Chairman: Okay.
Perhaps, Mr. Forseth, in that context we'll try to get through clause 105 before the break. It was a 15-minute bell and not a 30-minute bell, so we're down to about 4 minutes.
Mr. Forseth: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm looking at motion R-10, which would replace lines 5 and 6 on page 62 with the following: ``the end of paragraph (e)''. It would replace line 21 on page 62 with the following:
or part-time student, or
(h) from any debt for interest owed in relation to an amount referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (g).
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Chairman, the government is in favour of this amendment.
Amendment agreed to
Mr. Bodnar: Then the clause can be stood.
Clause 105 as amended allowed to stand
The Chairman: The clause is stood while we adjourn for the vote. We'll come back and turn to clause 2.
.1602
.1629
The Chairman: Thank you very much. The committee will resume.
This is clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-5 and we are resuming discussions with clause 2.
I turn to the parliamentary secretary for comments. Are there any comments or changes in clause 2?
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that you take clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 - there are no suggested changes by the government and we have received no amendments from the opposition parties - and deal with them in a group.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to
.1630
On clause 6
Mr. Bodnar: There are Reform amendments on that clause, amendments R-2 and R-3.
The Chairman: Mr. Schmidt, you wish to speak to the amendment.
Mr. Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Chairman, we respectfully move that in the proposed subsection 13(2), line 12 on page 6 be amended to read:
- siders necessary, shall issue the licence if the''
In other words, you could meet all the criteria that the superintendent himself has presented and still not be granted a licence. So we believe that word should be ``shall'' rather than ``may''.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Chairman, the government is opposed to these two amendments. The word ``shall'' makes it obligatory. While it is not in the proposed legislation, I believe it has been indicated to Mr. Mayfield that inclusion of such words as ``shall'' creates nothing but an increase in the size of the bureaucracy necessary to administer this.
The change of such words is not necessary at this time, and we're opposed to it.
The Chairman: Is there further discussion on the amendments presented by the Reform party?
Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: The comment was made that the substitution of ``shall'' for ``may'' adds to bureaucracy; it's quite the reverse. The word ``may'' involves a matter of consideration, which adds to the bureaucracy, but ``shall'' makes it automatic, and there's no bureaucracy.
So the argument is fallacious on that particular point.
I would like to hear some substance on why this should not be accepted. Certainly the bureaucratic argument doesn't wash, but perhaps there is some other technical argument that would have some merit.
We're not here to be nit-picky or make unreasonable points, but the merit of the idea itself should carry the day.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the superintendent comment on this particular matter.
The Chairman: Could the witness identify himself.
Mr. Marc Mayrand (Acting Superintendent of Bankruptcy, Department of Industry): Mr. Chairman, the issuance of a licence requires an individual assessment or evaluation of the character, the competence and qualifications of the individual.
The other thing that may not always be set out in criteria are grounds of public interest. They may not all be spelled out specifically. All the criteria require a level of appreciation, a level of discretion in the decision of issuing the licence. Some of the criteria may by themselves require the use of some discretion.
The Chairman: There is another response from Mr. Schmidt.
Mr. Schmidt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Then it seems to me the error lies not in the increase in bureaucracy but in inadequate guidelines. The witness's response would suggest that the very opposite to what is intended is permitted here. The ``may'' actually allows a certain element of capriciousness to enter into the granting of licences of certain applicants.
If the superintendent does not have a complete set of guidelines and qualifications that a licensee must have, surely then it allows all kinds of other areas to enter in.
The earlier proposed paragraph in the bill clearly provides that the superintendent shall provide the lists of the characteristics and the qualifications that a licensee must have.
If those are not adequate, Mr. Chairman, then indeed it strikes me that there's a serious omission on the part of the guidelines and the regulations and qualifications expected.
Mr. Forseth: May it never be said that an individual could meet all the legal requirements but still may not get a licence because they don't have the right political connections? May it never be said, but that leaves that door open to that kind of favouritism.
The Chairman: Are there any final comments from the witnesses?
Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
.1635
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Are there further amendments to clause 6?
I'm sorry, there is another one.
Mr. Schmidt: Did you take the two of them together? If you took them together, there's no problem.
The Chairman: I was assuming I took them together, but if I took them separately, I'll call a second vote.
There's a second amendment presented by Mr. Forseth.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to
On clause 8
Mr. Bodnar: There are a couple of amendments by the Reform Party - replacing line 37 on page 6 and replacing line 2 on page 7.
The Chairman: Just to make sure I'm clear about it, Mr. Schmidt, we're discussing two amendments?
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Chairman, we withdraw amendment R-4 on proposed paragraph 13.2(4)(b), but we maintain the amendment on proposed paragraph 13.2(4)(a). We're withdrawing our amendment to proposed paragraph 13.2(4)(b) because it's unnecessary at this time.
The Chairman: The amendment to proposed paragraph 13.2(4)(b) is withdrawn and the amendment to proposed paragraph 13.2(4)(a) stands.
Would you like a minute to explain the intent of the amendment?
Mr. Schmidt: The instance here is that if the only reason for the licensee having his license withdrawn is his failure to pay the fee, and if the licensee then pays the fee - let's say it's a day late - at that point why wouldn't the superintendent reinstate the licence? The suggestion here is that he may, but he may also neglect to do that.
Here again the same argument applies. We believe the Superintendent of Bankruptcy should be required to reinstate that license if the only thing that's missing is the fee, which has now been paid.
The Chairman: Is there a response from the parliamentary secretary?
Mr. Bodnar: Our position is the same as it was on the previous Reform suggestions: the word ``shall'' is not one we agree with. We are opposed to that proposed amendment.
The Chairman: Could you elaborate on behalf of the members of the committee? Please, feel free, and perhaps, Mr. Bodnar, you can formally introduce the witnesses with you for the record.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Chairman, I'll let them introduce themselves.
The Chairman: Absolutely.
Mr. Max Mendelsohn (Senior Partner, Mendelsohn, Rosentzveig, Shacter; and Director, Insolvency Institute of Canada): I'm an attorney from Montreal and a private sector adviser to the department.
Mr. R. Gordon Marantz (Osler Hoskin & Harcourt): I'm a lawyer from Toronto and a private sector adviser to the Department of Industry.
Mr. Jacques Hains (Acting Director General, Corporate Governance Branch, Industry Canada): I'm acting director general of the Corporate Governance Branch in the Department of Industry.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Bodnar, do you want to refer this question for elaboration to one of the witnesses?
Mr. Bodnar: To the superintendent.
Mr. Mayrand: One of the requirements in the proposed paragraph is that there be reasonable grounds or explanation as to why payment was made late. Again, that requires an appreciation as to whether the explanation is reasonable or not. That's why there is a level of discretion to be exercised in the decision to reinstate the licence or not.
.1640
Not only must the trustee pay the fees and penalties, but he must provide an explanation as to why the payment was made late. According to the statute, it has to be a reasonable explanation.
The Chairman: Mr. Milliken.
Mr. Milliken: I don't understand that. I would have thought that if a trustee was impecunious for some reason, was away on holiday, or for any reason...why would it matter why it was late? If that's the only reason his licence was suspended, surely the obligation is to give the licence back?
I'm at a loss to understand why you'd even consider there would be discretion and why the superintendent or anybody else would be able to say, well, I don't like your reason, I'm not going to give you your licence back; you were late paying your fees.
It's just wrong. If there's another reason for doing it, that's fine. You have other reasons for suspending, but surely if the guy is late in paying his fees, it shouldn't matter what the explanation is. If it's paid, it's paid, and he gets it back.
Mr. Mayrand: Again, that requirement is already in the act. That's not a new requirement introduced by Bill C-5. It's already in the legislation.
Mr. Schmidt: It doesn't make it right.
Mr. Milliken: But shouldn't we fix it?
Mr. Mayrand: The other thing we have to consider at times is why and when the payment was made by the trustee. What circumstances caused him to be late for the payment? Has he changed his mind? Has he abandoned his practice? There are open files that have to be looked after while he's away, or while he fails to renew his licence.
Mr. Milliken: But then you'll suspend it for other reasons.
Mr. Mayrand: Yes, you're right, but that's a much longer process, while here it's as a result of his failing to renew his licence.
In the past we've seen cases where the trustee has simply decided to abandon his practice, then later on decided to resume it for reasons that were totally foreign to the notion of paying the renewal fees or not.
The Chairman: Do you have a question?
Mr. Lastewka (St. Catharines): I have a concern the other way. If anyone should be paying their fees on time, it should be that trustee.
I'm concerned about the time limit if a person decides not to pay the fee, then waits a number of months and decides, well, I'm going to go back into it.
I think that becomes a question of whether that person should be a trustee or not. There might be a wavering of whether they're going to practice or not.
As far as I'm concerned, it becomes a professional thing, and it should at least be discussed with the superintendent.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Chairman, could the superintendent enlighten us on the practice of law societies? If a lawyer is late in paying his fees, is he not reinstated immediately on payment? Does he have to give an explanation for the delay?
Mr. Mayrand: I'm not fully aware of those circumstances, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Milliken: Perhaps some of the lawyers here are.
Mr. Bodnar: I don't think so. I don't -
Mr. Milliken: I haven't either, but I hate to think I have to give an explanation, Mr. Mayrand.
Mr. Marantz: I think, though, that the point the superintendent was trying to make was that there can be intervening circumstances that arise when a trustee fails to renew his licence and make payment. If the licence is cancelled for non-payment, there are files that have to be protected, steps that have to be taken by the superintendent's office, to protect the interests of the creditors, and so forth.
In those circumstances, it may be totally inappropriate for the trustee just to pay the arrears on his licensing fee, because all the other issues have arisen in the meantime that have to be dealt with.
All we're suggesting is that the superintendent should not be placed in a straitjacket. To put in the word ``shall'' would remove from consideration the ability to deal with the problem.
Mr. Milliken: With respect, I ask you to look at the proposed paragraph again. It says:
- (4) Where a licence has ceased to be valid by reason of
- and it suggests that it should be ``shall reinstate it'' -
where the trustee pays the outstanding fees together with a prescribed penalty amount and provides a reasonable written explanation of the failure to pay them in accordance with subsection (2);
.1645
So he has to give a reasonable explanation before we require the trustee to...even if it were ``shall''. Even if he provides a reasonable one, then under this section, the trustee could still refuse.
Mr. Marantz: The superintendent could refuse because, although the explanation is reasonable, the superintendent may come to the conclusion that the trustee should not be licensed to continue. There's an area of discretion in the licensing.
Mr. Milliken: But surely, if that's the case, the discretion should be exercised on the basis of those grounds, not on the question of payment.
Mr. Marantz: I think you run into the problem that if you're cancelling a licence on other grounds, a much longer process is involved.
Mr. Milliken: Ten days.
Mr. Marantz: And there's a hearing.
The Chairman: Mr. Schmidt, before you speak, perhaps I could encourage Mr. Bodnar and the government witnesses to speak amongst themselves for a minute.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Chairman, the government position does not change, because what could occur is late payment one year, then late payment again, and then all of a sudden late payment means nothing. People - and this is taking it on a hypothetical basis - could at any time decide they'll pay their fees whenever they please without any proper enforcement proceeding available to the superintendent. As soon as the money is tendered, he has to reinstate them.
That amount of discretion is just required by the superintendent. There's nothing to show that there was abuse of this particular provision in the former legislation.
The Chairman: Mr. Schmidt, perhaps I'll ask the committee if they're ready for the question.
Mr. Schmidt: There are two points to be made here.
If there are other extenuating circumstances that cause the revocation of a licence, that's one issue. That has nothing to do with the payment of fees.
The other point is that between the time the payment of fees is late and the time the fees may be paid, the trustee is not licensed to begin with and so cannot practise during that time. Clearly that should be incentive enough. If the person wants to be in business and if it's a profitable business, he will make sure his payment is in place.
If there are other extenuating circumstances, indeed they should and do come under other sections of the act. I certainly agree completely that they should be dealt with in some process and there should no ``shall'' in that case. But there should be in this instance, because it's a very specific thing that could easily work.
Mr. Bodnar: When trustees in bankruptcies deal with matters, and if they are late in payment of fees, in that period during which they're late paying fees, they still have open files. They're still dealing with files that are open. It's no different from what happens in the legal profession when a lawyer is late in payment of fees.
I can enlighten Mr. Milliken that in the jurisdiction I am familiar with, non-payment of a fee past the particular date results in an automatic suspension of that lawyer's right to practise. That automatic suspension is then dealt with by the Law Society on reinstating upon payment of fees, but there is a suspension of that individual. With the suspension, the Law Society then can look at immediately appointing a trustee to act on behalf of that lawyer and take over the practice.
The Chairman: Mr. Schmidt, do you want to make a final comment?
Mr. Schmidt: Yes.
Surely the very same argument applies here. A lawyer who is suspended would have open files and indeed there might be a trustee appointed. The same situation should apply here.
They're very parallel situations, and the point that's been made by Mr. Bodnar certainly applies. I don't disagree with that. The point we're making is a different one.
The Chairman: If the committee feels it's had an opportunity to discuss both sides of this, are you ready for the question?
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: Number 5 is the next one. It's another Reform amendment.
The Chairman: Give the members a chance to make sure they have it.
.1650
I have two people and I still can't figure it out.
This is Mr. Mayfield's motion regarding line 7 on page 7.
Mr. Schmidt, would you like to speak to it?
Mr. Schmidt: Yes.
I would like to ask a simple question. If the Superintendent of Bankruptcy is not required to suspend on these bases, on what bases is he required to suspend? For example, if a trustee has been convicted of an indictable offence or has failed to comply with any of the conditions or limitations to which the licence is subject, would the superintendent of insurance actually consider retaining the licence for a trustee who has behaved in such a manner?
The Chairman: Mr. Bodnar or one of the witnesses?
I'm sorry. Mr. Schmidt, I assumed you moved the motion because Mr. Ménard.... It's moved?
Mr. Schmidt: Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Mayrand: Mr. Chairman, one would have to consider the circumstances of the particular licensee. One would have to assess whether the offence is related to the conduct of the professional activity. The more remote the offence is from a relation with the professional activity, the less inclined they would be to use the discretion to suspend or even cancel.
An indictable offence covers a very wide ground and may have no relation with the ability to perform the professional activity. So again, there's an element of appreciation and discretion to be used objectively to assess the circumstances of the particular individual.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Chairman, let me give Mr. Schmidt an example.
A trustee who may properly conduct the affairs of a trustee may, during holidays, be convicted of impaired driving, which can be prosecuted by way of indictment. He could be convicted and have no problems in conducting the practice of being a trustee. If this amendment went through, his licence would have to be suspended, even though it is completely unrelated and may be one incident that never occurred prior and will not occur in future.
The Chairman: Do you have any further comments, Mr. Schmidt?
We've all had a chance to hear the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Are there further amendments to this clause?
Mr. Bodnar: Yes, there's government amendment G-3. This is, again, strictly for clarification and ease of administration. It's a technical amendment.
The Chairman: Has the committee had a chance to consider these changes? If so, and if there's no discussion, all those in favour of the amendment?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Mr. Bodnar, are there further amendments?
Mr. Bodnar: No, not on clause 8.
The Chairman: Shall clause 8 as amended be carried?
Clause 8 as amended agreed to
Mr. Bodnar: There are no amendments on clause 9.
Clause 9 agreed to
On clause 10
Mr. Bodnar: On clause 10 there is a government amendment, G-4, and this is for clarity's sake.
The Chairman: Do committee members have any questions? All those in favour of the amendment?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
.1655
Clause 10 as amended agreed to
On clause 11
Mr. Bodnar: There is a Bloc amendment, BQ-1, for clause 11.
The Chairman: In which order do they affect the clause?
Mr. Bodnar: I think the Bloc member will speak to the amendment.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Would you like to speak on this amendment, Mr. Leblanc?
Mr. Leblanc: As is stated quite clearly in clause 13.51, we think that in order to enhance the trustees credibility, it is important that he or she acts impartially. Some witnesses said that sometimes trustees were in something of a conflict-of-interest situation. We think that by amending clause 11, we would ensure that the trustee is more impartial. That is our reason for presenting this amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Bodnar, would you like to respond as to your consideration of this amendment?
Mr. Bodnar: It's my understanding that this proposed amendment is beyond the scope of the bill in any event, but putting in words as broad as ``conflict of interest'' and ``impartiality'' without defining them could potentially lead to what we suspect would be endless litigation. As well, even without this particular amendment, in situations such as this, the trustee has to act in that manner anyway, or else is subject to civil litigation if it can be shown....
The Chairman: Are there any comments or considerations from the committee members?
Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: I would also like to say that I think the words are just so general that it doesn't appear to be in context with the rest of the bill, which is highly technical. All of a sudden there's almost an editorializing or a moral tone here, which doesn't merit support.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Chairman, there's another proposed amendment by the government on clause 11, which has been distributed today. It does not have a number in the book that we're considering. It's a proposed amendment that Bill C-5 in clause 11 by amended by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 8 with the following:
- being cancelled under paragraph 13.2(5)(a) or subsection 14.01(1)
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Are there further amendments to this clause?
Clause 11 as amended agreed to
On clause 12
Mr. Bodnar: On clause 12 there are two Reform amendments, R-6 and R-7.
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Chairman, with regard to amendment R-6, it's a question of clarification.
In the French text, do the words ``to the Superintendent'' appear? If they do, our amendment will not stand. The argument was made at the committee that those are missing in the French text, and if they're not necessary in the French text, they probably aren't necessary in the English text either.
Mr. Hains: Mr. Schmidt, when I read the French correspondence, that particular provision still refers to le surintendant.
Mr. Schmidt: In that case, the amendment is withdrawn.
The Chairman: Fine.
Are there further amendments on clause 12?
.1700
Mr. Bodnar: There is R-7, again a Reform amendment.
The Chairman: Is it the same position, Mr. Schmidt?
Mr. Schmidt: No, this is quite different. This is with regard to the superintendent's cancelling the licence of a trustee in certain instances. It's simply a question of removing the discretion in terms of whether a licence could be withdrawn when a trustee in fact has not met the conditions or limitations on which the licence is granted or the requirement that a trustee successfully take an exam to enrol in a proficiency course. It suggests to me, Mr. Chairman, that if the individual decides not to take the exam, the licence wouldn't be there.
In the event that the trustee can be shown to have acted in a manner that is not in a responsible fiduciary position, the superintendent should require restitution to be made. Rather than simply juxtaposing taking an exam or making restitution as two alternative decisions, the restitution should exist on taking the exam and making restitution.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Chairman, the problem we have with this amendment is that it takes away the word ``may'' and puts in the word ``shall'' under the existing proposed legislation when it says ``the Superintendent may''. It then gives the superintendent different alternatives. If we put in the word ``shall'', the alternatives following don't make sense, because then it says the superintendent shall cancel or suspend a licence, shall place such limitation or conditions, and shall require the trustee to make restitution to the state. You can't have him do all of those.
By having the word ``may'', the superintendent determines which one of the following three paragraphs is the appropriate one. That is how it reads.
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Bodnar has pointed out exactly the three conditions that we think should apply. It's not an either/or selection of those; it's all of them.
Mr. Bodnar: If you cancel the licence, there's no purpose in imposing conditions.
Mr. Schmidt: A trustee may have acted in a false fiduciary manner or a manner that is not in the fiduciary interest of the estate. In that event, if he has caused certain damages to be incurred by the estate, that restitution should be made whether the licence is revoked or not, because there are dollars that have been misplaced somehow. Those dollars should be given back to the estate and the trustee who is the cause of that should be obligated to repay that damage.
Mr. Bodnar: Once a trustee is suspended, he's outside the jurisdiction of the superintendent and it's up to a civil remedy. This condition of ordering restitution is during the period that the person is under the supervision and authority of the superintendent, and that's when his licence is not cancelled. We would oppose that particular suggested amendment.
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Chairman, this is now, if you like, a sequential type of decision. Surely a licence can be suspended before it is revoked. To cancel a licence is quite different, and it could be cancelled during the time that the restitution is made. Then the cancellation may not in fact take place. It's simply a suspension that takes place over a period of time to make sure that the individual doesn't incur a similar relationship with the new estate that might be....
The Chairman: Do any other members have a comment on this amendment?
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Are there further amendments to this clause?
Mr. Bodnar: There's a government amendment - G-4.1. With respect to this one, it's one of clarification and it's technical.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Are there further amendments to this clause?
Mr. Bodnar: There is R-8, a proposed Reform amendment.
The Chairman: Mr. Schmidt, do you want to introduce this amendment?
Mr. Schmidt: I've already spoken about this one.
.1705
The Chairman: Okay.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Are there further amendments?
Mr. Bodnar: Yes, there's government G-4.2. Again, it's simply adding the word ``and''. It's a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: Next there's G-5, a proposed amendment of the government. Again, it's one for clarification for administration. It's not anything but a technical amendment.
The Chairman: I'm waiting for your amendment that sneaks in lawyers. Have you managed to do that?
Mr. Bodnar: It's not in there. Yet.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: Is there any discussion?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: A new amendment has been circulated amending clause 12. It's that clause 12 be amended by replacing line 2 on page 9 with the following:
- 13.2(5), (6) or (7) or subsection 14.02 or 14.03
Amendment agreed to
Clause 12 as amended agreed to
Mr. Bodnar: On clause 13 there are no suggested amendments.
Clause 13 agreed to
On clause 14
Mr. Bodnar: On clause 14 we have government proposed amendment G-6, which is to be replaced by 6.1, which we are suggesting. Again, it's a technical amendment. It's been circulated. It's replacing lines 24 to 28 on page 10 with subparagraphs (e), (f) and (g), as outlined in the handout.
The Chairman: Is that what I have as G-6?
Mr. Bodnar: G-6 is not being proceeded with, but 6.1 is, and it's been circulated. Do you want me to read it?
The Chairman: I think you'd better make sure the committee members understand it.
Mr. Milliken: It's called new G-6 on my copy.
Mr. Bodnar: Okay. Mine says 6.1.
The Chairman: Mr. Bodnar, do you mind just starting to read it? We might save a step if everybody understands it.
Mr. Bodnar: Okay. It's that Bill C-5 in clause 14 be amended by replacing lines 24 to 28 on page 10 with the following:
- (e) a trustee becomes insolvent; -
Does everybody have that same thing in front of them now? Okay, we'll dispense.
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Bodnar, is this technical again?
Mr. Bodnar: Yes, it is.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 14 as amended agreed to
On clause 15
Mr. Bodnar: On clause 15 we have G-7. Again, this is a technical proposal for clarification. There's nothing of substance; it's strictly technical.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Are there any further amendments to clause 15?
Mr. Bodnar: There's G-8, which is the same; it's technical.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 15 as amended agreed to
Mr. Milliken: Is this to make sure the lien is in favour of the Crown? Is that what this is for?
Mr. Hains: That's right.
Mr. Milliken: Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
.1710
Clause 16 agreed to
On clause 17
Mr. Bodnar: We have government amendment G-9. It's for administrative purposes, adding the words ``including material in electronic form''.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 17 as amended agreed to
Clauses 18 to 20 inclusive agreed to
On clause 21
Mr. Bodnar: On clause 21 we have government amendment 10, which adds the words ``ceased to be valid by reason of failure to pay fees''. Again, it's for the sake of clarification.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 21 as amended agreed to
Clauses 22 to 25 inclusive agreed to
On clause 26
Mr. Bodnar: Again, it is adding the word ``sheriff'' in that line. It's a technical amendment.
The Chairman: Is the amendment agreed to? Do you want a second, Peter? Take your time.
Any time I'm going too quickly, committee members, please feel free to say so.
Mr. Milliken: Is that an error in the previous wording?
Mr. Hains: Yes, it was a mistake.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 26 as amended agreed to
Clauses 27 to 29 inclusive agreed to
On clause 30
Mr. Bodnar: It is a technical amendment that's being proposed for clarity's sake. It's G-12.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: Amendment G-13 is the same. It's a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 30 as amended agreed to
Clause 31 agreed to
On clause 32
Mr. Bodnar: Amendment G-14 is adding the word ``thereupon,'' which is technical.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 32 as amended agreed to
On clause 33
Mr. Bodnar: Again it is a technical amendment by adding the word ``thereupon''. That's government amendment G-15.
Mr. Milliken: Can I ask for clarification of the meaning of this particular amendment? It changes the date so that the assignment happens when the proposal is refused rather than on the date of the initial bankruptcy event. Is that correct?
Mr. Hains: That's right. It removes an unnecessary and unneeded relation in that provision. This particular one was recommended to us by Professor Bohémier, who teaches insolvency law.
Mr. Milliken: Thank you.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 33 as amended agree to
Clauses 34 to 36 inclusive agreed to
On clause 37
.1715
Mr. Bodnar: This is government amendment G-16, and even though there are many words, my understanding is that this one is more for administrative purposes, adding ``together with, in the case of travelling salesmen, disbursements...'', etc.
The Chairman: A western Canadian amendment. The guys with the suitcases in Saskatoon.
Mr. Bodnar: In the snowstorm yesterday.
The Chairman: Sorry, that's a little....
Mr. Lastewka: No, I was listening to the humour on such a dull subject.
Where did this come out and why? I apologize, I'm not a lawyer.
Mr. Hains: I'm not either.
This is just to clarify in law that when it comes to salespersons, the expenses they have to incur when they travel are reimbursed by their employer. It's to clarify that it is included in their wages. That was the intent of the legislation. It wasn't clear, so now we're specifying it here. The source of that is our internal discussions with our legal advisers.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 37 as amended agreed to
On clause 38
Mr. Bodnar: It's G-17. Again, it's adding the word ``thereupon''. It's a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 38 as amended agreed to
Clause 39 agreed to
On clause 40
Mr. Bodnar: There is government amendment G-18. Again, it's for clarification. I'm sure the officials have some reason for it.
The Chairman: Mr. Hains, do you want to enlighten us?
Mr. Hains: As you will remember, this piece of legislation was first introduced last November. It's been out there for seven months, so many experts have looked at it. Professor Bohémier talked to us and said it could be clear if it was expressed that way. It's not a change in the provision; it just makes it more understandable.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 40 as amended agreed to
On clause 41
Mr. Bodnar: On clause 41 we have proposed amendment G-19. It's a technical amendment for clarification purposes.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 41 as amended agreed to
On clause 42
Mr. Bodnar: Clause 42 has government amendment G-20. It's an awfully long amendment for clarity's sake. I'll let Mr. Hains explain this one.
Mr. Hains: There is a very simple explanation that I think you will remember. When the Insolvency Institute of Canada and CIPREC came to you, they both said the provision dealing with commercial leases/landlords was hard to understand, so they came in with a suggested rewording. That's their rewording that you see here.
The Chairman: We had a lot of questions of the witnesses at that time. Does this seem more satisfactory?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 42 as amended agreed to
Clauses 43 to 46 inclusive agreed to
On clause 47
Mr. Bodnar: Clause 47 has government amendment G-21. Again, my understanding is that it is for clarification. It is a technical amendment.
The Chairman: We're just giving the members a chance to get caught up. We went through four clauses very quickly, so some people are looking at clause 47.
Mr. Milliken: This is a new amendment.
.1720
Mr. Hains: This is very technical. All we're doing is adding the words ``prescribed form''. It's at the request of the counsel of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. They look at our regulations occasionally. They've written to the department and said when we have a chance, we should specify in that particular provision ``prescribed form and manner''.
Mr. Milliken: To authorize you to make a regulation to cover this.
Mr. Hains: To make sure our regulations are totally legal.
Mr. Bodnar: I never knew there was such a group.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Milliken: If it came about at the request of that committee, I have no doubt it's correct.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 47 as amended agreed to
Clauses 48 to 59 inclusive agreed to
On clause 60
Mr. Bodnar: On clause 60 there is government amendment G-22. Even though it goes on for some length, one can see it's different words in different places that are just a few words changed for greater clarity.
Mr. Milliken: It's just a result of substitution.
Mr. Hains: It's basically internal. We have renumbered where we had to, and it's related to some other amendments that were made in Bill C-5. It's very technical.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 60 as amended agreed to
Clauses 61 to 63 inclusive agreed to
On clause 64
Mr. Bodnar: Clause 64 has government amendment G-23, and again it's a technical amendment by adding (b) to it. It's for clarification.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 64 as amended agreed to
On clause 65
Mr. Bodnar: G-24 is a proposed amendment of the government to clause 65.
What was our source on that one, Mr. Hains?
Mr. Hains: In their submission to your committee, the trustees' association of the Canadian Insolvency Practitioners Association recommended an amendment there, and this is the result of that recommendation.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: There's another one, G-25.
Who was the source of this particular matter, Mr. Hains?
Mr. Hains: He's a member of the Insolvency Institute by the name of Mr. Yoine Goldstein, an expert insolvency lawyer in Montreal. Members of the institute looked at that and came up with the suggestion to reword. It's a technical clarification.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 65 as amended agreed to
Clauses 66 to 79 inclusive agreed to
On clause 80
Mr. Bodnar: Clause 80 has government amendment G-26, and again, it's changing a few words on the advice of who, Mr. Hains?
.1725
[Translation]
Mr. Hains: Professor Bohémier of the University of Montreal.
[English]
Mr. Bodnar: These are technical amendments again.
The Chairman: Is everybody caught up on clause 80? Take your time.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 80 as amended agreed to
Clause 81 agreed to
On clause 82
Mr. Bodnar: Even though it looks lengthy, government amendment G-27 is just changing a few words again.
Upon whose suggestion, Mr. Hains?
Mr. Hains: This one is internal, Mr. Chairman, with the help of our two legal advisers from the private sector. It's better wording.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 82 as amended agreed to
Clauses 83 to 86 inclusive agreed to
On clause 87
Mr. Bodnar: There is a government amendment G-28 on this one.
Mr. Hains, this is a lengthy amendment. What's our source?
Mr. Hains: You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that your very first witness, the Canadian Bar Association, and Mr. Klotz, who was the spokesperson, made some suggestions relating to spousal support, saying that they should be linked to the same term used in another section of the act, section 178.
We're doing that clarification there, at the suggestion of the Canadian Bar Association.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 87 as amended agreed to
Clauses 88 and 89 agreed to
On clause 90
Mr. Bodnar: There is a government amendment, G-29, and again...Mr. Hains.
Mr. Hains: On the same subject matter, Mr. Chairman - spousal support - it's being proposed here at the suggestion of Mr. Klotz from the Canadian Bar Association....
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 90 as amended agreed to
Clauses 91 and 92 agreed to
On clause 93
Mr. Bodnar: On clause 93 there's government amendment G-30. I believe it's simply adding a couple of words in front.
[Translation]
Mr. Hains: It's just better French, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Mr. Bodnar: That's what I was going to say.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 93 as amended agreed to
On clause 94
Mr. Bodnar: Clause 94 has amendment G-31.
Mr. Hains, again, it's an amendment to the French, and I'm sure it's just for the sake of clarification and better French.
Mr. Hains: Mr. Bodnar has just said it, Mr. Chairman.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 94 as amended agreed to
Clauses 95 to 97 inclusive agreed to
On clause 98
Mr. Bodnar: This clause has government amendment G-32. Again, this is a technical amendment for clarity's sake.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: There is another one, G-33.
Mr. Hains, what is its source?
Mr. Hains: That's the same counsel of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. It's again the prescribed form and manner. It's a long way of expressing that, but that's what this amendment is all about.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 98 as amended agreed to
Clause 99 agreed to
On clause 100
Mr. Bodnar: Government proposed amendment, G-34, again is a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 100 as amended agreed to
On clause 101
.1730
Mr. Bodnar: The government's amendment, G-35, puts in the word ``shall'', and again this is a technical amendment
Mr. Hains: Mr. Chairman, this one is again at the suggestion of the Insolvency Institute. They suggested that change in their brief to your committee.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Hains, G-36 is an amendment to clause 101.
Mr. Hains: It's a clarification identified by our private sector advisers, sir.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 101 as amended agreed to
Clause 102 agreed to
On clause 103
Mr. Bodnar: Government amendment G-37 is again one for clarification, and it is a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 103 as amended agreed to
On clause 104
Mr. Bodnar: Clause 104 has a proposed Bloc amendment.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Leblanc.
Mr. Leblanc: Apparently it was ruled out of order.
[English]
The Chairman: Perhaps you can put them back in when you get to the report stage?
[Translation]
Do you want to move it at report stage?
Mr. Leblanc: Exactly.
[English]
The Chairman: That amendment is removed.
Mr. Milliken: Is it withdrawn?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Bodnar: There are no government amendments.
The Chairman: The clerk has an objection to it, Mr. Milliken.
The Clerk: Concerns.
The Chairman: Yes, so Mr. Leblanc will have a discussion with his colleagues about bringing it back to the report stage.
Mr. Forseth: For the record, could we have a description of the rule as to why this particular...? I think it's good for the education of all of us, what rule is being used here.
The Chairman: This is what I just ruled.
I have difficulty with respect to the proposed amendment of the honourable member for Longueuil, Monsieur Leblanc. The intention of the honourable member is to repeal section 177 of the act. In my opinion, it is out of order, as it clearly seeks to amend the parent act.
It is citation 698(8)(b) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, sixth edition, page 207. Does that clarify it?
Mr. Forseth: Thank you very much. We have it on the record.
The Chairman: It's like the evening news. Don't ask me what happened behind the scenes.
Are there government amendments to clause 104?
Mr. Bodnar: No.
Clause 104 agreed to
On clause 105
The Chairman: Mr. Leblanc, do you want to...?
We discussed clause 105 earlier. We accepted an amendment proposed by Mr. Forseth. We then stood that clause.
Mr. Leblanc had an amendment in front of the committee that he now prefers to introduce in the House during the debate.
.1735
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Chairman, I think we're going to run out of time. We have quite a number of amendments still to do. There is another division coming up in a few minutes.
The Chairman: Sooner or later we're going to have another vote.
Mr. Milliken: It will be sooner than later. It should be in about seven minutes.
The Chairman: It's at 6 o'clock. It's up to the will of the committee.
Mr. Milliken: Why don't we just leave it stood? If we're going to sit tomorrow, I assumeMr. Leblanc's colleague
[Translation]
may be here tomorrow to debate the motion. It might be preferable to conclude the debate here in committee, if possible.
[English]
The Chairman: The committee is deciding to allow clause 105 to stand. We'll make a decision to deal with it tomorrow as we proceed.
Clauses 106 to 113 inclusive agreed to
On clause 114
Mr. Bodnar: There is government amendment G-40, changing seven years to five years. That was proposed by a number of witnesses.
The Chairman: That was a very strong theme.
Mr. Bodnar: Yes.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 114 as amended agreed to
Clauses 115 to 117 inclusive agreed to
On clause 118
Mr. Bodnar: There is government amendment G-41. Again, it's for clarification only.
Mr. Milliken: Is that the one that was requested by some of these commodities people?
Mr. Hains: That's right.
The next one in particular was recommended by the Quebec securities commission, the Canadian Bankers Association and our own private sector advisers.
Mr. Milliken: By ``the next one'' do you mean G-41?
Mr. Hains: No, G-42, sorry. G-41 is from our private sector advisers and our internal discussions.
There are three or four proposed amendments to clause 118.
Mr. Milliken: Is subsection 65.1(8) already a subsection in the act, or is it something we're adding by this bill?
Mr. Hains: No, it's a section already in the act.
Mr. Milliken: Thank you.
The Chairman: Are there further questions?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: There's another amendment.
The Chairman: Oh, there's a whole bunch of other amendments.
Mr. Bodnar: A whole bunch.
The Chairman: Oh, well, great. Let's settle in then.
Mr. Bodnar: G-42 was just explained by Mr. Hains.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: G-43, Mr. Hains.
Mr. Hains: We're dealing here with insolvencies of securities firms, which is a very technical and difficult aspect. This particular amendment was recommended to the government by the Canadian Bankers Association, who've looked at it very carefully with their counsel. We've looked at it with our own counsel. This is the proposal on the table, a better definition than what we had in Bill C-5. They've come up with a better definition.
The Chairman: Are there any questions?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: The next amendment is G-44.
Mr. Hains: It's the same explanation. The source is different this time. It's a lawyer from Toronto, Mr. Crawford, who is a recognized bankruptcy and finance law expert. Some committee members will know how technical and complex that is. He's spoken to us and written to us with these suggestions.
The Chairman: He wasn't a witness, but he's had communications with the department.
Mr. Hains: I don't believe he was, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Are there any questions?
.1740
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Next amendment.
Mr. Hains: This is a technical amendment to clarify that the rest of the act applies unless there is a conflict between these provisions and the other. It makes it absolutely clear what applies when, given that we're dealing with a special section of the act dealing with securities firms. Those provisions apply here unless they are in conflict with certain other provisions in the act, and this is to make that absolutely clear.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Chairman, I have moved all of the government amendments thus far, and I'll continue moving them.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: I move G-46.
Mr. Haines: This one is from the Quebec securities commission. Again, it is a technical precision by experts from the Quebec securities commission.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: I move G-47.
Mr. Hains: This is to clarify the required attributes of the ``other persons''. We want to make sure that other persons who have functions similar to liquidators and things like that can petition a securities firm, not just anybody. We've qualified ``other persons'' by saying they have to be specialists and have the proper attributes. The source of that is the gentleman sitting next to me.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: I move G-48 as well, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hains: On this one the credit goes to the Quebec securities commission. It is a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Hains: On G-49 it is more of the same, Mr. Chairman.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: I move G-50.
Mr. Hains: It's very technical. What we're doing here is changing the English side of the law to make it correspond a little more closely to the French version.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: I move G-51.
Mr. Hains: With G-51 there is very long but important clarification to that particular provision, Mr. Chairman. The source is the Insolvency Institute - it was part of their submission to your committee - and the Canadian Investors Protection Fund, which is very knowledgeable about the subject matter.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: I move G-52.
Mr. Hains: The source is the Canadian Investor Protection Fund. It is to clarify that eligible financial contracts counter parties, who have deposited cash or securities in assurance of their performance, can deal with that. The Canadian Investor Protection Fund suggested that,Mr. Chairman.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: I move G-53 as well, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hains: The source is the gentleman next to me.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: I move G-54, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hains: It is the same explanation, Mr. Chairman.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: I move G-55.
Mr. Hains: The source of this one is the Joint Committee on Bankruptcy, which is the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy's joint committee. Because of their expertise they look at this very carefully, and they'll have specific responsibility in this section. They came up with good suggestions to improve the wording.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bodnar: I move G-56, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hains: Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, in Bill C-5 the government is amending the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. That particular amendment is to mirror the words in the BIA in the CCAA. They say the same thing and use the same terminology. It's a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
.1745
Clause 118 as amended agreed to
Clauses 119 to 121 inclusive agreed to
Mr. Milliken: Do you want to leave some for tomorrow?
The Chairman: If it is the will of the committee, we have about fifteen minutes worth of work to do and about four minutes left, so in my mind we come up short. I think we should continue at the next meeting of the committee. We'll be going through a lot and I don't want people to feel like they've just had to do a lot.
The committee will adjourn until 9:30 a.m., room 536 in the Wellington Building, to resume clause-by-clause on Bill C-5.
Thank you to the officials for coming and for their professional support. We've made good progress today and hopefully we'll finish it up tomorrow, if the members wish.
This meeting is adjourned.