SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 126

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 14, 2022 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 126 - Nov/14/22
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Bill C-228, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, standing in the name of the member for Sarnia—Lambton. Without commenting on the merits of the amendments proposed at the committee stage, I would like to draw to the attention of members an amendment that raises some procedural difficulties. The amendment in question would add subparagraph 136(1)(d)(d.001) to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. It is found in the new clause 4.1 of the bill. The amendment would seek to protect termination and severance pay in the case of a bankruptcy. This amendment, in my view, seeks to expand the scope and principle of the bill as set at second reading stage. Moreover, the amendment is a new concept that was not contemplated in the bill at second reading and therefore should be removed from the bill for consideration at report stage and third reading stage. When the member for Elmwood—Transcona proposed the amendment, the chair of the committee ruled it inadmissible. For the benefit of members who do not sit on the finance committee, I will quote the ruling. It states: My ruling is that Bill C-228 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to provide for the solvency of pension funds in case of bankruptcy. The amendment seeks to create new categories of payments to specific former employees that would have to be paid by a bankrupt, which is not envisioned by the bill. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770: An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill. In the opinion of the chair and for the above stated reason, the amendment brings a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill, and therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. A majority of the members on the finance committee voted to overturn the ruling of the chair and then proceeded to vote to adopt the amendment, which is now found in the bill as reprinted by the House on November 3. I submit that the ruling of the chair of the finance committee was correct and that our procedures must be respected. As a result, the proper course of action to address this matter is to order a reprint of the bill without the offending amendment.
431 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border