Bill C-290 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income)

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to provide a refundable tax credit to an individual whose employer, and certain employees of that employer, failed to make the contributions required to be made to a registered pension plan.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. St-Michel, I am happy to see you again, as well as Ms. Blanchard and Mr. Fréchette. It is always a pleasure to receive you. Mr. Langlois, Mr. Beaudoin and Mr. Hamilton, welcome to the committee and thank you for being here this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, when my colleagues were introducing Bill C-290, I said that the NDP would support it, but I would nevertheless like to congratulate Mr. Fréchette, in particular. I was here when he made his presentation. He begged us not to engage in partisan politics with this bill and to understand that we are talking about human beings.

I think that is the most important part of our job, as members of Parliament—looking after human beings. I am anxious to see what the Conservatives will do. For a year and a half, lengthy consultations have been underway. My colleague, Mr. Menzies, crisscrossed the country in all directions—and more than once—because he is part of consultations on pensions that are going on at the same time. But the only answer we have heard from Minister Flaherty thus far is: “It's complicated”. That is all he has been capable of saying on this. But it is not that complicated, even for him; he is capable of understanding the issue. The Conservatives are just trying to provoke a federal-provincial squabble, which does, or does not, involve the Bloc and Quebec.

This bill simply aims to help human beings who worked all their lives and who have every right to be helped by the federal Parliament in an area that falls within its jurisdiction.

We can assure you of our support, but I am really anxious to see what the MP for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup will do when the time comes to vote on this. I promise you, Mr. Fréchette, that I will call you personally to tell you how Mr. Généreux voted on this important bill.

[Gaston Fréchette]

Anything we receive will already be greatly appreciated.

We noted that Bill C-290 talks about a 22% credit, which would be very satisfactory. We would be very pleased with that.

[Jacques Beaudoin, President, Fédération des associations de retraités du Québec]

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

My name is Jacques Beaudoin and I am president of the Fédération des associations de retraités du Québec.

First I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Finance for giving me the opportunity to present the Federation's views on Bill C-290, which we support.

I also wish to say that we greatly appreciate the fact that the House of Commons is allowing retirees and their associations to express their concerns to the committee and speak to issues related to their retirement benefits.

Our Federation comprises about 15 member associations, representing approximately 25,000 retirees who are covered by private pension plans. Entirely run by volunteers, these associations mainly aim to promote and defend their members' rights under their former employers' pension plans.

Our organization, the FARQ, is making representations to the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada, as well as to those agencies responsible for enforcing the various laws affecting pension plans. Overall, we are coordinating our action with Quebec's major associations of seniors and retirees, including the Quebec Federation of Senior Citizens, which boasts 260,000 members.

We are currently making representations in relation to a number of different demands by retirees, which are summarized in the brief that I forwarded and which has been provided to you. Several of our affiliated associations could certainly be considered serious cases—pardon the expression—because their retiree members have had their pensions slashed in recent years after their former employers went bankrupt.

I refer here to retirees from the Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos—which you are familiar with—from Atlas Stainless Steel, in Sorel-Tracy, and the Davie Shipyards in Lévis-Lauzon, as well as from AbitibiBowater, who are very worried right now that they could suffer the same fate.

It is these retirees across Quebec who have experienced similar situations, with all the social trauma that this entails for themselves, their family and their region. As was explained earlier, these retirees have seen their retirement benefits cut by as much as 50% in some cases. And yet these now-retired workers had paid into their pension plan and made the mandatory contributions asked of them—or rather, imposed on them—in order to be eligible for a full pension.

Furthermore, when they retired, they received a contract from their employer, as provided for by the legislation, promising a full pension, not one cut by one quarter or one half.

So why, after the fact, are these retirees the principal victims of their former employer's bankruptcy, something over which they had no control and for which they are not responsible? When an employer goes bankrupt and pensions are cut, it is too late for retired employees to start over again or improve their situation because of their age.

Are our laws not adequate, not properly enforced or not complied with? Or are both factors at play in our tolerance of such situations? We honestly think that there is a serious problem of unfairness and that you, as parliamentarians, can rectify it. We are therefore appealing to you to do so.

Bill C-290 is on the right track. Employers and active workers are well organized and able to defend their rights. That is not the case for retirees in terms of their pension plan. Do we need to tell you that retirees urgently require protection from governments and parliamentarians, as well as adequate legislation?

FARQ supports Bill C-290, which would provide a refundable tax credit to retirees who have fallen victim to pension cuts following their former employer's bankruptcy.

In closing, FARQ hopes that the Standing Committee on Finance will recommend that the House of Commons unanimously pass this bill.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[Diane Blanchard, Secretary, Regroupement des retraité(es) des Aciers Atlas]

Mr. Chairman, members of the Standing Committee on Finance, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by conveying my greetings and once again expressing our appreciation for your interest in our cause.

On March 25, as part of your study on the retirement income security of Canadians, we had an opportunity to make you aware of our difficult living conditions. In your own words, you, the members of the Standing Committee on Finance, said that you appreciated the chance to put a human face to the questions and gather information, with a view to passing legislation that might put a stop to the widespread hemorrhaging affecting the pension funds of ordinary Canadians. For us, these discussions were an opportunity to gauge the misunderstandings and incomprehension.

Today, June 1, 2010, marks our 60th pension cut, representing a personal loss of tens of thousands of dollars, and 60 months of having to juggle with a budget that has been cut by between 30% and 58%, in order to meet our financial obligations. It is five years since we began the process of alerting governments to the gaps in the administration of private sector pension funds in cases of bankruptcy, as well as the devastating consequences for retirees and all sectors of the economy.

At the time, this was a relatively new phenomenon. Before us, only retirees from Singer and the Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos, Quebec, had suffered losses, as their pension funds had an actuarial deficit at the time their employer's company went under. So, we began working on a number of different fronts. Our analysis confirmed that only a political solution could solve our problem.

So, we went knocking on the door of our federal member of Parliament, Louis Plamondon, of the Bloc Québécois. As luck would have it, Asbestos was represented by André Bellavance, an activist from the same political party. It was therefore as a result of a joint effort that Bill C-445 was introduced in May of 2007, then introduced again in February of 2009, as C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income).

During the two-hour debate in May of 2008, at second reading, the Liberal Party and the NDP stated that they were in favour of more in-depth study of the bill, thereby giving it a chance of survival—an expression of empathy for which we are deeply grateful. The Conservative Party, however, felt it was poorly drafted and, because it might veer off in many different directions, likely to result in astronomical costs for the Treasury.

We are neither politicians nor tax experts able to ascertain the implications of its wording, no more than we have the expertise to examine it. We recognize that it is normal to want to engage in verbal jousting and flex one's muscles when one has a grip on power, but there comes a time when the cries and tears of ordinary people must be heard and a solution found to ease their suffering.

We derived no pleasure from having to drive hundreds of kilometres on this awful day. We see our appearance before you as a cruel humiliation. Having to enter the arena once again, at the end of your life, to redress a wrong is an aberration. And yet, ours was a life of work, sacrifice, contribution to this country's economic progress and foresight, because we contributed to a pension plan, with dignity and pride. Being reduced now to the level of welfare because of our income, but with no opportunity to avail ourselves of its benefits in the way of exemptions, is destroying us.

At the previous meeting, Mr. Menzies, in expressing your consternation, you stated that what Mr. St-Michel had said was extremely troubling, and that what had happened to him was terribly unfair. You added that this kind of thing should not happen. And yet, that is what happened, and we know all the reasons behind the current state of affairs: lax management, elastic legislation that favours employers, and tax benefits that allow an employer to escape his obligations, with no concrete protections for workers who bear the brunt of all the inherent risks when a plan is discontinued. Workers can easily monitor the share of wages and social benefits. However, that share of the pension plan is managed at a higher level, away from the watchful eye and control of others.

With respect to provincial and federal jurisdiction, I am sure you know that we have made the same appeal to Jean Charest's team. Five years after our indirect appeal, the Harper government now feels the need to react to this hemorrhaging. What will become of the groups that were sacrificed while the storm raged? Our two ambassadors from the Bloc Québécois are proposing to hand over Bill C-290 to the Conservative Party to amend it as it sees fit, in order to break the log jam and restore some of our dignity. Our demand, as representatives of the Regroupement des retraité(es) des Aciers Atlas, imposes no particular form of redress and can be summarized with this simple image: a blood transfusion is needed to get the patient back on his feet.

Moreover, there is a need to move quickly, because the time we have left is not unlimited. I would just remind you that our income—

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to our colleagues that the NDP continues to support Bill C-290.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to introduce the people to my left. They are two economists with the Research Department of the Bloc Québécois, Jean-David Beaulieu and Odile Rochon. So, if there are any questions about the numbers, we may want to call on them for assistance.

This is a bill we are all very familiar with, because I introduced it for the first time in 2007. At the time, it was Bill C-445. I would like to give you some background to explain how I came up with the idea of introducing this bill. I might add that it was developed in cooperation not only with a number of MPs, but also with people who have been affected—retirees who lost a lot of money in their pension plan.

You have already introduced my MP colleague, Louis Plamondon. He, my colleague representing Chambly—Borduas, Mr. Yves Lessard, who is here at this table, and myself all met with the people from the Jeffrey Mine and Atlas Stainless Steels a few years back. They asked us what could be done under the federal tax system to help them out, given the loss that they had suffered under their pension plans.

After some discussion and brainstorming, we concluded that a bill introducing a tax credit would be the best solution. In that regard, I take my hat off to Mr. Gaston Fréchette. He lives in my riding and is the chair of the Jeffrey Mine Retiree and Active Workers Sub-Committee. He is the one who proposed the idea of a tax credit that would soften the blow for retirees whose pension plan was cut following the closure or failure of their employer's company.

So, Bill C-445 was introduced for the first time in 2007. I have just given you a brief explanation of the discussions that led up to this solution. Because of the election in 2008, this bill died on the order paper.

Today, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, we come before you, at this stage in the process, to discuss Bill C-290 which, if I am not mistaken, was introduced again in February of 2009.

Following that, we also received a great deal of support. I believe that some witnesses will be coming here to add their voices to those of the pensioners from these two companies located in our respective ridings. A petition has also circulated. In our region, we have gathered more than 2,000 signatures in support of this request for a tax credit through Bill C-290. We also have the support of the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, or FADOQ—at least, of its president— for this bill.

I would like now to briefly explain what happened at the Jeffrey Mine. A bankruptcy occurred in 2002. On average, people lost 40% of their pension. Approximately 1,200 workers were affected by this. In fact, under their pension plan, people lost some $55 million. Atlas Stainless Steels, located in Sorel, went bankrupt in 2003. Workers there lost between 28% and 58%—almost 60%—of their pension funds. Approximately 250 workers are affected. On average, they lost $6,000 each. As you see, there is quite a gap: some lost almost 30%, while others lost 58%.

There is one question we have been asked frequently. Are there currently other cases that could be eligible for this 22% tax credit proposed under Bill C-290? To our knowledge, there are none at the present time. Could other industries eventually fall under it and could other workers also be penalized? The answer is yes. Having said that, such cases will have to involve workers whose employer has gone bankrupt and shut down, as well as workers who have actually lost part of their pension funds.

The solution we are proposing is a 22% tax credit. It is the equivalent of the federal marginal tax rate that applies to the middle class. I will explain by way of an example. If someone was expecting to receive $20,000 under his pension fund and ended up with only $12,000, he would be looking at a loss of $8,000. So, it is based on that loss that the tax credit is determined. The tax credit would be $1,760, non taxable and transferable to a surviving spouse, but not retroactive.

I said earlier that the bill only applies to retirees who have been cheated through income losses under their pension plan following a closure or bankruptcy. This is not a virtual loss, as it would be for someone who loses his pension funds because of the economic crisis or because the stock market falls. He could not suddenly claim a tax credit because, in actual fact, he would not already have lost the money. The idea is not to make up for an actuarial deficit resulting from a stock market drop. That point must be absolutely clear.

I would like to provide a further clarification, Mr. Chairman. There are legislative amendments which, in our opinion, would mean that there would not be a lot of other companies or retirees who could avail themselves of this tax credit, even though one may think the door is always open. It is important to realize that Bill 30 is already in effect in Quebec. In Ontario, the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund has been set up. In other provinces as well, there are laws in effect which prevent such unfairness from occurring, at least we hope so. That means that these kinds of situations will be very few in number. There is also the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act which has been amended by the Parliament of Canada. The benefits must be paid into the pension plan before the court accepts the bankruptcy. Therefore, any contributions due by the employer are paid out of the company's assets. Before an employer can declare bankruptcy, those contributions must be made, which obviously makes an enormous difference. I believe that amendment came into effect last September 18.

I am not telling you anything you do not already know when I say that regulations will be introduced once the bill is in effect, in order to restrict the scope of some of these measures. But the initial idea was to help workers who have been cheated out of their pension—to help retirees. Thus far, I must say we have received the support of the Opposition parties at every reading. The Bloc Québécois obviously voted in favour. Only the Conservative Party has opposed this bill. Today will be an opportunity for you to ask us questions. We will be very pleased to answer them, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Order, please.

This is meeting number 23 of the Standing Committee on Finance. For our orders of the day, we have Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income).

Colleagues, we have two panels today of one hour each, so we have a very tight timeline.

Today, we have with us two colleagues from the House of Commons. First, Mr. André Bellavance, the member of Parliament for Richmond—Arthabaska, whom I welcome to the committee.

We also have with us Mr. Louis Plamondon, the member of Parliament for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, who is also the dean of the House of Commons. Welcome to you as well.

You have 10 minutes for your presentation. After that, committee members will have questions for you.

Mr. Bellavance, please.

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this important debate, in light of the situation facing Canadians and Quebeckers.

We have weathered all sorts of financial and economic crises, but now, because of a major pension plan crisis, pensioners are faced with major reductions in their pensions. I am talking about people like the employees of Nortel, Atlas Stainless Steels and the Jeffrey mine. We have to look at all the possible solutions to these problems.

Bill C-501 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to ensure that unfunded pension plan liabilities are accorded the status of secure debts in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. It also amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to provide a new procedure by which former employees of a bankrupt corporation who are owed amounts by the corporation can proceed with claims against its directors.

In times of economic crisis, pension funds lose value when security prices drop. If a company goes bankrupt at that point, its pension fund will not be able to cover retirees' pensions.

I would now like to talk about the protections that pension plans currently provide. Under the new provisions in the legislation, regular contributions that have not been paid when a company goes bankrupt or into receivership take priority over all the debtor's assets. But the same does not hold true for unfunded pension plan liabilities.

Regular contributions that have not been paid at the time of bankruptcy include the amounts deducted from employees' paycheques to be paid into the pension plan and all unpaid employer's contributions. This priority does not apply to special payments ordered by the pension regulator to liquidate an unfunded liability or claims related to such unfunded liability.

The limited super-priority ranks below the rights of unpaid suppliers to repossess goods under section 81.1 of the BIA; the claims of farmers, fishermen and aquaculturalists in respect of unpaid products supplied to the bankrupt or insolvent employer, under section 81.2 of the BIA; unremitted income tax deductions, which are deemed to be held in trust; and priority wage claims.

Bill C-501 contains three measures. First, it would give priority status to pensions plans with unfunded liabilities. This way, in case of bankruptcy, retirees will be among the first to be paid and will have precedence over the banks.

Second, the bill ensures that the assets guarantee the termination or severance pay of any clerk, servant, travelling salesperson, labourer or worker.

Third, it offers retirees who were wronged by their employer a procedure that is supposedly more effective for making claims against directors—members of the board of directors. In fact, subsection 119(1) of the Canada Business Corporations Act states:

Directors of a corporation are jointly and severally, or solidarily, liable to employees of the corporation for all debts not exceeding six months wages payable to each such employee for services performed for the corporation while they are such directors respectively.

The Bloc Québécois supports workers and retired workers. We have always promoted social justice.

We can understand the frustrations and the concerns of people who have lost their retirement income because their retirement fund was inadequate at the time the company they worked for ceased operations. They are unfairly deprived of a source of income they were counting on.

For a long time, we have been wanting to look at giving pensions plans with unfunded liabilities preferred creditor status, as well as making directors accountable.

We feel these measures are fair as long as they do not compromise business development or competitiveness or unduly affect the labour market.

The Bloc Québécois would like to hear from witnesses in committee in order to understand these effects. For example, an increase in unemployment and social assistance recipients would be too high a price to pay to protect pension funds against stock exchange fluctuations. Other measures could then be considered.

We must remember that despite the urgent need to help pensioners who were hard hit by the economic crisis, the Conservatives prorogued Parliament, thus slowing down the process of studying bills.

The Bloc Québécois' interest in protecting pensioners and workers is not a recent phenomenon. Not only have we waged a lengthy battle to stop the looting of the employment insurance fund and increase benefits for recipients, but we have spoken in favour of many other initiatives, including wage protection in the event of bankruptcy and the creation of a tax credit to protect pensions, which are measures that we ourselves proposed.

During the summer of 2009, we defended Nortel pensioners and we continue to do so. At that time, we should have given them the opportunity to appear before the committee that was studying the impact of the sale of, among other things, Nortel's wireless division to Ericsson in order to allow them to share their fears and questions with elected members. Unfortunately, the Conservatives and Liberals preferred to shut down the debate.

This fall, to deal with the pension situation, the Bloc Québécois proposed a series of measures, one of which was that the federal government follow Quebec's lead and take trusteeship over the pension plans of federally regulated bankrupt businesses. This would prevent these pension funds from being liquidated while the markets are at their lowest.

Another proposal was to get rid of the six-month delay for the wage earner protection program. Victims of massive layoffs followed by delayed bankruptcy, which is something we have seen, would then be eligible for the severance they are due.

We also proposed raising the contribution limits for pension funds to 125% of the break-even point, which would encourage a pension reserve. The government went back to this after trying to pass the buck to the provinces.

Another measure is Bill C-290, which would provide a refundable tax credit equal to 22% of the loss sustained by beneficiaries of a pension running a deficit. Despite Conservative opposition to the bill, it will soon be studied in committee.

We are also talking about changing the threshold for automatic review of foreign acquisitions from $1 billion to $300 million. Such a measure would ensure that companies like Nortel would not be sold off at a discount or piece by piece.

We are also discussing bringing in preferred creditor status for disabled employees who lose their benefits following an employer's bankruptcy. These people are desperate and destitute because, in Nortel's case, they will lose over 70% of their benefits even though they still have to cover significant medical costs. None of these people were negligent. They had every reason to believe that they were properly insured by an insurance company.

The Bloc Québécois supports pension supervision to help avoid high-risk investments, such as numerous investments in a single company. We have to consider all of our options.

Lastly, workers expect to benefit from the pensions funds that they spend their lives contributing to. Parliament cannot ignore the needs of these workers and those who have already retired.

That is why the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-501 in principle.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Good afternoon and welcome to our Committee.

Among the different pieces of testimony we have received, there is one that seems a little offside—the comments made by Ms. Nielson, who spoke a lot of private companies and pension plan insurance companies.

In fact, Ms. Nielson, since you hold the chair in insurance and risk management, it is perfectly normal that you should have talked about that. However, as parliamentarians, we have been hearing from people for several weeks now with the aim of enhancing pension plans for workers all across Canada. We are confronted with cases like that of the former Nortel workers and others we are aware of, including the Jeffrey mine in Asbestos, Atlas Stainless Steel, and so on. The people who worked for these companies contributed to unsecured pension plans and ended up losing all of their pension income.

Earlier, Mr. Marston seemed to say that our approach is not that different from that of the Conservatives. I certainly hope we are coming closer together because, last fall, the Bloc Québécois tabled Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income) to at least provide a refundable tax credit to people who lose their pension benefits when the company they work for goes bankrupt. That will not resolve all the issues, but the Conservatives actually voted against even that minor protection.

Mr. Lockwood mentioned earlier that he was hopeful with respect to the bill currently before the Senate, Bill S-216. If the government wanted to quickly provide assistance in the above mentioned cases—particularly since it now has a majority in the Senate—it could speed up that review in order to resolve the rare cases of people who lose their disability insurance and find themselves with nothing.

Personally, I feel that all the parties have to make a real effort to move closer together, so that we can make these improvements. I would like to ask Ms. Nielson to comment on what Mr. Cadieux was proposing,—a doubling of CPP so that all workers will at least have a secure pension system, one that does not depend on a company's profitability or the way the insurance fund was managed. It has been proven, however, that the Canada Pension Plan is safely managed.

I would like to hear your views on this. It would still be possible to have private pension plans.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move the motion, which was handed out, to request the Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide an estimate on the cost of Bill C-290, the private member's bill that is coming back to this committee.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-9 on the implementation of the 2010 budget. I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke.

In the 2010 budget, the demands of our constituents have been completely ignored or perhaps deliberately undervalued. That is completely unacceptable. For several years, we have been doing our job and have told the government that it needed to help Quebeckers. It needed to come up with a plan to help workers in the hardest hit sectors in Quebec.

We presented measures in good faith to help businesses make it through the economic crisis and to help people. The Bloc Québécois told the federal government that it could take this opportunity to settle a number of compensation claims with Quebec.

We proposed ways to combat the sophisticated schemes that enable the extremely wealthy to avoid paying taxes on their income. We proposed a 1% tax on individuals with a yearly income of over $150,000.

What is even more appalling is that the government ignored our proposal to eliminate the tax breaks given to the oil industry. We asked the government to treat Quebec's forestry and manufacturing industries fairly and equitably, by giving the Quebec industries the same breaks it gave to Ontario.

What does the government propose? It is maintaining the increases in military spending and completely ignoring the reality facing our forestry industry, investing very little in Quebec. It is completely ignoring sectors that have been suffering harshly for far too long.

In Bill C-290, the Bloc Québécois proposed a measure to help thousands of retirees who have been cheated. Over 20,000 workers and retirees will see their pension plans cut by about 30% following an Ontario Superior Court decision to reject an agreement between Nortel and its pensioners. The Conservative government is doing nothing to help them, and yet there are solutions.

The question asked by my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles is clear. Will the government support the Bloc Québécois' bill to help the Nortel, Atlas and Jeffrey mine workers whose pension plans have been cut off?

The Prime Minister wants to review Canada's retirement income system. If the past is any indication and we remember what the government did to the employment insurance system, we have every reason to fear the worst: we will find ourselves with a program that does not meet the needs of retirees.

The Bloc Québécois is pleased to see that the federal government recognizes that we must make major changes to better protect salaries and pensions. However, these measures do not allay the Bloc Québécois' concerns about declining securities values that, in times of economic crisis, lower the value of pension funds.

If a company goes bankrupt, its pension fund will be unable to fulfill its obligation to beneficiaries, but not because the company fails to make its regular contributions to the pension fund.

The Bloc Québécois wants the federal government to put pension plans set up by companies under federal jurisdiction in trust. That is what Quebec does to prevent companies from liquidating pension funds when the securities market is at a low point. The Bloc Québécois also wants disabled workers insured through self-insurance plans to have preferred creditor status.

The proposal in the budget is not good enough. It does not meet people's needs.

Let us turn now to seniors, who have been largely forgotten in the federal budget. How can the government claim to defend people's interests? For over nine years now, we have been calling for improvements to the guaranteed income supplement. In December 2001, we learned that over 270,000 Canadian seniors, including over 68,000 in Quebec, who were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement were not receiving it. They were entitled to that money. Our poorest seniors are suffering as a result. They are the ones bearing the burden of this government's spending.

Last week, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé rose in the House to criticize the rising rate of poverty among seniors. He cited a Conference Board of Canada study showing that between 1995 and 2005, the poverty rate among seniors doubled.

In an effort to promote equality and social justice, the Bloc Québécois has proposed simple, realistic measures to solve this problem and fight poverty among society's poorest.

Nowhere does Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, propose ways to decrease the poverty rate among seniors. The bill says nothing about this, and that is unacceptable. Improving benefits and paying seniors money that is owing them would prevent an increase in poverty.

The government should start by increasing by $100 a month the guaranteed income supplement that people currently receive. It should also consider the poverty in which many seniors live. Given the cost of urban housing—we can all do this exercise in our own ridings—and the fact that this cost and many utility charges are rising, the amount seniors currently receive is not enough. It should be increased, but neither budget 2010 nor the minister's Bill C-9 provides for an increase.

The program should also include individuals aged 65 and over who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. The government says that it cannot locate these people. It needs to make an effort to find them, even if it tries just once.

One reason why people do not receive the guaranteed income supplement is that they are not aware of the program. Administrative delays are also to blame. The result is that people do not get everything they are entitled to.

The Conservative government should introduce a measure to pay the guaranteed income supplement retroactively. People have been hurt. The solution is simple: make retroactive payments. But Bill C-9 contains no such measure.

The measures in Bill C-9 are not enough and do not meet people's needs.

We also proposed that the government keep paying old age security and the guaranteed income supplement for at least six months after the recipient's death, to help his or her survivor through that difficult time. Again, there is nothing in the bill to meet these expressed needs, such as an amendment to the Income Tax Act or changes to other programs.

Bill C-9, however, contains measures that were not in the budget, for instance, amendments to the Employment Insurance Act and the creation of an employment insurance operating account. There is no mention of a need for reform.

Among the measures not included in the budget which are included in Bill C-9, there is the liberalization of one of Canada Post's business lines. In the last session and previous ones, the government tried to pass Bill C-44 without much success in the House. With this bill now, it is trying to put something in place that the members of this House did not agree with.

To sum up the first part of my speech, I would say that the government did not listen to the various associations that support what I just said, associations like the Quebec Federation of Senior Citizens, also known as FADOQ. The government is also ignoring the motion passed unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly calling on the federal government to compensate those seniors who have been shortchanged. It was asking that seniors be refunded. Despite all this support, the federal government simply failed to act.

Allow me to pass on what the seniors with whom I met in February told me. They are asking that the public sign their petition. They are currently campaigning to raise public awareness of what is not in the budget.

I think that the government's message is pretty simple, and the campaign slogan pretty clear. I am mentioning it here because these people need the government to hear their slogan at least one. Their slogan is: “The alarm is sounding. React!” That is what seniors want the government to do.

Pensions

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pension benefits for more than 20,000 workers and retirees will be cut by about 30% following a Superior Court of Ontario decision to reject an agreement between Nortel and its pension beneficiaries. Solutions exist, but the Conservative government is doing nothing to help these people.

Will the government support the Bloc Québécois' Bill C-290 to help Nortel, Atlas and Jeffrey mine workers whose pension plans have been cut?

[Pierre St-Michel]

If the laws were changed today, making pension funds into secured creditors would not affect us because our situation is already in the past. But we would be exceptional cases, and that has its importance.

A bill has gone through the first two stages. I am referring to Bill C-290. The bill actually acknowledges the losses we have faced. Some say that, if the laws are changed, it would be very expensive; others say that it would not.

If the law were to change and retirement funds became secured creditors, ours would be exceptional cases that could be addressed under Bill C-290. I do not know when third reading will take place. I think that would help to make things a little fairer for us.

[Gaston Fréchette]

We had handed him a huge pile of documents and called him repeatedly. However, I can say that we received replies from many of you, to whom we had sent a letter. Many of you sent us responses.

That leads me to talk about the same issue raised by people from Nortel: the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, or CCAA. That legislation really has to be changed. It is costing us at least $20 million. Why? Because the banks, credit unions and QPP investment board got their share in the bankruptcy. We were treated as if we had been selling Pepsi. We received $1,000 each. That was the amount received by our mine. That is to say that, to date, each Jeffrey Mine worker has lost at least $100,000. The average age of our pensioner-members is 75 years.

People think that Mr. Bellavance's bill, C-290, which we talked about, will be too expensive. If only the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act had placed employees on the same level as the secured creditors, our losses would have been quite minimal. Yet, we are told that, with such an arrangement, banks would not be able to raise money as easily.

The only thing that companies could do is not to promise pensions if they are not able to pay them. If they do promise them, then there should be a 100% solvency ratio. Since 1991, Jeffrey Mine has never had a solvency ratio of 100% for its pensions, and I can prove that to you anytime.

You must realize that the retirees are the biggest losers in all of this. Just put yourself in the shoes of these retirees for a moment. I have something to say. If the teachers of Quebec lost 35% of their pensions, people would be talking about nothing else. There would be more people who would stand up and defend themselves.

What we want are things that we have really lost. We think we have the right to go after them. Thanks to a great deal of diligent work, we finally managed to get people to listen to us.

Why are we the only creditors who cannot deduct their losses from their taxes? All other creditors of Jeffrey Mine who lost money were able to deduct it from their taxes on their tax return the following year. Why not us?

Remember this: you are the ones who make the laws. You invited us today to try to improve them, and we appreciate that very much. We just want to be able to live decently in Canada.

I can tell you that we are prepared to answer all of your questions. I don't want to take up too much time either. We are 73, 74 years old and we have been working on this for eight years flat out. We have just settled out of court for our class action suit, and we received $7.5 million. The court ruling was handed down on Thursday, so you can see that we have not been twiddling our thumbs.

We are here today to say thank you for listening to us, and if you need us, we are available anytime. We want to see the end of this matter before we are dead and buried.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It's Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), by André Bellavance. I'm just highlighting that for members.

That's all I have for business today.

We do have two new members on the committee. We had a new member prior to prorogation, Monsieur Paillé, who is now the vice-chair, but we also have two new members. We have Monsieur Généreux, and Mr. Hiebert. I want to welcome them to the committee.

I'd also like to welcome back to the fold Mr. Carrier, who was away for a few months for health reasons.