Bill C-501 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (termination and severance pay)

This enactment amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to ensure that the claim of a clerk, servant, travelling salesperson, labourer or worker who is owed termination and severance pay by a person is secured as of the date of the bankruptcy or receivership by security on the person's current assets.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-481, a bill that would, among other things, eliminate the exception in the Canadian Human Rights Act that currently allows federal public sector and federally regulated private sector employers to have a mandatory retirement age for their employees.

Currently, only about 10%, or 840,000, of the Canadian workforce is subjected to mandatory retirement, and these individuals work within federally regulated sectors, such as transportation, telecommunications, the postal service and, of course, the armed forces, which we just heard about from the minister a moment ago.

Before going further, I want to make it clear that mandatory retirement provisions do not mean that people are not allowed to work beyond a certain age. Mandatory retirement provisions only apply to a specific workplace or pension plan.

When the government supports the lifting of mandatory retirement, it typically tells us that retirement is increasingly a lifestyle choice, as people are living longer and leading more active lives. Both the Governments of Ontario and Nova Scotia have in the past used similar language in support of the elimination of mandatory retirement rules.

However, we in the NDP know there is much more to the situation than this. It is a very simple argument that we are hearing so far. Saving for retirement has become increasingly difficult for Canadians. One-third of Canadian families have no retirement savings at all and two-thirds of Canadians do not have a company pension plan.

Equally troubling is the situation of those workers who are forced to retire at age 65 only to have to take another job immediately afterward at a fraction of the pay simply because they do not have a proper pension plan.

The NDP believes that older workers should have real retirement choices. For example, I think of the working conditions in the steel mills in my home town of Hamilton, the suffocating heat from the furnaces, the air thick with particulate matter and the long hours drenched in sweat. No one wishes to endure these circumstances any longer than they need to. When workers, such as those, choose to work past age 65, they do not do so because they want to. It is because they must. There is often a mortgage that remains to be paid, or college or university tuition for their children still waiting to be cleared.

For many, the freedom to work past age 65 is fast becoming an obligation to work as long as one is physically able. Eliminating the remaining mandatory retirement rules may be helpful to workers who lack a workplace pension but it will do nothing to guarantee that their income will be adequate. For New Democrats, income adequacy is the issue. We have called for an immediate increase to the GIS to lift seniors currently living in poverty out of it, and for a phased-in long-term doubling of the CPP.

The concern I have with respect to the issues of mandatory retirement is the suspicion that businesses push for it because doing so averts attention away from the inadequacies and inequities of Canada's retirement income system. Allowing people to work longer is for them a substitute for programs that would work to ensure that every Canadian has a solid and secure pension on which to retire. Working longer is, for the business class, what we might call an anti-poverty program for seniors, one that requires no contribution by way of taxes and one that leaves the onus on the individual. In other words, from their perspective, perfect indeed.

Meanwhile, these employees who support banning mandatory retirement do so largely because they are already financially secure and work in non-physically demanding jobs. Let us face it, people are living longer. It makes a certain amount of sense that individuals who hold non-physically demanding jobs and who work in safe and comfortable work environments might want to stay on the job longer than someone who, for instance, works pouring concrete all day.

Many of us here in this august chamber probably feel this way. As the member for Hamilton Mountain recently observed, this place does not exactly have a physical workload. It may be stressful to many but it is different from pouring concrete.

Let us be clear. Working longer is not nor will ever be a substitute for an adequate retirement income system.

We have had a number of debates in the House about the inadequacy of public pensions and the increasing incidence of solvency deficiencies of private pension plans. To date, the government has merely paid lip service to improving these pension systems. While they wait for the government to act, literally thousands of Canadians who have worked hard all their lives and who have played by the rules are finding it impossible to make ends meet on their meagre pension incomes.

Meanwhile, New Democrats have been calling for a suite of substantive reforms to improve the situation. As I mentioned before, we have called for an immediate increase to the guaranteed income supplement to lift all seniors out of poverty and for a phased in long term doubling of the CPP.

We would also like to see Canada's bankruptcy laws amended to ensure unfunded pension liabilities, that is, the moneys that companies promised but failed to contribute to workplace pension plans, are given the same status as unpaid wages and go to the front of the line of creditors for payment during bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings. Bill C-501 is being debated in the industry committee at this time and it is designed to do just this.

New Democrats are also calling for security for workplace pension plans through a mandatory pension insurance program paid for by the pension plan sponsors and guaranteeing pension payouts of up to $2,500 a month in the case of a plan failure, and also a national agency managed by the CPP investment board or a similar body to adopt pension plans of failed companies and continue to take advantage of market conditions and to maximize the payouts.

Members can think of our proposed pension insurance plan as being akin to the deposit insurance required of Canadian banks to guarantee the security of bank accounts for Canadians. The banks pay for that insurance. In this case, pension sponsors would be responsible for purchasing pension insurance to guarantee minimum pension payouts for their plan members.

In recent months, ex-employees of insolvent companies such as Fraser Papers or of course Nortel, while having to endure the indignity of taking a massive haircut to their pensions, have watched their American counterparts who work for the same companies located in the United States have their underfunded pension plans propped up by the United States pension benefits guarantee.

Now many of these pensioners will certainly have to work past 65, but they should not have had to do so simply because their government does not care enough to secure their pensions in a way that the great bastion of free market to the south of us has already done for its workers. A national pension insurance plan would ensure that Canadian pensioners are no longer left in the lurch like this while their American cousins are able to retire with a pension that they had been promised.

Getting back to the specific issue of Bill C-481, at this point let me say that I will be supporting sending the bill to committee. I very much look forward to hearing from Canadians when the bill is dealt with there.

I suspect that once in committee, we will hear from many sincere individuals who wish to continue their professional pursuits. Nevertheless, I still have serious reservations that eliminating mandatory retirement rules is in the interest of the people of my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. I believe there should be meaningful and comprehensive reforms to the retirement income system of Canada.

Forcing Canadians to work longer should not be just a way for the government to download some of its pension obligations. Working past 65 should be a real choice, one not driven by the fear of destitution but by the genuine desire to continue with a rewarding work life.

Statistics Act

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the bill today. Let me say right off the top that the rural parts of this country very much need a long form census. We need to know who lives here. We need to know where they live. We need to ensure that services like health care, education, employment assistance and so on are provided fairly and equally right across this country.

For urban areas of course the long form census is just as important, but I am going to keep my remarks mostly to my riding and to the issues that we face and why the long form census is so important to my part of northern Ontario.

Therefore I am very pleased to speak today on Bill C-568. It is an act to amend the Statistics Act in which we are dealing with the long form census.

The New Democratic Party is generally supportive of the bill because it seeks to reverse the ideologically based decision of the Conservative government to cancel the long form census. The bill also removes the punishment of imprisonment for a person convicted of providing false or misleading information.

While I am supportive of the bill and while my party is supportive of the bill, it is also important to note that I do not think it goes far enough. Bill C-583 introduced by my colleague from Windsor West goes one step further by enshrining into law the primacy of evidence-based decision making over political manoeuvring, the likes of which we have seen with the Conservative government.

To be clear, both elements of Bill C-568 are fully supported. For the record one more time, not a single Canadian has been imprisoned for failing to fill out the long form census. The imprisonment element should be removed right now.

However we need to go further by removing political interference from Statistics Canada's ability to do its job and provide an accurate picture of our country. The Chief Statistician must be able to do his or her job in an environment free of political meddling by an ideological government intent on suppressing evidence and information that contradicts, in this case, the narrow Conservative agenda.

We can just imagine the outrage from the national and international community if the government were to meddle in the independence of the Bank of Canada, for example. It would not be tolerated.

Therefore why should we accept the government's heavy-handedness when it comes to interfering with our Chief Statistician in his or her ability to do the job?

Hundreds of individuals, organizations, businesses and governments coast to coast raised the alarm bells because of the terrible decision to cancel the long form census. Despite the unsubstantiated claims by Conservative MPs about mythical complaints about the intrusiveness of the long form census, we know that the majority of citizens support and understand the need for the long form census.

Losing the long form census will have a detrimental impact on our communities in Thunder Bay—Rainy River. Let us just look at the first nations communities for example. There are 10 first nations in Thunder Bay—Rainy River. While they are connected by the road system, some are very far away from the main road, and it is important to have an accurate picture.

If we do not have a long form census that asks the kinds of questions that it does, we may not know what is going on in these isolated communities.

For example, without a long form census we would not know that the Couchiching First Nation, as of this past September, had 22 students who had graduated from high school but did not have the ability to go on to post-secondary education because the funding was not there.

We would also not know that in that same community last year it sent its very first student to medical school. It had its first PhD. return to the community.

Here we are making advances right across my riding and I would suggest that is duplicated right across the country.

Just when first nations are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel, particularly as far as education is concerned, the taps get turned off. Without a long form census, we do not know and we will not know that is happening. It is important for all of our communities to have the input into the long form census to protect them and to let all Canadians know, to give all Canadians a snapshot of what is going on in those communities.

When we see the importance of the long form census, is it any wonder that the government was taken to court on the issue? It seems as if the government is trying everything, making relentless efforts to shut down any source of credible data that provides any sort of objective evidence necessary for developing good public policy.

A short while ago on Parliament Hill, parliamentarians and members of Canada's very professional public service were invited to a special panel discussion on a very timely topic, evidence versus ideology of Canadian public policy. The event was sponsored by the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, the Association of Canadian Financial Officers and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.

The event aimed to launch a public debate regarding the current state and possible future of evidence-based policy making in Canada. There were a number of distinguished speakers on the panel, and the discussion was fascinating because these panellists and participants acknowledged that there has always been a role for ideology in public policy. However, they noted that in the past two years we have seen the emergence of a worrisome pattern.

First, the government gagged public servants and fired others who dared to disagree with it or give it policy recommendations that did not fit into its ideologically driven agenda.

Second, the government cancelled surveys and the long form census to ensure that statisticians, economists, academics and other professionals did not have access to objective data that provided damning evidence of the government's policy failures.

I am just guessing, but I suppose the object is to put it all into the private domain and let private companies do the work of the long form census. They do sometimes. For example earlier this week there was a BDO Dunwoody study about my pension protection bill, Bill C-501. BDO Dunwoody asked CEOs from across Canada what they thought of the bill. More than half of the CEOs who replied said it is a good bill and Parliament should move it ahead. Those are the kinds of things that the government should be finding out about legislation that happens in this place.

I fear that the Conservative government is dragging the country backward, and a clear majority of Canadians are saying, “No, you cannot drag us backward”. A majority of parliamentarians in the House support restoring the long form census, protecting the professional role of Canada's Chief Statistician and removing the threat of imprisonment in the act. Yet the minority continues to thumb its nose at the majority will of Parliament, an insult to democracy, an insult to this place itself.

Bill C-568 is specific to the government's decision to cancel the long form census. I believe the House needs to have a wider debate about the government's treatment of public servants; its setting of public policy based on belief, not public interest; its rejection of evidence-based public policy; its attempt to shut down public access to objective data; and its attempt to stop credible analysis of its failed policies. This will not work. We are on to the Conservatives, and so are Canadians.

I offer my party's support for the bill and urge the House to bring other necessary changes to protect our professional public service from the kind of pervasive political interference by ministers and their political staff. We need to end this trend and we need to do it quickly before we are dragged any—

Pensions

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are worried about the high cost of living and their retirement income. In northern Ontario the price of gas went up 10¢ last night. Home heating costs are skyrocketing, thanks to the government's HST scheme.

A poll of Canadian CEOs on my pension protection bill, Bill C-501, found that a majority believe the bill is fair and that Parliament should pass the bill.

Will the government respect the wishes of Canadian CEOs and pensioners and support Bill C-501 and protect six million Canadians?

Industry, Science and Technology

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology concerning the extension of time to consider Bill C-501.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th and 12th reports of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in relation to its study of Bill C-501, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and other Acts (pension protection), and in relation to its study of Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Competition Act (inquiry into industry sector).

The committee requests a 30 day extension in order to give the bills their proper consideration.

Pensions

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, on June 16, 2009, the New Democrat motion calling for action on pensions passed with unanimous support of this House. The motion provided that, in light of the legitimate concerns of Canadians that pensions and the retirement security may not be there for them in their retirement years, the Government of Canada should begin work with the provinces and territories to ensure the sustainability of Canadians' retirement incomes. This should be done by bringing forward, at the earliest opportunity, measures such as: expanding and increasing the CPP, OAS and GIS; establishing a self-financing pension insurance program; ensuring workers' pension funds go to the front of the line of creditors in the event of bankruptcy; and, protecting CPP from imprudent investment practices by ceasing the practice of awarding managers performance-based bonuses and recovering those bonuses for 2009.

Canadians have been pleading for action on safeguarding and improving pension benefits. Yet a year and a half after voting for these measures, where is the government action?

In the time I am allotted I will speak to just a few of those agreed actions that have not yet occurred.

First of all, I wish to share a little of my personal experience in assisting seniors in my riding.

This summer, in response to a number of tearful calls to my office from distraught seniors, I did some house calls. I found it deeply troubling to find seniors who have worked hard all their lives, many of them widows of retired farmers, struggling to get by on their meagre savings and pensions.

We have, over the past few months, hosted sessions for seniors to provide information on pension and disability benefits. However, from the majority, the message I have taken away from these sessions with seniors is that they do not just want more information, they want the government to respect their contribution to society and provide greater pension support.

A senior wrote to me a few weeks back to remonstrate that this October seniors' OAS rose a maximum of six-tenths of one per cent; a mere 10¢ a day. He despaired that many seniors received zero increase due to clawbacks. He requested that an MP from any party rise in the House to thank seniors for their support of the economic recovery program, as among the few to have increased taxes are seniors. He specified the HST in Alberta and clawbacks.

On behalf of this gentleman I stand here in the House to thank all of Canada's seniors for all they have contributed and for their patience and forbearance.

We need this government to stand up for those who have worked for a lifetime contributing to our prosperity, yet are left struggling just to get by in the last years of their lives. Considering the state of the economy and minimal pension supports forthcoming, it is sadly probable, given the lack of government action, that even more will fall between the cracks.

Canadians need more than endless consultations. This is a time of restraint due to job losses; increased taxes, and that includes the HST; as well as seniors and far too many families living on fixed a income. Canadians need the federal government to make them a priority. Tax cuts continue to be extended to major corporations while a growing number of working, retired and laid-off Canadians struggle.

Why am I and all New Democrats calling for an increase in CPP pensions? Why the call to inform seniors of the benefits they are entitled to?

A September 2010 poll commissioned by CUPE reports 66% of Albertans support expanding the CPP. More than 11 million Canadian workers, 68% of the workforce, have no workplace pensions. There are eight million Canadians who are reported to have no private pension plan or RRSP. The vast majority of Canadians rely on public pensions and private savings for their retirement.

With only 31% of Canadians contributing to an RRSP last year, the government merely calls on Canadians to set aside more savings for retirement. Where, pray tell, are the majority of middle income, let alone low income, Canadians to find that extra cash?

Canadians' meagre savings are fast being depleted by rising costs for basic services: electricity, fuel, food, accommodation, extra school fees and new taxes.

Over 266,000 seniors are barely surviving at poverty level incomes. Given today's cost of living, it is a struggle for anyone to have quality of life on $16,000 a year.

It has been estimated that, by 2030, two-thirds of Canadian retirees will not have enough retirement income and are looking at relative poverty. Alberta's situation is the worst in Canada, with Albertans only able to replace 45% of their income in retirement. In my province of Alberta, more than half of senior families have no private pension. Among those without pensions, only 38% have RRSPs or registered investment funds.

For Canadian women, access to basic living support, or frankly any pension at all, is all the more critical.

In budget 2009, the government set women workers further back by killing measures ensuring equal pay for work of equal value for federal workers.

Canadian women are still not receiving the equal treatment they deserve, as they receive almost one-quarter less than what men receive on every dollar of income.

Almost half of Canadian workers are women, 60% of whom are over 50 years of age.

Three-quarters of Canadians living in poverty are women and children.

We all know that it is the majority of women who set aside their working careers to look after children at the front end, and at the back end to look after their aging parents. As a result, they qualify for less pension benefits than men, and that is the case for those lucky enough to have any pension plan at all.

By doubling the CPP, we could lift many Canadians out of poverty. We have the money. It is a political choice to grant yet deeper, unneeded corporate tax cuts or to allocate the dollars to quality of life for seniors.

Another proposed solution would be to allow for voluntary contributions to top up CPP. While the government has talked about this option since last June, so far it has not acted. The right to choose to invest in one's CPP is an important one, given how many lost their life savings through private RRSPs.

Yet another example of the government ignoring the will of the House and reneging on its own undertakings to act expeditiously to protect pensions is the delayed action to protect workers' pensions in the event of bankruptcy.

When the government failed to act, our party did. My NDP colleague, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, introduced Bill C-501. The bill would ensure that pensions for employees of private companies that go bankrupt are granted priority over large creditors. This is a critical measure for Albertans, as the province has suffered the highest rate of bankruptcy during this recession, including small and medium-sized companies, an increase of 82% in one year.

Workplace pensions are nothing less than unpaid, deferred wages. Workers have a right to receive them.

Bill C-501 is currently before industry committee. I strongly urge support for the expedited completion of the review and a vote for it by all parties, including those in the other place.

In summary, the first step is to recognize the pension crisis. It was presumed that this occurred in the passage of last year's motion. The next step is for the government to take action on the many sensible measures put forward in this House. Canadians are still waiting.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member from the Bloc raised earlier the issue of the guaranteed income supplement.

The government knows the people's age and it knows how much money they make. Would it not be nice if the bottom of the assessment said that in the future they may qualify for this and they should check it out, or something to that effect? It should be that simple because it is an entitlement really.

We heard the member for York West talk earlier about the Nortel situation with the LTD workers. The LTD workers at Nortel had a problem because, instead of premiums being paid to an insurance company, the company was self-insured. That is why when the assets went down there was a problem.

We have talked in the House under one of the bills I proposed, Bill C-476 and now C-501, about protecting workers' assets in their pension funds at the time of bankruptcy and insolvency or the CCAA because corporations are hiding behind CCAA, in particular, to get out of their responsibilities to the pensioners.

I am very curious. Would the Bloc be supportive of Bill C-50l, which was before committee today?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Chair, I would like to change tack a bit and not get into all the arguments they are having. This is a question for the member that I hope he can answer at some length, if we still have time.

Today marked the third day of committee hearings on my bill, Bill C-501, which is an act to protect pensions for six million Canadians and their families right across this country. While there are some problems and some difficulties, we are working on them, and I hope that all the parties are working together on this.

One of the things that happened today was that we had a lot of witnesses from industry. They seemed very concerned that defined benefit plans are going to disappear or they are going down. They said, “Woe is me; what are we going to do?” I suggested an alternative and I would like the member to make a comment on it.

The alternative was the we have the best pension plan in the country that we can be part of, and it is the CPP. The Canada pension plan is the best pension plan we have. Everybody can participate. Everybody can be protected and, most importantly, the government cannot get its hands on the money.

I would like to ask the member if he would expand on his thoughts about the CPP and the value that it will have on an ongoing basis as we move forward in this debate.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Chair, I am most pleased to take part in the debate on those pension reforms that are needed to protect and enhance the lives of Canada's seniors as they live out their sunset years.

From my reports, the House will know that over the last 19 months, I have been crossing Canada, holding some 39 community meetings, so far, on what I call the listening to seniors tour. I want to assure the House that these seniors have been very quick to tell me of their fears and their concerns about the future.

Today far too many of our seniors are forced to live in fear, just one crisis away from financial catastrophe. Seniors are worried about their private pensions and how they might be significantly less than what they were told they would be, or, as in the case of companies like Nortel, where there was a significant loss to the amount of pension income, they worry if they will have a pension at all going forward.

The genesis of my listening to seniors tour was when I was visited by a prominent group of seniors. One of my guests stated that seniors felt invisible to their government. This group also wondered why the government had given $14 billion a year in corporate tax breaks while, as they said, doing nothing for them.

The government will argue that there were things done over the past five years on behalf of seniors and some of that is factual. However, from the point of view of the seniors, they do not see that immediate impact for them.

One of the things we heard today was the corporate tax rate in Canada as compared to the United States. I may be incorrect but it is my understanding that the corporate rate in the U.S. 36% and we are nose-diving to 15%, and we are taking the fiscal capacity out of the government to respond to seniors needs.

Last fall, I told the House something worth repeating. It is the story of a senior who came to my office. He had a letter from the government saying that his pension had been increased 42¢ a month. I am pleased that the finance minister is here to hear this. This man was so upset, he had tears in his eyes. He said, “Not only does the government not give a damn about seniors, but it goes out of its way to insult us by sending us a notice that cost more to post than what it cost in the increase to the government”. He was very concerned.

We faced down the worst recession in years and some credit should go to the government, but Canadians throughout that process were vividly reminded of why we had a social safety net in the first place.

I am pleased to see the government has taken an interest in reviewing the benefits paid under old age security, GIS and CPP. I have to stress that this has also been done with an eye to increasing benefits for seniors.

Repeatedly tonight we have heard references between 200,000 and 300,000 seniors who live below the poverty line. An economist at the Canadian Labour Congress reported that an annual infusion of about $700 million would raise all seniors above the low income cut-off, what is more commonly known as the poverty line.

We heard the Bloc speak about a motion that it had before the House calling for an increase in GIS.

The 200,000 or 300,000 living below the poverty line is a very sobering statistic, but when we consider of that number, 60% are single unattached women, many of them women who never participated in the Canada pension plan because they stayed at home, this is nothing short of a national disgrace. We can do so much more and we must do much more for all senior Canadians.

Today only 38% of Canadian workers have workplace pensions. Nearly one-third have no retirement savings at all. Earlier today the Liberals presented a bill on guaranteeing a charter for the rights of seniors to save. For the one-third of Canadian workers who are outside the umbrella of having a pension plan and cannot save at all, we have to question what the charter would do for them.

More than 3.5 million Canadians are not saving enough in RRSPs, and I am sure the finance minister could back that up. They are not taking advantage of the opportunity that is presented by the government. Seventy-five percent of private sector workers are not even able to participate in a registered retirement plan. Clearly the notion that retirement savings can be adequately accounted for through the purchase of RRSPs has not worked out and requires urgent government action.

In June 2009 the NDP opposition day motion started, in a very public way, a national discussion on the future of our retirement security system. Members in this place today are continuing that discussion.

Part of the discussion from our perspective centred around increasing CPP and QPP funds. I would remind members that CPP and QPP are self-financing, so it then becomes a question of whether Canadians are prepared to pay more for security in their senior years as part of a secure public pension plan. Canadians certainly face insecurity today in the context of their private options, like RRSPs or defined contribution plans, that leave them uncovered or victimized by the market.

We believe it would also be a benefit to beef up CPP. That would be the cheapest way for Canadians and the government to pool risks, take the burden off individuals and secure their senior years. Any voluntary supplemental CPP system would simply not meet the needs of Canadians any more than what an RRSP has done in the past. The NDP believes it would be better to use the resources of CPP and QPP to enhance a retirement system.

I would like to discuss the need that Canada has for a pension benefits guaranteed fund.

Federal leadership is urgently needed to set about working with the provinces to develop a pension insurance regime. This must be done to ensure workers actually receive the retirement benefits they have earned, even if their employer goes out of business.

As I said, we insure our cars and our homes and we have deposit insurance to cover our savings. Why not insure our pension plans? The system would be funded by contributions from federal workplace pension plan sponsors administered by the federal government and designed to ensure efficiency and fairness to all parties.

Another notable model that is worthy of study is the American Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and there are some issues with that. Similar to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is not financed through tax revenues but by premiums paid by sponsors of defined benefit plans, assets from plans that are taken over, recoveries from refunded pension liabilities from plan sponsors' bankruptcy estates and through investment income.

Canada may choose not to follow the American model, but it could create some form of pension insurance uniquely its own or a hybrid of other plans, such as those in Switzerland, Sweden, Germany and Japan and even the Netherlands, which is probably not an option that we would look at here. The government of the Netherlands insures the plans.

Once a guaranteed plan is successfully combined with funding rules or other protection measures, it can effectively perform as a last resort benefit protection measure.

Another clause in our opposition day motion called for ensuring that workers' pension funds would go to the front of the line of creditors in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. My colleague from Thunder Bay was responsible for putting forward Bill C-501. He has worked hard on that file, trying to protect the pensions and severance of workers across the country.

Canadians need to know that there will be a level of pension income for their retirement to ensure that they will spend their final years with financial security and live in dignity.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Chair, yes, I have been attending the industry meetings dealing with Bill C-501, which I am sure we will hear more about as the evening progresses. We have had a lot of very important people come in and give testimony, whether it was Nortel pensioners, Bowater or the many companies across Canada that are very concerned about the impact Bill C-501 will have. As parliamentarians, I think we are all trying to make a difference and many of us have different opinions.

This bill is important. It will soon have an opportunity to be looked upon in discussion with the department. At the appropriate time, we will make the appropriate decision.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to take part in tonight's discussion on pension reform.

The Minister of Finance and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance have spent a lot of time over the last number of years looking at this issue. I am fortunate enough to be on both the finance committee, which dealt with this issue last spring, and on the industry committee at present where we are discussing Bill C-501.

Parliament and this government have been engaged in this issue and we have made a number of changes over the last couple of years.

However, I am not absolutely sure about something. The member for York West has been sitting in on our industry committee on the issue of Bill C-501 but I cannot tell whether the Liberals are supporting that private member's bill. I wonder if the member could tell us. I know that is a private member's bill and probably an individual decision, but based on the work that she has done and whether that bill would actually help Nortel employees, will the Liberals be supporting it coming back to the House?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology began two weeks of debate on an important piece of legislation, Bill C-501. It was sent to committee with strong support from members of all parties in the House. I want to extend my thanks to my colleagues for that support, for their participation so far, and for their further participation over the next two weeks.

I invite all members of the House to speak with me about concerns, bring their ideas forward, and explore ways in which we can work together to improve pension security in Canada and pass Bill C-501.

Every member of the House represents constituents who have defined pension benefit plans and who are presently stuck at the back of the line when a company runs into difficulty. Together we can protect the pensions of six million Canadians who have worked hard, played by the rules, and earned the right to retire with dignity.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to pass a bill that will serve as a shining example for Canadians of how we can all work together in this place and do the right thing for the people whom we have the honour of serving.

Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be here to speak to issues, especially things that we went on record some months ago as supporting, without having to listen to some of the rhetoric. I heard my colleague behind me use words that are inappropriate in the House, and I will just leave it at that.

It has been suggested that we on this side of the House are not supporting this bill. It has also been suggested that this has been a fast process. The bill was introduced in June. This issue was brought up first by the media, by the way, not by anybody else, in March. It took until June for the legislation to be introduced. Here we are on November 16 finally getting a bill passed. That has a lot to do with the fact that the committee worked very well with the intent of getting the bill back into the House. Otherwise who knows how long it would take to get it here?

Some of us are concerned and frustrated when we hear the other side say that we are not helping. We are the ones who have been pushing this forward since it was first announced in the media. The government has been advancing it at nothing short of a snail's pace. Let us be clear on that point.

The committee has done a good job. After all, it was a little more than a month since the committee was asked to examine Bill C-31. Members of the committee took the bill seriously. They did their homework and asked questions to make sure that we avoided unintended consequences. Hence the bill is now before us and it could be passed very quickly here and in the other place. It is fair to say that the committee members did a quick and thorough job of reviewing the bill, contrary to, as I indicated earlier, what the government did not do.

My primary concern stems back to the pace that business is being advanced in the House. A proactive government would move quickly on issues that concern Canadians and parliamentarians.

Most members know that Bill C-31 is legislation that is relatively simplistic from a legal perspective, which does not happen too often. It is not particularly controversial, nor is it divisive in its scope. After all, the entire bill, in both English and French, is less than six pages in total length. It is a very small bill.

Put another way, after more than five months of working on this legislation, we have successfully completed just 25% of the legislative process. Imagine, just 25% in five months; that is a snail's pace if there ever were one. If this is the best we can do, Bill C-31 will not pass into law until July 2012, long after when every reasonable person expects the next election to be held. We know what will happen. An election will be called; everything will die on the order paper and nothing will ever get done. This could have been done in September. The bill could have passed in September and gone to the other place. It is not often that we are asking the government why it is not moving something forward faster, but this is a very simple and small bill and it could have been passed by both houses by now.

This means the government wants to talk about this bill more than it wants to pass it. It wants to say that it is tough on crime more than it wants to back its rhetoric with real action. Most particularly, the government is clearly more interested in optics than it is in the elements of governing as responsible Canadians.

Permit me to be completely clear though. We are of the belief that the changes are long overdue and we do not oppose them. In fact, we support them. As I have said before, from the Liberals' perspective, we are certainly prepared to fast-track this legislation. I indicated in June when the minister introduced the legislation that we were prepared to fast-track this bill.

When I last spoke in this House on Bill C-31, my primary concern was simple. I wanted to make sure there were no unintended consequences attached to the bill. It is a requirement for all of us as legislators to ensure there are no unintended consequences on any legislation that is introduced in the House. Even though many of us had strong feelings from the start when the media flagged this issue, our government was not aware of this issue any more than anybody else was. It was members of the media, in the kind of work they do, who discovered Mr. Olson was receiving old age security cheques, which clearly bothered all of us.

While I was anxious to punish the guilty and to ensure that tax dollars were not being wasted, I also needed to be sure we were not punishing the spouses for the crimes of their partners. We all know that the spouses pay a big enough price and I do not believe any of us wanted to add to that difficulty.

It seems that the committee members were satisfied by hearing witnesses from various organizations throughout Canada. They listened to all sides of the issues to make sure that Bill C-31 would not have a negative impact on the spouses, and that the spouses, families and children would be protected.

In my mind there would seem to be no other reason that we would not send Bill C-31 to the other place. If the Prime Minister were truly committed to its speedy passage, he could direct his Conservative-dominated Senate to pass the legislation immediately. It could all be done before we rose for Christmas, if he really wanted it done. Of course, the Prime Minister has little interest in this approach, so one would wonder how serious he is about the issue, or is he just more interested in looking as though he were serious about the issue? That is for the Canadian people to decide at the appropriate time. After all, this is just another in a recent string of examples of the government's relentless drive for good optics.

According to the recently released public accounts, lapsed funding for the victims of crime initiative last year amounted to just under $4 million, or 45% of the available funds. That means in 2009-10, the Conservatives spent $4.8 million helping victims of crime versus $6 million which they spent this year to advertise how they helped those victims of crime.

One of the motions that was introduced at committee was that the $2 million, the amount of money saved by not sending the pension to the likes of Mr. Olson, should be given to the victims of crime organization so that we could help victims in as many ways as possible. However, my understanding is that the amendment was not passed at committee.

Those commercials we continue to see in the government's massive advertising campaign fail to mention that when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, he killed his entire crime agenda that we had heard so much about for so many years, much of which had the Liberals' support. However, once Parliament was prorogued, all of that fell off the agenda, just as this bill would if the Prime Minister were to prorogue Parliament tomorrow.

People have to understand what proroguing Parliament really does. The legislation that all of us work for, although not all of us necessarily support, is lost once Parliament prorogues. Every single bill at that time was back to square one. When Parliament resumed sitting in the spring, each one of them had to be reintroduced, one by one. That delays them, because they have to go through the same process again: first reading, second reading, consideration at committee, report stage, third reading and then they go to the other place. All that so-called big crime agenda that was necessary was lost. Some of it was not as good as it could have been; there were lots of problems with some of it, but we were supporting it. Then we had to start all over again in the spring. Yet if we listen to the Prime Minister's multi-million dollar ad campaign, we would swear that all of that legislation was in effect right now, which is simply untrue.

Call it retail politics, spin, wedge politics or whatever one wishes, but Canadians are being misinformed again and again by the government. I say it is time for that nonsense to stop and for the government to be honest about the kind of legislation that is being passed and the timelines in doing that.

In simple terms, Bill C-31 seeks to amend the Old Age Security Act to preclude incarcerated persons from receiving benefits under this act and at the same time to maintain entitlement to benefits for their spouse or common law partner. When we talk about unintended consequences, we had to ensure that the spouses and children of these individuals would not be harmed with the passage of Bill C-31.

As I have already said, the latter of these elements is, in my estimation, a pivotal thrust of this particular piece of legislation. We should never be too eager to cast a net without first ensuring that only those deserving of punishment are actually forced to endure it, and not their spouses and children.

Despite our often fierce partisan differences in the House, today we are looking at an issue that should unite all of us regardless of our political affiliation.

As we know, the old age security pension is intended to help seniors pay for their housing, clothing, food and transportation, which are expectations that many seniors struggle with each and every day.

I just came from a meeting at the industry committee where we were talking about Bill C-501. This is a bill that was put forward by one of my colleagues in the other party to try to deal with pensioners and bankruptcy collapse, to deal with what happens to people who work for companies that go bankrupt. This bill deals with the impacts on current pensioners and would-be pensioners. It deals with the devastation of trying to live on $1,200 a month and the many pensioners who are in poverty as a result of their company's going bankrupt.

This is a call on the government and all parliamentarians, and we were all very serious this morning regardless of party, to try to find solutions to the problem of Nortel, for example, and other companies. How do we better protect pensions and people's contributions in this country?

For thousands of seniors who are struggling with these growing bills on a fixed income, the thought that convicted and imprisoned criminals would be eligible for the same OAS benefit as they are is quite offensive and totally unacceptable for all of us.

Moreover, given that the old age security is meant to help a recipient pay for housing, clothing, food and transportation, it seems unnecessary for prisoners to get a cheque given that their housing, clothing, food and transportation are already paid for as a condition of their incarceration. It does not make a lot of sense that we give the same amount of money to seniors out there having to pay rent and buy their own groceries and clothing and all the rest of it, and yet people in prison, regardless of what they are there for, get all of that plus their old age security.

One senior said, “Maybe I should go to jail. At least I would have some extra money and all of my needs would be taken care of”. I assured that senior that once the gate was closed it might not seem like such a good idea.

As a legislator, I see the current reality to be redundant, unacceptable and, as I indicated earlier, something that should be changed without delay, without delay. I would like to hear the government move this through at votes tonight, move it into the Senate and ask the Conservative-dominated Senate to pass Bill C-31 immediately. This is precisely why I am of the belief that Bill C-31 should be advanced, as I indicated before.

I last addressed this issue in June when the minister introduced the legislation. I said at that time that I would not seek to draw this process out for the sake of speaking longer in the House. I did not intend to do that then, nor do I intend to do it today. What is needed today is action and it is needed now.

For the sake of clarity, contrary to my colleague's asking if we would vote for it, the Liberal position has been on the record since June, maybe before that, that we would support this kind of legislation. So that there is no question whether we will, the Liberal side of the House supports the stated notions of Bill C-31 unequivocally.

The next thing we know, though, there will be a massive email campaign going around to everybody in Canada saying to go after the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc because they may not support Bill C-31. Let me be clear. We have indicated from the beginning that we support it. We are going to continue to support it. In fact, we are asking the government to fast-track it through the Senate.

We agree that convicted and incarcerated criminals should not receive societal benefits, like the monthly old age security cheque. On a purely personal note, I would take this belief one step further.

I, like most Canadians, was horrified as I watched the trial of the former Colonel Williams. This person is now sitting in jail, but upon his formal retirement he could be eligible for a pension that he earned while a member of the Canadian Forces, a time that coincides with the time he committed his heinous crimes. There is something fundamentally wrong with the notion that he will be rewarded on the same scale as Canada's veterans of the war in Afghanistan. There is something terribly wrong with that.

Canada's pension systems, both public and private, need a great deal of attention. The Canada pension plan, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the various private options available are good. We are grateful that we have them and that the investments were made, but we need to do better.

We need to examine all facets of these systems in a way that will close the gaps, reduce the redundancies and enhance the benefits for all Canadians. I recently released a white paper on pension reform. That document was the product of more than a year of work by nearly 20 industry and pension specialists of every partisan stripe.

Whether we addressed the creation of a supplementary Canada pension plan, the tightening of regulatory loopholes, the enhancement of regular Canada pension plan benefits or the establishment of a pension bill of rights, the focus was not on politics. It was on substantive pension reform. Our primary focus was, and is, finding ways to make pensions stronger. Some days I wish that example could be adopted more often by the government and this House.

Twenty-eight recommendations later, I am convinced that we have a winning strategy, a comprehensive, multi-generational plan that puts people and their pensions first. The white paper, which can be found on my web page, fits hand-in-glove with Bill C-574, which I introduced on October 1.

Bill C-574 is a pensioners' bill of rights. Since the Mackenzie King government, a Liberal government I should remind the House, first introduced the Old Age Pensions Act 83 years ago, Liberals have fostered a long history of creating, enhancing and expanding pensions available to Canadian seniors.

From old age security, introduced by the Liberal government, to the Canada pension plan of previous Liberal governments and the supplement, also from a previous Liberal government, we understand the extreme importance of protecting and preserving pension security, adequacy and coverage for all deserving and law-abiding Canadians.

Bill C-574 is the next step in that process. Too often, financial illiteracy, inadequate opportunity and economic instability strip away the hard-earned savings of our seniors. That must stop.

Bill C-574 is the first bill of its kind ever proposed to better protect our seniors and their nest eggs. I am proud to have presented it. I clearly hope that all members in this House will adopt it at the appropriate time. I would urge colleagues to take part in that debate on November 23. As always, our seniors are counting on us.

Bill C-31 is yet another step that could be taken down this road. I stand ready to do whatever it takes to achieve these goals, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the government to pass measures geared to the same.

With the help of the government, I am hopeful that we can advance Bill C-31 quickly in this House and then, with the help of the Prime Minister, quickly through the other place.

Royal Recommendation—Bill C-501—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 11, 2010, by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader concerning the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-501, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and other Acts (pension protection), standing in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Rainy River.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River for his comments.

In his point of order, the parliamentary secretary pointed out that Bill C-501 makes provision for the appointment of adjudicators by the Minister of Labour in connection with claims against directors for the recovery of debts filed under the Canada Business Corporations Act. These provisions are found in clause 6 of the bill.

He drew the attention of the House to section 23 of the Interpretation Act, which indicates that the power to appoint public officials includes the power to pay them. In his view, the appointment of adjudicators under the Canada Business Corporations Act would constitute the naming of officials for a new and distinct function not currently authorized by any existing appropriation.

The Chair has examined Bill C-501 carefully and has taken note of the authorities cited by the parliamentary secretary. The Chair has also looked closely at the existing provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

During his intervention, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River maintained that the Minister of Labour has the power to name adjudicators under other legislation. However, what is specifically at issue here is the minister's ability to appoint such officials under the Canadian Business Corporations Act.

As this act in its current form does not provide for the appointment of adjudicators, it is clear to the Chair that the proposal in clause 6 of Bill C-501 proposes a new and distinct function for the Minister of Labour, which would require an expenditure of public funds.

In accordance with Standing Order 79(1), the Chair must therefore rule that the bill requires a royal recommendation, and will decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

The recorded division later today, however, is on the motion for second reading, which can proceed as scheduled.

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to remind all hon. members of the importance which the Speaker attaches to questions of this nature. The orderly conduct of our proceedings, particularly where it touches on matters relating to the appropriation of public funds or the imposing of charges on the people, is of great importance in permitting the House to deliberate in a calm and well-considered manner. Procedural issues which may arise from time to time are often complex and it assists both the Chair and the House as a whole when they are raised as early as possible in the proceedings.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Royal Recommendation—Bill C-501

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to respond to the government concerns about Bill C-501.

The week before last the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that Bill C-501 required a royal recommendation. The basis of his argument was that clause 6 of the bill imposed an additional financial responsibility on the Crown. This particular clause would mandate the Minister of Labour to appoint an adjudicator to hear a claim made by a former employee of a company against a director of the same company.

The basis of my bill moves workers' pensions to secured status after a bankruptcy. It gives the pension so-called super-preferred status, meaning workers receive their pensions before shareholders and other creditors receive their money. In the event of a dispute or should a former employee bring a claim against the director of a company, the bill would mandate the minister to appoint a arbitrator to hear the claim.

The parliamentary secretary's arguments fell into two parts, the first being that the appointment of an arbitrator was a new purpose or created a new mandate for the minister. The second argument was that the payment of an arbitrator would increase government spending.

I reject these arguments and do not believe the bill requires a royal recommendation. First, it is already within the mandate of the Minister of Labour to appoint an adjudicator. The Minister of Labour regularly appoints adjudicators, conciliators, mediators and referees often under the powers of the Canada Labour Code. The minister's mandate to resolve disputes, adjudicate claims and protect workers' rights is broad and encompasses the intent of the bill. No new responsibilities or duties are being imposed on the Crown by this bill.

In previous cases stated by the parliamentary secretary to support his argument, all involved bills where new commissions or committees were being created by the minister and where the minister had neither a previous role in appointing such committees nor a mandate to involvement himself or herself in the issue being studied for resolve by that said committee.

In the case of Bill C-501, the minister regularly appoints adjudicators to hear claims concerning workers' rights, labour issues, grievances. In addition, the minister has a clear mandate to involve himself or herself in labour disputes and bankruptcies.

When an adjudicator, mediator or referee is selected to assist with claims or grievances, they are often employees of the federal mediation and conciliation service. These are Government of Canada employees. In this case, no royal recommendation is needed as the staff already carries out very similar tasks. The bill would not change their roles, their duties or their responsibilities nor the cost of their employment.

Should the minister decide to appoint a third party adjudicator, as happens in some cases, the common practice is for the parties involved to pay the costs of the arbitrator. Nothing, and I want to make this perfectly clear, nothing in Bill C-501 makes the Crown responsible for the costs of an arbitrator. In fact, the bill does not even state that there will be a cost.

The parent act to the Canada Business Corporations Act also does not provide for any compensation for an arbitrator. While the minister certainly has the power to pay, the bill does not mandate any payment. In fact, the minister could ask for an eminent Canadian to take the case and discuss and decide in the particular case. Therefore, no money actually has to be spent according to this clause.

Therefore, I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the parliamentary secretary is wrong in suggesting that Bill C-501 requires a royal recommendation. These are my arguments for it. I hope you will take them under consideration.