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.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Hanlon said that the workers don't have many ways to protect themselves when a company goes bankrupt or closes.

The companies told us that if we adopted Bill C-501, there would be an increase in the cost of capital. So we are facing two situations that could be considered to be opposing. Mr. Hanlon, you were talking about means.

Would there be changes or amendments to make to Bill C-501? What could be done to give companies flexibility, but also meet the needs of those people who are concerned, like you?

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for coming to testify.

You have spoken about the great difficulties that you have had since losing your respective jobs. In addition to losing your job, you have been deprived of severance pay, and even your pension has been drastically reduced.

I presume that most of you have reviewed Bill C-501. I'd like to hear your thoughts on a solution that could be proposed. What would you say if the federal government assumed the trusteeship of the pension fund, like the government of Quebec, to avoid disposal at a loss? In the case of a quick disposal, the pension funds would really be insolvent, it's true. But if there was a better period, there could be more monetary interest added to the value of the pension funds. Do you think this would provide better protection to retirees with respect to Bill C-501?

Perhaps Mr. Wacheski, Mr. Hanlon and Mr. Hanrieder could answer this question.

[Joe Hanlon]

I'll be very brief. Employers have an obligation to fund, but in relation to Bill C-501, if you take AbitibiBowater in the middle of the CCAA announcing that they're going to put $6 million as a bonus to their supervisors, why isn't that money going into individuals' pensions and severance pay, into the money that's owed the workers? Never mind the people who put the companies into the distress they are in today.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Actually, I was going to touch on derivatives.

Mrs. Comeau mentioned deferred wages, which is what pensions are. It's a liability to employees. What Mr. Wacheski said is true as well: employees have few options. This is all they have. It seems that the previous panel talked about pension rules. They talked about Domtar being good and AbitibiBowater being bad.

Mr. Hanrieder and Mr. Phatak, what restrictions can we put on pensions so that employers actually put the money where it belongs? They should not be able to use it as a slush fund to keep operations going. I'm looking outside of Bill C-501. If we can make Bill C-501 functional, that would be great. We have to stop that money from being used as a slush fund to keep companies going. It's not an easy-credit place; it's a place where people put deferred wages. They should have that money back when they retire; they should be able to count on that money down the road.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Good morning, gentlemen.

We know that situations like this are relatively difficult for retirees. The example of the Nortel workers who came to testify this week is very enlightening and we have many questions as a result.

A defined benefit pension plan is something negotiated between the company and the employees. It is a contract between the two. It's a contract that sets out that the employer must put all contributions in this pension fund. If an unfunded actuarial liability arises, the agreement is that the employer will inject funds into it. So there is a contract, and the company assumes the risk. Someone—I think it was Mr. Harden—just asked who would take on the risk. For the agreement between the employers and employees, it is a matter of assuming a risk.

More difficult situations can arise, such as bankruptcy or potential bankruptcy. The bill requires that special amounts covering the unfunded actuarial liability be prioritized. At that time, the financiers, who do business with large companies, knew that there was a significant risk. In the event of bankruptcy, the financiers assume their risk as well. So I do not currently see a major problem in assuming the risk right up to the end.

A company like Nortel should have paid. It had the means to pay that amount, which I realize would not have been anywhere else. But in this case, perhaps everyone was expecting to lose, at least the retirees. They had a contract with their employer and they are going to really be taken to the cleaners. The employees honoured this agreement over the years.

In my opinion, the bill still brings an important dimension of justice and fairness. Everyone has to take on their own risk. I personally don't see a major problem with financing. The financiers assumed the risk right up to the bankruptcy as well.

In the case of Nortel, who would lose if Bill C-501 was in force? Who would be from the Nortel list and who would have paid the most?

Have you reviewed this case, have you gone back to the drawing board with it?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Our Liberal critic, Judy Sgro, is the author of a white paper that looks at pensions from a holistic point of view. It has 28 recommendations. She's also going to be in debate next week on second reading of a private member's bill that deals with what's called a bill of rights for pensioners.

I want to make sureof this: are you aware that Bill C-501 only deals with special payments in the way that I described it in my first question, and that it does not affect all pensions by moving them up to super-priority? Is that something that you clearly understand? This has an effect on how much you see by way of turmoil in the credit markets.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, one of our challenges as legislators is to try to sort through what is actually the real picture as opposed to something that is perhaps a little bit misleading.

One thing about Bill C-501 that has been advertised, and advertised falsely, is that it would elevate pensions to super-priority status. That's simply not the case. The reality is that it only deals with special payments that have been paid up to the date of a company's bankruptcy, which is really a much smaller portion. In that sense, it's unfortunate that this bill is misleading a lot of people.

At the same time, perhaps from the other side of the coin, I have difficulty understanding how the situation I've just described with Bill C-501 is going to cause so much turmoil in the credit markets that it's going to shut off all of that capital that has been mentioned.

As you can appreciate, it's difficult for us to get an accurate picture of the truth.

What I would like to ask Mr. Everson first, and then Mr. Casey afterwards, is how you would answer the question for somebody who has contributed for his or her entire career to a pension and is now in a situation in which the company they worked for has gone bankrupt, and they're only going to get a portion of their pension. I'll use the example of Nortel in your case, Mr. Casey, and of AbitibiBowater in your case, Mr. Everson.

How would you explain the situation to them? Do you have an alternative that would perhaps satisfy them?

[Warren Everson, Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Warren Everson. I am from the Chamber of Commerce. With me is Jonathan Allen from RBC Capital Markets.

Thank you very much for inviting us to appear.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is Canada's most representative business association. Through our network of over 400 local member chambers of commerce, we speak on behalf of 192,000 active companies of all sizes across Canada.

My part in our presentation today will be to outline the policy concerns of our members who offer defined benefit pension plans and whose businesses would be fundamentally affected if pension plan liabilities are accorded the status of secure debts in the event of a bankruptcy.

Then I'm going to ask Mr. Allen to quickly speak to Bill C-501 from the perspective of a debt market expert.

It's clear to everyone in this room that pensions will be the dominant public policy issue in finance over the next few years, and presumably would have been, had we not experienced the meltdown we did in the last couple of years.

I wish we could support a bill that deals with such a significant issue and such an emotional one. However, this particular bill does not attract our support. We're here today because of significant potential for damage that could be done to many of our members and to millions of Canadians who invest in them if this bill moves forward.

I'd like to deal immediately with two misapprehensions regarding Bill C-501.

The first misapprehension is that Bill C-501 would help members of pension plans whose sponsors have already declared bankruptcy. I think members of the committee heard in the last couple of days that this is not the case. This is not a bill that would rescue Nortel pensioners.

The second misapprehension is that companies who sponsor defined pension benefits have been underfunding their plans. That's not the case. The current underfunding of defined benefit plans is a result of a combination of unusually severe financial circumstances, the 2008 collapse in equity markets, and a very significant decline in long bonds to a level not seen in 50 years. I think it's important for the committee to recognize that we're dealing with a once-in-50-years circumstance.

We do think there are several unintended and adverse consequences in granting creditor protection to defined benefit pensions for employers, for plan sponsors, and for millions of Canadians.

I'd like to ask Jonathan to speak to that.

[Andrew Casey, Vice-President, Public Affairs and International Trade, Forest Products Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the committee for this opportunity to appear before you today on this very important matter of Bill C-501.

By way of introduction, the Forest Products Association of Canada is the national voice of Canada's wood, pulp, and paper producers. Our industry represents about 12% of Canada's manufacturing GDP. We directly employ over 230,000 Canadians from coast to coast, and we are the economic lifeblood of well over 200 communities across this country.

As you might imagine, a number of our companies, given the number of employees we have, have significant defined benefit pension plans. For that reason, we're very pleased to have this opportunity to appear.

As members of this committee and of Parliament are well aware, this industry has faced some fairly serious, challenging times over the past couple of years. Indeed, parties on all sides of the House, as well as individual members, have gone to great lengths to try to find ways to support the industry throughout this challenging period. We're now looking at somewhat of an economic recovery. There are some encouraging signs on the horizon, but in our view it's still in a fragile state of play right now.

While we're waiting for the recovery to fully take hold, one of the things the industry is doing is preparing for when markets do return. To that end, a couple of things we are doing that will help us prepare for that return are reinvesting in--retooling--our mills and getting ready for when markets return. A key component of that ability to retool is access to capital.

Capital is the lifeblood of our industry. It is in great shortage. It is a very fickle guest. It will go wherever it feels most comfortable, wherever there is the least amount of risk, and wherever there's the greatest return on that capital.

In our view, Bill C-501, while well intended, risks capital. It risks shutting off capital for our industry at a very delicate time. I would say that this risk probably extends to the economy more broadly, and that is our biggest concern with this bill.

We certainly can understand trying to address possible loopholes in Canada's pension system going forward, particularly as they relate to bankruptcies and insolvencies. There are other jurisdictions around the world where certain measures have been put in place, including backstop mechanisms similar to what we have here for our banking system in the form of CDIC. Maybe that's something this committee should study. Certainly this committee has undertaken studies in the past for which they've brought together all stakeholders and departments; in this case, maybe that would be industry, finance, and HRSDC. They could take a comprehensive look at this issue to come up with solutions to address any inadequacies in the system.

I think we have to look at this from a going-forward perspective. The reality is that as we look forward, one of the best ways to ensure that we keep jobs and ensure the safety of pensions is to have healthy companies. The way to ensure that we have healthy companies is to ensure that we have access to capital in a timely fashion, in a reliable fashion, and in a competitive way. For that reason, we urge the committee to reject Bill C-501 and look for ways to address the pension deficiencies in another fashion.

Thank you very much for the time. I look forward to any questions.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before hearing from the witnesses, I would like to present a motion. I believe there was some confusion. Mr. Gaston Carrière, president of local 142 of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, was supposed to have been asked to appear this morning. According to information I obtained, we apparently invited Mr. Coles, the national president, instead.

Mr. Carrière was prepared. Since he expected to be asked to appear, he made preparations. He learned yesterday that he would not be coming. This is why I would like to present a motion. It reads:

That the committee invite Mr. Gaston Carrière, president of local 142 of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada at the AbitibiBowater plant in Gatineau, as part of the review of Bill C-501.

I therefore table this motion. I hope that my colleagues here and opposite, the members of the Conservative Party, will understand that this man had been informed—I don't know whether it was by the clerk or someone else—and prepared himself. According to the information I obtained, there was apparently some confusion and someone else—Mr. Coles—was asked to appear.

This is why I'm asking you to respect the steps we took to invite Mr. Gaston Carrière to appear.

Pensions

[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.

[Jim Cole]

I think the big thing, speaking to Bill C-501 as an investor in bonds, is that as bond holders what we really took to and what we don't like is uncertainty. If changes are made in legislation that change the pecking order of who receives assets and liquidation and what not, we can respond by pricing that into.... If we're behind other secured creditors, we will price the demand that we require in the way of an investment accordingly. The challenges are things like this that come in on existing bond holdings. We can't respond to that because we've already made investments on behalf of clients.

The second one is that I know there have been some comments made about the clarity in the minds of others about what this bill represents, but we have seen a lot of market commentary with this impression or understanding that it applies to the entirety of the unfunded pension liability. As a bond holder, while certain legal opinions are expressed that, no, no, it just applies to past service payments, we on the other hand have to rely on how the courts will interpret it. That lack of clarity creates uncertainty in our minds. That's a challenge.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

The difficulty is that Bill C-501 isn't doing that. That's the problem we're facing today. And we wanted it to do it. At least I'm speaking for us, as the Liberals. We wanted this to be able to do that. The bill is crafted in such a way that it can't be amended to accomplish what we need to accomplish, both on retroactivity, as well as being able to widen it so that it's not just special payments. This is that narrow window of special payments that this would help if it was passed, or at least that's what we're led to believe.

The question is what are we doing to move forward? As a result of all of what many of you have gone through, I hope we do end up with changes, which is the reason for the 28 recommendations I put out in the white paper last week. So you don't have to do the changes at the end of the process in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. You do the changes at the beginning.

I believe that pensioners should not be treated like everyone else. I think pensioners have a special place, because you've contributed and you're not getting an equal voice at the table, which is why you're ending up where you are now.

What else can we do? I appreciate Mr. Hilton's comments, but what else can we be doing in the future, since this isn't going to help the people we want to help today?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Yes, I'll share my time with Ms. Sgro again.

You've raised a very interesting point, Ms. Stewart, about the question of retroactivity. It sounds to me, from all you've said, that Bill C-501 won't do all the things that we need to do to address the problem down the road. It will only go so far.

Mr. Hilton, your point about extension of time, for instance, I think speaks to the need for the government to actually take a proactive position with a larger, more comprehensive and detailed piece of information.

Mr. Sproule, if I have you correctly, I just want to make sure we understand that this will do nothing for your colleagues and pensioners with Nortel.