Bill C-253 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (pension plans and group insurance plans)

This enactment amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to ensure that claims in respect of unfunded liabilities or solvency deficiencies of pension plans and claims relating to the cessation of an employer’s participation in group insurance plans are paid in priority in the event of bankruptcy proceedings.

[Charles Docherty, Assistant General Counsel, Canadian Bankers Association]

Good morning. My name is Charles Docherty and I am the assistant general counsel at the Canadian Bankers Association. With me today is Bill Kennedy, vice-president of special loans at the National Bank of Canada. We appreciate having the opportunity to appear before this committee today. The CBA has met with parliamentary committees in the past to discuss proposals similar to those contained in this bill, and we recognize this is a complex and difficult issue.

I would like to begin by briefly discussing the financial challenges presented by COVID-19.

When the pandemic hit in 2020, Canada's banks worked in lockstep with the federal government, the Bank of Canada and regulators to immediately implement a series of relief initiatives. Banks redeployed staff to create their own tailored support plans for individuals and small businesses to help them manage financial uncertainty and blunt the economic impact of COVID-19.

Canada's banks have helped close to 800,000 homeowners with mortgage flexibility and have provided more than 482,000 individuals with credit card payment deferrals. Banks worked with the Government of Canada to efficiently and securely deliver the Canada emergency response benefit to more than 3.4 million Canadians, and facilitated interest-free loans to more than 869,000 small businesses through the Canada emergency business account. Banks will continue to stand by their customers and bring tailored solutions to help foster a strong recovery.

Part of a strong recovery, and a factor that is equally necessary to achieve economic growth in normal times, is access to affordable credit for businesses to allow them to invest and grow. It is the perspective of lenders to businesses of all sizes across the economy that we bring to the committee's deliberations today.

A key part of banks' roles as lenders is to carefully manage risk, which includes being subject to a robust prudential regulatory regime. Canada's banks take very seriously their responsibility in this regard, making lending decisions based on a number of factors. The current legislative and regulatory framework is obviously an important factor in those decisions. That includes the provisions set out in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

A key objective of insolvency legislation is to provide certainty in the market to promote stability and growth. A very careful balance has been achieved over several decades in the order of priority in bankruptcy. When lenders decide to lend to a business, they have to account for the risk of the business not paying back a loan and, if the business goes bankrupt, how much can be recovered. The proposals contained in this bill would require banks and others who provide capital to businesses to factor in potential losses associated with unfunded pension obligations first in the event of bankruptcy when making lending decisions. This could mean less access to capital and higher borrowing costs.

It is very difficult for a lender or other secured creditor to understand its exposure to a pension deficiency with a superpriority, as it would depend on the availability of actuarial valuations, which are only prepared periodically. Actuarial valuations represent a snapshot in time, are based on actuarial assumptions that change based on economic conditions, and establish theoretical liabilities. This limits transparency and affects the ability of a lender or other secured creditor to assess its risk. Furthermore, other unsecured creditors, such as suppliers, many of them small businesses, would also be faced with a reduced likelihood of recovering any amounts they are due, which may put pressure on their own finances.

Ultimately, changes to the order of priority in bankruptcy threaten to seriously undermine the delicate balance, with ripple effects across the economy, particularly when proposed changes are not undertaken within the context of a broader and more complete consideration of the entire insolvency legislative framework.

We encourage the committee to examine other potential solutions, including the possibility of companies establishing solvency reserve accounts and pension guarantee funds, such as those established in the U.K., the U.S. and right here in Ontario.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide the perspective of Canada's banks as you consider the proposals in Bill C-253.

We would be pleased to answer your questions.

[Mark Zigler, Barrister, Solicitor and Partner, Koskie Minsky LLP, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's good to be with you this morning.

I've been involved in this area for 40 years as a practitioner in a firm that represents exclusively pensioners, retirees, workers, insolvencies and of course other matters. In that time we've had some major cases and some major developments, but still we have a real problem with the protection of pensioners and disabled people, particularly in insolvencies. Most recently I've worked on the Nortel case and on the Sears case, or its beginnings, with my partner Andrew Hatnay, who also worked for the Wabush employees; I see they are also here. We've been involved in many of these insolvencies.

Regrettably, in 40 years of doing this, I've seen how hard pensioners get hit. These are unfunded future promises for their labour. Sometimes the corporations can fund them and sometimes they can't. Forty years ago we talked about surpluses most of the time. Now we talk about huge deficits, and also, a sign of the times, lower interest rates. That creates big problems for pensions and pensioners. When there's an insolvency, there is a big hit. We see pensions cut in half or even more, without any protection to speak of under our legislation.

I have to say that during those same 40 years, I and my colleagues have appeared before many committees of the Commons and the Senate. There have been many studies. I remember the first time, in the early 1980s, appearing before Senator Molson's Senate banking committee, when nothing much was being done. Now, at least, in the 2000s, since 2005 and 2006.... We had the wage earner protection program in 2009, and there have been some enhancements since 2018. This legislation has assisted mostly wage earners for lost wages, with maybe some current pension contributions as opposed to the big special contributions that represent the deficits in pension plans. It's helped active employees. It hasn't helped disabled employees who have unfunded disability programs, and it really hasn't helped pensioners in terms of special payments, but at least we made a dent in the early 2000s.

Regrettably, Canada stands way behind other OECD countries in this area. Even the U.S., with its more laissez-faire philosophy, has a pension benefits guarantee fund corporation that protects up to $60,000 U.S. a year in pensions. The U.K. Pension Protection Fund does even better. I think it's about 50,000 pounds. Here in Ontario we have a small guarantee fund that protects all of $1,500 a month in pensions. No other province has anything. The federal government has never acted. We created a wage earner protection fund for lost wages, but we haven't created a special fund for pensions.

In this respect, we are way behind other OECD countries. Other countries, besides the U.K. and the U.S., don't have this issue as much for another reason: They have much better public pension plans and social security programs than we do. Canada is really behind the times in this area. It is sad and an embarrassment, because it hurts pensioners. Having seen the devastation to people's pensions—you'll hear more about it today—we have to do something about it.

As an advocate, I recognize that insolvency is a zero-sum game, but the doomsday scenarios that are painted by those who say lending will dry up if you create a superpriority haven't proven to be true. We have a wage earner protection fund. We have a small superpriority for wages. Lending hasn't dried up.

In this respect, I want to quote some of the academic studies in this area. because there's one thing you can do here. I understand that a totally open-ended situation like Bill C-253, where there's a superpriority for all pension special payments and disabled payments, can be problematic. Professors Janis Sarra and Ronald Davis of UBC's Faculty of Law have done several studies for the federal government. The most recent one was dated January 2019. There was a letter to the Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada director.

This is not my idea, but I totally endorse it. You can create the superpriority, like Bill C-253, and put a cap on it. They recommend a $50,000 cap for an individual pensioner's liability. That will not dry up lending. It might increase some prices of lending, but we've seen that lending hasn't dried up. The other thing to do is to create a federally sponsored guarantee fund. I should note that you can create a cap and you can make them rank equally with secured creditors.

With respect to a guarantee fund, I understand there are federal-provincial issues, but you should create a study to have the provinces and the federal government work in this area. That is important.

My time is up, so subject to any questions, that's all I have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I call this meeting to order. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting 43 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

The first hour today will be spent on Bill C-253, and then we will move in camera for the second hour to review our report.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I'll outline a few rules to follow.

Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. Please select your preference now.

As a reminder, all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. When you are not speaking, your microphone should be on mute.

As is my normal practice, I will hold up a yellow card for when you have 30 seconds left in your intervention, and I will hold up the red card for when your time for questions has expired. Please keep your screen in gallery view so that you can see the cards when I hold them up. I don't want to cut anyone off, but we have a tight schedule today, so when you see the card, please take note.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 12, the committee is meeting to continue its study of Bill C-253, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

I will now welcome our witnesses.

With us today, we have Mr. Mark Zigler, barrister, solicitor and partner at Koskie Minsky. From the Canadian Bankers Association, we have Charles Docherty, assistant general counsel, and Bill Kennedy, vice-president, special loans, with the National Bank of Canada. From Chrysler Canada Retirees, we have Cody Cooper, president and board chair.

We also welcome Gordon St‑Gelais, president of the Comité des retraités de Mines Wabush, in Sept‑Îles.

As well, we have from Insolvency Institute of Canada, Robert I. Thornton, lawyer and partner.

Each witness will have up to five minutes to present, followed by rounds of questions.

We will start with Mr. Zigler.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Dominic Lemieux]

This amounts to taking money out of our pensioners' pockets and redistributing it to shareholders, who are well off, for the most part.

I would come back to my initial proposal. First, Bill C‑253 has to be passed. In addition, the provinces have to ensure that pension funds are 100% funded. It is indecent for a company to give money to its shareholders when it is not paying its contribution to the pension fund. That is the same thing as me, as a head of household who is about to retire, being in debt and my credit cards being maxed out, but deciding to head south for two weeks. It would make no sense to leave my children like that, in a vulnerable position. Well, that is exactly what we allow, in Canada: taking money from pensioners' pockets, from the most vulnerable people, and distributing it to company shareholders.

[Dominic Lemieux]

Thank you for the question.

I would say that this is not the time to niggle or fret over minor problems; it is time to move forward. The bill is not perfect, but I think we have momentum and we have a duty, as a society, to proceed quickly and protect the most vulnerable people in our society, who have no other resources to be able to get their heads above water.

As I said earlier, often, when a tragedy or an accident happens, like a plane crash, everyone says this must never happen again. Today, you have the power to say that the tragedies our Canadian pensioners go through must stop. We have to seize the opportunity and move forward.

To answer your question, I would say that we are satisfied with the bill as it stands. My life consists of negotiating collective agreements, and I have never negotiated a collective agreement that was perfect for the workers I represented. We have to find satisfactory compromises, and the same is true today. We are satisfied with what Bill C‑253 is proposing.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to highlight Mr. Lemieux's comment about the importance of prioritizing retirees who do not have the ability to make up their losses in this debate.

I would also like to ask him a question.

Mr. Lemieux, you have seen what is in Bill C‑253, which the committee will have to consider clause by clause. Are there points in the bill to which you would propose concrete changes, or would you strongly suggest that we adopt it as it stands?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Some companies have availed themselves of the Canada emergency wage subsidy during the pandemic. This is a sort of artificial support that could postpone the timing of a bankruptcy in some cases. I am afraid that in the fall, when the various subsidy programs end, we are going to see a number of bankruptcies.

Are you afraid of this? If we do not pass Bill C‑253 before the fall, what might the repercussions be for workers and pensioners?

[Dominic Lemieux]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

I think there will be no impact on Canadian taxpayers. Bill C‑253 would be zero cost to the government, since we are not asking that pension plans be financed.

As my colleague Nicolas Lapierre said, this bill will even help companies to recover. When a business is in financial trouble, then, of course, the employees' representatives are concerned. We have to remember that the company needs the banks' money in order to restructure.

That said, Bill C‑253 is zero cost to Canadian taxpayers and the Government of Canada. That is why we are saying that it is a good compromise: while it is not perfect for anyone, it would be a giant step forward. I think we can set politics aside and work together to protect Canadian retirees, particularly during a pandemic, and help them to maintain a decent lifestyle.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I particularly liked what Mr. Lapierre had to say.

I have a question for either of the Steelworkers representatives.

In concrete terms, what will the repercussions of Bill C‑253 be for the government and taxpayers? What financial impact may it have on balanced budgets?

[Nicolas Lapierre]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you also to the committee members.

I would simply like to add one point. The reason why the previous bills were not accepted by the various parties is that pension plans were treated as claims that took priority over banks, which made it difficult for companies to get back on their feet.

I participated in the lobbying in 2018‑19. As my colleague Mr. Lemieux said, we met with 250 MPs and senators and the fact that pension plans were ranked ahead of banks was a concern.

Under Bill C‑253, pension plans would not be ranked ahead of banks, but would be ranked ahead of school boards and municipal taxes. We believe that this would allow for a balance to be struck between employees' rights, pension plans, and the need to keep companies operating.

In the very concrete case of Cliffs Mining on the North Shore in eastern Quebec, among the creditors, the City of Sept-Îles ranked before the pension plans. This meant that the city received $10 million in unpaid taxes, the equivalent of the shortfall in the pension plans. This very concrete case shows that if pension plans had ranked before municipalities and school boards, the retirees' pensions could have been secured.

Of course, passage of Bill C‑253 by parliamentarians would not guarantee that the money would always be available, since every case is different. However, it would give us an additional chance, since pension plans would go up in the ranking of creditors. It would be a good compromise in order to balance the economy, workers' rights and retirees' rights.

To some extent, this bill reflects the lobbying we did with you. It also reflects your concerns. It is more flexible, but it would be a giant step forward for pension plans, which would be ranked ahead of municipalities and school boards. It is therefore important to see this bill as a way of providing the necessary balance that you, our parliamentarians, expressed a desire to see during our lobbying efforts.

[Trish McAuliffe]

Yes.

This is an election year. The democratic solution is this: The governments we elect are beholden to serving the electorate, and that's us. Make this a reality and support Bill C-253.

Thank you.

[Trish McAuliffe, President, National Pensioners Federation]

Greetings, and thank you for this opportunity to present to the INDU committee review on Bill C-253.

My name is Trish McAuliffe, and I'm president of the National Pensioners Federation, representing nearly one million members across Canada for over 75 years—not me in particular, but we have been around for 75 years.

We have a strong advocacy group on pension protection. Today, we're here to support Bill C-253, and respectfully, I would like to support your committee with our posed question of “Why now?” after nearly two decades of seeing similar bills being presented in the House of Commons to no avail.

What is different now is our emerging seniors demographic and the 4.2 million retired seniors who rely on defined benefit pension plans.

DB plans are known to be an essential part of Canada’s three economic pillars of our retirement system. We must safeguard all of this, and it will be at no cost to the government, as proposed here in Bill C-253.

Further, it is a COVID crisis response, and for years to come. It is true that the government has provided financial backups for seniors with increases in OAS and GIS funding, recognizing that it is important for every senior to live and retire in dignity at all costs. The best and most efficient way to provide a secure and predictable income for all Canadian workers is, in fact, by having protected defined benefit pension plans and a healthy CPP. Otherwise, government-funded backstops and hard times would only continue to mount.

Again, I know we are all here because we understand this and we want to ensure that all Canadians have a secure retirement income.

Noticeably, the Conservative Party of the past voted down similar bills, yet the new leader, the Honourable Erin O'Toole, has pledged his support towards building better relationships with unions and workers. Here, Bill C-253 could be the start of that opportunity.

Let me further emphasize that defined benefit pension plans are the most efficient way to use current earnings to fund retirement. Worker-organized workplaces, such as unions and associations, have proven track records of working with employers to ensure that defined benefit pension plans are sustainable. Sustainable plans are in workers' best interests as well. Pension plan members pay a significant portion of the cost of their pensions, and these plans are a part of the negotiated total compensation package—a contract, if you will, that your investment will be there for you at the end of your work life, guaranteed. In this context, a “defined benefit” means that the pension promises that an employer makes to a worker become legally binding obligations on the employer. We would argue that it's a deemed trust. Why should that change in priority at any time, and why are retirees not at the table or, at the very least, consulted?

The Canadian economic landscape of the past two decades has offered up many reasons for financial crisis for big business. I experienced this fright myself in 2008, just shy of my own retirement. Workers associations and unions came to the table to negotiate with their employers and the government in the 2008 bailouts to find viable solutions ahead of bankruptcy. Workers and retirees gave concessions, and today those corporations thrive. Workers and retirees have never recovered, nor are they expected to. Is that fair?

Ultimately, banks thrive. Why do we fixate on the lenders and their actors when we've seen, for the past 20 years and more, that it's the retirees, the workers, their families and the community that bear the heavy burden from such sudden bankruptcies?

No sector is untouched by the harms of the CCAA and the BIA. Today, Laurentian University is the first Ontario university to declare insolvency and enter CCAA proceedings, the first line of defence under financial distress. These are public sector workers, and undoubtedly they'll be followed by P3 workplaces as we promote them.

History has shown us that sharpshooter insolvency lawyers have made quarter-century careers of abusing bankruptcy and insolvency legislation to disassemble companies and sell them off for pennies on the dollar. They regularly gut workers' pensions, tear up their contracts and enrich their clients at the expense of employees who were never in positions of power. It's their job, and they're well compensated for it. What's more, they've been destroying the lives of employees and families for the 20 years while we have watched governments debate this devil of a detail.

Madame Gill reminded you of the social toll of bankruptcies. Well, here's a life lesson: Don't expect a different result when you keep on doing the same harm. Try something different.

As coalition advocates for pension security, we have provided many solutions with credible submissions with no cost to government. I ask this question: What have opponents of Bill C-253 or the past likes of it provided?

[Hassan Yussuff, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Chair.

First let me thank the committee for the opportunity to present to you today.

I represent the Canadian Labour Congress, Canada's largest central labour body in the country, and it speaks on national issues on behalf of three million working men and women from coast to coast. The CLC, of course, supports Bill C-253, and I want to thank the members who voted to advance this bill.

For years, the CLC has advocated changing the bankruptcy laws in our country. Workers and pensioners should be first in line, not last, when it comes to paying creditors. Workers pay for their defined benefits, pensions and other post-retirement employment benefits by deferring part of their compensation. Employers have a legal obligation to pay these promised pensions in retirement. It is totally unacceptable that earned benefits are taken away from pensioners, through no fault of their own, at a time in their lives when they are least able to adjust. Pensioners cannot simply go back to work when their pensions are cut. They need the post-retirement drug coverage and benefits that they have earned through working for a lifetime.

This tragedy has gone on too long. It has occurred too often. It cannot go on any longer. It is time to fix this problem.

The insolvency process is rigged against working people. The recent Laurentian University example shows how small unions are isolated and besieged by CCAA proceedings. Workers are threatened with devastating job losses unless they agree to make deep concessions to wages, pensions and benefits.

The CLC believes that public institutions should be excluded altogether from the CCAA and the BIA. The federal insolvency laws are meant for commercial corporate reorganizations. They were never meant to provide cover for provincial governments that refuse to live up to their fiscal obligations and expect workers and pensioners to pay the costs. The CLC would prefer that the claims of workers and pensioners be moved to the front of the line, as Bill C-253 seeks to do.

If there is no consensus to do so, the CLC believes that all parties should consider granting pensioners' and employees' claims the status of “preferred claim”. This would place them immediately behind the secure creditors in priority of claims, but ahead of unsecured creditors. We believe that treating employees' claims as preferred claims will materially improve outcomes for workers and pensioners.

However, getting the data to establish this is not easy. Currently the data is controlled by the big accounting firms—especially Ernst & Young, KPMG, Deloitte and PricewaterhouseCoopers —that act as monitors in CCAA proceedings and trustees in bankruptcies. There is a clear public policy purpose for making this data available for researchers. We are seeking aggregate anonymized data for large business insolvencies in which pension deficits are involved. We are not seeking commercially sensitive data. In our view, the superintendent of bankruptcy should be required to obtain this data from monitors and make it available to researchers.

We also recommend that the federal government conduct a feasibility study to establish a national mandatory pension insurance scheme for Canada. This study should form the basis of discussions with the provinces to establish a national scheme to rescue stranded pensions.

Finally, the government must stop company executives from enriching themselves and shareholders when there is a serious pension deficit.

The 2017 Sears Canada CCAA filing and liquidation was an outrage. Beginning in 2010, Sears paid $1.5 billion to shareholders in dividends and share buybacks. By doing so, Sears paid five and a half times more to its shareholders than it would have cost to entirely erase the deficit in its DB pension plan. Sears' decision in 2013 to pay a $500-million dividend when the pension deficit stood at $313 million would alone have been enough to eliminate the deficit. Instead, Sears Canada pensioners outside of Ontario were forced to accept cuts in benefits. This is a profound injustice. It should never be permitted to happen again.

Thank you very much. I look forward to any questions that committee members may have.

I wish all the best to you.

[Michael Powell, President, Canadian Federation of Pensioners]

Good morning.

My name is Mike Powell. I am the president of the Canadian Federation of Pensioners.

CFP's 23 member organizations advocate directly for over 300,000 defined benefit pensioners, and our allies represent millions more. We support Bill C-253 and the extension of superpriority to pension deficits. This is the simplest solution to meaningfully improve pension protection for Canadian seniors.

In our Canadian regulatory environment, the only single place to protect pensions is within insolvency regulations. This committee and Parliament face a decision between the status quo—which leaves seniors' future financial well-being at risk and perpetuates an unfair system designed to exclude seniors from protecting their own financial interests, an unfair system that has been proven to significantly harm older Canadians—and a new future that offers protection to vulnerable seniors.

I'd like to address five concerns that stakeholders in insolvency may raise.

The first is that lending rates would increase for companies with defined-benefit plans, leading to more insolvencies. This argument was central in 2010 when a similar bill, Bill C-501, was debated. In 2011, though, the pension deficit was ruled a deemed trust by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in the Indalex case. A deemed trust is the highest priority in insolvency, above the superpriority envisioned in Bill C-253. This ruling stood for two years before it was overturned.

It is critical to note that there was no fallout from this decision. The wave of insolvencies of companies with DB plans that was predicted did not occur. Borrowers and lenders made accommodations, and business continued.

The second is that there would be fewer restructurings and more liquidations. This is also an old and flawed argument that would get a failing grade in a first-year business policy course. Envision submitting a paper whose key assumption of your argument was, “Given a significant change in a regulatory environment, business management would not change their critical strategic decisions; therefore, I will use past results without adjustment in my future model.” Along with a failing grade, there would likely be a comment that basing your argument on inept company management is not recommended in policy development.

The third concern is that this would discourage new DB plans and lead companies to close existing plans. The harsh reality is that DB plans have been on the decline for many years, despite actions taken by governments to reduce costs for companies.

The fourth is that other creditors would be disadvantaged. This is based on the false notion that stakeholders are treated equally today. The impact of insolvency is much greater on pensioners than on other creditors. Pensioners lose a significant portion of their income for the rest of their lives; other stakeholders only lose a portion of the money owed them at the time of insolvency, not their entire contract, nor do they face future reductions in revenue due to the insolvency of one of their customers.

There's also a difference of control. The other stakeholders at the insolvency table have all negotiated their financial exposure. They've made conscious decisions to address payment terms, prices, interest rates and contract conditions. Government treats seniors as wards of the state. Pensioners have no ability to control, approve or even influence their financial risk in insolvency. Pensioners are not even ensured a seat at the insolvency table.

The fifth is that changes made in the 2019 budget have levelled the playing field. Pension protection in 2019 is the proverbial bailing of the Titanic with a teacup. You can measure progress, but it won't change the outcome. We need to ask this: Would the changes in budget 2019 have protected the Sears pensioners? The answer is no.

In summary, government has appointed itself as sole guardian of the vulnerable seniors' future financial well-being. Government legislation precludes pensioners from any form of control or even influence over their pensions in insolvency. Bill C-253 addresses this imbalance.

This committee and Parliament are faced with a decision. You know of the real price paid by seniors left in collateral damage in an insolvency. This is fact. You will hear concerns raised by other stakeholders of theoretical harms. This is speculation. The choice is yours to make. Our 300,000 members strongly urge you to stop treating pensions as piggy banks in insolvency and support Bill C-253.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I call this meeting to order. Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 42 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House Order of January 25, 2021. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

For this meeting, the first hour will be spent on Bill C-253. Then we will move in camera for the second hour to review a report.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either “Floor”, “English” or “French”. Please make sure to select your preference now.

This is a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. When you are not speaking, your microphone should be on mute.

As is my normal practice, I will hold up a yellow card when you have 30 seconds left in your intervention. I will hold up a red card when your time for questions has expired. Please keep your screen in gallery view so that you can see the cards when I hold them up.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 12, 2021, the committee is meeting to continue its study of Bill C-253, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

I'd like to now welcome our witnesses.

From the Canadian Federation of Pensioners, we have Michael Powell, president. From the Canadian Labour Congress, we have Hassan Yussuff, president, and Chris Roberts, director, social and economic policy. From the National Pensioners Federation, we have Trish McAuliffe, president.

We also have two representatives of the United Steelworkers with us: Dominic Lemieux, director of district 5, Quebec, and Nicolas Lapierre, representative, Sept-Îles regional office.

Each witness group will have up to five minutes to present, followed by rounds of questions.

With that, we will start with Mr. Powell.

You have the floor for five minutes.