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.

Pension Protection Act

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here at this, the final reading of this bill, before the vote tomorrow and hopefully the bill's going on to the Senate.

It has been a long journey. Over the last at least 10 years, possibly longer, there have been numerous efforts to bring forward bills to get the pension protection Canadians deserve.

Basically, when I looked at the work that had been done, in every one of them there was something that not everyone could agree on, so I cherry-picked from all the different ideas that people could agree on and said, “Let us at least do something. Let us move in the direction of good.”

That is how Bill C-228 came into being. Previously, there was a bill, Bill C-253 in the last parliamentary session, which made it to the industry committee. It was on the priority of pensions.

This bill would do three things.

It would table a report in the House on the solvency of pension funds, so we can have greater transparency and know which funds are in trouble.

It would create a mechanism for us to transfer funds into an insolvent fund from elsewhere in the business, with no tax implication, so we can fix the problem before it becomes a difficulty for the pensioner.

Then, in the event of a bankruptcy, we would pay out pensions in priority over secured creditors like large banks, preferred creditors, and unsecured creditors. That will put pensioners in a much better position. Pension funds will be solvent, in general, and when there is a bankruptcy, large creditors are way more likely to be able to survive one company's going bankrupt than an individual who has paid into their pension and is counting on it for their retirement.

The bill has had much study. It has heard input from all kinds of stakeholders, and we are here today with what I think is a really good balance of all the rights of the pensioners and those of the suppliers. I think we have a very acceptable balance.

I want to thank a number of people, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, the member for Manicouagan and the member for Joliette, as well as all the finance committee members. There have been numerous people who have helped this bill along, provided their input and provided suggestions to improve it. I want to thank the member for La Prairie, who traded his private member's spot for today in order to move this up quickly and get it over to the Senate.

It just shows that there is broad support for the bill. When we look at the concerns that were raised about the bill, there was one amendment that was made at committee to include severance pay and termination pay in the priority. I supported that. I said I supported it at second reading, but it was ruled out of scope by the Chair and eventually back in the House, where the Liberals wanted the Speaker to rule on it. I think the Speaker was correct in saying that committees do not have the power to put things in that are out of scope, but then we brought a unanimous consent motion.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona brought the motion to have the House decide to put that amendment back in. Unfortunately, at that point, the Liberals did not support that amendment, and the motion did not receive unanimous consent.

That amendment is now out of the bill. That was the controversial part. I think we can agree that the rest is the right thing to do for Canadians.

I am happy to hear the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader say tonight that he has not yet made his decision on how he is going to vote. I would encourage him to vote yes to Bill C-228.

Now is the time, in this parliamentary session, for us, after 10 years of bringing various and sundry bills, to finally do the right thing for Canadians and protect people who have worked their whole lives and paid into a pension fund. It is time to give it the priority it needs to have.

I look forward to the vote tomorrow, and I look forward to having all parties in the House support Bill C-228.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-228, today at third reading. It was successfully passed as amended at the finance committee. Bill C-228 is centred on pension protection, working to prevent the loss of pensions for employees whose companies have declared bankruptcy.

Canadians deserve to know that the contributions they have made their whole lives will result in a secure financial future for themselves and their families, but the last few years have shown us that security can disappear in a moment. My bill would remedy this issue.

The bill would do three things. First, it would require that an annual report on the solvency of pension funds be tabled here in the House of Commons for greater transparency and oversight. Second, it would provide a mechanism to transfer funds into a pension fund to restore it to solvency. Finally, in the case of bankruptcy, pensions would be paid out ahead of large creditors and executive bonuses. The acceptance so far by this Parliament and the good work that has been done on the bill by all parties show that there is a common spirit and desire to improve pension security for Canadians. For that, the House has my sincere thanks.

Over the last 10 years, efforts by many parties and senators have been put forward to introduce bills to improve pension protection in Canada. I cherry-picked from all the ideas that were previously supported in the House and put them together in Bill C-228. Learning from both the numerous cases of company collapse and the various pension protection bills that came before to improve pension protection in a way we can all live with is my goal here today.

To put things in context, I want to point out that there have been far too many cases of businesses that have declared bankruptcy to the great detriment of their own employees.

Nortel Networks declared bankruptcy in 2009, leaving 200,000 Canadians to fend for themselves when it came to their pensions. An article published in the Financial Post in 2016 entitled “The big lesson from Nortel Networks: Pension plans aren't a guarantee” gave a detailed account of the battle waged by these employees as they tried to recover even part of their share of Nortel's assets, which were estimated at $7.3 billion. Legal and consulting fees totalled over $1.9 billion, which further reduced the amount these former employees were seeking.

According to CBC, at the end of 2016, former Nortel employees were pleased with the agreement they reached under which they would get a payout of 40¢ on the dollar. That was an improvement over the 10¢ on the dollar they were initially offered.

However, in 2020, the employees lost out again when the Ontario pension benefits guarantee fund managed to reclaim some $200 million from monies allocated to pensioners in Nortel's bankruptcy proceedings.

In all, the whole mess with Nortel turned into a more than 11-year battle for former employees who failed several times while simply trying to obtain the financial security to which they were entitled. That is just one example.

Sears Canada is another infamous case and perhaps one of the most well known. Between 2005 and 2013, Sears Canada paid more than $3 billion in dividends to shareholders, even as it was operating at a loss and its pension plan was underfunded by about $133 million. In 2017, Sears Canada declared bankruptcy after attempting to restructure. During the restructuring, Sears Canada faced heavy criticism for giving retention bonuses to 43 executives and senior managers, but it did not plan to offer severance to laid-off employees. Allegedly, the bonuses were intended to maintain the morale of senior staff at the cost of providing necessary funds for the company's pension plan, leaving more than 17,000 pensioners cheated of their full pensions.

Sears pensioners learned their pensions were going to be cut by 30%. Seventy-two-year-old Ron Husk of Mount Pearl, Newfoundland, told the CBC that the cut caused his monthly pension payment to drop by $450. Many said they would have to go back to work in sales, in their seventies. Pensioners in Ontario fared marginally better because of the provincial mechanism that protects the first $1,500 of a pensioner's payment, but it made little difference overall. In today's era of extreme inflation, it is helping even less.

Looking back further, when the T. Eaton Company folded in 1999, the vast majority of its 24,500 employees were terminated without being paid termination pay and severance pay, as well as other amounts owed to them. All employee and retiree health and other benefits were cancelled. In the end, the liquidator released payments to employees and retirees of just 53.7 cents on the dollar. There are several other noted cases where courts have ruled in favour of creditors and lenders over pensioners, including Indalex, Stelco and Grant Forest Products among others.

In the Indalex case, Indalex Limited obtained creditor protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, also known as the CCAA. The court authorized Indalex to obtain debtor in possession, or DIP, financing, which would provide the company with loans to continue operating its businesses during the restructuring period. These DIP lenders had superior priority over the existing debt, equity and other claims.

At a hearing for approval of this motion in 2008, two groups of pension claimants opposed this distribution, asserting that the assets equal to the funding deficiencies in the two defined-benefit pension plans administered by Indalex were deemed to be held in trust and should be given to the pension plans in priority over the DIP lenders. The CCAA court ruled in favour of the DIP lenders, not the pensioners. This decision was upheld and became a precedent for the Grant Forest Products case. Sadly, many other examples of workers who did not receive their full pensions exist.

There is no doubt that this has been a problem for a long time. The government needs to intervene by taking stringent measures to rectify this and protect Canadian workers.

I want to acknowledge the contribution of some of my House of Commons colleagues. Many MPs from all parties have come to see me to propose bills on this same topic.

Currently there is a requirement for an annual report on the solvency of a fund, but it goes to the superintendent of finance, and it is not clear what, if any, actions are taken. In fact from 2003 to 2020, there is evidence that companies continued to have insolvent pension funds. My bill would require this report to be tabled here for greater transparency and oversight. Currently the average federally managed fund is at 109% solvency, so it is a good time to implement the measures of this bill.

The second part of the bill is to allow companies with insolvent pension funds to transfer additional funds from other assets in the business into the pension fund, without tax implications, to make it solvent.

In October 2017 and again in 2020, the Bloc member for Manicouagan introduced her private member's bill, Bill C-253, which would amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the CCAA. The bill would provide priority status for pensions in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. This bill ultimately made it to committee, but died on the Order Paper when the Liberals called the election. I have incorporated her bill here with some suggestions brought forward.

There was concern that implementing an immediate priority for pensions could have unintended consequences. The suggestion was to have the coming into force of the reporting on the insolvency of funds to happen immediately, along with a mechanism to top up the fund and restore it to solvency. However, it was recommended to have several years for companies to get their funds in order before implementing the priority part.

Five years was the period suggested originally in the bill, but there were stakeholders who preferred to see it be three years. At committee, we were able to come to a compromise of four years for the coming into force of the priority portion of the bill. I want to also acknowledge that the Liberal member for Whitby sponsored an e-petition on pension protection, supporting this very issue.

My bill has been reviewed by a variety of stakeholders, from the Canadian Labour Congress to financial institutions and many pension associations nationally, including the Canadian Federation of Pensioners and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons.

Bill VanGorder, the chief operating officer of CARP, offered this quote:

Most older Canadians have fixed incomes but face rising costs, growing inflation, an unpredictable economy and retirement savings that suffer as a result. The Canadian Association of Retired Persons...believes it is vital that the Federal Government protect pensioners by giving them “priority” status and creates a pension insurance program that insures 100% of pension liabilities. This proposal would go a long way in making that happen.

Some banks and large financial institutions have expressed their reluctance to me. They are concerned that, if pensioners are given priority, companies with insolvent funds will have to pay higher interest rates to obtain credit and will be less likely to apply for credit.

This is part of the reason why the implementation schedule should allow time for companies with insolvent funds to get their finances in order. I would like to point out that, if a company cannot restore the solvency of its fund within four years, it should indeed pay a higher interest rate to obtain credit because it really does present a higher risk.

In summary, this means reporting to Parliament on the solvency of funds for greater transparency so we can ensure actions are being taken to protect pensions, creating a mechanism to top up the funds to restore solvency, and, in the event of bankruptcy, ensuring that people who have worked their whole lives receive the pension they were promised.

An amendment was brought forward by the member for Elmwood—Transcona to include severance and termination pay at the same priority as pensions, ahead of secured creditors, and it was presented at finance committee. Indeed, discussions were held with all parties regarding this, and at second reading I said I would support this measure.

However, it was ruled out of scope by the clerk and the chair of the finance committee. The committee then voted in the majority to overturn the ruling of the chair and add this amendment to the bill.

Subsequently, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader asked for a Speaker's ruling to eliminate the amendment since it was out of scope. The Speaker did rule it out of scope, and that amendment does not appear in the bill.

I respect the decision of the Speaker, although I am disappointed that this addition did not go forward, since I think people should receive their severance in the case of bankruptcy. However, with the priority falling after secured creditors, preferred creditors and unsecured creditors, it is unlikely they will get it, which contravenes the law in many provinces. In Ontario, for example, the law is that people get a minimum of one week of salary for every year of service.

Other amendments at committee included the deletion of clause 6, which eliminated a mechanism to get third party insurance on the insolvent portion of a pension fund. No one seemed to think this was as brilliant an idea as I originally thought. Clause 7 was also deleted to clean up sections 8.1 and 8.2, which were holdovers from previous legislation.

I want to thank everyone who helped to improve my bill at committee, and for passing it there expediently to bring it to this stage.

In summary, I am now asking all members of the House and the Senate to work to get this bill over the finish line and truly improve pension security for Canadians. We are so close. Let this 44th Parliament be the one to ensure that Canadians are able to live with dignity into their golden years.

Our continued efforts will ensure that Canadians are able to support themselves and their families with the pensions they have worked over a lifetime to earn. Please vote to support Bill C-228.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm very appreciative of the conversation and the comments. I was going to say something a little later on, but I think I'd like to say it now.

I forgot which of our honourable members officially submitted this into our deliberations as part of our current bill, but we had accepted the INDU report of a study of Bill C-253, which was done in the previous Parliament. I did want to recognize there were some excellent recommendations that were proposed by business leaders, insolvency leaders, pension leaders and advocates, which I think, if we had made the time to be able to consider them, may have been able to create a stronger bill, in my opinion, one that would have maximized the ability for companies to restructure while protecting 100% of the defined benefit pensions of pensioners.

I just want to lament a little bit that we have not been able to have the time. I don't blame anyone. I think there are many things that are before us. However, I do want to formally acknowledge there were some outstanding recommendations that have been coming through and, due to time and space limitations, we've not been able to consider some of them, which I think maybe is to the detriment overall of this bill.

I just wanted to submit that formally, Mr. Chair.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses who are here.

I want to assure Monsieur Lapierre that the priority that is assigned in Bill C-228 is exactly that which was put into Bill C-253 by my Bloc colleague, Marilène Gill. It is before banks, secured creditors, preferred creditors and unsecured creditors.

I only have six minutes, so I am going to ask some quick questions.

My first question is for Mr. VanGorder.

Do you agree with the priority that we've assigned to pensions in Bill C-228?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

The clerk has just emailed you the motion I want to make. If you need time to study it and discuss it, just let me know, but I don't think it's a problem. The motion reads as follows:

That, for its study of Bill C‑228, in the interest of concision and efficiency, the committee consider all the evidence and documents gathered by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology during the 2nd Session of the 43rd Parliament as part of its study of Bill C‑253.

You may recall that a bill similar to Bill C‑228 had been tabled and that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology had studied this issue thoroughly. Our committee should consider everything that was done by the previous committee on Bill C‑253.

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to rise today to speak to this very important piece of legislation tabled by my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton.

Pension protection has been at the forefront of our legislature for what seems like years. Every Parliament has had various attempts to protect worker pensions from insolvency. They are tabled and it seems that every Parliament has this issue which we all agree is important, but it dies on the Order Paper.

Hopefully, Bill C-228, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, will finally see our legislature take concrete action to protect Canadian workers and their hard-earned pensions.

Bill C-228 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to ensure that claims in respect of unfunded liabilities or its solvency deficiencies of a pension plan are accorded priority in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. It also provides that an employer has to maintain group insurance plans and provide benefits to, or in respect of, its employees or former employees.

This area has particular importance to me given my previous career as a financial adviser and current career as the official opposition's shadow minister for seniors. Workers spend their entire lives building something for them to enjoy during their golden years. Bill C-228 is a big step forward in securing those years for future generations.

This legislation builds off two previous pieces of legislation that were before the House: Bill C-405 in the 42nd Parliament and Bill C-253 in the 43rd Parliament.

Bill C-405, which was tabled by my hon. colleague from Durham, was unfortunately defeated at second reading. The logic from the government according to the now Minister of Justice, was that the “proposed changes reduce the flexibility of courts based on particular situations and facts. These current flexibilities help to achieve the best outcome for the company and the pensioners and they might conflict with important policy objectives.” The NDP felt that the legislation did not accurately protect pensions.

The following Parliament saw a little more progress on the file. The member for Manicouagan managed to garner enough support to send her attempt to committee despite opposition from the Liberals, who claimed:

[T]he employee group benefit claims would be weakened and that could ultimately weaken companies in their ability to restructure and affect that sense of competitiveness of firms with respect to defined benefit pension plans as well as group insurance benefit plans, which would not necessarily help pensioners and workers in all cases. It has the potential to threaten the existence of defined pension plans.

While the bill may not have been perfect, we on this side of the House were willing to put the financial security of Canadians ahead of any partisan differences and we pledged to send the bill to committee so that it could be improved. Over seven meetings and after consultations with dozens of witnesses and expert testimony, the bill was returned to Parliament amended and improved.

I bring up Bill C-253 because this legislation that we are speaking about here today is very much a spiritual successor to that earlier piece of legislation. The two pieces of legislation share a very large amount of the same text. What Bill C-228 does is build on the very good work that was done on the file in the last parliamentary sitting by amending the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, to empower the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to determine that the funding of a pension plan is impaired or that the pension plan administrator is at risk and to set out measures to be taken by the employer in respect of the funding of the plan in such cases.

Michael Powell, president of the Canadian Federation of Pensioners, said:

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.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff, former president of the Canadian Labour Congress, was also supportive, saying, “The CLC, of course, supports Bill C-253, and I want to thank the members who voted to advance this bill.”

Unfortunately, an election call meant the death knell for Bill C-253. While the bill itself is dead, the spirit of co-operation among all parties that followed Bill C-253 need not be.

During debate on Bill C-253, the legislation's previous iteration of Bill C-228, the former member for Hamilton Mountain called for support of the legislation, even though he had a similar piece of legislation tabled before the House, Bill C-259. Unless I missed my mark, that legislation has been reintroduced in this Parliament by the member for Elmwood—Transcona as Bill C-225. The former member for Hamilton Mountain said, “I feel strongly about the necessity of these protections put forward, so much that my bill, Bill C-259, contains equivalent measures to every article contained in this bill. I would like to let her and the House know that I am calling on all my NDP colleagues to support the bill at second reading and I hope to see it get to committee.”

I hope my honourable friend and his party will continue down the path of co-operation and multipartisanship that his predecessor did.

I mentioned earlier how I had a previous life as a financial adviser. I saw first-hand the complete destruction of livelihoods that tore through Hastings—Lennox and Addington when Nortel and Sears went belly up. The financial security of nearly 37,000 Canadians went up in smoke overnight.

These were terrible lessons that affected every single one of our ridings and lessons that we cannot continue to ignore. We, as a legislature, need to work toward protecting Canadian pensioners. We have before us a piece of legislation that has previously received support from the majority of parties in this House. It is a piece of legislation that, in fact, has been tabled by two separate parties. How often can we say that? It is a piece of legislation that has already gone through the scrutiny of a parliamentary committee and debate.

I would suggest to my colleagues in the House that we do the right thing, pass Bill C-228 into law and avoid the fate of so many other attempts to protect Canadian pensioners.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-228, a bill brought forward by my good friend and colleague, the MP for Sarnia—Lambton.

The intent of this excellently drafted bill is to offer concrete pension protection for Canadian seniors, something that is seriously lacking in Canada’s existing laws. In the context of rising inflation, the alarming increase in our national debt and climbing daily costs, this bill is never more needed than now. As the cost of living keeps going up, seniors will be left without enough to live on if their pensions are subject to insolvency.

A pension is the portion of a worker’s wages that companies put aside for the worker’s retirement. This is not only money that employees have earned; it is understood to be their reward for their years of hard work. It is heartbreaking to hear countless stories of employees who have had their pensions drastically cut and their plans for retirement dashed. One local example of the devastation that results in the absence of adequate pension protection is the former General Chemical plant, a company that was located in the town of Amherstburg in my riding. On the brink of bankruptcy, it pulled up stakes, leaving only hardship in its wake.

In an article in the Windsor Star in 2010, recently updated in 2020, we learned of Fran McLean and how she was impacted. Fran worked for 47 years at the Amherstburg plant. A significant portion of the money Fran had worked hard to set aside for her retirement during those 47 years was lost. She had worked all those years at the same company, sacrificing her time and energy and the better part of her life, only to have the bulk of her pension income taken from her.

Fran’s pension income fell from $2,500 to $1,900, and then came a final cut to $1,000 a month. Imagine the impact of an income cut of $1,500 during retirement years. What does this kind of situation do to a person's mental health? What does it do to their family? What does it say about our nation and the value we put on the seniors who have built our communities?

One of the greatest days of my life was when my grandson, Levi, came into this world. He is a joy to be with. One thing I especially look forward to as he grows up is to be able to buy him hockey gear and take him out for fun activities together with his grammy, my beautiful wife Allison, when we retire, but for those who have lost a major part of their pension, this can be a huge challenge. Now, on top of all that, inflation is making it difficult to even pay for necessities, never mind the things that bring us joy.

Those who have worked hard to contribute to their pensions in the first place now live in fear that without the proper laws in place to protect those pensions, all can be lost. Workers are not even considered priority creditors, and sometimes, as was the case at General Chemical, they are not at the table at all. That is just not right.

I want Canada to lead the way in rewarding hard-working seniors in what are supposed to be their golden years. I just do not see that with the current laws regarding pensions. All Canadians should have a secure and dignified retirement, along with peace of mind when it comes to the contributions they have made to their retirement pensions.

As General Chemical and Sears have shown, the security of a pension can be lost in a moment. We must and can do better for our seniors.

Cody Cooper lives in my riding. He is president of the Chrysler Canada retirees organization. Mr. Cooper puts it like this: “We need to stop using pensions as piggy banks to solve liquidity problems. It doesn’t cost taxpayers anything to ensure people get the pensions they worked their whole lives for.”

That is exactly right. We are not asking the government to pay money to anyone it does not belong to. To be clear, prioritizing workers during bankruptcy does not cost the taxpayer anything. If a company signs a contract with an employee, that agreement should be kept to the end of their employment, and in the case of a pension, to the end of the person’s life. A company should not be able to back out when it comes time to pay.

Bill C-228 brings together past bills of a similar nature and would add some new and significant changes to the existing legislation. The current legislation makes it optional for companies to act on insolvency. Meanwhile, courts can step in, but only voluntarily. This must change.

Bill C-228 answers the problem of pension insolvency in three main areas. First, it would require that an annual report on the solvency of pension funds be tabled here in the House of Commons for greater transparency and oversight. This is exactly the kind of issue that needs more transparency and oversight from the government. Second, it would provide a mechanism to transfer funds into a pension fund to restore it to solvency, to ensure the insolvent portion until the fund can be restored. These first two points will make sure there is scrutiny to ensure that pension funds are solvent, that they remain solvent or that they are fixed if they are starting to slip. Third, in the case of bankruptcy, pensions would be paid out ahead of large creditors and especially executive bonuses. With respect to the latter, companies have been giving out bonuses or paying off their debt to creditors before they pay their employees' pensions. This is a classic example of the rich getting richer.

My good friend and colleague, the MP for Sarnia—Lambton, has shared in her op-ed in The Sarnia Observer that one of her neighbours was let go amid Sears's bankruptcy. At the end of the day, she was only paid 70¢ on the dollar, yet “All the executives got big bonuses”, she said, and “That is just not right.”

In the case of the Sears bankruptcy, former employees had the pain of losing their jobs at Sears and a portion of their pensions from the $270-million deficit in the pension plan. Bill McKinnon from Windsor, who started at Sears in 1975, said, “For us pensioners that were counting on that, we’ve lost our medical, we’ve lost our life insurance, we’ve lost our dental, we’ve lost our prescriptions, and by the looks of it, we’re going to lose over 20 per cent of our pension.”

The Canadian Association of Retired Persons, CARP, did a survey of its members who had pensions, and almost 40% said they were afraid they were going to outlive their money. This is the reality of the current legislation. Seniors have no control of their own money and no control over their finances for their retirement years.

Laura Tamblyn Watts is the chief executive of CanAge, a non-partisan national advocacy group for seniors, and a lawyer and seniors advocate. She said that “everyday Canadians” may not understand the technical terms in the law, but they understand the Sears Canada story. She notes, “For instance, if you tell somebody that the pensioners at Sears in the U.S. didn't lose any money or any benefits—but they lost 20 per cent (of their pension payments) in Canada and really all of their benefits—people are shocked to understand that the U.S. has better protection.”

Bill C-228 has taken into consideration the content of several previous bills, such as Bill C-405 from the Conservative MP for Durham, Bill C-253 from the Bloc member for Manicouagan and a bill from the NDP member for Elmwood—Transcona, who reintroduced the bill by former MP Scott Duvall. That was Bill C-259 in 2020 and is now Bill C-225. In drafting this bill, my hon. colleague has studied and researched the current laws, and has included the many organizations, experts and individuals needed to make this bill a success.

My colleague, the MP for Sarnia—Lambton, is open to amendments to this bill as debate and research continue at committee. Anything proposed that would improve pension protection for our seniors would be on the table for review. That is why I am more than happy to support this excellent bill. I commend my colleague for bringing this issue before the House. Furthermore, in my new role as shadow minister for labour, I am thrilled that this long overdue legislation has been presented to the House. Let us act now before we have another General Chemical or Sears. It is always a good time to do the right thing.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑228, which was introduced by my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton. I want to officially thank her. I may also have done so during my comments. I have thanked her personally but wanted to do so in the House. This is the kind of collaboration that allows us as parliamentarians to go even further, and this was confirmed in all of the questions and comments we have heard.

I do not think anyone in the House will be surprised to hear that I took a serious look at this bill. Again, there is absolutely no partisanship here. As my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton pointed out, I have introduced two bills on similar topics: Bill C‑372 in 2017, the same day that Sears declared bankruptcy, and Bill C‑253, during the previous Parliament, which has become Bill C‑264. It is an endorsement of everything going on in the House, because there is really a movement to get this bill passed.

Before I get to the matter at hand, I want to thank the people who worked on this bill, and I am sure my colleague will agree with me on this. This bill really affects everyone, Quebeckers and Canadians, in all types of businesses. We heard about Sears, but in my region this happened with a multinational mining company called Cliffs Natural Resources. I say “my region”, but there were also other areas affected.

Many people worked on this bill. Individuals, workers and retiree organizations all testified. My colleague mentioned some who have been supporting this bill since 2017. This bill is supported by approximately four million people across Canada, Quebec included, as well as by associations representing retirees and seniors. When we think about it, four million people out of approximately 40 million is a large proportion of the population that is asking the House of Commons to take action to protect pension funds.

I would particularly like to thank Gordon St‑Gelais, Kathleen Bound, Mario Levac, Nicolas Lapierre, Dominique Lemieux, Sandra Lévesque, Manon, Claire, Pierre, Ghislain, Anthony and Serge. There are so many others. I do not have time to name them all, but they are the ones who breathed life into this bill.

I repeat, my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton's bill really affects everyone. That is clear because, in my case, the very idea for the bill came from Cliffs Natural Resources retirees. That is real proof. Sometimes there is cynicism in politics, but this bill takes some of that away, because the bill really comes from the people. It shows that institutions can work properly when the will is there. I wanted to point that out to show that an MP is nothing without their constituents. If we want to represent them properly, then we need to listen to them.

Let me get right into it. Bill C‑228 should have no trouble getting to committee and then to the Senate. It should not even have any trouble getting through the upcoming vote. It has already gone through significant study in committee. For example, it was very important to me that there be protection for insurance. That was removed from Bill C‑228, but other mechanisms were added, and we will have to take a close look at them because there are still a lot of unknowns despite all the studies. Even so, I think everyone who supported Bill C‑253 will support Bill C‑228. I say everyone because all four parties were on the committee, so I do not see how anyone could be against this bill.

Why not fast-track it?

We could move it all the way through to royal assent pretty quickly. A number of senators were interested in my bill, so they will also be interested in the bill introduced by my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton. I really think things will move along very quickly.

I have 10 pages of notes and I am only on the second one, but if I can at the very least convey my enthusiasm and my hope that everyone votes in favour of this bill, I will consider that a success.

I could get into the more technical aspects of the bill because people are always interested in the scope of a bill. The spirit of my colleague's bill is the same.

What we are really trying to do is save the retirement nest eggs of workers who have accumulated a salary for years, what we call deferred wages. I always feel compelled to remind people of this, because I sometimes hear surprising questions in the House. I think I even heard some answers today with references to CPP, which has absolutely nothing to do with this bill.

What we are talking about here is really a pension fund. Workers pay into a pension fund and agree to give up part of their salary for a certain period of time. Instead of receiving $25 an hour, for example, they will receive $22 an hour. The union and the employer negotiate this so they can build up a pension fund for the employees' retirement. In other words, this is something they have already paid for, but when a company files for protection under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act or the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, they could lose it.

For example, back home in my riding, the Cliffs pensioners lost roughly 25% of their pension fund. I should mention that pension funds are not indexed. If a retiree had $1,000 in 1995, it no longer had the same value in 2005 or in 2015, and that value will be different in 2025 too. This is already a loss for those people, and it can become enormous in some situations.

Insurance is also very important to me because when these people lose their insurance, they are often older. At 65, 70, 75 or 80 years old, it is harder to get insured. They often need more care and drugs—such is life—but they cannot get the same care they used to get. By the way, this may be the part of the bill I agree with the least, because this issue is very important to me. I have talked to people who have experienced hardship, like people with cancer who cannot afford decent care because companies went bankrupt.

We are not talking about small businesses, but multinationals. These are companies with significant revenues that should have managed their pension fund better in order to hang on to it.

I have spoken with people who lived through these tragedies. I think of them every time we talk about these bills in the House and study them in committee. This is very much a human issue, and I think we can do something about it. This bill is not calling for huge changes. It is not calling for all of the money to be returned to retirees and for nothing to be given to the creditors. That is not what this is about. This is a reasonable bill.

As I said, everyone in the House is in agreement, but even in the different sectors, companies agree on the principle of placing retirees higher on the list of priorities, without making them the only priority. I point this out because that exaggeration is one common criticism of this type of bill.

In closing, I would like to express my appreciation for everyone, including my House of Commons colleagues, who is working or wants to work to advance a bill like this one. I want to applaud the strength of people in my riding and other ridings, particularly people from MABE, Sears, Nortel, Cliffs and Eaton, which we talked about earlier. I thank them for their ongoing work because they are the ones supporting what we are trying to get done here and they are the reason we here are so aware of this issue and on the verge of passing a bill. There are just a few steps to go.

I also want to highlight the level of solidarity people have shown. Our parties do not always see eye to eye, but we have found a way to rise above our differences, work together and come to a compromise. Being an MP means making compromises, not compromising who we are, but seeking compromise, and that is something we can do. For me, it is also about respect. We respect one another, just as we respect workers and our constituents. All that makes me very excited about the the idea that we can get this bill passed.

I would once again like to express my support to my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton. I think she is doing amazing work. We will certainly get this legislation passed, whether it is this bill or any other bill along the same lines, such as mine. Why not?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House virtually today to take part in this important debate. Pension protection is an important topic. It is one that my constituents have charged me with advocating for on their behalf. I want to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for her work on this important issue.

There is no doubt that we need to strengthen pension protection for defined benefit plans to prevent against the loss of retirement income that seniors face when their employers go through insolvency. It is a shame that this problem persists today after the stories we have heard about Sears, Nortel, Eaton's and many others that some Canadians are still suffering losses to their retirement income based on their defined benefit pensions being underfunded when the company files for bankruptcy. We must ensure that the pensions Canadians pay into, and that their employers commit to, remain available to them in full throughout the course of their retirement. Anything less, in my view, is unacceptable.

It is important for me to point out how the income security and the overall well-being of our seniors has been a top priority for our government since day one. Even before the challenges brought on by the global pandemic, our government took significant steps to support Canadian seniors. We focused on improving the quality of life for our seniors by helping support active and healthy lifestyles; improving access to home and community care; reducing loneliness and isolation; increasing access to health care; committing to the redevelopment of the national standards for long-term care with substantial investments to improve the quality of care for our seniors; and, importantly, and the topic I will be focusing on, ensuring the financial security of our seniors. These are all priorities for our government and we have made important strides in all of these areas.

In terms of our agenda, seniors' financial security is something our government has remained steadfast in our commitment to since day one. We permanently increased old age security by 10%, and we restored the age of eligibility to 65 from 67, reversing the Conservative policy of delaying OAS payments for seniors. We increased the guaranteed income supplement by 10%, improving the financial security of more than 900,000 seniors in Canada. In April 2020, more than four million low and middle-income seniors received a GST credit top-up. This was worth, on average, about $375 for individual seniors and $510 for senior couples.

In July 2020, we provided a one-time tax-free payment of $300 to 6.7 million OAS pensioners and a further $200 to 2.2 million seniors eligible for the guaranteed income supplement. To assist with the cost of the pandemic, we provided a one-time payment of $500 in August 2021 to OAS pensioners. I have heard from many of the seniors on fixed incomes in Whitby that this one-time payment made a big difference for them. Why is this relevant? It shows our commitment, but it also highlights the importance of income security for our seniors.

If MPs in this chamber can understand the importance of these one-time payments, imagine then pensioners having lost 20% of their pensions due to their employers going through bankruptcy, leaving their pensions underfunded, and all other creditors being paid out before the pensioners. That could easily amount to $500 per month of pension income loss that seniors would face for the rest of their lives.

I would say that would be life-altering. Can members imagine people counting on that pension income for their pension retirement, making contributions for many years and then getting to the point in their lives where they need to rely on that income to survive, only to find out that they will only be getting a portion of it?

It is important to remember that these are deferred wages and that employers have an obligation to their pensioners. I can only imagine how seniors put in this situation would feel, but after hearing from individuals who have gone through this, I can say that it is devastating for them. Let us not forget that individuals left in a state of income insecurity would be more vulnerable and more likely to access publicly funded social support programs. This could and should be avoided, and we cannot let this persist any longer.

This is an issue I have been engaged in since being elected in 2019, and I have had conversations with my constituents, my caucus colleagues, members of other parties, ministers and stakeholder groups on this important issue.

Most recently I sponsored e-petition 3893, as was mentioned in the House, which calls on parliamentarians to work together with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry to establish stronger protections for the members of defined benefit pension plans. I am happy to say that petition already has over 8,000 signatures, so clearly this is an issue many Canadians care about.

With over 1.3 million private defined benefit pension beneficiaries in Canada, I believe all members of the House have likely heard from constituents or someone they know who have been negatively affected by this issue or who are concerned they may get shortchanged if there is no remedy found. I think it is very important that we take the time to consider just how much impact this will have on Canada's seniors. I have heard many stories and I think we need to heed the calls for a solution on this matter.

I believe it is more important than ever that we find ways to work together and address this issue. With the cost of living on the rise and significant repeated shocks to our global economy from the global pandemic, extreme weather due to climate change and now Putin's war on Ukraine, some companies will undoubtedly face financial challenges, and we will need to make sure our seniors and their retirement incomes are protected. Seniors should live their final years in comfort and with the dignity they deserve, especially after a lifetime of hard work.

Given the nature of what we do in the House, there are often disagreements around policies and the direction we take as a country on certain files, but when it comes to protecting pensioners and the pension plans that individuals have paid into and rely on, I do not see how we can let this important issue get caught up in the atrophy of partisanship. In the last session of Parliament I voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois private member's bill, Bill C-253, to provide further protection to defined benefit pension plans here in Canada. I did that in the hope we would find a way to work to resolve this issue for the benefit of our seniors.

I was happy to see that our government also took important steps in the 43rd Parliament to make insolvency proceedings fairer and more transparent, and made changes to federal corporate law to ensure better oversight of corporate behaviour, including making company directors liable for excessive and unreasonable payments made to executives in the lead-up to insolvency.

I am aware that the NDP member for Elmwood—Transcona introduced legislation in February of this year that seeks to protect the pension benefits of workers caught in corporate bankruptcy proceedings, so effectively we have support for pension protection in all four corners of the House. I believe that provides us with the opportunity to come together across party lines and deliver for Canadian pensioners and their families.

I believe there are multiple ways we could approach a solution to this issue. We have seen various proposals and potential solutions, and I think we should try to find a way forward. Personally, I am open-minded and even would describe myself as solution-agnostic as long as pensioners receive 100% of the pension to which their employer committed. Without employees, we should all acknowledge, there are no businesses. Employees are just as important as shareholders and the many other creditors, and they do not deserve to be the last consideration when their company goes through insolvency. Whichever approach the House decides to take, we must know what is at stake. A solution now can help 4.3 million Canadians who will depend on a defined benefit pension for their financial security in retirement.

I am generally supportive of the bill, as members can tell, and I think the proposed changes to the insolvency legislation are a positive advancement by providing near superpriority status. I am supportive of any solution that places pensioners much closer to the front of the line in the long list of creditors that need to get paid during insolvency.

With that said, I firmly believe there are always ways to strengthen and improve a piece of legislation, and I have specific suggestions on that. I think we heard a comment recently about getting informed consent from pensioners when there is a transfer made. I think that is a good suggestion.

Let me just end here. Seniors cannot afford to get less than they deserve and we cannot afford to let them down.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

moved that Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, be read a second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, today is April Fool's Day, so I could not start this speech without saying that one would have to be a fool not to support my private member's bill.

My private member's bill is centred on pension protection and working to prevent the loss of pensions for employees whose companies have declared bankruptcy. Canadians deserve to know that the contributions they have made over their whole lives will result in a secure financial future for themselves and for their families. However, the last few years have shown us that security can disappear in a moment. We need to do better for Canadians.

My bill would remedy this issue. It would do three things. First, it would require that an annual report on the solvency of pension funds be tabled here in the House of Commons for greater transparency and oversight.

Second, it would provide a mechanism to transfer funds into a pension fund to restore it to solvency or to ensure the insolvent portion until the funds could be restored.

Finally, in the case of bankruptcy, pensions would be paid out ahead of large creditors and executive bonuses.

To put things in context, I want to point out that there have been far too many cases of businesses that have declared bankruptcy to the great detriment of their own employees.

Nortel Networks declared bankruptcy in 2009, leaving 200,000 Canadians to fend for themselves when it came to their pensions. An article published in the Financial Post in 2016 entitled “The big lesson from Nortel Networks: Pension plans aren't a guarantee” gave a detailed account of the battle waged by these employees as they tried to recover even part of their share of Nortel's assets, which were estimated at $7.3 billion. Legal and consulting fees totalled over $1.9 billion, which further reduced the amount these former employees were seeking.

According to CBC, at the end of 2016, former Nortel employees were pleased with the agreement they reached under which they would get a payout of 40¢ on the dollar. That was an improvement over the 10¢ on the dollar they were initially offered.

However, in 2020, the employees lost out again when the Ontario pension benefits guarantee fund managed to reclaim some $200 million from monies allocated to pensioners in Nortel's bankruptcy proceedings.

In all, the whole mess with Nortel turned into a more than 11-year battle for former employees who failed several times while simply trying to obtain the financial security to which they were entitled. That is just one example.

Sears Canada is another infamous case, perhaps one of the most well known. Between 2005 and 2013, Sears Canada paid more than $3 billion in dividends to shareholders, even as it was operating at a loss and its pension plan was underfunded by about $133 million.

In 2017, Sears Canada declared bankruptcy after attempting to restructure. During that restructuring, Sears Canada faced heavy criticism for giving retention bonuses to 43 executives and senior managers, when it did not plan to offer severance to laid-off employees. Allegedly, the bonuses were intended to maintain the morale of senior staff at the cost of providing the necessary funds to the company's pension plan, leaving more than 17,000 pensioners cheated of their full pensions.

Sears pensioners learned that their payments were going to be cut by 30%. Of Mount Pearl, Newfoundland, 72-year old Ron Husk told the CBC that the cut caused his monthly pension payment to drop by $450. Many said they would have to go back to work in sales in their seventies. Pensioners in Ontario fared marginally better because of the provincial mechanism that protects the first $1,500 of a pensioner's payments, but it made little difference overall and in today's era of extreme inflation it is helping even less.

Looking back further, when the Eaton company folded in 1999, the vast majority of its 24,500 employees were terminated without being paid termination pay, severance pay and other amounts owed to them. All employee and retiree health and other benefits were cancelled. In the end, the liquidator released payments to employees and retirees of just 53.7¢ on the dollar.

There are several other noted cases in which courts have ruled in the favour of creditors and lenders over pensioners, including Indalex, Stelco and Grant Forest Products, among others. In the Indalex case, Indalex Limited obtained creditor protection under the Companies' Creditor Arrangement Act, known as the CCWA. The court authorized Indalex to obtain debtor in possession, or DIP, financing, which would provide the company with loans to allow it to continue operating its business during the restructuring period. These DIP lenders had superpriority over the existing debt equity and other claims.

At a hearing for the approval of this motion in 2008, two groups of pension claimants opposed the distribution, asserting that assets equal to the funding deficiencies in two defined benefit pension plans administered by Indalex were deemed to be held in trust and should be given to the pension plan in priority over the DIP lender. The CCWA court ruled in favour of the DIP lender, not the pensioners. This decision was upheld and became a precedent for the Grant Forest Products case.

Sadly, many other examples of workers who did not receive their full pensions exist.

There is no doubt that this has been a problem for a long time. The government needs to intervene by taking stringent measures to rectify this and protect Canadian workers. I want to acknowledge the contribution of some of my colleagues in the House. Many MPs from all parties came to see me to present bills on this same topic.

In 2018, my colleague, the member for Durham, introduced Bill C‑405 on pension benefits standards in order to authorize the administrator of an underfunded pension plan, in certain situations, to amend the plan or to transfer or permit the transfer of any part of the assets or liabilities of the pension plan to another pension plan. This bill did not receive enough support, because changing the type of pension or the benefit amount means breaching the contract signed by employees who worked for a company for a certain number of years and thought they would receive a certain pension.

His bill also called for the tabling of an annual report in Parliament respecting the solvency of pension plans, which I thought was a useful and brilliant provision.

Currently, there is a requirement for an annual report on the solvency of a fund, but it goes to the superintendent of finance and what, if any, actions are taken is not clear. In fact, there is evidence, with companies like Air Canada, that pension fund insolvency has been allowed to continue for far too many years. My bill would require this report to be tabled here, for greater transparency and oversight.

In October 2017 and again in 2020, the Bloc member for Manicouagan introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-253, which would have amended the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the CCAA. The bill would have provided priority status for pensions in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. It ultimately made it to committee but died on the Order Paper when the Liberals called the election. I have incorporated her bill here with some suggestions that were brought forward.

There was concern that implementing an immediate priority for pensions could have unintended consequences. The suggestion was to have the coming into force of the reporting on the insolvency of funds to happen immediately, along with the mechanism to top up the fund to restore it to solvency. It was recommended to have several years of time for companies to get their funds in order before implementing the priority part. Five years was suggested in the bill, but there are stakeholders who would prefer to see it at three years. I am flexible about this, and these are exactly the types of conversations that need to happen when the bill goes to committee.

Most recently, the NDP member for Elmwood—Transcona reintroduced work first put forward by former MP Scott Duvall. What was originally Bill C-259 in 2020 would amend the act to ensure that claims in respect of unfunded liabilities or solvency deficiencies of a pension plan are accorded priority in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. It would also provide that an employer had to maintain group insurance plans that provide benefits to or in respect of its employees or former employees. This was the part of the bill that was a sticking point. This bill would also amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act to empower the superintendent of financial institutions to determine that the funding of a pension plan is impaired or that the pension plan administrator is at risk, and to set out measures to be taken by the employer in respect of the funding of the plan in such cases.

What I did was cherry-pick from all of the ideas that were previously supported by the House and put them all together in Bill C-228. Learning from both the numerous cases of company collapse and the various pension protection bills that came before to improve pension protection in a way we can all agree on is my goal here today. I also want to acknowledge that the Liberal member for Whitby is sponsoring e-petition 3893 on pension protections, supporting this very issue.

My bill has been reviewed by a variety of stakeholders, including the Canadian Federation of Pensioners and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. Bill VanGorder, the chief operating officer of CARP, offered this quote:

Most older Canadians have fixed incomes but face rising costs, growing inflation, an unpredictable economy and retirement savings that suffer as a result. The Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) believes it is vital that the Federal Government protect pensioners by giving them ‘priority’ status and creates a pension insurance program that insures 100% of pension liabilities. This proposal would go a long way in making that happen.

Some banks and large financial institutions have expressed their reluctance. They are concerned that if pensioners are given priority, companies with insolvent funds will have to pay higher interest rates to obtain credit and will be less likely to apply for credit.

This is part of the reason why the timing of the implementation should allow time for companies with insolvent funds to get their finances in order.

I would like to point out that if a company cannot restore the solvency of its fund after a period of five years, it should indeed pay a higher interest rate to obtain credit, because it really does present a higher risk.

The Canadian Labour Congress would like unions to have a say in how priorities are set when it comes to pensions.

If we can agree on the priority status and include that in the legislation, so that it is not subject to whim or pressure, I think that would strengthen pension protection.

In summary, this is reporting to Parliament on the solvency of funds for greater transparency so that we can ensure actions are being taken to protect pensions; creating a mechanism to top up the funds to restore solvency; and, in the event of bankruptcy, ensuring that people who have worked their whole lives receive the pensions they were promised.

The Library of Parliament has created an excellent table from the three-inch-thick Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to show where I am suggesting pensions go in the priority of discussion. They would come after source deductions for CPP, QPP and EI and taxes due; after suppliers take back their goods delivered within a month of bankruptcy; after salaries up to $2,000 and the associated contributions; and before secured claims, preferred claims and unsecured claims.

Many members of the House in all parties have indicated their support for getting this bill to committee. I am open to consideration of other suggestions on how we can work to improve this bill to provide a successful outcome for Canadians, and I look forward to the industry committee's review of the bill.

I want to thank my colleagues for all their support in drafting this bill, and the MPs for Durham, Manicouagan and Elmwood—Transcona for their efforts to enhance pension protection. I would also like to thank Mr. VanGorder for his support and Mr. Mike Powell, the president of the Canadian Federation of Pensioners, for his invaluable help on this bill.

Finally, I want to end with a call to action. For many years, the House and the Senate have tried to address this issue. We have the opportunity now, as members of Parliament in difficult times, to come together and ensure that Canadians no longer find their pensions and retirement in jeopardy. We can work together to ensure that Canadians are able to live in dignity in their golden years, able to support themselves and their families with their hard-earned pensions.

Let us show Canadians that we have their interests at heart and support Bill C-228.

Retirement Income

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 45 regarding the financial security of seniors. When this was first proposed to me, my initial reaction was to think that this has already been done, and we already have solutions that could be put in place now. However, as the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, I will give this matter all the attention it deserves. Members will understand that I have studied the content of this motion with great interest. Let me assure the House that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion.

The motion asks that:

(a) the House recognize that (i) seniors deserve a dignified retirement free from financial worry, (ii) many seniors are worried about their retirement savings running out, (iii) many seniors are concerned about being able to live independently in their own homes; and

(b) in the opinion of the House, the government should undertake a study examining population aging, longevity, interest rates, and registered retirement income funds, and report its findings and recommendations to the House within 12 months of the adoption of this motion.

For some seniors, however, this means another year of making tough choices.

My speech will focus on three things. First, I will talk about how the Bloc Québécois has fought hard for an increase in the old age security pension. Then I will talk about pension indexing and the protection of retirement funds.

We are not opposed to the federal government conducting studies on the financial situation of seniors, as Motion No. 45 proposes, because it is important to seek out new tools that would enable seniors to better take advantage of their financial wealth and enjoy the best standard of living possible. No one can be against apple pie.

On one hand, we have seniors who have accumulated a fair amount of assets during their life, it is true, but who nonetheless face financial challenges once they retire. On the other hand, we have more vulnerable seniors who absolutely need the support that the social safety net provides. Let us not forget that one in 10 seniors live close to the poverty line. These two groups of seniors do not have the same concerns, do not think the same way and do not turn to the same solutions.

This evening's motion has more to do with the first group of seniors, but that does not mean that we should not also talk about the second group, the so-called most vulnerable seniors who need our help.

Although many seniors have a decent amount of savings when they retire, they are often left to their own devices when it comes to withdrawing that money, even though they are in situation where the risk of longevity could negatively impact their savings, in other words, they could outlive their savings.

Another poll by RBC had similar findings. When respondents from Quebec were asked about their main concerns regarding their retirement finances, 52% of them were worried about not having enough savings. That number was higher than anywhere else in Canada. Some 42% of Quebeckers also expressed concerns about being able to maintain their standard of living. In addition, 31% of Quebeckers expressed concerns about the cost of health care, and again that number was the highest in Canada.

After Japan and South Korea, Quebec has one of the fastest-aging populations, a demographic challenge that is expected to peak in 2030.

The aging population presents many challenges, but there are a number of things we can do to improve living conditions for seniors, and in particular their financial situation, without conducting a new study.

First, the government needs to substantially increase old age security for all seniors 65 and over, on an ongoing basis.

Obviously, we are also not opposed to a motion calling on the House to recognize that all seniors deserve “a dignified retirement free from financial worry”. In fact, seniors' quality of life and their financial security are among the Bloc Québécois's top priorities, and we act accordingly.

Members will recall that, last year, the Bloc Québécois got a motion passed calling on the House of Commons to increase old age security. Everyone but the Liberals supported the motion.

There is currently a petition to increase OAS by $110 a month for people 65 and up. I am sponsoring it, but it was submitted by Samuel Lévesque of Saint‑Eustache on behalf of his grandparents with the goal of achieving intergenerational equity.

Still, it is surprising that the Liberals would put this kind of wording in their motion when they voted against our motion and chose to increase OAS by 10%, but only for people 75 and up, thereby creating two classes of seniors.

That is a funny way of recognizing that seniors have a right to a retirement “free from financial worry”. By making this choice, the Liberals are abandoning seniors aged 65 to 74, who account for about half of those collecting OAS, 57% to be precise. In other words, the government is abandoning 3.7 million beneficiaries.

Regardless of what the Liberals think, financial insecurity does not hold off until people turn 75. The FADOQ agrees. We can share numerous examples of people experiencing financial insecurity before the age of 75. Any of my colleagues here can attest to that.

Given Canada's less-than-stellar record on income replacement in retirement, we might at the very least have expected the Liberals to implement the 10% increase more quickly and to extend it to those 65 and up.

It is also hard to understand how the Liberals can propose the notion of a “dignified retirement free from financial worry” considering how they handled the CERB and GIS file. Despite knowing about the problem since the spring of 2021, the government took too long to correct an inequity in the interaction between CERB and GIS.

Many seniors have had their GIS cut since last July because they legitimately received CERB payments in the previous year.

The member for Joliette and I sent letters to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Seniors on two separate occasions to demand that the situation be fixed as quickly as possible. It was not until 2022, following significant pressure from the Bloc Québécois, that the government finally decided to take action and reimburse the affected seniors for their losses.

Second, let us talk about the indexing of pensions. It is especially important to talk about it now, considering how high inflation is and how the people most affected are those on fixed incomes, such as seniors.

For a dignified retirement free from financial worry, benefits need to be increased. The transition to retirement usually means a major drop in the average standard of living. According to OECD estimates, the net pension replacement rate was 50.7% of pre-retirement income in Canada in 2018, while the average for member countries was 57.6%. The EU average was 63%.

The runaway inflation we have been seeing for some time now is driving up the cost of groceries and rent. This is having an impact on seniors' finances. Those who are in a tough financial situation have been hit hard, as evidenced by the increased use of food banks everywhere. Organizations that help homeless women have noticed an increase in the number of elderly women among their clients.

The Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, an organization that advocates for the rights of retired and pre-retired people, has noted an increase in incoming messages over the past year, including dozens of emails from seniors who have ended up in disastrous situations. A person's ability to react to the rising cost of living is obviously limited when that person no longer has paid employment.

When it comes to indexing, we know that OAS and the GIS are indexed to the consumer price index. The indexing rate for 2022 is 2.7%, based on the previous year. However, according to Statistics Canada, the rate of inflation reached 5.1% in January 2022, or nearly double the indexing rate. Even setting aside this one-time discrepancy between the indexing rate and the actual inflation rate, what about the performance of the calculation method in the long term?

Indexation is a key determinant of the quality of benefit coverage. As the average life expectancy has increased in recent years, indexation of pensions has become more important, because the payments are made over a longer period of time. The standard of living and purchasing power of seniors are therefore directly affected. Purchasing power is affected when a person's pension increases at a slower pace than the cost of goods and services. It is a question of math.

For example, if the projected level of inflation for the next few decades is 2%, this means an approximately 50% decline in purchasing power over 30 years if a pension is not indexed.

Many pension advocacy groups are suggesting that pensions be calculated based on trends in wages rather than trends in the consumer price index. Many have decried the current situation, including the FADOQ, which spoke out against the sluggish indexation in July 2021, pointing out that the increase is not even enough to buy a coffee at Tim Hortons.

Third, concerning pension funds, my colleague, the member for Manicouagan, worked very hard to protect Bill C-253, which was introduced by that member in 2020 and then died on the Order Paper when an election was called. All four parties had been in agreement, but that bill died anyway. Another bill had met the same fate when the 2019 election was called. We have not made progress.

It is up to the Government of Canada to pass legislation to prevent these mishaps. The public understands very well that we must do everything we can to enhance and protect seniors' buying power. We all know that the population is aging. The number of people over the age of 75 in Quebec is increasing and will double by 2040. The number of people aged 85 and over is actually expected to triple during that time.

We must also help more seniors remain in the labour force. The Bloc Québécois made various proposals during the election campaign. We suggested that a tax credit for experienced workers be created. We also proposed that seniors who want to work longer be allowed to earn a higher income for the purposes of calculating the GIS.

I would like to make one last remark. Having worked in the community setting, at an organization that sought to raise awareness about elder abuse, I am very aware that it is not cool to talk about old people. They are seen as a drain on our society. In other words, we do not care about old people. Let us stop being ageist and recognize them for who they really are: a grey-haired source of strength. They deserve recognition for everything they have done for our society over the years. Truly, let us work together for seniors in our society.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my esteemed colleague and seatmate, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, is a tough act to follow. Since he was a teacher, he knows that repetition is the key to success, and that is what we need to do. My husband, who works in advertising, would say the same thing, so that is what I am going to do today.

It is with excitement for the end of the year that I rise today to speak to Bill C-30 at report stage. Many of my colleagues and I have said it before, so the House already knows that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill to implement certain measures in the 2021 budget.

However, as the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, I want to remind the House that we first voted against budget 2021 because the federal government was not responding to our two main requests, which remain essential.

Before the House adjourns for what might be an indeterminate period of time, I want to reiterate those requests. First, the Government of Quebec and the Canadian provinces are formally requesting adequate, recurrent health funding. Second, seniors are calling for an increase in old age security for those aged 65 and up, a request brought forward by the Bloc Québécois.

The government continues to ignore Quebec's request. I know because I recently met with many elected members and employees at the National Assembly of Quebec, who speak to me about this regularly. This is a unanimous request from the provinces, Quebec, the National Assembly, and even the House of Commons, which adopted a Bloc Québécois motion last December that called on the government to significantly and sustainably increase Canada health transfers.

The government refuses to increase the current level of health transfers from 22% to 35%. Instead, Bill C‑30 offers only a one-time increase in health transfers, as announced last March. At the time, I showed that the amounts were clearly insufficient.

In this speech, which will quite probably be my last before the summer break, I will address our key requests for health and for seniors, as well as our requests for businesses and business owners. I will finish with a few wishes for the future of this Parliament.

The Bloc Québécois has made sensible choices in the best interest of Quebeckers. The deficit announced in budget 2021 is lower than expected: $354 billion instead of $382 billion. The difference happens to be $28 billion, the exact amount that Quebec and the provinces are asking for. With the government clearly gearing up for a massive spending spree, by refusing to increase transfers, Ottawa is making a political choice, not a budgetary choice, to the detriment of everyone's health.

The saddest part, however, is that Bill C‑30 is strictly an election budget. It merely repeats the Liberals' 2019 campaign promise to seniors to increase old age security, but only for those aged 75 and over and by only $766 per year, or $63.80 per month. This increase, which will not take effect until 2022, is not enough for seniors or for the Bloc Québécois. More importantly, it leaves those aged 65 to 74 out in the cold, which is practically half of the current beneficiaries of old age security. Let us also not forget the one-time $500 payment to made in August 2021, also only to those 75 and older.

That is why I continue to keep talking about our support for seniors. The Bloc Québécois will continue to demand a substantial increase, namely $110 more a month, for all seniors aged 65 and over. We do not accept the Liberals' argument that financial insecurity begins at age 75 and that younger seniors can just go to work.

For that reason, I am currently sponsoring petition e-3421, which was put online by Samuel Lévesque on behalf of his grandparents. Several seniors' groups have also sent letters in support of this request that comes from the entire House, except the Liberals, who continue to be isolated.

Ottawa is not doing as we asked and is creating two classes of seniors. Seniors' groups and seniors want to know why only seniors 75 and older are getting this increase and why it only starts in 2022. There are testimonials posted on FADOQ's web site showing that the lives of seniors 65 to 74 can also be difficult, and that they have needs that cannot wait until they turn 75.

For the Liberals, vulnerable people 65 and over do not deserve their attention. For the Liberals, insecurity only begins at 75. Naturally, we are not against the idea of a good number of seniors, about 50%, receiving the help they need, which is what Bill C‑30 would do.

In terms of the economy, I am elated to know that Bill C‑30 has finally rejected the foundation for creating a pan-Canadian securities regulatory regime, which the Bloc Québécois and Quebeckers strongly opposed. I would like to congratulate my colleague from Joliette for this important win and his hard work on this file. Ottawa could not be allowed to centralize securities regulation in Toronto. This is a big win for Quebec.

The Quebec National Assembly adopted four unanimous motions calling on the federal government to abandon this idea. Seldom had we seen Quebec's business community come together as one to oppose a government initiative. A strong financial hub is vital to the functioning of our head offices and the preservation of our businesses.

As we have seen with the pandemic, globalized supply chains are fragile and make us entirely dependent on other countries. We must develop our own chains and restore economic nationalism. Some measures in the budget are good, and we support them and support implementing them. For example, the budget will extend some essential, albeit imperfect, assistance programs, such as the wage subsidy and rent relief, until September 25, 2021. This is a positive because businesses, especially the ones back home that made good use of these programs, need some predictability in the programs they will have access to in the coming months. I should point out that this extension comes with a gradual decline in the amounts provided, which is a concern.

The Bloc Québécois will ensure that our businesses have access to programs that meet their needs for as long as they need them, particularly in the sectors that will take more time to get back to normal, such as tourism and small- and large-scale live events. These sectors are very important to Shefford, which relies on Tourisme Montérégie and Tourism Eastern Townships, and, of course, on many cultural events, such as the Festival international de la chanson de Granby. I could go on.

The bill also introduces some measures to combat tax evasion, but it does not go far enough. The government is presenting these measures as a massive campaign against corporate tax evasion, but in reality, these are just some highly specific, minor changes connected to ongoing litigation. The fight against tax havens will have to wait, even though it is a very important aspect of building tax fairness to enhance social justice.

Another thing to highlight is the creation of a new hiring subsidy program for businesses that are reopening. It could be useful. Bill C-30 would create this new program to encourage businesses to rehire their staff. We know that the hiring subsidy will come into effect in November 2021. Businesses will then have the choice of applying for either the hiring subsidy or the existing wage subsidy, whichever works out better for them. These are measures that could be very useful.

Since my time is running out, I will try to cover everything quickly. I have a wish list. I would have liked to see more investments in social and affordable housing in this budget. This problem continues to affect my riding in particular, especially the city of Granby, which is otherwise considered a great place to settle down. Businesses in my region are experiencing a labour shortage and need housing to attract workers with families so they can try to recruit them, but they have nowhere to house them.

There are also some bills that will not receive royal assent. That really saddens me. I would have like to see the Émilie Sansfaçon bill passed to allow people who are suffering from a critical illness to have 50 weeks of leave instead of 15 weeks. It is a matter of recovering with dignity.

I would have also liked to see the House pass my colleague from Manicouagan's Bill C-253 regarding pension protection and for it to receive royal assent. People who worked hard their whole lives have the right to enjoy the fruits of their labour. This bill would help them age with dignity.

I would have liked a budget with more support for our farmers. That is so important in my riding, which is part of Quebec's pantry. I would have liked to see a greater willingness to help the next generation of farmers. I want to point out that, right now, farmers are suffering because of frost and a lack of precipitation. They need better risk management programs and more precise traceability programs. Farmers are also feeling the effects of climate change.

I would have also liked to see tougher environmental measures for a greener recovery. For example, the government should invest just as much in forestry as it does in the oil industry. My Bloc Québécois colleagues and our political party established a comprehensive plan to focus more on renewable natural resources to get out of the crisis and to drive our regions' economies.

In closing, I would like to add one last thing. It goes beyond the budget, but as the status of women critic, I cannot give my last speech before the summer break without mentioning the crises that have been affecting women in particular since I arrived in the House. We commemorated the 30th anniversary of the École Polytechnique attack, but the issue of better gun control has still not been resolved because too many people are not satisfied with Bill C‑22. Femicides are on the rise. There have been 13 just since the beginning of the year. Quebec is calling for transfers with no conditions and fewer delays to provide better funding for women's shelters. Quebec knows what to do. There are also the cases of assault in the Canadian Armed Forces. The Deschamps report needs to be implemented.

In short, there is still a lot of work to be done. Let us reach out to one another and work together. The federal government's paternalism and interference needs to stop. We need to take action. There is still so much to be done.

Industry, Science and Technology

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, entitled “Affordability and Accessibility of Telecommunications Services in Canada: Encouraging Competition to (Finally) Bridge the Digital Divide”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in relation to Bill C-253, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act regarding pension plans and group insurance plans.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Shall the title of the bill carry?

(Title agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Shall the bill as amended carry?

(Bill C-253 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?

(Reporting of bill to the House agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?

(Reprint of the bill agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

With that, folks, we've finished our first bill.

Congratulations, Ms. Gill.

We've moved the witnesses we were supposed to have today to next Tuesday, so we are good, folks. I think this is the first time that we will actually be able to have lunch today on our own.

I want to thank everyone. Thank you so much for your assistance in this. We're delighted to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Welcome to meeting number 47 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

We're meeting today at the request of four members of the committee to discuss the request with regard to completion of the committee's study of Bill C-253.

With that, I just wanted to make a proposal. I think we all want to see this bill finished, so if it's the will of the committee, I'd like to propose that we start exactly where we left off, on the CPC amendment, so we can get this done today. I don't know about you, but I would like this thing finished.

If it's okay with everyone—if it's the will of the committee—can we start right away where we left off?

I'm seeing agreement. Okay, great.

We were on the CPC amendment. If anyone has any questions on it, please raise your hand and I will recognize you.

Go ahead, MP Jaczek.

Members Not Seeking Re-election to the 44th Parliament

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today as the proud member of Parliament for my community of Hamilton Mountain. It has been my immense privilege and honour to serve my constituents over the past six years as their MP, and for nine years before that as their city councillor for Ward 7. I have spent more than 15 years serving the people of Hamilton Mountain as an elected representative. It has been an exciting and rewarding experience to hear from my community, advocate on their behalf and fight for Hamiltonians as their representative at city hall and here in Ottawa.

It is now time for me to leave room for others to continue this important and great work. After leaving politics, I plan on spending time with the people I love deeply and care about, and will volunteer to help seniors in need. I also want to work with my grandchildren in my shop to help them build things.

This may be one of my last opportunities to speak in the House, so I want to take this opportunity to talk about what my caucus and I have championed over the six years during my time in Ottawa and what prompted me to run in the first place.

I came to Ottawa to fight for the people of Hamilton and for Canadian workers and pensioners. I am a proud steelworker, and my roots in the labour movement advocating for workers is why I am a New Democrat. Given my time at Stelco on the production line, then as a union steward and then as president of USW Local 5328, the labour movement has been my life. Protecting workers has been a priority during my time as an MP.

What we have seen in the House shows why we need a strong voice fighting for workers and for labour. We have seen several efforts by the government to legislate striking workers back to work and damage their ability to bargain for a fair deal with their employers. We have seen the government refuse to act on scab labour. We have seen the government refuse to protect the pensions of workers during bankruptcy and insolvency, and instead put big banks and investors at the top of the list. This is why it is so important that we continue to fight for workers in this place.

I went through the bankruptcy at Stelco back in the day, and I will never forget Judge Farley's advice, because I thought it was disgraceful how workers were being treated in the bankruptcy protection process. He said, “I don't like doing this, Mr. Duvall, and if you want to change it, go to Ottawa and change the legislation.” That is another reason I am here.

We have all seen an effort by the government to create a two-tiered system of “junior seniors” and “senior seniors” by only giving an increase in OAS payments to some and not others. We have also watched them fail to act to protect single seniors and allow them to continue to pay substantially more taxes than seniors in a couple with the exact same income. During my time in Ottawa, it is has been my priority to fight for seniors, to advocate for them and to push our government to do better.

In the House, I have sponsored a number of bills and pushed forward many initiatives. I have championed antiscab labour legislation aimed at protecting unions during labour disputes and preventing employers from undermining their collective bargaining. I have fought against government action to legislate striking workers back to work, taking away one of the strongest tools they have at their disposal to collectively bargain for a fair deal. I have pushed to protect the pensions of workers during bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and to make sure that payments of the unfunded portion of pension plans come before payments to big banks and investors.

I hope that before our Parliament is dissolved, quite possibly because of an unnecessary election call by the Liberals, we can pass through the House the best shot we have at protecting retirees and pensioners: Bill C-253.

During the pandemic, the time spent at home has reminded me of the importance of family and loved ones. As members of Parliament and as public servants, we are often forced to put our duties and responsibilities first and our families second. The toll this can have is immense, and I am so lucky to have had my family by my side the entire time.

I want to thank my wife Sherry; my kids, Laurie, Mandy and Megan; and my entire family and grandchildren. They have given me so much support and have made many sacrifices that have allowed me to do this important work and serve our community. I am so excited to spend more time at home with Sherry, and hope she will be excited to have me there with her, our family and grandkids.

I want to remind all of my colleagues in the House of the importance of our families and loved ones and the role they play in supporting our work. Our families and loved ones make just as many sacrifices as we do, if not more, to allow us to serve our community. We miss a lot of important moments in their lives while we serve, and when we leave public service, it is my belief that we owe it to them to make up for that lost time and to cherish our families.

I want to thank my incredible team of staff, both here in Hamilton and in Ottawa. In no particular order, I would like to say to Val, Rose, Bill, Tony, Kathleen and Aiden, and my former team members Chris, Erin and Jackie, that I thank them for everything they have done to support me, for their dedication and loyalty, our work throughout the years and their service to the people of Hamilton. Their dedication to our constituents shows how important it is for an MP to have a great team fighting for our community. They made me look good each and every day.

I want to thank the people behind the scenes supporting the whole NDP caucus, the team in the NDP lobby, particularly Anthony and Christian, who have made the time serving as a member of Parliament and being in the House so much easier and more effective. Their dedication is what allows us to be an effective caucus and do the work that we do best. They have provided so much guidance to us, and their contribution to our team is something I will never forget.

I thank my NDP caucus colleagues for fighting with me to protect workers, pensioners and seniors. I am proud to have served in a caucus that worked hard every day to protect people. I am grateful for all of their support, friendship and shared knowledge that made me a better MP.

I thank my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby South, for the guidance he has given our party. I cannot wait to see him become Prime Minister and demonstrate that an NDP government is the one that will put people first. Canadians can put their trust in New Democrats to fight for them.

I thank those in the labour movement who have supported my work and helped champion the causes I have taken on. In particular, I want to thank the incredible team at United Steelworkers, and Canadian director Ken Neumann and District 6 director Marty Warren for their faith in my fight to protect workers, retirees and pensioners. Their work and activism show that the Canadian labour movement is strong and will not quietly fight for the rights of workers across Canada, but will be loud until they are heard.

I want to thank the members of the Hamilton Mountain NDP and all the volunteers, supporters and activists who came out during each election and fought to make sure that Hamilton Mountain is represented by a New Democrat and by a party that will fight for them.

I also want to thank Monique Taylor, the MPP for Hamilton Mountain. From the time she was my assistant at City Hall to now, when we are working together representing Hamilton Mountain provincially and federally, we have been a great team. I am so proud of her work to fight for our community, and I cannot wait to see what more she does.

I want to thank the people of Hamilton. Without them and their support, I would not have had the honour of sitting in the House of Commons or the important duty of fighting for all of them. Every day that I spent serving the people of Hamilton was a privilege, and I was humbled by the trust they put in me to represent them.

I again want to thank my wife Sherry of 47 years. I am going to be home this time.

Mr. Speaker, it has been my greatest honour to be a member of Parliament. I thank you and I respect you.

I want to thank all the people in the House and I want to thank all the members. I have become friends with many of them. I really appreciate it. I have had a great time and I am going to miss a lot of people.

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

My goal, as you can imagine, was to make sure that we could move on to clause‑by‑clause consideration. As a result, Mr. Duvall's presence is particularly significant as we move forward. Given the circumstances, I'll ask a question.

How would the passage of Bill C‑253 affect the government? We agree that there won't be any financial impact. Could it have other implications for the government, or is this purely ideological opposition from a party opposed to the bill?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I will call this meeting back to order. We are still waiting for one of the witnesses to join, but I don't want to hold off any longer.

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 would like to now welcome our witnesses. They are here today as a resource for the committee during its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

With us today we have Mr. Mark Schaan. Welcome back to INDU. He is the associate assistant deputy minister, strategy and innovation policy sector, and we are hopeful that Mr. Paul Morrison, manager, corporate, insolvency and competition directorate, will be able to join us.

I also want to give a little shout-out to our legislative clerk, Monsieur Jacques Maziade.

Welcome back to INDU, and thank you for your assistance.

(On clause 1)

We had a speaking list. In the last meeting, when we left off, Mr. Poilievre had the floor, and we had Mr. Ehsassi and Mr. Duvall on the speaking list.

I see Monsieur Lemire has his hand up as well, so I will add him to the list.

I am just going to check and see.

Monsieur Poilievre, you had the floor. If you still need the floor, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

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

Welcome to meeting number 45 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 will be spent on clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-253, and then we will move in camera for the second hour to review our 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 floor, English or French audio. I'll remind you 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.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 12, 2021, the committee is meeting to begin clause-by-clause 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. Here to assist us today from the Department of Industry, we have Mr. Mark Schaan, associate assistant deputy minister, strategy and innovation policy sector; and Mr. Paul Morrison, manager, corporate, insolvency and competition directorate.

As this is the first time that INDU is doing clause-by-clause of a bill, I'd like to explain how today will go. I will introduce each clause and ask if any members have any questions or comments. If you do, please raise your hand, and we will keep track of the speaking order. I know that MP Lemire is in the room, so we'll try to make sure we can see him when he has his hand up.

Mr. Lemire, if I don't see your hand raised, please send me a message.

Thank you.

We will take care of the speaking order, and once we've finished any debate on a specific clause, I'll then turn it over to the clerk for the vote.

With that, I wanted to also introduce the legislative clerk who is with us in the room today, Monsieur Jacques Maziade.

Welcome to INDU.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Eady, I want to thank you for all the hard work you've done representing the Sears retirees. You're an amazing person, and so is the group you're working with. I know you guys have gone through a hard time.

Would putting the unfunded portion of the pension plan up to superpriority and ahead of other secured creditors, as Bill C-253 will be doing, have helped save the Sears pensioners?

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

I have one last question for you.

I understand that the ability to absorb negative effects is much easier for a bank, for example, than for a worker. In Bill C‑253, as preferred creditors, are banks affected, in your opinion?

[François L'Italien, Coordinator, Observatoire de la retraite]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is François L'Italien and I am the coordinator of l'Observatoire de la retraite.

Here are a few words about our organization, which has been in existence since 2014. Our organization has two main missions: first, to produce and encourage economic research on retirement to deepen knowledge on this issue of general interest; second, to contribute to the public debate on retirement by disseminating knowledge that is likely to raise the civic competence of Quebeckers on this issue.

We bring together 14 major institutional and organizational partners in Quebec, including fund managers, the major retiree associations and the main labour unions.

L'Observatoire de la retraite has been interested in the issue of the impact of corporate restructuring on retirees for several years now, since pension protection is a fundamental concern for us and for Quebec society.

We agreed to contribute to the work of the committee with respect to Bill C‑253 to highlight the existence of a structural problem with the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, namely, in our view, the overrepresentation of the interests of a particular group in the restructurings that are carried out under this act.

Since 2010, as you know, there have been many cases of company restructurings or bankruptcies that have led to pension cuts for pensioners, and these have often been in the media. We need only think of White Birch Paper, Sears Canada and Groupe Capitales Médias, to mention just a few. These cases not only showed the powerlessness of the retirees affected by the restructuring, but they also highlighted a legal process where those directly affected by the restructuring could not speak out or negotiate. It is a legal process that justifies an increasingly unfair distribution of the benefits and risks of financial restructuring.

With the hindsight provided by these repeated restructurings, the process, actors and effects of restructurings are becoming better documented and known, and make us see aspects of the legislative and legal framework of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act that the legislator probably did not see at the very beginning. The further we go, the more we see that a law that is intended to revive companies in difficulty opens the way to business strategies that have nothing to do with difficulties suffered. In fact, we are seeing the emergence, more and more, of a pattern in which defined benefit plans are being undermined.

The structural problem that we have to deal with in the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, which is I think the subject of Bill C‑253, is the fact that the best organized financial players, the privileged creditors, preferred creditors and business owners, who are by the same token the least vulnerable to financial shocks, emerge with a significant advantage in the restructuring process when compared to other stakeholders, including pension plans.

These financial actors may of course suffer losses in the process, that is not the point, but these are nothing like those of other stakeholders, starting with pension plan members who are at a very vulnerable point in their lives. Since the pension plan's claim against the company is not considered a priority claim or entitled to the same protection as employees' wages, resorting to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act has virtually become a way to wind up the plans and this directly affects people's lives.

Unlike the large financial firms and business owners who file under the CCAA, who manage wealth and have large incomes, these are real people with limited financial resources at a time in their lives when they cannot financially recover.

The case of White Birch Paper was very clear in this regard. On the one hand, we saw that the CEOs of Black Diamond Capital and White Birch funds, who proceeded to buy the company, benefited from the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act by fetching more than $4.2 million in interest charges and $12 million in professional fees. On the other, we saw retirees whose pensions were cut by 20% to 30%.

This inequality between large financial organizations and pension plan members not only creates immeasurable economic consequences, but generates an increasingly widespread sense of economic injustice.

In addition, as the number of restructuring cases rises, trust in public institutions is beginning to fray.

[Tom Laurie, Director, GENMO Salaried Pension Organization]

Thank you.

GENMO is an organization that advocates on behalf of over 7,000 of GM Canada's salaried retirees, and we thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this morning.

Like most people, we thought government regulations protected pensioners. After all, defined benefit pensions are supposed to be guaranteed for life. Then, in 2008 and 2009, GM Canada came perilously close to bankruptcy. In fact, GM in the U.S. and Nortel both did file for insolvency. A vague potential pension problem became too close to being real for us.

Out of this situation, GENMO was born in May of 2010. We discovered that pension advocates are the only stakeholders making proposals to solve this problem. While other stakeholders all profess to understand that pensioners are unfairly treated and should be better protected, they haven't brought forward a single credible solution. We have to thank Madam Gill and Mr. Duvall for joining with pension advocates to try to correct this inequity.

The only credible solution on the table today is Bill C-253. It is opposed by some stakeholders. They claim it would put companies with defined benefit pension plans at risk by facing lending premiums that would lead to insolvencies. However, the Ontario Indalex ruling, which made pension deficits a deemed trust, stood for two years without any resulting wave of insolvencies.

Companies will operate within the legislative environment that governments set. Change this environment and companies will change their behaviour. Implementing Bill C-253 will likely have two major impacts on corporate behaviour towards pensions.

First, the pension obligation will be real, not something that disappears during an insolvency. Companies will better fund their pensions to maintain a good standing with all of their creditors. For example, when boards consider dividends, share buybacks and executive bonuses, they will consider their pension obligation more seriously.

Studies have shown that companies with defined benefit pension plans pay out far more out of the company than would be required to address their pension obligations. Sears, as an example, literally took hundreds of millions of dollars out of the company, while leaving behind a pension obligation in the millions.

Secondly, companies would improve their pension fund risk management. Company pension contributions come from two sources: cash from their continuing operations and money earned on the assets within their plan. There is an incentive for companies to take risks with pension assets to try to generate higher returns, thereby reducing the contributions from their operations. If they lose or miscalculate on this bet, what is the downside? They may get five, 10 or 15 years to make it up, and if worse comes to worst and the company goes out of business or fails, the debt literally vanishes.

In my case, in 2009, when GM Canada told salaried employees their pension was 95% funded, the reality was that after the market crashed, the pension fund was probably in about the 50% funded range. Was GM taken by surprise? Certainly. Was GM too heavily invested in higher-returning equities? Absolutely.

Under the tighter controls that followed, GM Canada reduced significantly the risks in its pension fund and actually brought it to over 100% funded. This is possible with the right motivation.

We hear lots of speculative claims about the consequences of superpriority. How would small businesses get financing? Who would be impacted? In fact, very few, if any, small businesses have defined benefit pensions.

What about other stakeholders during insolvency? If businesses make the adjustments I have discussed previously, there should be little impact. In any case, every other stakeholder has negotiated their risk. They have at risk only the unpaid portion of their contract. Pensioners actually have 20, 30 or 40 years on the table.

We also hear about deflection. You will likely hear witnesses say the solution is elsewhere, in tighter solvency regulations, limits on dividends, etc. However, these things are very difficult to deal with. The point is that while some of these ideas sound reasonable, they are a jurisdictional nightmare. They involve three areas of legislation—pension, business and tax—and they cross provincial and federal jurisdictions. It would take a lot of effort to do this.

The single point at which to address protection in Canada is insolvency legislation. Bill C-253 provides a reasonable solution.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

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

Welcome to meeting number 44 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 will be spent on Bill C-253, and then we will move in camera for the second hour, to review a report.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I'd 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 audio. Please select your preference now.

I'll remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your microphone should be on mute. If you have a tendency to move your microphone after you've spoken, please make sure you put it back in place prior to responding.

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 a 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.

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 CanAge, we have Laura Tamblyn Watts, president and CEO, and Brett Book, policy officer. From the GENMO Salaried Pension Organization, we have Michael Powell, president, and Tom Laurie, director.

From l'Observatoire de la retraite, we have with us Mr. François L'Italien, coordinator.

From the Store and Catalogue Retiree Group, we have Kenneth Eady, Sears retiree and court-appointed representative of Sears retirees.

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

We will start with CanAge.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

That's our time for this study today.

Before I go to MP Baldinelli, I would like to thank our witnesses for being with us today.

Thank you very much for your testimony. It will be very helpful to us in our deliberations on Bill C‑253.

With that, I will allow our witnesses to leave, and then I will turn the floor over to MP Baldinelli.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Thornton, we've had a witness at committee who spoke to the matter of concerns around lending when it comes to the change of priority of claims during bankruptcy. In the case of Sun Indalex Finance versus United Steelworkers, the pension deficit was ruled to be a deemed trust by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. This ruling put pensioners higher than even what Bill C-253 is proposing. This ruling has stood for about two years. As far as we can see, the sky did not fall for borrowers and the sky did not fall for the lenders.

Can you share any past evidence of measures like those in Bill C-253 that negatively affected investors? Would we not expect investors to be able to easily adapt to this change that would bring fairness to workers getting their deferred wage?

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all our guests for coming here today on this important issue.

My first question is for Mr. Docherty.

Lenders and investors knowingly put their money into a business at some calculated risk. They do so with the intention of turning a profit. I see the workers as this type of investor, too. They invest their time and labour, and they do it in return for a paycheque and, in the case of an employer-sponsored defined benefits plan, for a deferred wage.

Do you agree that this bill, Bill C-253, would finally put a much-needed change to the standard and culture of how we look at pensions so that workers' investments in a deferred wage come before investors that do so at a risk for a chance to make a profit?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is a pleasure to be able to meet in person.

I would like to turn to Mr. St‑Gelais, president of the Comité des retraités de Mines Wabush, from Cliffs.

Mr. St‑Gelais, let me first give you my colleague Marilène Gill's warmest regards and congratulate you on your commitment to pensioners.

Bill C‑253, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (pension plans and group insurance plans), could also have been called the Wabush Mines Pensioners' Committee bill, in our opinion, to highlight your overall contribution to this debate.

First, how does having a bill that is not clear affect pensioners?

Bill C‑253 is intended to protect 1.2 million Canadian workers and pensioners from the impact of corporate bankruptcies on the pension funds of retirees and workers.

Could you tell us what the impact of the Cliffs Natural Resources insolvency has been on workers and pensioners?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to each of the witnesses. I found your testimony to be very helpful.

I will start off with Mr. Zigler.

Mr. Zigler, you did say that Bill C-253 can be problematic. However, you did offer some solutions.

We have heard that, should Bill C-253 be adopted, it will effectively discourage companies from having defined benefit plans going forward. What would you say to that?

[Cody Cooper, President and Board Chair, Chrysler Canada Retirees]

Thank you.

I'm the president and chair of the CCRetirees organization for the non-represented salaried retirees of the former Chrysler Canada. As well, I'm the vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Pensioners.

The 23 member groups of the Canadian Federation of Pensioners total over 300,000 individuals, and with our alliances with CARP, CanAge and the National Pensioners Federation, we represent the voice of millions of Canadian pensioners.

The two decades of this century have been notable, with the carnage inflicted on pensioners and the ongoing lack of meaningful measures taken to protect the income security of those who have retired with a defined benefit pension.

In the press these pensions are often referred to as “guaranteed”. That would be news to those from Nortel, Sears and others, who have seen their retirement security eroded as they were left unprotected because of the legislative scheme.

Pensions are deferred wages, earned while working and payable upon retirement. The scope and the terms of the pensions are within the realm of the employer. No one forced the employer to make such arrangements.

Pensioners deserve the pension promised by their employer. Unlike others involved in bankruptcy, pensioners' loss is forever, as opposed to a note or a supplier credit from a contractor or plumber.

The responsibility to ensure pension protection falls upon the government. Pensioners have no control, input or approval over changes to their pensions. Several countries do a better job of protecting pensions than Canada—the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany come to mind—and somehow their economic activity continues.

There have been numerous consultations and submissions, including a request from the Canadian Federation of Pensioners, to study the best solution to ensuring full protection of pensioners in insolvency. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no response from government.

The current government touts its whole-of-government approach, issued after the latest consultations. This is the equivalent of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Bill C-253 represents the only credible solution on the table. This is a solution with zero cost to the taxpayer. There will be, and always has been, those who claim such measures would lead to more liquidations instead of restructuring. That Indalex was the law of the land and the business world continued indicates that this is just spin at best. Many of these opponents issued recent profit statements which belie the need to protect their interests at the expense of pensioners. Their assumption seems to imply that management would not alter its behaviour and treat seriously pension obligations and deficits.

Corporations make decisions and act within the law. The law enacted by government has generated ongoing hardship on pensioners and their families. It's your role to address the problems which have arisen from your legislative scheme. Please, no more studies, consultations or promises. A transition period is inevitable, but make sure it's not undue.

This is Seniors Month. Do something real, and do it now. Failure to act in a timely manner is the equivalent of senior financial abuse.

Please support and enact Bill C-253. Thank you.

[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.

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

Thank you again, Madam Chair.

My question is for the member for Manicouagan.

First, thank you for your leadership on this issue. We agree that this affects people's lives in practical terms. During the deliberations in the House, you said that, in the event of a company's bankruptcy, pensioners can lose up to 25% of their deferred salary. So their quality of life is directly affected.

What would this change in concrete terms, if Bill C-253 were passed in this Parliament?

[The Clerk]

To recap, we had the original motion moved. There was debate. An amendment was moved to replace the wording “without hearing witnesses” with “after three full meetings of witness testimony”. The effect would be that there would be no other committee activities or business in between the three full meetings. The committee would then go immediately to clause-by-clause consideration.

The motion as amended, as it stands right now, would have the impact of pushing back the consideration of draft reports until the committee has completed its three full meetings of witness testimony and clause-by-clause study of Bill C-253.

If this motion were withdrawn, we would revert to the original tentative calendar of pontooning the meetings, having half a meeting to consider a draft report and half a meeting for witness testimony.

It's entirely up to the committee how it wishes to proceed.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Michael MacPherson]

Based on my reading of the motion as submitted, it would be amended so that the committee proceed immediately to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-253, as referred by the House on May 12, 2021, after three full meetings of witness testimony.

If we look at our calendar that was distributed, which was tentative, we already have Bill C-253 in there for June 1, 3, 8 and 10. Therefore, it would be June 1, 3 and 8 with witnesses, and then June 10 would be clause-by-clause consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Right now, if you recall, we circulated a draft agenda for between now and the end of the session. The plan was to hold meetings regarding Bill C-253, so it's already in the books to do so. I had invited all the members to submit witnesses, which I believe some have.

We already have scheduled time in the agenda for this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

That's perfect. The amendment is to have three full meetings on Bill C-253 so that we can hear from witnesses.

I will turn to MP Masse.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will begin by responding to Mr. Dreeshen's comment by simply drawing a parallel with Bill C-208, which the Conservatives themselves introduced. They were able to prioritize that bill, which was then able to pass third reading last month. That is what happened. It was not a priority bill. Yet, it moved from 17th to 2nd in the order of priority, if memory serves. It was even prioritized again for the second hour of debate at third reading. The Conservatives changed the order of their bills so that some of them were given priority consideration during the debate time they had. These sorts of steps are taken to ensure quick passage.

I would also like to respond to Mr. Généreux's comment. If we don't fast-track Bill C-253 back to the House without delay and an election is called, the bill will be a complete failure.

Remember that a bill was passed under a gag order two weeks ago to enact rules for how elections work during a pandemic. In my view, if the government is passing reforms to the Canada Elections Act under a gag order, that sends a very alarming message to me that it wants to call an election.

This is the context in which we must operate. Based on the indicators we have, we could see a lot of bankruptcies this fall, because right now companies are being kept alive on life support. If we don't get Bill C-253 back to the House quickly, we will not be protecting workers from these bankruptcies. We are exposing them to the consequences.

That's why this motion needs to pass quickly. We need to get Bill C-253 back to the House as soon as possible, to at least give ourselves a chance to get it passed on behalf of the people we represent.

Of course, we can't know in advance who we will save from bankruptcy, which constituencies will be affected, and the circumstances in which it will happen. However, the examples we have seen, like White Birch Papers, really scare me.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Sébastien mentioned that I voted in support of Bill C-253. I was glad to do so, to bring it to committee for study. It strikes me that if we were to eliminate the prospect of hearing from witnesses, I would miss out on that study, and I think, to speak to Mr. Généreux's point, that we want to get it right. I also think we want to do it as quickly as we can, and I think we can do both of those things adequately, as far as this committee work is concerned.

We should, then, make sure that we return it to the House, ideally before we rise. I think that would be quite a quick but welcome process, if we can get it done, and I think we can, but it shouldn't preclude our hearing witnesses. I think we can do both. We can hear from witnesses—a short list, of course—get the clause-by-clause study done and then return it to the House before we rise.

That would be the aim, but while I supported getting Bill C-253 to committee, I don't support moving directly to studying it clause by clause. I think we should hear from a list of witnesses to make sure we get clause-by-clause examination right.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to take the liberty right away of introducing the motion that I previously sent out and that you all received via email. The motion is as follows:

That the Committee proceed immediately to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-253 as referred by the House on May 12, 2021, without hearing witnesses.

I introduce this motion on the basis that this bill does not commit any money from the government. The bill is essentially ideological and does not involve responsible government, for example.

In the particular context of COVID-19, we know that many companies are being kept on life support, as it were. That's what the results of various surveys are showing. The government's wage subsidy and rental assistance programs are very generous. However, when those programs end, we could see a significant number of bankruptcies.

In addition, the election threat weighs heavily on us. An election campaign could be triggered as early as August. We know that if this bill is not sent to the House directly, given the time allotted for debate and consideration by the Senate, it may not receive royal assent before the House wraps up.

If these bankruptcies occur in the fall without us having passed the bill, hundreds or even thousands of workers may not be protected. That is what I'm afraid of. My colleague Marilène Gill's bill covers two areas: priority payment of preferred claims for employers, as well as compensation for the loss of group insurance.

I therefore move that we begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-253 immediately, in the hope that it will be sent back to the House as soon as possible for consideration at third reading. I also hope that it will be sent to the Senate quickly so that it can be passed in the current Parliament. That will allow us to address the bankruptcies that may occur in many constituencies.

I want to point out that the motion to send the bill to committee was supported by the Bloc Québécois, of course, the NDP, the Conservative Party and 10 Liberal members, including our colleague Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. I am calling on our strategic political sense and compassion for the workers who may be affected by these bankruptcies.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My thanks to the vice-chairs, to all the members, and to the committee's entire support team.

I am pleased to be before you today. I would like to thank all the members of Parliament who have worked to bring Bill C-253 before a committee today.

I must say that it has been a long haul. In that context, I would like to thank all the members of Parliament before me who have introduced similar bills in the last 20 or so years. It really was in the 2000s that the House of Commons first took up the issue. At least a couple of decades, therefore. But amendments such as the ones I am proposing today have never really been put forward.

I also introduced a bill along the same lines in the last Parliament. Unfortunately, it was not able to make its way through. Allow me to make a quick, critical comment on the legislative process here. Under our rules, some worthwhile bills that could well be in the public interest have no chance of being debated, let alone passed. They do not get through the process if they are not priorities or if, in the case of private members' bills, they simply do not get the luck of the draw.

So, of course, I hope that the government will not be calling an election anytime soon. Then this bill might go even further and go back to the House in order to pass another stage there.

Let me return to the background and the principles that informed the bill as it was being developed. It is basically very simple, despite its title that is almost as long as the bill itself.

In terms of the background, this is a grassroots bill. As members of Parliament, you know that we want to be close to the public and we listen to them. Personally, I make it a point of honour to bring the people's requests to the House. We are conveyor belts. Whether we are in government or in opposition, we are above all representatives of our constituents, not representatives of ourselves or of any particular body.

This bill, therefore, first saw the light of day on the Côte-Nord. But it could equally well have been born in the constituency of my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador, a constituency also affected by the bankruptcy of Cliffs Natural Resources in 2015. Because of that bankruptcy, workers who had paid into a defined benefits pension plan for their entire careers were deprived of 25% of their pension funds and their insurance when the drama, I might almost say the tragedy, occurred. I will come back to that a little later.

The basic principle, on which a majority of members of the House were in agreement when we voted, is one of deferred salary. In the negotiations between the employer and the unions representing the workers, an agreement is reached that, at a certain point in their careers, they will do without some salary, in order to ensure that they have a pension fund when they retire. Simply put, it means that the money belongs to the workers.

Put another way, to repeat myself in the negative, just like in photography, I could use as an example a worker currently earning $20 an hour. Overnight, he sees his hourly rate dropped to $15. We could not accept that. We could not imagine depriving workers of 25% of their salary. A current salary and a deferred salary should be considered in exactly the same way. It's a salary; it belongs to the workers.

That is the very concrete principle on which the bill is based. Of course, as I am the one proposing it, you might agree that I may possibly have, or appear to have, a conflict of interest. But I completely agree with myself. All joking aside, there is still a principle behind this. Depriving people of a part of their pension fund has concrete and direct consequences in a number of areas.

Those consequences might be manifested in a lot of ways, with many examples, but I will simply talk about two major consequences.

The first consequence is a social one. I am talking here about the Cliffs Natural Resources case, which is really well documented. There have been many mental health issues, such as depression or suicidal behaviour. Of course, people were deprived of a lot. We must also think about the surviving husbands and wives. Women are also affected because they receive no benefits.

We must also consider the entire economic impact, of course.

I see that I have to move a little quicker, because I only have two minutes left.

So we also have the entire economic issue. We must not forget that people buy and invest in the communities where they live. The fact that they are not receiving their full pension deprives them but it also deprives the communities of resources. Individuals are affected by the situation, but so is the surrounding society.

I will really not have the time to talk about the two points that my bill seeks to amend, but I can address them very quickly.

The first is about the priority of the creditors. I deal with this in a very balanced, even very humble, way.

The second is about compensation for insurance, because that is what retirees face in the event of restructuring or bankruptcy.

Let me end with a thought that will surely find agreement among those who have hoped for this bill and the former parliamentarians who have tried to put forward solutions such as the ones I am putting before you today. We should be making legislation for our workers, because they vote. Large companies clearly do not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I now call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 40 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, and so you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entire committee.

We will be devoting the first hour to Bill C-253 and will then move in camera for the second hour to review the report.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I'd like to outline the regular rules.

Members may speak in the official language of their choice, as interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of “floor”, “English” or “French”.

As a reminder, all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. Please wait until I recognize you by name. When you are not speaking your mike 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, and I will hold up a red card when your time for questions has expired.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 12, 2021, the committee is meeting to begin 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 welcome today Philippe Méla, our legislative clerk, who will be working with us on this study.

Thank you very much for being with us today.

I'd now like to welcome the bill's sponsor, Marilène Gill, MP for Manicouagan.

The floor is yours for seven minutes so that you can introduce your bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

That ends our third round.

First of all, I thank the witnesses for being here today. That was excellent testimony.

Thank you so much for your statements.

Mr. Leclerc, I am with you: go Habs, go!

I'll say goodbye to the witnesses and I'll ask the members to stick around because I'm going to go over what we have in the cooker for the next couple of weeks, to see if we can work out something so that we can get everything done before the House rises.

With that, thank you very much to the witnesses for being with us today. If you have anything you would like to submit, I know Mr. Dreeshen had suggested a YouTube link. If you'd like to submit it to the clerk, the clerk will then circulate it to the committee members and we'll be able to watch those videos.

Now I feel as though I failed science class and I just got a refresher course, so thank you so much.

We will let the witnesses leave and then go with our plan for the rest of the session.

Members, thank you all for sticking around. We have a few minutes. I just want to connect because we have a couple of things still outstanding, one of which is that we have some witnesses who we invited to speak at the COVID recovery meeting and they weren't able to be with us during the times we had booked.

We have some witnesses who would like to appear on May 27, which is the Thursday when we come back after the riding week, so we will allocate that meeting for those final witnesses on the green recovery study.

As you know, we also have three reports that we need to hopefully finalize and table in the House before the House rises. I've been working with the clerk on that. As we are still in public, obviously we can't talk about what's in those reports, but we're trying to make sure that we can finish the session tabling those reports but also dealing with the piece of legislation that was referred to our committee yesterday, Bill C-253.

I have a plan. This committee has been pretty good about collaborating to get us across the finish line. I'll have the clerk circulate that once we kind of agree to it.

Next week is a riding week.

The following week, on May 25, we will invite the sponsor of the bill, MP Gill, to come and present for the first hour on Bill C-253, and then we'll go in camera and look at affordability and accessibility in telecommunications, because we will be receiving the second draft of the report probably by the end of this week. It will give us some time to look at it then.

On May 27, we will have the last meeting on green recovery.

What we'll then do is spend the first hour of each of the remaining meetings dealing with Bill C-253 and the second hour finalizing any reports. We need to get those reports finished by June 10 so the analysts can do what they do to get them back to me so I can table them by June 18.

In a perfect world, and I think we can do this, we can probably get everything done before the House rises for the summer. Again, I don't know how many witnesses people will want for Bill C-253, so I want to give us a bit of wiggle room. However, I think we can actually do this.

I want to put that proposal out to the committee members, just so you know also what you have on your record, and get some feedback if you all think this is a good plan.

I see some thumbs up.

It also gives us a bit of flexibility in case we need to allocate a little more time for a specific report versus another one. I want to just lay that out. I think we can do this.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-253 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-253, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (pension plans and group insurance plans), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be in the House tonight to conclude debate on my bill, Bill C-253, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act with respect to pension plans and group insurance plans. The bill has a long name, but it is actually quite simple. I will move on to its principle.

What I want to do is protect the deferred salaries of employees, of pensioners. In other words, when people contribute to a defined benefit pension fund, they expect that when they retire, they will be able to get or have what they have earned over a lifetime of work and labour. This is a very simple principle. We do not want a company or multinational to walk away with a large chunk of the fund because it has underfunded the pension plan. In very simple terms, that is what Bill C-253 is seeking to address.

Of course, we have been told, in many different ways, about all the problems we might face with a bill like this one. While the principle is simple, the devil is obviously in the details, but I would like to remind the House that our primary goal is to work for the people.

During the debate, I heard many comments about how, in the end, the government did good things in its budget. Let us hope that is the case, but we cannot rely only on hope. What I am putting forward here is not a one-time budget measure. Rather, it is intended to be a permanent legislative measure, since we are legislators. I am therefore proposing a solution.

I would like to thank the many people who worked with me over the past few years. Things take a long time in the House. We have been working on this bill for five years with the help of many people, including workers, pensioners and unions in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

I have an extraordinary team who has believed in this bill since we began our work for one good and simple reason, and that is the fact that the people from my riding of Manicouagan asked for this bill. That is the standard by which we should always measure the work that we do here. The people of Manicouagan had a need for this bill and they made it clear even before I was elected. They made that need clear during the election campaign, when I met with them, so many people contributed to the development of this bill.

I would therefore like to thank my entire team, all the organizations, local agencies, unions, pensioners and many others. I would also like to thank all of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, who also believe in this bill and who worked on it with me. I obviously want to thank my colleagues in the House. I believe I heard that many of them will be at least voting in favour of the principle of Bill C-253 so that it can be examined in committee.

I would now like to say a few words to each party.

The official opposition indicated it would support the bill, saying that it could be improved upon—which is true of anything, in my opinion. I hope the opposition will support the bill and we can discuss it. As several colleagues have already said, we have been talking about it for many years, but no action has been taken.

With all due respect to the government, the fact that it is increasing old age security in no way responds to what I am asking here on behalf of my constituents and other Canadians. That might be a nice infomercial for the government, but it has nothing to do with what I am calling for.

The official opposition has said it will vote in favour of referring this to committee for study. At least some mental effort is being made.

As for the government, it will probably vote against it, even though I have heard several people applaud the solutions to the difficulty we are facing. Even at its own Liberal convention, several party members, including government members, tabled a resolution in favour of a bill like mine. I would expect the governing party to vote in favour of something called for by a majority of its members, possibly.

Furthermore, the bill presents a balanced position. We often hear fearmongering about how this is going to result in business closures, but no, this takes a balanced approach.

I will conclude with this example. When Cliffs Natural Resources went bankrupt, its main creditor was itself. It gave itself $400 million. That $400 million belonged to the pensioners in my riding. I would prefer that, with a bill like mine, this money be returned to the workers and pensioners, not to the multinationals that continue to turn a profit.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to join my colleagues in the debate over Bill C-253, as we consider the important issues of protecting the retirement security of Canadian employees and pensioners when an employer faces insolvency.

Our government recognizes that all Canadians deserve peace of mind when it comes to their retirement security. We have taken several major steps to strengthen all aspects of Canada's retirement income system, including enhancements to old age security and the Canada pension plan. At the same time, corporate insolvencies create a challenge for workplace pension plans, as well as for the economic security for employees who may have unpaid wages and benefits. Bill C-253, while well intentioned, takes a flawed approach to these issues.

By contrast, our government has taken important and practical steps to enhance the retirement security of all Canadians and better protect the interests of Canadian employees and pensioners in cases of employer insolvency. First, in 2019, the government made changes to insolvency corporate and pension laws to strengthen the protection for workplace pensions, taking a whole-of-government, evidence-based approach. These changes were based on feedback from national consultations with labour and pensioner groups, company lenders, experts and the public at large.

After listening to Canadians, our government enacted a comprehensive package to enhance retirement security via budget 2019, which strengthened security for pensioners and workers, but also built on the internationally recognized successes of Canada's marketplace framework laws. The changes made to our insolvency laws have made corporate restructuring fair, more transparent and more accessible for pensioners and workers. Participants in insolvency proceedings are now required to act in good faith. As well, corporate directors will have to think twice before approving excessive payments to executives at the expense of pensions or benefit plans in the lead-up to a firm's insolvency, as courts will have more powers to review these payments and find directors liable where appropriate.

In proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, courts have been given greater power to order the disclosure of economic interests to enhance fairness and transparency in insolvency negotiations. The relief that a large corporation can seek on the first day of a CCAA restructuring is also now limited to what is absolutely necessary to avoid immediate liquidation. This means that pensioners and employees will have greater opportunities to participate in restructuring proceedings and make representations to the court before decisions are made on issues such as changes to employee group insurance benefit plans or pension contributions during the restructuring.

In our consultations, Canadians told us that a proactive approach to retirement security is the best and most sustainable approach. We received that message loud and clear, and that is why the government also amended federal corporate law to allow for more market oversight of corporate decision-making and worked to better align corporate incentives with the interests of workers and pensioners. Moreover, we have taken measures to restrain unreasonable executive compensation by requiring federally incorporated publicly traded corporations to hold advisory shareholder votes. Taken together, these measures will further regulate corporate behaviour and instill market discipline and oversight on corporate decision-makers.

Finally, our actions in budget 2019 also improved federally regulated pension plans by clarifying that if a pension plan is terminated, it must still provide the same benefits as when it was ongoing. Moreover, federal pension plans are permitted to transfer the responsibility to provide pensions to a regulated life insurance company to better protect pensions and pensioners from the risk of employer insolvency. In addition, our government has taken strong actions to directly support workers impacted by employer insolvency. The wage earner protection program provides financial assistance to Canadian workers who have lost their jobs and are owed wages, including termination and severance by their insolvent employer.

Since 2008, the program has paid more than $337 million in wages to nearly 129,000 Canadian workers. In 2018, this government increased the amount available to workers from four to seven weeks of insurable earnings.

In budget 2021, the government committed to further strengthening the program by eliminating a 6.82% deduction that was previously in place. Quite simply, these reforms will put more money in the pockets of Canadians who have lost their jobs and are owed wages by their employers.

The best way to protect economic and pension security is by preventing employer insolvency in the first place. This is an incredible challenge in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been so hard for so many of our businesses from coast to coast to coast. That is why an essential part of Canada's fight against COVID has been unprecedented federal financial supports for Canadians and Canadian businesses, which have helped keep insolvency levels down.

While the other side has dismissed these programs and the timely support they offer to Canadian families, businesses and workers, we made a promise to Canadians to have their backs through this pandemic for as long as it takes. In budget 2021, our government committed to extending these support measures as long as the fight against this virus requires it. The actions I just described will create better outcomes for pensioners and workers affected by the insolvency of their employer.

In contrast, Bill C-253 is coming from a good place, in terms of its intention of helping pensioners, but it takes a misguided approach in trying to do so. It would prevent some companies from restructuring, which would result in unnecessary job losses; hurt pensioners; harm small business; reduce access to credit and investment; and hurt Canadian competitiveness. Many firms are already struggling due to the pandemic. This bill would worsen, not improve, the situation.

I am pleased to say, however, that our government has taken effective action. Our insolvency and corporate law changes, our wage earner protection program improvements and support for businesses during the pandemic have all served to protect pensions and workers, while also supporting the central objectives of Canada's economic recovery. These measures help to ensure that our farms remain competitive and can continue to employ hard-working Canadians throughout the country.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize for the hiccup. I hope I will be forgiven, as it is my birthday today.

I am pleased to participate virtually in the debate surrounding Bill C-253, proposed by the hon. member for Manicouagan, of the Bloc Québécois. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Bill C-253 is the logical continuation of Bill C-372 that the hon. member for Manicouagan introduced in 2016, during the previous Parliament.

At the time, this bill was only debated for an hour before it died on the Order Paper because the Liberal government did nothing. The purpose of the bill was to prevent other retirees from unfairly losing their pension funds that they have worked all their lives for, which is what happened to the workers at Cliffs Natural Resources.

Let us set the scene for a moment. In 2015, this U.S. company wants to place its two Canadian subsidiaries under the protection of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. Meanwhile, Cliffs Natural Resources announces plans to restructure its activities with a view to shutting down its operations in eastern Canada. However, the restructuring had quite dire consequences, not only for existing employees, but also for pensioners, who lost much of their pension fund and group insurance.

That tragic situation was the impetus for the bill, which was intended to make legislative fixes, which my colleague will be much better able to confirm since I was not yet in the House at the time. Had Bill C-372 become law when the events had taken place a year earlier, the Cliffs Natural Resources pensioners would certainly have been given a bigger piece of the pie, namely the claim that was owed to them.

By proposing to amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, I think that we are calling today for legislation that will ensure fairer treatment for retired workers while maintaining fair treatment for creditors.

The purpose of the bill is therefore to prevent other creditors from getting access to what, in the end, amounts to the workers' life savings in the case of bankruptcy or restructuring. That seems logical. Since seniors are more financially vulnerable than other demographics, today, we would like this bill to fill a gap that has been created by the Liberals' silence on the matter by providing proper, fair and equitable legal protection centred on two main initiatives.

First, before the court approves a business's proposal for bankruptcy or restructuring, it must account for the total amount of special payments, as well as the amount needed for the liquidation of unfunded liabilities or solvency deficiencies of pension plans.

In plain language, the company's proposal must provide for a pension fund bailout if the court is convinced the company is capable of doing that. This rule would protect workers' pensions from being cut off, and we think it is crucial to protecting workers' savings.

Second, a reread of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act reveals six categories of creditors: first, creditors whose claims are deemed to be held in trust; second, unpaid suppliers; third, super-priority creditors; fourth, secured creditors; fifth, preferred creditors; and sixth, ordinary, unsecured creditors.

Bill C-253, which we are arguing in favour of today, would add other payments and indemnifications to these six categories of creditors. For example, special payments would get preferred claim status. The same goes for indemnification for beneficiaries of group insurance plans in which the company participated as an employer. The total amount of special payments, as well as any amount required to liquidate unfunded liabilities or solvency deficiencies, would also be secured claims against the bankrupt's assets as of the date of bankruptcy.

In keeping with our principles and our values, my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I support this bill, which has been introduced for the second time by my colleague from Manicouagan, and we support it for many reasons. First, the bill will recognize that a pension plan is a form of deferred wages, and second, it will cushion the financial blow to pensioners when their former employer declares bankruptcy. I was just talking about that a moment ago. With our bill, bankrupt companies or ones that are restructuring their operations will have to provide the total amount of any special payments and the total amount needed to liquidate their unfunded liabilities or solvency deficits in the pension plan fund. In this same spirit, this bill is beneficial because it will protect retired workers' group insurance plans. It will also compel businesses to better fund their pension plans. Finally, it will enable the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to study this important social issue. That will surely please my Bloc Québécois colleague who sits on that committee, as well as all other members of the committee.

In closing, dear colleagues, if passed, our proposed Bill C-253 would protect workers and retirees so that they would never again lose the pensions that they earned after a lifetime of hard work. We find such injustices unacceptable. It is our moral duty to defend and respect active workers and retirees who, generation after generation, have slowly forged and are still forging the way of life we are fortunate to cherish today.

Ottawa's wait-and-see attitude and inaction have gone on long enough, and while this is the position that requires the least effort, it remains the least honourable. If we do nothing, history will judge our politicians by the way we let down the citizens, who spend more time looking backward than forward.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to put some thoughts on the record today regarding Bill C-253. This bill would put pension plans in priority to secured creditors in the event of bankruptcy proceedings.

Prior to my life in politics, I practised commercial law for over 20 years as a partner in a downtown Winnipeg law firm. Much of my practice involved doing commercial loan securitization for financial institutions. For the most part, it was my job to ensure that proper legal documentation was in place to ensure a first charge against the assets of the borrower on behalf of the lender. A first charge was always essential to the security requirements of the lender.

The concept of a secured creditor having a first charge is also fundamental to the functioning of our economic system. Without that guarantee, lenders would be far more reluctant to make loans and would view this as a major risk in their security position. Many businesses require debt financing to function, do business, provide jobs for their communities and hire employees.

When I saw this bill, my first concern was what would financial institutions do if this law was changed, in other words, if pension funds had priority over the secured position of lending institutions. How would it affect existing indebtedness? In other words, that would be loans that have already been made predicated on a first charge against the borrower's assets.

I suspect many financial institutions would be very concerned and we could see some instances where they might say that if pensions were to come first, they could no longer take the risk and call in their loan. This is a likely outcome of this legislation as it is currently presented and could pose a serious threat to businesses that fall under federal jurisdiction for pensions and result in challenges for them. In other words, the bill could have the exact opposite effect from what it intends. It could force businesses to close if the lenders see this as an increase in the risk profile, an unacceptable risk, jeopardizing pension plans and pensioners.

On the other hand, one could also argue that this law would incentivize banks for new loans to insist that pension funds were secured and in solid shape by the company before they would agree to make a loan. The problem with this approach is that in the case of defined benefit plans, if there is a precipitous drop in the value of the assets of the fund or of the company after the loans are made, then it may still be difficult for the company to pay back the bank if it must first satisfy the pension plan. This could create a drive toward conversion of many plans to a defined contribution model.

Another problem can occur where a company is failing and needs to restructure its debt but cannot find a lender to take on the additional risk if it is forced to subordinate to pension obligations.

It is clear there are serious issues with any bill that has, as its goal, a fundamental shift in security prioritization away from lending institutions. However, as a society, we must also recognize the importance of labour. I can see the argument being made of why a bank should have priority over people who have worked their entire lives for the company. It is not the fault of those workers that the company went bankrupt and so their pensions should be protected. It is here that we have a conundrum. If lenders cannot be first, they may not lend. If they do not lend, there may not be a job. If pensioners do not receive their pensions in the event of a corporate bankruptcy, workers might not work and, again, there may not be a job.

This is a difficult predicament and as I was writing this speech, it made me think of the biblical tale of King Solomon’s baby. In that tale, two women claimed to be the mother of the child. To settle the dispute, Solomon decreed that the child be cut in two, upon which the true mother revealed herself by insisting the baby be given to the other woman to save its life.

I do not have any such Solomonesque wisdom in the case of pensions, banks and public companies, but I do think this bill, as it is presently constituted, could result in the end of some companies for lack of willing bank capitalization.

What this debate does make clear is that we must find a better way to support businesses and their employees, and I think we would be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees with this idea. When bankruptcies occur, far too often there is a long list of creditors and individuals who need to be made whole and there is unfortunately not enough money to go around in many instances.

We also must consider the effects on the supply chain of a company that is unable to restructure its debt. What happens to the employees that work for the suppliers? There are all kinds of small business suppliers that could be shut out in the event of a bankruptcy.

A working paper by the OECD regarding priority creditor rights for pension funds discusses this issue. One of the arguments against measures like what Bill C-253 proposes is that, if this were allowed, a range of social issues could come forward claiming priority rights, such as health benefits or environmental claims to name a couple. Would these be prioritized over pensions? How would we decide that?

The OECD working paper makes also makes a strong case against changing the position of pension claims within the creditor rankings. This argument centres upon the fact that, aside from the complications of changing bankruptcy legislation, doing so may be harmful to capital markets and damaging to the investment climate.

If pension funds are given superpriority status, other creditors, who may be small trades and personal creditors, would be bumped down the line, increasing their credit risk. These suppliers may also be hesitant to provide their services in a pension superpriority environment. Also, lenders, given the additional risk, could in turn pass this risk on to businesses in the form of more expensive interest rates and capital. As well, the marketplace could be adversely impacted with increased bad debts and potential failures. This could result in less confidence in our financial markets. It could also make Canadian businesses less competitive vis-à-vis foreign jurisdictions that do not have such a law.

It could also be argued that any change in the ranking of pension obligations would have a negative impact on credit cost and availability. One alternative to help address the issue might instead be to make it illegal for shareholders to strip a company of its cash in the form of dividends when there is a pension shortfall. If we look at what happened with Sears Canada, it is an example of where this type of change would have benefited pensioners.

Its majority shareholder, an American hedge fund, took out billions in cash from the company. In 2005, the hedge fund took out $1.5 billion. In 2010, it took out $750 million, and in 2012, it took out $100 million. However, in 2007 there was already a pension shortfall of $36 million and that shortfall continued to widen, reaching $267 million by 2015. There would have been more than enough cash available to Sears Canada to cover its $36-million pension shortfall in 2007, and any other future shortfall, if cash were not being withdrawn from the company at a challenging time, so rules to prohibit dividend stripping when a pension is in a shortfall could be beneficial by allowing a company access to more cash to cover its losses. As a result, that could serve as an effective tool.

Another option could be pension plan insurance, which companies would pay into in the event a pension is unfunded and a company faces insolvency.

There are different alternatives to solving the problem this bill proposes to address. I believe at committee there will be more alternatives discussed. There we will have a chance to have a full discussion of the benefits and pitfalls to be brought forward and addressed by hearing from witnesses, such as workers, employers, academics, financial institutions and others. I think as we work toward a solution on this issue, we must remain focused on ensuring there is a balanced approach.

The security of pension plans for workers must remain top of mind, but we must also avoid measures that could discourage investors and lenders from trying to save a company in despair. King Solomon would expect nothing less of us.

The House resumed April 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-253, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (pension plans and group insurance plans), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the House of a historic moment. On May 20, 2016, during oral question period in the House of Commons, my dear Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Manicouagan, asked the federal government if it would ensure that retirees are considered preferred creditors when companies go bankrupt.

The member asked this question after great misfortune struck the workers and pensioners of Cliffs Natural Resources. On January 27, 2015, the company announced that the affiliate operating its Bloom Lake facility on the North Shore had filed for protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

Since asking the federal government that question, my colleague has continued to work on this file, and I commend her for that. Her bill, which we are debating today, is so important.

Even so, the federal government has been sitting on this issue for around five years, all while companies like Cliffs, Sears, White Birch Paper and Groupe Capitales Médias went through restructuring. Anger is brewing among these companies' workers and pensioners, who feel like shareholders and senior executives walked away with their pension funds. It is a sad situation.

This has been going on for a long time. Conservatives and Liberals alike across several Parliaments propose bills, but the federal government never passes legislation and never protects pensions for workers and pensioners. The profits of executives and shareholders always come first.

I am sure that the vast majority of members in the House of Commons agree with the principle of protecting workers' pensions and the absolute need to end this injustice. Yes, I am calling it an injustice. Not protecting the pensions of workers and pensioners is nothing short of abetting an injustice in plain sight.

We need to put an end to this injustice with Bill C-253. We have to prevent other tragedies. Pensioners are in no position to go earn extra income. They are counting on a pension they paid into for their entire lives to ensure a certain quality of life. Since this is an injustice, we must stand together in solidarity and put mechanisms in place to protect them.

Canada is one of the most irresponsible countries in the world when it comes to protecting the pensions of workers and pensioners. This needs to change. The members of the House must seize this opportunity and pass Bill C-253. As MPs, we have a duty to fix the situation and amend the legislation to protect the pensions of workers and pensioners.

We need to do this for workers, pensioners and seniors, of course, but also for younger people who may not have access to the same social safety net. Unfortunately, things are not changing, and these tragedies will keep happening again and again in this globalized financial and industrial world. This world is going through a radical digital transformation, with more and more companies going through restructuring and the biggest, strongest players still crushing the smallest and weakest. It is the law of the market, the very essence of capitalism.

That is why we need to ensure that pension funds are bailed out and retirees' pensions are paid out in full. That is why we need to protect group insurance. That is why we need to take action to fix the situation and correct this injustice. If the responsibility is shared among everyone, it will be easier to bear.

We currently have two bankruptcy acts, one for businesses and one for individuals: the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. These acts do not adequately protect workers' and retirees' pensions. Actually, they do not protect them at all. They do not protect group insurance either.

Currently, the law does not say anything about workers' group insurance. It is hard to see workers' and retirees' group insurance as a debt under the current regime if nobody tries to claim an amount to compensate pensioners for this loss.

The status quo is not an option for retired workers who have lost a significant chunk of their pension fund and their group insurance. Their rights were violated, and their anger must be appeased. This is a matter of dignity. I cannot imagine how angry a person would be if their hard-earned money were stolen. Injustice causes anger, and these retired workers feel that their days, their work, their creativity, their skill, their dedication and their trust were stolen from them. Their happiness and dignity were stolen from them.

Pensions are a major source of income for seniors. That financial flexibility completely changes the situation. It means more financial security and less stress for seniors in a world where everything seems to move so fast and, sometimes, in the wrong direction. This financial flexibility is essential to everyday life to pay for food, transportation, personal items, clothing, rent and fixed expenses.

This week, in the context of the budget, we spoke about the vulnerability of seniors. The budget does not solve everything. I recognize that there is something in the budget for seniors, but only for those 75 and over. Why create two classes of seniors? Why create unfairness? This bill also reminds us that not everyone has access to the same type of retirement. Perhaps the government should have been more generous to seniors in the budget by giving them additional ongoing assistance of $110 per month as of age 65. That would have helped them increase that financial flexibility that is so essential to their dignity and to the much-deserved pleasure of living the last years of their lives to the fullest after all their hard work.

What would Bill C-253 do? It would ensure fairer treatment for retired workers while maintaining fair treatment for creditors. It would amend the existing Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act such that, in the case of bankruptcy or restructuring, other creditors will not get access to what should be the workers' pension fund.

If the House of Commons passes this bill, there will finally be a law protecting workers and pensioners so they will never again lose their pension, which they earned by dint of hard work and dedication, sometimes at the cost of their physical and mental health. That last point is worth emphasizing.

The Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of this bill, since it was introduced by one of our own. It is nearly identical to Bill C-372, which was introduced by the member for Manicouagan in 2016. This bill is the culmination of consultations with the people of the North Shore and with businesses and organizations in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois recognizes that a pension plan is a form of deferred wages and that it can help pensioners deal with the financial blow they are dealt when a former employer files for bankruptcy.

The bill would protect retired workers' group insurance plans, compel businesses to better fund their pension plans and enable the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to study this important social issue.

I want to acknowledge the chair and co-chair of the committee. The co-chair just spoke on behalf of the Conservatives. This is an issue we must consider very carefully and diligently. I serve with some amazing colleagues on this committee and the clerk and analysts do excellent work, so I know that the study called for in Bill C-253 will be both thorough and meaningful and that it will help resolve any impasses on this issue. The committee will have to find the time in our busy schedules to conduct this study.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-253 because it is a reasonable improvement that will help achieve the goal of protecting the pensions and group insurance of employees and pensioners. It will also improve the quality of life of our seniors, who, I should point out, are the most vulnerable members of the population.

Let us also not forget that pensioners use their pensions to spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in the businesses located in the towns and villages of our regions, and are therefore at the very heart of the Quebec economy. Bill C-253 is a step in the right direction and must pass.

As a final point, I would like to mention that I used to sit on the board of directors of the Quebec pension plan. I will therefore be very pleased to dive back into the issues surrounding the dignity of employees and people's quality of life.

I invite our colleagues to support this bill, and I truly hope they do.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the chamber as the NDP critic for pensions on what I believe is one of the most important matters in the pension portfolio before us today. The subject matter of the private member's bill, Bill C-253, regards protections of the employer-sponsored pensions for workers in the case where the employer is undergoing bankruptcy proceedings.

I would like to sincerely thank my Bloc colleague for using her spot in the priority list of Private Members' Business to bring forward these measures. As she knows, I feel strongly about the necessity of these protections put forward, so much that my bill, Bill C-259 contains equivalent measures to every article contained in this bill. I would like to let her and the House know that I am calling on all my NDP colleagues to support the bill at second reading and I hope to see it get to committee.

What I would like to talk about in the short amount of time I have is: first, the importance of pensions and the types of pensions we are talking about; second, the current situations by way of the acts of Parliament and some real accounts of the problem at hand when companies go bankrupt; and third, what Bill C-253 does and does not do.

My speech today will be as much for those at home as it is for those present in the chamber. It is important for all Canadians to know clearly what is at stake here in simple terms so they can ensure that their MP is doing the right thing when they cast their vote on this.

Pensions have become so commonplace in society that some may take their existence for granted. While the administration and accounting of the pension plans by those who manage them may be complicated, the concept is pretty simple and makes their importance clear.

During our working years, we put money away in regular amounts so that we can draw on that fund of money in our retirement years in order to live. Canada's government, like many other governments, has a segment of our pension sector which is socialized. For those of us who are fortunate enough to have contributed to the workforce, we pay into the Canada retirement income system that is made up of, among other things, the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada pension plan and in Quebec, the Quebec pension plan.

While I go on about the importance of these retirement incomes and the necessity for their reform, this is not the matter of Bill C-253. The bill instead touches on what I call employer-sponsored pensions. Employer-sponsored pensions are those whereby in an agreement there exists an employer's obligation with respect to a pension plan that it sponsors for its employees. The employer agrees to deduct from their wages an agreed amount to remit to the pension plan fund and agrees to also remit an amount of its own, oftentimes equal to the employee's contributions.

This brings me to talk about the defined benefit pension plan versus defined contribution pension plan and it is important that we distinguish these in order to talk about Bill C-253.

With a defined contribution pension plan, the amount of income we receive is not set but rather depends on how much we happen to contribute and in fact, can drastically be reduced depending on how the investments in that fund were managed by the employer.

On the other hand, with the defined benefit pension plan, the amount of income we receive is set and the administrator of the fund is compelled to be responsible in investing our money. In this type of pension, there could be a pension deficit. This is considered unfunded liability.

We can discuss the problem that Bill C-253 proposes to fix, the situation where an employer is facing bankruptcy and who has obligations under an arrangement to provide an employer-sponsored pension plan. The bill proposes to change the existing laws that deal with such a situation. The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, BIA, covers the treatment of a bankrupt employer's obligations with respect to a pension plan and its sponsoring for its employees. The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, CCAA, provides a restructuring framework for insolvent companies. The BIA and CCAA provide for priority for the employer to pay both. The employer's contribution is deducted at source, but not remitted to the pension plan fund and employees' contributions owed, but are not remitted to the pension plan fund. In fact, under these laws, a court is disallowed from approving a proposal or plan unless these two are paid.

Here comes the problem. Unfunded liabilities like pension deficits in the case of defined benefit plans that are accrued and due to the pension plan's fund on the date of the bankruptcy come after secured creditors. This means that banks, investors and parent companies would be paid before the shortfalls in the pension plan are covered.

Pensions and benefits earned by workers are deferred wages, plain and simple. Denying workers what they have earned should be illegal, yet under these laws, corporations are allowed to take money meant for workers' pensions and divert them to pay off their secured creditors, like banks. Bill C-253 would stop this practice.

In recent years, workers have suffered significant losses to their pension plans in insolvency proceedings under the CCAA.

For example, Sears Canada initiated proceedings June 2017. The pension plan deficit was $206 million, with an expected recovery of only 8% to 10%, and would leave $200 million unrecovered.

Co-op Atlantic initiated proceedings in June 2015. The pension plan deficit was $63 million and only $7.7 million was recovered, leaving $54.3 million unrecovered.

Wabush Mines initiated proceedings in May 2015 and of the $55 million of the pension plan deficit, only $18 million was recovered, leaving $370 million unrecovered.

Nortel Networks Corporation, which we all know very well, initiated proceedings in January 2009 and of the $1.84 billion of the pension plan deficit, only a little over half was recovered, leaving $841million unrecovered.

For those who follow legislation closely, I would like to state, technically, what Bill C-253 would achieve if passed: it will amend the BIA to prohibit a court from approving an employer's proposal for bankruptcy if there are any unfunded liabilities or solvency deficiency in the associated pension plan of workers; it will require that any unfunded liability within the pension plan be paid in order for a court to approve an employer's bankruptcy plan and given them “super priority” status; it will amend the CCAA to require that an insolvent corporation entering into a “compromise”, which reprioritizes the payment of certain debts and liabilities over others, must pay unpaid amounts of any severance pay or compensation in lieu of notice.

There are some protections that Bill C-253 would not provide, and I would like to cover these.

My bill, Bill C-259, includes a provision that would prevent a judge, during a proceeding under the CCAA, from suspending benefits to employees or pensioners during the course of the proceedings. I think this is important and fair.

Another thing that Bill C-253 would not do is something new that I added to my version of the bill in this Parliament. It proposes to change the Pension Benefits Standards Act to allow the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to determine that the funding of a pension plan is underfunded and can order measures to be taken by the employer in order to correct the impairment.

I want to pass on some reflections on some commentary and quotes from the recent past on measures of these bills. For example:

I like the fact that the word “pension” means deferred income. When we go to work, work an eight-hour day or however many hours we put in, a great deal of consideration is given to the benefits that go beyond that hourly, weekly or monthly rate paid to us. A pension is a deferred income.

Who said that? It was the Parliamentary Secretary of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the member for Winnipeg North.

The Liberals campaigned on a promise to improve the income retirement security for all Canadian seniors. It is time for the government to put a stop to this organized theft.

I encourage Canadians watching to call their members of Parliament and ask them to vote in favour of Bill C-253 at second reading and help start the process of ending pension theft by large corporations.

We can also talk about Laurentian University, which is going through the same problem right now. This is devastating. The whole process is being abused and it must be fixed. People's lives are going to be turned upside down on this one. The government must step in and change legislation.

I thank hon. members for their time, and I hope the bill will be given the important consideration that it warrants. I recommend to everybody to send Bill C-253 to committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, let me digest that for about five seconds. That is ridiculous. I just finished commenting on something that the member just provided an answer to a question on the bill.

Let me get right to the point of the legislation itself. I asked the member a question on how Bill C-253, in its current format, would provide an incentive for companies to liquidate as opposed to restructuring. In response she suggested that I needed to read the bill. It is not a question of reading the bill as much as it understanding the potential consequence of the legislation. She has not been able to alleviate those concerns as she has indicated in her response to me that she is already somewhat aware of this.

Pensions do matter. Pensions are very important to Canadians. The Liberal Party talked about retirement plans at the last AGM. Retirement plans are a deferred future income. We need to be there for Canadians in a very real way. The Government of Canada has been there, dealing with and continuing to work on ways we can enhance pensions.

In fact, as was referred to earlier, I would remind the hon. member that the national government worked with different provincial and territorial governments to get increases to CPP, which will ensure that all workers contributing to CPP will have that much more when it comes time to retire.

We recognize how important pensions are. We also need to realize that pensions come in different forms. When I think of pensions, it would be wonderful if all pensions were funded pensions, that the money associated with those future expenditures would be put aside and protected so pensioners would have no issues whatsoever.

Unfortunately that is not the reality. That is not just within the private sector, but it is in the public sector as well. Often what we find is that employers, and governments, will create unfunded pension plans. Those pension plans are based on revenue or income. There can be hybrid pension plans. A good example of that is in fact the CPP.

There are many different forms of pensions out there. Personally, I like the hybrid version because I believe that is very workable, even though it is not necessarily the ideal.

When I look at the bill, the employee group benefit claims would be weakened and that could ultimately weaken companies in their ability to restructure and affect that sense of competitiveness of firms with respect to defined benefit pension plans as well as group insurance benefit plans, which would not necessarily help pensioners and workers in all cases. It has the potential to threaten the existence of defined pension plans.

That is why I am a bit surprised. The Conservatives seem to want to support the legislation. I do not quite understand their arguments and will wait to hear from the Conservative members. Maybe they could address that specifically. Do they not have any fears with respect to companies that might, as a result, want to liquidate over restructuring? It is a very serious issue.

We recognize that after a lifetime of hard work, Canadians do deserve to have that peace of mind when it does come time for security. Many years ago, I can remember walking on a picket line out in Transcona. Today's industries have modified significantly, but there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. When I was walking this picket line in the early nineties, I was amazed to find that there are workers who have been working for over 30 years and they are getting $400 or $500 as a pension after that long commitment to a business. That is not rare, unfortunately.

We have seen significant improvements over the years, but it is important for all of us to do what we can to advocate because we all have a responsibility to ensure that people have that disposable income when it comes time for retirement. On that issue alone, I could speak extensively on why we have some programs, particularly in Manitoba, that will start off financial supports for seniors at age 55 and why some seniors at an older age require additional support. That will be for another day, but the bottom line is we do need to recognize that after a lifetime of hard work, there is a need to ensure peace of mind for Canadian workers. If I genuinely felt this legislation that was going to be achieving that, I would be far more open to supporting it, but I am not convinced of that now.

We are taking, I believe, as a government, a holistic approach, one that is based on evidence in terms of addressing retirement security for all Canadians. As a government, we have held national consultations, heard from pensioners, workers, lenders and companies on these very important issues. As I said, over the years, there has been CPP enhancement, working with different stakeholders, working in consultation with seniors, increases to the guaranteed income supplement and the budgetary announcement, most recently, in regard to 75 and over, in fulfillment of that election campaign.

We have taken these steps also to make insolvency proceedings fairer and more transparent. That ensures there is a higher likelihood of oversight over corporate behaviour; for example, by giving courts greater ability to review and claw back unreasonable executive pay that leads up to insolvency. Nothing really gets to the core of the problem and causes a great sense of frustration when workers feel that their pensions, and justifiably so, are being squandered or not being given enough attention, and yet there are huge bonuses going toward corporate greed. We have been taking steps. I appreciate my time is running out. We will continue to advocate for pensions for workers any time of the day.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

moved that Bill C-253, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (pension plans and group insurance plans), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to my bill, Bill C-253. I want to start by thanking my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville for her invaluable support, both practical and symbolic, in the development and drafting of this bill.

I must admit I am experiencing some déjà vu. In 2017, during the previous Parliament, I introduced Bill C-372, which was very similar to the one we are debating today. The House was unfortunately dissolved before Bill C-372 could be put to a vote, but I hope to see this new version get passed.

For a bit of background, I will have to go back in time to talk about how Bill C-253 came to be. Cliffs Natural Resources, a wealthy U.S. multinational mining corporation, once had affiliates in my riding, in Sept-Îles and at Bloom Lake near Fermont. The company employed many of my constituents and people from Labrador, and it was part of the lives of many North Shore workers for many years.

In 2015, the company filed for creditor protection for its Sept-Îles and Bloom Lake affiliates under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. After declaring bankruptcy for these affiliates, the company announced it was ending group insurance for its pensioners and slashing their retirement fund. By discontinuing contributions to the pension fund, Cliffs Natural Resources ran up a $30-million solvency deficit, which was taken from the workers.

Some 700 pensioners, people from my region and from my riding, lost their group insurance and nearly 25% of their pension fund in the Cliffs Natural Resources disaster, but that is not all. These people were forced into an extremely tenuous situation. They expected a peaceful, secure retirement but suddenly found themselves on the brink of ruin. They had no inkling that financial worries and trouble would come back to haunt them.

Fortunately, the Cliffs Natural Resources pensioners, or their widows or spouses, as the case may be, did receive compensation. It was thanks not to the House's legislative efforts but to the tenacity of the Cliffs pensioners' association and the support of United Steelworkers that they were partially compensated for the money that was stolen from them.

The purpose of Bill C-253 is to make sure we never see another tragedy like the ones that have happened in our community, or with other companies, such as White Birch, Mabe Canada and Sears Canada, or even like the ones that the COVID-19 crisis is causing right now.

Canadian law does not adequately protect workers' rights, so it is our duty to end this injustice as soon as possible before history repeats itself and the rights of workers and pensioners are once again trampled upon.

The Bloc Québécois has always been a voice for workers and defended their rights in the House. Bill C-253 reflects our commitments and our actions. Driven by a relentless sense of justice, the Bloc Québécois will never stop stepping up to protect the rights of workers and to prevent them from being cheated, particularly through such unfortunate bankruptcies.

The solution to the problem is perfectly simple. I would like to draw the attention of the House to two points that are the very pillars of my bill.

First, it is vitally important to recognize pensions for what they are: deferred wages, negotiated between the employer and employees through the union and recognized by both parties. Accordingly, pension plans must be considered preferred claims, and paying them out must be considered a priority. To stop the looting, companies must be forced to live up to their commitments to workers.

Second, pensioners must be compensated for the loss of their group insurance, which has obvious negative repercussions for them and their families. Going back to the example of Cliffs Natural Resources, the workers and pensioners were unfairly penalized for a bankruptcy for which they were in no way responsible. They were deprived of money they had worked for. It was their due.

The Liberal Party of Canada just held their convention. I was pleasantly surprised when the Liberals adopted a resolution recognizing that pensions are deferred wages. I hope they will also be pleased when they remember that this was in both Bill C-253 and its previous version, Bill C-372. Logically, the Liberals cannot deny that slashing pension plans during a company bankruptcy constitutes theft, so they will surely vote for Bill C-253.

Of course, Bill C-253 was drafted with the Cliffs pensioners and their spouses in mind. The bill reflects their life stories and the misfortunes they had to contend with.

I want to sincerely thank the Cliffs pensioners' association, which demonstrated ingenuity, empathy and tenacity in the face of the colossal problems that their former employer's bankruptcy caused for them. I want to give a huge thank you to Gordon, Cécile, Daniel, Rodrigue, the other Rodrigue, Serge, and also Nico, as well as all of the others I cannot name in the House, for their invaluable contributions. They know who they are. Their hard work served as the inspiration for this bill. They are proof that the voice and will of the people can be heard loud and clear in Parliament. This is their space, and I sincerely hope that their fight will inspire others, so that no one else has to go through what they did.

Before I conclude, I want to comment on another rather surprising action that the Liberal government has taken to amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

At the beginning of the week, a private member's bill to amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act in connection with the situation at Laurentian University was introduced by the member for Sudbury. That bill excludes post-secondary teaching institutions from the definition of company. I am confused. The government had an opportunity to significantly improve the legislation — I say an opportunity, but it has had several — but all it did was add a simple exception to make itself look good and restore its image after what happened at Laurentian University.

Bill C-253 goes much further and truly protects those who need protection for the long term, not the creditors, not businesses and even less so the government, but the workers and what they are planning to live on, the money to fund the retirement they have looked forward to their entire lives.

Bill C-253 proposes real change by amending the order of priority of companies' creditors. Bill C-253 ensures that workers will not be penalized if their former employer declares bankruptcy. It reassures those workers by promising that they will not lose their deferred wages, meaning their pension plans and group insurance.

We have seen hundreds of tragedies where workers have lost their money. Sears, Capital Media Group and Cliffs are just a few of the many examples, and I want to reiterate that the current pandemic is only going to result in more cases like these.

Urgent action must be taken to end these injustices once and for all and to protect our workers' nest eggs. I am asking my colleagues to pass this bill quickly so that other pensioners, who dream of a secure retirement, do not have their modest dream shattered. They worked hard for a comfortable retirement.

On behalf of the workers, pensioners and seniors for whom I am speaking today, I urge my colleagues to share my concerns about laws that do not provide proper long-term protection for our workers. We have a duty to act and make real, much-needed changes to bankruptcy laws in order to protect pension plans and group insurance.

Let us vote for our fellow citizens. Let us vote in favour of Bill C-253.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the Elderly

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his speech. We could feel his emotion, but also his indignation, which I share. I have always said that I got into politics because I have a capacity for indignation, which I want to be constructive, of course. That is why I really understand the situation when we talk about how seniors are doing.

I would like to thank my colleague from Shefford for making a very good speech and for being behind this motion.

While I was listening to the news over the past few days, I heard a journalist ask a senior at what point one no longer counts. Regardless of where that came from, I must say that the question really surprised me and made me angry about the very issue of seniors, because we are letting such a dangerous discourse spread unchecked out there in society.

I have to say that I heard that on the national broadcaster, where I once heard a very serious discussion on the possibility of taking away seniors' right to vote at some point. These may not be major ideas but those ideas are being floated nonetheless. That gravely worries me. I must say that a motion like the one being moved today, which “acknowledge[s] the collective debt that we owe” to seniors must be taken seriously. There are good reasons for it.

I think that societal discourse is sometimes dismissive of seniors, when in fact they are an integral part of our society. Earlier I heard comments about age. Members talked about “starting at age 75”, “from age 65 to 67”, “after 67 years of age”, and so on. We have to work with that sort of breakdown, to some degree, to make things easier, but at the same time we must never forget that seniors are an integral part of society.

I think we should follow the example of the first nations. I say this humbly, as the member of Parliament for Manicouagan, where the Inuit and the Naskapi peoples make up 15% of the population. As demographics change, these communities will become larger and larger. The way the first nations treat seniors is the polar opposite of what I have heard on Radio-Canada. First nations elders are served first at community meetings. They will have first choice of cuts of meat, such as caribou meat. That is a bigger deal than I make it sound.

These seniors are seen as assets in their communities and not as liabilities, as is the case here, as the government gives benefits to everyone except seniors during the pandemic. This shows that seniors are still being put in a separate class. In the first nations, seniors are seen as wise elders, memory keepers and knowledge keepers. I do not want to speak for the first nations, but elders are the most important members of their communities.

As a member of Parliament, a Quebecker and a human being, I am learning a great deal and I appreciate how the first nations see their seniors and their role in society. We should view seniors the same way.

Beyond these points and this lesson in humanity, which I wanted to talk about, I will say that my colleagues have made a number of suggestions that should be implemented for our seniors. I would like to mention them again.

There is a major issue that the Bloc Québécois has rallied behind for a long time, particularly during the last year and a half, and that is health transfers. It is the federal government's job to increase health transfers to help seniors.

During the pandemic, we have talked a lot about access to vaccines. I represent a huge riding with an area of 350,000 square kilometres. People often have to travel in the riding, and because of the distances seniors have a number of needs. We need more services and more local services. The request for more health transfers is especially pertinent to seniors. That is one of our demands. Naturally, we have been repeating this since this morning, and we hope that the government will make it happen. The government must agree to increase old age security by $110 a month and it cannot be just a one-time increase. As several members have said, this must be recurring direct assistance. This assistance must not be provided solely during the COVID-19 pandemic. The funding shortfall was there well before the pandemic. That is what the Bloc Québécois is asking for, in addition to an increase in the guaranteed income supplement of $50 to $70, depending on whether the recipient is single or married. This assistance will help support seniors.

Due to the costs incurred by seniors during the pandemic and at the present time, their purchasing power is constantly getting lower. As I mentioned, there was already a shortfall before the pandemic, and it is now a huge gap. This must be addressed quickly.

The Bloc Québécois motion is a call for action, and I hope the government will answer the call. In the 2019 and 2020 throne speeches, the government said it would help seniors. It has been saying that for a year and a half. Earlier, I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors talk about the new horizons for seniors program and several other measures that may be beneficial, but that do not provide seniors with any immediate assistance or give them the freedom to choose for themselves. There is a huge difference between the new horizons for seniors program, which is a useful program, and having money put directly in their pockets. It is important to understand that.

I hope that the parliamentary secretary and the minister heard what we had to say on this topic. I hope they will adopt the Bloc Québécois motion in order to demonstrate swift and meaningful support for our seniors. Seniors must not be left out.

I referred to a daily shortfall because the old age security pension is too low. The pandemic is making life even more difficult for seniors, so it is all the more urgent to act.

I would like to conclude by encouraging the House to vote for another bill, which I tabled last November. I am talking about Bill C-253, which we will very likely debate in the spring. It is also aimed at helping seniors and retirees. When companies restructure or go bankrupt, retirement funds are cut, leading to disaster, devastation and tragedy. Group insurance plans are also cancelled.

Seniors themselves keep saying that what they want is stability and predictability. By protecting the deferred wages that seniors have earned and deserve, the government would be protecting their rights.

I will conclude by adding that it is also important to protect seniors' dignity.

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-253, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (pension plans and group insurance plans).

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and proud to introduce today in the House, seconded by the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville, a private member's bill that seeks to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

This bill reaffirms my unwavering commitment to workers and retirees, a commitment that is shared by my colleague and the Bloc Québécois. It is a commitment that I made in the House on October 17, 2017, by introducing Bill C-372 to defend the rights of workers, which I feel should be inalienable.

Under the existing legislation, when a company is restructured or goes bankrupt, the workers' pension funds and insurance are not properly protected, even though they belong to the workers. It is part of their salary that they negotiated and agreed to defer. My bill seeks to correct that injustice.

When we think about former workers at Cliffs Natural Resources, Mabe, La Pointe-de-l'Île or even Sears stores all across Quebec, my bill is there to protect what belongs to workers. I urge all my colleagues to support my bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)