Bill C-228

Pension Protection Act

An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985

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.
It also amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to provide for the tabling of an annual report respecting the solvency of pension plans.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Pension Protection Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

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

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there has always been a great deal of concern whenever we hear of bankruptcies and employees being taken advantage of, especially when we hear highlights of executive pay that is definitely unreasonable. A while back we passed some legislation that made it a little more transparent, allowing courts to claw back in situations of that nature.

I was not at the committee, but I am very curious about whether any exploratory work was done on that issue.

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

Madam Speaker, obviously there were fulsome discussions on all the topics, with stakeholders and at committee.

One thing I am really disappointed about, though, is that the member opposite spoke against the unanimous consent motion that we brought to the House to try to restore the severance priority into the bill. People deserve to get their severance when companies go bankrupt, and I would encourage the parliamentary secretary to add this to the government's omnibus budget bill when it comes up in March.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to sincerely commend all the work that the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton has done on her private member's bill, Bill C‑228. As she so clearly explained again, it is a very important bill to better protect retirees who are entitled to a defined benefit package.

I want to commend her cross-party approach. We were able to work with members from each party and set aside partisan differences for the common good of workers and retirees. I tip my hat to the member.

Since this is a period for questions or comments, I will take the opportunity to make a comment. I tip my hat to the member. As she said, this issue has been raised so often in the House, and she is the one who finally managed, through her approach, to bring all the members of the House together to truly change people's lives.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, the member for Manicouagan and all those who helped with this bill.

Indeed, what Canadians really want is for us to work together to improve our country.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, yesterday, on the record, the member for Winnipeg North said that he had said “no” to including protection for termination and severance pay in this bill, even though the will of the committee was to proceed with that protection. Today he said on the record that he was not at the committee where this was discussed and where the bill sponsor appeared to say that she felt very strongly this was part of the scope of the bill.

Why is it that somebody who was not there for the conversation, by his own admission, can stand up in this place to oppose good protection approved by a majority of finance committee members, which he did, again by his own admission, yesterday by saying “no” to unanimous consent?

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

Madam Speaker, I am equally troubled at why the Liberals, and the member for Winnipeg North especially, do not want to support Canadian workers who need their severance pay. This is really troubling, and now they have put them behind bankers, large creditors and executive bonuses. It is just really disappointing to me. The government has an opportunity to rectify this error and put that amendment into its omnibus budget bill when it comes in March.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to have an opportunity to speak at this moment in the history of Bill C-228 and extend my deep appreciation to the member for Sarnia—Lambton. There have been many attempts in this place to ensure workers are secured creditors in bankruptcy. It should not be so hard. I will be voting for her bill with enthusiasm and merely want to thank her.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite and all members who are supportive of the bill. I do believe, now that the controversial severance amendment is out, every member of the House will support the bill. I look forward to that and a little more debate on it.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-228. We are studying this bill at third reading in the House after it was examined by the Standing Committee on Finance.

As reported back to the House by the committee, Bill C-228 would amend the treatment of pension claims in proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, or BIA, and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the CCAA.

Under current law, unfunded pension liabilities and unpaid special payments are unsecured claims. Unfunded pension liabilities are the shortfall between a fund's current assets and amounts owed to pensioners. Pension special payments are additional contributions by employers that are sometimes required under pension legislation to reduce a pension deficit over time.

Bill C-228 would give both these pension claims a superpriority. In BIA bankruptcies and receiverships, pension claims would be paid out ahead of secured, preferred and unsecured claims. CCAA and BIA restructuring plans would need to provide for the payment of pension claims to obtain court approval.

As originally drafted, Bill C-228 provided for a five-year transition period before the pension changes took effect. The bill that was sent back to the House after study in committee provides for a four-year transition period, as proposed by the government members.

Bill C-228 would also amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, or PBSA, under the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. The only PBSA amendment, as reported back by the committee, would amend the federal superintendent of financial institutions' existing requirement for an annual report to the Minister of Finance on the operation of the PBSA, which is tabled in Parliament. It would add additional content to this report related to the funding requirements of a federally regulated pension plan under the PBSA and require it to be transmitted to provincial counterparts.

I would note that Bill C-228, as referred to committee by the House, dealt with the treatment of both federal and provincial private pensions in insolvency proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, or BIA; the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, or CCAA; and the regulation of federal pensions under the PBSA.

However, during the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-228, the committee broadened the scope of the bill beyond pensions by adding a new privileged claim for termination and severance pay owed to a worker by a bankrupt employer under the federal or provincial employment standards legislation or a collective agreement.

These amounts are currently considered unsecured debt. Under the amended Bill C-228, these debts would be paid in full before the claims of any other unsecured creditor.

The government clearly explained in the House and in committee that it understands the challenges that an employer's bankruptcy can present for retirees, current employees and their community. We continue to listen to the concerns expressed by Canadians on the important issues of retirement security, wage protection, and termination and severance pay.

Our government has taken measures to improve the retirement income and security of all Canadians, including retirees, and to improve the protection of Canadian workers who are owed unpaid wages and termination and severance pay by their bankrupt employers.

No one in the House doubts that Bill C-228 was introduced with good intentions in the interests of pensioners. Having said that, we should be mindful in our continuing debate on the bill that significant concerns were raised by expert witnesses and pension plan administrators during committee study that a superpriority for pension claims may have unintended negative consequences for both pensioners and employees of insolvent employers and the much larger number of pensioners and employees in the Canadian workplace as a whole.

We should also take serious note of the fact that the new preferred claim for termination and severance pay was introduced only during the committee's clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. As such, the committee did not have the benefit of the views of the House at second reading on this new priority claim. It also did not have the opportunity to hear the testimony of expert witnesses and ask questions regarding its potential impact on different employee groups, as well as other stakeholders and creditors in an insolvency proceeding.

Even though all members of the House share the desire of protecting the interests of retirees, we must also consider the significant negative consequences that a superpriority of the unfunded liabilities of a defined benefit pension plan could have for pensioners, employees, businesses and Canadian employers.

First, this superpriority can only protect pensioners from the consequences of the employer's bankruptcy in certain cases. We all know about past cases of bankruptcy where the pension plan deficits were very large, sometimes in the billions of dollars.

During study in committee of Bill C‑228 and similar private member bills, experts, lenders, promoters of pension plans and employers, and even certain unions, noted that a superpriority would not guarantee that pensioners would be fully protected in the event of an employer's bankruptcy if the employer did not have sufficient assets to cover the liability.

It is also crucial that we take note in our deliberations of the potential impact of a pension claim superpriority on the incentives of pension plan sponsors to continue to provide defined benefit pension plans to current employees. During the committee's study of the bill, pension plan experts and plan sponsors predicted that as many as 40% of private plan sponsors could terminate their defined benefit pension plans during the bill's transition period if Bill C-228 were to pass with a superpriority.

Private defined benefit pension plans currently have 1.2 million active employee members who are still accruing defined benefit pension entitlements. We should be very careful about the potential impact of a superpriority on these employees when we consider whether to support Bill C-228, as reported by the committee.

In some cases, retirees and workers are better served if the company can enter into a restructuring agreement and continue operations, which means pension and benefit plans would be funded.

Let us keep in mind that there have been successful restructurings involving unfunded pension liabilities that have taken place under the current processes in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act—including Stelco, AbitiBowater and Air Canada—where pension benefits were preserved even though the pension plans were significantly underfunded at the time of insolvency.

As we consider how to best protect pensioners and workers, we must also consider ways to balance the potential credit consequences of a pension superpriority for employers with pension plans. Lenders will price and allocate credit based on the risks of default and non-payment. If a pension deficit is payable ahead of all other claims, a responsible lender must take this risk into account, either through higher interest costs or reduced credit amounts.

The government made important changes to insolvency and corporate laws in 2019 to protect pensioner and worker interests in an employer insolvency. Corporate restructuring was made fairer, more transparent and more accessible for pensioners and workers. Federal corporate law amendments better aligned corporate incentives with the interests of workers and retirees, and provided greater scrutiny of corporate decision-making. Finally, Canada further improved its strong regulation of federal pension plans that already require full solvency funding.

While these measures have improved the retirement and security of employees, the government has also listened to the voices of pensioners and considered more balanced ways to protect their interests rather than a superpriority.

While no OECD country gives unfunded pension liabilities a superpriority—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I must interrupt the hon. member because the time is up.

The hon. member for Joliette.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by informing the House that Quebec is currently in mourning. We just learned of the death of Jean Lapointe, a great writer, composer, performer, actor and comedian who was very involved in society.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to extend my sincere condolences to his son, Jean-Marie, to his family, friends and loved ones, and to all Quebeckers. We will remember him for his comedy shows and his songs. He used to say that we learn to live through song. Many of his acting roles had a profound effect on me. Take, for example, his role in the series Duplessis, where he did an extraordinary job of playing “Le Chef”, his roles in various films by my favourite filmmaker Marc-André Forcier, and the role he played in Les ordres. We pay tribute to his memory, his political commitment and the rehabilitation centre that bears his name.

Farewell Jean Lapointe, and thank you.

Let us now talk about the important Bill C-228

We are at third reading of this bill in the House of Commons. That is amazing. I want to sincerely congratulate the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for her masterful sponsorship of this bill and for managing to build consensus around a common goal. In committee, members of all parties contributed to the bill, including people like the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, who participated in the work and helped improve the bill.

In the House this afternoon, we are beginning third reading of a bill that will make a difference in people's lives, in the lives of workers and especially of the retirees who are entitled to these pensions.

As everyone has acknowledged, there have been several instances in recent decades when companies declared bankruptcy and their defined benefit pension funds were underfunded. That had a devastating impact on the company's retirees. They could no longer collect their full pension because the pension fund they were entitled to was underfunded.

In life, in a market economy based on supply and demand and capitalism, there are risks and bankruptcies occur. If a worker sees his company close and declare bankruptcy, it is a difficult situation, but that person will try to find another job and get on with their life.

What happens to pensioners? As the member for Sarnia—Lambton was saying, what happens to people who are 70 or 75 years old and depend on their pension when they suddenly learn that the company is bankrupt? The company has failed to meet its obligations and pensioners will no longer receive their pension, which is often the minimum amount required to live well or to survive. Those pensioners will no longer receive the full amount. They might lose half of their pension, for example, but they are too old and do not have the energy or the strength to return to work. These are terrible situations, unspeakable human tragedies. That is what Bill C‑228 would fix.

It truly is an extremely important bill. I am very pleased that it has reached third reading stage. I look forward to it receiving royal assent and making a real difference in people's lives.

I also want to acknowledge all the hard work done by my colleague from Manicouagan who was especially invested in this bill. She had introduced a similar bill in a previous Parliament that did not make it through the House. She continued trying, working with the member for Sarnia—Lambton, to see Bill C-228 through the legislative process.

My colleague from Manicouagan has been working closely with union members representing the workers who have gone through this kind of human problem. It was really a good faith, goodwill approach. What can we do to better protect workers? We know that a pension plan is a form of deferred wages.

During the negotiation, the union and management decide on salary and the terms and conditions. A lower salary is accepted in exchange for entitlement to group insurance or more generous pension funds, for example. The pension is therefore a type of deferred salary, and workers are entitled to it. However, we know that under the law, a company can underfund their pension fund for several years and allow shareholders to make more money on the backs of workers because it is failing in its duty.

This bill would make pension funds a greater priority for creditor payment in the event of a bankruptcy. This would take some of the pressure off the shoulders of workers and retired workers and would improve things. As the member for Sudbury said, if this bill is passed, it will not solve every problem. There is no ironclad guarantee and not everything will be resolved. The risk will remain, but it will not be as high. What this bill does is give particular consideration to underfunded pension funds and give them higher priority for creditor payment in the event of a bankruptcy.

One thing we observed in committee and in studies of similar bills was that none of the experts who came to talk to us, including unions, said they should be the top priority. Both pensioners and union members told us they want to give the company a chance to restructure, refinance and come up with a plan to save itself from bankruptcy.

This bill gives mortgage holders priority over pension funds. Everyone recognizes that that is important, although the Liberal Party still seems unsure. Some of our Standing Committee on Finance colleagues are, anyway. I have had personal conversations with a few ministers. Judging from the Liberal member's speech on this bill, there still seems to be some confusion about this.

This is about giving pension funds higher priority while still enabling the company to restructure to avoid bankruptcy. That is what everyone here wants, obviously. That is a very important element.

Several cases have been mentioned, including Sears, Stelco, Nortel, Cliff Natural Resources and White Birch. In all of those cases, the pension plan was not fully funded when the company went bankrupt and the workers are the ones who got shortchanged.

As the Liberal member for Sudbury was saying, pension fund managers, large corporations, or the employer, came to see us to say that they did not really like this. Obviously, they do not like this because they will have to fully fund the pension plans and recognize that the amount owed to workers must be included in the financial statements and paid within a few years, with the necessary flexibility. In my opinion, we found a good balance, but it means less money for shareholders and less money for executives simply because they are being forced to pay what they owe.

The Liberal member who spoke before me did not mention that. Every time the employer or pension fund managers raised an argument, the seniors' advocacy organizations and unions responded clearly and simply by proving that the argument did not hold water.

Employers tried to scare people. The Liberal Party still brings that up, but every argument raised in committee was immediately refuted by parties representing pensioners' interests. Fear tactics are often employed when economic issues and other somewhat complex issues come up. In this case, I think the committee did a good job of rebutting fear-based arguments.

I feel absolutely confident about this bill, but it does not fix every problem pensioners face. There is still a degree of risk, but it is lower. Employers do not like this because they know they will make less money. That is true, but they have to pay what they owe, plain and simple.

In closing, I want to once again acknowledge the incredible work of the member for Sarnia—Lambton. As I said, I am the member for Joliette, and the Quebec MNA for Joliette was Véronique Hivon, a person who was all about cross-party collaboration and always tried to prioritize the common good over partisanship. She accomplished a lot in that respect, and the member for Sarnia—Lambton has accomplished just as much here. I thank her and congratulate her.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to be rising in debate on third reading of Bill C-228. There have been many attempts in the past to try to secure pension protection for workers when their companies go bankrupt. I believe this is the furthest we have come so far, and that has been the result of some good cross-party collaboration, which is often what it takes to be able to accomplish things for workers in this place.

I want to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for her collaborative and conciliatory attitude in trying to move her bill forward.

I would also like to thank the member for Manicouagan for her work on this matter and for her co-operation during the negotiations.

I also want to recognize the work of one of my former colleagues, Scott Duvall, who did a lot of work on this subject over two Parliaments and essentially developed the private member's bill that I was honoured to present in this Parliament on the very same issue.

This bill is an interesting case study, if we look at the process it has been through, of how difficult it can be to achieve things for the working people of Canada.

There always seem to be roadblocks and hiccups, and we do not see those same kinds of roadblocks usually put up when the government is trying to do something for corporate Canada. Those things tend to run pretty smoothly. Sometimes New Democrats try to slow it down, but we have only so many seats in this place. That is up to Canadians. That is why we are always working hard to elect more New Democrats so that we have more of an ability to ensure that corporate Canada does not have the run of this place.

In order to get something done for workers, it usually takes some kind of coming together of many disparate things in the right order, at the right time and in the right place. That is pretty hard to do.

We saw that, just the other day, with the member for Winnipeg North. There was some agreement not only to protect the pensions of workers when their companies go bankrupt, but also to go above and beyond and to really do the right thing.

We saw this in the case of Sears workers as well. It was not just their pensions that they lost, but there was a lot of controversy over their severance and termination pay at that time, millions of dollars.

We now have a Parliament that was prepared to do that for working people. Instead, with some procedural fig leaves, we saw the member for Winnipeg North get up and exclude what I take to be a really important part of the bill as it came out, amended, from committee, without actually speaking to the substantive issue.

We just heard from another Liberal MP on this, who did not address the issue of termination and severance pay and why the government was so keen to remove that from the bill.

I think that they owe workers an explanation on the substance of the matter, not on the parliamentary procedure but on why it was that, when there was just about a parliamentary consensus, and if it were not for the Liberals there would have been a parliamentary consensus on the fact that it makes sense to protect the termination and severance pay of workers, why they blew that up, instead of seeing it for the opportunity that it was to do right by workers and to have a gold standard when it comes to protecting them in the case of bankruptcy.

As I said, it is hard to accomplish things for workers in this place. I know because I am part of a caucus that works relentlessly to try to do that.

The Liberals ran on a promise to do better when it came to bargaining collectively with our public servants. In fact, the Prime Minister wrote them all a very nice note when he first got elected, and said that things were going to change, that it was not going to be like it was under the Harper years, when those guys would go for years without a collective agreement.

I met just last week with representatives of a public sector union who represent the thousands of people in Elmwood—Transcona who work at the tax centre. What are they telling us? They have been a year without a contract. The government will not make a wage offer. They are having to go to some kind of mediation because they cannot get the government bargaining in good faith. We see that far too often.

Frankly, when Conservatives have been in government, we have seen that lack of good faith and difficulty in getting contracts for public servants too. That is part of why it is very difficult to get things done for workers in this place.

In the previous government, we saw Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. Folks in the labour movement will remember those bills because they made it easy to decertify a union. They made it harder to certify a union, and they would have required unions to inappropriately disclose their financial position, which matters if one is thinking about a strike, for instance, in order to make the case for better wages and working conditions.

If the employer knows how much is in a strike fund, it is very easy for them to develop a strategy to exhaust the strike, so that was something that was not good, and the Liberals promised to get rid of it. They did, finally. It took a long time after they came to power for Bill C-4 in the 42nd Parliament to pass. I remember encouraging them to do it a lot more quickly. It did not take a lot of time for them to try to pass a deferred prosecution agreement arrangement when SNC-Lavalin came knocking and said that was something it wanted. That appeared quickly in a budget bill, and all of a sudden it was getting done, when it took a year for the legislation to repeal Bill C-525 and Bill C-377.

We have also seen Liberals and Conservatives stand up in this place over the course of many Parliaments now to legislate workers back to work, because God forbid workers get too uppity. They had to shut that down and make sure they were back at work, doing what they were told and working for the wages the government put in legislation.

The Liberals talked for a long time about anti-scab legislation, but until it was put in a confidence and supply agreement it was very hard to have any confidence they would do it, and they still were not going to do it the right way until the NDP said very clearly that anti-scab legislation should not apply just when there is a lockout, but also when there is a strike. We know the Conservatives are not supportive of anti-scab legislation, and that is why it is hard to get things done around here for workers.

Even for 10 paid sick days during the pandemic, we had to argue again and again that it ought to be done. We are told that next month it should finally be in place. We have had to wait a good long time. Do members know who did not have to wait? It was big companies at the beginning of the pandemic, when big banks and others got access to liquidity very quickly, because the government was concerned about them. We have seen that when the government is concerned, it is able to act quickly, and we often see long delays when it comes to doing the right thing by workers.

I am sick of it, and that is why this has been a very hopeful process, working with the member for Sarnia—Lambton and the member for Manicouagan, because something has been coming together here that is a good thing for workers and that we have been working to institute for a long time.

Not only was it going to be just the next little step, but it was going to be the gold standard. We see again that in this institution there are so many ways to pick off victories for workers, sometimes when we least expect it and sometimes for reasons that appear to have nothing to do with the substance but actually have everything to do with the substance in the bill, because we saw the parliamentary secretary for industry come to the finance committee and sing some kind of big tale and sad song from the financial industry about how hard it was going to be on them and how nobody was ever going to have any access to credit or anything like this. That was right out of the mouth of industry through the mouth of the parliamentary secretary.

These are all arguments that have been considered in the past. Parliament has studied this issue many times before. There was no new information in that. The fact remains that when we have a bankruptcy in this country, it is workers who are left holding the bag. It is wrong, and it should change. When we look at the percentage of businesses that go bankrupt and then the percentage of those that actually have defined benefit pension plans, the fact of the matter is that we are talking about a very small percentage of any one financial institution's portfolio. They can surely bear that risk and carry that load.

Most businesses they invest in succeed. We know that, and that is why we can say with confidence that this is something we can do to protect the pensions of Canadian workers. I wish I were saying we could protect the severance and termination pay also, because we know the big banks and financial institutions are going to get along just fine. The people we should be concerned about in this place are the people who work for 20 or 30 years and do not get a second chance to have a retirement nest egg.

They depend on that, and they went to work on that understanding, and when something goes wrong that is far beyond their decision-making or control, they need to know that the future they worked for is in place for them, so I am very glad we will be doing that with their pension. I am angry we are not doing that for termination and severance pay because the Liberals decided to go for sneaky tricks instead of a straight-up vote on the issue in this Parliament, and I look forward to working with other members of this place to see if folks in the other place, the Senate, will have the good sense to do what we should have done here.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here, or least to be with the House virtually. It is always an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

I would like to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for her leadership in this Parliament on this issue. God knows we need these issues brought up because, in some cases, the issue around pension reform and the need to resolve it is long standing and has happened over periods, not just of governments, but of decades.

We have two issues in this particular space when it relates to pensions. One is legacy pensions, which is broadly what we are dealing with today. The other one is new ones, meaning that fewer companies are deciding to use the standard defined benefit pension plan. I am just going to take a quick moment to share a few reasons why that is.

Obviously the business environment has changed. Technologies have come in. We have seen new business models operating that challenge the status quo and have created all sorts of issues for legacy businesses as technology continues to change things.

The government tried to deal with this by bringing in Bill C-27 in its first mandate, but that particular bill went nowhere because the government probably did not do its homework and got hung up over one particular area that people were contesting around conversion, the conversion of a defined benefit to a target pension plan.

The reason why I raise this issue is because the government has failed when it comes to addressing both legacy issues, as well as trying to invoke new methods for bringing in benefits, whether they be a target-based benefit or a defined benefit. If we want to see more people having secure retirements, then that is part of the solution. I do not think the government has done a very good job, which brings me back to legacy issues.

Defined benefit pensions, those are usually handled, most of the time, by the companies themselves. There is no legislation that says that when they are in a surplus position, who actually owns that. Is it the actual company or is it the pensioners or the current workers? That problem, unfortunately, does not happen that often because it is very seldom that these particular private, defined benefits are running at a surplus. In fact, it is the opposite.

We have seen cases such as Sears. I represent a riding that has a large percentage of seniors. They rely on that income. It breaks one's heart when one finds out that they are no longer going to be receiving the benefit they paid into.

There has been inaction on this by the Liberal government since it came into office, but I would not put it all on them. If we just look to those who are fortunate enough to have a pension program, and it is usually in the public sector, the answer has already been given by successive governments over the decades. If there is a shortfall, the taxpayer will fill that gap. However, for these private pensions, that has not been answered.

Unfortunately, we have seen recessions. We have seen where stock markets have been hit hard, in the early 2000s, obviously in the financial crisis in 2008-09, and the subsequent great recession, and now we are looking at where there is a lot of talk about a possible recession. This is the worst time to be bringing these things up.

When these issues happen, when scarcity is abound, this is where everyone tightens up and demands to have what they are owed. The member for Sarnia—Lambton has been trying, struggling through the process of a private member's bill, working through committee, to put a new balance in place that would at least address this.

We do have the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. Bill C-27 that I referred to earlier did talk about having more rules and oversight in place that would force new target benefits to come up with plans to bring themselves back into a surplus position when there is a drop.

That is really important because joint-sponsored pension plans often have these things where they will, on a temporary basis, cut some secondary benefits to smooth things out, and once the plan comes back into balance, then the regular benefits continue. Those kinds of tools, where a pension plan can smooth out those outflows to make sure there is always a plan to get back into surplus, work. It has been shown in joint-sponsored plans, and it could work in defined benefit programs as well, but the government has a responsibility to start the discussion.

Unfortunately, the government seems to have taken the opinion that, if one touches it, one has basically bought it. It has, so far, decided not to enter into this space since its retreat from Bill C-27. Again, this country deserves better. It deserves to have both certainty for the existing legacy pension plans out there in the federal space and, I believe, an overall discussion on provincial plans. So far, when it comes to that kind of discussion, successive ministers of finance, whether it be former minister Morneau, who is the minister no more, as I like to joke once in a while, or the current Minister of Finance, they have not made this a priority. Thus, this is where members of Parliament need to fill the gap.

The superpriority, although it is an essential process that has been pointed out by the Canadian public, where they feel that if the government cannot put in place a framework that assures them of that, then, by goodness, they should receive superpriority in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act at the very end. It is an option that will have trade-offs in the corporate side, where it will make it in some cases harder for corporations to receive financing for their bonds. However, in the absence of better leadership by the government, members of Parliament have been forced to do this.

It is terrible that we have a government in office that votes down, or I should say denies, unanimous consent. Members of Parliament wanted to see the superpriority component of this bill included. For the Liberal government to continually say no and use whatever tools it can just shows the government is completely opposed to anything in this space. That is lamentable because ultimately it is Canadians who do not have an assured pension, such as public servants or most of us, if we are vested, do.

I would encourage the government to come clean. I would encourage Canadians to talk to their members of Parliament. Most of all, I would encourage the government to start taking this issue seriously, put forward consultations with both provincial governments and the Canadian public on how it intends to deal with legacy issues if it is not going to go forward with the Bill C-228 provisions presented by the good member for Sarnia—Lambton.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today and wish all of my colleagues a good day.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2:31 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:31 p.m.)

The House resumed from November 18 consideration of the motion 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 the third time and passed.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for introducing Bill C‑228, which seeks to protect our workers' and our seniors' pensions.

I would like to begin by describing the current situation. Right now, companies offer pension plans with specific eligibility criteria and benefits. However, when such a company goes bankrupt, the pension plans may not contain enough money to cover the cost of all the promises the company made to its employees. That has happened a number of times in this country's history. One example is Nortel, once the largest employer in the national capital in Ottawa. When that tech giant went bankrupt, the pension funds were insufficient. There was not enough money to pay the pensions promised to the company's retirees. Many employees have asked me why the company was not required to use the proceeds of the sale of its assets to make up that shortfall.

Under the legislation that was in place at the time and is still in force today, in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency, a company must sell all its assets and pay back anyone who has loaned it money and all the individuals or entities to whom it owes money. Obviously, when a company goes bankrupt, it does not have enough money to pay all its creditors, and this means that some people will lose out. Those who lose out may be the banks that have loaned money to the business or the suppliers to the business that have not been paid. In some cases, it could be the pensioners, because there is not enough money in the pension fund to pay the promised pensions.

There is no good solution, and inevitably, some people will lose out. In most cases, it is good people who lose out when there are bankruptcies. Also, when a bankruptcy occurs, pensions are in a difficult situation, because big companies typically go bankrupt when the economy is in bad shape or when stock markets are falling. It is possible that both situations may happen at the same time, depriving the pension funds of the money needed to pay out the pensions.

Businesses should obviously set aside sufficient funds to guarantee that, in the event of bankruptcy or falling stock markets, it will have enough money to fund these pensions. However, right now, businesses do not have to pay these pension liabilities before paying other creditors. That is legal and the courts decide who gets what.

Some are opposed to the idea of giving priority to pension funds as the bill proposes. They believe that this will make it more difficult for a business to raise money from investors and get loans from banks. Bankers will not want to lend them money because, in the event of bankruptcy, the money will go to the pension fund. It is true that it will be more difficult to repay other creditors if the pension fund does not have enough money, but this bill would incentivize CEOs to properly fund their pension fund so that investors will be confident that, in the event of a bankruptcy, the money will be there.

Personally, I think this bill is not only compassionate towards people who have worked and expected to receive this money, but also a way to force the market to consider whether the pension fund is adequate today, not 20 years from now, when the company declares bankruptcy.

This will force CEOs to invest enough money today to secure the future and the retirement of their workers. If they want to get loans, they will have to prove themselves to the market.

People who work their entire lives and are promised a pension should receive it, and that is why the official opposition will support this bill and we will work to bring it into force.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton, who represents working-class people in her constituency. We know of the grand refineries that do so much of the necessary energy refining for Ontario and that turn our raw materials into final end-use products. These are the hard-working people who should be able to count on their pensions. That is why our colleague, the member for Sarnia—Lambton, has brought this initiative forward.

As a quick background, right now, when a company goes bankrupt, all the creditors are roughly on equal footing unless they have secured credit and unless they have collateralized their loan against a particular asset within a company. This means the money can run out as the liquidation happens before a pension shortfall is corrected. This happened to Nortel when it went bankrupt in Ottawa: The largest private sector employer at the time went bankrupt and the pension fund was down. Often, bankruptcies happen when the economy crashes, and that is just when the stock market crashes, which means the funds invested in the pension fund drop dramatically. That awful convergence of factors means that pensioners could be down 30%, 40% or 50%.

This bill would put pensioners at the top of the list and give them superpriority in the event of bankruptcy so that when assets are sold, the pension fund gets made whole before other creditors get paid. Some will say this will make it harder for businesses to raise money. That is only the case if their pension is not properly funded. If it is funded properly, the investor will not have to worry about being knocked back behind the pensioners in the event of bankruptcy. The pension fund will already have sufficient dollars with a significant buffer that will protect the viability of the pensioners, and all the other creditors will be in the same position they were without this bill.

What the bill would do is incentivize CEOs to make the investments today to make sure their pension funds are in good shape down the road. What happened during the 2008 financial crisis was similar to when Warren Buffet said: When the tide goes out, we find out who was not wearing a bathing suit. That is the case with pension funds. When the tide goes out and the economy crashes, we find out which companies were not investing enough in the viability of their plans. They are then in trouble and are looking for a bailout from everyone else, including the workers who have to take a shortfall.

I would like to think that CEOs today would put aside the money for that ugly day down the road when there is a recession so that if God forbid they go bankrupt or God forbid the markets crash, their pension fund is secured. This bill would incentivize them to do that. If they do not, lenders will be worried about lending to them. A lender would go to them and say, “Listen, I would like to buy your bonds or give you a directed loan, but I'm concerned that your pension fund isn't fully solid and that I would fall behind that fund in the event of a bankruptcy.” That would put real-time, immediate pressure on the management of every country to solidify its pension funds in the here and now while times are good in order to raise debt and raise capital for the future.

It is for that reason, and for the reason that we must be compassionate to those who have worked hard all their lives, who are counting on those pensions to pay for their golden years and who have earned them, that we have made a promise and that the promise will be kept. That is why the Conservatives are proud to be supporting the bill by our fellow colleague, the member for Sarnia—Lambton, to secure and protect the pensions of our hard-working Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to the bill that is before us today.

It is really important for us to recognize that Canadians deserve peace of mind when it comes to careers, the amount of effort that is put in and the sense of commitment of workers to employers. I recall many years ago, out in the Transcona area, walking a picket line and talking with a number of individuals who were working for a particular manufacturer. At the time, the amount of money they were receiving, after a number of years working for the company, was a relatively small amount towards a pension. I am talking under the $500 level. For me, personally, I like to think that over the years—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am going to interrupt.

I would ask members who are having discussions to please take them outside of the chamber out of respect for the members who have the floor.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the point I was trying to make on this is that Canadians from coast to coast to coast invest the most valuable resource we all have, which is time and commitment. When it comes to the work environment, that sacrifice is often made because of the benefits or contributions that are being made toward things like a pension.

I do not think there is anyone in the House who would try to devalue or take away from the importance of pensions. We have, virtually since forming government back in 2015, in many ways taken a look at how we can support Canadians with respect to pensions. It is one of the reasons one of the first actions we took was to reduce the age of eligibility from 67 to 65 for people to collect the OAS. It is one of the reasons we had discussions with all the different stakeholders, specifically our provinces, to deal with the issue of CPP contributions. Unlike the Conservative Party, we see CPP contributions as a pension, for deferring income to once a person retires.

Much like the defined pension plans we are talking about within this legislation, there is an expectation, and that expectation will be met through CPP contributions. When people in the private sector are contributing toward a pension, there is an obligation for the private sector to contribute to that pension, so that after a person has worked a number of years or however long it might be, they will be entitled to receive those benefits. It is a contract, an agreement of faith in which there is a responsibility for private sector pension plans, defined or not, to be able to maintain that commitment. The unfortunate reality of economics and, I would suggest, poor management by different private sector companies, have led to that contract being violated.

The leader of the Conservative Party made reference to Nortel. Nortel is a good way to amplify the issue, and I think that is why there is a great deal of sympathy toward it. We all agree that we should be doing what we can to increase the protection of these pensions. In Nortel's situation, so much money was lost because the corporation did not do its part in terms of maintaining its contributions to a fund when ultimately the company disappeared. The people who were hurt were the workers.

I like to think that over the years, as a parliamentarian, I have been a very strong advocate for workers. Virtually from day one, back in 1988, when I debated late into the evenings on the issue of final offer selection, from that point to walking picket lines to understanding the importance of advocating for workers and always doing what is in their best interest, that is something I have strived for as a parliamentarian. That is why, when we formed government, I was very pleased with some of the first pieces of legislation we brought forward. They were to protect the workers, albeit through the unions. Bill C-4, for example, repealed two pieces of private members' legislation, and it was good that it did.

We can talk about other commitments that have been made even within this debate with regard to the fall economic statement, where we have the labour mobility tax deduction. We have had a great deal of discussion lately with respect to the whole idea of banning replacement workers in strike or lockout situations, and there is a great expectation from me and others that we will be able to move forward on that file.

We have brought in legislation that has passed on pay equity. As the member will know, when we bring in legislation, especially labour legislation, it is critical that an appropriate amount of consultation has been done. I was interested in listening to the leader of the official opposition when he focused his entire discussion on the pension issue. I respect that because that is what the legislation dealt with, virtually from first reading coming into this, so that, when we had the draw, members had the opportunity to look into it and start doing the things they needed to do to feel comfortable voting on the legislation.

Because the member was effective at working with some of her colleagues, she was even able to get it advanced. I applaud her on taking the initiative to make that happen. To me, it shows her genuine attitude in recognizing, first and foremost, that there is a serious and fundamental problem. There is no one inside the House who would not appreciate this, when we get private sector companies operating in bad faith and not financially supporting those pension funds to the degree they should be supported so that, in the case of a collapse, those funds are not there.

I really look forward to tomorrow when we are going to have the vote on the legislation. Based on the comments I hear, I am anticipating that, in all likelihood, the legislation will be passed. I have not personally made my decision on it, but I can say that I am exceptionally sensitive to the needs of pensions. We in Parliament, and politicians, have a fairly good pension and it is guaranteed. We sacrifice a great deal, but no more than what the factory worker puts on the floor. I want the benefits to which the factory worker is entitled to be realized, as I want the pension of the member herself to ultimately be realized.

The issue of pensions is something that, the older we get, the more we want to focus on. From discussions I have had, I think the government needs to move toward ensuring that our way of life is enhanced as much as possible as we grow older. That is why I support many of the measures that we have taken. I am very much intrigued by what is being proposed before us, and I look forward to the actual vote tomorrow.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, many expressive words come to mind as I rise to speak to Bill C‑228 today in the House, a few hours before voting at third reading. My words are “privilege”, “honour” and “pride”.

Why? As parliamentarians we play a part in history. We have the opportunity to do something historic, namely to correct an injustice that has existed for far too many years by protecting retirement funds, the nest eggs of workers and retirees, in the event of a bankruptcy.

I do not think there should be any hesitation tomorrow when it comes time to vote. We should all stand up unanimously in the House to tell all workers and the unions that have been lobbying for years to convince parliamentarians to remedy this situation that we will finally do them justice. That is my plea today.

I would also like to commend the Conservative member for Sarnia—Lambton and thank her for her bill and for the work that was done on it across party lines with the NDP and my colleague from Manicouagan. It is really something when we are able to work together to advance the rights of workers. I really encourage the Liberals to join us. I heard the parliamentary secretary say in his speech earlier that he was still undecided about tomorrow's vote. What is there to be undecided about? There should be no hesitation on this issue.

If even just one company were to go bankrupt today, the human suffering would be terrible. A company going bankrupt results in job losses, relocations, unemployment and complete reorganization. When, on top of that, a company puts itself under creditor protection and pension plans are insolvent or have not been properly funded, retirees are faced with enormous losses to their pensions.

Consider the Cliffs mine on the north shore, or Nortel, or Aveos. There are situations like these—and this is a long list—where workers and retirees have seen all the savings they socked away during their working years melt away like snow on a sunny day.

We must remember one fundamental thing. Retirement is a deferred salary, compensation that is deferred until retirement. When a company goes bankrupt and that fund is unprotected, thousands of workers are put at risk. This concerns many workers in Canada.

I also really want to commend all the work done by my colleague, the member for Manicouagan. When Cliffs' mine on the north shore went bankrupt, she went to bat, took a stand and worked hard to introduce a bill that would protect pensioners and to ensure that this never happens again. There was one hour of debate, but at least there was debate, because, at the time, the government was against this idea. It made people aware of the fact that this should never happen again. Since then, there have been many such bills, but not one of them has passed and actually fixed the problem.

The latest bill on this subject was introduced by my colleague from Manicouagan in 2021. It was Bill C‑372, which passed at second reading and received the committee's unanimous approval. Unfortunately, it died on the Order Paper because a pointless election was called.

I said the passage of this bill would be a historic event. Fortunately, battles for pension funds are already being waged in the context of collective bargaining for unionized workers. This often causes conflict, because employers would like to make cuts to pension funds.

How many battles, strikes and disputes have hinged not only on pay, but also on pension funds? This is a difficult struggle for workers. Some workers have been left to fend for themselves after giving a company 30 or 40 years of their lives and contributing to a retirement fund. This kind of thing happens because we have never been aware of their reality or done enough to take a stand and fix the problem.

We have an important role to play as parliamentarians, because it is up to elected officials and the government to change things and bring in a safety net for our workers. The purpose of this bill is not to make pension plans priority creditors, but rather preferred creditors. The status of preferred creditor for wages is currently maintained in the event of bankruptcy.

I really must emphasize that there is no reason to hesitate. I often hear the Liberals say here in the House that they are there for the workers, that they will never let them down and that they want to protect their pension funds. Well, now is the time to walk the talk. Beyond the rhetoric, if they really want to protect workers, it is important to strengthen labour rights and protect pension funds in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy. That is what needs to be done. This should not even be a question.

It is also important to pass anti-scab legislation. Workers have been calling for this for years. It should have been brought in years ago. Labour disputes persist because, once again, employers under federal jurisdiction take advantage of the current situation to hire scabs, and this keeps the disputes going. One day, we are going to have to stand up for workers on this issue as well. It is time to stop consulting and start taking action.

Employment Insurance also needs to be reformed. The Canadian Labour Congress, the United Steelworkers and major labour organizations regularly come to the Hill to lobby to talk to parliamentarians about the reality of the working world today and to convince them to fix the situation. I do not even understand why the government is still dragging its feet on this.

The bill to protect retirement funds seeks to provide a guarantee in the event of misfortune such as an economic crisis, a recession or even a pandemic. In such situations, there are losses. In the case of Cliffs Natural Resources, even though the United Steelworkers managed to get a bit of money to the North Shore through legal means, pensions were still slashed by 9%.

A worker or retiree who is currently 80 is not going to go back to work. They end up using all of their savings just to survive. We cannot leave a single person in such a situation.

Canada is known for protecting basic rights and workers rights in the event of a bankruptcy. We have to protect their nest egg. I think it will be to our credit to adopt this bill unanimously. I want to acknowledge all the unions and every parliamentarian who decided to stand up and make this possible.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this important bill today.

As a left-leaning progressive politician and union man, it is really important for me to be here in the House to support the initiative of the member who introduced this private member's bill. This initiative is completely in line with the values of the NDP, which has been the political party of workers since its foundation.

We have always been there to fight to give workers decent working conditions, decent work schedules, decent insurance, and adequate and decent wages so that they and their families and children can have a good quality of life.

With that perspective, the fight to protect people's retirement plans and pensions when a business goes bankrupt has always been a major concern for the NDP, as the working class party and the labour party. This is not the first time we have debated this issue. I must point out the work of NDP colleagues in the previous caucus who fought for this, who were pioneers and who worked very hard.

I am thinking of Chris Charlton, Wayne Marston and Scott Duvall, who, before retiring from political life, took up this cause. All the work done by my current colleagues in the NDP caucus and past colleagues has ensured that today we are about to arrive at solution that, although not perfect, is positive.

However, I cannot help but point out that when Chris Charlton, Wayne Marston and Scott Duvall introduced similar bills to protect the rights of pensioners, the Conservative Party systematically voted against them.

Today, we find ourselves in a new situation. I am pleased to note that the Conservative Party seems to have gone on the road to Damascus and seen the light. They have had a change of heart, and I hope that it is not being opportunistic in order to portray itself to voters as the friend of workers for the next election, but that it is something more deeply rooted and serious.

I always welcome spontaneous conversions, but I also remember that, when he was a minister in Stephen Harper's government, the Leader of the Opposition was one of the harshest critics of workers' rights. He levied sustained, systematic attacks against worker and union movements with bills such as C‑377 and C‑525, which would have weakened or even wiped out unions in Canada and Quebec. That is always on my mind, so I am always a little apprehensive, a little suspicious because, as a minister, he repeatedly attacked the union movement that stands up for workers' rights. I think people need to be aware and keep that in mind right now. Nevertheless, I applaud the work of the Conservative Party member who introduced this bill, which the NDP obviously supports because it is about time.

We have seen extremely tragic situations where people who dedicated their lives to a business, to a company, who set money aside, wound up in extremely difficult, trying situations when their company went bankrupt.

For example, when Sears went bankrupt, people in Quebec, Ontario and western Canada saw their pensions drop by 20%, 25% or 30% per month. These people lost hundreds of dollars because they were not priority creditors under the law. Bankers and investors took precedence over the workers who had, in some cases, devoted their entire lives to these companies and counted on them. This is not a question of charity, a gift to these workers. It is their money. They set aside wages for years, decades, to cover their golden years. It is their money.

It is good that today, as parliamentarians in the House of Commons, we can act soon to help these people, to protect them and to avoid dramatic situations like those we have seen with Sears and many other companies.

I will tell a quick personal story. I was a teenager when my grandfather died. I am from Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, and my grandfather Urgel worked at Singer for 44 years. Singer was the big factory that drew people to the town for work. It employed thousands of people. My grandfather worked there for 44 years and then he retired. A few years later, Singer went bankrupt. Not only did it go bankrupt, but its executives took off with the pension fund. Those folks just took the money and ran.

The Singer pensioners had to fight in court for years. They had to hire lawyers to get some of their money back. Unfortunately, by the end of the long legal proceedings, my grandfather, like many of his co-workers, had died. My grandmother did finally receive a small portion of the pension that Singer had stolen from them. This is just a family example, not a personal one, because it did not affect me. However, I was told this story, and it really did affect my family. The fact that no one had any protection at the time, the fact that the workers were not considered priority creditors ahead of the investors and bankers, really affected my family.

The NDP chooses to put people first and stand up for them ahead of the banks, and we are not afraid that people are going to stop investing in Canada and that the sky is going to fall because of it. In fact, I think we can go even further. When the rules of the game are known and they are the same for everyone, then investors can make informed investments, knowing what the rules are, what the consequences of bankruptcy will be and who will be paid first because it is their money first and foremost.

The bill could have been improved. My NDP colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, tried to do so by proposing an amendment in committee to protect not only pensions and retirement plans, but also severance pay. Oddly enough, the committee chair ruled that the amendment was out of order, that it fell outside the scope of the bill. However, this friendly amendment had been welcomed by the member of Parliament who is responsible for this bill. It is therefore rather odd that the Liberal chair of the committee would reject a friendly amendment, which seemed to me to be perfectly in order since it concerned the rights of workers in the event of a company's bankruptcy. It was done in exactly the same spirit, and the majority of the committee members agreed with the amendment.

That decision was upheld by a Speaker's ruling. The NDP tried to pass a unanimous consent motion to undo the Speaker's ruling, which is something that can be done and is well within the rules. Unfortunately, some Liberal members refused to overturn the Speaker's ruling, refused to respect the will of the committee, and refused to protect the rights of workers when it comes to severance pay. Usually, in the House, we do not know who said no. However, oddly enough, the member for Winnipeg North said he was not the only person who said “no”. In saying that, he himself admitted, as the member for Winnipeg North, that he had said no to this request from the NDP for unanimous consent to respect the will of the majority of committee members. However, he never explained why he, as the member for Winnipeg North, or why the Liberal Party members were against protecting severance pay in the event of bankruptcy.

For a party that claims to be a friend of unions and a friend of workers, that is rather odd and contradictory. I look forward to hearing the member for Winnipeg North explain to us why he opposed this measure when he is a democrat and respects the will of the committee. While the three opposition parties agreed on this amendment, he said no in the House and opposed workers' rights. I look forward to hearing the member for Winnipeg North explain why.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to my colleague's bill, Bill C-228. I would like to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for introducing this bill and providing me with the opportunity to participate in this debate.

This bill comes at an important time for Canadians. Bill C-228 seeks to protect the pensions of workers in the private sector so that when a company goes bankrupt, pensioners receive the benefits they have worked long and hard to receive. It combines elements from previously introduced bills and would do three things. First, it would require that an annual report on the solvency of pension funds be tabled in the House of Commons. Second, it would provide mechanisms for companies to transfer funds to keep their pension funds solvent. Third, in the event that a company does go bankrupt, pensions would be paid out ahead of large creditors and executive bonuses.

For better clarity, not only does the bill seek to ensure that pension funds remain solvent by requiring annual reporting that demonstrates the pension funds are fully funded, but it would protect Canadian workers' pensions, as it creates mechanisms to help companies keep their pension plans solvent. Should a company's pension fund become insolvent, they will be able to transfer money into the pension fund without any tax implications. Encouraging companies to keep their pension funds solvent and providing them mechanisms that help them to achieve that is something that ultimately helps and protects working Canadians.

The solvency of pension funds is especially important now, as we are in a cost of living crisis. Seniors in particular are struggling at this time, as they live on fixed incomes that are being stretched by rising prices and inflation, which the government is fuelling with its inflationary spending. The government continues to deny the consequences of its inflationary spending, but we are confronted by them daily.

Canadians call me every day asking how the government expects them to keep up with the rising prices that are being caused by the government's out-of-control spending. The government has created an unpredictable economy with record-high inflation. Now, with its plan to triple the carbon tax, Canadians living on fixed incomes are being pushed to their limits.

With the unpredictability of the economy, record high inflation rates and the Liberal plan to raise taxes, the protection of pensions is vital. Canadians need to be secure in the knowledge that their pensions, which they have contributed to for many years, will not be at risk of disappearing overnight.

As inflation continues to rise, those who rely on pensions from the private sector are more vulnerable. They have to worry not only about their monthly payments being stretched thinner and thinner, but also that the company paying their pension may go bankrupt and use the pension fund to pay off its debts.

Over the past two years, we know that many businesses have struggled, many have not survived and many may be on the verge of making the decision to close their doors. Should this happen, many people may find their pensions at risk. Pensioners should not have to worry about the security of their pension. The dream of retiring for Canadians should not be washed away because the pension fund of their company was used to pay off debts and give bonuses to executives.

That is why our party believes that pension plans should be invested by independent trustees for the benefit of employees and should be held at arm's length, not accessible by a company or its creditors. By doing this, the pension fund will be solely focused on serving the workers who are contributing to it and drawing pensions out of it, and we will remove the ability for corporations to interfere with pension funds or cause them to become insolvent.

Another important aspect of this bill, supported by the independence of pension funds, is that in the event of bankruptcy, paying out pensions would become a priority, ensuring that seniors are not left behind. This will ensure that the many years of hard work by Canadian workers will still be rewarded with the pensions they have earned. It will also ensure that even in the case of bankruptcy, the dream of retirement will not be lost. Canadians will still be able to depend on the investments they have made in their companies' pension funds and plan for the future.

I am sure many of my colleagues in this place have heard from Canadians that they are finding it difficult to plan for their future when there is so much uncertainty due to the Liberals' inflation and the rising taxes.

This bill provides an opportunity for members to vote in favour of giving Canadians security in their golden years, allowing them to retire and enjoy the fruits of their labour.

The purpose of this bill is very clear. We want to protect the pensions of hard-working Canadians. The bill seeks to bring more stability to private pension funds and ensure that Canadians do not lose out. It is a step towards giving Canadians more certainty and control over their own lives and hard-earned money, making sure the money they have earned ends up in their own pockets.

I know similar bills have been introduced in the House previously, and I am happy to see that Bill C-228 has had broad support among other parties. Again, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Sarnia—Lambton and hope to see more initiatives in the House to help support Canadians.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

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

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from November 22 consideration of the motion 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 the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-228 under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #223

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Would members wishing to have conversations please do so in the lobby?

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 39 minutes.

We have a point of order from the member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by apologizing. I was under the impression that it was okay to ask for a point of order between two votes. I will do that now, if that is okay.

It is unclear to me and to those who were watching exactly what transpired during the vote we had. I am seeking clarification from the Speaker as to whether or not it is necessary for a member to stand to cast their vote. The Leader of the Opposition did not stand, and it is unclear how he voted.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The House leader for the official opposition has a comment on this as well.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we trust our excellent table officers. We have clerks at the table, vote-callers and the Speaker in the chair observing things.

As much as the help from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands may be appreciated by members on the other side of House, we do not believe that anybody at the table in the House of Commons needs help from him.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

What I will say is that the Table did acknowledge him and the vote was counted.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the point of order is worthy enough to get clarification.

We all know the process for voting virtually, but just for clarification, when we have a recorded vote on the floor of the House of Commons, the expectation is that a member must rise and acknowledge their name when it is stated. My understanding has always been that if that does not occur, the vote does not count.

That is all I am asking about. I do not want you to reflect on past votes. I just want you to provide clarification for members going forward. They have to stand and acknowledge the Clerk, and if they do not do that, their vote does not count. That is my understanding.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

After further consultation with the Table, it is clear the member was indicating to vote in the positive for the bill. The Chair felt that he stood sufficiently for his vote to be recorded.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.