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.

Canada Labour Code

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for introducing Bill C‑378. Well done.

The bill is an exceptional piece of legislation by another Conservative MP trying to enhance the rights of workers across the country. There has actually been a long history in the current Parliament, where the NDP-Liberal government has not acted to protect workers; in fact it has been Conservative MPs who have stood up to try to make sure that workers are protected.

A number of bills have been put forward by Conservative MPs to improve the lives of workers, in addition to this fantastic bill; for example, there is Bill C-228 by the member for Sarnia—Lambton, which would actually protect workers' pensions. It has been a long-standing problem in this country that a company would go bankrupt, workers' pensions would be unsecured creditors and their pensions would disappear. In nine years of an NDP-Liberal government, no action was taken on that. It took a Conservative member of Parliament to say we need to protect workers and this has to change.

There is also Bill C-241, brought forward by the member for Essex, which would allow tradespeople to deduct their travel costs for going to work. It is common sense. If a CEO can write off the cost of their private jet, then why can a worker not write off the cost of their travel as they go out to try to earn an income. Again, during nine years of a NDP-Liberal government, this is something that had no action. A Conservative member of Parliament stood up to make that change.

I also want to mention Bill C-409, brought forward by the member of Parliament for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. We have heard a lot from the NDP, and silence from the Liberal government, about how flight attendants were ending up working, on average, 30 unpaid hours per month. The NDP-Liberal government did absolutely nothing. The New Democrats talked a bit about it and tabled petitions and other things.

However, it took a Conservative member of Parliament to put forward a bill that would change the Canada Labour Code to define what constitutes work for flight attendants so they would no longer be sitting on a plane waiting for it to back up or waiting for it to take off, and not get paid. We heard horror stories of flight attendants who would show up for work but the flight was delayed and they would be there, would time out for their shift and then go home and not be paid. It was outrageous, and the NDP-Liberal government just let that go on for the past number of years, with no action.

This brings me right back to the fantastic bill before us that has been put forward by my colleague. This is a very serious matter. People who are the victims of harassment or violence at work are victims. They have been traumatized. The Canada Labour Code was only allowing them three months after they left work to file a complaint. These are people who are vulnerable and probably are not in a position to make that decision. Once again, a Conservative member of Parliament had to step in to make that change.

The Liberal government tried to make some changes under Bill C-65, where the victim could apply to extend the three-month timeline. Imagine that: Victims would actually have to apply to extend the deadline. The burden would be on the employee to make the justification for a new deadline. They would have to file an application, explain the trauma and ask for an exemption. The Liberals thought this would well serve the victims of harassment or violence, but it actually would have done nothing of the sort. Imagine having to give deeply personal details to someone to see whether they would let them file a complaint after three months.

It was very thin gruel for the victims. Therefore I want to congratulate again my colleague for seeing the problem, coming up with the solution and making sure that people who suffer these outrageous acts would now have up to two years to file their complaint.

It is a pattern we have seen well established in Parliament, that the NDP-Liberal government talks a very good game about protecting the rights of workers, but they do not actually deliver the results that are required. Therefore it has taken a series of Conservative bills to actually make incredible differences in the lives of workers, including the bill before us here today.

I understand that there is support for the bill to pass, which is wonderful, but it always leaves me this question: After nine years of an NDP-Liberal government, why did it take so long for it to realize this was a problem? It is because the government is really not governing the country well on this and on a whole host of other issues. As opposition members, we have a limited ability to try to clean up the messes that are left by the government, and we have done that with a series of bills that actually are going to make substantial differences.

We hope that the bill before us is going to be fast-tracked through Parliament. Let us get it to committee, get it studied and get it passed. We do not have a huge amount of time in Parliament left for it to pass, so we want to make sure that the piece of legislation can go to the Senate and receive royal assent. I hope it is going to pass through committee very quickly.

I would also hope that when Bill C-409, the fairness for flight attendants act, comes up for second reading and a vote, it also goes to committee expeditiously, because it is an incredibly difficult circumstance that flight attendants have right now across the country, and labour has not really had the friendliest of governments.

There was recently a section 107 referral by the government with respect to the resolution of the rail dispute. The right to strike is constitutionally protected; the Supreme Court said that in 2015, and the NDP-Liberal government said it was going to make a referral and take away the workers' ability to go on strike. Once again we have an NDP-Liberal government that claims to be friendly for workers, but it has taken—

Myra Falls Mine

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my riding of North Island—Powell River, days before Christmas, with no notice, over 300 employees were told that the Myra Falls Mine was shutting down. I sat down with Unifor Local 3019, which is working hard with all levels of government to protect its workers. Its ask of me was simple: When will the rules finally be fixed in Canada to protect workers' pensions and local small businesses in our community when big projects shut down?

We know that the Bloc and the NDP pushed very hard to get Bill C-228 through this place last year. In fact, it received royal assent in April of last year, so where are the regulations? Where is the government in finally making workers a priority in this country? When will we see workers and their pensions at the top of the list instead of at the bottom?

Workers in Canada do not deserve this. Our small communities have seen these boom-and-bust cycles again and again. The workers and their local communities bear the weight of it. It is time that they were protected. We must get the regulations in place now.

Motions in Amendment

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

Madam Speaker, of course, the best help that Canadians can get with affordability challenges is a well-paying job.

We know there are 605 media workers who are going to be out of a job because Metroland Media decided that it would shut down 70 print community papers.

One of the things that the government did, and I am quite happy to say worked with opposition parties to get it done, was Bill C-228, to provide pension protection in the case of bankruptcy.

However, the NDP had also negotiated amendments to protect the severance pay of workers. The member for Winnipeg North struck those provisions out on a point of order and then later denied unanimous consent in order to get them put back in.

I am wondering if the member wants to take this opportunity to talk to those 605 families and explain why he wanted to put the predators at Metroland Media ahead of those families getting their severance.

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

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

April 27, 2023

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that on behalf and at the request of the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, Deputy to the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 27th day of April, 2023, at 6:26 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Maia Welbourne

Assistant Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were S-214, An Act to establish International Mother Language Day—Chapter 5; Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985—Chapter 6; Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner)—Chapter 7; and Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 8.

Protection of Pension Plans

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pension plans are finally protected. The Senate has just passed Bill C‑228. After tabling this bill three times, every time I was elected, and after seven years of raising awareness, providing information, collaborating, coordinating, rallying public opinion and negotiating, I can finally say, to everyone who helped ensure pension plans would be protected in the event of bankruptcy or restructuring, “mission accomplished”.

I want to offer my warmest congratulations to the Cliffs retirees, who approached me in 2015 to speak on their behalf in Ottawa. From the bottom of my heart, I thank the United Steelworkers for believing in this cause and supporting it from start to finish. Their voice has been heard. I also want to thank my colleagues in both houses. On a more personal note, I especially want to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

Workers and their unions are the ones who change things, and changing things requires strength, solidarity and respect.

Financial Protection for Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Farmers Act

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, in Nova Scotia. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to discuss Bill C-280 with my esteemed colleagues here in the House today.

We will undoubtedly hear more about the merits of this bill from our colleagues. For my part, I will focus on offering an overview on the changes it would bring to our insolvency regime, in particular where it would place fresh produce sellers in relation to other creditors, including farmers of other types of perishable products, employees, pensioners and potentially smaller and more local suppliers.

To fully grasp Bill C-280, we must start by considering how our insolvency laws currently work. There are two main insolvency laws in Canada: the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the CCAA. These laws address both business and personal insolvencies.

Business insolvency solutions include both restructuring and liquidation options to distressed businesses to mitigate impacts and make the best of a bad situation. If restructuring is not feasible and a liquidation is required, the BIA ensures the orderly liquidation of assets and distribution of proceeds to creditors. At the top of the list are deemed trusts and superpriority creditors, which currently include limited amounts for farmers, fishers and unpaid suppliers, including the fresh produce suppliers that are meant to benefit from this bill. It also includes amounts owed to employees for unpaid wages. Next are secured creditors, followed by preferred creditors and unsecured creditors, which would include most unpaid suppliers, such as landlords and construction and repair businesses.

First, as I briefly mentioned, there is already a limited superpriority for Canadian farmers, fishers and aquaculturists, which entitles them to payment ahead of other creditors for amounts owing on products delivered within 15 days of bankruptcy. The superpriority available to farmers under this provision applies to the bankrupt buyer's inventory or the proceeds of the sale of the inventory. Unlike Bill C-280, the existing superpriority applies to all Canadian farmers, including producers of other perishable agricultural commodities such as milk and eggs.

Second, any unpaid suppliers of goods, including fresh produce sellers, can seek to recover unsold, identifiable goods from a bankrupt purchaser within 30 days of delivery. Canada's insolvency laws balance debtors' and creditors' interests, enabling businesses, including those in agriculture and agri-food, to access credit, invest, create jobs and treat creditors equitably.

Typically, changes to priority payments in insolvency are only made in exceptional circumstances. My colleagues may, for example, remember Bill C-228, which elevated the claims in insolvency for amounts owing to pensioners, who in some unfortunate cases have seen reductions in their pensions and retirement benefits due to the insolvency of their employers.

Bill C-280 creates a deemed trust for the claims of fresh produce sellers. A deemed trust is an extraordinary legal tool that, when used, makes the proceeds of a sale the property of the seller and not the buyer. Even if the seller is not yet paid, in an insolvency the deemed trust would let sellers recover amounts ahead of all creditors and outside of the insolvency process. This is a much stronger legal tool than is currently enjoyed by any other private commercial creditor group in insolvency.

First, the deemed trust would apply to the entire fresh produce supply chain. This means marketers, intermediaries and wholesalers of fresh produce who are engaging in everyday business transactions, just like every other supplier or wholesaler of other goods to the bankrupt purchaser. I note that this could also include multinational grocery corporations that wholesale fresh produce to their affiliates and large American sellers selling into Canada.

Second, it would apply to all the assets of the company, not just the inventory.

Third, whereas the existing protections for farmers apply only to produce from Canadian farms, American and other international fresh produce farmers and suppliers participating in a Canadian insolvency would benefit under Bill C-280.

Pension Protection

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and announce the passing in the Senate of my second private member's bill, Bill C-228, on pension protection.

This bill will ensure that pensioners who have worked their whole lives for a company will receive the pension benefit they are due. This is accomplished by providing transparency to know which funds are insolvent, providing a mechanism to transfer funds to make them solvent and, in the case of bankruptcy, putting pensions in priority ahead of creditors.

There have been many members of all parties in the House and the Senate who have been trying to pass such a bill for two decades. I want to thank all of my colleagues for their help with this. This is a great day for Canadian pensioners. No longer will we see companies go out of business and leave those who have worked hard their whole lives without any pension or with only part of a pension.

Thanks go to everyone in the House and the Senate who supported the bill. It is a great day for Canadian pensioners.

Speaker's Ruling

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Happy new year, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I would like to raise a point of order regarding an amendment to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). As stated on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

The amendment in question, G-4, would amend clause 1 of Bill C-21, and the New Democrats have been clear in expressing our opposition to this amendment. The amendment seems to target those who use guns for hunting, for protecting farm animals from predators and for supporting safety in the backcountry. What is more, we have all heard from indigenous people that the amendments would not respect treaty rights nor the duty to consult.

Bill C-21 was originally intended to limit the number of handguns on our streets. Before the amendment was introduced, there was every reason to believe that Bill C-21 was on track to passing through this House before Christmas, but instead, the amendment was introduced at the eleventh hour with no ability to question witnesses about its impacts. It is a more than 200-page amendment to what was originally a 44-page bill. In our view, that constitutes an abuse of process. We are not asking the Speaker to judge the merits of the amendment. Instead, we are bringing forward a very important procedural point.

We believe, contrary to the committee's findings, that this amendment seeks to expand the scope of the bill as established at second reading since it addresses a new idea that was not considered at second reading.

The amendment is out of scope because the original Bill C-21 was meant to implement a handgun freeze. This amendment would drastically expand the definition of “prohibited firearm” in the Criminal Code to cover all sorts of long guns, including those commonly used for hunting and farming and by indigenous communities. This House never had a chance to debate this measure at second reading.

When the amendment was moved on November 22, 2022, the committee chair deemed that it was not beyond the scope of the bill. This decision was appealed, and the committee voted in favour of the committee chair's decision.

However, as we saw in the very clear Speaker's ruling on November 16, 2022, regarding amendments to Bill C-228, the ultimate decision on the scope of a bill rests with the House itself: “The Chair would like to remind members that the scope of a bill is not determined by its sponsor, by the government or even by the committee considering it, but by the House itself when it adopts the bill at second reading.”

In this situation, the committee adopted amendments that the Chair ultimately struck from the bill during consideration at report stage, because you, Mr. Speaker, ruled that the amendments were beyond the scope of Bill C‑228 as passed by the House at second reading. Although we realize that the Speaker usually does not rule on a matter that is still being debated in committee, we believe that in this particular situation your opinion is necessary and important.

The committee has been stuck for weeks debating this amendment, which is, in our opinion, out of the scope of the bill. It is possible that you would rule the amendment out of order at report stage, which would make the hours of debate at committee completely unnecessary. It would be in the interest of all parliamentarians to avoid the waste of time and energy spent debating an amendment that would ultimately be removed from the bill.

Pensions

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have always been there to protect pensioners and workers, unlike Conservative politicians, who continue to push for CPP and EI cuts. We will support Bill C-228, but we will take no lessons from a Conservative Party that waged war on labour for a decade and has nothing to offer Canadians but Bitcoin and buzzwords.

Amendment to Bill C-228 at Committee Stage

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to raise this point of order. What I would like to do is just give a brief summary of the issue and give a couple of examples of parliamentary precedent that I think bear on the case and then propose a remedy.

This is with respect to Bill C-228. At committee, an amendment was moved to not only protect the pensions of workers when companies went bankrupt, but to also protect their termination and severance pay. It was an amendment that was agreed to by the bill's sponsor in advance of the second reading vote. It was ruled out of order by the committee chair. That was overturned by the committee itself. Subsequently, in response to a point of order by the member for Winnipeg North, that amendment protecting termination and severance pay was removed by the Speaker as being out of order.

There are a few examples in parliamentary history where amendments that were removed for the very same reason, which was that it was determined it was outside the scope of the bill, have been put back in with the unanimous consent of the House of Commons.

I refer specifically to June 17, 1986, when Speaker Bosley ruled three government motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-106, at that time, were out of order because they went beyond the scope of the bill. The parliamentary secretary to the president of the Privy Council at that time asked Speaker Bosley whether the motions could be put to the House for unanimous consent. The Speaker agreed, and the amendment motions were reintroduced in the bill with the unanimous consent of the House.

Similarly, on April 28, 1992, the House was about to begin consideration at report stage of Bill C-54. The admissibility of three amendments to the bill, which had been adopted in committee, were called into question on a point of order. The three amendments were ruled out of order by the chairman of the committee, as two of the amendments sought to amend the parent act and a third, like these, went beyond the scope of the bill, but the chairman's decisions were overturned by the committee.

After hearing comments from other members, Speaker Fraser ruled immediately that the inadmissible amendments adopted by the committee to Bill C-54 be declared null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. Right after the ruling, the amendments in question were agreed to by the House, once again, by unanimous consent.

I submitted these amendments again for report stage of the bill, which will begin tomorrow, so it is timely that I am raising this point of order now, with report stage of that bill pending for tomorrow, and—

Amendment to Bill C-228 at Committee Stage—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 14, 2022, by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader regarding an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance during clause-by-clause 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.

In raising the point of order, the parliamentary secretary explained that the committee passed an amendment to protect termination and severance pay in case of bankruptcy. The chair of the committee ruled the amendment inadmissible on the grounds that it was beyond the scope of the bill. The decision was challenged and overturned. The committee then debated the amendment and adopted it.

According to the parliamentary secretary, this amendment broadens the scope and principle of the bill as agreed to at second reading. In addition, because the amendment introduces a new concept that was not contemplated at second reading, the parliamentary secretary argued that it should be removed from the version of the bill that will be considered at report stage and third reading.

However, the members for Niagara West and Sarnia—Lambton contended that decisions made by committees should not be overturned by the government of the day but allowed to stand in order to uphold their independence. For his part, the member for Elmwood—Transcona is of the view that the amendment should be allowed because the sponsor believed it to be relevant and it had also been referenced during debate at second reading.

After the report of the Standing Committee on Finance was presented to the House, the Chair was asked to ensure compliance with certain fundamental rules and practices and to consider if the committee had exceeded its powers with regard to an amendment included in its report. As Speaker Fraser explained on April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot…go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be.

The amendment at issue would create new clause 4.1 of the bill, which would protect the termination and severance pay that a bankrupt owes to various categories of its employees.

Bill C-228 is limited in scope. The summary of the bill at second reading states the following:

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.

The chair of the committee was right to conclude that the amendment is beyond the scope of the bill, as Bill C‑228 is intended to protect only employee pension funds and group insurance plans, not termination or severance pay for certain categories of employees in case of bankruptcy.

The Chair would like to remind members that the scope of a bill is not determined by its sponsor, by the government or even by the committee considering it, but by the House itself when it adopts the bill at second reading.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following on page 770: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

While the Chair recognizes that considering a bill at committee involves its share of challenges, committees must fulfill their mandate without exceeding their powers. Committees overstep the authority granted to them when they pass amendments that go beyond the scope of a bill referred to them after second reading.

In consequence, the Chair must rule the amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance creating new clause 4.1 of Bill C-228 null and void, and order that it no longer form part of the bill that the committee reported to the House.

The Chair further orders a reprint of Bill C-228 so that the new version may be considered by the House at report stage.

I thank members for their attention.

Amendment to Bill C-228 at Committee Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to follow up on the point of order that was raised earlier this week by the member for Winnipeg North in respect to Bill C-228.

The bill, presented by the member for Sarnia—Lambton, has to do with protection of pensions. The member for Winnipeg North highlighted that the finance committee had ruled a particular amendment having to do with the protection of severance and termination pay in the case of bankruptcy as being out of order.

I would like to call to the Speaker's attention, first of all, the fact that the committee did consider that question—

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the point of order that was raised earlier by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on the private member's bill, Bill C-228, let it be known that, when the amendment regarding severance was introduced, the chair ruled it out of order. The chair's ruling was then challenged and the majority of the committee voted to overturn the decision of the chair and to approve this amendment.

It is the Conservatives' opinion that the decisions of committees are not to be overruled by the government of the day. Therefore, as the Speaker considers the matter, we would ask that you uphold the independence of committees from outside control.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Bill C-228, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, standing in the name of the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

Without commenting on the merits of the amendments proposed at the committee stage, I would like to draw to the attention of members an amendment that raises some procedural difficulties.

The amendment in question would add subparagraph 136(1)(d)(d.001) to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. It is found in the new clause 4.1 of the bill. The amendment would seek to protect termination and severance pay in the case of a bankruptcy. This amendment, in my view, seeks to expand the scope and principle of the bill as set at second reading stage. Moreover, the amendment is a new concept that was not contemplated in the bill at second reading and therefore should be removed from the bill for consideration at report stage and third reading stage.

When the member for Elmwood—Transcona proposed the amendment, the chair of the committee ruled it inadmissible. For the benefit of members who do not sit on the finance committee, I will quote the ruling. It states:

My ruling is that Bill C-228 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to provide for the solvency of pension funds in case of bankruptcy. The amendment seeks to create new categories of payments to specific former employees that would have to be paid by a bankrupt, which is not envisioned by the bill.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair and for the above stated reason, the amendment brings a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill, and therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

A majority of the members on the finance committee voted to overturn the ruling of the chair and then proceeded to vote to adopt the amendment, which is now found in the bill as reprinted by the House on November 3.

I submit that the ruling of the chair of the finance committee was correct and that our procedures must be respected. As a result, the proper course of action to address this matter is to order a reprint of the bill without the offending amendment.

Finance

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-228, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.

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

I would like to thank our finance committee clerks, Alexandre Roger and Carine Grand-Jean; legislative clerks Philippe Méla and Marie-Hélène Sauvé; committee assistant Lynda Gaudreault; all committee staff, interpreters, services, witnesses and officials; and all members of the finance committee.