Evidence of meeting #23 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bankruptcy.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jean-David Beaulieu  Researcher, Bloc Québécois Research Bureau, Bloc Québécois
Pierre St-Michel  President, Regroupement des retraité(es) des Aciers Atlas
Diane Blanchard  Secretary, Regroupement des retraité(es) des Aciers Atlas
Gaston Fréchette  President, Sous-comité des retraités et travailleurs encore actifs de Mine Jeffrey, Association des retraités d'Asbestos Inc.
Jacques Beaudoin  President, Fédération des associations de retraités du Québec
Malcolm Hamilton  As an Individual
René Langlois  Secretary, Sous-comité des retraités et travailleurs encore actifs de Mine Jeffrey, Association des retraités d'Asbestos Inc.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Order, please.

This is meeting number 23 of the Standing Committee on Finance. For our orders of the day, we have Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income).

Colleagues, we have two panels today of one hour each, so we have a very tight timeline.

Today, we have with us two colleagues from the House of Commons. First, Mr. André Bellavance, the member of Parliament for Richmond—Arthabaska, whom I welcome to the committee.

We also have with us Mr. Louis Plamondon, the member of Parliament for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, who is also the dean of the House of Commons. Welcome to you as well.

You have 10 minutes for your presentation. After that, committee members will have questions for you.

Mr. Bellavance, please.

June 1st, 2010 / 3:35 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to introduce the people to my left. They are two economists with the Research Department of the Bloc Québécois, Jean-David Beaulieu and Odile Rochon. So, if there are any questions about the numbers, we may want to call on them for assistance.

This is a bill we are all very familiar with, because I introduced it for the first time in 2007. At the time, it was Bill C-445. I would like to give you some background to explain how I came up with the idea of introducing this bill. I might add that it was developed in cooperation not only with a number of MPs, but also with people who have been affected—retirees who lost a lot of money in their pension plan.

You have already introduced my MP colleague, Louis Plamondon. He, my colleague representing Chambly—Borduas, Mr. Yves Lessard, who is here at this table, and myself all met with the people from the Jeffrey Mine and Atlas Stainless Steels a few years back. They asked us what could be done under the federal tax system to help them out, given the loss that they had suffered under their pension plans.

After some discussion and brainstorming, we concluded that a bill introducing a tax credit would be the best solution. In that regard, I take my hat off to Mr. Gaston Fréchette. He lives in my riding and is the chair of the Jeffrey Mine Retiree and Active Workers Sub-Committee. He is the one who proposed the idea of a tax credit that would soften the blow for retirees whose pension plan was cut following the closure or failure of their employer's company.

So, Bill C-445 was introduced for the first time in 2007. I have just given you a brief explanation of the discussions that led up to this solution. Because of the election in 2008, this bill died on the order paper.

Today, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, we come before you, at this stage in the process, to discuss Bill C-290 which, if I am not mistaken, was introduced again in February of 2009.

Following that, we also received a great deal of support. I believe that some witnesses will be coming here to add their voices to those of the pensioners from these two companies located in our respective ridings. A petition has also circulated. In our region, we have gathered more than 2,000 signatures in support of this request for a tax credit through Bill C-290. We also have the support of the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, or FADOQ—at least, of its president— for this bill.

I would like now to briefly explain what happened at the Jeffrey Mine. A bankruptcy occurred in 2002. On average, people lost 40% of their pension. Approximately 1,200 workers were affected by this. In fact, under their pension plan, people lost some $55 million. Atlas Stainless Steels, located in Sorel, went bankrupt in 2003. Workers there lost between 28% and 58%—almost 60%—of their pension funds. Approximately 250 workers are affected. On average, they lost $6,000 each. As you see, there is quite a gap: some lost almost 30%, while others lost 58%.

There is one question we have been asked frequently. Are there currently other cases that could be eligible for this 22% tax credit proposed under Bill C-290? To our knowledge, there are none at the present time. Could other industries eventually fall under it and could other workers also be penalized? The answer is yes. Having said that, such cases will have to involve workers whose employer has gone bankrupt and shut down, as well as workers who have actually lost part of their pension funds.

The solution we are proposing is a 22% tax credit. It is the equivalent of the federal marginal tax rate that applies to the middle class. I will explain by way of an example. If someone was expecting to receive $20,000 under his pension fund and ended up with only $12,000, he would be looking at a loss of $8,000. So, it is based on that loss that the tax credit is determined. The tax credit would be $1,760, non taxable and transferable to a surviving spouse, but not retroactive.

I said earlier that the bill only applies to retirees who have been cheated through income losses under their pension plan following a closure or bankruptcy. This is not a virtual loss, as it would be for someone who loses his pension funds because of the economic crisis or because the stock market falls. He could not suddenly claim a tax credit because, in actual fact, he would not already have lost the money. The idea is not to make up for an actuarial deficit resulting from a stock market drop. That point must be absolutely clear.

I would like to provide a further clarification, Mr. Chairman. There are legislative amendments which, in our opinion, would mean that there would not be a lot of other companies or retirees who could avail themselves of this tax credit, even though one may think the door is always open. It is important to realize that Bill 30 is already in effect in Quebec. In Ontario, the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund has been set up. In other provinces as well, there are laws in effect which prevent such unfairness from occurring, at least we hope so. That means that these kinds of situations will be very few in number. There is also the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act which has been amended by the Parliament of Canada. The benefits must be paid into the pension plan before the court accepts the bankruptcy. Therefore, any contributions due by the employer are paid out of the company's assets. Before an employer can declare bankruptcy, those contributions must be made, which obviously makes an enormous difference. I believe that amendment came into effect last September 18.

I am not telling you anything you do not already know when I say that regulations will be introduced once the bill is in effect, in order to restrict the scope of some of these measures. But the initial idea was to help workers who have been cheated out of their pension—to help retirees. Thus far, I must say we have received the support of the Opposition parties at every reading. The Bloc Québécois obviously voted in favour. Only the Conservative Party has opposed this bill. Today will be an opportunity for you to ask us questions. We will be very pleased to answer them, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much.

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC

Just to add to what has already been said, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention—and this is very important—that a lot of documents providing estimates have circulated. They are from the Library of Parliament or from researchers. Reference is made in those documents to companies experiencing financial difficulties. But that is not accurate; this applies to companies which have failed and have shut down. For example, Nortel would not be included, because it has not shut down and it has not declared bankruptcy. We researched this across Canada and contacted unions across the country to ascertain whether there were other similar cases. The only two companies we found are the ones we have been talking about. By digging a little deeper, I found another company near Quebec City, MIL-Davie Shipbuilding. The president told me that pension benefits had dropped, but that the company which bought the business is now negotiating to compensate that income loss. So, there are no other similar situations out there. In all of these consultations, we found no other companies in Canada where workers have been treated unfairly, as is the case here.

This bill is therefore an economic measure, but with an important element of compassion, since it would do justice to individuals who have actually been robbed of one third of their pension. It is not a very costly measure, since it is limited to 1,200 people who are fairly advanced in age. In many cases, they are over the age of 70, which means that the number of beneficiaries would decline continuously, as would the government's contribution. This is not a large amount of money and it would be aimed at a specific group of people who worked for companies that—I repeat—have failed, as opposed to being in difficulty. It could be an exemplary piece of legislation in terms of compassion and it would do some justice from an economic standpoint, by refunding 22% of the loss.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Mr. Plamondon, Mr. Bellavance, thank you for your presentations.

We will begin with Mr. Pacetti.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank our witnesses.

Congratulations, Mr. Bellavance. I have found myself in your position in the past and it is not always easy to be on the other side of the table. So, I want to commend you for the excellent work you have done in this area. I have some fairly technical questions.

Mr. Plamondon, perhaps I should ask you first. Nortel has not declared bankruptcy at this time, but were it to fail, would this bill apply to Nortel employees? Apparently, Nortel is going to declare bankruptcy in September or October.

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC

People working for that company are protected by the provincial legislation in Ontario, and now, by the legislation in Quebec. When Atlas Stainless Steels in Sorel declared bankruptcy, the workers found themselves in the situation we described earlier. In Ontario, however, there was no problem for Atlas because provincial legislation guaranteed the first $1,000 of pension losses. At Atlas in Ontario, no claim was made, whereas there were claims made to Atlas in Quebec, because of losses. However, if that were to happen at Nortel, there is already legislation in place that would deal with it.

In Quebec, that could no longer occur because Bill 30 is now in effect. There cannot be any more such cases in Ontario either, nor in most of the other provinces, because people are now protected by a provincial scheme.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

The bill consists mainly of a series of formulas. It is quite simple. Now where does it say that this pertains to or will only apply to companies that have declared bankruptcy?

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC

I do not know exactly on what line of the bill it says that, but it is there. If necessary, we will spell that out.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

I do not see it, because it is quite informal.

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC

Do you have the bill?

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

I haven't got it with me.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

That leads me to another question. How will this work? Will people have a certificate that they will have to send in with their tax return?

It has to be applicable. I am talking about the mechanisms here. The individual has to be eligible in order to receive that amount. Whose job will it be to determine that person's eligibility?

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

We talked to senior officials at the Department of Finance before introducing this bill. We wanted to know whether it was credible and acceptable. Senior officials at the Department of Finance told us it was. However, if the bill passes, what will the specific procedure be? Will a cheque be sent following receipt of the tax return or following receipt of another form? In terms of the paperwork, no procedure has yet been established, but it would be a simple matter.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Where taxes are concerned, nothing is ever easy.

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

That will probably be specified in the regulations.

To answer your question about companies that go bankrupt, I just want to mention that what we have presented here corresponds exactly to what we presented to the law clerks. We asked them to draft it so that it would do what we wanted it to do. It is the same with a lot of bills. You can always try and interpret it in different ways, but it is clear that the legislator's intention—in this case, that is us—was to provide assistance when companies have actually shut down and declared bankruptcy.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

That is why it is preferable to specify in committee.

The same thing applies to tax credits. Tax credits are usually not refundable. In this case, it has to be refundable. That is another problem. I do not know whether you are familiar with tax returns, but I believe this normally appears on page 4, does it not?

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

We have opted for a refundable tax credit. You are right. That does pose an additional problem, in that this must receive the royal recommendation. We obviously sat down with the retirees to look at this. We could have opted for a non-refundable tax credit, but many retirees have very little income. They are poor people who already pay no taxes. Consequently, a non-refundable tax credit would not have been effective.

That is the choice we made in order to help people as much as possible.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

I have one final question. If someone was eligible to receive this amount but subsequently found other work, is it possible he would no longer be eligible? Could that happen?

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

That has not been specified. In fact, given their age, most of these people would probably not be seeking other employment; at the same time, this is a tax credit for lost retirement income. Therefore, they would have the right to keep on receiving it.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you, Mr. Pacetti.

Mr. Paillé, you have seven minutes.

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC

Good afternoon, colleagues.

This bill, based on the way you have explained it and on the mechanism you are relying on, is a tax-related bill. By its very nature, it would not help people with a fantastic pension who are trying to pull a fast one on the tax authorities. Based on what we know, there would only be these two cases. Mr. Plamondon, you said that there is a third case—MIL-Davie Shipbuilding, which is currently trying to resolve the issue. For all intents and purposes, this is salary that people put aside for retirement, and then, at some point the company went bankrupt. So, we are not talking about a company in difficulty, but rather, one that has shut down and left a financial hole. As I understand it, before I was elected—but Mr. Plamondon knows about this, since he was here before even Jacques Cartier arrived—that hole was identified by the tax authorities, who then plugged the hole saying that a company will only receive a bankruptcy certificate from a judge if it has already paid the amounts that it owes.

I would like you to confirm the difference between a company in financial difficulty, which could end up declaring bankruptcy—even if things are going very well right now—and the particular circumstance that this bill aims to address. If it were an open bar, so to speak, there could be huge costs in future, but that is not at all the case. Basically, this is not an open bar. The bar is closed and people had already paid to receive their glass of water.

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Exactly. As a result of legislative changes, the situation is different now. When we initially prepared the bill, we did our own research on businesses elsewhere in Canada where similar circumstances might exist, as Mr. Plamondon was saying earlier. There may be one in the riding of the Hon. Peter MacKay. It is not clear that it would meet the requirements of this bill. The whole purpose is to assist the retirees we met with, even though we are not against the idea of helping other retirees who have been cheated. There is a humanitarian issue here.

Now, as you say, if the hole has been plugged, that could restrict access to this legislation. If it turned out that the measures already in place were not sufficient, there might end up being others. However, for the time being, these laws have resolved the issue.

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC

That is the very nature of this bill. Basically, this bill is highly restrictive and limited in time, because it specifically addressed two companies—we could almost name them—and about 1,450 retirees. But time is moving on. You were saying that this goes back to 2002-2003. It is already 2010. So, the theory put forward by our Liberal colleague, that these individuals could find other work, is less plausible and, as regards the tax credit, the hole has been plugged.

You were saying that action has been taken in Ontario and elsewhere. Has the Government of Quebec already take action and shown a desire to respond to the situation you described? I know that there are quite a few retirees who are also here today.

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Bill 30 is in effect in Quebec. I can also tell you that, when we began discussions with retirees about this bill, our counterparts in Quebec—Sylvain Simard, in the riding of Mr. Plamondon, and Yvon Vallières, in my own—had discussions with authorities in Quebec about this. I believe the Government of Quebec concluded that if the federal government were to move forward on this bill, it could then harmonize its own legislation along the same lines. I cannot guarantee you that this is the case, but as I recall, that is the way it went in Quebec.