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.