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.