Finance Committee on June 1st, 2010

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

Yes, Canada.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

—and that, with the number of bankruptcies that are occurring all across the country, there are only two companies that could potentially be covered under this bill?

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

Yes, because the others are protected under provincial legislation. I gave you an example. Atlas Stainless Steels in Sorel is not protected. The two Atlas companies—the one in Ontario and the one in Quebec—declared bankruptcy at the same time. The one in Ontario made no claim because it was protected by a provincial statute.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

So, what is Quebec waiting for to pass a provincial law that will protect them?

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

It is already in place and there will be no more such cases.

It is a little like for special situations. Let us take the example of the auto sector. The government bailed out that industry. I am in favour of the support that was provided to the auto sector. However, the government included a clause telling these companies that they had an obligation to keep the pension plan afloat—the auto sector pension plan is generous—and that is what they did.

In the forest industry, for instance, there was government assistance. People did not need it because the circumstances of the companies that were shutting down were not the same.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

However, there are currently a number of forest companies or firms operating in other industries in Quebec that are experiencing problems.

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

Yes, but they will not be affected because they are protected by Bill 30.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I want to come back to my initial question, to be sure that I understand. At this point, I still do not understand—maybe I am a little slow to catch on.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Insofar as this bill would only apply to two companies, I understand that you are not ashamed of proposing it, but I will repeat my question—

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

It would cost the government less money.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Do you think that, if two or three companies in Canada encounter problems because of what happened eight years ago, we should go through the whole process again to settle issues on a piecemeal basis, such as we are doing here?

According to the assessments we have been given, the $3 million to $5 million annually that you refer to would end up being much more if, at some point, other companies are covered by your legislation.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

We have just explained at great length that, in actual fact, because of new laws that have been passed across the provinces, as well as at the federal level, under the Income Tax Act, it would be practically impossible for there to be any more.

As regards these two companies, you are asking me whether we should make piecemeal changes because of the problems facing several thousand people. My answer is yes; we have a duty to do so.

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

Every time citizens are treated unfairly, as a government, we have a duty to act. Sometimes people are put in jail by mistake. What does the government do then? It provides financial compensation. These are individual cases, but when people have been treated unjustly, corrective measures are taken. It is the same in any area.

Every time we have an opportunity to help people who have been treated unfairly, we have a duty to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Mulcair, for seven minutes.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to our colleagues that the NDP continues to support Bill C-290.

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

Thank you.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

The questions have given both members an opportunity to clearly explain the importance of this bill.

I have followed events at Atlas Stainless Steels right from the outset. In actual fact, in everything the government does, it is always about posturing. When we talk about protecting retirees' pensions and doing the right thing, well, so far, the government has been endlessly consulting, but has actually done nothing.

Even though I would like to see this broadened and imagine there will be other such situations to deal with in future, the fact that we cannot do more now is not a reason not to do this. You have been working on this for three years now. Congratulations, and I can tell you that you have our support.

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

Thank you for your support.

Mr. Godin has also followed events in this area from the beginning. Thank you for cooperating with us on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Is that it? All right.

Mr. McCallum, please.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Congratulations on your work.

I am in favour of the principle that you are trying to introduce, meaning that I agree that people should receive a 22% tax credit for losses that occur in cases involving bankruptcy.

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

Only if the fund has a deficit.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Yes.

Moreover, I think the government's estimate of $11 billion is ridiculous. At the same time, looking at the estimates provided by the Bloc Québécois and the PBO, the amounts go from $3 million to $53 million.

There is another thing that I do not understand at all. How does what is described in the actual wording of the bill meet your objective?

I have two questions. How will this bill produce the results you are seeking and how do you explain the significant discrepancy between the estimates produced by the Bloc Québécois and the PBO?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

As I said earlier to Mr. Pacetti, we laid out our goals for this bill, which is something we all do when we are introducing a private member's bill. We explain our objectives to Legal Services at the House of Commons and to the law clerks, who then draft the bill using their own terminology to ensure it meets the specified needs.

Since 2007, and throughout this whole process, we were never told that the bill did not meet the specific requirements for a tax credit. I studied law—although I did not become a lawyer—and, to be perfectly frank, I think the bill says exactly what it should say, which is that a 22% tax credit will be provided to people who suffer losses as a result of the failure or closure of their employer's company.