Debates of June 15th, 2022

Question No.527—

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

With regard to delays in the processing of applications for Temporary Foreign Workers (TFW): (a) what is the current processing time; (b) how many applications are still awaiting a decision or are still being processed as of April 29, 2022; (c) what are the government’s specific targets, including the related timelines, for reducing the processing times; (d) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by sector and occupation; (e) how many government employees or full-time equivalents were assigned to processing TFW applications as of (i) January 1, 2020, (ii) April 29, 2022; and (f) how many employees who process TFW applications were on leave as of April 29, 2022, due to not meeting the government’s vaccine attestation requirements?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), as of April 30, 2022, the current monthly average processing time for employers seeking labour market impact assessments, or LMIAs, from Service Canada to support the entry of temporary foreign workers, TFWs, was 37 business days. The processing times vary between program streams and by processing regions.

With regard to (b), as of April 29, 2022, 11,044 LMIA applications from 7,421 employers are awaiting a decision.

With regard to (c), to address the high program demand—which, as a reference, is 49% higher than forecast for April 2022--reduce the inventory and improve processing times, the program has increased its resources and since January has doubled its productivity, with approximately 2,000 files processed per week. As a result of these efforts, the national average processing time went from 44 business days in February 2022 to 37 business days in April 2022. The department has seen continuous improvement, largely due to the implementation of processing improvements, including streamlining and simplification measures.

With regard to (d), average processing times of the top 10 sectors of LMIA applications assessed in April 2022 were as follows: Full-service restaurants and limited-service eating places, 35 business days; computer services and related services, 23 business days; private households, 25 business days; cattle ranching and farming, 33 business days; general freight trucking, 66 business days; vegetable and melon farming, 24 business days; fruit and tree nut farming, 21 business days; residential building construction, 40 business days; building finishing contractors, 32 business days; services to buildings and dwellings, 49 business days.

Average processing times of the top 10 occupations of LMIA applications assessed in April 2022 were as follows: General farm workers, 28 business days; cooks, 34 business days; food service supervisors, 35 business days; home child care providers, 25 business days; transportation truck drivers, 80 business days; retail sales supervisors, 37 business days; administrative assistants, 34 business days; software engineers and designers, 15 business days; computer programmers and interactive media developers, 19 business days; carpenters, 39 business days.

Sectors, as based on the North American industry classification system, or NAICS, and occupations, as based on the national occupational classification, or NOC, are only entered into the LMIA system when the assessment has started or a decision has been rendered. Therefore, as of April 29, 2022, only 25% of all current applications awaiting a decision have a sector and occupation assigned to them. Processing times listed for the sectors and occupations just mentioned are for completed files.

With regard to (e), the program had approximately 400 full-time equivalent, FTE, employees assigned to it in 2020. By the end of April 2022, program capacity exceeded 500 FTEs, and 60 additional bilingual resources are expected to be hired in the short term.

With regard to (f), information on employees on leave without pay by program is not available.

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 521, 522, 524 and 525 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No.521—

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

With regard to electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure in Canada: (a) what does the government project to be the number of registered EVs in Canada for each of the next 10 years for each province and territory; (b) what is the projected infrastructure investment in electrical grids in each province and territory required to meet this demand; (c) what is the projected number of public charging stations in each province and territory over each of the next 10 years; (d) how much (i) has the government contributed to EV infrastructure in each of the past five years in each province and territory, (ii) is the government projecting to contribute in each of the next 10 years in each province and territory; and (e) what federal standards are being considered for EV charging infrastructure?

(Return tabled)

Question No.522—

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

With regard to correspondence received by ministers: (a) how many pieces of correspondence (both mail and email) have been received by each minister in each of the past four years (2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021); (b) for each of the past four years, (i) what is the average response time for a final response to correspondence received from members of Parliament, (ii) what is the average response time for a final response to correspondence received from non-members of Parliament, (iii) when does the oldest unresolved correspondence file date back to, (iv) how many pieces of correspondence did not receive a response; (c) what are the targeted service standards; (d) how many pieces of correspondence were redirected to another individual for a final response; and (e) for each minister’s correspondence unit, (i) what is the total annual budget, (ii) how many employees are assigned to handle ministerial correspondence, (iii) what other metrics are recorded and tracked by the correspondence units?

(Return tabled)

Question No.524—

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

With regard to contracts provided to consultants related to the processing of requests made under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (ATIP), signed since January 1, 2020: (a) what are the details of all such contracts, including for each the (i) vendor, (ii) value, (iii) date, (iv) description of services provided, (v) start and end dates of the contract, (vi) number of ATIPs processed by the consulting vendor, (vii) file number, if known; and (b) of the ATIP requests received since January 1, 2020, and broken down by month, how many have been assigned to (i) government employees, (ii) consultants for processing?

(Return tabled)

Question No.525—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

With regard to Canadian military equipment and other government assets left behind in Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover in 2021: (a) what is the total estimated value of the equipment left behind; and (b) what is the breakdown of the equipment left behind, including the (i) description, (ii) volume, (iii) value of each item left behind?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

It being 5:37 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from April 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-228 has been introduced by the member for Sarnia—Lambton, and I first want to express my support for her passion as it relates to the bill.

The concept of superpriority, in terms of making sure that it is put in the proper order, is something that I have been interested in since I first arrived in the House. I am very interested in seeing the bill go to committee so that the committee can do the proper work and send its recommendations back to the House. Unfortunately, over time, we have seen a shift in the way that corporations treat their employees, quite frankly. We have seen a number of corporations, and some even within my riding, declare bankruptcy and, as a result, give themselves the ability to neglect payments to pensioners in particular.

Shortly after I was elected, I was very impressed by a group from the Invista plant in Kingston, which manufactures nylon. A group of not employees, but managers came forward. They would not have been affected by any legislation such as this. The group was led by Peter Strauss and some other individuals from my riding. They came forward, as previous management of this plant, on behalf of the employees who would be affected when decisions were made to allow companies to declare bankruptcy in these positions. I was very moved by that, because it showed that there was deep concern.

We have to reflect on the fact that there are many pensioners out there who paid into pensions throughout their working careers and are, quite frankly, relying on this income at the end of their careers for their retirement. In many cases, individuals are limited with respect to how much they can contribute to RRSPs if they are expecting to receive a pension that they are paying into. It should certainly not be the fault of individual employees, pensioners, if a company declares bankruptcy once they have retired.

I was really concerned a few years ago after seeing some corporations declare bankruptcy. I think of Sears in particular, and when it declared bankruptcy. Prior to declaring bankruptcy, it started to move assets into other companies. For example, it moved buildings and land into other companies so that it could shield those assets from the bankruptcy and insolvency operations that would take place once the company put itself in that position. I can see the frustration that some individuals would have around circumstances like that, and I know that they would be extremely upset to discover that this type of activity had been happening. However, the reality is that this is the model allowed for these corporations.

I can appreciate the fact that if we set the environment for corporations to act in a certain way, they are going to act in that way. If we make it allowable for corporations to move assets around and basically skirt some responsibilities in the interests of profit, because there are very few human elements to the capitalist system, the default reaction unfortunately is that the very nature of it is going to encourage companies to do that. Therefore, it falls upon government, quite frankly: the policy-makers and lawmakers, to set the proper environment to ensure that individuals are properly taken care of in circumstances like this.

Having said all this, I was part of a small working group a number of years ago. We were looking at and studying this issue, and I know that there are some concerns out there. I do not, at this point, necessarily agree with those concerns, but I know that there are some around what this does to an individual corporation's ability to access financing from a bank. There are some out there that I recall having told us that it would make it more difficult to leverage capital, so I realize that there are various elements to this and variables that need to be considered. I really hope that at the end of the day we can focus on making sure that the individuals who have in good faith relied on institutions, in this case their employers, to manage their retirement funds have it done in a proper way.

I look forward to this bill continuing to go through the debate process. I am personally in support of seeing this go to committee so that the proper study can be done. I look forward to hearing about that as it comes back from committee, so that I can then inform myself to make a decision on how to vote for this. At this point, it is certainly something that I am very interested in, given the comments that I have made to this point.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C‑228, which was introduced by the member for Sarnia—Lambton. This is a very important bill. I sincerely commend my colleague and congratulate her on the work she does in the House.

In theory, every elected member is allowed to introduce their own bill in the House of Commons during every Parliament. Not everyone has the opportunity to do so, since there is very little time. Each one of us would have all kinds of bills to introduce. When a member like the member for Sarnia—Lambton has the opportunity to introduce a bill, that is a very fortunate event, and I sincerely thank her for choosing this topic. This bill, if passed, will correct what I consider to be a serious injustice. Based on what we have been hearing in the House, I have a lot of faith that this bill will move forward. It may even be passed. I tip my hat to my colleague, sincerely.

In my riding of Joliette, my colleague Véronique Hivon represents us in the National Assembly. She has announced that she will not be seeking re‑election after 14 years of dedicated service. The lesson I take from her is that we need to work across party lines, make connections that go beyond party boundaries and political games, and work together for the common good to make a difference. I truly believe that each and every one of us is here in the House because we want to make things better for people, and the member for Sarnia—Lambton's Bill C‑228 is proof of that.

As my colleagues know, Bill C‑228 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to better protect workers' pension plans. When a business goes bankrupt, it is always a great tragedy. If it is a family business, then it is a tragedy for the family. It is also a tragedy for the community where the company does business. However, it is even more tragic for the workers who depend on the jobs that business provides to earn their living. Any bankruptcy is a tragedy, of course, but it particularly affects pensioners. That is what the bill before us would correct. It seeks to better protect pension plans in the event of bankruptcy.

Everyone remembers the case of White Birch, which went bankrupt in 2010, I believe. The workers lost about half of their pensions because the pension plan was not adequately funded. It was such a tragedy. Those people had worked hard all their lives—those were not easy jobs—to make enough money to be considered middle class and, for all those years, they had been contributing to a pension fund so they could retire. They believed they would work hard, get up early every morning to earn their keep, and then, at 65 or so, they would be able to go at a slower pace for the rest of their lives and enjoy what they had put aside through the pension plan. However, overnight, these people, who had budgeted very carefully, knowing that people have less income in retirement than when they are working, saw half their income disappear because the company went bankrupt.

Finally, we learned that pension funds, pension plans are unsecured creditors, so once the taxes owing to the government are paid, and all the other higher ranking creditors are paid, there is practically nothing left for underfunded pension liabilities like that. These are terrible situations that ruin lives.

The bill introduced by my esteemed colleague from Sarnia—Lambton includes several aspects, but basically it seeks to ensure that pension plans are given a higher priority when creditors are being paid off. This would help to better shelter pension funds to ensure that the pensions are paid.

Earlier, I spoke about working together across party lines, and so I thank the member for choosing to present her bill to the media together with my Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Manicouagan.

During the 42nd Parliament, from 2015 to 2019, Cliffs, a company in my colleague from Manicouagan's riding, went bankrupt, leaving many workers in a difficult situation. The United Steelworkers stepped in and miraculously managed to reduce pension losses, but the harm had already been done. As a result, my colleague then introduced a bill similar to this one.

What is different today is that we have a minority government. The people voted this government in, but they did not give it free rein, which means that it must answer to all parliamentarians, a majority of whom are not from the same political party. That gives the House, this Parliament, some leverage and makes it possible for bills like my colleague's to be passed.

In this case, the Liberals might be changing their stance, since they want to study this bill in committee, so at least the bill will make it that far. Let us hope that we will be able to improve it and get it through the other stages. Obviously, there will be work to do in committee. Questions will need to be answered. We will have to make sure that we understand every part of the bill so that everything is done properly, according to the rules. That is what committee work is for. I am sure we can make that happen.

This issue is obviously very important to us. We see that federally regulated businesses would also be protected by the change to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985. This affects 3% of the labour force in Quebec. In her bill, my colleague from Manicouagan also proposed raising group insurance to the rank of preferred creditor. This is not the case here and that is something that could be discussed by the committee.

As I was saying, the principle of the bill is honourable. The member did not have to introduce this bill, and I commend her for deciding to do so.

I will certainly ask a question in committee about the possibility of transferring rather than liquidating the pension fund. I will also have questions about the possibility of an employee taking out insurance to cover all or part of a potential deficit in the pension fund. When Groupe Capitales Médias declared bankruptcy, the workers of the various daily and weekly papers in Quebec belonging to the group lost part of their pensions. In contrast, workers at the newspaper Le Droit, based in Ottawa, will receive almost their entire pension thanks to insurance. This measure is already in place in Ontario, but not in Quebec, and I think that Quebec would do well to consider this model.

After the White Birch bankruptcy, the first case that really struck me, there was the Cliffs case on the north shore. I was elected at the same time as my colleague from Manicouagan, and this second case really shook us up. It was at that point that my colleagues and I got a better grasp of the issue. However, since then, there have been more cases. I just spoke about Groupe Capitales Médias, but there are others. I remember in particular the Sears bankruptcy, which the member for Sarnia—Lambton and I went through.

How many dozens or hundreds of families of retired workers run the risk of losing half or even more of their retirement pensions because a company did not adequately fund their pension plan before declaring bankruptcy? In my opinion, it is our role in the House as legislators to correct this shortcoming by raising the creditor ranking of pensioners so they are better protected.

In closing, I would like to again thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking to Bill C-228, which addresses pensions in the case of bankruptcy or insolvency. For the NDP, this addresses something that has been a long-term concern for us. We know pensioners are really made fragile when they lose a significant part of their pension. We know it is absolutely devastating when workers who worked so hard for a company, workers who spent their lives dedicated and loyal doing that work, lose their pension on the other side or know they are going to lose their pension.

Whenever I think of this issue, I always think of Pat Horgan, who was a former member of my constituency. He passed away several years ago. I remember him sharing his story of his many years of dedication to Safeway, where he travelled quite a distance to work and support his family. He spent many, many years of his life working really hard. His amazing pension provided a solid foundation for his family. He retired early to care for a young son. Pat was making $2,700 a month, and when everything fell apart, his pension went from $2,700 down to $72 a month.

This happens to Canadians in our country, and that is why this type of legislation is so important. This is why we are holding the government to support this. It needs to understand that, when it puts Canadians in that situation, when it tells companies everybody is above the workers, it really disenfranchises those folks. It means that, when they retire, they do not have that stability.

Pat, in his retirement, had to go back to work. He had to go back to work to support his family. I remember him saying to me he was grateful he had the health and well-being to work, even though as he got older and older it became harder and harder for him. This is why it is so important that we are here today.

Pensions are deferred wages. This is how we plan for our future and for our retirement. When someone gets older, one faces multiple challenges because of aging. If someone does not have the pension they worked so hard for, and everybody else walks away with the money they need while that person is left in a fragile and vulnerable position, it is simply not fair. It is an injustice. It is unfair, and it finally needs to be dealt with. Worker pensions should not be at the bottom of the list. I am so hopeful this bill will get to where it needs to get because it would take the steps that are much needed toward fixing this.

I need to be honest. I was a little worried in the very beginning if I would support this bill or not. My caucus and I had some very important concerns, which we brought forward to the member for Sarnia—Lambton. Happily, some commitments, discussions and agreed upon changes, and I thank the member for that important work, will allow this caucus to vote in favour of the bill.

Because of this work, yesterday, together with the NDP member for Elmwood—Transcona, the Bloc member for Manicouagan and, of course, the member for Sarnia—Lambton, all three opposition parties were able to announce their collaboration on this bill.

I need to take this opportunity of course to thank my dear friend Mr. Scott Duvall, who is the former member of Parliament for Hamilton Mountain. He worked diligently both in the 42nd Parliament and the 43rd Parliament to get this work done and introduced his own bill in the 42nd Parliament. I know he worked so hard with the Bloc to get the bill through, and we did not see it get where it needed to in the other place because of an election that was called for no reason.

I am so happy to be having this discussion because Scott Duvall committed his life to this work. He lived through this. He came from a union background and had seen this happen. He had worked to support workers and was absolutely dedicated. I really respect the work he continues to do, and I hope this gets over the finish line. I know he would be really happy to see that.

Currently, we know our laws leave workers behind. I believe it is extremely important not only to amend the bankruptcy laws to ensure not only that unfunded liabilities for pension funds are honoured over both secured and unsecured creditors but also that companies can no longer stop payment of retirement benefits during the bankruptcy proceedings. This is another factor that is really important to understand.

These long processes have such a profound impact in the short term and long term for workers. We know that when there is the significant loss within a community of a big organization or business, it really has a profound impact, especially on smaller rural and remote communities like those that I represent. This is important. I am seeing this right now in a bit of a different circumstance with the mill in Powell River where folks are waiting to move on, but they are not getting any termination or severance pay. They are waiting for that. That is what happens in bankruptcies. People are waiting because all of the secured creditors get to go first. There is a pattern for businesses in trouble to leave workers hanging, unable to bridge the gap and move forward in a meaningful way. Our federal laws need to be improved to support workers.

That is the foundation of this for me and I hope it is for all of us as we vote on this. We have to make sure that workers are recognized in our country. All too often we have systems in place where workers stay poor while the people at the very top walk away with a lot of resources. When people work hard for a company, when they wake up every day and show their dedication and loyalty by showing up for work and helping that business grow its own resources, its own wealth, we have to make sure that when it gets tough, those people are not left behind.

As the NDP's spokesperson for seniors, I have spoken to many seniors who have had this experience and have significant challenges financially when they retire. It can become very significant if they lose their pensions.

One of the concerns I have with this bill is it does not really include protection for health care benefits during the insolvency process. This is concerning to me. I have talked to a significant number of seniors in my riding who really struggle with health care costs.

I was talking to someone not too long ago who was talking about diabetes medication and how hard it is to make ends meet now because that person does not have any extra resources. We also know that as people age, dental care becomes increasingly more important and is a huge deterrent to health. I have talked to seniors who struggle to chew their food and are having to blend their food in a blender to make sure they get the healthy nutrients they need.

One senior told me that she lost her pension because of a bankruptcy and is now in a position where she has significant dental work that needs to be done. She is trying to save up for it. She keeps getting a recurring infection in her gums. Her dental professionals are trying to make that work without her losing any more of her teeth. I cannot imagine being in that circumstance.

This is an important part. We need to make sure that those things are put in place. I know this is exactly why the NDP is fighting so hard to get dental care in this country for low-income people, especially vulnerable people with health issues, persons living with disabilities, seniors and children. We need to make sure that people have that opportunity. Often when people lose their dental health, they lose so many other opportunities in their life.

In closing, I look forward to having this bill go to committee and for all of us to work together to amend it and make some changes so that we can serve the workers across this country who build our communities, who pay their taxes and do all they can. We want to make sure when they retire that they are protected. Hopefully, we will get there.

I want to again thank the member who brought this bill forward for her hard work, her diligence and her ability to work across party lines. I think that is a real testament to some of the work we do in this place.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to rise today to speak to this very important piece of legislation tabled by my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton.

Pension protection has been at the forefront of our legislature for what seems like years. Every Parliament has had various attempts to protect worker pensions from insolvency. They are tabled and it seems that every Parliament has this issue which we all agree is important, but it dies on the Order Paper.

Hopefully, Bill C-228, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, will finally see our legislature take concrete action to protect Canadian workers and their hard-earned pensions.

Bill C-228 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to ensure that claims in respect of unfunded liabilities or its solvency deficiencies of a pension plan are accorded priority in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. It also provides that an employer has to maintain group insurance plans and provide benefits to, or in respect of, its employees or former employees.

This area has particular importance to me given my previous career as a financial adviser and current career as the official opposition's shadow minister for seniors. Workers spend their entire lives building something for them to enjoy during their golden years. Bill C-228 is a big step forward in securing those years for future generations.

This legislation builds off two previous pieces of legislation that were before the House: Bill C-405 in the 42nd Parliament and Bill C-253 in the 43rd Parliament.

Bill C-405, which was tabled by my hon. colleague from Durham, was unfortunately defeated at second reading. The logic from the government according to the now Minister of Justice, was that the “proposed changes reduce the flexibility of courts based on particular situations and facts. These current flexibilities help to achieve the best outcome for the company and the pensioners and they might conflict with important policy objectives.” The NDP felt that the legislation did not accurately protect pensions.

The following Parliament saw a little more progress on the file. The member for Manicouagan managed to garner enough support to send her attempt to committee despite opposition from the Liberals, who claimed:

[T]he employee group benefit claims would be weakened and that could ultimately weaken companies in their ability to restructure and affect that sense of competitiveness of firms with respect to defined benefit pension plans as well as group insurance benefit plans, which would not necessarily help pensioners and workers in all cases. It has the potential to threaten the existence of defined pension plans.

While the bill may not have been perfect, we on this side of the House were willing to put the financial security of Canadians ahead of any partisan differences and we pledged to send the bill to committee so that it could be improved. Over seven meetings and after consultations with dozens of witnesses and expert testimony, the bill was returned to Parliament amended and improved.

I bring up Bill C-253 because this legislation that we are speaking about here today is very much a spiritual successor to that earlier piece of legislation. The two pieces of legislation share a very large amount of the same text. What Bill C-228 does is build on the very good work that was done on the file in the last parliamentary sitting by amending the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, to empower the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to determine that the funding of a pension plan is impaired or that the pension plan administrator is at risk and to set out measures to be taken by the employer in respect of the funding of the plan in such cases.

Michael Powell, president of the Canadian Federation of Pensioners, said:

We support Bill C-253 and the extension of superpriority to pension deficits. This is the simplest solution to meaningfully improve pension protection for Canadian seniors.

In our Canadian regulatory environment, the only single place to protect pensions is within insolvency regulations. This committee and Parliament face a decision between the status quo—which leaves seniors' future financial well-being at risk and perpetuates an unfair system designed to exclude seniors from protecting their own financial interests, an unfair system that has been proven to significantly harm older Canadians—and a new future that offers protection to vulnerable seniors.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff, former president of the Canadian Labour Congress, was also supportive, saying, “The CLC, of course, supports Bill C-253, and I want to thank the members who voted to advance this bill.”

Unfortunately, an election call meant the death knell for Bill C-253. While the bill itself is dead, the spirit of co-operation among all parties that followed Bill C-253 need not be.

During debate on Bill C-253, the legislation's previous iteration of Bill C-228, the former member for Hamilton Mountain called for support of the legislation, even though he had a similar piece of legislation tabled before the House, Bill C-259. Unless I missed my mark, that legislation has been reintroduced in this Parliament by the member for Elmwood—Transcona as Bill C-225. The former member for Hamilton Mountain said, “I feel strongly about the necessity of these protections put forward, so much that my bill, Bill C-259, contains equivalent measures to every article contained in this bill. I would like to let her and the House know that I am calling on all my NDP colleagues to support the bill at second reading and I hope to see it get to committee.”

I hope my honourable friend and his party will continue down the path of co-operation and multipartisanship that his predecessor did.

I mentioned earlier how I had a previous life as a financial adviser. I saw first-hand the complete destruction of livelihoods that tore through Hastings—Lennox and Addington when Nortel and Sears went belly up. The financial security of nearly 37,000 Canadians went up in smoke overnight.

These were terrible lessons that affected every single one of our ridings and lessons that we cannot continue to ignore. We, as a legislature, need to work toward protecting Canadian pensioners. We have before us a piece of legislation that has previously received support from the majority of parties in this House. It is a piece of legislation that, in fact, has been tabled by two separate parties. How often can we say that? It is a piece of legislation that has already gone through the scrutiny of a parliamentary committee and debate.

I would suggest to my colleagues in the House that we do the right thing, pass Bill C-228 into law and avoid the fate of so many other attempts to protect Canadian pensioners.