Scott Duvall

[Pension Benefits Standards Act, October 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are here to talk about Bill C-405 with respect to pension theft. What the hon. member is doing over there is talking about anything except that. I am wondering if he could get back on track, never mind about all the stuff the Liberals had done before, and talk about what they are going to do today.

[Pension Benefits Standards Act, October 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the private member's bill, Bill C-405, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, pension plans, sponsored by the member for Oshawa. I want to thank the hon. member for acknowledging the bankruptcy and pension benefits act needs to be changed. However, this is the only thanks I will be giving him on this issue.

Over the last 10 years, we have seen an increased focus in the province with Canada's inadequate bankruptcy and insolvency laws. The cases of Nortel, Wabush Mines, Stelco and, most recently, Sears have brought into national focus the fact that workers at large companies that go bankrupt are offered very little protection from investors and banks. Sometimes international hedge fund operators make out like bandits.

As a solution to this problem to fix Canada's inadequate bankruptcy and insolvency laws, the measures outlined in the bill are in complete opposition to NDP proposals, policies, initiatives and values. The bill helps to make clear that the approach favoured by the Conservatives and ironically by the Liberal government is to protect the interests of large business and their investors, while throwing Canadian workers under the bus.

There are presently four private members' bills in Parliament that address the legislative crisis and present solutions for fixing those problems. Three are in favour of increasing protection for workers and retirees in the Canadian public. The bill stands alone as it focuses on protecting and increasing the advantages enjoyed by big business, the financial sector and well-off company executives.

Chris Roberts, policy director for the Canadian Labour Congress, sums it up neatly when he says, “Right now a number of private member bills in the House and Senate are trying to honour the pension promises made to workers and retirees. Bill C-405 is not one of these. This bill would make it easier for employers to walk away from their obligation, with the consent of only a minority of beneficiaries. This legislation goes in precisely the wrong direction.”

Many Canadian companies use our inadequate bankruptcy laws to effectively gain concessions from their employees and escape responsibility for often huge pension deficits they themselves have created. Workers are then left with the threat of reduced pension and health care benefits.

The bill would make it easier for employers to manipulate laws by allowing those with existing defined benefit pension plans to convert those plans to target benefit or defined contribution plans, which would transfer all the risk onto the employees. Employers would let off the hook and allowed to walk away from their responsibility to provide secure retirement benefits to their employees.

Workplace pensions are deferred wages that employees agree to put aside until their retirement. This is critical to understand. Allowing companies to walk away with these funds is theft, pure and simple. The measures in the bill are in stark opposition to the approach proposed by the NDP to fix Canada's flawed bankruptcy and insolvency laws that would actually protect the pensions and benefits of Canadian workers and retirees.

My bill, Bill C-384, Liberal Senator Art Eggleton's bill, Bill S-253, and the Bloc's bill, Bill C-372 present solutions that would actually protect the pension funds of Canadian workers and retirees when a large Canadian company goes bankrupt. Chief among the proposals presented in the two bills are measures to heighten the priority of paying back deficits to workers' pension funds to the same level as secured creditors. Currently those payments are only considered at the same level as unsecured creditors who often only receive pennies on the dollar for any monies they are owed.

One the most offensive things that happens during the bankruptcy proceedings is that executives give themselves huge bonuses. The very people who ran the company into the ground get big rewards and it is done because the law allows it to happen.

Nortel executives got over $200 million in bonuses. Sears executives got $9.2 million. Stelco executives got $1.2 5 million. When I tell that to people at the town halls I have been doing when I go across the country, people ask me if I am kidding them. I have to tell them that I am not, that this really happens because the law allows it to happen.

Canadians know this is not right and they are demanding that the laws be changed. Remember that this all happens while workers and retirees get their benefits cut off, employees lose vacation, severance and termination pay, and small suppliers get stiffed on money they are owed.

The proposals in this bill dealing with executive compensation would do nothing to prevent the excessive rewards handed out during bankruptcy proceedings. The many executives who are paid largely through stock options and bonuses would not be affected by the new rules laid out in this bill. Executive bonuses during bankruptcy proceedings should be outlawed, pure and simple. Why should executives get bonuses to begin with when workers are, at the same time, being asked to make concessions? This is so obvious to the majority of working Canadians and it is time that we change the laws to make this happen.

It is also time for the government to get serious about changing the laws it knows are hurting workers and retirees and are threatening the retirement security of Canadian seniors. This is not a new issue. The problem has been happening for decades. The Liberal Party even went so far as to pass a resolution at its last policy convention calling on its own government to provide pension security.

In 2009, at the height of the Nortel mess, the leader of the Liberal Party stood outside this building and told workers that he would do everything he could to make sure this kind of problem did not happen again, and during the 2015 election campaign, the current Prime Minister came to my city of Hamilton and told workers that he would use every tool in the tool box to change the laws and fix the problem. The Liberals did not tell the truth. They did not live up to their promises.

The disconnect between the government and the needs of Canadian workers is hard to understand. The innovation minister tells workers that he cares, but does nothing; the seniors minister tells Canadians she wants to come up with the right solution, but then refuses to consult anyone; and the Prime Minister has a “let them eat cake” moment and tells the Sears pensioners, who are losing 30% of their pensions, that they can rely on the CPP and El. They should be ashamed of themselves and the Conservatives should be embarrassed and ashamed to offer legislation that would further threaten the well-being of Canadian workers and retirees.

We were elected to the House to protect Canadians, not to allow their pensions to be stolen because of inadequate legislation. It is in our interest to prioritize the interests of Canadians when it comes to these bankruptcy proceedings to ensure that the company pays, not the pensioner and not the Canadian taxpayer. This bill would not do that, which is why the NDP cannot support Bill C-405.

[Pension Benefits Standards Act, October 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned fairness, and that is what he is trying to bring here. Can you explain to me where the fairness is after a person works for 35 years, defers wages into a pension plan, and then all of a sudden, when the company is in financial distress, it goes under CCAA, and the first thing they do is look for concessions and give themselves bonuses? At the same time, if it liquidates, the employees are at the bottom of the list. This is money that was actually given to the company to make sure that their investment was there. The company guaranteed it. That was the agreement, and all of a sudden, this inadequate law we have allows them to go onto the bottom of the list.

[Pensions, October 5th, 2018]

The Minister of Seniors seems to prefer avoiding questions about pension protection for Canadian workers and retirees. Hard-working Canadians deserve answers from the government.

When the minister was appointed, her mandate clearly stated that she was to conduct hearings and to protect workers' pensions. Canadian workers have heard nothing since. Why is she refusing to listen to Canadian workers and retirees? Will the minister take action on changing Canada's bankruptcy and insolvency laws, yes or no?

[Seniors, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this summer, the Prime Minister appointed the Minister of Seniors with a mandate to conduct hearings and to protect workers' pensions. So far, Canadian workers and retirees have heard nothing. The Liberal rank and file passed a motion at their convention to fix Canada's flawed bankruptcy legislation. A Liberal senator introduced a bill to do the same thing. On my cross-country pension theft tour, Canadians made it clear that they expected the government to fix this problem.

Why is the minister refusing to listen to Canadian workers and retirees?

[Pensions, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, after three years the government has done little to help Canadian seniors and retirees.

The Prime Minister promised during the election campaign to use every tool in the toolbox to fix Canada's flawed bankruptcy and insolvency law to protect workers' pensions, but so far has done nothing.

After news that 18,000 Sears retirees would lose 30% of their pensions, we still heard nothing from the government.

The government made a promise to consult in its last budget, but clearly Liberal promises are not worth the paper they are written on.

Changing the laws to protect workers' pensions is not hard. My Bill C-384 and Liberal Senator Art Eggleton's Bill S-253 lay out straightforward measures to fix the problems. Still, the government refuses to act.

For three years I have been asking the government to change the laws and protect Canadian pensioners. Every time I get back the same non-answers. This lack of respect is insulting to Canadian workers and retirees.

Let us stop the pension theft.

[Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, October 3rd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to the motion before us, Motion No.190.

I want to start by laying out exactly what the motion is asking for, so that people can be clear on what is being discussed.

The motion directs:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be instructed to undertake a study on the labour shortages of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, to consider, among other things, (i) the challenges associated with a lack of skilled workers in the construction industry, (ii) possible recommendations on how to increase construction skill development in the region, (iii) analysis of the Atlantic Immigration Pilot initiatives as a model to address the skilled worker need in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area; and that the Committee report its findings to the House within six months of the adoption of this motion.

Therefore, I want to be clear that we will be supporting the motion at second reading because we believe there is value in doing a study about labour shortages at committee. We will of course re-evaluate our position once the study is completed.

I have a question, which I have asked before. Why was it necessary to bring this to the House as a motion? Why could it not have been done and introduced at committee?

I also have to wonder why the member sponsoring the motion has limited, as the previous speaker noted, the scope of the study to just the GTA and Hamilton areas. It seems to me, especially given the lack of data available on labour shortages in Canada, that a more ambitious Canada-wide study might be more useful and appropriate.

In doing my research in preparation to speak to this motion, I did speak to individuals involved in the construction industry in the area under consideration and found that they might have a view quite different from that of the sponsor of the motion. I spoke with several representatives of the building trades in the area, and while they would welcome any study on labour shortages in their industry, they are somewhat skeptical of this motion. Their view is that the supply of workers is not the problem, but rather the supply of employers willing to pay a fair wage. It is also the view of workers in the industry that there need to be incentives, good wages and benefits to attract workers to fields like construction and skilled trades, and that in the region defined in the motion, this is even more critical given the cost of living.

I certainly hope that the committee will invite the building trades unions to be part of any hearings or study that would take place, as they have a great deal of knowledge and expertise with the issues under review.

It is my view that we should consider the need for front-line services so that job seekers and employers needing workers can connect. I think we need to consider the importance of providing training and training opportunities, especially in the fields and industries where there might be a shortage of workers. It would also be helpful to look at how the federal government could work in partnership with the provinces to invest in education and training in skilled trades.

Of course, ensuring that skilled workers are available to meet labour demands is a responsibility the government should take very seriously. A more sustainable and equitable solution would be to see Canadian workers, employers, unions, educational institutions, and federal and provincial governments working together strategically to meet our labour force goals. We have repeatedly urged the government to collect better data to properly assess the labour shortage. Some industries and some regions are far more affected than others. It is not the same across the country and across sectors.

We welcome another study at committee, as it would be an opportunity to shed light on the labour situation. We need to make sure that employers focuses on providing fair wages. As I said earlier, it is unclear whether Toronto and Hamilton are experiencing labour shortages in the construction industry. We cannot allow employers in Ontario simply to have another source of cheap labour only to avoid their responsibility to spend on training and wages. The onus should be on the government and employers to first invest in training and offer more desirable working conditions and wages to workers before looking to migrant workers to fill jobs.

In reference to having the committee look at the Atlantic immigration pilot program as a model, I would urge caution and would suggest that there are economic reasons why we should oppose the reliance on solving skilled shortages through immigration alone. We need to put an emphasis on training and education of our domestic workforce where there are high levels of unemployment, both regionally as well as in many aboriginal and, in particular, ethnocultural communities.

Importing skilled labourers must be combined with the development of a strategy for training and developing future skilled workers in Canada to respond to future labour shortages. While we clearly support economic immigration, we should be wary of a narrow overreliance on immigration as the sole solution to our skills shortages. A better solution would rely on immigration along with developing the skills base of domestic labourers.

Motion No. 190 proposes to study the pilot program as a solution. As of March 2017, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada started accepting permanent resident applications through the Atlantic pilot program. Unlike other initiatives, employers are not required to obtain a labour market impact assessment for jobs offered within the pilot program. The Atlantic program is an employer-driven program, so the employers are the ones who are seeking the foreign nationals to work for them. While this program offers better outcomes than the temporary foreign workers program, it has not been able to attract the numbers of workers expected. Additionally, we would want to confirm that there are shortages before omitting the labour market impact assessment.

It is important to remember that Conservative government actions had distorted wage markets to the point where lower wages will give Canadian workers a further disincentive to seek training. Specifically, they announced that employers can pay temporary foreign workers in high-skilled occupations up to 15% below the market Canadian wage. Before this change, employers had to first attempt to hire Canadian workers at the market wage. If they were not successful, they were committed to hire a temporary foreign worker at below market wage. This gave employers an incentive to not post a job paying anything above a market wage.

The change would add an incentive to post high-skilled jobs at below market rates. In the short run, this would mean a larger supply of labour competing for jobs paying lower wages. In the long run, it would likely put downward pressure on the market wage, which would drive down wages for all workers in high-skilled jobs. Facing the prospect of lower wages, Canadian workers would have less incentive to invest in training or education. This in turn may make it even easier for employers to import temporary foreign workers due to the lack of available Canadian labour.

The issue of labour shortages is very important. More study and more data collection are needed to properly assess the situation. Having more information about labour shortages would be useful, so we in the NDP support a study at committee.

[Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, October 3rd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know why it was necessary to bring this to the House as a motion. Why would he not have done this in committee?

[Pensions, October 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, eight months ago, the Liberals announced they would hold consultations about improving pension security for Canadian workers in case of bankruptcy or insolvency. However, no plans or consultations have been announced.

Does the government not understand that 18,000 Sears retirees just lost a third of their pensions, and that could happen again to others if we do not change the law?

Workers and retirees in this country deserve better. Why is the government refusing to stand up for Canadian workers and retirees, and their pensions? Why is the Minister of Seniors not stepping up to the plate on this important issue?

[Pharmacare, September 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to host our leader, Jagmeet Singh, in my riding of Hamilton Mountain this past Friday.

We had the opportunity to meet with Hamilton residents to talk about the NDP goal of universal pharmacare. I would like to thank Hamilton poverty round table members, Linda Gill of the Canadian Federation of University Women, and many others who participated.

We heard about Jody's grandmother who received lifesaving treatment, but then could not afford the $700-per-month drug cost to keep her alive, and the person who relied on the generosity of the drug companies to cover high drug costs that were not affordable. What happens when that generosity runs out? We heard about residents ending up in emergency with an asthma attack, taking up precious emergency room resources because they could not afford their asthma medication.

After hearing the tragic stories of seniors and working families making a choice between paying rent or paying for lifesaving medication, I am more convinced than ever that it is time to implement a universal pharmacare program. We cannot afford not to.