Finance committee  I don't have those that would be under the BIA, but, by and large, most of them would have occurred under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. From 2009 to 2022, there were 10 restructurings that resulted in pension reductions.

Finance committee  It was roughly 50,000 pensioners.

Finance committee  The coming into force transition clause that's more typical to insolvency law affects only proceedings that start after the coming into force date, to ensure that rules don't change in the middle of an ongoing insolvency proceeding. What the current private member's bill does is set the coming into force date on a calendar date, five years after coming into force.

Finance committee  What I'm indicating is that traditional transition clauses in insolvency policy would say that any insolvency proceedings that go from this point forward would be subject to these rules. From the coming into force date, any new proceeding would be subject to the provisions as they're set out, as opposed to suggesting that it's a calendar date that is five years from this date, regardless of where you are.

Finance committee  I raised two different sets of issues and I'll speak to them. One set of issues is about how it's drafted. Right now, regardless of whether it's three years or five years, it's set on the basis of a calendar year, as opposed to tying it back to the insolvency date. Right now, upon royal assent....

Finance committee  Thank you for the question. From 2009 to 2022, there were approximately 10 cases where the pension had been reduced due to insolvency. These are under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings. Bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings would be a different manner. I can speak to 10 where there were reductions, but I would also speak to a number where the restructuring was successful.

Finance committee  I'm happy to confirm that the nature of insolvency is that it is a federal responsibility. The rules that provide for the orderly insolvency process cover all creditors and debts of companies in the BIA and CCAA process. This would mean that pensions, regardless of their regulator, would be creditors to an insolvency that's presided over by federal legislation, which this bill amends.

Finance committee  I will start, and then my colleague from Finance can weigh in. As I already noted, pension solvency requirements vary enormously province by province. They set the degree to which a company is actually required to be holding assets in trust for the purposes of its pensioners.

Finance committee  I'm happy to start and then turn to my colleagues from Finance, who will have more precision. One important thing to note is that while the Pension Benefits Standards Act—as my colleague from Finance noted—applies to federally regulated pensions, the insolvency system applies to all organizations and companies within the country.

Finance committee  I obviously can't speak to the specific process that you might want to adopt as a committee, but I would say that the issues related to the structuring context and insolvency law in Canada continue to evolve and have evolved as a function of additional changes that have been made, for instance, by the government.

Finance committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to this committee about Bill C‑228. I will confine my remarks only to the insolvency law aspects of the bill. My colleagues from Finance Canada we speak to the provisions of the bill affecting federal pension legislation. Let me start by describing what the bill would do.