Publication Search

Thank you very much, Chair. You did a great job.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to everyone for being here.

I want to talk to Mr. Schaan. Last week, he mentioned that federally regulated pensions are protected, because they're required to be 100% funded. However, I understand there are a lot of federally regulated pensions that aren't 100% funded. Is that true?

If you look at Canada Post, are they 100% funded? Do you know what the deficit is?

Mr. Schaan, I understand, but what I'm trying to get at is that Canada Post has a huge deficit. They've had a five-year plan, but they've also asked for extension after extension and they're not paying into it, so the deficit gets higher and higher.

Who is going to be responsible for that if something happens?

Right, but at the same time, with Air Canada, I think it was Mr. Flaherty at that time who actually put limits on the dividends and the executive pay to stop such a large deficit until the fund was going.

My other question is this. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which was the lion's share, illustrated that companies with defined benefit plans have the capacity to fund their pensions, but they just don't have to. Do you think, after listening to all the witnesses...?

They were saying that a change is needed, that it's time. If we don't do something, then companies are just not going to have to, because they're not obligated to. We have to put some pressure on them to make those payments.

Mr. Schaan, do you have any data to demonstrate to me that Canadian companies with defined benefit plans are currently experiencing liquidity problems? How many companies are there? What is the dollar exposure?

I'm sorry, Mr. Schaan, for cutting you off there, but we have very little time.

Indalex demonstrated, even given the pension deficit deemed trust status, it did not result in a tsunami of liquidations. I don't see, as Mr. Poilievre said, a lineup of business people here as witnesses protecting what they're saying, which is that the sky will fall. In fact, what I'm hearing is a lot of people saying enough is enough and that we need to change the law to protect pensioners from deferred wages that they worked for not to be taken up by the global market.

Right, and pensioners are really worried about saving their pensions and not losing them.

Madam Chair, I'm just wondering. Are we going to be going clause by clause, or are we just going to be asking questions all day? I was hoping that in clause 1 that we're dealing with, we would start to have a vote on it and get down to business.

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I'm just wondering if we could have some precise questions and answers and not be going on. We have to finish this, but we're just going on and on, and time is running out. I think it's just proper that we do this clause by clause.

Of course, there are important questions, but we don't have to be going on with the long answers.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, on a point of order, thank you for what you've just explained to us. We don't mind the questions, but they're repeating themselves and we're getting repeat answers. It's just going over and over to run out time. I think that's very unfair to the Canadians who are looking for us to do the proper work and protect their pensions.

If they have anything that's relevant to ask, that's fine, but why are we getting the same questions and the same answers, over and over?

Thank you. I want to thank all the guests for coming here today and giving us some feedback on this important issue.

My first question was going to be for Mr. Powell because he has mentioned it, but even Mr. Book mentioned it. There's been talk at committee about delaying when the measures of this bill will kick in. I've heard, and it's been thrown out there, approximately a three-year delay. Would that be for existing...for people who are already in the procedures?

I'm only asking that question because if we allow a three-year delay for when this bill will be implemented the way it's written, to me there would be a race for applicants trying to get there before time.

I was wanting to hear Mr. Powell's comments on that, please.

Thank you.

Mr. Eady, I want to thank you for all the hard work you've done representing the Sears retirees. You're an amazing person, and so is the group you're working with. I know you guys have gone through a hard time.

Would putting the unfunded portion of the pension plan up to superpriority and ahead of other secured creditors, as Bill C-253 will be doing, have helped save the Sears pensioners?

Okay. There's been some talk of moving up the unfunded part of the pension in the pecking order but still leaving them behind the banks. Would that have saved the Sears pensioners?

Thank you.

Mr. Eady, with regard to the case of Sears—and I know it was devastating for people across Canada and it really highlighted our current situation—do you believe the status quo we have now, the rules, are inadequate? It was so easy for Sears to go into CCAA and claim bankruptcy to relieve themselves of their liabilities and actually make a profit for some others.

Okay.

Ms. Watts, I want to thank you for the work you do.

Do you believe it is imperative—imperative—that we deal with this issue in this term of government to make sure there are changes made that would protect the pensioners you represent?

You're the best. Thanks.