Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable senators, we are commemorating very sad events today. It is my turn to speak about another.

On August 10, 2022, around 10 p.m., Jayson Colin was brutally shot while talking to some friends outside. This young 26-year-old man lived with his parents and led a normal life. He was the assistant manager of a pharmacy and was very engaged in his community with the youth of Montreal North.

In 2019, Jayson completed 45 weeks of training with the Corporation de développement économique communautaire as he wanted to share his passion for hockey more readily with the youth in his community. All his friends talked about the fact that he was always willing to help others.

Jayson’s senseless murder is just one in a list that is far too long of murders of youth who have lost their lives in our country’s major cities.

Jayson’s parents, Ronide and Roberson, who are here with us today and who I welcomed at my office recently, shared with me the pain of losing their only child. For parents like us who have lost a child in such a brutal manner, something in our DNA changes forever and unites us in the suffering, the pain, but above all, the enormous challenge of building a world without any type of violence.

Violence impacts certain cultural communities more than others, including the Black community. Sadly, Jayson’s parents were not treated with compassion, respect and empathy as a result of the discrimination they experienced at the start of the legal proceedings. We all agree that that is unacceptable in 2023.

Despite this difficult experience, Ronide and Roberson, who are both community advocates in Montreal North, have maintained their courage and, above all, their dignity in the face of this injustice. Anger and rage are not part of their discourse. Ronide was honoured in 2021 by the National Assembly of Quebec in recognition of the importance of her work in the community.

I commend Ronide and Roberson’s courage in speaking out to mainstream media in the Montreal area to raise awareness among Quebecers about their often misunderstood reality.

Last week, I had the pleasure of accompanying them to a meeting that I organized with the new Montreal police chief, Fady Dagher. We had a very open and frank discussion. The Montreal police force is facing a tough job in terms of education and awareness. The challenges are daunting, but they say that faith can move mountains, and the faith of Ronide, Roberson and Mr. Dagher gives me hope. I’m sure that Montreal’s new police chief shares the same values as Ronide and Roberson.

I want to thank Ronide and Roberson for their trust in sharing their personal tragedies with me. I’m using the plural “tragedies” because both of them have been victims twice over, once when their only child was taken from them and again when they were denied their human dignity following Jayson’s murder.

Ronide and Roberson, I promise to stand with you to continue the battle you’ve been waging for the past 18 years, a battle that Jayson would certainly want you to continue. Wherever he is right now, he is proud of you and helping you every step of the way.

Once again, dear friends, welcome to the Senate of Canada. I am sure my fellow senators will join me in extending their condolences to you. I urge you to stay strong. May Jayson stay in your hearts during your upcoming mission.

Senator Gold: Unsurprisingly, colleagues, I don’t agree. I think the Prime Minister has put into place the measures appropriate for the nature of the information that would have been shared by security organizations and others. He has put into place mechanisms that this government introduced, like NSICOP, and has appointed someone with impeccable integrity to advise him and Canadians on what additionally needs to be done to protect our democratic institutions.

Again, all the evidence accepted by all opposition parties shows that, in fact, the elections were not compromised despite efforts that were being made. Therefore, in that regard, Canadians should have confidence in the results of the last elections and confidence in the steps that the government and our institutions have taken and will continue to take to protect the integrity of our institutions.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the government leader around the foreign interference in our elections.

I’m going to do something that I don’t usually do, leader. I am going to quote a Liberal, someone who recently posed a very good question about the Prime Minister’s feeble response to reports about Beijing’s interference in our elections. These are the words of Warren Kinsella, a senior staffer in the Chrétien government, leader, from a recent column:

Namely, how can he decide who will investigate China’s malfeasance — and what their terms of reference are, and when they will report — when he, him, is the prime beneficiary of the interference?

The prime beneficiary. Warren Kinsella says that Justin Trudeau is the prime beneficiary.

Leader, you don’t need a Harvard law degree to know that the Prime Minister has a blatant conflict of interest here. The Communist regime in Beijing interfered in our democracy. There’s no question about that, and he benefited from it. Why should the Prime Minister have any say in how this is being investigated?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. All of the investigations into the elections concluded that the elections were not affected by China’s and others’ attempts to interfere — attempts certainly they were — and, indeed, this is even the position of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Prime Minister has taken steps to address the issue and get to the bottom of it. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, known as NSICOP, was asked to complete a review to assess the state of interference in federal electoral processes, as you know. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, has said it will set its own mandate and the scope of its study of the 43rd and 44th elections in the coming days. These findings will be reported to Parliament.

As we all know by now, the Prime Minister appointed the Right Honourable David Johnston as Independent Special Rapporteur to look into foreign interference. Honourable senators, it’s important to underline the specifics of this. Specifically, he will examine the information related to the 2019 and 2021 federal elections to determine what the government did to defend itself against electoral interference. He will build upon the work of NSICOP and NSIRA. He will identify any outstanding issues requiring attention so that Canadians can continue to have confidence in our electoral systems and our democratic institutions. He is to recommend any additional mechanisms or transparent processes, such as a formal public inquiry, that he deems necessary to reinforce our confidence, and will do this by May 23, 2023. He will submit regular reports to the Prime Minister, which will also be shared with the leaders of the opposition. These reports will be made available to all Canadians. He is expected to complete his review by October 31 of this year.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, last September, I asked you about the horrific stabbing mass murders at James Smith Cree Nation in my province of Saskatchewan. Your answer then — as you say almost daily during Senate Question Period — was that you would make inquiries with the minister and the department, and report back with answers when you received them.

The delayed answer came back five months later, solely with information that was already relayed in a televised RCMP press conference four months ago. This response completely ignored my question regarding what steps the government and RCMP would take to ensure this immense tragedy never repeats itself.

Senator Gold, these killings have scarred Saskatchewan. This region is still reeling from the magnitude of this catastrophe. For the Government of Canada to only offer this pathetic, much-too-delayed response to Canadians’ serious concerns is a dereliction of duty.

Why are you helping this government dodge accountability?

Senator Batters: Yes, Senator Gold, the Government of Canada is the one who is responsible for providing those answers. You are the Senate government leader — and you have a $1.4-million office budget and the large team of staff that entails. You also have the huge resources of the Government of Canada at your disposal. Yet, you still have to run down the halls of the Prime Minister’s Office looking for an answer when you’re asked basic questions on topical issues in this chamber.

Since those at the Trudeau government’s highest levels are currently embroiled in a massive scandal, they’re clearly too distracted with this cover-up to do their jobs. The Prime Minister takes no responsibility or accountability for his actions; his cabinet ministers are the same. In September, I asked a question about one of the worst mass murders in Canadian history, and I got a written response from the government five months later — signed by an MP who isn’t even in cabinet — with information that was public four months ago, while entirely failing to answer what they could do better.

Senator Gold, Canadians expect and deserve answers that are prompt and complete. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate, when will you demand better of your own government?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, I’m going to turn away from Beijing now, and proceed to some other countries.

Last week, leader, in a joint press conference with President Biden and Australian Prime Minister Albanese, the British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, stated, “. . . the defence of our values depends, as it always has, on the quality of our relationships with others.”

When the AUKUS security partnership was first announced in September 2021, Prime Minister Trudeau dismissed it as just “a deal for nuclear submarines.” Instead, our allies see it as a way to counter Beijing’s ambitions into the Indo-Pacific.

Over the past 18 months, Prime Minister Trudeau has never said that he wants Canada to join this pact. What is worse is that we’ve seen no indication that three of our closest allies even want to invite us.

Why do you think that is, leader? Is Canada excluded because our allies don’t take your government seriously?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): No, we have strong working relationships in all areas — intelligence sharing and others — not only with our Five Eyes, some of whom you’ve mentioned, but also with many other democratic countries and others around the world. Canada punches above its weight in so many areas, and its contribution is well appreciated. In that regard, it is misleading and false to insinuate as you did.

Senator Plett: The Globe and Mail reported that the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, or CSIS, documents on Beijing’s interference in our democracy were shared with many of Canada’s intelligence allies, including the U.S., the U.K. and Australia. Even without viewing these documents, our allies could see how the Trudeau government has failed to recognize the threats posed by this Communist regime: the admiration for Beijing’s basic dictatorship, the reluctance to ban Huawei from our 5G network, not showing up for a vote to recognize the Uighur genocide and claiming the two Michaels are out on bail. I could go on, leader, but I think I’ve made my point.

There are reports now that Japan is set to join this new alliance. Leader, has your government asked to join — yes or no? Or is the Trudeau government afraid of what the answer might be — yes or no?

Senator Gold: I don’t know the answer to the first question. The government is not afraid of the answers that its allies will give us because, as I said, our role is respected. It would take me too long, senator, to comment on all of the assumptions you made about what is going on in the minds of others. Suffice it to say that these are serious matters, and the government is taking them seriously.

Hon. Lucie Moncion moved, for Senator Wells, third reading of Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.

She said: Honourable senators, I apologize for taking the floor without giving notice. I couldn’t do it on Thursday so I chose to do it today.

I rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.

The purpose of Bill C-228 is to offer better protections for pensioners. For that, it addresses the issue of pension plan solvency in three ways. First, before each chamber of Parliament, it would require the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to table an annual report on the solvency of federal pension plans.

Second, it would provide a mechanism allowing money to be transferred into the fund without tax implications to ensure the insolvent portion until the funds could be restored. These two components will help monitor solvency and allow corrective measures to be taken as needed.

Third, in the case of bankruptcy, the bill improves the protection provided to those who have defined benefit pension plans that are underfunded. In that case, the pensions would be paid in priority to the pensioners ahead of secured, preferred and unsecured creditors.

I want to begin by expressing my support for this bill and thanking its sponsor, Senator Wells, and the critic, Senator Yussuff. I’m pleased to see that this bill has already made it to third reading stage of the legislative process. That is rather unexpected. Unlike its predecessors, it has made it through most of the steps in the legislative process, where many others before it have failed.

The existing legal framework perpetuates not only an unfair system for the sharing of bankruptcy costs but also an unwise laissez-faire approach to underfunded pension plans, and that is the crux of the problem. The fact that many bills similar to Bill C-228 have been introduced over the past 20 years is significant. The urgent need to find solutions to this problem has been brought to light many times. Many Canadians continue to suffer the loss of their retirement income because the defined benefit plans they paid into were underfunded when their employer filed for insolvency or bankruptcy.

By way of example, I’m thinking of Nortel Networks’ insolvency in January 2009, where company heads gave themselves bonuses and spent large sums on performance pay for executives. I’m also thinking of Sears Canada’s bankruptcy in 2018 and the millions of dollars in dividends paid to shareholders a few years prior.

More recently, in February 2021, a new precedent was set when the first publicly funded post-secondary institution sought protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. In the case of Laurentian University, the pension plan had been cut considerably through the elimination of guaranteed benefits indexed post-retirement. Bill C-228 would ensure a more equitable sharing of the costs of bankruptcy and restructuring.

As they currently have no protection when a company files for bankruptcy, pensioners are forced to accept significant reductions in their benefits from the start of restructuring to avoid even more devastating cuts in the event of bankruptcy. When a company goes bankrupt, having a priority claim is certainly more advantageous than being in the lowest class of creditors. Funds must remain to be distributed, but often there are none when a company goes bankrupt. In this process, the likelihood of a pensioner receiving their share will depend on the position of their pension fund at that point. Despite the improvement that the bill makes to the financial security of pensioners, its scope remains narrow. The intent of my intervention today is to shed light on the broader context of this bill so we can continue searching for solutions closer to the source of the problem. More specifically, I’d like to address the problematic issue of underfunded pension plans and the rights regimes that tolerate that the financial security of pensioners is put at risk.

I’m pleased to see that Bill C-228 includes a provision to address the problem when it comes to federally regulated plans. The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions already has a mandate to ensure that federally regulated plans are financially sound and in compliance with the regulations governing them and the requirements of the oversight regime. Clause 6 of the bill gives the Office of the Superintendent new responsibilities, requiring it to table an annual report in Parliament explaining the extent to which pension plans are meeting funding requirements and the corrective measures taken or ordered to remedy the problems of pension plans that aren’t meeting requirements.

I’m delighted that the bill includes provisions to rectify the situation of underfunded plans. However, I’m not convinced that this provision will have a real impact on the funding of plans that are in arrears, especially given its scope, which is limited to federally regulated plans.

I understand the jurisdictional hurdles involved in regulating provincially regulated pension plans. However, I believe that issues related to the funding of a pension plan of an entity that is at risk of insolvency are within the federal government’s jurisdiction and that the federal government has a responsibility to pensioners and pension plan members.

[English]

I would like to read a passage from the appearance of Canadian Labour Congress President Bea Bruske that illustrates this issue:

The federal government legislated changes in response to the Sears Canada debacle but they were woefully inadequate. This is especially frustrating, since the evidence shows that many companies with underfunded pension plans could eliminate the solvency deficiency in their plans by allocating just a portion of their shareholder payouts to the pension plan. Many firms consciously choose to reward shareholders and senior executives, boosting the stock price, rather than fully fund their pension obligations. That leaves pensioners and plan members at risk if the company becomes insolvent.

We need to bring forward a comprehensive model to prevent the insolvency deficiency of pension funds. The issue of underfunded pension plans is critical, in my view, and deserves further attention.

The narrow scope of the bill is also felt in other respects. While some witnesses at the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy raised the possibility that the creditor order provisions could also apply to pension plans where registered deficits are charged to participating employers, the bill is really aimed at defined benefit plans, since only these plans are able to develop underfunded liabilities.

I would therefore like to draw honourable senators’ attention to the many Canadians whose pension plans are not covered by the legislation given that fewer than 10% of private sector workers belong to a defined benefit plan. In addition, we have seen a significant decline in these pension plans over the past 10 years, as they are often too costly and unsustainable for private sector employers.

For these reasons, it would be appropriate to continue our reflection in order to study other options that would have a broader scope and that would allow for greater protection of pensioners and pension plan members.

[Translation]

Although well beyond the scope of the bill, we must also address the financial security of seniors. There are significant disparities and inequities between Canadians who have access to a defined benefit pension plan, those who have access to a defined contribution pension plan and those who don’t have a registered pension plan. There are significant differences between public and private sector employers in terms of the availability of defined benefit pension plans compared to defined contribution plans. The labour shortage could change some of these trends by rebalancing the power relationships between workers and employers. It’s worth keeping an eye on the situation.

Despite the narrow scope of the bill, it is an improvement in the protections that are afforded to beneficiaries of certain pension plans. This bill has managed to make it through almost every step of the legislative process.

Colleagues, I therefore encourage you to vote in favour of this bill, which represents an important first step toward a fairer pension system in Canada.

Thank you for listening.

(On motion of Senator Martin, for Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, I am not quite sure how to approach this.

We have a very difficult odour in this chamber, as we have had in the entire building most of the morning. As an old plumber, I used to work with this odour quite a bit; as a senator, I haven’t quite as often.

I’m not sure, Your Honour, what the proper thing to do is. It is really starting to affect some of us. Throughout the course of the day, I think it will affect a lot more of us. I know we are past Government Business. I’m certainly not, at this point, moving the adjournment of the Senate. I would, at least, ask you for your opinion and the opinion of other colleagues.