Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette:

Honourable senators, it gives me no pleasure to move the adoption of this report, but as the Deputy Chair of this committee, I have certain responsibilities.

Since my chair was not at the meeting last week, I move, with great sorrow, the adoption of the report to ensure that it is brought forward for debate in the Senate, where I hope it will be defeated.

{...}

Honourable senators, I would like to explain how I feel about this report, which took us all by surprise at last Thursday's meeting. I would like to explain how, when it came time for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, just as I was asking whether there was agreement to proceed with a clause-by-clause study of Bill S-216, the Conservative senators asked that we not proceed with the vote on the clause-by-clause study. There was a vote on this procedure and the Conservative senators simply ignored the clause-by-clause study of Bill S-216.

I would like to reiterate the comments I made to my colleagues, which were that since we have a British parliamentary system, voting for a clause-by-clause study allows senators to speak to each clause and to vote for or against each clause. There was nothing to prevent our colleagues from exercising their right to vote. We are lawmakers and our way of dealing with all issues is simply through bills.

The second phase of our meeting consisted of the tabling, by the same senator, of a report by God knows who, a report that I was obliged to table by virtue of my position and that did not at all reflect the evidence submitted by the witnesses. I would like to make some clarifications, because we had an outstanding witness by the name of James Pierlot.

He holds degrees in history from the University of Western Ontario, common law, Osgoode Hall, civil law, University of Montreal.

And a Masters of Law in Taxation from Osgoode Hall. I would like to remind honourable senators what this witness said.

Bill S-216 amounts to a modest incremental change to insolvency legislation that is consistent with other recent changes to insolvency legislation that provided limited creditor protection for pension plan contributions and unpaid wages.

For Mr. Pierlot, the effect of Bill S-216 on an employer's ability to raise capital is expected to be minimal because LTD claimants tend to be a small minority of an employer's total workforce and because the bill is not intended to affect secured creditor claims. Although the bill may require more employers to obtain periodic valuations of LTD liabilities for purposes of obtaining credit, this bill would not seem to be an unduly onerous task, given that valuations of LTD programs is fairly routine.

For Mr. Pierlot, it is a modest but important first step toward improving benefit security for Canada's most vulnerable workers, those who are unable to support themselves due to the workplace injury, illness or disability.

These remarks reflect the opinions of most of the witnesses we heard and the credibility of that witness is worth a great deal. I would remind honourable senators that Nortel once amounted to 30 per cent of the TSX, that is, 30 per cent of the companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. This shows the importance of a company that was a leader in technology in Canada, and one that disappointed us considerably. Shorty before Nortel declared bankruptcy, we learned that its senior executives had given themselves bonuses worth $8 million and we are still wondering what was going on with the board of directors of that corporation, which submitted incorrect financial statements three times.

I would remind honourable senators that Nortel executives in the United States were prosecuted and received prison sentences for fraud. The same corporation has caused much suffering to these employees with disabilities.

In Canada, in September 2010, an agreement was reached with Nortel's creditors. Needless to say, there was nothing in that agreement for the employees with disabilities. Since then, Bill S-216 was introduced in this chamber. We have learned that Nortel's creditors will share $6 billion, including $1 billion in Canada. It is estimated that, at this time, the amount of money needed to create a fund that would give some hope and dignity to the former Nortel employees with disabilities is about $80 million.

I will use the terms from the report tabled by our Conservative colleagues and point out certain paragraphs that just do not stand up to scrutiny.

First is the question of retroactivity. The last budget, Bill C-9 — which was passed in the Senate to our dismay — contained retroactive measures that went back several years. When it comes to retroactivity, the Conservatives do not seem to get bogged down in details if they are taking money out of taxpayers' pockets.

The second point in the report suggests that Canadian industry would suffer. I would remind the senators that of the 54 countries studied by the OECD, 34 of them protect workers with disabilities by giving them sufficient income, treatment, and necessary medication for their well-being and by not penalizing them and ensuring that funding is available.

The third paragraph in the report is about the impact on the financial sector, in terms of potential future borrowing. The analysts advising us said that there would be very little impact, about 0.002 per cent. I do not think that the Canadian economy will be weakened or that the markets will crash if we pay 0.002 per cent.

I would also like to point out that we are being told that, if Bill S-216 is passed, there is the possibility of a legal challenge. That cannot be serious. The $6 billion will remain frozen until the proceedings conclude, and the creditors who are owed $6 billion will go after 550 disabled pensioners. Really, if the $6 billion were invested and earning interest, I do not understand why they would still go after people living in extremely deplorable financial and physical situations, and lose hundreds of millions of dollars in interest while the courts deal with this issue. I do not think that we are very realistic when we talk about this issue.

Then there are legal challenges. Those of us with legal knowledge are confident that the creditors forgot to put some money aside in their regulations. I do not think that contributing $80 million of the $6 billion would really reduce the financial rating of Canada's businesses.

No senator worth their salt could support this report. In light of the evidence, it seems clear that Bill S-216 has to be passed under the silence, inaction and vague policy of the government that has not proposed anything — as we saw today in Question Period — to give hope to these disabled workers. I wonder who will have the heart and the courage to face these people who will lose everything on December 31, knowing that on November 30, we still have not found a solution even though the issue was brought before the Senate in the spring.

Honourable senators, you will understand that it is impossible for me to support this, and I expect a response as soon as possible.

At the request of my colleagues, I have prepared a letter to the minister asking him what his solution is to this. I look forward eagerly to a solution, which should be imminent, because when people are sick and living in uncertainty, we know that this affects their health. Some colleagues from both sides of the chamber have been sick and they know full well that concern contributes to the problem, while security helps in recovery. I invite honourable senators to reject this report.

Please click here to read the full text of this debate

Recent Statements from Liberal Senators