SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Bill

Bill C-264

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 29, 2022
An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (pension plans and group insurance plans)
  • Bill C-264 is a proposed law that would make changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that when a company goes bankrupt, any unpaid pension plan liabilities and claims related to group insurance plans are given priority and are paid before other debts. This is to protect the interests of employees and retirees who rely on these benefits. The bill also includes transitional provisions that exempt certain employers and companies for a period of three years. If passed, the law would come into effect three years after it receives royal assent.
  • H1
  • H2
  • H3
  • S1
  • S2
  • S3
  • RA
  • Yea
  • Nay
  • star_border

SteelmanSpren in Favour

  • A steelman argument in favor of this bill could be that it prioritizes the payment of claims in respect of unfunded liabilities or solvency deficiencies of pension plans and claims relating to the cessation of an employer's participation in group insurance plans in bankruptcy proceedings. This ensures that employees and retirees who rely on these benefits are protected and receive the compensation they are entitled to. By amending the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the bill addresses potential gaps in the current legislation to better safeguard the interests of workers and retirees. This can lead to greater financial security for individuals and provide a more stable and reliable framework for pension and insurance plans.

SteelmanSpren Against

  • One potential steelman argument opposing Bill C-264 is that prioritizing claims in respect of unfunded liabilities or solvency deficiencies of pension plans and claims relating to the cessation of an employer's participation in group insurance plans could have unintended negative consequences. Firstly, prioritizing these claims could lead to increased financial burden on employers, potentially discouraging investment and job creation. If employers are required to prioritize these claims above other creditors in the event of bankruptcy, it could lead to increased costs for businesses, which may ultimately result in job losses and economic instability. Secondly, prioritizing these claims may undermine the principle of fairness in bankruptcy proceedings. Allowing certain claims to be prioritized could be seen as favoring a specific group of individuals over others. This may create inequities and resentment among other creditors who are
House First Reading
  • March 29, 2022, 10 a.m.
  • In Progress
  • Read