This bill was last introduced in the 38th Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in November 2005.
David Emerson Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
This enactment establishes the Wage Earner Protection Program Act. That Act provides for the payment of wages to individuals whose employment is terminated and who are owed wages by employers who are bankrupt or subject to receivership. It sets out the conditions of eligibility to receive payments, the maximum amount covered by the Program, the application, review and appeal process of the Program and the administrative arrangements for its implementation, including enforcement mechanisms. The Act provides regulation-making powers for carrying out the purposes of the Act and it provides for a review of the Act five years after its coming into force.
This enactment also contains amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Those amendments include changes to the appointment and oversight functions of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, as well as to the obligations and powers of trustees in bankruptcy, interim receivers and receivers. The amendments also expand the Act to cover income trusts. Also, new provisions regarding corporate proposals are created to address, among other things, the treatment of contracts, collective agreements, interim financing and governance arrangements. Changes are made to the priority of charges, including in respect of wages and pension contributions. The scope of application of consumer proposals is expanded. New provisions are introduced to deal with bankrupts with high income tax debts and those with surplus income, to exempt registered retirement savings plans from seizure, and to allow for the automatic discharge of second-time bankrupts. The period of eligibility of discharge of student debts is reduced. There are changes to the treatment of preferences as well as numerous technical changes. The amendments also provide for a review of the Act after five years.
This enactment also contains amendments to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. Many of the amendments parallel those made to provisions dealing with corporate proposals in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The amendments also expand the Act to cover income trusts. The scope of application of the initial stay is clarified, notably regarding regulatory measures. New provisions are introduced regarding the treatment of contracts, collective agreements, interim financing and governance arrangements. The appointment and role of the monitor are further clarified and made subject to the oversight of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. A new Part on cross-border insolvencies is added. The amendments also provide for a review of the Act after five years.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Speaker, over 15 months ago, Bill C-55 was passed by Parliament. The bill was supported by all parties, including the Conservatives. It would compensate employees in cases where employers went bankrupt.
The government has had over a year to make a small technical amendment and proclaim the bill into law, but all we get from the government is silence.
Why is the government stalling wage protection for hard-working families in Canada?
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Speaker, as has already been said in this House, the government wants to have the necessary technical amendments to Bill C-55 adopted, to be able to implement the wage earner protection program.
Considering the government's heavy legislative agenda, the Minister of Labour hopes to count on the unanimous support of this House in order to expedite the adoption of the necessary technical amendments, thus ensuring the effectiveness of the program.
I am just as eager as my colleague to pass this act and implement the program.
Jacques Gourde ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.
As the member knows, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act was part of Bill C-55, which proposed a comprehensive reform of Canadian bankruptcy legislation, the purpose of which was to adapt that scheme to better reflect the needs of businesses, investors and employees.
In the last Parliament, Bill C-55 passed very quickly, thanks to the unanimous support of members of all parties.
When Bill C-55 was passed in 2005, it was understood that the legislation would be examined in greater depth by the Senate committee responsible for the matter later, with the aim of resolving certain technical problems before it came into force.
In fact, the members of the Senate committee asked that implementation of the legislation be postponed until after June 30, 2006, so that they could study it further.
That is the background against which the Minister of Labour and Minister of Industry worked together to draft a bill to amend that legislation.
I would like to discuss the main technical amendments that we would like to introduce so that we can be sure that the wage earner protection program operates as was originally intended by Parliament.
One of those amendments is to authorize the wage earner protection program to pay bankruptcy trustees for work done in connection with administering the program in certain circumstances, to facilitate equitable access to the program by employees who have not been paid.
Another amendment is to change the eligibility requirements to make them fairer, while reducing the risk of abuse.
On December 8, the Minister of Labour tabled a notice of ways and means motion so that the bill to make these technical amendments could be introduced. He urged the opposition to support the motion and the bill, so that this important legislation could be implemented as soon as possible.
Given the government's full legislative agenda, the Minister of Labour hopes to be able to count on the unanimous support of all parties so that this bill can be submitted to the Senate in as short a time as possible.
My government again urges all members of the House to support this important legislation.
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak today in this adjournment debate, to come back to Bill C-55, An Act to establish the Wage Earner Protection Program Act, to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
As we all know, this bill proposes the creation of a wage earner protection program for workers whose businesses have gone bankrupt.
For quite some time now, the Bloc Québécois has been working with the United Steelworkers on proposals to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, in order to ensure that employee wages and pension funds are the first debts in line to be reimbursed when companies go bankrupt.
That is why the Bloc Québécois was eager to support Bill C-55 when it was presented in this House a year and a half ago, in spite of the bill's imperfections and our many reservations.
However, certain principles of social justice were included in Bill C-55: employees must be paid for the hours they have worked; unlike large corporations, workers have nothing but their salary as a source of income; workers' pension funds are sacred.
For the benefit of the people listening to us now so that they understand, I would just like to go back over the bill a little bit and especially the wage earner protection program.
The federal government would cover up to $3,000 of the unpaid wages due to employees when their employer goes bankrupt. The payments made under this program are taxable but take other contributions into account.
This means that regardless of the value of the employer’s property, employees will get most if not all their unpaid wages. The Department of Industry estimates that $3,000 will cover 97% of the unpaid wage claims.
In return, employees who receive a WEPP payment will have to forfeit to the federal government any right they have under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to file a claim up to the amount that they have already received from WEPP. The government would therefore be responsible for recovering the amount it paid to employees under WEPP.
This was an acceptable mechanism, and although obviously unprecedented in Canada or Quebec, it was satisfactory. The advantage was that employees would be paid more quickly. There was also a little provision on the pension protection plan that was very welcome as well.
So what happened to this bill? It passed unanimously in the House in November 2005, but then the new Conservative government that arrived on January 23, 2006 put it aside.
Furthermore, every time I asked questions about it in the House, the labour minister just said that it was coming. That is the answer I got last November 22.
So now I would like to know when it is coming. Can the parliamentary secretary tell me what is happening with this bill? When does he think he will come up with some solutions? There are between 9,000 and 10,000 commercial bankruptcies a year.
Does the current budget still contain the $32 million provision needed for the wage earner protection program?
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-36.
Although this has been termed a housekeeping bill, it is unfortunate that we did not take this opportunity to examine some of the other issues that are facing seniors in this country. It is unfortunate that we did not take the steps the NDP proposed in the seniors' charter to address some of the very real issues that confront seniors in our country today.
Canadians are worried about a number of different issues. Canadians are worried, for example, about the solvency of their pension plans. In the previous Parliament a substantial amount of work had been done to look at protecting those pension plans for seniors. One proposal was that if a company should be so unfortunate as to go bankrupt, the protection of workers' pensions needed to be front and centre.
The NDP had argued very strongly for much stronger measures than actually came forward in former C-55. One step which parliamentarians and I am sure all Canadians would support would be to make sure that workers' pensions are protected, and that when a company went bankrupt, the workers' pensions would be the first to be paid and would not be somewhere far down the line.
In addition, we have discovered that since the mid-1990s, seniors' incomes have reached a ceiling. The gap between seniors' revenue and that of other Canadians is increasing. We have talked about fairness and affordability. We have talked about a prosperity gap. Seniors are truly facing that prosperity gap.
According to the government's own National Advisory Council on Aging, between 1997 and 2003, the mean income of senior households increased by $4,100 while the average income of other Canadian households increased by $9,000. The situation is even worse for seniors who are living on their own. Sometimes people only pay attention to numbers. In total, over a quarter of a million seniors live under the low income cut-off, or as we also say, below the poverty line.
There are many groups of people who are adversely affected as they age. One such group of people who are adversely affected is women. There is a recent Ottawa Citizen article entitled, “Late CPP applicants lose thousands in benefits: Women hit hardest by 11-month limit on retroactive payments”. I am going to quote from that article because it is helpful when there are other words out there besides those of parliamentarians.
Opposition Motion--National Anti-poverty StrategyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
February 20th, 2007 / 11:40 a.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie and thank him for raising the debate on poverty here in the House today. It has been quite some time since we have discussed this issue as seriously as this here in the House. The premises set out by my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie are good, and he has accurately identified the causes, effects and consequences of poverty in Canada and Quebec.
I would also like to remind the House that, in 1990, a motion was unanimously adopted right here in this House, promising to eliminate child poverty within 10 years. That was in 1990 and the promise was supposed to be fulfilled by the year 2000. Yet, now, in 2007, the situation is even more appalling than it was before.
Once again, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie for raising this debate on poverty and the working conditions I mentioned. As I said, the NDP premises are good. I believe they identified the causes correctly and gave a good analysis. The member for Sault Ste. Marie gave an excellent analysis. He is right: those least well off and most vulnerable are left to fend for themselves, especially by this Conservative government, this right-wing government whose main ideology is based on every man for himself and the law of the jungle.
We saw this earlier from the hon. member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, whose analyses were based not on compassion or empathy, but rather on a cold, economic analysis. Furthermore, I must add, this is not just a misstep by the government. It believes in this ideology. It feels compassion for the oil companies in Alberta. Indeed, we can see and feel that.
This government says it is getting things done. Of course it is. It reduced the GST by 1%, but a person needs to have money in order to buy things. This may be true for low income workers and students who want to succeed, as the hon. member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont was saying. It is true we have to give them a chance. Nonetheless, there are some people who did not get a chance at all and we have to help them. There are people who are unable to work—those who are disabled, those who are illiterate, seniors, young families, the homeless—who need this helping hand.
It is not good enough to tell these people that the oil companies in Alberta will get millions of dollars, but they can have the scraps. We must truly help other categories of people who are living below the poverty line. I am talking about the current Conservative government, but the Liberal government was no better. It made drastic cuts, to employment insurance in particular. It totally changed the program and turned it into a tax in disguise instead of making it a program to help the unemployed.
The Conservative government is hawkish. It is investing billions of dollars in war equipment and military expenses and cutting subsidies to the least fortunate. I will give some examples. This government bases its ideology on repressing people instead of helping them or providing funding for prevention. It is the sheriff of Nottingham instead of Robin Hood.
This government does not have the same values as Quebeckers. In Quebec we have developed a strategy to combat poverty, to provide a social safety net to help the less fortunate. We have compassion, empathy and sympathy. We understand the distress and anxiety of people living below the poverty line. We are trying to help them in every way possible to improve their situation, with a stronger economy, but we are also trying to help people who cannot make it on their own.
The Bloc staunchly defends the interests of the unemployed, older workers, women, minority groups and all Quebeckers, while the federal government, whether Liberal or Conservative, has abolished or limited the programs designed specifically for low income earners.
The Bloc Québécois acknowledges the importance of a national anti-poverty strategy. When we use the word “national”, we are referring to the nation of Quebec. Thus, we recognize the strategy of the Quebec nation. The responsibility of the federal government is to provide adequate and temporary financial support—through transfers to Quebec—for the work of the governments, the provinces and Quebec in the fight against poverty.
The Bloc Québécois feels that, far from providing support, a pan-Canadian strategy established by the federal government duplicates what is being done in Quebec and in certain provinces.
The Bloc Québécois strongly believes that the minimum wage should not be the only aspect considered. There are other avenues used by the Quebec government—$7 child care, benefits for low-income families, the lowest possible tuition fees—that are achieving real results in the fight against poverty.
As for the minimum wage, the Bloc Québécois would prefer that the federal government take some of the measures that for too long it has refused to implement, such as improving the EI program, financing the older worker support program, using the huge CMHC surpluses to finance the construction of affordable housing, and restoring funding for women's and literacy groups.
Finally, the Bloc Québécois is asking the federal government to immediately take measures to assist aboriginal peoples who are truly living in poverty. Poverty is found in society but it is also found at work. Sometimes our work is not enough to lift us out of poverty.
That is why the Bloc Québécois takes workers' needs into account. For example, we have introduced—and will reintroduce—a bill on preventive withdrawal in order to avoid having two categories of female workers in Quebec. Some are entitled to only five months at 55% of their gross salary to withdraw from an unhealthy work environment and experience the joys of pregnancy and a new baby. Other female workers in Quebec benefit from a real preventive withdrawal program that allows women working in an environment that is not good for their pregnancy to leave the work environment with 90% of their net salary. That is the sort of program that should also be put in place for workers governed by the Canada Labour Code.
This government should have introduced another program. It is an NDP initiative that was reintroduced by the Liberal government and should have been brought in by the Conservative government last December. I am talking about Bill C-55, which sought to establish a wage earner protection program in case of bankruptcy. It is time this Conservative government reintroduced this bill in the House so that we can quickly adopt this protection for wage earners when the company where they work goes bankrupt.
Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), would also help workers. Workers are currently on strike at CN. The company is spending more time challenging the legality of the strike, hiring American scabs, creating dissent among the new workers by hiring retirees and using all sorts of stalling tactics than actually sitting down with the unions to negotiate proper, balanced conditions. Meanwhile, the scabs are getting involved in a dispute that has nothing to do with them. This is unacceptable, and it is time this House adopted the anti-scab bill.
As for the actual minimum wage, section 178 of the Canada Labour Code reads as follows: “—not less than the minimum hourly rate fixed, from time to time, by or under an Act of the legislature of the province where the employee is usually employed—”. Currently, the province, Quebec, determines the minimum wage. The Bloc Québécois feels that this is as it should be. We see no reason to change this, no reason to give the federal government another opportunity to interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.
Quebec sets the minimum wage, and does a good job of it too. If there is any disagreement, we in Quebec discuss it with various unions, the FTQ, the CSN, social groups and the government. Together, we decide what the minimum wage should be. That way, we avoid creating two classes of workers—those who earn $8 an hour under the Quebec Labour Code and those who earn more or less than that under the Canada Labour Code.
That way, there is no problem. Minimum wage is the same for everyone.
In addition to creating two classes of workers, unfortunately, not many people would benefit from this legislation. We know that 267,000 workers in Canada are covered under the Canada Labour Code and only 1% of them—18,000 people—would be affected by the NDP's measure. Yes, it would help some people, but I think this work needs to be done on a provincial level.
As for poverty in society, let us talk about employment insurance. If this government wants to do something, it must fix the employment insurance program, stop using it as a hidden tax and return the $40 billion to the workers.
The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities made 28 recommendations. All the government has to do is follow them. That way, we will be able to say that the government is really doing something to fight poverty.
I would also like to talk about the program for older worker adjustment, POWA. More and more, older workers are feeling POWA-less, if you will excuse the awful pun. The situation is getting worse and worse for older workers. We know that globalization is causing more and more workers to lose their jobs because more and more manufacturers are closing their doors.
Older workers, who sometimes have difficulty finding new jobs, need a bridge between when their company goes bankrupt, about when they are 55 or older, and when they begin receiving their Canada pension or Quebec pension.
I would also like to talk about child care. What the government did with respect to child care is an absolute scandal. At the federal level, there is a child care expense deduction. Canadians who pay the full cost benefit greatly. Conversely, since 200,000 children in Quebec attend day care centres at only one fifth of the cost—$7 a day—parents in Quebec can only receive one fifth of the federal tax credit.
Given its refusal to adjust its taxation for the $7-a-day child care program in Quebec, the federal government has thereby taken nearly $1.5 billion from parents since 1998. This amount, taken away from parents in Quebec, is compensated by the Government of Quebec, since it assumes 80% of the cost of affordable child care. When it comes to child care, Quebec pays and Ottawa pockets the money. Year after year, the federal government steals $250 million from parents in Quebec, or, on average, $1,316 per child. That is more than the $1,200, which of course is taxable, that the government proposed to give them in its last budget. This works out to a net loss of $116 per child per family. The Conservative government says it wants to give parents the freedom to choose.
The first thing to be done is to stop penalizing parents in Quebec for having chosen to set up an affordable child care system. The federal government's fiscal policies must stop penalizing Quebec for having created a child care program that is unique in North America. Furthermore, the OECD calls it the best program in Canada and one of the best in the world.
For years the Bloc Québécois has been calling on the federal government to transfer to the Government of Quebec the money it is saving on the backs of Quebec families. This transfer would allow the Government of Quebec to invest in its family policy. When the federal government includes child care funding as part of resolving the fiscal imbalance, as the Minister of Industry promised to do in February 2006, it should also take into account the punitive effects of its tax system on Quebec parents. Resolving the fiscal imbalance should be comprehensive; but to be fair, it should not be uniform.
Let us now look at another aspect: the guaranteed income supplement for older persons. This is another Liberal government scandal and the Conservative government is heading down the same path.
In 2001, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities identified, remarked and underscored that 68,000 people in Quebec were not receiving their guaranteed income supplement. The least fortunate in society receive a minimum and minimal pension. The federal government—whether Liberal or Conservative—through its management of this program, is preventing tens of thousands of people from receiving the guaranteed income supplement to which they are entitled. It is a real scandal.
The Bloc Québécois—thanks to our former member for Mauricie—launched a major campaign throughout Quebec to try to reach the least fortunate, the isolated, the sick, people who are unable to read or who do not speak either of the two official languages.
These are the most vulnerable individuals in our society. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois, today they receive the guaranteed income supplement of $6,600.
This Conservative government should pay them what they are owed, because it used these delaying tactics to avoid paying them earlier.
If this Conservative government wants to do something for the most disadvantaged, it should pay the retroactivity to seniors who need this guaranteed income supplement, because the government owes it to them.
As you are rising, Mr. Speaker, I assume I have little time left. However, I have yet to speak of social housing.
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, even though Bill C-55, which seeks to protect employees' wages in the event a company goes bankrupt, received royal assent last year, it still has not taken effect. The Minister of Labour tells us that it is coming. In June, the minister said, “It is coming”. In committee last month, he again said, “It is coming”. And last weekend, the Minister of Labour even boasted in his riding that “it is coming”.
Could the Minister of Labour be more specific and just give us a date, just a date, and meet that date?
Human Resources and Skills Development—Main Estimates 2006-07Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
November 1st, 2006 / 9:40 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Chair, I guess I will never get a clear answer from this minister. Nevertheless, as I said, because I am always so optimistic, I will continue to talk to him about Bill C-55.
In the Estimates, I did not see adequate financial reserves to implement Bill C-55. The previous government had told us that the wage earner protection program would cost between $30 million and $50 million. If I divide by the number of months left in this year—because the minister told me that it was a matter of weeks—can he tell me in which part of the budget I can find the wage earner protection program for employees in businesses that have gone bankrupt?
Human Resources and Skills Development—Main Estimates 2006-07Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
November 1st, 2006 / 8:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jean-Pierre Blackburn Conservative Jonquière—Alma, QC
Also, as part of the reform of insolvency legislation, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act was adopted earlier, as I mentioned, although it has yet to be promulgated. As with any new law, a great deal remains to be done before it is implemented. This is the context for stating that we should be ready in the very near future.
Finally, I would like to discuss the upcoming parliamentary review of the Employment Equity Act. This year will mark the 20th anniversary of the original legislation. We can be proud of this milestone and remarkable progress has been made.
Four months ago, I tabled in the House the annual report on employment equity and the results are rather encouraging. They show how the law has helped improve employment of members of the designated groups—women, visible minorities, the disabled and aboriginals.
As required by the legislation, this was the second five-year review of this act. It was favourably received and we are prepared for the task at hand.
As I mentioned in my introduction, we continue to focus on Canada's workplaces. These workplaces are only the best they can be when their partners—management and workers—work together like true partners, to solve their problems.
As minister, my main task is to bring them together, to act as an honest broker and to do my best to settle their differences. At the same time, I want to ensure that workers have the best—
Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canada's manufacturing sector is being decimated and governments are standing idly by as industrial plants close and their workers become Wal-Mart greeters.
In the last Parliament, all parties agreed that the wages, pensions and collective agreements of workers needed to be protected when companies shut down.
Bill C-55 passed through the House but the Liberals refused to proclaim it into law.
If the government will not live up to its responsibility to develop an industrial strategy to save Canadian jobs, will the Minister of Labour at least do right by Canadian workers and bring forward the bill that would protect the benefits they have already earned?
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, as members know, Bill C-55, containing the Wage Earner Protection Program Act, was proposed and passed into law with the unanimous support of all political parties in the House of Commons and the Senate. Bill C-55 also includes a comprehensive reform of Canada's insolvency laws, including the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. As such, Bill C-55 provided a balanced and complete package of reforms on bankruptcy.
In particular, the wage earner protection program has strong support from parliamentarians, labour unions, the insolvency community and employers. This program should be brought into force as soon as possible. The current insolvency system does not provide adequate protection for unpaid wage earners. An estimated 10,000 to 20,000 workers a year are left with unpaid wage claims due to employer bankruptcies. That is why the wage earner protection program was proposed. The program will improve the protection of workers during the insolvency process.
The protection of unpaid wage earners has been a major issue during every attempt at insolvency reform over the past 30 years and the issue has never been resolved.
The wage earner protection program will address this issue by providing certain payments of up to $3,000 to workers for unpaid wages and earned but unused vacation pay, so that payment of wages will no longer depend on the amount of assets of the bankrupt employer. It is estimated that this will satisfy 97% of unpaid wage claims in full. In addition, the wage earner protection program will provide prompt payment of wages so that workers receive payment of their wage claims when they need it most.
We cannot deny the importance of implementing this program in a timely fashion. However, before the Wage Earner Protection Program Act can come into force, some technical amendments have to be made to ensure that the program will be effective. The regulations necessary to operate the act must be prepared and considerable work needs to be done before implementation.
We do not have to convince Canadians that it is important to protect vulnerable workers who suffer an economic setback through no fault of their own. We do not have to convince Canadians that it is the right thing to do.
This government also understands that protecting Canadian workers when employers declare bankruptcy is the right thing to do.
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the famous Bill C-55, adopted in this House almost a year ago, in November 2005. That bill created a salary protection program for workers in case of bankruptcy.
A long time ago, the Bloc Québécois made a commitment to the unions to propose amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to ensure that the salaries of employees and pension funds would be the first debts to be paid in the case of the bankruptcy of a business.
The current situation is unsatisfactory. Under the legislation now in effect in our country, an employee who has worked all his or her life for the same company could be left with nothing if the company went bankrupt. In the face of that fact, the Bloc Québécois decided to press the government to correct the flaws in the current legislation and to ensure better protection for workers’ salaries.
A year and a half ago, the government of the day tabled a bill in this House, Bill C-55. That bill conformed to the principles of social justice that employees must be paid for the hours they have worked. Workers have nothing but their salary as a source of income. Workers’ pension funds are sacred. No one works all his or her life to end up as impoverished as someone who did not worked so hard for so long.
As I mentioned previously, Bill C-55 created the wage earner protection program, WEPP. Bill C-55 consisted of two components. The first component, dealt with protection of wages, WEPP. The second component dealt with the revision of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. While the WEPP component was not perfect, there were still real benefits related to that program. For example, workers whose company went bankrupt could apply for employment insurance and be eligible for an allowance of up to $3,000 of unpaid wages when the employer declared bankruptcy. The payments made under the program were taxable and took into account other applicable contributions. In this way, regardless of the value of the employer’s assets, workers could obtain the greater part, if not all, of their unpaid wages.
The Department of Industry estimated that $3,000 per worker would be enough to cover 97% of all unpaid wage claims. The government also estimated that this would cost the Treasury $32 million a year or, in very bad years, $50 million. Meanwhile, the government is running $13 billion surpluses.
I think that the Bloc Québécois disagreed with some aspects of the bill but voted in favour of it because it seemed to be a great improvement on the current situation.
The purpose of this adjournment debate is to ask the minister what he is doing. I asked him this question last June in the House and he said that there were some problems with Bill C-55 and it could not be implemented right away. He said, though, that he would take care of everything and would soon have more to tell us. Unfortunately, nothing came of this because it is now October and still there is no news about this bill.
Basically, I want to know two things. First, what parts and clauses of the bill are causing problems? I would also like to know when the minister expects to introduce it again in the House, return to it or just enact it.
I would also like to suggest to the minister that if it is the bankruptcy part that is causing a problem, he just needs to enact the wage earner protection program.
The Speaker
I am sure the House is glad to hear the news, but I do not think it is a point of order.
(Bill C-53. On the Order: Government Orders:)
November 16, 2005--The Minister of Justice--Consideration at report stage and second reading of Bill C-53, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (proceeds of crime) and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, as reported by the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, without amendment.
(Bill concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed)
(Bill C-54. On the Order: Government Orders:)
November 3, 2005--Resuming consideration of the motion of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that Bill C-54, An Act to provide first nations with the option of managing and regulating oil and gas exploration and exploitation and of receiving moneys otherwise held for them by Canada, be read the third time and passed.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
(Bill C-55. On the Order: Government Orders:)
October 5, 2005--Minister of Industry--An Act to establish the Wage Earner Protection Program Act, to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
(Bill concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed)
(Bill C-66. On the Order: Government Orders:)
November 1, 2005--Resuming consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance that Bill C-66, An Act to authorize payments to provide assistance in relation to energy costs, housing energy consumption and public transit infrastructure, and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
(Bill read a second time, referred to and reported from committee without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed)
Tony Valeri LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following. I move:
That Bill C-53 be deemed to have been concurred in at report stage and read a third time and passed on division;
That Bill C-54 be deemed to have been read a third time and passed on division;
That Bill C-55 be deemed to have been reported from the committee with the following amendments presented by the government:
That Bill C-55, in clause 131, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 127 with the following:
as provided in this section or under the laws of the
That Bill C-55, in clause 131, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 129 the following:
(8) For greater certainty, any collective agreement that the company and the bargaining agent have not agreed to revise remains in force, and the court shall not alter its terms.
and that the said bill be deemed to have been concurred in at report stage and read a third time and passed on division;
That Bill C-66 be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to and reported from committee without amendment, concurred in at report stage and read a third time and passed on division.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for Hamilton Centre for sharing his time with me and I want to begin by echoing something that the member said.
One of the elders from the Cowichan tribes in my riding has expressed a concern over the years about how often we talk and how we do not listen. He said, “I know you can hear me, but are you listening?” In the great tradition of Parliament, we have often thought that this was a place for debate, discussion, the exchange of ideas and thoughts, and sometimes for compromise.
I want to put compromise in the context of the kind of language that is important for parliamentarians to bring to this discussion. According to the Oxford English dictionary, compromise is a coming to terms or arrangement of a dispute by concessions on both sides; partial surrender of one's position for the sake of coming to terms; the concession or terms offered by either side.
It seems that is what we are talking about when we talk about compromise today. We are talking about various parties coming together and coming up with a solution that will work for all Canadians, not just for one particular group who are desperate to hang onto power for however many days they can do that.
In the tradition of other great parliamentarians, I want to quote from Lester B. Pearson's Nobel acceptance speech. This is a good reminder of the kind of tradition that we have the opportunity to bring here, the kind of discussion and debate that we could have the opportunity to engage in. Mr. Pearson said:
In his response to the situations he has to meet as a person, the individual accepts the fact that his own single will cannot prevail against that of his group or his society. If he tries to make it prevail against the general will, he will be in trouble. So he compromises and agrees and tolerates.
It seems to me we have 37% of the House unwilling to compromise. We have 37% of the House unwilling to tolerate the kind of discussion that brings another view to the table, that says there are important issues before the House right now that we want to clear up. There are important issues such as Bill C-55, Bill C-66, and the first ministers and aboriginal meeting next week.
These are important issues that we are willing to stay at the table and work together on to ensure that these issues are passed satisfactorily for Canadians. This is an opportunity for the House to demonstrate its goodwill in meeting the needs of Canadians.
Let me briefly speak about Bill C-66. We are coming up to wintertime. We have snowflakes falling in Ottawa as I speak. This is an important bill to ensure that Canadians who are the least advantaged and who are at most risk in our world have access to the benefits that are available under Bill C-66. I would urge all members to look at this very good compromise solution that has been offered by the NDP and work hard together to pass this important piece of legislation.
We have heard much talk over the last several months about democratic deficit. We have heard the Prime Minister talk about how important it is for the government and for all parties to look at electoral reform. The member for Ottawa Centre put a very good proposal before the House. We thought we had a commitment to move forward on electoral reform that would make a difference on how each and every one of us behaved in the House, and how each and every citizen was represented in the House. Have we had any action? None. We are still waiting for that process to be put in place.
The reason I specifically wanted to talk about electoral reform is because the very premise of having electoral reform, a proportional representation system in the House, would mean that every one of us would have to come to the House with a willingness and a tolerance for compromise. It would be the very foundation of working together around a collaborative consensus kind of a way. It would be the very foundation of ensuring each and every Canadian voice was heard when members voted.
It would be the very foundation of working together around a collaborative consensus kind of a way. It would be the very foundation of making sure each and every Canadian voice was heard when they voted.
We have had a Prime Minister who has thumbed his nose at electoral reform. He has thumbed his nose at the democratic deficit and it appears that he will thumb his nose at this very sensible compromise that the House has proposed, a compromise that would allow us to clear the business, avoid a holiday election, avoid Liberal campaigning at taxpayer expense in January and have us go to the polls in February. That seems like a very excellent compromise.
I want to talk a bit more about electoral reform and how important it is for the House to address this democratic deficit. Many of us are very well aware of the fact that only 65 out of the about 300 seats in this House are held by women. We know from studies that have been all over the world that electoral reform increases the equality of representation in our democratic systems. Again, we had this opportunity to do this. Have we had any action? Absolutely not. The Prime Minister has not said one about moving forward on these kinds of initiatives.
In these last days, whether there is other action that happens over this next couple of weeks or whether we reach our natural conclusion in the middle of December, we have heard much talk over this last couple of days about how the sky is falling. We have heard much talk from the government, the Liberal benches, about how if we do not do this the world will come to an end and if we do not do that the world will come to an end. The Liberals have been around for 12 years and all of a sudden, with a few weeks left in the sitting of the House, all of this business is going to be done at the very last minute. I am shocked.
The Liberals have had 12 years to get on with this kind of business. We have had 18 months for the Liberals to get on with this kind of business and we still wait.
Today I met with the National Farmers Union and they were talking about the kinds of issues that must be taken care of in the next 10 days. I asked them how long the discussion had been going on. It has been eight years that we have been talking about these very important issues for farmers and in the last week the deal is coming very close to fruition.
What has been happening for the last 7 years and 51 weeks? All of a sudden the deal is coming to a conclusion. What a miracle. Of course it is just before Christmas and perhaps miracles do happen at this time of year, but it seems like there are so many miracles that are happening all of a sudden.
It is beyond belief that the work that could have been done over the last 12 years has not been accomplished. We still do not have enough affordable housing in the country. We still have women who do not qualify for employment insurance. We still have women who are living on substandard wages because of the Canada pension plan that does not recognize their needs. We still have farmers who do not have a decent income. We still do not have any resolution to the softwood lumber issue and many other issues, such as the BSE. I could go on and on about the failure of the government to meet its commitments to the Canadian people.
Why would we now not come to this compromise solution that would allow us to finish the business that is currently before the House, go into an election that misses the Christmas period and give Canadians a chance to talk about the kind of government they want, the kind of solutions that the NDP brings forward, of government that truly puts the interests of Canadians first.
We talk about the common sense compromise which is actually predicated on the fact that people are willing to come to the table and talk to each other. It is predicated upon the fact that we listen to people in a meaningful way and that we are willing to take our agendas and park them at the door to really work on solutions in the interests of all Canadians.
However we can see that is not been what has been before us. I would urge all members of this House to support the motion that is before the House today so we can give Canadians an opportunity to see the business concluded, enjoy Christmas with their families and then call an election in January.