True, Hell also happens to be red.
My point is, he ends on an upbeat note. He says: "There will be counselling for persons related to the debtor". I cannot wait. I cannot wait for someone to tell the manager of the credit union or the manager of the National Bank or the TD Bank or any other bank: "Look, we raised $20,000 by selling the assets of the bankrupt, but his wife and children are taking it very hard; the poor things cannot cope. So I am going to take $5,000 to pay for counselling".
They are going to cause a backlog in the courts with this clause. Does anyone seriously think that creditors will forego a chance to get their money back and instead pay for counselling for the relatives of a bankrupt debtor? I doubt it. This is wishful thinking. But it is an interesting point and I must say I did not expect to find this in a bill dealing with bankruptcy and insolvency.
They say that the proposed amendments harmonize Canadian practices regarding bankruptcy and insolvency with those of our international trading partners. This harmonization will simplify co-operation between countries in the case of the restructuring or insolvency of a multinational corporation and will help enforcement of Canadian regulations on the distribution of assets, creditor ranking and voidable transactions.
I do not want to get involved in private international law at this point, but it was said in your basic course in Canadian private international law, which is after all based on international agreements, that the disposition of immovable goods is determined by their lex situs , their location. While as far as individual rights are concerned, the law of the country of residence prevails. As far as movable goods are concerned, the law of the owner's country of residence prevails.
I cannot see how, unilaterally, through the Minister of Industry and this bill to amend the bankruptcy legislation, the federal government could come and change internationally recognized rules developed outside of Canada, under an agreement between several countries. Unless, of course-in which case, the wording of the bill is incorrect-it was intended to apply only the bankrupt's property found on Canadian soil. That would make more sense.
Another clause puzzled me, namely the one providing that farmers and fishermen whose principal occupation is fishing or farming will not be subject to petitions in bankruptcy, even if their principal occupation is not their sole source of income. Farmers and fishermen used to be liable under the law to petitions in bankruptcy when they ventured outside their traditional line of work to supplement their income during the off season. This bill will ensure that they no longer face bankruptcy each time they become technically insolvent.
Unfortunately, the bill does not say much about the reasons why this kind of provision was included. I hope that government members who will be speaking on this bill, to explain it to us, will be able to elaborate on the motives that underlie the decision to include such provisions in the bill.
That is about all I had to say at this stage of consideration of the bill. I am not blaming anyone. As you can see, I am not criticizing too strongly the government's position. I just find it unfair as it relates to students. Also I think it is a mistake to fail, as it does, to address the situation of those workers who, often, supported the business till the very end, when it finally declared bankruptcy, when, more often than not, the president and directors of the company are long gone. They have run off to Switzerland, as is fashionable these days. Low income workers, those who have worked hard to earn a living, cannot run away. They are forgotten in all this.
I urge the government to show more willingness to co-operate with the opposition to achieve a position that will be effective in maintaining this balance between the duty to pay one's debts and the need to survive.