Debates of Nov. 28th, 1995

Witness Protection Program Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76 a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That bill C-78, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 17, on page 8, the following:

"(3) Every report prepared under subsection (1) shall, after it is laid before each House of Parliament under subsection (2), be referred to the committee of Parliament that normally considers matters relating to justice and legal affairs.

(4) Every report prepared under subsection (1) shall include, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following information: a ) the number of agreements entered into and the law enforcement agencies involved; b ) the number of applications made; c ) the average amount spent on each agreement entered into; d ) the number of agreements terminated and the reasons for their termination; e ) the number and types of offences committed by protectees; f ) the total amount of all money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund spent in relation to the operation of this Act; g ) co-operative measures between the Force and other law enforcement agencies with respect to witness protection; and h ) the number of foreign witnesses admitted to Canada and the number of Canadian witnesses relocated outside Canada.''

Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how little the government side knows about what is happening in the world of crime. In spite of the fact that we see all these documents and newspaper clippings and initiatives which have been started by the government, it never seems to want to really address the problem.

One of the headings in a newspaper not too long ago was: "Guns replace cigarette smuggling". Who does the smuggling? Who smuggles guns, cigarettes, booze, and the like? No one but an organized criminal group. They are in it to make money.

As I mentioned before, several Reform MPs, and I know Liberal members went to the same area, went to the Akwesasne reserve and the city of Cornwall. It is interesting to note that the police task force initiated to combat smuggling is afraid to patrol the river in the evening for fear of being shot at by organized criminals who have literally taken over control of the river to move their contraband. That takes place mostly during the evening and the night. They are organized criminals who need special treatment. When we talk about protecting witnesses, witnesses from this area are afraid to come forward for fear of reprisal. They know the police cannot protect them adequately.

This is happening right across the country. Ipperwash is another place. The police are reluctant to properly police the area of Bosanquet and Ipperwash because it may end up having a confrontation with an organized criminal group. We can have all the witness protection programs we want, but if there are not adequate funds to deal with it, it is another matter. We will not be protecting witnesses.

That is happening in the country, not just in Ipperwash and not just in Cornwall. We can look at other areas including metropolitan areas such as Toronto and Vancouver. Organized criminal groups have control in many areas, whether or not we want to admit it. It will take extraordinary means to combat it. Power is given to the police including under the witness protection act as mentioned here. Funds must be available to take care of it, if the government is serious about it. I do not believe the Liberal government is serious about fighting crime at all. It would do something more about it if that were the case.

People are living in fear in their own homes. This is what combating crime the Liberal way has done. They have to bar themselves in their own homes to protect themselves from criminals who have control of the streets. That is not the way to fight crime. When it is in an organized fashion even this legislation falls short because many police departments have their hands tied.

My second amendment deals with the submission of the annual report on the operation of the program as it applies to the preceding year. There are enabling sections in the legislation to have the report placed before Parliament. However we are without any provision for having the report sent before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to be reviewed. It does not mention the content of what the report should include. I believe the report is ridiculous. If there is a budget of $3.4 million as the government has so slated, there should be some content in the report and some subsection to specify precisely how the money is to be spent.

Many times members have stood on both sides of the House and talked about accountability. It is a nice word, but it seems as though a regulation has to be in place before somebody actually becomes accountable. Members on that side who were in opposition years before railed time and time against the government of the day on accountability and responsibility. All this amendment is suggesting is that there made more accountability.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

There is the problem.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

That is right. It is a question of accountability. I agree with my colleague that they do not want to be accountable.

I present an opportunity to members of the House to learn from past mistakes to make sure the bill does not miss its mark. The following information should be included in the annual report.

First is the number of agreements entered into and the law enforcement agencies involved. This is important, given the fact that there have been disputes in the past between law enforcement agencies and the RCMP in this area before the legislation was thought of.

Second is the number of applications made. Is everyone who makes an application accepted or are some turned down? That information should be made available.

Third is the average amount spent on each arrangement. There is a budget of $3.4 million. Approximately 100 protectees were in the program in the past. Will that continue? Will the number rise? When we look at organized crime as it is manifesting itself in the country, it will undoubtedly rise. Where will the extra money come from to protect the individuals who apply?

Fourth is the number of agreements terminated and the reasons for termination. This has been a dispute in other agencies or other police departments. The commissioner has the final say on who

comes into the program and who does not. That information should be made available to the committee.

Fifth is the number and types of offences committed.

Sixth is the total amount of money spent from the consolidated revenue fund.

Seventh is the co-operative measures taken between the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies with respect to witness protection. Many joint force operations are taking place in the country. There are so many joint forces that it is impossible for one agency to effectively combat organized criminal activity without joining forces with others. This information should be made available. It is the other law enforcement agencies that often have the objections if the RCMP commissioner is the only one who has the final say on the agreements.

The last point is the number of foreign witnesses admitted to Canada who have become part of the protection program and the number of Canadian witnesses relocated outside Canada.

None of these proposed amendments is unreasonable. Upon review by the hon. members of the House I am confident they will see that the amendments are designed to bring about more accountability in the bill and the decision making process of the commissioner.

Given the rise of organized and violent crime the government should be doing everything in its power to ensure that the citizens of Canada are protected to the fullest. I urge all members to vote not based upon partisan considerations but rather on the best interests of their constituents and in favour of the amendments presented.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the second motion of the Reform member stresses other shortcomings of Bill C-78.

First of all, I would like to say that Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Calgary Northeast, is redundant in the first subsection. I will explain. The hon. member would like the annual report required under clause 16 of the bill to be transmitted to the Solicitor General and either tabled in the House or referred to the justice committee. However, according to Standing Order 32(5):

Reports, returns or other papers laid before the House in accordance with an Act of Parliament shall thereupon be deemed to have been permanently referred to the appropriate standing committee.

This means that once the report of the commissioner has been tabled in the House it is immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Justice. The member of the Reform Party does not have to worry. It is already in the Standing Orders and therefore subsection (3) is superfluous.

Subsection (4) tries to define much more precisely the work of the commissioner. He would have to give a lot of details in the report that he must submit to the Solicitor General every year.

Clause 16 of Bill C-78 requires that the commissioner submit a report on the operation of the program to the minister, who in this case is the Solicitor General. The clause is quite vague as to the content of this report.

All the bill says, and I quote, is: "a report on the operation of the Program during the preceding fiscal year".

Things cannot be put more succintly. The bill does not provide any satisfactory answer to many questions that I think are obvious.

What the government has given us is nothing more than Canada-wide legislation that will be administered by the RCMP and to which provincial and local police authorities will have to adapt.

Today, we still do not know how co-ordination between the different police groups will be ensured, because Bill C-78 is silent on this issue. In fact, the silence of this bill is most certainly its main characteristic. What concerns me is not what is in the bill, but what was omitted.

A series of questions remain unanswered. Once the bill has been passed by Parliament, how long will it take to put the program in place? What budget will be allocated to the program? How does this amount compare with the current budget? How many people are expected to benefit from the program each year?

It is all fine and well to want to protect informers, but we should know how much this is going to cost. Indeed, we do not even know which envelope the Solicitor General intends to take the money from.

As we know, the witness protection program will be a kind of contract between the RCMP and the protectee. Let us examine the respective rights and obligations of the parties to this agreement.

The commissioner's obligations come down to almost nothing. As indicated in clause 8 of the bill, he only has:

-to take such reasonable steps as are necessary to provide the protection referred to in the agreement to the protectee;

That is all. So, I hope that he will take the necessary steps. But what kind of steps are they? Only the commissioner will know because, once again, the bill does not explain what these steps will be. Thus, these "reasonable" steps are the only obligations the commissioner will have to fulfill.

As for the protectee, he must first provide the information or evidence required by the inquiry or the prosecution that has made the protection necessary. Second, the protectee must keep his or her hands clean, that is refrain from activities that constitute an offence against an act of Parliament. Shoplifting could be in this category.

Last, he or she must accept and give effect to reasonable requests and directions made by the commissioner in relation to the protection provided to the protectee and the obligations of the protectee.

If the protectee deliberately contravenes his or her obligations under the protection agreement, the commissioner may terminate the protection, provided that the protectee can make representations concerning the matter.

This bill puts things very succintly. I suppose that to correct these flaws, some practices are going to evolve allowing the RCMP to completely evade the power of supervision of Parliament.

This is the danger with poor legislation. Police forces create their own rules without any respect for the law. In fact, they are the ones who actually write it as circumstances change. I ask you this: When are we going to see the federal government assume its responsibilities and legislate in a detailed and precise fashion so that those who must enforce these laws know how to proceed?

Since the motion of the member from Calgary Northeast tries to fill some gaps, we are going to support it.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, even if the hon. member opposite raised several issues, we will not support the motion as tabled by the third party.

But the hon. member still raised some points. We should remind Canadians, in particular the hon. members opposite, that the commissioner may terminate the protection provided if, in his opinion, the witness provided false information, omitted to provide important information, or deliberately failed to meet his obligations under the protection agreement.

I think that the hon. member did point out some issues, such as the cost of producing an annual report. Normally, information would be provided on costs and on the number of participants in the program. Of course, certain criteria will established.

In reference to the member of the third party, we on the government side will not be supporting this motion. However, it is not necessary to enact a provision requiring the annual report to be referred to the justice and legal affairs committee.

Reports which concern matters relating to justice and legal affairs are presently referred to the justice and legal affairs committee.

With respect to the motion which specifies the content of the annual report to be tabled by the solicitor general before Parliament, many pieces of legislation require the tabling of an annual report without listing the specific information the report should contain.

The list of items provided in this motion is extremely helpful and will be referred to the commission for its consideration. It is important that care be taken to ensure that the information included in the report does not inadvertently compromise any witnesses in the program or the program as a whole.

Members of the justice and legal affairs committee will have the opportunity to review and assess the first report to ensure that the appropriate balance has been achieved in terms of informing the public without compromising the integrity of the program.

Therefore we will not be supporting the opposition motion presented to us.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as a a new member of the House, having been here only two years, it is always discouraging and dismaying for me to see not only in the House but in committee when the minister, through his parliamentary secretary or through his own directive, indicates what he wants the committee or the House to do, and everyone else on the government side simply follows suit regardless of the impression the amendments make on their own common sense.

It is dismaying for me to hear that the government is not going to support this amendment regardless of the common sense that it makes, regardless of the protection that it might provide in terms of checks and balances for the witnesses who are dragged into this system because of circumstances, perhaps in many cases beyond their own control. The government side is not prepared to honour the checks and balances that would protect the vulnerability of the witness entering into this program.

Let me tell members how vulnerable those people are. They come into the program because their life or the lives of their children may be threatened. They know that unless they abide by the wishes of their handler he or she can have an enormous impact on pulling the protection program out from under them.

What we are asking for in this amendment is simply a degree of accountability on the part of the commissioner who will be administering the program. Having served 14 years with the Mounted Police I know the commissioner never knows anything about things that often happen at the grassroots level because the only channel of communication he has are the reports he reads from people who prepare the reports at the grassroots level.

Consequently there are many things that could happen and are happening to these witnesses according to the testimony we have heard which places them at enormous vulnerability, where their grievances are not met and where they have absolutely no recourse. They ought to have a reasonable degree of recourse through their elected representatives who would review the program on an annual basis with these requirements. What does the commissioner have to provide for in his report to the solicitor general? What is it? Practically anything he wants unless there are some type of guidelines, the type of guidelines provided for in this amendment.

We do not want to know the names or the places of residents or any other factor that would place the witnesses in a vulnerable situation. Absolutely not. That is not the purpose of this amendment. What we want to do is have a degree of accountability in greater depth than a casual report from the commissioner. We see these kinds of reports. They have been submitted to the minister, whether from SIRC or some other statutory requirement.

They simply say what they want to say and withhold whatever information they want simply because there is no statutory requirement to provide that information. This amendment would go a long way to establish a reasonable check and balance on a program that involves innocent people and places them in very vulnerable situations. I support this amendment and I will be supporting the bill.

When we create these sorts of bills we ought to ensure citizens are provided the greatest degree of protection possible and not those who administer the program.

I urge all members to seriously consider and support this bill. It provides the reasonable checks and balances this kind of program ought to have.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

Following an intervention of the chief government whip, the vote will be deferred to the end of Government Orders today.

Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act

[Jon Gerrard, Liberal, Secretary of State (Science]

moved that Bill C-109, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, before I talk specifically about the amendments to the Bankruptcy Act, Bill C-109, it is important to go back and have a little history on how the bill evolved.

I hope later today we will hear from our colleague, the member for Dartmouth, because in opposition he was our critic for consumer and corporate affairs and had a tremendous hand in crafting this bill on bankruptcy and insolvency. It is a complex bill because it includes a lot of provisions affecting the bankruptcy and insolvency area.

This bill contains almost 100 pages and has provisions affecting procedures in consumer bankruptcies and proposals, landlord compensation where leases are disclaimed in reorganizations, liability of directors and stays of action against directors during reorganizations. It includes the whole area of protection of trustees and receivers against personal liability for pre-appointment environmental damage and other claims, workmen's compensation board claims, the dischargeability of student loan debts.

Also included are the licensing and regulation of trustees and their liability in relation to other activities related to business, the requirement that bankrupts pay part of their income to the bankruptcy estate, securities, firm bankruptcies and international solvencies, and so on.

I have gone over those issues because it is important to understand this is a very complex area but vital in terms of making sure the environment is good for creating opportunities for business men and women to get involved in risk taking. It is also very important that we deal with the issue in terms of protecting the consumer.

The amendments we are putting forward today are a further striking of a balance between rehabilitation and obligation. In other words, the emphasis in the bill is to make sure we do everything we can to help preserve jobs and the businesses that create them. Rather than automatically having a situation in which people lose

their businesses, we create an environment in which we can actually help them through and that before they become bankrupt we take every measure possible to help them through difficult circumstances.

The amendments to the bill we are dealing with today are further refinements of the bill from 1992. This was a commitment we made. When the last bill was approved in 1992 we said that three years later we would have a review. We have listened to people from across Canada, from business groups and consumer groups. These amendments reflect the recommendations the study group proposed.

I will deal specifically with the amendments: "The maintenance of income support benefits, such as GST tax refunds, that allow families and individuals to meet their essential needs". Under the proposed legislation these benefits are exempt from seizures unintended to reimburse creditors.

"The priority status for provable claims by divorced or separated spouses for spousal or child support payments". Previously spouses were not considered creditors.

"Debtors to meet their obligations where a sexual or physical assault charge resulted in penalties". The amendments make these judgements non-dischargeable and allow support for assault victims to discontinue.

The bill also has a further refinement in the area of student loans, tighter control of premature student bankruptcies intended to discharge responsibility from student loans. In recent years the federal government has lost over $60 million per year in loan defaults as a result of early student claims of bankruptcy. The proposed changes will make student loan debts non-dischargeable for 24 months following termination of studies, recognizing that some students experience real economic difficulties. The amendments complement a variety of repayment options during that 24-month period including no repayment in situations of hardship.

Also individuals can make recompense from a portion of surplus income deemed to exceed a minimum cost of living. This provision provides for a regularized repayment schedule and encourages bankrupt individuals to make their best effort to reimburse their creditors.

Under directives from the superintendent of bankruptcy, trustees will have powers to establish rates and terms of a conditional discharge. This will save court costs and will allow for a personalized arrangement between a bankrupt individual and his or her creditors. Also spouses can make a joint consumer proposal where their financial relationship requires a co-ordinated repayment effort. These new provisions streamline the proceedings and save costs.

There is more time for creditors to review debtor proposals and a quicker response from the courts to those proposals. The old waiting period for creditors would be extended from 30 days to 45 days. The courts would have 15 days to indicate whether the proposal had been accepted as opposed to the current response period of 30 days. Otherwise the proposal would be deemed to be accepted. There is also a provision for counselling for persons related to the debtor.

That essentially represents the essence of those amendments in terms of the individual. We also have further amendments relating to businesses, farmers and fishermen. We feel confident that the House will support all of these amendments, certainly because of the participation of the advisory group.

Over the next little while the House has to deal with the whole issue of creating confidence in the marketplace. I personally do not like dealing with the whole issue of bankruptcy and insolvency. Even though the bill is there to protect and to make sure that people are treated fairly, I believe there is a very high level of anxiety in the marketplace right now. One of the things we must do as members of Parliament is make sure that we somehow work at creating an environment where the confidence level in the business community is returned to what it used to be.

It is only when people have confidence in the marketplace and confidence in themselves that they take the risk that generates production and job opportunity which eventually creates a condition in the marketplace where bankruptcies are minimized. In the last couple of years, even though bankruptcies have really remained constant, the bottom line is that we still had too many. The quarterly releases on the number of bankruptcies tend to send a shiver right through the marketplace. It is a domino effect. It has an adverse impact on the confidence of the entire marketplace.

It is hoped this bill will assist in giving individuals and business men and women every opportunity to avoid or get around having to go through that dreaded experience of bankruptcy and insolvency.

I hope we can get the support of all members for the speedy passage of this bill.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood about Bill C-109. This is a bill whose full-blown title is an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Income Tax Act.

It is quite bulky, as my hon. colleague pointed out, and it is difficult to read, which is understandable since the 1992 reform had been 13 years in the making, that is to say from 1979 to 1992. The government finally tabled the famous bill that had taken all that

time to prepare, the act of 1992 that Bill C-109 now seeks to make substantial changes to.

I agree with the hon. member opposite when he says that bankruptcy is a problem, a complex problem. A balance must be struck between the responsibility all of us have to pay what we owe and the hope to be able, even when deep in debt, to have a decent living and perhaps manage to pull through, whether we have put ourselves in this difficult financial situation or it is the result of a business venture we started that did not do too well.

According to the minister's release, this bill contains more than 70 amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. In the little time we have had to examine this legislation, I managed to review the principles. There are three, at the beginning of the bill, relating to consumer bankruptcies. For example, debts will now be repaid from excess income, that is to say income over and above the minimum cost of living.

But nowhere in the bill is this concept of minimum cost or standard of living defined. I guess that it will be up to the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, somewhere in Canada, to determine-arbitrarily at times, I am afraid-what this minimum will be. Take Quebec for example. I do not know if the same thing applies in other provinces, but surely it must. In Quebec, we have the Code of Civil Procedure, and section 553 et seq. provide that a portion of someone's salary cannot be garnished. Therefore, if the superintendent for Quebec decided to ignore what section 553 says about part of someone's salary being exempt from seizure in Quebec, I sincerely wonder-and I am not being facetious-who would be encroaching on whose jurisdiction then?

That has not been set out in the bill. I understand that is not its role, but that is an ambiguity that is likely to create uncertainty for some people and also-and I hope this will not be the rule-to open the door to abuse, to lead to abuse.

There is another principle here, the obligation for the debtor to discharge his or her financial responsibilities relating to alimony for his or her spouse and children or relating to damages awarded by the courts to compensate for a physical or sexual assault. I cannot but commend that. Frankly, this is a provision that, in my opinion, is absolutely fundamental, and I commend the Minister of Industry for it. He is showing concern for his fellow citizens who might have been victims of some highly reprehensible acts. Otherwise, the offender could say: "It is very simple, I go bankrupt and we forget all about the harm I have done to you". I endorse without any reservation that provision in the bill.

A third point is that it will be impossible for students to get rid of their student loan debts before two years after completion of their education. Need I say I do not agree?

Not too long ago, we had before us the budget implementation bill. If memory serves, it was Bill C-76. We talked about students. We raised the level of their financial contribution to their own education by providing additional loans. The issue gave rise to a rather heated debate in the House. Some said that students would end up with debts of $28,000 or $30,000 or more.

We thought the government was not being reasonable in that bill because the students had their talents nipped in the bud in that they were being put in a state of virtual bankruptcy the moment they entered the labour market. Our remarks did not fall on deaf ears, as demonstrated by this bill in which the Minister of Industry tells us that students are actually overburdened, but they will not be allowed to file for bankruptcy, at least not before two years.

I cannot agree with this. True enough, we should always keep a proper balance between the obligation to pay one's debts and the right to lead a meaningful life. All Canadians have both this duty and this right. Fortunately, one provision in this bill makes it at least possible to have some cases examined on their merits. In some cases, students could avoid paying back their loan in full.

There are underlying social principles in this legislation. This bill also includes another provision that deals with the overall enforcement of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and I am talking about the trustees.

Since the new legislation came into force in 1992, it has not been easy in the province of Quebec. We had some quasi-fraudulent bankruptcy cases that caused a lot of stir. For example, Zoom Informatique was dealt with very harshly by the courts because of the actions of the trustees involved in the case. We also heard of a lawyer named Sirois who went bankrupt, a bankruptcy involving $1.6 million which was highly contested. Mr. Sirois was the father of the Bankruptcy Act that we are about to modify today. He was also a bankruptcy expert in Quebec.

Not surprisingly, the bankruptcy authorities really got raked over the coals on television, during some very popular and highly rated CBC television programs such as Enjeux , which examined these fraudulent bankruptcy cases.

I think that the problem will remain, even though we try to licence and regulate the trustees in this bill, because in the mind of the people the problem lies with the fact that the profession of trustee is not legally recognized as a corporate body, as is the case with the Ordre des avocats du Québec, the Canadian Bar Association, the associations of architects and professional engineers, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, all professional associations that are legally recognized and can perform peer reviews at any time in order to preserve a degree of dignity for their profession.

Unfortunately, it seems that trustees in bankruptcy do not form a profession. Recently, I noticed that, pursuant to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, a code of ethics for trustees had been

published in The Canada Gazette . It dealt with sections 54(30), (31), (32), (33), (34), etc.

Sure, these are great principles and I have nothing against them. Except that the enforcement of these sections of the code of ethics is never monitored unless a complaint is filed because the Superintendent of Bankruptcy is overloaded. He cannot do it on his own although this legislation is now giving him the authority to commission inquiries. If an association of trustees in bankruptcy were created, mandated primarily to protect the public interest and empowered like the other professional associations to issue licences, then we could have something valid.

This bill almost gives quasi-judicial powers to the trustee. The trustee almost becomes a public officer. According to the documents we were given, the bankrupt person must reimburse what he or she owes with his or her income considered to be in excess of the minimal cost of living. Whatever that is, as I said earlier.

This clause provides for a regular repayment schedule and encourages the bankrupt person to do everything possible to repay his or her creditors. Great! Under the supervision of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, who is already overloaded, we can immediately see from what is happening in the bankruptcy sector that the trustees will have the power to set the rates and the terms of a conditional discharge, the power to decree or decide, that is a quasi-judicial power.

According to the Bankruptcy Act that was replaced in 1992 and to the one which is now in force, the trustee acts in the interest of the creditors. The trustee does not have to be impartial in dealing with a bankruptcy. The trustee is primarily a representative of the creditors, not the bankrupt.

Unfortunately, it is totally different in practice. Someone who is in dire financial straits decides, on the recommendation of a friend or a relative, to consult a trustee he knows well and tells him: "Look. I want to make an assignment, would you look after my case?" It is not in the interest of the trustee who has a reputation for kindness, who is an expert in public relations, to ruin his own reputation. So, unless the creditors he is supposed to represent under the authority of his legal mandate are opposed to it, the trustee will continue to be rather lenient with the bankrupt, which is fine, but unfortunately, he will do it at the expense of the creditors who, more often than not, will end up licking their wounds.

The bill adds another dimension to the treatment of bankruptcy cases. For example, in the distribution or collocation order, greater importance is now given to the environmental aspect. We can imagine a situation where a contaminated building is in the possession of a trustee; the assets would first be used to decontaminate the ground.

I have some difficulty with this clause in combination with clause 18 modifying the existing act-so it is not something new-which provides: "The trustee may, with the permission of the inspectors, divest all or any part of the trustee's right, title or interest in any real property of the bankrupt". It could be that, if the trustee becomes aware that the land has no realizable value, he will get rid of it and pass on his responsibility to decontaminate the site to someone else. It is not clear in the bill. It was just to put a damper on my pleasure at finding this provision in the bill.

Unfortunately, the government could have taken the opportunity to include, in the distribution and collocation order, the salaries of employees present at the time of the shut-down of a corporation, for example.

That was the reason behind my colleague from Portneuf's tabling of a private member's bill. The bill was passed at second reading in the House before being sent to a committee. That was the last we heard about it since. I saw the Minister of Industry of the time in a fit of ministerial pique when he realized that the bill had been passed. Maybe this is why the bill is being dragged out in committee. I do not know. Nevertheless, the bill has never come back here.

It went along the same lines and was in the same spirit as the decontamination clause, except that the last employees, thanks to whom the company had lasted so long and who had kept supporting it during a not necessarily easy winding up period, had priority over the decontamination of the site. And the moment a trustee in bankruptcy comes in and shuts the company down, he fires them all and does not owe them anything. In the priority of claims, they come far behind the banks; the seven big banks that made $4.3 billion in net profit last year.

I was listening to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, and we all know how attached the Liberals are to big banks. We could see it when Liberal Party's list of contributors was made public. This bank gave $250,000, that one $250,000 and so on, all to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars. Those poor banks netted only $4.3 billion last year. Of course, it was impossible to table a bill on bankruptcy without protecting their interests first. This is what the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood wanted us to swallow, like a candy coated pill. But basically, when we read between the lines, the security involved is that of the poor big bank which showed a net profit of only $4.3 billion last year.

And yet banks never lose. This is not a bill for the banks. Good for them if they get something out of it like any citizen. But the bill should have been written first and foremost with the protection of the general public in mind. There are seven banks for 31 million

Canadians. It seems to me that there is no comparison. Even if we take into account the hundred or so American and Canadian trust and leasing companies, there are still a lot more people than financial institutions in our society.

I really have the impression that the bill's purpose is to protect investors, that is major banks, leasing companies, rather than to try to help ordinary Canadians who are often affected by a bankruptcy, those who end up losing a few weeks' or a few months' pay if not their shirt. The government did not display much concern for these people in this legislation, despite all the enthusiasm shown by the member for Broadview-Greenwood in praising this bill.

I am also delighted to see in the bill that small businesses will no longer be forced arbitrarily to declare bankruptcy, that factors such as the possibility of recovery, job losses, etc. will have to be considered. I think it is just great.

But if the Minister of Industry wanted to be realistic and if arbitrary business closures because of bankruptcy or insolvency were his main concern, and it shows in this bill, what is he waiting for to introduce meaningful legislation based on some of the principles in the Quebec legislation on agricultural zoning?

In Quebec, we had the political will to say: "Enough is enough. Farmland will not be parcelled out any more. If you decide to buy a large piece of land, you will have to live with it. You will not be able to sell it off in small parcels". Today, corporate raiders as they are called come along and buy businesses that often play a vital role in our economy.

Take the case of Canada Packers, who had been in Canada and in Quebec for at least 125 years, more precisely in Pointe-Saint-Charles. Then comes some professional auctioneer who buys everything for $500 million. He starts by selling separately the various components of economic activity of the company: beef production, $25 or $50 million, followed by egg, poultry, milk and oil production. He sells everything, often to competitors in that same sector.

Without any scruples, he puts 1,500, 2,000 or 3,000 heads of family out of work. His net profit is made up of the equipment, capital assets, land, buildings, etc. He heads back to England and kisses us good bye. More often than not, he does not have to pay any tax, or if he does, the federal government usually finds out too late. He has already gone home and no longer has any assets in Canada, so the government can always try to collect.

You might say that this is not a case of insolvency when it actually happens. True, but it becomes one afterwards. So, the bill would deal appropriately with such situations. At least, this is the way I see it. If the minister is short of ideas, he should come to Quebec. When we had to deal with the parcelling out of businesses that were doing relatively well, we did some thinking and came up with the agricultural zoning act.

It is not easy to comment on a bill which has some 100 pages and is made up of bits and pieces, this in just three days. I could do a more thorough review if I had a week. I am convinced that this bill will not make it past the next stage, not necessarily because it is a bad bill, but because it goes too far in some cases and not far enough in others. What is being done to students here I have a hard time living with, but I agree with the provisions concerning damages to a person resulting from sexual assault or wilful negligence

There is one other clause in the bill which I shall address very quickly, the one which says more or less that the spouses must make a joint proposal if their financial relationship requires co-ordinated repayment on their part. These new provisions will make it possible to rationalize procedures and reduce costs. I am not sure I have properly understood all this. I will admit honestly to you that I could not find it in the bill, not because it is not there, but because the bill is too bulky to find it among all the cross-references and annotations that are very hard to follow.

But is it possible that a decision has been made to encroach on Quebec law? We know divorce is a federal matter, but marriage is a provincial one. Is the decision now being made to interfere in matrimonial regimes in Quebec or elsewhere, in other provinces, saying for example that if a husband is not solvent but his wife works, they will both be put in the same pot, both will go bankrupt, pay the trustee and make the major banks happy by paying off their creditors? Is that what the plan is?

If that is the intent, it is a disquieting one. This would put an end to matrimonial regimes, or at least meddle rather too seriously and perhaps somewhat too harmfully in the area of marriage in Quebec. Relationships within a marriage are sacred in our province, and we have-as the Prime Minister has been saying ad nauseam-been living with the tradition of a Napoleonic code since around 1806.

I therefore feel that the Bloc members will not be able to subscribe in any way, if such is the intent of the legislator in this case, to this encroachment I perceive in the provinces' constitutional jurisdiction over marriage.

You are signalling that my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker. I still have some time left. We go on and on, but you can see that we are well intentioned. Someone said: Hell is paved with the well-intentioned. I do not know where that comes from.

[An hon. member]

And it is red.