Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech of the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound who said how different our culture and our attitudes are toward bankruptcy. I do not believe that is the case.
For example, members of the Reichmann family, in the pursuit of some of their objectives not only within Canada but also internationally, used the protection of chapter 11 of the United States and also our own creditors arrangement act. Many of our countrymen are alarmed and curious to understand how it was possible, after all the smoke had cleared from that period of time in our history, that over 2,500 employees of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce had lost their jobs, but at the same time many of the executive staff were promoted and that today the Reichmann family still has partial ownership of Canary Wharf. These are the people that my Reform colleagues would like to support, I suppose.
I will now move into the area of this bill. It was a very honourable presentation by the member for New Westminster-Burnaby. Rather than take the time of the House today, I can state that it was never the intention that this act be abused by people trying to escape societal obligations. I believe it is very appropriate that the member bring forward this legislation at this time.
The question seems to be whether it is appropriate that this bill go forward. Another bill is currently being debated, Bill C-109, a government bill, which overlaps and has some similarities to this bill. When I try to compare these two bills, I discover that their differences are twofold. One is that the member's bill talks about assault and battery, whereas the minister's bill talks simply of assault.
My reading of the word assault would include the definition of the word battery. I do not believe that is a significant difference between Bill C-109 and the private member's bill.
The other difference, as I understand it, is that the hon. member includes the concept of interest related to awards or judgments in the area of assault and battery. That would be different from the existing bill of the minister.
I am not a lawyer, but I understand in law that when we specify in one aspect of the bill a specific such as interest, that by definition a judge will assume that we meant interest only in that particular area and that some of the other areas of the bill would not have interest judgments attached to them. As a consequence, I believe we need to either amend the existing legislation in Bill C-109 which talks about interest, so that we are clear that interest is included in all the categories, or we need to delete the interest adjustment aspect from the member's bill.
The bill presented by the member is a good one and deserves the support of the House, but it is a matter of time allocation. This House is very busy. We have been putting through a lot of legislation recently and I am sure the government has much more legislation to present in the new year. We have to find a way in which we can do this efficiently.
It seems to me that the most efficient way to handle the matter would be for the member to move an amendment to Bill C-109 at committee stage. Indeed, I would be happy to support the member in that initiative.
Today I would have to say that I have to oppose the bill, not because I oppose it in principle, not at all. I support the initiatives of the member. I would oppose it simply on the grounds of time allocation.
I believe there are many members on this side of the House that would support the initiatives of the member to bring forward amendments to Bill C-109 during committee stage, dealing with the aspect of interest.