Werner Schmidt

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Yes, that was then and he has learned extremely well. He has learned to debate cleverly on both sides of the issue. If it were not so serious, it would be a nice game. To become a skilful debater one must be able to debate both sides of an issue.

"What we are doing is amending completely the rules of the House by adopting this motion. Were we to do so or were this motion to be ruled in order, the implications of the ruling of this motion in order would be such that I fear we could render this House of Commons totally irrelevant and redundant".

He went on to say: "We would simply deem everything and anything to have been passed, to have been at third reading or to have been at any stage or for any reason the government did not want to proceed with other stages of the bill".

Is that not exactly what the hon. member told us 20 minutes ago? It is most interesting what happens when one walks from this side of the House to that side of the House. When they have all the numbers on their side, they begin to think anything they do has to be right.

At that time the government won the debate. Of course it did, had the numbers, exactly as Pat Nowlan put it so clearly. It reminds me very much of what Gordon Gibson said in the Globe and Mail on Tuesday of this week: ``Our system effectively provides for a four year elected dictatorship with an astonishing concentration of power in the Prime Minister's office and the cabinet. Not unnaturally, those enjoying this power think it is a pretty good system''.

That is the seriousness of the issue before us. We really should be reflecting the wishes of the people. Sometimes procedural motions are brought to the floor of the House to give advantage to levering certain bills to move things faster or slower, the suggestion being that somehow the opposition side has a say in these things.

As my hon. colleague from Calgary Centre said so clearly, we do not have a say. It is in the hands of the government. Gordon Gibson said very clearly that in the final analysis the Prime Minister can decide whatever he wants.

Now I refer to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Let him hear what he had to say on May 28, 1991. This is excellent. The hon. member will have his memory refreshed. He could probably say the very same thing today. He should. If he were on this side of the House I am sure he would. This is really interesting. The hon. member said: "A new definition of democracy has been introduced. That is what this government is trying to introduce to

Canada. Frankly, it is time we exposed the-"-do you remember what you said?

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

I apologize. I stand corrected. I was referring to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I believe other members have mentioned this today. I refer to a second paragraph which I do not think has been read. The hon. member will hear himself quoted again, from May 28, 1991.

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to my hon. colleague's comment about not wasting our time.

If he were really serious about this, which I think he is, at least he certainly looks sincere, the important thing is to get procedural motions like this off the table. They are on the table and we are now obligated to get involved in the debate. However, there is a very big issue at stake here.

The point I want to register was made very effectively by the hon. Pat Nowlan when he was in the House. He did it on the occasion of the 1991 debate. I refer rather extensively to some things he said. At that time he said to me: "In the years that I have been here it would boggle the mind in terms of the effective working of Parliament to do what is being projected here". It is exactly the same thing the previous government did in the House in 1991.

He said:

What really disturbs me, having spent a good many years on the opposition side, is that we know, and my former friends across the way know from when they were on the opposition, that the prorogation date is sometimes used as the negotiating lever to get bills to move along. Under the tradition and history of the British parliamentary system come prorogation everything on the Order Paper died. It was then incumbent on the government and the responsibility of the government in the new session to reintroduce the bills and/or try to work matter matters out by consent, as they so often did.

I have a good memory also. There were many times in this Chamber in which a deal was made before prorogation. Sometimes by unanimous consent bills which were on the Order Paper, certain ones being difficult to agree with perhaps, were nevertheless put together as a package so they could get through and could be reintroduced later.

If the government brings in an omnibus motion which has the effect of lumping all the bills together that were all at the same stage in the previous session of a Parliament through a formal motion of the House where it knows it has the numbers to have a fait accomplis, if you like, of the passage of that kind of a motion, that puts into jeopardy any future debate on the floor of the House. That is what the issue is all about.

The question is why would a government, including this one or any other, that will use this kind of lever really worry about the concerns of the opposition? It does not care about what the opposition thinks. It knows that come prorogation the debate will be cut off and since it has the majority in the new Parliament the government knows it will not lose anything.

What in the world is this all about if we do what is proposed here? I cannot help but refer to the hon. Don Boudria. I am pleased he is here to hear himself quoted again.

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne is a plan, a sense of the direction the government is taking. Hon. members opposite have said very clearly that is what the speech from the throne is to designate.

I read the speech from the throne. I listened when the Governor General read it. I came away with a single sentence that I think describes accurately the leadership that we are seeing evidenced here in this House and it goes something like this. It is vague enough to be confusing but specific enough to dash any hopes of a better day at the end of this session.

I wish to address my remarks to exactly those kinds of things now. What is it that we need to do to govern ourselves successfully? I want to approach it from four specific points of view: First, the specificity of the speech; second, the fiscal responsibility that is or is not demonstrated in it; the economic and industrial development that is being proposed and the unity that is addressed.

First, let me look at the specificity of jobs. The Prime Minister said that we should have jobs. In fact that was the hallmark of the election campaign. It was a threefold election platform; jobs, jobs, jobs.

Two years later unemployment rates have not changed very much. Many of the jobs that do exist are part time and many of the other jobs that are not part time are temporary. People want stable full time jobs.

What does the speech say to that particular issue? It begins by addressing the question for young people. It says the government will double the number of federal summer student jobs this summer. They are temporary jobs. They are really bubble jobs. In fact one of the young people I talked to said they are bubble gum jobs, here this summer and gone the next. The emphasis is on getting our young people into the job market. However, what happens to the parents of these young people who are unemployed?

The challenge is for government and the private sector to work together. But there are no ideas of what the endeavour should be or the sectors that should be involved.

The government challenges business and labour leaders to find new approaches to assist young people to find jobs. What a finger pointing exercise that is. Talk about shifting blame from government policy to business and industry. As long as the tax burden continues to increase, and it must, given the kind of deficit picture that we have, the tax burden alone will discourage the creation of jobs.

There is the section stating that we want enduring jobs. There is a suggestion of how we might achieve these: investment and knowledge technology. Three specific areas are mentioned: aerospace, environment and enabling technologies like biotechnology.

The second major area proposed is a predictable policy and a regulatory framework for the information highway. The last proposal is to expand the school net and community access programs to use technology to increase the knowledge base of workers.

We need knowledgeable workers. We need them in this new economy. We need them to grow, we need them to develop, but there is no indication as to how this is to be accomplished except with one little statement "to use the technology to increase the knowledge of workers". Is the federal government going to institute training programs? Is some kind of special superfund going to be created in the form of subsidies and grants to industry in terms of developing biotechnology and these industries in aerospace, environment and so on? It is not clear.

There is no suggestion of what sort of institutions or programs of study, or internship programs or other mechanisms by which workers might develop their skills. There is no indication of the kinds of measures, and I would like to underline that, that will be employed to monitor the quality and success of any of these programs.

Millions of dollars have been spent in the last number of years to develop programs, to retrain unemployed people. What has the success measure been? Where is the monitoring program that these programs are working, the people are actually getting to work and their skill level has increased? There are some notable exceptions, but generally speaking it has not worked.

On the information highway there is no specific direction as to what we are talking about. Are we talking about telecommunications? Are we talking about broadcasting, radio, television, cable, satellite? What is it? Do we address the question in terms of convergence of these various media to get involved in how they will work together, or the adaptation and application of new technologies that are particularly conversant with digitization of information and can carry that very well, making obsolete the transmission systems that are dedicated to analog formats of information distribution?

There is one little paragraph on financial institutions which states that the government will update legislation governing financial institutions to ensure that they continue, or that the legislation continues to be relevant to the emerging needs of business and consumers.

Businesses need capital, especially small businesses. Those that are being established now, particularly in the new economy and in the knowledge based industries need fair access and timely access. They need it in large amounts; they need it in small amounts. The speech does not even seem to recognize that these are some of the needs of businesses.

On the other hand, consumers need competitive prices for the services offered to them. They need privacy, they need confidentiality and they need confidentiality of personal communications. Current legislation allows significant intrusion into the personal information and confidentiality of an individual's financial affairs. Is the legislation that is being proposed going to change that? We do not know. It simply states that the government will do something.

When there is so much ambiguity can we trust the government to do what we really need and what we want? Or is it really as Mr. Gibson pointed out in his article in the February 27 Globe and Mail where he says: ``Our system effectively provides for a four-year elected dictatorship with an astonishing concentration of power in the Prime Minister's office and cabinet. Not unnaturally those enjoying this power think it is a pretty good system''.

Will this legislation governing not only the banks but financial institutions include the insurance companies, the credit unions, the

trust companies? Will it allow them to expand into these areas? Will it have to do with the confidentiality, the cross selling and the tied selling which is currently taking place? Will that be allowed to continue? Will conflicts of interest that currently exist be allowed to continue? Questions on all of these vague matters have been unanswered.

If we are going to determine how we are going to govern ourselves, if there is going to be a direction here, then it has to be very clear there is a direction. However, there is not a direction and it is dangerous to get into that kind of situation.

[Committee Of The Whole, February 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate by recollecting the day that you were elected as Speaker of this House. I was so impressed as a rookie MP coming into this House to see how the Speaker was elected to the office, the august position that you hold, to keep impartial judgment of what happens and to apply the rules in a fair and accurate manner so that everybody would be treated fairly.

I commend you for all the good things you have done and I commend the Liberal Party, the government, for the way in which this House started. It was wonderful. However we have seen that degenerate to the point where we are today debating a promise that was made and is now being ignored. There is a denial of the very good place where this House started, the way in which you were elected, Mr. Speaker. I honour and respect and have great confidence in that.

We are now seeing a degeneration of that very noble start into something that has become partisan, that has become personal. It is a denigration of the respect that this House should enjoy in the hearts and the minds of every Canadian.

I am not proud to have to say this today. Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you that this motion be withdrawn and that a fair and accurate election take place of this individual to the office of Acting Speaker at the level that is being proposed in this motion.

[Small Business Loans Act, December 12th, 1995]

Maybe we only moved them a quarter of an inch. The important thing is we moved them and that is significant.

I recall the first day I met the hon. member at the committee meeting. Members of the committee were deciding what to make our focus. I remember so clearly the absolute commitment that this member of Parliament had when he said: "Mr. Chairman, there is only one thing that this committee should deal with and that is the access to capital by small business. That has to change and that has to be improved. If we achieve nothing else in this 35th Parliament, that is what we have to achieve". He turned to the chairman and said: "Mr. Chairman, that is your job as chairman, to make sure that this committee gets that job done". He did not ever deviate from that focus. His enthusiasm infused other members of the committee. They too said: "Yes, that is what we want to do".

It has been successful. We have moved the banks maybe a quarter of an inch. I hope that a year from now we can say that we have moved them a half-inch or three-quarters of an inch. I would like to move them a mile. If a good idea, a new innovation, of an entrepreneur wishing to establish himself is supported by the financial institutions, that would be a great step forward.

I know there are all kinds of words being used. One of the banks recently announced a $300 million venture fund which it was going to establish so that innovative ideas could take root and businesses could develop. Three hundred million dollars. That bank made almost $1 billion in profit last year. That is not even one-third of its profit. That is not a very great concession on the part of one institution.

We have to go much further than that and I believe we can. If the financial institutions were as concerned about building small business and about supporting the high tech industries as they are about lobbying MPs, Canada would grow. Canadians would begin to do the kinds of things that we imagined, which the banks often stopped.

When will we see the kind of co-operation from the financial institutions which was evident from the various parties that were represented in committee? Surely the imagination of the members of the committee is not restricted to them. Surely the financial institutions can also use some imagination and say: "If 85 per cent of new jobs are created by the small business sector, then we had better get on the ball. Then we will make even more of a profit than we are making now". Sometimes the financial institutions think as far as the end of their noses and no farther. It leaves me dumbfounded.

On the other hand, we also have to say that the banks agreed to do something. They actually agreed to provide to the committee on a quarterly basis numbers which will allow us to compare their performance from one quarter to the next. That is wonderful. If this results in them moving the next inch so that the building and growing process for small business can be achieved, the task and purpose of the committee will have been rewarded.

This committee has demonstrated that it can be done. The amendments to the bill indicate that the parties can co-operate. Reformers support the bill, however, I would like to make it clear that does not mean we like the idea of subsidizing business, whether it is through the banks or in any other way. That being said, we will support the bill because of the things which I have outlined.

[Small Business Loans Act, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to debate Bill C-99, an act to amend certain parts of the Small Business Loans Act.

I too was rather impressed by the parliamentary secretary's comments as to how the industry committee functions. From his description of that committee I cannot help but say I have to be one of the most fortunate MPs in the federal House of Parliament. My first experience in Ottawa was to be made a member of the best committee on the Hill. That is really something. My hon. colleague has been on other committees and if this is the best committee, that is great. The committee has worked well.

What has happened with Bill C-99 is an example of what can be done and how Parliament should function because all members put aside their partisan differences, their political affiliations and came to an agreement on some very significant matters that are exemplified by the provisions of the bill.

Members of the Reform Party are going to support this bill, despite the fact we have some rather grave reservations about the whole concept of the Small Business Loans Act. The Small Business Loans Act is based on the provision of a form of subsidy of certain kinds of financing to private enterprise. The reason we can support the bill is because the amendments bring about an accountability of that program and it is supposed to have 100 per cent cost recovery. If that in fact happens, then some of the our concerns are going to be mitigated to the point where they do not exist.

We also want to support this bill because the Reform Party motions that were presented in committee were accepted by the committee and by the minister. It is necessary to recognize the significant role the Minister of Industry played in this decision. Communications went back and forth about the provisions, especially the one which removed the authority of Parliament and shifted it to the cabinet. This took authority away from the representatives of the people and put it in the Privy Council committee to make decisions behind closed doors.

The committee, as well as the minister, saw that was probably not the most democratic thing to do and went so far as to say that it should be taken out. An amendment to that effect was presented to the committee by the Reform Party and it was accepted.

Members need to recognize that these are the kinds of things that Parliament really should be doing. In certain instances we should put aside political and partisan differences and say that for the good of the people of Canada, for the business development of Canadians, we need to do something that will help all of us. In this instance that was accomplished and it was to the credit of all those who had a part in it.

I want to talk about the concept behind the Small Business Loans Act. Reform Party members do not think that the government should take risks on behalf of the taxpayer. Those risks should be taken by the private sector. That is why we object to the principle behind the Small Business Loans Act. However, that is not our concern at this point. Our concern is to make the act better and the amendments do that. That should demonstrate to all and sundry that the Reform Party is a reasonable party.

We recognize there are certain gaps that need to be filled from time to time and we have done that. In this instance that has happened. I want to credit the committee, the Minister of Industry

and the parliamentary secretary on recognizing that and getting to work and doing it.

The House needs to recognize that the financial industry in particular is one of the most difficult industries or institutions to move. The parliamentary secretary suggested that maybe we have moved the banks an inch. I am not so sure. Almost I think that is optimistic.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

It is possible for the Prime Minister, even though he has a majority, to make a mistake. It is not a sign of weakness to admit an error. It is not a sign of weakness to stop yelling across the floor.

It is important to recognize that we can bring about a positive Canadian unity. We ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the bill. He would re-establish himself as a good thinking, unifying Prime Minister instead of forcing an issue like this one that we cannot even debate as much as we want.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter this debate with mixed emotions, emotions of sadness and gladness at the same time. I am reminded of the novel A Tale of Two Cities . The opening sentence goes something like this: ``It was the best of times; it was the worst of times''. Today we find ourselves with that ambivalence in Canada.

In the last three weeks and the weeks preceding the October 30 referendum we have seen some of the most terrible things happen. We have also seen some of the most wonderful things happen. People have been divided and people have come together on this issue. The Montreal rally was a coming together that we have probably not witnessed ever before in this country, yet the occasion was a negative one. It was one of tearing people apart.

Our country is a democracy. Unlike the words that were used only a moment ago about the mutual respect that we need from one another, the unfortunate part of it is that too often we impute motives to people. People impute motives to members of the Reform Party and say we want to tear Canada apart. Nothing could be further from the truth than that.

I stand here today as a proud Canadian, as someone who was born in this country, as someone who can look back to a grandfather and father who left a country that was being taken over by a

government that was not democratic. The Bolshevik revolution brought about my family's emigration from Russia.

My grandfather came to Canada with his children and they became citizens. They were buried here. Now I stand here and say I am proud to be able to be in Canada. It is a privilege to be able to speak one's mind and not be afraid that one might be stricken down or killed because of opinions that one might hold.

While there are a lot of differences and variations in this country, the real reason we are here is that this nation is free. It is here where we can express our religious beliefs, where we can express our political beliefs, where we can move forward and build a country that is strong, a country that is united.

We saw a few days ago how fragile that peace can be. It reminds me so much of a conversation I had with one of my constituents. He is a person who came to this country seeking freedom, seeking a domicile that would allow his children to grow up in peace and harmony. This person has family in the old Yugoslavia.

My constituent said to me: "I want you to know that I am not so much concerned about what is happening in Bosnia right now where my people are suffering the ravages of so-called ethnic cleansing. I was very concerned. Two years ago when you were elected all I could talk about was the way in which my forefathers' country and the things they built were being taken apart. Now, I want you to pay attention to what is happening in Canada. The very things that are happening in Canada today, in October 1995, are the very things that brought about the division and the terror we now see as the Bosnian conflict in the former Yugoslavia".

That is so serious. Why do we not listen to those people? Why do we think that we must somehow create differences and create a distinct society based on where people live because of a particular language, culture or race? It is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it carries within it the seeds of disintegration of what is a nice country. We should do everything we can to make sure that those seeds do not sprout. We must make sure that we can continue to develop a mutual respect for one another without fear and at times perhaps even express love for one another. I wish we could do that all the time.

I also want to draw attention to the west. The west is a very interesting part of the country. I was born in Alberta and moved across the mountains into British Columbia. Those of us who were born in Alberta can detect the difference. Something happens to all of us in western Canada. We are fiercely independent but we are also very, very patient. We know how difficult it is to eke out a living on the prairies. Quebec and Ontario think they know everything and that they can tell the westerners how to live. They cannot. They do not know how but Ontarians say: "We will tell you how".

Mr. Harris wrote an article in one of our local newspapers which I think covers it very well. With respect to the unity question he said: "But the sleeping giant in all this may well turn out to be Manning's west". Why it is Manning's west I do not know. I think it is just as much Schmidt's west as it is any other person's west. Nevertheless, that is how it was said.

He went on:

This great and insanely loyal part of Canada has waited for more than 100 years to take its proper place in the Confederation; it is still waiting.

The PC Party died on the prairies because it sold out the notion of a strong and equal Canada in the name of winning in Quebec, just as the Liberals have for generations.

If Ottawa continues to fail the west while it woos Quebec with special status, the country may still fall apart like a soggy jigsaw puzzle starting with the Rocky Mountains rather than the Laurentians.

That is the opinion of one columnist.

If members had been in my riding in the last four days and listened to the comments that were made, particularly when the Prime Minister presented the motion we voted on last night and the bill we are now facing closure on today, they would have heard people ask: "How much longer do we have to put up with this?" They do not want to put up with it at all. Do they want to be part of Canada? Absolutely. They want desperately to be part of Canada, but they want to be part of a united Canada, a part of Canada that says people are equal, the provinces are equal and that no one deserves any special status regardless of language or geography. That is what they want and it is what I want.

I do not think there is one person in the House who is any better than anyone else. I do not think anyone on this side of the House is any better than anyone on that side of the House and vice versa.

We are trying to build a united country. There are those of my colleagues who would say: "Well, those guys over there cannot possibly be as good as we are". In reality and in our hearts we really are trying to do the best we can for our constituents, but we certainly disagree on certain things. In particular we disagree with what happened yesterday.

Yesterday the government had a chance to recognize that special status does not mean unique powers, and what did it do? It refused to accept certain amendments which stated that if we were to recognize special status it should not be conferred or interpreted as conferring upon the Government of Quebec any new legislative or executive powers, priority rights, status or any other rights or privileges not conferred on the legislature or government of any other province.

That was a good step forward and it was rejected. It would have brought about unity. Instead the government did the opposite. It said: "You have special powers and you may indeed have unique powers that other provinces do not have". That was completely unacceptable to me and to my constituents. They have told me 100 times, if they have told me once, that it is not acceptable to them.

The government had another chance. It could have said that it was not to be interpreted as diminishing in any way the rights and freedoms of any citizen of Canada under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by virtue of province of residence. This second chance was turned down. It would have helped. It would have brought about unity but it was rejected.

The final chance was to deny or be interpreted as denying that Canada constitutes one nation. This too was rejected. I went home sad last night because an opportunity to bring about a direction that could have healed the nation was denied. It was a sad day.

Today we are not approached with recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. We are told that society is distinct and shall now have a veto. It is totally contrary to democracy that any one group would have the power of veto when the group cannot constitute a majority. It is wrong in principle.

We are in danger of committing one of the worst possible actions we have seen in a long time. This is where a positive comment can also be made. If the Prime Minister wants to bring about the unification of the country, he would come to the House and withdraw Bill C-110. If the Prime Minister would do that he would recover some of the losses he has experienced in the last little while. We could then respect him as a leader.

[Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to make comments about Bill C-109, a bill dealing with the bankruptcy and insolvency of certain businesses and individuals. One thing that appears in the bill is a demonstration of humanitarianism during bankruptcy.

This is a particularly meaningful amendment to the bankruptcy act. In 1992 there was an amendment to that act. That amendment took place 40 years after the initial bankruptcy act was enacted; 40 years of unamended legislation. In 1992 a three-year review clause was introduced which brings the act to our attention now, which is too short a period of time. Not enough experience was obtained as a result of the amendments made in 1992. Now the proposal is that the next amendment take place seven years hence. That makes really good sense.

What is the bankruptcy act all about? It is supposed to protect three categories. The first is consumers. We want to protect that group. We want also to protect the creditors who have loaned money to other people. We want to protect the economy. Bankruptcies are disruptive to individuals, to industry and to the economy in general.

We want to protect the consumer in the sense that he or she should not enter into debts which he or she cannot afford to repay or that somehow he or she has not planned to repay properly.

How big is this problem of bankruptcies in Canada? I have a statement of September 1995 which I will go through to give a perspective of how big this problem is. I start with Newfoundland. In September bankruptcies amounted to $32.1 million; in Nova

Scotia, $59.7 million; in Prince Edward Island, $3.9 million; in New Brunswick, $35.2 million; in Quebec, $1.52 billion; in Ontario, $1.932 billion; in Manitoba, $32.3 million; in Saskatchewan, $49.475 million; in Alberta, $294 million; in British Columbia, $275.1 million; in the Northwest Territories, $1.97 million; in Yukon $29,267.

Let us put that all together. Bankruptcies in Canada in September represented liabilities of $4,268,000,000. That is a significant sum of money. That is what we are talking about when we deal with bankruptcies. That is one month. It is not a small issue we are dealing with here.

There seems to be a psychosis developing. We have a government that has incurred debt upon debt. It calls it deficits from year to year. As that deficit accumulates from one year to the next, it becomes a debt on the present year. The deferral of these payments keeps adding up, until now it is $567 billion. That is the debt the Canadian government has incurred on behalf of the people of Canada.

We look at the government and say if it is all right for the government to keep on borrowing money, maybe we can do the same and so we have credit cards. I do not know how many of us here in the House have more than one credit card, but I dare presume there are a number of people who do. My colleague says he does not. He has one. It is probably so big that he can buy a car on the basis of his credit card. He is probably not the only who can buy a car on his credit card.

People have added debt upon debt and they follow the example of government. The other day the Conference Board of Canada made an observation that the individual Canadian has a debt load probably larger than it should be.

We have at least a threefold issue being dealt with here in bankruptcy: the individual consumer, the creditor who has lent this money or provided service or material, and the economy on a larger basis.

This bill is trying to reach an equilibrium that encourages rehabilitation, so that individuals or a company or corporation that finds itself in a situation in which they cannot repay their debt will be able to reorganize, restructure in such a way that they can rehabilitate themselves and again become a contributing element in our economy. We have to compare that rehabilitation over and against the obligation they have to pay off the debt they have incurred on behalf of someone else, on behalf of themselves, or on the basis of a director of a particular company.

If a business goes bankrupt, how does it affect the economy in which we live? The first thing that happens is taxes go down. We do not collect the amount of taxes we ought to.

My colleague from the Bloc indicated very clearly how disruptive it is to the employee of a company that goes bankrupt. The individual does not have a job any more. This has an effect on the family structure. It puts stress and strain on the relationship between husband and wife, between the parents and the children, between the children and their parents and it becomes increasingly complicated. It has an effect on the mortgage payments they have to make, the credit card bills they are responsible for, and a chain reaction develops.

Therefore, what seemed to be one case becomes a multiplication factor that finds its way in a variety of cases all the way through to the grocery store, the furniture store, the clothing store and so on down the line.

In Canada we need an economy that builds, that grows, that develops. This will not happen in a situation in which people are fearful that their business is going to go down. In one month we see liabilities of $4 billion being accumulated. That is very extensive. This is no small issue that has to be dealt with.

I will deal with some of the provisions of the bill. The bill deals in a variety of areas with very technical issues. Two-thirds of the bill, as I understand it, have to do with technical amendments that try to harmonize the provisions of this legislation with the legislation that exists with the provinces and in other areas. It comes to grips with issues such as international creditors and bankruptcies on an international basis, securities firms and how they operate, and it brings into focus more accurately the situation as it exists between those people who are earning their livelihood in part from farming and fishing and in other parts from other kinds of income they might have.

The old act stated that persons who declare bankruptcy, if their sole income is from farming and fishing, can declare bankruptcy in that particular area. In today's economy there are many people whose main income comes from fishing but it is not sufficient for them to earn a living and they have to supplement their income. In other cases people have a professional job and they have a hobby farm. Sometimes they will declare bankruptcy on the one side but not on the other. This bill brings those things into reality and harmonizes and balances them.

I would like to speak on the humanitarian aspect of the legislation. There is one aspect in particular about which I would like to speak, and that has to do with the situation where a divorce has taken place and an individual is obligated to make support payments to the spouse or children. Some of these individuals decide to declare bankruptcy rather than make the support payments. If

they declare bankruptcy they will no longer be liable for the support payments. This bill deals with that issue. It states that the obligation for support payments of either a spouse or children are part of the liabilities, as is the case with a mortgage or a loan. In fact the bill goes so far as to say that support payments are a priority on the list of creditors to be paid. That is a very humanitarian approach, which is necessary.

The bill adds another clause, which is equally significant to the one I have just referred to, and that has to do with difficulties that arise because of an assault. On that basis, the person declaring bankruptcy is liable and a creditor can make a claim.

The third area has to do with student loans. At the present time there are a number of students who are experiencing great difficulty in making their student loan payments. They graduate from university or from some other post-secondary institution where they have incurred an extensive debt and they find they cannot make the payments. They have no prospects for a job, at least not immediately. They look at the situation and say: "There is an easy way out of this. I will declare personal bankruptcy and then I will no longer be liable for the debt. It will all be over. After having lived the good life and behaving myself, my credit rating will be built up again, this will not be held against me, and my debt will be discharged".

That will no longer be possible under this bill. Students who incur a loan and who plan to escape from paying that loan by declaring bankruptcy will still be liable two years after the date on which their bankruptcy has been declared and accepted. Two years from that date they are still liable to make their student loan payment. At that point a new provision kicks in, which suggests that if the student is still having difficulty and cannot meet their financial obligations, other arrangements can be made. I believe that is a fair and equitable provision.

The other point I want to raise has to do with the situation where creditors and debtors cannot agree and they fight with one another as to what is a reasonable settlement in terms of the portion of the debt that can and should be paid by the person who has declared bankruptcy. The bill provides for a mediation process and mediators so that these people do not have to go to court and incur expensive legal costs. Rather, mediation can take place and the matter can be settled out of court as expeditiously as possible. I think that is an excellent provision in this particular piece of legislation.

The other elements in this legislation that we want to commend at this point have to do with the recognition that there are certain international insolvencies that take place. At the present time it is difficult to move across boundaries. You have to move assets, papers and things like this across borders and cases cannot be heard in another country. The legislation now provides for those hearings to take place within the country where the insolvency takes place or they can be heard where the individual resides.

Another area the bill deals with has to do with securities firms that go bankrupt. These are particularly difficult and highly complicated situations. These are securities firms ranging all the way from brokerage houses to houses that deal with only mutual funds and the complications that can arise in those situations. This is where I think the bill is somewhat deficient. There are clarifications that need to be made in this bill as to just exactly how those kinds of bankruptcies can be resolved and dealt with. The length of time it takes to deal with some of the details here is rather substantive. In the meantime, many things could have changed and probably have changed.

It becomes very necessary for us to recognize that while this bill has some very positive things in it, there are some deficiencies in it.

When we go into the technicalities of the bill, the bill has done some things I really found rather humorous when I looked at them. In the existing act it states that there is a two-day time frame in which to present a particular proposal. In the new act it states that it is going to change to three days. In another instance three days becomes five days. In another situation 14 days becomes 15 days. In another instance 15 days becomes 14 days. In another situation 90 days becomes three months. In other cases three months becomes 90 days.

When I asked the people who put the bill together why they did this, they said they wanted to be consistent so that it would be very specific. I asked a question about the old bill, which stated 90 days, and the new proposed bill before us states three months. Mr. Speaker, you and I both know that three months are not necessarily 90 days; it could be more or less than 90 days. In that instance, we need to recognize that the apparent consistency is lacking. Perhaps the people in the committee should look at this in some detail and say let us be consistent: if we are going to use days then let us use days and if we are going to use months then let us use months, but let us not confuse it by moving back and forth. It is not a reasonable thing to do. That is one area we need to look at.

The other thing the bill does, which I found very interesting, is there is no such thing as a man or a woman in this bill. There are only creditors and the people who are bankrupt. This is very interesting. I guess in order to be politically correct we no longer speak about men and women. We now speak about creditors and bankrupts. I do not know how significant this is, but there it is. A whole bunch of money and a lot of time has to be spent to change the legislation so that it becomes politically correct by taking gender references out of the particular legislation.

I think I am getting very close to the end of my time for today. I would like to touch on the area of directors' liability, but rather than starting halfway through here I will stop my intervention at this point and defer the directors' liability portion to the next opportunity I have to rise in the House.