Bev Desjarlais

[Main Estimates 2003-04, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the issue of the $9 million going back into VIA Rail. I will acknowledge that one of the few times I made the mistake of not going to a committee meeting, the committee made what I saw as a horrendous mistake in suggesting that VIA Rail have its $9 million cut, and for a variety of reasons.

My colleague from the Conservatives has asked why VIA Rail needs this money and said it will possibly be giving some competition to a private company. He asked why, if passenger numbers are up and revenues are up, it needs the dollars. He does not have the advantage of having been on the transportation committee for the number of years that I have been there, and he probably does not have the advantage of having VIA Rail service in his riding like I do in one of what I consider probably the few remote areas that VIA Rail still serves. It is an absolute need that VIA Rail passenger service is there because there is no other land access into these communities.

I live in the Churchill riding in Manitoba. We have rail service from Winnipeg all the way up to Churchill and along that way we do not have a tourism train on the line. There is great tourism all along the way and up to Churchill, but the bottom line is that along that route are communities that do not have any access other than rail. It brings us back to the early days of the nation, when the train was there to bring the nation together. Over time we have had roads put in place so people maybe do not see the same need for rail service. Quite frankly, I think that because we have coast to coast rail service, although we do not have it in as many areas as we used to, we have an advantage going into the future, the advantage of a nation that already has those tracks in place. When we are trying to put in place good environmental transportation processes we have the rail service and I think we have to maintain it.

VIA Rail still operates much along the lines of a crown corporation. In Bill C-26, an act that was to come before Parliament, which our transportation committee wanted to travel on but was not able to, there were going to be some changes to VIA. The bottom line is there is a real need for VIA Rail. There is a need throughout the country, but especially in communities in which it is the only access.

Like a lot of services, when there are not huge populations travelling on that service it is more costly to operate, but quite frankly I think the people in those remote communities deserve that right of access, the same way those who got the additional highway right of access throughout the country have it, paid for by taxpayers' dollars in a good many instances. I believe that Canadians are willing to support VIA Rail passenger service into those areas and also to continue supporting VIA Rail service throughout the country.

I just want to mention one of the other issues that I think was important in restoring this funding to VIA Rail. A number of cars were purchased from the U.K. to be used by VIA Rail. It seemed like a steal of a deal, but they did not meet the same safety standards and the same stress and strength requirements for the cars. They did not meet the needs of accessibility for the disabled. Some changes had to be made to the cars as a result of security and the placement of certain facilities within the cars. As a result, it has become an endeavour that is a bit more costly than was intended and that is part of the cost, I believe, for this need for the additional dollars for VIA Rail. Quite frankly I am willing to put additional dollars into VIA Rail if it means accessibility for the disabled, if it means safe cars on the tracks and if it means improved security. I think there is a need to do this.

Throughout the VIA Rail system there is a variety of different cars, some old, some new, and some quite old. Some of the quite old ones end up going into those remote communities. It would be great to have even newer cars and better service in those areas, but what has had to happen is a decrease in that service as dollars became tight and companies were not able to continue there. There have been cuts. I want to see those cuts end and I want more improved service.

My colleague from the Alliance mentioned the Rocky Mountaineer, a privatized company. I have had the pleasure of riding on the Rocky Mountaineer and it is a great service. It is a great service, but it is also not the most cost affordable service if one has to travel by train on a regular basis. If people are on holiday and it is a tourism type of thing where they are going to get on the train and enjoy the mountains, it is great, there is no question about it, but it certainly is not accessible to people on an everyday basis. It is not affordable. I appreciated the service and thought it was great, but for the most part it is a tourism service.

If Rocky Mountaineer or another private company were to expand and go into purely tourism areas along the passenger rail line, I would see it like taking the cream off the milk. They will take the cream and that is all they are going to look after. They will leave the rest. Then someone else has to figure out how we are going to support the rest of the system. In my riding, the rest of the system is the communities for which that is their only land access. It is their only affordable access to get out of those communities and to get supplies for our fishermen in the area: by getting access to the trains going along there. Sometimes there is cargo aligned with the passenger train just to have the accessibility for the fishermen to get their fish stocks out to market. That is the reality of what happens in other parts of Canada when we get outside the urban areas.

It is extremely important that as a nation we continue to support VIA Rail and we continue to be willing to put the additional dollars into areas of remote access service. Quite frankly, there are areas of Atlantic Canada that lost rail service.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that when we are dealing with the situation of infrastructure or even roads, it takes almost $1 million to do a kilometre of road in some cases, let alone putting in a bridge or a water system that would be $1 million to $2 million depending on the size.

There was a situation in one of my municipalities where what was needed was just support for the loan. The municipality was willing to pay it back. The municipality needed under $500,000 but that amount was not even built into it.

Certainly if the government can put in place loan structures for particular corporations or foreign investment, can it not do that for the municipalities? Can the municipalities not be given either a low or no interest loan so that they can fix the infrastructure within their own communities?

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, if we can get 20 years on the renovations of the parliamentary precinct, we can do a whole lot better for the nation.

The member's plan is probably around $50,000 per municipality. It just does not cut it. That is the issue here. The issue is the lack of commitment and stable funding.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit to my colleague that I missed the first comment about Gimli so I cannot respond to that.

Had the member been listening, what I said was they do support the infrastructure program. The failing has been that the government has not put in stable funding. There has not been stable funding in place so that municipalities can plan ahead and they know for sure the money will be there.

The municipalities do support the infrastructure program with portions from the federal and provincial governments. The municipalities want to pay their share. I indicated that none of them said that they wanted something for nothing. The municipalities are willing to pay, but they need some assistance because they do not have the tax base.

What is needed is a government that is willing to put the dollars back into the infrastructure program. The federal government has not done that. We also need stable funding. The municipalities do not need to know that they will receive this much this year and the next budget there will be a decision made. They need stable funding. How can any nation operate and plan infrastructure improvements over a few years? Stable, long term funding is needed.

I just thought about that wonderful plan members of Parliament were given for the renovations of the buildings in the parliamentary precinct. We were given this long drawn-out booklet. I think it was over the course of 20 years plus.

Is it not only reasonable that the provinces and municipalities should demand the same thing from the federal government? The provinces and municipalities need to know that they will have that long term stabilized funding. Let us get our heads out of the parliamentary precinct and look at the entire nation for a change.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it might appear so simple that it is hard to grasp, but let me say to my colleague from the Alliance that what I am willing to accept is that we are going to do things provincially. We have provincial taxes on gasoline, but quite frankly I know that in Manitoba almost 100% of the gasoline tax dollars go back into roads. I know that does not happen in the other provinces of the country and that is why we have a national government as well: to ensure that those dollars will go into infrastructure.

I am willing to accept that Canadians respect that provincial governments have rights and respect that we have national government to give representation as well. But what we need to see is this national government putting the dollars back into the provinces and the municipalities. Quite frankly, the approach that has been taken has been instrumental in building this regionalized approach and this regionalized rejection of national government. That is not acceptable. I think there is a need for both. I think Canadians respect that. What we have to do is give them reason to respect that the dollars will go back to where they should be going.

I can trust the governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but I know darn well that they are cleaning up a heck of a mess that was put there by another government whose idea was to privatize and push things into a different type of system. I am not willing to go with that.

I know that in Manitoba when the New Democratic Party went in provincially it made a commitment that 25% of its road budget would go to northern roads, recognizing that the northern part of the province was giving huge dollars in taxes through resource taxes as well as income taxes. The NDP recognized that. That does not happen with other governments. Not everyone looks at the picture as a whole. Some parties and some governments look at a specific region and say the heck with the rest of the country. We do not belive in that. We believe in working together as a nation and supporting each other.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to add to the excellent comments of my colleague from Windsor West. He does bring to us a perspective from the urban areas of the country.

This motion has been brought forth by the Alliance. I know the comment has been made that we welcome the Alliance into the infrastructure debate, into ensuring that there is more funding in infrastructure. Where we disagree with the Alliance is on its approach to doing it. We have seen what has happened with a number of suggestions from the Alliance about cutting taxes. Over the years what we have seen is that Alliance wants the cut in taxes but it also wants the cut in service. It wants to see a privatization model put in place for everything, so that if a buck cannot be made off something it is not worth doing. That is the impression it has given over the last number of years. We heard it in the health care debate and I get the same impression here.

In my own mind and from what I hear from people in my riding and throughout the country, I think Canadians want a vision for Canada. They do not want a vision for Toronto. They do not want a vision for Ottawa. They do not want a vision for a small community in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, or a vision just for Campbell River, B.C., or for Cornerbrook, Newfoundland. They want a vision for Canada. They want a country that is unified, with support for each other and with programs where all Canadians benefit from us working together as a nation.

Quite frankly, to suggest that a small municipality, by being able to tax what few citizens it has, is going to be able to support the infrastructure it might need just is not going to work. It is not going to work, to say nothing of the fact that we all benefit from infrastructure as we travel and work throughout the country.

This motion is not going to improve the situation in Canada. There is no question, absolutely no question, that this Liberal government needs to be taken to task for the fact that it has had so many cuts and so little input of tax dollars given back to the provinces and municipalities, such that we are in a serious situation as far as infrastructure in the country is concerned. There is no question that this is an issue, but that is what we should be dealing with.

When we reach the point where the infrastructure is to the level it should be, maybe we should look at cutting taxes altogether at that point, but right now I believe Canadians want to see those tax dollars going back into infrastructure. We will get no disagreement there. Of the gas taxes that the federal government is collecting, very little is going back to the provinces and municipalities, very little, and that is unconscionable.

The former finance minister now presents himself as the saviour of the nation. It is kind of like saving us from him, because quite frankly he put in place the situation we have. He set it in motion, to literally strip the country in a slash and burn kind of approach: “Let us destroy it and then I will go out there and save the nation”. The bottom line is that he was the architect of what we see. Quite frankly, I do not put great faith in that former finance minister, should he become leader of the governing party, to do anything different. He increased the gas taxes. Did we see any additional dollars go back into infrastructure?

And let us not look at just the last year or so, because now I think the government sees that an election is coming up and it has to put a little more money back in. Let us look at what was there before and consider that period of time when there should have been increases to address the problem. We have not even caught up. What we need to see as a nation, and what I believe the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has said is needed, is very assured, stable funding within the infrastructure program, working with the provinces and municipalities to ensure that the infrastructure is being dealt with on a regular basis. I believe the figure suggested at this point in time is an amount of about $2.5 billion over the course of 10 years so that we can see absolutely major infrastructure improvements throughout the nation.

What I have heard from communities, from people within the provinces, is that the infrastructure programs, when in place, have worked. There seems to be a working relationship between the municipalities and the provinces and the federal government to improve the infrastructure, but the funding has to be there. As well, there have to be some resources for the municipalities that do not have their share up front. They do not mind paying, but they do not have their share up front. There needs to be some kind of system or loan process in place with low to no interest so the municipalities can cover it. They do not want something for nothing. I have not heard anyone say that they want it for nothing, that they do not want to pay. I have never heard that from the municipalities I have met with.

However, they do want an opportunity to access some dollars at low to no interest because they do not have huge tax bases. I am talking about a number of smaller municipalities and towns throughout the country. They want that opportunity so they can improve their infrastructure. They do not want to be in a situation where their water and sewage systems are creating health problems. We saw the situation in Walkerton where there were problems with the water systems and the water supply. Those types of situations are happening throughout the country, although maybe not to that degree. They are happening in the first nations communities, which also need to be able to access infrastructure dollars so they can improve infrastructure in first nations communities as well.

I know the Alliance members would want to give the impression that their motion is trying to improve things for people throughout the country, but when I looked at it this morning--and I am sure we all get together as caucuses, discuss the motions and whether we can support them or not--I thought that the first sentence was not so bad, but then one realizes that it is going to reduce it and leave it up to the provinces to put in place a tax system. Excuse me, but as someone from Saskatchewan and Manitoba, I have seen the last couple of governments really make some strides to improve their provinces after they had Tory governments in place that literally stripped the provinces of everything, much like the finance minister did previously here in Ottawa.

We have governments that now are trying to improve that situation and are putting their tax dollars back, but I can tell members that is not what I am hearing from people in B.C. right now and that is not what we hear from people in Ontario. There are serious issues around the concern that the dollars will not go to where they should be going.

Recently I read about the concerns of people in B.C. who are being pressured into privatizing their roads. It is a major infrastructure development where B.C. want to have a toll road so that, much like a situation in New Brunswick, it can give some company so much money to continually maintain and fix the roads. They will make literally millions over the course of time just because there is a need to have some dollars put in there right now to fix the road. The suggestion was that as individuals people do not mind paying a bit of a toll to pave the road right then and there. That is what someone said, but under no circumstances should someone be profiting from infrastructure that should be there for the entire population to use.

That goes back to my comment that provinces and municipalities need to be able to access some dollars at low to no interest and then pay for those things. That is where the federal government comes in: to give back to the provinces and the municipalities the tax dollars they are paying in. Quite frankly, throughout the nation the one that has not held up its end of the bargain for the most part has been the Liberal government. For a decade now, it has not put the dollars back into infrastructure that it knows needs to be there, yet we have seen continuous wastage of taxpayers' dollars. Now we have people starting to feel that maybe they just should not pay taxes if the government is not doing anything with them anyway, or if it is not doing what it said it was going to do.

That plays into the hands of the Alliance members. Quite frankly, in a good many instances I get the impression that they do not think any services should be there as public services, that if some private company or an individual cannot make a buck from it, it should not be there for the service of the nation. New Democrats do not feel that way and quite frankly I am comfortable and confident that most Canadians do not feel that way. They are not going to accept that kind of an attitude throughout the nation.

I am from western Canada. I am from Manitoba but I grew up in Saskatchewan and there we know that the smaller provinces have to work together. We know that we put back into the tax base of the nation, but we also know that we need the support of the nation. Maybe we see it a little differently from those who come from major centres and figure they have all these tax dollars around them. They forget that they are getting the resource tax dollars from the smaller areas of the country, from those smaller communities.

I am out of time and there is so much more to say. I hope I have another opportunity.

[Justice, June 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to call on the Liberal government to finally introduce corporate criminal liability legislation. Eight months ago, following a unanimous justice committee recommendation, the Minister of Justice assured the House that legislation would be tabled this spring.

May 9 was the eleventh anniversary of the killing of 26 miners at Westray. The Liberal government has for more than a decade failed to ensure justice for the miners and their families.

Canadian workers are still being killed by unsafe conditions created by employers who value cutting corners and increasing their profits over the lives of their workers. A slap on the wrist for a corporation that allows the killing of a worker is not justice.

When will the Liberal government honour its commitment to the families of the Westray victims and to the steelworkers and all the others who have fought for justice to be done?

Where is the legislation that the government assured Parliament would be tabled this spring? How many more workers must be killed before the Liberal government stops protecting corporate killers and tables the legislation it promised?

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act.

There is no question we have heard a variety of perspectives from different parties and from within the parties as to how we need to approach the bill. My Liberal colleague who just spoke has indicated he does not feel a few thousand dollars will buy influence with members of Parliament or the governing party. The perception out there among Canadians from coast to coast to coast, because it is not a regionalized issue by any means, is that a lot of money does buy influence. Whether it is a huge amount of dollars given by corporations or by unions, the perception is that democracy will be influenced. That is a major issue. To suggest in some way that it is not a real problem, is turning a blind eye to what we are hearing from Canadians.

I do not think there is any question that we need to see some changes through the process of elections in Canada, and in a number of other areas within Parliament. I do not believe for one second that this is the only thing we have to do to ensure a real democratic process and to ensure there is a process that is not influenced by certain sources.

There is a lot more to be done and part of that will come from maybe an independent ethics commissioner responding to particular things. The key factor that has Canadians so enraged in the last while has been the number of patronage types of expenditures that have appeared within the public works department and within the government.

The former minister who is no longer with us, Minister Gagliano, received an appointment after all those huge expenditures, with indications of patronage. He resigned and received an ambassadorship in Denmark. However the Vatican has indicated it is not willing to accept him as an ambassador there. From the perspective of Canadians, that is a plus, because there were a lot of upset people, Canadians and parliamentarians, over the blatant type of patronage contracts within the government.

There is an issue, even though my Liberal colleague said there is not. Whether it is a perception or reality, that may have to be proven. From my perspective, it is a reality. There is no doubt in my mind, judging from some of the things that have come up, there is an issue.

Quite frankly within the New Democratic Party we have not accepted large donations from corporations. We have accepted them from unions, but from a broad spectrum, and unions give to other parties as well. We will support the legislation that will ensure there are limitations put in place.

As has been indicated so far in the discussion, we think the legislation is unfair in that corporations at every level can make donations but unions cannot. I want to speak to this directly.

United Food and Commercial Workers is a union to which I still belong. I pay my union dues every year. I have benefited from a unionized workforce, a contract that has given me an opportunity to be away from my employment. Should I not have the opportunity to be elected at some point, I will be able to go back to that employer, so I have benefited from that. However I have paid my union dues.

The United Food and Commercial Workers has a number of locals throughout Canada. I specifically belong to local 832 within the province of Manitoba. There are numerous locals throughout the country with which I never have contact at any given point. To suggest that UFCW, as a nation, can only make one donation is unacceptable. I have been a contributing member of my union.

We have a signing agreement to allow money to be taken from our union dues for political donations. I believe there is a democratic process in place for any members who do not want that to happen, if they really want to pursue it. I was given an opportunity as to whether I did.

However I want to emphasize what is unfair within this legislation. The union local that I belong to by rights could not make a donation to myself if the Canadian UFCW, as a whole, made one donation of so much money. That is unfair. If we are working at fixing the system, then we need to fix it to be fair, not continue with it as a one-sided issue.

If we look at the amount of donations that corporations make as a whole compared to what unions make as a whole, there is an imbalance. There is no question that a number of times corporations have made rather large donations and appear to have benefited from that in the way of government contracts. I would challenge anyone to show me how a union contribution has benefited an individual corporation or individual union and not the Canadian public as a whole.

Any legislation, which I have seen in the House or elsewhere, that unions have supported have not just been legislation that says only unions will benefit, such as health and safety legislation. It has been legislation that would benefit every Canadian. It was not legislation that said this union would get this much money for this contract. That is not how it works, and that is because union members as a whole want to see improvements throughout the nation. That is generally how things have worked.

We have seen a lot of major social changes as a result of the efforts of unions throughout the country. There was a statement made from someone within the New Democratic Party, as a CCF member. The individual said that what we desired for ourselves, we wished for all. That is our perspective as well. That is what we want to see. We are not just out for ourselves.

Within this election reform bill, if it is allowed to go as is without some changes to whether a small union local can give some dollars to someone in its area, that is unacceptable. We have 301 ridings across the country right now. I would be willing to guess that probably every riding has some union in place. To suggest that of those 301 ridings a union can only make one donation of a certain amount or that it spreads it so thin with a $2 or $5 donation to each and every candidate, if so desired, is unacceptable.

An other statement that came up from my Liberal colleague was what was the rush to get this through. Like so many pieces of legislation that come before the House, if we are ever going to see anything done, we have to get on with doing it. I know if there is a will to see things change and improve, it can happen. If there is a will to really not do anything, it can be dragged out.

There has been one issue that has been on the forefront for me and for members within my party, and that is bringing in legislation on corporate liability and corporate accountability. It was lost in the last Parliament because an election was called. This time around it came up again. We were to see legislation before us, but that has not happened. We risk possibly losing that again if we do not get on with it.

What is the rush? The rush is if we do not just darn well go ahead and make these changes, they will never happen. If it has to be done in the name of the Prime Minister wanting a legacy, then so be it, let us make some changes. I would like to have seen a legacy that might have turned out a whole lot fairer than what this bill may imply but it is a step in the right direction.

I hope Parliament will support this legislation. Obviously we have some problems with bits of it and we will deal with them, but there is no question that it is a move in the right direction. I think it is something Canadians want to see. My time is up, but I will come back on the next round.

[Bankruptcy Legislation, June 5th, 2003]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend bankruptcy legislation to ensure that wages and pensions owed to employees are the first debts repaid when a bankruptcy occurs.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to lead off the debate today on my latest private member's Motion No. 400.

I have had the privilege on a number of occasions to have my private member's motions or bills drawn and, quite frankly, I have had others made votable previously, very important issues related to what is often referred to as corporate manslaughter or the Westray legislation.

In the new process of private members' bills I had the opportunity for this motion to be drawn and I was extremely pleased, especially at this point in time when we do have the issue of employees' pensions and the risk of those pension funds not being there. It is very timely here in Canada, if not from a day to day basis with each member of Parliament, as we travel our airlines.

The issue we are debating today is an extremely important one for me as the member of Parliament for the riding of Churchill. What I am proposing with the motion is that the government amend the current bankruptcy legislation. The amendment I propose would ensure that wages and pensions owed to employees would be the first debts paid when a bankruptcy occurs.

Far too often in Canada we see employees being left at the bottom of the list when a bankruptcy happens. Far too often we see Canadians who have worked hard their entire lives having their pensions endangered by bankruptcy.

One can imagine working for a company for 30 years or more, retiring and looking forward to enjoying a pension for which one has worked hard, and then hearing that a former employer is going bankrupt and one's pension is in danger.

Certainly each of us as members of Parliament come here, serve a period of time, which a lot of Canadians feel is a very short period of time, before we are able to gain a pension from our employment. However, let us imagine sitting in this House for 20 years or 25 years. I have some colleagues who have been here that length of time. I believe the House leader from the governing party has been here a fair length of time.

I may have my issues with the Prime Minister but I acknowledge his dedication for 40 years to public service. One can imagine what it would be like if the Prime Minister could not receive his pension when it was all done. He has a doozy of a pension and he has had a good wage over the years. However let us imagine having a wage of maybe $40,000 or $45,000 a year and setting money aside for retirement, and then it is not there. We would not have had the benefit of a $150,000 or a $200,000 salary year after year to tuck money away.

We would have had enough to make a go of it, to put food on the table for our family, to pay for a home, the children's post-secondary education, hydro, gasoline or whatever and then something happens, our pensions are ripped away from us and we are left with nothing except possibly some OAS and maybe welfare. I can only imagine the thoughts and concerns that might come to the mind of an individual facing that crisis.

It is for that reason that this motion is so important. The motion is designed to highlight the inequities in our current bankruptcy legislation. The current process puts the needs of banks and creditors ahead of unpaid employee wages and pensions.

I would like to explain first the bankruptcy process with respect to employee wages, after which I will discuss the impact of bankruptcy on pensions.

When a company files for bankruptcy in Canada, the government is the first to be paid. These are called source deductions and they include the Canada pension plan, income tax and employment insurance payments. A company takes these items as deductions from the wages of employees and holds them in trust for the government to be remitted at a later date.

My understanding of it is that it is not to be that much of a later date. These payments are usually supposed to made on a monthly basis or every couple of months but we know there are companies that for some reason or other sometimes do not get those source deductions paid.

If there is a bankruptcy the Government of Canada makes sure it takes the money it is owed first. I am a little begrudging of this, especially when I see EI premiums being paid and there is a huge surplus. The government makes sure it gets its payments first and puts the workers at the bottom.

The next group to get paid are the secured creditors. These are institutions, such as banks, whose loans are secured by items such as company assets. These secured creditors have an arrangement similar to that of a home mortgage. If the company cannot make a payment on its loan the secured creditor arrives to repossess a company asset.

The third group in the list of claimants in a bankruptcy case are the preferred creditors. Within the grouping of preferred creditors the claimant list is prioritized: legal cost and the levy for the superintendent of bankruptcy comes before employees. In this prioritized list employees are listed fourth in order of importance.

Why are employees listed below all the others? These employees have worked hard for their companies. In many cases they have built the company, struggled through the hard times, given their sweat and, in some cases, given their blood and their lives, and they are put at the bottom of the heap. When a company goes bankrupt they are given the bottom position.

The issue of unpaid employee wages during a bankruptcy is not new. The government has known about this issue for many years. In a report prepared for Industry Canada in 1998, the problem of unpaid employee wages during a bankruptcy was addressed. The report acknowledged that employees were poor risk bearers, simply put, employees could not afford to lose out on their wages. They do not have access to repossessing the company's assets.

Unlike other creditors, such as banks, who are able to bear the impact of the loss of revenue, employees have no mechanism for disbursing the income of lost wages. As I said, many are from wages that are not $150,000 to $200,000 a year jobs where one might be able to stash some money away. They are from jobs where one might have made $20,000, $25,000 or $45,000. Even after all other creditors in front of an employee are paid, if anything remains the employee, under the current legislation, is entitled to a maximum of $2,000 in compensation.

What if employees are owed more? In this example I am only referring to wages, not to other items which might be of financial interest to the employees, such as vacation pay or severance pay. I am referring only to wages. Two thousand dollars seems a small amount to be paid for losing one's job plus the work that one has already provided to the company and not getting paid for it.

This is an issue of fairness and equality. Ensuring the unpaid wages and pensions are given first priority in a bankruptcy situation is only reasonable and it is time we made these changes. Workers in this country must come first.

The 1998 report shows that the Liberal government has had this information, has known about this problem and has decided to do nothing about it. Even in light of recent high profile bankruptcies, such as Enron and WorldCom, the government and the candidate for the leader of the Liberal Party, the former finance minister, continue to ignore an important issue.

We can pick from many examples over the years that illustrate the need for change in the bankruptcy legislation. With regard to pensions, Enron and WorldCom are just a few recent examples of where we have seen a significant impact of a bankruptcy on current and former employees.

In the case of Enron, while many top executives and their friends made millions of dollars selling Enron stock before the collapse, ordinary employees who on the average had 62% of their retirement assets invested in the company, lost a total of $1.2 billion U.S. from their pension fund. Many lost almost all their retirement savings.

In the case of WorldCom employees, they saw stark reductions in their retirement savings. Some 40% of the employees of the firm had invested in the pension plan.

Perhaps the example of Air Canada might better illustrate the importance of my motion. Air Canada's problems have provided a wake-up call on pension funds. Air Canada has not yet gone bankrupt. It has simply filed for bankruptcy protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The act provides protection for Air Canada from the company's creditors while it attempts to restructure. In the case of Air Canada's pension, filing under the CCAA has revealed that its pension plan has a $1.3 billion deficit. Air Canada has 12 plans that it administers with some 50,000 employees relying on these plans for their retirement savings.

If Air Canada were to go bankrupt, why then in all fairness would the employees' pensions not be the first on the list to be paid ahead of the banks and creditors? These employees have earned the right, through their hard work, to see that their investment is insured. Simply, these employees have earned the right to see that their trust in the company's ability to manage their pension fund be repaid.

Even more telling in this case is the fact that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions has applied to amend specific elements of the court order in respect of Air Canada and its subsidiaries.

The OSFI is seeking to put Air Canada pensioners first. The OSFI wants to amend the court order so that amounts due or accrued to the pension fund are not subject to the CCAA restructuring proceedings. These amounts will move ahead in the list of prioritized creditors. That is the right way to do things.

I will not comment today on how the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions allowed the Air Canada pension fund to accumulate such a large deficit by granting company contributory holidays at a time of industry-wide uncertainty. I agree with the OSFI that in the talks regarding moneys due from a company during bankruptcy or simply during restructuring that the employees' interests, whether they are pension plans, unpaid wages, holidays or whatever should be moved to the top of any asset distribution scheme.

Bankruptcies are difficult for all stakeholders but most difficult for employees. It is a time when employees, both current and former, worry about everything from mortgage payments to job security. They should not have to worry about the possibility of unpaid wages for their pension benefits.

The motion calls on the government to ensure that funds owed to employees are the first debts paid when a bankruptcy occurs. Employees are an integral part of any company and as such deserve the right to be the first to receive financial compensation.

Former employees who are receiving pension benefits have planned their retirement years around their investment in a company pension program. Do we not have an obligation to see that pension plans and employee wages are put first ahead of all other creditors?

We have an obligation to see that the interests of employees are fulfilled. Employees are often those who can least afford to incur such a risk as lost wages or diminished pensions. Employees are often the most vulnerable creditors and are unlikely to bargain for compensation due to the risk of non-payment.

Over the past three decades there have been many proposals to amend Canada's bankruptcy law in order to put employees first. Even with all the discussion that has taken place during that time little change has happened. Pension and unpaid wages continue to be placed behind the list of creditors. I think this says that the government does not value workers and it is time to change that.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. It is right for workers. It is right for Canadians and it is right for our country as a whole.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, once again to emphasize, Manitobans showed that very strongly on Tuesday. They support a government that ensures services are provided. I think Canadians overall do not mind paying their fair share. If the federal government was providing services for Canadians like it did once upon a time, a long time ago, we would not have people upset about paying some taxes. It is when the services are not provided.

The government failed for years to put enough dollars into health care, and it continues to fail to put enough dollars into infrastructure. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has stated that it wants to see more dollars go into that. I know it is a leadership thing, and we have heard to promises that they will get all this infrastructure money. They have a guarantee from one of the leadership candidates, and not so much of a guarantee from another one.

With all the promises being made however, the person making the really huge promises is the former finance minister. He was the one who said that they would not get any of the money, that he wanted it. He wanted to have a surplus in the EI fund. He wanted to use the CPP pension dollars. He wanted to pay down the debt. He did not want to give anything back to Canadians. As a result we have a crisis in infrastructure throughout the nation, certainly in first nation communities. Whoever become the prime minister, It will take an awful lot to fix the mess.