Jerry Pickard

[Trade Compensation Act, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the ombudsman provides an important service to the Canadian Forces by investigating complaints and serving as a neutral third party on matters related to the department, the Canadian Forces and the welfare of all members and employees.

In May of this year the minister proposed the appointment of Mr. Yves Côté to replace the outgoing ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. The proposal was referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs which rejected the minister's candidate. This decision of the committee was regrettable.

The government respects the work of the committee and carefully considered the decision. However it still found that Mr. Côté was the most qualified candidate of a dozen or so candidates who applied for the position, and he was appointed ombudsman in July.

I can assure the House that the process to select a new ombudsman for the Canadian Forces was open, competitive and fair. This selection was not a military decision, but a decision of government. At no time did any Canadian Forces members take part in the screening of applicants or in any interviews. In fact, the Minister of National Defence personally interviewed all top candidates for this position.

The minister is absolutely committed to having a strong and credible ombudsman for the men and women of the Canadian Forces. The government stands behind its decision to support Mr. Côté as ombudsman. He is very well qualified and has demonstrated a great deal of integrity in his more than 25 years as a public servant.

Furthermore, we need only look at his record to date as the ombudsman of the Canadian Forces to see Mr. Côté is the right person for the job. In less than three months Mr. Côté has shown that he is dedicated to helping the men and women of the Canadian armed forces.

We understand that Mr. Côté has been active in continuing the work of his predecessor on important issues such as recruitment and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Mr. Côté also is making his own mark in the role of ombudsman. He is visiting Canadian Forces bases across the country meeting with members and listening to their concerns. We believe he also is looking into the possibility of making the services of the ombudsman more accessible to Canadian Forces members by opening more offices at more bases.

Let me now address another issue which the hon. member raised in her question in June. She mentioned that Mr. Côté acted as legal counsel for the Department of National Defence. It is true that Mr. Côté has worked with the department in the past. In fact, Mr. Côté was involved in the creation of the Office of the ombudsman. At the request of the minister of national defence of the time, Mr. Côté worked there to make this happen.

As a lawyer, he was operating under the instructions of the client at the time, and I am pleased to say that he helped to develop this very effective office and he certainly has been there for our soldiers. He has been there to ensure that they are represented well. Quite frankly, as the person who started it moving forward, he makes a great candidate and will do a fantastic job as the ombudsman.

[Telecommunications Act, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to begin the process of the report stage debate on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

The bill would augment the powers of the CRTC to establish a more effective regime to protect the consumers against unsolicited telemarketing while protecting their privacy.

The bill provides the legislative framework for the creation of a national do not call list.

The bill enables the CRTC to do three things: first, impose fines for non-compliance; second, establish a third party administrator to operate a database; and third, give the ability to set fees to recover costs associated with maintaining the list.

Bill C-37 has been reviewed in detail by the Standing Committee of Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology. In its report to Parliament, the committee recommended amendments to the bill, including an exemption from the national do not call list for survey and polling firms for the sole purpose of collecting information from the general public

The committee's recommendations also required a caller to identify the purpose of the call and the person and organization on whose behalf the telecommunications are being made.

The committee recognized the importance of the survey and polling firms in collecting opinions of all Canadians to support research and to allow companies and organizations to make sound decisions.

However there are unintended consequences of these amendments for survey and polling firms that could possibly create unrepresentative samples of the Canadian public created by unreliable survey results. If survey and polling firms do not have the ability to contact all Canadians, this could create a misleading survey. The survey results would be, at best, a subset of Canadians, the opinions of individuals who are not on the do not call list, instead of capturing the views that represent all Canadians.

In addition, if a survey and polling firm has to identify on whose behalf the call is being made, the possibility of biasing the survey exists.

I am proposing the following amendment that further clarifies an amendment adopted by the committee by adding a new subsection 41.7(5) that would read:

notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, subsections 3 and 4 do not apply in respect of a person making a telecommunication referred to in paragraph 41.7 subsection 1(f).

As originally intended by the committee, survey and polling firms would be exempt from the do not call list and would continue to be allowed to collect information from all Canadians.

Also, there are a few housekeeping matters that need to be addressed. Section 41.1 of the bill, as introduced at first reading, stated “sections 41.2 to 41.5 create a legislative framework for a national do not call list”.

In its report to Parliament, the committee recommended amendments to the bill by adding new sections, sections 41.6 and 41.7. During the reprinting of the bill, section 41.1 was not updated to reflect the new sections added at committee.

Lastly, we are proposing administrative amendments to improve the French terminology for the national do not call list. I am proposing to amend section 41.1 to accomplish that. This amendment simply acknowledges the new sections of the bill adopted by the committee.

I urge the hon. members to support the amendments to the bill so that we move forward to give individual Canadians an easy way to curtail intrusive telemarketing while protecting their privacy.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, October 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his presentation. When we talk about pension funds and covering them in the manner that he has suggested, it raises a question in my mind and in the minds of many people. In trying to do something that is very helpful for workers, it could be very negative to workers. Financial institutions must lend money to businesses to keep businesses running. They must allow businesses to loan and borrow money to start new ventures and move forward.

If we stop and think about the methods of pension plans, if there is a shortfall in investment, for instance the stock market goes down and the pension funds were invested in the stock market, or the interest rates are not as high as required to pay the pensions, then people who lend money to small businesses might stop and think about whether they should continue to lend it or whether they should lend it at a much higher rate, which would curtail business dramatically in our country.

The Liberal government has looked at that pension plan and has said that it will ensure that any dollars collected by the employer, any inputs the employers have made, have to be paid before the settlement of bankruptcy, and they would receive a priority in that case. All funds that went to the pension plan must be brought up to date before that final settlement is made. That protects the workers in the most sincere way possible while not preventing loans to businesses and others.

We all have to be afraid. If small business does not have the money in investments, it will be unable to proceed. Everyone knows the biggest problem for small business is dollar flow or cash available for ventures moving forward.

Maybe in trying to help one way, we may hurt another way unintentionally. I would just leave that with the member to think about.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, October 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the presentation that I have just heard. It was dead on, in my opinion. Oftentimes both sides of the House do not agree.

The point the government has been trying to make is there needs to be balance. There needs to be balance between the workers, balance between the lenders and borrowers, balance that keeps jobs, balance that keeps our business flow in an appropriate system so that money will be lent, so that workers will be protected and so that the system works.

My colleague across the way presented his case so well. Does he see any other way to bring further balance to the system? Our goal was to bring balance, which I believe is there. There may be some added things my colleague could bring forward because he was so good on what he presented.

[Technology Partnerships Canada, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate that the party opposite is trying to criticize the government. The fact is that this government put audits in place. It worked with the Auditor General. It worked with public sector audits to ensure any public misuse of money was recovered and identified. We will ensure there is zero tolerance with it. It is very important for all Canadians to understand the strong responsibility this government shows for public funds.

[Technology Partnerships Canada, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has acted totally responsibly. He will not start naming companies here in the House of Commons. However, he has said there will be zero tolerance in any breakage of any rules that are there. Every penny will be recouped by the government if any violations occurred.

[Textile and Clothing Industries, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the motion tabled in the House by the hon. member from across the way includes two issues related specifically to tariff policy. These are: maintaining tariffs on imported clothing and types of textiles produced in Canada; and, allowing clothing made with Canadian textiles but manufactured abroad to be imported without customs duties. I would like to address these two issues and clarify the misunderstandings that may exist regarding the government's position on these policies.

Let me begin with the first issue of maintaining the tariffs on textiles and apparel produced in Canada.

The Canadian apparel and textile industries remain important providers of earned incomes and economic activity in this country. Concentrated in key urban areas, such as Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, the apparel industry serves as an important employer of new Canadians. The textile industry is a source of skilled employment in communities throughout Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes.

The Canadian apparel and textile industries have faced and continue to face a challenging global trade environment, one that has encouraged their transformation from national to globally integrated companies and markets. Challenged by increasing competition from abroad, the Canadian apparel and textile industries have had to transform themselves over the past decade through focusing on higher value-added activity, on innovative and attractive new products, and through identifying the winning niche markets for their products.

However further change continues to be the order of the day. Apparel and textile markets continue to globalize. Domestic producers continue to face long competition from low wage countries. The Canadian dollar has demonstrated renewed strength in the last two years, and, most recently, textile and apparel quotas were limited in their entirety at the end of 2004, consistent with Canada's World Trade Organization commitments.

Although many of these changes are not unique to the apparel and textile industries or even to the Canadian economy, they are nevertheless having an impact upon the environment in which these industries have and continue to operate.

It is in the face of such challenges that the government has demonstrated its continued commitment to the long term viability of both the apparel and textile industries in Canada by working with them to confront these very great challenges.

It should be noted that the tariffs on imports of textiles and apparel are among the highest tariffs in Canada. While the Canadian average tariff is 4%, tariffs on textiles range from 8% to 14%, while the tariff on apparel is in the range of 17% to 18%. These tariffs serve to provide significant protection for the Canadian textile and apparel sectors.

Canada, along with over 144 other WTO members, is currently participating in the Doha round of multilateral trade negotiations and discussions are currently focusing on methods for achieving trade liberalization. The government is keenly aware of Canadian import sensitivities regarding the textile and apparel industries. Any decision to reduce tariffs would be predicated on an overall result that is beneficial for the Canadian economy.

That said, in order to enhance the competitiveness of the Canadian textile and apparel industries, the government announced in December 2004 that it would implement tariff relief on fibres, yarns and apparel fabrics not made in Canada. As a first step in the implementation of this initiative, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, or CITT, was directed to inquire into and report on the availability of these products from domestic production.

In the course of its inquiry, the tribunal reviewed 591 textile tariff items. Information on textile production was collected by means of questionnaires completed by domestic textile producers and submissions from textile and apparel producers, as well as the Canadian Apparel Federation, the CAF, and the Canadian Textiles Institute, the CIT.

On the basis of the information, the tribunal issued a report on June 30 of this year and recommended the elimination of tariffs on 341 of the tariff items examined. The proposed tariff relief amounts to several million dollars in duty forgone. It is the government's intention to respond to this report as expeditiously as possible. As announced last December, any new tariff relief measures will be made effective January 1 of this year and importers will be able to request a refund of the duties paid since that date.

I would be remiss not to mention the other two elements of the package of competitiveness initiatives announced by the government last December, namely: the provision of $50 million in additional funding to the textile production efficiency component, CANtex, over the next five years to encourage Canadian textile companies to shift to higher value-added products, focus on niche markets and improve productivity; and, the extension of the duty remission orders benefiting textile and apparel manufacturers for five years, gradually phasing out benefits over the final three years.

CANtex encourages companies to improve productivity through projects such as lean manufacturing and the implementation of new information technology and logistics systems. Starting in fiscal year 2005-06, the additional funding is intended to encourage excellence and competitiveness in the manufacture of technical, specialty and industrial textiles, including assisting manufacturers producing textiles for the traditional apparel sector to reorient production to other textile product markets. CANtex will allow companies to apply for up to $3 million in repayable contributions for projects, including equipment and machinery acquisition.

Duty remission programs for textiles and apparel have been a feature of the Canadian tariff policy in these sectors for a number of years. Extending the six remission orders in question will help the textile and apparel industries in transforming their operations to adjust to the new competitive pressures. Over the next few years the government will review the current administration of the duty remission orders program and revise it as necessary to address the problems.

The measures announced last December were in addition to over $70 million in federal support for the textile and apparel industries over the previous two years, and more than tripled the annual level of assistance to these industries.

I am confident that these measures will help Canadian textile and apparel producers to lower costs and to invest in new initiatives and improve productivity as they continue to adapt to the challenges of a global trade environment.

I would like now to turn to the second tariff policy issue in the motion in question concerning the duty-free entry into Canada of apparel made from Canadian textiles. This policy is commonly referred to as outward processing and it is a policy that many of our trading partners, including the United States and the EU, have adopted to assist their textile industries.

Over the past decade, the Canadian government has on several occasions explored the possibility of introducing an outward processing program for textiles with Canadian textile and apparel producers. However these efforts have not come to fruition due to the fact that the two industries have not been able to agree on the details of the program.

The House may recall that in 2002 the government established a joint government-industry working group on textiles and apparels. The industries were represented by the Canadian Apparel Federation and the Canadian Textiles Institute, the two primary trade organizations associated with these industries, as well as by the Union of Needle Trades, Industrial and Textile Employees, representing employees. Government officials from Industry Canada, the Department of Finance, International Trade Canada, Statistics Canada, the then Human Resources Development Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency participated in these meetings.

This joint government-industry working group met on a number of occasions in 2003, during which representatives from the apparel and textile industries submitted recommendations for government action to address the issues related to the long term competitiveness of apparel and textile industries.

One of these recommendations involved implementation of an outward processing program, which the government responded to in February 2004. In this regard, I am pleased to inform the House that the Canadian textile industry has submitted the basis of a proposal for an outward processing program to the Department of Finance. The Canadian Textiles Institute is currently working with the Canadian Apparel Federation on details of the program.

I would again like to thank the House for this opportunity to clarify the government's position on tariff policy elements.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, in the case of insolvency or bankruptcy, a number of assets need to be distributed among those who have priorities and have put out money. In a bankruptcy situation, everyone must realize that those people who put up the money for that business, the financial authorities and everyone else who was willing to risk their money and support that business, we have to strike a balance between that and the debt side. If we do not strike that balance, I know, and I think every person in the country knows, that some of the pension plans could be multi-million dollar assets. If we were to put that as a super priority, would the normal financial institutions that lend the money to get the businesses in operation retract money in Canada?

Would those investors, who have to invest to make sure corporate interests go forward, be investing in Canada, which would have some very specific laws about bankruptcy, or would they invest in Michigan? Would they invest in the United States? Would they invest in Europe? Would they invest in other areas where they know they have an opportunity of getting some of that money back if a bankruptcy were called?

The difficulty we have is striking that balance. Although I would love to see a policy where every person who has a claim on a pension that may not be fully paid would get every penny of it, in a bankruptcy situation we know that cannot be possible, as well as all the creditors get all their money and the investors get their money. As a result there has to be a reasonable compromise struck.

It is important to realize that under the bill we will be pressing very hard for the corporations to pay the unfunded, unpaid pension liabilities. They will have to be put into the fund. Corporations will not be able to slide by not putting the collected money into the pension plan. However, at the same time, if we put the pensioners above the lenders who are putting in money, no moneys will be invested in Canada. That would be tragic for all jobs in Canada and everyone has to realize that.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question is very significant. When we stop and think about student debt increasing, that is a reality, and certainly I do not think anybody here believes that government should control the costs of education outright totally, but I do believe that the costs of education have substantially gone up over the last 20 years.

When I went to school, certainly we had student debt and we had to pay for bills that we accumulated as students. Some of us were fortunate enough to have summer jobs and earn enough money to pay off the debts and some families were able to help students go through school, but it has always been the case that a student is at the lower end of income in our society.

I think the fact is that each year of school in the main adds a tremendous amount to students' incomes. As they become better educated and better able to enter the workforce, their potential for making dollars is extremely high compared to that of a lot of other Canadians who do not have the opportunity to go to school.

I think it is critical to understand what we as a government have control over. What we are talking about in this bill today is the aspect of the Insolvency Act and how it affects students who find it difficult after they have graduated, for whatever reason. Possibly they could not get a job in the field for which they had been trained or possibly other things intervened. Possibly circumstances in their lives made it impossible for them to make the money to pay back the loans. As a result, there are a lot of filings by students through the Bankruptcy Act.

What we as a government are looking at very carefully is where that maximum is: the number of years that a student has tried to pay back the loan and the ability of that student to pay back the loan. All the information comes together to give the direction that the student cannot afford to pay the loan back. There is a seven year time period in which we are going to allow the student to file bankruptcy at an earlier stage in order to dispense that debt, but in fact that is not the major portion of people who go to school. People graduate and are able to pay off those debts.

I remember one person who spoke with me when I was quite young; it was suggested that sometimes our society may be a little upside down. Young students should get paid high wages and as we get older the wages would be reduced somewhat. Then their houses would be paid for, their new family would be covered and their kids' education paid for and all of that. It was suggested that maybe when we start out our incomes should be higher and then go down. That goes counter to what our society does and the value placed upon it.

We have to remember, though, that those students who graduate do have the potential of earning a great number of dollars in our society. The better educated have the benefits and ability to make higher payments and are able to pay back those student loans. Where it becomes a crisis situation for students is what we are trying to ease this by this legislation. Quite frankly, I think that will be helpful to the students.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to speak to the second reading of Bill C-55, an act to establish the wage earner protection program act, to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The passage of the bill will have real effects on the economy and on individual Canadians. It will affect entrepreneurs, large and small creditors, lending institutions, consumers, workers and students. Approximately 100,000 personal bankruptcies and 10,000 business bankruptcies occur each year, affecting more than $11 billion of debts and redeployment of $4.5 billion of assets.

Bill C-55 will ensure the Canadian insolvency system meets the needs of the Canadian marketplace as well as contributes to the socio-economic objectives of helping Canadians in financial distress.

Canada's insolvency system centres around two main statutes, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

Allow me to explain briefly what each statute does and how they interconnect. The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, or BIA, provides the legislative basis for dealing with both personal and commercial insolvency issues. Under the BIA there are two options available. When an individual or company declares bankruptcy, the act provides for the liquidation of bankrupt assets by the trustee and the distribution of proceeds in a fair and orderly way to the creditors.

Alternatively, the act provides a means for persons or companies to avoid bankruptcy by negotiating a settlement with their creditors. It is called the proposal. Under the act the use of proposals has grown considerably in recent years and they now account for 15% of all filings by individuals and 25% of corporate filings under the BIA.

The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, or CCAA, applies only to corporate insolvencies involving debts over $5 million. Its purpose is to establish a framework to govern the restructuring of companies. The CCAA provides for a court driven process whereby a company obtains a court order to prevent its creditors from taking action against negotiating an arrangement with its creditors. The use of the CCAA has greatly expanded over the past decade, and most restructuring of large insolvent companies is now handled under the CCAA.

There is a broad consensus among stakeholders that reforms to the insolvency legislation are needed. Bill C-55 has four primary objectives.

First, as the Minister of Labour and Housing has outlined, Bill C-55 greatly enhances the protection of workers where their employer goes bankrupt or undergoes a restructuring process.

Second, it seeks to further encourage restructuring as an alternative to bankruptcy. Restructuring produces better results for creditors, saves jobs and enhances competitiveness.

Third, the bill is intended to make the bankruptcy system fairer and to reduce the scope for abuse. Bankruptcy law is about sharing the burden. Hence it is essential that we consider fair and equitable agreements by all parties.

Fourth, the administration of the system will be improved as many provisions in both the BIA and CCAA need to be clarified and modernized in order to ensure a more effective and predictable insolvency system.

Let me offer specific examples on how Bill C-55 is going to improve our insolvency system. To foster the use of reorganization as an alternative to bankruptcy, the CCAA will be substantially rewritten providing guidance and certainty where none previously existed and codifying existing practice while still preserving the flexibility that has made the CCAA such a successful restructuring vehicle.

Several new rules will ensure greater transparency in the process and a better ability for the active parties to defend their interests. This includes rules on interim financing; the termination of assets of contracts; governance arrangements of the debtor company, including the role of the monitor who will need to be the trustee; the sales of assets outside the ordinary course of business; and the application of regulatory measures.

Finally, this bill will greatly improve the administration of Canada's insolvency system through a number of changes affecting the role and power of trustees, including when they act as monitors in CCAA cases and as receivers on behalf of secured creditors. The supervisory role of the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy is clarified and also includes the establishment of a central registry for the CCAA cases.

It is widely accepted that insolvency rules that govern personal insolvency play an important socio-economic role. They permit honest but unfortunate individuals who experience significant financial difficulty to discharge their debts, obtain a fresh start and thereby have the best possible chance to restore their financial situation.

At the same time, a well functioning insolvency system strikes the appropriate balance among competing interests in circumstances in which by definition there is not enough money to go around. Accordingly, it is important that the system be designed in such a way that it functions effectively and efficiently and provides the right incentives so that it deters potential abuses.

Bill C-55 accomplishes these objectives. It does so through tailored improvements to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. By way of background, the proposed changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act which impact on individuals were extensively examined by the personal insolvency task force, the PITF, during the period of 2000 to 2002. The PITF was an independent panel established by the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy with membership from all principal stakeholder groups, including creditors, trustees, consumer credit counsellors, lawyers, judiciary and academics.

The PITF released its report in August 2002. The report served as the main point of reference for representations that were made before the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, which conducted its own review of Canada's insolvency legislation in 2003. That is to say that the consumer insolvency issues addressed in Bill C-55 have been the subject matter of extensive debate and consideration by both the PITF and the Senate committee.

In the area of consumer bankruptcy, one of the key challenges is the growing number of cases. Consumer bankruptcies have significantly increased over the past decades, from 1,500 in 1967 to some 84,500 cases last year. The number of insolvencies is tied to many factors, including challenges in consumer lending practices, higher levels of personal indebtedness, and a more tolerant attitude toward bankruptcy.

Since 1998, however, the annual average growth in consumer bankruptcies has decreased to approximately 2% per year, compared to 12% for the preceding three decades.

During the same period, the number of consumer proposals has more than doubled and now represent approximately 16% of all filings. This reform will continue to encourage the use of consumer proposals which offer the debtor an alternative to bankruptcy and typically result in higher recovery by creditors. For instance, the threshold for a consumer proposal has been increased from $75,000 to $250,000, thereby allowing more individuals to choose to make a proposal rather than file for bankruptcy.

Among the significant changes introduced to the consumer insolvency system by Bill C-55 is a provision to curb the potential for strategic behaviour by individuals seeking to extinguish large income tax debts. The bill eliminates the eligibility for automatic discharge for those debtors with personal income tax debts exceeding $200,000, where it represents 75% or more of unsecured debts. Instead, these individuals have to seek a court order for discharge and the court would be able to fix conditions relating to the discharge.

In keeping with the principle that those individuals filing for bankruptcy who have the financial means to repay a portion of their debts ought to do so, Bill C-55 provides for amendments to existing surplus income provisions. Under the proposed regime, first time bankrupts with surplus incomes will be required to pay a portion of their surplus income to their creditors for a period of 21 months, an increase of approximately 12 months to the present situation.

Reform of consumer insolvency provisions is also aimed at making the current system fairer for individuals. This includes the elimination of inequitable treatment of retirement savings plans and improved treatment of student loans and bankruptcies.

Under the existing laws, some retirement savings plans, namely, those associated with life insurance policies and registered pension plans, are generally exempt from seizure in the bankruptcy. Other types of registered retirement savings plans, on the other hand, such as those held by banks, brokerages or in self-directed funds, are generally not exempt from seizure in bankruptcy. The difference in treatment of various retirement savings plans seems to conflict with the public policy goal of encouraging Canadians generally to save for retirement.

Under Bill C-55, the registered retirement savings plans, regardless of whether the savings are a part of the employer sponsored pension plan or whether they are held in a life insurance savings plan, will enjoy the same protection from seizure and bankruptcy.

The bill contemplates that certain requirements must be met in order to ensure the public policy goal is fulfilled and to avoid the incentive for strategic behaviour. Specifically, contributions made within 12 months of bankruptcy and the amounts in excess of the cap would be available to creditors. Furthermore, there is a requirement that the savings be locked in until retirement.

In respect to student loans, the bill proposes that the waiting period before which a student loan debt may be discharged in bankruptcy will be reduced from 10 years to seven years. Furthermore, the bill would reduce the period before which the application may be made to the court to have a student loan debt discharged on the basis of undue financial hardship. That would be reduced from 10 years to five years.

One of the functions of bankruptcy law is to define which parts of the bankrupt property are available to be divided among creditors and which parts will remain under their control. In recent years a series of court decisions has cast doubt on traditional interpretations of which parts of the bankrupt property are available to creditors. The decisions reveal ambiguities in the wording and legislation. These are clarified through changes by the proposed bill.

In addition, proposed changes to provisions which address the way in which the Canadian insolvency system is administered are designated to improve the integrity of the system as a whole. A number of the procedural changes to the consumer insolvency provisions will enable the process to be streamlined along the lines recommended by the PITF. It is anticipated that these changes will result in a system which is better able to respond to the needs of individual debtors and their creditors.

In the Speech from the Throne, as well as the budget, the government clearly staked out its commitment to encourage entrepreneurship and risk taking. It has committed itself to creating a society and a business climate where educated and skilled people want to live and work, as well as a country that is the best place to do business while providing effective safety nets for individuals in financial difficulty.

Bill C-55 is a significant step to ensure that we respect Canada's insolvency laws, that the framework is right, that the rules are fair and equitable and that the regulatory structure is smart and responds to the needs of the marketplace. I am confident that the measures proposed in this bill will have broad support among Canadians. I urge all members of the House to support this important legislation.