Jerry Pickard

[Automobile Industry, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we see the job growth in Ontario and the job growth right across this country escalating upward. There is absolutely no question that the auto industry is one of the more thriving industries. We have done everything we can within the sector to make certain it is geared for the next 20 years to do well and expand in Ontario.

[Automobile Industry, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we really should look at what is happening in Ontario. What the U.S. really requires in its auto business is more corporations like General Motors has in Oshawa. We are doing very well in Ontario. We are the chief automotive group. We surpassed Michigan and Ohio in the last year. Quite frankly, the auto industry is thriving well because of Canadian government programs and Ontario Liberal government programs.

[Treaties Act, May 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleague opposite well understands that raw sewage and sewage problems themselves are a cause of municipalities. We work hard to create infrastructure programs to help municipalities with the environment. Environmental projects such as sewage treatment plants and other issues are critical. However, the federal government does not control all the raw sewage in the country. We can only help fund and move that issue forward.

We have the same concerns as the member. However, we put pressure on local municipal governments as well as provincial governments to move forward on those issues and make those things happen. I, like the member, do not want to see raw sewage dumped into any waterway. No one does. We must put pressure on the right areas. The member should talk to his municipal and provincial people and get action where action is required, at the level which deals with that issue.

[Treaties Act, May 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest to the member opposite that the Government of Canada is very concerned about pollution and air quality. We also are concerned about all the issues surrounding our environment. There is no question that this is a critical issue, and I commend him for bringing it forward today.

The climate change plan for Canada was released in November 2002 and it was developed with stakeholders across Canada. Obviously in one year, and even in the longer term, all solutions cannot be reached and maintained. I assure the member opposite that there is a tremendous amount of work going on, not only in the energy sphere or in the auto emissions standard. We just announced a couple of weeks ago a reduction of 5.3 megatonnes of CO

2

going into the atmosphere.

When we start moving into the question of air quality, there is no question that the Fraser Valley is a important area in Canada.

The Canada-U.S. air quality agreement was signed in 1991 to address transboundary acid rain, and that has been very successful. The recent release of the biennial progress report on the agreement demonstrates that both Canada and the United States have made tremendous reductions in their emissions of SO

2

, the major pollutant in acid rain, and that in some cases ecosystems have begun to recover.

However, we also know that more needs to be done to deal with transboundary smog and to obtain the reductions from the United States that are needed to continue the recovery from acid damage to our forest and lakes. In British Columbia's Fraser Valley in particular, Environment Canada is leading an initiative to address transboundary air quality with partner agencies in the Georgia Basin--Puget Sound and in the international airshed.

Furthermore, last August 17 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator and the Government of Canada endorsed a recommendation that would lead to a decision on a negotiation of a new annex to the Canada-U.S. air quality agreement to address transboundary air quality. We agreed that a future bilateral effort should address the issues identified in the shared airshed.

The government understands that the Washington State Sumas Energy 2 project is a serious concern to Fraser Valley residents. Environment Canada officials have consistently provided scientific assessment and written comments on the impact of the Sumas Energy 2 proposal. The progress of that is in Washington State right now.

All of us have to realize that we are in a court appeal over that issue and it would be inappropriate for the government to comment further at this time.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, May 9th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, when I listen to some folks, it amazes me how biased they really can be. I heard nothing positive from my hon. colleague who presented a 20 minute speech and at this point probably a five minute retort to a question to him.

I know that in this last week we have had a major announcement on housing by the Minister of Housing and this will affect low income people. I know we just had a major announcement on child care facilities, adding 50% to child care facilities in the country with Ontario receiving $1.8 billion alone and $5 billion across the country in the next five years.

When I look at the kinds of programs we have, right now is a great time in Canada for young people training. Those people who are on youth employment programs across the country, and we are talking about tens of thousands of young people, are given the opportunity in the summer to work in a field in which they have developed skills in school, to enhance those skills, to get work experience and to develop a background where they can say that they have worked in the field and have done the work they have been trained to do. In other words, they have a curriculum vitae in the work that is being provided through the federal services.

When I look at what we are doing in human resource development, the RESP is a fantastic opportunity for young families and people to be educated. I have to ask my colleague this. How can this all be negative?

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, May 9th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague from Davenport for putting forward what I would perceive as probably one of the most important roles in the federal government.

In his speech, he focused very much on the education, training and lifestyle enhancement that is so important and has done so much for my riding and, I am certain, for ridings across Canada. What I want to be sure of, though, is that these programs we are presently putting forward do cover the same gamut of concern that we have had in the past.

I go back home each summer and I know that youth employment programs are extremely positive and well received. They employ so many young people, giving them skills, work experience and further career development through the youth employment strategy of Canada. That strategy has been extremely successful in my area.

I also know that the job creation partnerships program has gone many miles in order to bring people with skills together with employers who can work with them and develop those skills further. That has been extremely important as well.

As I look at two of these programs for training and developing career skills, I must say that I think both of them have done an amazing job in the past. I would say to my colleague that I hope this type of program will still be high profile in the new arrangement and also will advance and enhance the lives of so many people who are looking for further employment opportunities.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, May 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague pointed out a few moments ago, there is a need for reorganization, for setting new structures and for bringing in efficiencies in all government departments. The federal government has been striving for a very long time to deliver services to Canadians in as efficient a way as possible.

As my colleague pointed out, every party in the House, the Bloc, the Conservatives, the NDP, and the Liberals, unanimously supported in committee the restructuring and reorganization of that department. Regardless of how one looks upon the situation the member is presenting this morning, it is very clear that the movement was toward efficiencies and changing some of the archaic means by which things are done. Often as departments expand, we need to look at better efficiencies.

I understand from talking with my colleague that one of the panel groups that has been suggested in employment insurance is now a three person group. My colleague across the way was talking about expanding it to a 17 member group. Going from 3 to 17 is a loss in efficiency. I can understand that the federal government looks at the operations in a much more important way, making efficiencies, downsizing where possible and making sure that appropriate facilities are delivered to people.

I am going to ask exactly the same question that my colleague asked. When did the member's party change its mind and for what reason? How can it justify walking away from an agreement it made with all the other parties in the House?

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-281 put forward by the member for Winnipeg Centre contains a number of amendments to increase the protection for employees for losses that they may incur in their employment when a bankruptcy occurs. In short, Bill C-281 proposes to create a super priority for all employees' claims that would be ranked ahead of creditors, including any secured creditors.

These amendments would represent a radical change to the bankruptcy system. In doing so they would create a number of direct and perhaps unintended adverse consequences on the Canadian economy.

These amendments would fundamentally change the treatment of debt in bankruptcy. In effect, the proposed regime would override established contractual and legal rights of existing secured creditors which are a fundamental feature of a market economy. Let me explain to members of the House the economic effects that proposed amendment would have. I have to focus my intention on small and medium size businesses and how it would impact them.

It is well established that commercial lenders finance businesses based on the value of assets used to secure loans. In other words, business owners use the value of their company's receivables and inventory as well as fixed assets as collateral to secure financing. Lenders use a borrowing base formula to determine the amount of money the business owner is qualified to borrow.

The single most important determinant of a business's borrowing base is the realizable value of the assets pledged to secure a loan. The lower the realized value in bankruptcy, the lower the borrowing base. The higher the realized value in bankruptcy, the higher the borrowing base. This is where bankruptcy laws intersect with commercial lending practices.

Bill C-281 creates a super priority for claims of losses by employees in bankruptcy. This priority is open-ended and unlimited. As such it creates a great deal of uncertainty for lenders when they are making a lending decision. Given this uncertainty, lenders will face greater difficulty determining the realizable value of a borrower's collateral. As a result, lending institutions will, to protect their own asset base, reduce the amount they will lend to people.

Reducing credit availability by changing the priority scheme in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act as Bill C-281 proposes would have detrimental effects on small and medium size business enterprises. These businesses are the most vulnerable to a change in lending practices as they generally have a less diversified source of capital financing than large enterprises.

Small and medium size enterprises account for 98% of all businesses in Canada. Indeed, 75% of all Canadian businesses have fewer than 10 employees. In terms of employment, in 2003 more than five million people, or 49% of our private sector labour force, worked in small and medium size businesses. Those with 100 employees or less are small and medium size businesses. According to Statistics Canada, small businesses made the greatest contribution to net job creation over the period of 1996 to 2003.

We cannot put the engine of economic growth at risk. Bill C-281 would put the brakes on building the 21st century economy as we know it today. Not only would the proposed amendments reduce credit availability, but they would also increase the cost of credit for those who could obtain it. Lenders would re-evaluate the credit risk associated with their entire commercial portfolio, and would conclude that Bill C-281 increases the credit risk. This would translate into higher interest rates not only for existing loans, but for every commercial loan going forward.

The proposed amendments would also require increased monitoring by both lenders and borrowers. This would lead to increased costs for each business, as lenders would pass on their increased monitoring costs. Moreover, businesses would face higher internal compliance costs to ensure that any loans they may have remained as performing loans.

I am strongly opposed to the measures that would cause small and medium size businesses to incur added inefficiencies. Businesses, particularly small and medium size enterprises, would be negatively impacted by increasing the cost of capital. As a result, these firms would find it more difficult to expand and create employment opportunities. In fact, I would also argue that these companies would be more reluctant to invest in innovative technologies. This would have a negative effect on the growth potential of small and medium size businesses and the entire Canadian economy.

The implementation of an open-ended super priority scheme for employees' claims in bankruptcy would also have a detrimental effect on businesses that compete on an international market. None of Canada's major trading partners have such a regime of bankruptcy in their laws. This runs counter to the smart regulations approach that our government has espoused.

In the United States wage claims are given preferred status similar to that in Canada. In some European countries as well as in Australia there are government funded schemes guaranteeing the payment of wages and vacation pay.

The Canadian economy has a strong reliance on international trade, particularly trade with the United States. Close to 80% of our GDP is trade related. Our livelihoods and standard of living are dependent on Canadian businesses and their ability to compete in the international markets. Indeed, with a small domestic market, the steady expansion of multilateral trade is critical to the economy and the continued prosperity of our nation.

However, the proposed amendments contained in the bill would have severe restrictions on Canadian firms' access to capital as well as increasing costs. As such, the proposed amendments would place Canadian firms at a competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace.

All of us in the House are concerned about the problems faced by employees whose employer has gone bankrupt, particularly those who experience unpaid wages and other work related benefits. However, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act is a framework law which has horizontal application across the entire economy. Changing it requires careful analysis and balance. There could be unforeseen ripple effects which could have serious unintended consequences on the economy.

The government agrees that there is a need to protect workers who remain unpaid when their employer goes bankrupt. Indeed, it is my understanding that as we speak, the government is studying options to improve the treatment of workers' claims in bankruptcies. I want to see reform to improve the protection for employees' claims in bankruptcy, but Bill C-281 is certainly not the answer.

[Committees of the House, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to my hon. colleague across the way. I recall that when I came to the House there was a Conservative government in place that was overspending by $40 billion. The Conservatives had escalated the debt to $600 billion. They tripled the debt, as a matter of fact. Their financial policies were never met. I remember a finance minister in those days who just could not even come close. It was suggested by a Prime Minister from across the way that in Canada we would have double digit unemployment past the year 2000. The finances of the country were dragged to the bottom of the core by that group.

The Minister of Finance and the Liberal Government of Canada of the day have turned that around. We are the envy of the world. I ask that member whether he would rather face the world today, with the way Canada is structured economically, or then, when we were called a third rate country.

[Patent Act, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that those drugs that are primarily used for certain outbreaks or certain problems that come about, and it could be malaria, HIV-AIDS or whatever, would be added to schedules and those schedules would then be able to move forward.

At this point in time there is a schedule set forth for certain drugs. This is not a broad spectrum of every drug being put on the scale. It is for those that are dealing with specific problems that we see abroad and richer countries like Canada can help. They cannot manufacture those drugs on their own.

In order to forecast what would be added to those schedules in the future, we would have to look at a broader picture of where those problems would come from and what drugs would be applicable. Then there would have to be amendments to those annexes in order to implement any of that. Again, it would have to come back to an amendment to the schedules in order to change any further drugs that would go on those lists.