Carole Lavallée

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

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I do not think I got what my NDP colleague was asking. I did not grasp his question very well. Could I ask him to repeat it? I am sorry, but I did not hear his question.

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

Madam Speaker, I will start by thanking my colleague from Manicouagan for his excellent question and its excellent link with POWA, the program for older worker adjustment.

Even if Bill C-55 provides a wage earner protection program, we do not yet know what will come of it. The minister has referred to precedents established in the United Kingdom and Australia. It will be necessary to go there and see for ourselves how it works in practice here, eventually, and whether workers do indeed get what they are owed.

There will still, however, be the problem of one segment of the working population: the ones aged 50 or 55 whose employer goes bankrupt and who will never get back what is owing to them and will never be able to bridge the time between their last pay cheque and their first pension cheque. These older workers need help. Some need retraining, but most need financial assistance to make it until pension age.

The connection made by my colleague from Manicouagan is a very interesting one. If it were possible, that could be part of Bill C-55. For the moment, this good bill needs complementing with POWA for older workers.

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

Madam Speaker, the amendment that the Bloc Québécois will put forward in committee aims essentially at abolishing the specified time period so people can discharge their student loans in the same way as any other debt.

The rationale for imposing this time period is not based on any studies that may have been done. It is based essentially on prejudice because some people think that bankruptcy is easy, even though we all know that a judge must render a decision on that. There are also other types of prejudice against students, or should I say former students. Indeed, after ten years they are no longer students, having been out of school for quite some time. Some believe that former students are more inclined to go bankrupt than people belonging to other social groups and that it is an easy way for them to free themselves from their student loans.

Nobody wants to do that. Bankruptcy is a difficult and very emotional process for those who go through it. It is not true that a former student will not hesitate to go bankrupt just to get rid of his or her student loans.

This is why we believe that the change from ten years to seven years is arbitrary. Why not six years? Or two? Or nothing? It is in that context that the Bloc will be proposing an amendment in committee.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has been working together for a long time with the steelworkers' union, among others, on proposals to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to ensure that employee wages and pension funds are the first debts in line to be reimbursed when companies go bankrupt. Why? Because the current situation is badly flawed.

Under the current legislation in Canada, employees who work all their lives for the same company can find themselves left with nothing if it goes bankrupt. Employees lose not only their wages for hours they actually worked but also all their contributions to the company pension plan. When the Bloc Québécois found this out, it decided to hound the government to ensure that the flaws in the current legislation were corrected and wages better protected.

In October 2003, for example, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of a motion brought before the House by the NDP. This motion asked the government to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to ensure that the wages and pension funds due to employees are the first debts in line to be repaid in case of bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party voted against this motion at that time and it was therefore defeated.

When on November 15, 2004 an NDP member introduced a bill to protect wages, which was similar to the government's current Bill C-55, the Bloc was an enthusiastic supporter. My colleague from Shefford even said in this House that if the NDP had not introduced such a bill, the Bloc would have. This is indicative of the Bloc's affinity for a bill like this, Bill C-55, which it finds satisfactory. I would not go so far as to say that it finds it fully satisfactory, but it considers it a step in the right direction. It is a little step, to be sure, but still in the right direction.

In our view, another milestone has been reached in the direction of respect for working people and their dignity. The social justice principles recognized and upheld here require employees to be paid for all the hours that they have worked. Workers' wages are the only income that they have, in contrast to big corporations and bankers, for example, who have mortgages with companies that go bankrupt. Workers' pension funds are sacred. People do not work their whole lives to be left as destitute as if they had not worked hard all that time. It does not make any sense.

The new wage protection mechanism is interesting, because, as we know, Bill C-55 creates the wage earner protection program. Under this program, the federal government assumes up to $3,000 of wages owed to workers if their employer goes bankrupt. Payments made under this program are taxable and are subject to any applicable deductions.This means that, regardless of what assets the employer has, workers will be able to receive most, if not all, of their unpaid wages.

The Minister of Industry feels that this amount of $3,000 would cover 97% of unpaid wage claims, but it remains to be seen what will happen with the remaining 3%. The same thing goes for the precedents the minister has referred to.

On the other hand, workers receiving payment under the WEPP will have to transfer to the federal government their right of claim under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for an amount equivalent to the benefit they have received. The government will then seek to recover the amount paid out to the workers.

This appears to be an acceptable mechanism, and we are told there are precedents for it. We will need to see what those are. The minister was not very forthcoming about them just now. We need to see how this has worked in Australia and the United Kingdom, whether workers have indeed recovered what was owed to them, and whether indeed 97% of workers recovered all that was owed to them.

The government estimates the annual cost of the program at $32 million annually, a maximum of $50 million in particularly bad years with a lot of bankruptcies. This will mean more money paid out to workers, but since the federal government will be able to recover a portion of what it has paid out by virtue of having become the holder of the right of claim, it will be compensated in part for these payments.

With Bill C-55, the federal government would create a priority higher than guaranteed creditors for workers' claims of unpaid wages and vacation pay. Their claims would take precedence over current assets such as cash, up to the not insignificant amount of $2,000.

As was said earlier, the advantage is that workers will receive their money a lot faster than they would under the existing order in which creditors are paid. They would no longer have to wait for months and years; it would most likely be a matter of weeks. If this program does not run into the same kind of trouble as the gun control program, workers will be paid faster.

However, it seems that 3% of workers will not recover all the money owed to them. We will have to see to what extent this is indeed the case and what we can do to help these workers.

Members understand that since workers will have assigned their right to claim to the federal government, it will become the preferred creditor.

Let us look now at the pension protection scheme. Bill C-55 introduces a mechanism to protect the workers' pension plans.

Under Bill C-55, a court would be able to authorize a proposal for bankruptcy or for an arrangement only when proof has been made. This means that employee and employer contributions to the pension plan that had not been paid at the time of bankruptcy or receivership have been paid or that the court is satisfied that the contributions will be paid under the arrangement, or that the involved parties made an agreement.

In addition, regular pension contributions by employees and their employers that had not been not paid when bankruptcy or receivership was declared will have priority over secured creditors in cases where the employer could not avoid bankruptcy and liquidation of its assets.

This will not solve everything. Nonetheless, as mentioned earlier, it is small step in the right direction.

There also are retirees whose income will decrease, while others will lose almost all their income. Again, this will improve the situation slightly. What is more, it establishes the principle that workers must receive the benefits from the retirement fund they contributed to over the years.

I see that my time is running out. I want to speak specifically about student loan bankruptcy. Bill C-55 proposes amending the rules for student bankruptcy. Currently, the Bankruptcy Act stipulates that a person filing for bankruptcy cannot be discharged from a student loan if that person is still at school or finished school less than 10 years earlier.

Under Bill C-55, a person can be discharged from student loans, through bankruptcy, seven years after finishing school instead of ten. The bill also allows a court to discharge a bankrupt from student loans if that person stopped going to school five years prior and has excessive financial difficulties.

I must say that the Bloc Québécois has been long committed, but only formally in the 2004 election campaign, to abolishing the period during which a student cannot be discharged, through bankruptcy, of his or her student loans. To that end, the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C-236, introduced by the NDP, which proposed reducing the period to two years. Any change that leans toward abolishing this waiting period will get the Bloc's approval.

Allow us to say that this discrimination against former students is based on the prejudices some people have toward those who declare bankruptcy. Such prejudices includes thinking it is easy to declare bankruptcy, when it is common knowledge that a judge has to decide on the matter and deny any outrageous claims. Another prejudice suggests that students are more inclined than other social groups to try to get out of commitments like debt. However, there are no studies to prove that.

Basically, the change from ten to seven years is arbitrary. Why not six or two years, or nothing at all? You can expect the Bloc Québécois to propose an amendment to this section during study in committee.

Finally, this bill is far from perfect. In fact, as I said, it is a small step in the right direction. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of BIll C-55, even though it is fully aware that employees usually have no means of protecting themselves when the employer is in a precarious financial situation.

Employees do not have the same capacity as financial institutions to absorb a loss of income for hours worked. Their salary is their only source of income, unlike the banks and the mortgage creditors.

It is difficult for an employee to assess the risks of working for a given company. When an employer is in financial difficulty, its best staff members may decide to leave the firm to avoid losing income, thus further limiting the employer's ability to deal with the problem.

The Bloc Québécois is formally committed to correcting the current situation, which is inadequate. It is pleased to see the federal government recognizing that major changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act are necessary to ensure better protection for wages and pension funds.

However, while it shares workers' enthusiasm about the introduction of Bill C-55, the Bloc Québécois notes that many future improvements will be required to respond to the lack of protection for workers' salaries, severance pay, vacation pay and pension funds.

The bill also addresses a number of separate subjects, such as student bankruptcy. An amendment will be submitted in committee. The Bloc Québécois has committed to abolishing the waiting period during which students cannot be discharged from their debt by bankruptcy, and we will be reviewing this in committee.

And so, these are the topics Bloc Québécois intends to bring up for discussion when this bill is studied in committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his presentation.

The Bloc Québécois will be supporting this bill in every way, because we believe that it is a step, albeit a small one, in the right direction. The direction taken is what matters to us above all.

We do have some concerns, however, which I will raise later during the course of the day.

Yesterday, the minister said there were precedents to the wage earner protection program. That is indeed the part of the bill that presents the most interest. Similar programs already exist in the United Kingdom and Australia, where action was taken on this issue.

I would like the minister to describe these precedents and tell us when such approaches were developed and which were the most interesting and conclusive results. I would also like to know which aspects of these precedents the minister took his inspiration from.

[Gasoline Prices, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to answer my colleague at another time, since I do not have the time now to do it. However, a monitoring agency is very much needed.

[Gasoline Prices, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for his excellent question.

On August 26, the Minister of Transport said there was no solution to this problem. But in the light of tonight's emergency debate and the action plan put forward by the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, we can see that there are solutions, such as offering consumers some respite; providing assistance to those living in remote areas; supporting the affected economic sectors; disciplining the industry; redistributing wealth and reducing our dependency on oil. These are objectives that can be achieved with concrete measures.

In addition, this emergency debate requested today by my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup has seen some government members open up somewhat. The Competition Bureau was mentioned, perhaps with new powers. It was also suggested that a modest tax credit or other incentive be provided to those who convert from oil heat. The hon. member for St. Catharines commented that this was a great opportunity to ask the right questions about how to protect our environment and use our energy. Finally, the hon. member for Laval—Les Îles, on the government side, agreed that it might be a good idea to perhaps consider some tax credits.

As you can see, Madam Speaker, where there is will there is a way. Where there is a political will, things can be achieved.

Earlier, my conclusion was very sad. I cannot think of a better word than sad, or unfortunate. It is indeed sad to think that this government is more sensitive to the greed of the big oil companies than it is to the needs and financial difficulties of consumers. Let us hope that we can get things moving with a debate like this one, another debate requested by the Bloc Québécois.

[Gasoline Prices, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, first I should tell you that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Jonquière—Alma.

The main issue in this emergency debate on the price of oil is: Why is this government not taking action, considering the urgency and magnitude of the situation? After all, oil prices have doubled over the past six months.

Earlier, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup explained the situation very well. He found the right words to discuss the oil price increase. He explained very clearly that the price of gasoline is the result of the addition of four factors, namely the price of crude oil, the refining cost, taxes and the retailer's margin. He also explained that the concentration of refining activities during the 1990's resulted in a price increase. We now know that, on average, refining plants are operating at 95% of their capacity.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable and the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel both made remarkable presentations on the profit increase enjoyed by oil companies.

This is worth repeating: in 2004, the after-tax profits of the five major oil companies in Quebec and Ontario, namely Petro-Canada, Shell, Husky, Suncor and Esso, totalled $7.2 billion. According to Bloomberg, these profits should be close to $9 billion this year.

Since 2002, the net profits of oil companies have increased by over 100%. Oil companies are increasingly richer, at the expense of consumers, small businesses, cab drivers, independent truckers, logging companies and agricultural businesses. This is sort of a diversion of wealth.

Of course, there is a geographical component that comes into play, including recent natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. However, oil companies took advantage of the situation to put even more money into their pockets. Someone said very appropriately that they are white collar looters.

This government is not doing anything. Why? We do not know. It refuses to see the situation.

However, the people in my riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert are well aware that the price of gasoline is increasing, and this is nothing new. They have known this for ages. Long ago, they realized that the price of gas went up on Friday evening and went down on Monday evening. Likewise, this is not the first year that they have noticed that the Friday before the mid-July vacation in the construction industry, the price increased and, when everyone went back to work, the price went back down. They do not need big theories, explanations or analyses in order to see this.

My colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup did a realistic analysis of the situation, as I said earlier, and an excellent job of presenting the Bloc Québécois' action plan. This action plan is a excellent initiative by the Bloc. We were very insistent about meeting with the oil companies, which the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology did last week.

We presented an extremely well structured, intelligent action plan based on common sense and that answers a number of aspects of a problem with multiple origins.

What was this government's response? It said nothing. In fact, it said that something could be done. It started to timidly consider a few little things, as we heard earlier during the presentation by the Minister of Industry. He said that perhaps something could be done for tax credits or the Competition Bureau could have oversight. However, these little things have not been fleshed out. We do not know the details. When? What is the timeline? How many? How? There are a number of questions that have yet to be answered.

The Bloc's action plan is very detailed and very well structured. I want to give a quick overview.

First, we want to give consumers some respite and create a refundable tax credit that would minimize the impact of the high price of gasoline. We want to encourage people to move away from fuel oil and implement a tax credit for public transit, which corresponds to the bill introduced here in the House by our colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.

What we also want—and my colleague from Jonquière—Alma will also speak on this—is to help the people in the outlying regions, to expand the coverage of the $3.75 daily fiscal deduction, up to 10% of income, already available to regions that are at a very great distance from major centres. It would be a very good thing if this government were to heed us and implement some of these measures.

There are others. We want to help the economic sectors that have been affected, particularly the taxi drivers or cab owners. Independent truckers, farmers and forest industries are all heavily impacted by the rising oil prices and need to be helped.

The industry needs disciplining as well. It makes no sense. As my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has just said, the oil companies are lining their pockets thanks to the profit margin in refining. An oil sector monitoring body needs to be created.

It is my sincere belief that giving new powers to the Competition Bureau will be insufficient. Of course the Competition Act needs strengthening, resources need redistributing, $500 million need to be added to the taxes on oil companies in order to fund these assistance measures and reduce our dependency on petroleum products.

We must admit that we have all become keenly aware of the environment in the present circumstances. We are, of course, attuned to the use of oil products. We try not to use too much of course, but we also each in our own way are trying to find individual solutions to the collective problem of our environment and asking ourselves how we can each do our own little bit toward reducing our oil dependency.

There may be something the government could do to help consumers find solutions: encourage the building and purchase of vehicles that consume less fuel. That would be an excellent solution.

Why does this government not recognize the seriousness of the problem and why does it not try to find some solutions? Why is this government holding on to its position and insisting on doing nothing?

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster has already described the situation as incomprehensible. I do not think that is the case. In fact, I think there is indeed a reason for it all. I have some trouble formulating that reason, however, because this is a sad situation I want to see changed. This government is more attuned to the greed of the major oil companies than to the real financial difficulties being experienced by consumers and small business. If there is anything that needs to be changed, that is it.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we are aware that the Minister of Labour met this morning with CBC representatives and staff, who are the victims of a lockout, and with the president of the corporation. This is more than just a labour dispute, because the CBC's desire to increase the number of temporary jobs is a direct threat to journalistic independence.

Did the minister take advantage of this morning's meeting with both parties to remind CBC management that creating precarious employment is unacceptable?

[Telecommunications, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in 1999, Telus and BC Tel merged. In 2000, renegotiation of the collective agreement began between the new entity and the telecommunications workers union. Since then, Telus has refused to bargain in good faith, leading the Canada Industrial Relations Board to conclude that Telus was guilty of unfair labour practices and in violation of federal law.

Will the Minister of Labour and Housing, who has the authority, appoint an arbitrator to resolve the impasse?