John Cannis

[Auberge Grand-Mère, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that the leader of the Conservative Party did ask for an inquiry and that the RCMP did come back and exonerate the Prime Minister. By his own admission, he was satisfied with the RCMP's investigation.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame the hon. member, and I will use that word in addressing him, uses the word puppets. He should be ashamed because the attack is only a sign of his weakness in his argument and nothing else. He should pay very close attention to his leadership and not ours.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is no mystery there. Everything is transparent. The only mystery here is who is shifting from the Reform Party to the Conservative Party.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the member is confused. There is more confusion in his party than in the BDC.

Nevertheless, all I can say right now is that it is in the hands of the RCMP for investigation. We will leave it at that. It is not in conformity, and at the appropriate time they will know.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me say that the document that was referred to in the Globe and Mail has been referred by the BDC to the RCMP for investigation. It has been concluded that the copy right now is of course not in conformity.

[Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as I begin my remarks let me acknowledge the concern of the member for Winnipeg Centre for employees in bankruptcy company situations. When he speaks to this issue he is very sincere about it, but the issue of unpaid wages and pension contributions when a firm goes bankrupt is one considered by the House several times in the past. The member also alluded to that. I am confident members on all sides would like to see the most equitable solution possible.

Over the years different governments, as was stated earlier, considered many different options for wage earner protection that would be good for the economy and for workers. This is not a partisan issue. It is not an easy issue at all. Each option has its trade-offs and several times parliament has been unable to agree on the fairest course of action.

Industry Canada, which is responsible for the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, is aware of the need to protect wage earners whose employers face bankruptcy. As recently as 1992 parliament amended the act to extend the protection of unpaid wages. In particular, parliament found it appropriate to increase the protection for wages earned up to six months prior to bankruptcy. This represents a doubling of the previous length of time.

In 1992 parliament also quadrupled the maximum amount that could be claimed from $500 to $2,000. Further review of this important issue is currently under way. I am pleased to bring members up to date on the plans of Industry Canada to strengthen the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

First, the department expects to release in the next couple of months a discussion paper which addresses wage earner protection. Second, Industry Canada officials will be undertaking cross-Canada consultations with stakeholders to help identify a fair solution. Third, the act will be referred to the parliamentary committee for review in the next year. The results of the consultations and the whole question of wage earner protection will likely be examined during the parliamentary review.

Notwithstanding, I certainly realize that wage earners sometimes face special difficulties when their employers go bankrupt, leaving their wages and pension contributions unpaid. They are vulnerable creditors that often cannot afford such losses and usually lack the information to assess the risk that their employers may not pay them.

To protect employees the current act gives preferred status of up to $2,000 in wage claims for services provided in the six months immediately before the employer's bankruptcy. It also protects up to $1,000 in disbursements for sales people, as mentioned earlier.

In the preferred ranking, wage claims are given priority over claims of ordinary creditors but wage claims rank behind those of secured creditors. Protection for pension contributions is provided in federal and provincial pension legislation, much of which gives secured creditors status to claim unpaid pension contributions.

Very few people would argue against the principle of protecting the claims of wage earners. Fairness weighs in favour of protecting them. In practical terms wage earners are more likely to have their unpaid wages claims satisfied than ordinary creditors because of their preferred status. In some circumstances as well, secured creditors may allow trustees to pay accrued wages to which the employees are not entitled, strictly speaking.

The issue raised by the member for Winnipeg Centre in Bill C-203 is apparently straightforward. The bill provides for a kind of super priority for wage claims and payments in respect of pensions. As we know from extensive past discussions on bankruptcy law, super priority, as with other options, raises various issues.

A difficult issue and one in which earlier proposals have foundered is that super priority could affect the availability of credit to companies. It could become an important factor in the risk assessment of commercial lenders, leading to a reduced amount of credit being available. The consequences could adversely affect the employment and interest of workers generally. Commercial bankruptcy law has an important role in the allocation of these credit market risks.

I ask hon. members not to misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying that super priority should be rejected as a way of handling wage and pension contribution claims in bankruptcies, but I am stressing it is a complex issue that has a long history and involves certain trade-offs.

The basic principle of wage earner protection was established 50 years ago in the Bankruptcy Act, 1949. Since that time five committees have reported the possible changes: the Tassé study committee in 1970, the Landry committee in 1981, the Colter advisory committee in 1986, the advisory committee on adjustments in 1989, and the bankruptcy and insolvency advisory committee in 1994. None of their recommendations for wage earner protection were implemented.

Over the past quarter century no fewer than eight bills have been introduced in the House and in the other place to amend the act. Only one of these bills subsequently altered the provisions for wage earner protection, the bill involving the 1992 amendments to the act.

These committees and bills proposed or analyzed a wide range of approaches including wage earner protection funds financed by contributions from employers, from employers and employees, or by the government through general revenues. Some bills proposed super priority protection for wage claims. Some bills proposed raising the ranking of wage and pension contribution claims among preferred creditors.

There is a great deal of divergence on who should pay for the cost of wage and pension contribution claims. It was nearly impossible to obtain a consensus on better ways to proceed than what is currently in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. That is why the protection of wage earners requires further examination and consultation.

I have sketched out these details to suggest various available points to my colleagues on all sides, and specifically the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. There is great interest in the whole question of wage earner protection following bankruptcies, but finding a fairer solution than what is now available would require a good deal of hard and thoughtful work during the forthcoming parliamentary review.

As I said in my opening remarks, this is not a partisan issue. Several different governments have already grappled with the question. Each option for wage earner protection has its advantages and disadvantages. Industry Canada currently is working to identify a fair solution.

[Science And Technology, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me commend the member, who is a very active member in committee. He was there today and has been in every committee. He knows very well that we are now reviewing that. We had scientists and researchers come before committee who complimented the government repeatedly on our investments. They talked about the brain gain as opposed to the brain drain.

I want to compliment the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development for taking the charge to make Canada stand a cut above the rest.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to have this opportunity to begin second reading debate on Bill S-11, the Canada Business Corporations Act and the Canada Cooperatives Act, and to say a few words about this piece of legislation. I am sure all members of the House will agree this is a fundamental issue to the continued success of Canadian federally incorporated companies.

The amendments and improvements found in Bill S-11 would further the ability of businesses, investors, shareholders and co-operative members to be in a position to respond quickly and creatively to rapid developments in the global marketplace. They would be better positioned, if parliament provided them with the legal rules of the game that are sound, fair, efficient, consistent and, just as important, flexible.

Each Canadian business, no matter how small, should be given the right legal tools and legal framework to fully develop its marketplace opportunities. Bill S-11 intends to provide for federally incorporated businesses.

In a ranking of just the top 500 companies in Canada, federally incorporated companies account for revenues in excess of half a trillion dollars. The stakes, as we can see, are high, high for these companies and indeed high for our country.

It is important that hon. members be aware of the lengths to which the government has gone over the past seven years to make sure that Bill S-11 is the result of the widest possible consultation and scrutiny. As a result of this, we have before us legislation that will meet the current and evolving needs of business for many years to come.

Let me point out that in 1994 Industry Canada held initial consultations on corporate law reform and subsequently issued nine discussion papers. This was followed by cross country consultations to discuss the policy recommendations contained in those discussion papers. At the same time, the Senate banking, trade and commerce committee held its own hearings in cities right across Canada.

Bill S-11 was originally introduced in the other place as Bill S-19. During the last parliament its banking, trade and commerce committee heard from numerous witnesses. When the bill was reintroduced as Bill S-11, the committee held further meetings and heard from additional witnesses. More recently in its studies of Bill S-19 and Bill S-11, the Senate committee held two rounds of hearings as well, one in the year 2000 and one this year. The testimony of the expert witnesses resulted in a number of amendments that have significantly improved the legislation. The Senate study stage was taken into account and, based on this, a number of amendments to the original draft legislation were adopted.

I want to take this opportunity right now to thank all the interveners who have assisted the government over the years and the members of the committee, particularly Senator Kirby, who was the former chair of the committee and Senator Kolber, the current chair of the committee.

The Canada Business Corporations Act is the principal federal corporate law in Canada. It and the Canada Cooperatives Act are framework laws that establish basic rules for corporate governance, setting out the rights and obligations of directors, officers, shareholders and co-operative members.

These acts are not overly regulatory. They allow business corporations and co-operatives the flexibility to organize their affairs within a sound legislative structure. They establish the recourse available to parties in the event of unlawful conduct. They are also self-enforcing, since disputes are largely settled through civil action rather than through regulatory enforcement.

At this point I would also like to emphasize that although most of my remarks today will refer specifically to the CBCA, many of the provisions in the bill would also apply to the Canada Cooperatives Act, which governs federally incorporated co-operatives.

Hon. members may recall that a new Canada Cooperatives Act was passed by parliament in 1998 and came into force on December 31, 1999. The bill would ensure that modifications to the CBCA, where they were equally valid for co-operatives, would be reflected in the Canada Cooperatives Act.

The Canada Business Corporations Act, which is the main focus of Bill S-11, has not been amended for the last 26 years. The amendments in Bill S-11 would update and modernize four core elements of the existing legislation.

First, the bill would expand the rights of shareholders to communicate with one another and would encourage more shareholder participation in corporate decisions.

Second, the bill would help eliminate barriers to competitiveness, so that Canadian corporations could become more effective global players. At the same time, it would help to attract international companies to establish a base in Canada for their international operations.

Third, Bill S-11 would more reasonably define corporate responsibilities for the liabilities of directors, officers and shareholders. This would promote fairness and reasonable risk taking, which is a necessity for growth and productivity in the global economic environment that we have today.

Finally, the bill would eliminate duplication of regulation. We have reason to be proud of the Canada Business Corporations Act. It is not just that it serves the country well. Canada is already recognized by countries around the world as having a leading edge corporate statute, one that links prosperity with sound, balanced rules for corporate governance.

It also helps set standards of legal, predictable, fair and accountable business practices in other countries that have come here for advice on setting up their own corporate governance frameworks.

The Canada Business Corporations Act is very sound legislation that has provided the legal framework for conducting business over the last quarter century. The reforms to the existing act would modernize and strengthen this legal framework.

The opportunities out there are great for our country. However one thing we have to do is equip our fellow Canadians with the ground rules that only government can provide. The Canadian entrepreneurs will provide the tools, the savvy and the entrepreneurial spirit and skills to reach out for it.

In my closing remarks, the provisions in the bill are once again representative of the fulfilment of many commitments we have made in our red book. They go beyond the pledges of the red book, in the economic statement last fall and in the Speech from the Throne. In each of these government initiatives a commitment was made to foster innovation and enhance the competitive advantages of Canadian enterprises.

I urge all the members of the House to give speedy assent and passage to this most important piece of legislation, this marketplace framework legislation which, as I said earlier in my remarks, will help position Canadian companies to compete strongly internationally.

[St. John's Harbour, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue for each and every Canadian no matter where they live. I would like to respond briefly to the member for St. John's East who spoke with such passion about this very important issue.

However, I find it very unacceptable and disheartening when a member in the hon. House tries to destroy a member by saying that he does not care and that he has not participated.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, you were a member of the House at that time and you remember very well when he was the minister of fisheries. He went to bat for the province and the Atlantic provinces. He brought the issues front and centre and got results and spoke with passion.

The hon. member knows that very well. It is unfortunate that he did not stick to the issue at hand but tried to politicize. As the hon. member from the Alliance said, let us take the politics out of it, and I agree with him. This is not an issue of politics.

Let me point out that the Government of Canada has made and will continue to make serious commitments to the protection of our environment and to the reclamation of our threatened lands and, of course, waters.

The current situation, whereby untreated sewage empties into St. John's harbour, is unacceptable to me, to the minister, to the Prime Minister, to the government and I know to the country as a whole. It is important that the situation be addressed in a manner acceptable and feasible for the city of St. John's, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada.

I am fully aware that the municipal and provincial governments have committed to cost sharing the necessary cleanup. I believe that this approach will expedite our efforts to address this most important issue.

For this reason, we are working to identify an appropriate mechanism for funding this kind of undertaking. The estimated cost for the construction of a required primary treatment plant is $93 million. The only program currently in place to facilitate federal contributions to municipal infrastructure is of course the Canada infrastructure program, which is cost shared with provincial and municipal governments.

The existing Canada-Newfoundland infrastructure works program has committed funds totalling $153 million over five years. These funds were allocated to assist in building and improving infrastructure in more than 400 communities, incorporated areas, of course, and the local service districts in Newfoundland and Labrador. The municipal infrastructure requirements in this, Canada's fourth largest province, are broad based, pan-provincial and in some cases very urgent.

There are, for example, as many as 240 boil water orders in effect right now on any given day in areas that do not enjoy the basic advantage of reliable, safe drinking water.

On October 13, 2000, the Canada-Newfoundland infrastructure agreement was signed, with an allocation of $51 million in federal funds for Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to point that out.

Unfortunately the existing program, while substantial, cannot meet the existing demand. For the current fiscal year alone, $250 million in water and sewer management projects have been proposed for the province. The $93 million required to put an adequate sewage treatment facility in place in the capital city of St. John's is not included in that sum.

The Canada-Newfoundland infrastructure works program has a specific mandate to provide assistance in the ongoing development of appropriate and essential infrastructure in communities throughout the province. It would be inappropriate to commit in excess of half of that funding to one project.

This in no way diminishes the importance of finding a solution to this unacceptable situation in St. John's harbour. It would be inadvisable and counterproductive, let me say, to make short term, reactive promises in response to an issue of this importance.

I would like to assure the hon. member, members in the House as well, and of course the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the minister will continue to work with his cabinet colleagues and municipal and provincial partners to find an appropriate long term solution to the problem.

[Government Loans, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, maybe that is why it is now the fifth party.