Joy Smith

[Criminal Code, October 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has given many insightful comments in terms of immigration.

Here in the House of Commons we are the highest court and this is where the laws are made. We have the power to implement those laws. We have all recognized that the bill has a lot of merit and we all recognize that human trafficking has to stop.

In my view, it is a question of credibility. This year, when we tried to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16, it was defeated. There are many excuses for why it was defeated.

We also heard in this House that the gun registry, which has eaten up more than a billion dollars, is continuing but the money is not being put into the much needed police resources.

Earlier on in the year we had immigrants jumping the queue. We found out that people in the sex trade had preferential treatment on at least one occasion, if not more.

Would the member please comment on the immigration side of this? We have migrants, the most vulnerable people, coming from abroad hoping to have a new life, hoping to have an opportunity to become educated and better themselves. Would the member please comment on the credibility of the Liberal government on Bill C-49?

[Criminal Code, October 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, we in the House of Commons have all agreed that human trafficking has to be stopped.

A few short days ago we had a vote in the House where members opposite refused to support raising the age of sexual consent. A child in Canada at 14 years of age right now can legally have sex with an adult. Even part of the Criminal Code states that if the child turned out to be 12 years of age and the perpetrator thought the child was 14, the perpetrator could still get off the hook.

How can we talk about being serious about stopping this horrendous trafficking of human beings, when in the House the members opposite would not even agree to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years of age?

This is a travesty in Canada. It just does not wash. We need the police resources and we need the laws to make sure that the bill is implemented in the way it should be implemented.

Could the member comment on that, please?

[Criminal Code, October 17th, 2005]

Truly, Madam Speaker, trafficking in human beings is a deplorable crime that needs to be addressed. It is gratifying to see in this House the concern about helping to stop this horrendous crime.

The bill put forward has many merits. However, earlier today we talked about police resources. No matter what bills we have, we need the resources to carry out those bills. We need the political will in terms of judges who give hard sentences to people who traffic and we need the joint police forces that are needed to find these people. Trafficking in persons internationally and nationally is something we have to come down on hard and fast.

Could the member opposite please comment on the issue of the lack of police resources and joint forces units and on taking the resources from the gun registry, the over $1 billion that we talked about today, and putting the resources into police forces?

We can sit here in the House of Commons and talk about stopping trafficking in humans, and we need to do that, but how are we going to put the resources on the street with front line police forces to make sure these criminals are apprehended and this terrible practice of trafficking in human beings, nationally and internationally, is stopped and stopped now?

[Firearms Registry, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, provincially, Manitoba reported the highest homicide rate in Canada for 2004. Just last week an innocent bystander, 17-year-old Philippe Hayart, was shot to death in a gang crossfire while walking down the street.

The government has sunk more than $1 billion into the gun registry, money that could be spent on front line police officers to make our streets safer in Manitoba.

When will the government realize that criminals do not register their guns? When will the government shut down the gun registry and put those resources toward front line police officers?

[Copyright Act, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last week when I asked the government to support an educational amendment to Bill C-60, the minister responded by saying that they were putting this issue aside because it needed some discussion and some clarification. Educators and parents are ready to discuss and able to clarify.

Will the government do the right thing and commit to allowing public consultation prior to supporting an educational amendment in this bill?

[Copyright Act, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the education of the students in my riding of Kildonan--St. Paul and across Canada is at risk in this new school year because the government has avoided putting an educational amendment into the copyright law, Bill C-60. Schools cannot afford this added cost of paying for otherwise free materials from the Internet.

Will the government support an amendment to the legislation?

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

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, students going through post-secondary school nowadays go through great hardship in many respects, because they get loans, they have to go out in the workforce and they have to pay them back. That aspect of the bill is being looked at right now and we should not be hasty in passing the bill until we have these questions answered.

I agree that students need to get all the help they can get, but the proof has to be concrete. They cannot just make up a story that they are going through hardship. It has to be concrete. I went through nine years of university and paid for every cent of it. It took me an awful long time. In our family we have six children and we have put them all through post-secondary education.

I can tell the member that this can raise some real questions. I think the intent of the bill and the intent of what members of the House are trying to do at this point is to be reasonable and to make things possible for people to be successful.

The one thing I do like about the bill is that I can see an opening for businesses to become viable if they have the opportunity to restructure. I can see in the bill that wage earners will be able to get their money if something happens. I can see also the student loan aspect, where students who are going through hardship are not put in an impossible position.

This is why I strongly recommend public hearings: so that we can get all these questions answered and so it is not done in a rushed way.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is viable to look at that very aspect, because it does not necessarily need to have the prioritizing change, which could be done in another way.

There are many questions centred around this bill right now. The member brought up what is really the most important point: the employees who work in a company. It is better to have a company able to restructure, to set things up so it can continue to be a viable business. It is better if the workers can still be employed to do that.

The member makes a good point. This is something that needs to be examined. I would expect that during hearings and when amendments are made to this bill this is one aspect which we as a House should and could take a very close and serious look at.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to put some comments on record concerning Bill C-55. I will be speaking to three aspects of the bill: the creditors ranking aspect, RRSPs, and the student loans aspect. Bill C-55 is an act to establish the wage earner protection program act and to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

Annually, more than 11,000 businesses and 100,000 individuals use the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. While business bankruptcies have declined in Canada recently, consumer bankruptcies continue to rise. When a personal or corporate bankruptcy occurs, the BIA provides a mechanism for insolvent or business debtors to avoid bankruptcy by negotiating arrangements with their creditors to reorganize the debtor's financial affairs.

The CCAA provides a legislative framework for the reorganization of insolvent corporate debtors under the court's supervision. Currently, secured creditors rank first in a bankruptcy. Consequently, a trustee takes title to a debtor's property subject to the rights of the secured creditors in that property while unpaid wages rank fourth in the list of creditors.

As we can see, it becomes very worrisome for the people who are working in the business involved when a bankruptcy occurs. The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was up for review by Parliament in 2002. The Senate reviewed it, making 53 recommendations at that time. Recently the member for Winnipeg Centre introduced a private member's bill in Parliament that would allow employees to be paid before other secured creditors.

A CPC committee reviewed that private member's bill and proposed a CPC wage earner protection plan that would draw from the employment insurance fund. The government would pay employees up to two pay periods of unpaid wages before the bankruptcy was declared and up to approximately $3,000 in wages and vacation pay. The government would then assume that the employees would claim against the assets of the company.

Companies are encouraged to restructure rather than file for bankruptcy. There has been a problem with inequities in the treatment of personal bankruptcies and these will be addressed. Reforms will improve the administration of the system and several provisions in both the BIA and CCAA will be clarified and modernized.

The bill is a good first step. However, there are some concerns. Wages should be paid quickly, but the government should set up a separate fund to pay wages rather than change the ranking of those payments.

Also, the use of superpriority status interferes with secured transactions to some extent and is not a preferred course. The creditors who lose security over inventory, accounts receivable or cash are granted the equivalent of the workers' preferred status. This lacks the degree of certainty that secured creditors require.

Members on this side of the House support the quick payment of unpaid wages to employees; however, while this bill should have top priority, it should not be passed in a day. Hearings will be very important due to the complex nature of the legislation. Members on this side of the House anticipate proposing some amendments at the committee level and will seek to clarify the implications of the bill to all concerned.

Reform is needed in this area to better protect those adversely affected by the potential bankruptcy. Facilitating restructuring as an alternative to bankruptcy to save jobs and keep businesses viable is critical to an efficient marketplace. Restructuring can preserve employment and lead to better returns for creditors.

The bill also speaks to exempting all registered retirement savings plans and RRIFs from being liquidated on behalf of creditors should an investor declare a personal bankruptcy. Currently, many life-insured based RRSP products, such as segregated funds and employer sponsored registered pension plans, are exempt, while regular RRSPs are wide open to creditors. This poses a huge gap between employers who force their employees to save and those Canadian citizens who choose to do it on their own.

However, this does not mean that this legislation will give us a massive RRSP contribution one day so we can declare bankruptcy the next and pull out all the money a week later. The draft bill proposes that contributions made 12 months prior to bankruptcy will not be exempt from seizure.

Protecting RRSPs from seizure is consistent with the public policy of encouraging and helping Canadians to save for retirement. This is especially important to employees who cannot participate in their employer sponsored pension plan and for self-employed business people and professionals. This creates a level playing field.

The complexities of this bill merit public hearings and careful examination.

On the last point, I will speak about student loans. It is proposed that student loan debt will be eligible for discharge at bankruptcy if seven years have passed since the former student has terminated his or her studies. Currently, student loan debt can only be discharged after 10 years from the termination of studies. In addition, in cases of undue hardship, a bankrupt may apply to the court to obtain the discharge of the student loans after five years.

I will point out that the member for Newmarket—Aurora, just four weeks before leaving this side of the House to take up the post of Minister of Human Resources in the government, voted for a private member's bill that would have reduced to two years the waiting time before graduates would be permitted to apply for bankruptcy relief. The bill was defeated.

I must say that Bill C-55 is a very complex bill. It has many aspects. Many important aspects need to be reformed to assist in this very stressful time during bankruptcy and insolvency, so that both businesses and wage earners feel as if they have a future and so people can retain their homes and their lifestyles.

In conclusion, I very much look forward to hearing more about the bill and to having some input. on it. It is a top priority bill and the reformation is long overdue in this aspect.

[Gasoline Prices, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, tonight, as we are debating this issue, there are changes to the Competition Act and other issues that need to be looked at but the fact is that we have a government that is in surplus. It is collecting copious amounts of taxes and has promised gas tax benefits to municipalities across the country. Some municipalities have not received what they feel is their fair share of that money at all. We are talking about infrastructure money and about building communities.

When we talk about the rising gas prices right now, this is fully on the shoulders of the government that is in power at this time. We have made suggestions on this side of the House about the gas tax. I fully support what we are talking about because it would have a direct benefit to Canadians at the gas pumps.