Joy Smith

[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.

[Gasoline Prices, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam outlined so succinctly the kinds of challenges Canadians are facing today due to the high cost of rising gas prices on a daily basis.

Listening to the debate tonight, this should have been put forward by the government months ago because it did not happen overnight. The gas prices have spiked frequently over the past 18 months. Prior to that, a government in the know would have understood that problems would occur and a strategic plan should have been put in place.

Tonight, as we talk about changes to the Competition Act and the need for action and as we listen to the debate and the answers that have been put forward by members opposite, clearly it is a pathetic display, in my opinion and in the opinion of my constituents of Kildonan—St. Paul, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, of how the government governs. The government has absolutely no plan. The government generates $32 million per year every time one litre of gas goes up one cent. That is an awful lot of revenue.

The government has bragged about a great surplus of money in the bank. However, we see people in health care waiting lines, waiting for treatments or for tests. Seniors have to pay exorbitant prices for medicines. Crime is on the rise across Canada. My city of Winnipeg has its fair share of major crimes, but we do not have the police resources to hold it down. Yet we have a federal government that deals with every issue, including the gas price crisis, with a laissez-faire response such as, “We'll all get together, have an all party meeting to come up with some sort of solution sometime in the future, somewhere, and it will help somebody”.

We have seen a myriad of examples, on which the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam just expanded. We have seen a myriad of problems with some of the half-baked schemes that the government has come up with. Right now we are talking about a country that is financially under duress. Our country is overtaxed. Our country is meeting challenges on a daily basis with a government that is making irresponsible choices. We have a copyright bill, Bill C-60, in which the government forgot to place an educational amendment. Now schools will have to pay for the price of downloading materials that are free every where outside the school. It does not matter whether it is gas prices, or legislation, it is clear that the government has no plan and the action that it has taken is slow and tardy. We have example after example where people are suffering because of the fuel situation.

Let us go back to the school situation. Bill C-60 neglects to have an educational amendment was not put into Bill C-60. School buses use fuel to get around and we have an added tax on the school systems in Canada.

The rise in gas prices impacts people. Before I came here for this debate I was talking with a young woman in my hotel. She said that her husband did not pick her up at work any more because gas was so expensive. She now takes a bus. She said that she was a little afraid of walking at night in some areas. She is very nervous because she works the night shift.

Government has to look at the well-being of all Canadians. Government has to be able to predict the future. It has to look at the signs and see what is going on in the economic engine of our country.

Everyday Canadians feed their families, go to school, try to have some recreation time, a quality of life and to build a foundation where they can be comfortable. We need a government in place that takes all this very seriously. We must have a government that is able to plan and put programs in place that assess and meet the needs of Canadians across our country.

I will not repeat what the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam said. He very eloquently outlined most of the businesses that had been impacted as a result of the rising fuel prices. The member outlined some of the reasonable arguments as to why Canadians could not wait. The solutions have to come now.

We have in place a government that is not ready to bring forth those solutions. As I have listened to the debate tonight, the government is obviously throwing out policy on the fly. The member from this side of the House pointed out a little earlier that it is very piecemeal.

This became quite clear when I drove down one of the main thoroughfares in my constituency and saw lineups of cars at the gas stations at midnight when there was a threat of hurricane Rita impacting the coast of America. The motorists were afraid that the environmental threat would cause gas prices to go up.

There should have been leadership in the House of Commons from the Prime Minister and from the government, explaining and reassuring Canadians of what could happen. When people have a fear of filling their gas tank in order to safely get to and from work, there should be a solution. Canadians should not fear the fact that they might have to cut the grocery bill because they cannot afford to pay for gas.

To be quite frank, Canadians do not really care a whole lot about excuses. What people care about are solutions. Here in the House the confidence of the Canadian people in the government is being undermined because of the lack of action and strategic planning and because of comments that high gas prices are good for Canada.

I challenge the members opposite to find one Canadian who believes that statement to be true. I am calling the government to action, to put a plan in place that will meet the fuel and heating challenges that Canadians are facing this winter.

[Internet in Schools, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the educational use of the Internet in schools across our nation is now in jeopardy. Why? Because the government has tabled a piece of copyright legislation that ignores the fact that the legal framework for Internet use in the classroom is not addressed. This could have devastating consequences for teachers and students in my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul and all across our nation. The 2005 school year has already started. It has to be done now.

All educators want is access to information on the Internet that is intended to be free of charge in the first place. Creators who wish to sell their materials online can limit access very readily through a subscription or a password process. This educational amendment is crucial to the schools across our nation.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I definitely think this bill is politically motivated and I think it is very harmful to our nation. It is also very divisive. It breaks my heart to see that in the House of Commons.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would disagree with the hon. member. The gravity of this kind of issue should not be in this House at least until a referendum is held. The fact is that a referendum has not gone out to our nation to ask how our nation feels.

A referendum went out to my constituency to ensure I was representing my people very well. and I am, but I am also representing my own personal opinion because I believe in democracy.

This issue is fundamental to our nation and fundamental to our social fabric. We have families. People all across our nation have opinions. This is too premature to be in this House of Parliament. We are being forced to vote on this bill. Deals are being made behind closed doors and people are talking. I think this does a disservice to the Canadian public and it bothers me, which is why I am here today.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in the House to speak against this bill. It takes a lot for all members to be in the House today. In fact, as we speak, my daughter is on her way to her graduation. I feel very strongly that we as parliamentarians have to be here to stand firmly for the kinds of things that need to be addressed.

This issue should not be before Parliament today. This is something that we as parliamentarians need to deal with in our own homes because we live in a democratic society, and in a democratic society we have the freedom of choice. We are here today because we have to take care of the nation's business. The people of Kildonan--St. Paul sent me here to deal with the nation's business.

When we rise to speak, we must speak from the heart and think of our families. This issue has become too political. This is about democracy. In our great nation we have the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the freedom to live the kind of lives that we choose to live. Making a law that will cause marriage to just go away with the stroke of a pen late at night and probably some time this week is wrong. It is wrong to do that. I am baffled as to why Bill C-38 is before Parliament.

I believe in the definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Marriage does have its problems. Divorce happens. Other things happen, but it is the fundamental fabric for which we stand for in our great country.

I also believe in people's right to choose. I believe people in same sex unions or same sex relationships should have all the benefits they deserve in terms of financial benefits and charter freedoms. Bill C-38 would change the very fabric of our country. Members have come to the House to discuss this issue and have missed graduations or weddings. Our constituents elected us to stand up for what is right and to be brave and have courage.

I cannot stand in the House of Commons and not put my remarks on the record for the sake of our great nation. I represent my riding of Kildonan--St. Paul and over 85% of my constituents have told me that they want the definition of marriage retained as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

They have also told me that they do not want to be discriminatory. They do not want to tell somebody else how to live their life. How people live comes from their heart. That is what democracy is about. It is about the choices we make. When we make choices, we have to live with them.

My daughter knows that I am standing here today as a member of Parliament and as a mom, and discussing the business of our nation, so that when she graduates, she will be able to have those choices. If she decides to get married, she will know that the meaning of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. If she chooses otherwise, it will be her choice. The definition of marriage will not go away in the dark of night with the stroke of a pen.

Many things cause us to question Bill C-38. First, how in the world could a government in 1999 say it would not change the definition of marriage and then turn around today with this piece of legislation?

I will quote from the Deputy Prime Minister's letter dated April 24, 1998:

--the definition of marriage is already clear in law in Canada as the union of two persons of the opposite sex. Counsel from my department have successfully defended and will continue to defend this concept of marriage in the court...I continue to believe that it is not necessary to change well understood concepts of spouse and marriage to deal with any fairness considerations the courts and tribunals may find.

She could have written my speech today because that is exactly where I stand, defending the right of one man and one woman to marry, defending their right to propagate and have children, and defending the right for them to make a choice.

I am also here defending the right of same sex couples to make that choice, to have financial benefit and live as they choose. I am defending that right because it is called democracy. In our family we have spent our lives, generations of people, standing up for the democracy that we have here in our great nation.

My father went to war during the second world war and defended our country. He did not come back to tell people how to live. He did not come back to say that there had to be rules and regulations. I am appalled that the bill is before Parliament today because it is not a bill about equality. It is a bill about discrimination against people who are now married and have been married for years. As members of Parliament, we sign certificates congratulating our constituents for 20, 50, or 60 years of marriage. I signed one the other day for 65 years of marriage.

This is something special. That is not to say that marriage is perfect and I hope my husband is not listening now. I can say quite categorically that it is not always perfect, but it is something that I would not trade for all the world. Over and above that, I would not trade as a member of Parliament the democratic right to make those choices.

Today we have heard so many arguments. We have gone through the bill. We have stated our ground back and forth. Today I am here because I needed to speak to the bill and make my words known. It is very wrong to have this bill before Parliament and I certainly will be voting against it. I would call on all members from all sides of the House to show the courage and vote against the bill, not party against party and not person against person but to vote for democracy.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech made a lot of sense and provided a lot of clarity.

Could the member for Calgary West elaborate a bit more on what happened in 1999 when the present government firmly declared that it would never challenge the sanctity of marriage as being between a man and a woman? I wonder if he could talk a bit more about the lack of consistency in 2005.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

As the governing body. The NDP is not the governing body. Nineteen members do not constitute a majority government. On this side, we are a very formidable opposition, but we are not in governance either.

It is the responsibility of the Liberal government at this point in time to make the budget, because the people of Canada elected the Liberals to it. They did not elect a Liberal-NDP government to rule this country.

Having said that, this is what we are talking about when we are talking about democracy. People on this side of the House had a lot of input into Bill C-43. With regard to Bill C-48, no one on this side of the House was consulted in any way, shape or form. Bill C-48 was simply the result of two parties getting together to shore up a corrupt government.

The member opposite in my view is a woman of integrity. I have personally looked up to her. With all due respect, how can the NDP shore up the corrupt Liberal government? How can it ignore the democratic process? Governments in power are supposed--

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member opposite. She is from my city. I was a little reluctant to get up and ask a question, but I too can add, very well actually.

Bill C-43 was put together under the normal budget process, where one looks at the initiatives one wants to promote, collaborates with people in the field of expertise, and then looks at what can be done. It takes a certain length of time to accomplish this process. Bill C-48 on the other hand was much different. It was constructed in a hotel room in Toronto in a very short period of time. It was constructed with the NDP. The NDP, quite frankly, was not elected to this House of Commons. There are 19 members here--