Mike Lake

[Protection of Beneficiaries of Long Term Disability Benefits Plans Act, March 11th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, today I welcome the opportunity to speak to a private member's bill, Bill C-624, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (providing protection for beneficiaries of long term disability benefits plans), which was introduced by our esteemed colleague on February 11, 2011.

Bill C-624 proposes to amend Canada's insolvency laws. In particular, the bill would change the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to provide long term disability claims with a preferred claim in bankruptcy. This would mean that long term disability claims would be paid after secured creditors.

Furthermore, the bill proposes to amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to rank long term disability claims as a super-priority in restructuring, meaning that they would be paid ahead of secured creditors.

Last, the transitional provisions in the bill indicate that the amendments would be retroactive, in other words that they would apply to insolvency proceedings that were commenced prior to the coming into force of these bills.

Bill C-624 is essentially the same as Senator Eggleton's Bill S-216, which was reviewed by the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. The committee heard from several experts on the possible effects of prioritizing long-term disability claims and these concerns remain relevant for Bill C-624.

After weighing the evidence, the committee concluded that Bill S-216 could generate claims that conflict with court-approved settlement agreements already in force, resulting in litigation that would be detrimental to the interests of long-term disability claimants, including the former employees of Nortel.

Second, the bill would cause companies to prefer liquidation to restructuring because it would confer lower status to long-term disability benefits in liquidations than the super-priority gives to similar claims in restructuring.

Third, the bill would reduce the amount that some creditors would otherwise hope to recover in bankruptcy proceedings, therefore increasing risk for investors and resulting in a higher cost of credit.

For those reasons, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade, and Commerce concluded that Bill S-216 would be detrimental to the growth of the Canadian economy. This is why the committee reported back to the Senate with the recommendation that Bill S-216 not be proceeded with further. The Senate adopted the report.

The Senate committee's recommendation is in keeping with practices from Canada's major trading partners, none of which provide a higher priority for future long term disability claims in insolvency. In fact, neither the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand or Australia provide a higher priority than Canada does to cover future long-term disability benefits payable after an employer becomes insolvent.

In many instances, insolvency legislation is not the best tool to better protect employees because, once a company is insolvent, it is already too late. By definition, an insolvent company does not have sufficient moneys to completely pay the claims of all creditors. Moreover, insolvency law is an economic framework legislation that has broad implications for Canada's economy, including economic growth and job creation. Any changes to the established priorities need to be carefully considered, as they could harm businesses and the economy through higher cost of capital.

That said, this government has taken action to better protect workers. In 2008-09, the government amended insolvency legislation to create a super-priority for outstanding normal pension contributions, such that these amounts are paid ahead of secured creditors. This government also created the wage-earner protection program in 2008, which pays up to $3,400 for unpaid wages for employees whose employer becomes bankrupt or subject to a receivership. In 2009, the government expanded the wage-earner protection program to better protect employees' severance and termination pay.

Furthermore, in the spring of 2009, the government engaged in a national consultation on the legislative and regulatory framework for federally regulated private pension plans. As a result of that consultation, the government announced in October 2009 an important reform plan to modernize the federal private pension legislative and regulatory framework.

Last, the government has undertaken a very serious and public discussion with Canadians on retirement income adequacy and security. A joint federal–provincial–territorial research working group was established with respected academic Dr. Jack Mintz as director of research. Based on the working group's findings, finance ministers agreed in December 2010 on a framework for defined contribution pooled registered pension plans and to continue work on options to improve the Canada pension plan, as well as to review the task force on the financial literacy's report, which is scheduled for release shortly, and to respond to the recommendations.

I understand that Bill C-624 was introduced in hopes of providing assistance to former Nortel employees whose long-term disability benefits ceased on December 31, 2010 as a result of a court-approved settlement agreement. However, as the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce heard, these amendments would not really help, but instead lead to lengthy and costly litigation, which would be detrimental to the interests of long-term disability claimants, including the former employees of Nortel.

The government understands and is very sympathetic to the challenges that Nortel's long-term disability beneficiaries are facing through no fault of their own. However, it should be noted that the hardship they are facing is primarily due to the fact that Nortel chose to self-fund its long-term disability benefit obligations rather than to purchase insurance.

Long-term disability plans are largely a provincial issue and, therefore, provinces are really better placed to look at developing a regulatory framework that would prevent this type of situation from repeating itself. Amending Canada's insolvency laws is absolutely not the right way to protect workers and, doing so, would have negative consequences for businesses and the economy as a whole. That is not in the interests of Canadian business, not in the interests of Canadian workers and certainly not in the interests of Canadian pensioners.

I welcome any input that any member from any party in the House has in terms of finding a solution to this difficult issue.

[Manufacturing Industry, March 11th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question gives me the opportunity to again highlight the jobs that have been created in our country, nearly 500,000 new jobs since July 2009.

Our country is leading the way worldwide among industrialized countries as we come out of this global economic recession, thanks to the measures taken by this government, the industry minister and the entire cabinet.

[March 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about policy since the Conservative government has been in power. The fact is that the last long form census was held in 2006. That process was long in place before the new government was elected. We did not set that process in place, just to clarify that for the hon. member.

In regards to threats, one does not need to throw people in prison for them to feel threatened. Simply threatening jail time if someone does not want to tell the government their religion and then having to tell the government subsequently, is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to this government or to Canadians.

[March 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my hon. colleague, I wondered if he was at a different meeting this afternoon than I was because he portrayed a different picture of what I remember hearing from the witnesses who were before the committee today.

We had a good committee hearing today. We heard from three statistical experts who shared with us the work that is ongoing right now as Statistics Canada undertakes this national household survey. By all reports today, that work seems to be going well. Some good progress is being made in the north where the process has begun. We are hearing that there is a very strong response rate of 99% for the census and, I believe, 85% so far for the national household survey. That is a good start.

I would like to clarify some of the inaccuracies that we hear from time to time. There was some confusion in the committee today because one of the Liberal members did not realize that we still had a census. I think it is important to clarify that we do still have a census in this country. It is what most Canadians would equate to a census. It is the counting of all Canadians. It identifies their gender, where they live, their marital status and those types of important things for gathering information. As the member mentioned, that census is still mandatory.

In addition to the census, we have a national household survey that is not mandatory. We will no longer be threatening Canadians with fines and jail time because they do not want to tell the government, for example, what their religion is, or how many bedrooms they have in their house, or how much yard work they did last week. We think it is inappropriate and unacceptable to threaten Canadians with fines or jail time for not wanting to answer those questions.

It is fully understandable that we might have a situation where new Canadians may not want to tell the government their religion. Under the law previously, they would be threatened with up to a $500 fine or jail time. In fact, the Liberal member for St. Paul's has introduced a bill that would reinstate that threat of fines. Of course, if people do not pay their fine they are subject to jail time as well.

We think that is inappropriate and unacceptable in a modern democracy like Canada. We think that Canadians, when they receive their national household survey, will, for the most part, want to act responsibly and fill it out. I know I will. We heard from virtually everyone in the room today that if they get the national household survey they intend to fill it out and send it back.

We have some world-renowned experts in statistics who will be working on this and executing the new process to ensure we get the best information that we can possibly get. Perhaps the hon. member underestimates the skills that exist at Statistics Canada. We do not. We believe that we will get terrific, usable and useful information through this process, but we will do it without threatening Canadians.

[Patent Act, March 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP for his passion on this issue, for his interest in picking this bill up. I thank all hon. colleagues in the House, regardless of how they feel about this legislation, for voting unanimously to allow the member to pick up the bill so we could continue this important debate.

Bill C-393 is drafted to deal with the many challenges associated with access to medicines in the developing world.

Before I begin, I commend the Grandmothers to Grandmothers campaign for their continued perseverance to keep this issue at the top of public debate. Although we may not agree on the legislation, I share with the grandmothers a commitment to bringing real and meaningful improvements to the health issues plaguing the people of the developing world, especially those who are most vulnerable, children and mothers.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology recently completed an extensive review of Bill C-393. The committee heard that Canada's Access to Medicines Regime, in its current form, enabled Canada to deliver two shipments of approximately 15 million tablets of an HIV-AIDS drug to Rwanda in 2008 and 2009.

This makes Canada the only country to have successfully exported generic versions of patented drugs to a developing country using a system like Canada's access to Medicines Regime, a significant achievement to be sure.

The committee also heard testimony that made the following point very clear. African countries depend on medicines from countries such as India, not Canada as some have suggested. The rationale is basic economics: they cost less. They cost less to produce and ship and systems are already in place that see millions of generic copies of patented drugs shipped from countries like India to the developing world.

This is why our government's primary effort to combat the shortage of drugs in the developing world has been focused on direct support to NGOs in Africa or to the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Supporting these worthwhile initiatives is the most effective means to help those in need.

However, that is not all that our government has done. In budget 2010 the government reaffirmed its commitment to double international assistance, bringing Canada's total international assistance to approximately $5 billion

. Working with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, our government is at the forefront of the effort to develop an HIV vaccine, possibly one of the greatest medical breakthroughs of our time.

The committee heard from Dr. Frank Plummer, a world-leading HIV-AIDS researcher and specialist in infectious diseases, who said that to address this issue “we need multiple mechanisms, and the Government of Canada is doing that”.

We will continue to do just that by focusing our efforts on worthwhile results-based initiatives worldwide. Our government's concerns with Bill C-393's proposal to water down Canadian patent laws are shared by members of the opposition, too.

To quote the Liberal member of Parliament for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, I would note the following. He says:

Patents are not an obstacle to accessing medicines in developing countries. In the words of Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni, the debate about changing patent rules for drugs is a "red herring.

The notion that patent laws stand in the way of shipping drugs to Africa is simply false.

At the conclusion of the review by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, committee members voted to substantially amend Bill C-393.

These amendments were considered necessary by some members of the committee to ensure that the bill would both respect Canada's international trade obligations and maintain the integrity of Canada's framework for encouraging innovation and access to medicines for Canadians.

However, I still have reservations with the amended Bill C-393, which is why I cannot support it. In particular, I am concerned that, unlike the existing Access to Medicines Regime, the amended Bill C-393 does not include sufficient safeguards to ensure that drugs authorized for export are used for humanitarian purposes only and cannot be sold on the black market.

As well, the amended Bill C-393 does not have the necessary components to respect Canada's international trade obligations.

I, and I am sure other hon. members as well, am committed to improving the poor health conditions of people living in the developing world. In my opinion, the most effective way to do this is to improve the basic health infrastructure in the developing world. Low-income countries lack the trained medical staff, access to clean water, accurate diagnostic equipment, and reliable power that are crucial to improving health outcomes.

Canada needs to help these countries by continuing to support funds that assist countries to procure essential medicines, by providing technical assistance to help those countries navigate the drug procurement process and by helping to train qualified health professionals. All of this is in an effort to ensure that the primary health care needs of the world's most vulnerable citizens are being met. We need to focus on what works.

We heard before the committee that in 2003, 400,000 Africans were being treated for HIV-AIDS. In 2010, that 400,000 will grow to 5.2 million people. We need to continue to focus on what makes a difference in the lives of those people.

The testimony provided to the committee was essential to getting to the heart of Bill C-393 and its well-intentioned but flawed reform of Canada's Access to Medicines Regime. Access to health care in developing countries is a multifaceted issue. Neither Canada's Access to Medicines Regime nor the changes proposed by the bill currently before us will provide the additional health care professionals, infrastructure and other tools necessary to effectively administer life-saving drugs in Africa.

As our colleague, the member of Parliament for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, so succinctly stated recently:

Changing [Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime] will have no effect on the ability of [Low Income Countries] to acquire medicines and medical supplies that are beyond their means to purchase or administer in the first place.

Bill C-393 is not the answer to solving the access to medicines issue. It is for this reason that I urge members to not support Bill C-393.

[Telecommunications Industry, February 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat confused right now after listening to that question because the member has asked two questions and has taken a different position on each one.

Of course with the Globalive decision, consistent with the decision we have just talked about, the government has acted in the interests of Canadian consumers and in the interests of more competition in the Canadian marketplace. We will always do that.

[Telecommunications Industry, February 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that is completely untrue. Our government has expressed serious concerns about the CRTC decision and the wide-reaching implications it has for consumers, innovation and the competitiveness of small- and medium-size businesses. That is why the minister and the Prime Minister both expressed concern last week. That is why they decided to ask the CRTC to review that decision.

This government will always stand up for Canadian consumers, for innovation and for advancement in technology in this country.

[Economic Development, February 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question.

I will use this opportunity to talk about Statistics Canada's announcement today about the creation of nearly 70,000 net new jobs in January.

According to Statistics Canada's estimates, Canada has created over 460,000 jobs since July 2009, the strongest job growth in the G7. A budget will be coming up soon to continue that growth, continue that economic strength in Canada. We hope the NDP will join us in supporting that budget.

[Economic Development, February 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal plan to give FedNor regional development agency status is merely window dressing and will not bring better results for northern Ontarians. FedNor is already bringing results to northern Ontario with strategically targeted stimulus across the region to spur economic development.

What FedNor provides is widely supported by local governments for its focus on economic stimulation, which enhances the quality of life for all northern Ontarians.

[February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member obviously was not paying attention today during the hearings and the industry minister's press conference afterward. Both the Minister of Industry and the Prime Minister expressed serious concerns about the decision by the CRTC on Monday.

Today, there was a hearing at which we had the opportunity to hear from the head of the CRTC, Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein. I am not sure if the hon. member happened to tune in and watch the hearings. It will rerun on CPAC tonight. Maybe he will have a chance to tune in or get the transcript of it.

This government will always act in the best interests of consumers, increase competition and increase the uptake of technology on behalf of Canadians when it comes to the Internet.