Pat Martin

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, December 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very timely question. We know that economic development and social progress is being held back by the stubborn refusal to conclude land claims.

There was a pivotal study on the subject of economic development in first nations by Stephen Cornell, from Harvard University, who studied first nations and their degree of development all over North America. He found, without any fear of contradiction, that there was an inexorable link between the level of economic development and the level of self-governance and self-determination of a first nation.

In other words, the only successful models of economic development are those communities that have achieved a certain amount of self-governance and self-determination, and virtually open-ended. This is not simply access to resources. This is the socio and cultural mindset that comes with being a free people, free to conduct their own affairs and self-determination. That is when progress blossoms.

Signing the Tlicho agreement 82 years to the day after the political forebearers had signed Treaty 11, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien captured the emotion and the meaning of the moment with the following words. He said, “This is the glory of Canada where we can be what we are and at the same time be part of a greater Canada”.

In my view, as we pass Bill C-14 today, we are strengthening Confederation. We are not giving anything away. We are building a stronger country with the partnership of the Tlicho First Nation.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, December 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, all modern day treaties, and I mean by that the Nisga'a treaty, the comprehensive claims regarding the Inuvialuit western Arctic agreement and others like the Cree-Naskapi agreement, were individually custom crafted to meet the individual specific realities of the first nations people and the environment that they were dealing with. There is no one single cookie-cutter approach that would do justice to the many legitimate claims out there.

One of the things we caution about this agreement and any of the modern day treaties is that they should not be viewed as templates. They should not be viewed as some boiler plate that we can put in place and then impose on other first nations.

I sympathize with the member's tone and the content of the member's question that this is a tedious, expensive and sometimes cumbersome process. It could be expedited however were there a willingness on the side of the federal government to actually conclude agreements rather than prolong these lengthy negotiations because the stumbling block has been on the government's side.

We have seen movement and negotiation in good faith on the side of the first nations in virtually every application, but we have not heard the minister say to his bureaucrats, or to his negotiators, to go out and conclude agreements. We have heard him say, figuratively if not literally, to go out there, delay and stall, and do not even recognize Supreme Court rulings in their determinations at the bargaining table.

We have a situation where most negotiating tables are frustrated, prolonged and terribly costly. I can given examples to my colleague from Edmonton of negotiating tables where the first nations, in order to continue negotiating, have to borrow money for all the legal expertise that they need, sometimes tens of millions of dollars, and then in the end, 20, 30 or 50 years down the road, when they finally conclude a settlement, they have to pay back all the money they had to borrow to continue bargaining.

Were the government or, frankly, successive federal governments truly interested in resolving these outstanding claims, they would had gone to the negotiating table with a political will and with a mandate conclude settlements and negotiations. We believe economic development could have prospered and flowed into those areas of Canada much sooner.

I lived in Yukon when the entire territory was all under land claims. I wanted to buy my first home because I was starting a family. I wanted to build my first house as a carpenter. My son was born in Dawson City. We could not get a lot anywhere in the whole territory because the entire territory was frozen because of pending land claims. This was all through the 1970s and the 1980s. I had to stake a mining claim and build a cabin on the mining claim because I could not get a simple titled lot anywhere.

Economic development is being held back throughout Canada because of pending negotiations. It is the stubbornness and the unwillingness on the part of the federal government, not just this federal government but the previous one as well, that is stopping the conclusion of some of these protracted and exhausting negotiations.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, December 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will use these last five minutes to summarize the views of the NDP caucus with regard to Bill C-14 and, in our view, to celebrate the emancipation of the Tlicho people as they, by this bill, come out from under the Indian Act which we believe resulted in nothing more than 130 years of social tragedy across the country.

Before question period I was pointing out that the Tlicho, under this agreement, will now hold complete surface and subsurface resource rights, full hunting and trapping rights, and control over renewable and non-renewable resource harvesting. This, more than anything else, is the worthy aspect of this document.

Finally the very people who prospered for thousands of years on their traditional territory will have the direction and control over the resources on that traditional territory. It was a misguided century that denied them that right. It is our opportunity by this action to remedy that historic injustice that denied them access to their own land, resources and renewable and non-renewable resources.

Let me say as well that democracy is alive and well in the Tlicho First Nation. There is no democratic deficit in the Tlicho First Nation as we might find here in Ottawa at times. The agreement in principle between the Tlicho and the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada was reached in the year 2000 and was later approved by 80% of the 1,843 Tlicho voters in June 2003. In that referendum they wanted to be so abundantly sure that it was a democratic vote that any uncast ballots were counted as no votes. Even with that extra-superdemocracy, they still achieved 80% of the 1,843 eligible votes who voted yes on the agreement in principle. I thought that was noteworthy.

In the last few moments that I have I would like to talk about what I think are perhaps the most innovative aspects of the agreement. They are the provisions for Tlicho self-government and the right to strike and enforce laws through a traditional Dene justice system.

The former prime minister who signed the document on behalf of the Government of Canada stressed that the agreement will serve as a model for other indigenous communities and other countries. We approve of that, provided it is not viewed as a template or a cookie cutter approach. We believe all first nations have the right to negotiate their own terms and conditions. He added, “It defines rights and shows the world how diversity creates strength and how partnerships build success and is a model for implementing self-government”. That is a quote from the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien.

Among the 700 people witnessing the signing of the agreement was Tlicho elder Mary Ann Jermemick'ca, who travelled from Wha Ti mostly by canoe. Her quote upon witnessing the signing of this historic agreement was:

We were always told what to do and what we couldn't do. We could have somebody doing mining...right next to our house and we have nothing to say about it. Now at least we have some say about what's going on in our community and our land.

This agreement recognizes the Tlicho authority and self-governing ability to collect taxes, to levy resource royalties, to regulate aspects of their lives, from fishing to family law, to the licensing of native healers However, contrary to the misconceptions perpetrated by those who I believe were raising mischief associated with this bill, federal and territorial governments continue to maintain health, education, housing and social assistance programs at the same level as elsewhere in the Northwest Territories. Also, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms remains in full force and effect and cannot be superseded.

Perhaps the most notable facet of the Tlicho agreement is not what it is, but rather, what it is not. It is not a conventional treaty. Largely 19th century artifacts, these treaties from the European and Euro-Canadian point of view often signalled an end to hostilities or were put in place for a specific European purpose, not for the well-being of the other party of the treaty, which is the aboriginal and first nations people.

The Tlicho Dene have lived from time immemorial in the region of the Northwest Territories that came to be bisected by two such treaties, treaty 8 in 1899, and treaty 11 in 1921, which split the Tlicho territory arbitrarily, denying them access to traditional territories and control of their own region.

The reason these treaties were struck was largely the direct result of events. In the case of treaty 8, it was the 1898 gold rush. This treaty was hurriedly forced into effect to look after the interests of people who wanted access to the gold fields, not the well-being of the first nations communities that they interrupted. Treaty 11, which came along in 1921, followed the oil strike at Norman Wells, Northwest Territories in 1920.

In a very hurried way the government had to quickly throw a treaty together to essentially make peace with the indigenous people in that area, so that it could access and harvest the very resources that sat under the feet of the original peoples. These traditional treaties were marred and tainted, as it were, as being very one-sided and self-serving.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, December 6th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus I am very proud to rise today and speak in favour of Bill C-14. I am proud to be a part of this. I think I can speak for the entire NDP caucus when I say that we share the same commitment and sentiment toward having the bill expeditiously pass through the House and on to the Senate, because we are very committed to getting this whole process through as quickly as we can.

I would like to begin by offering my recognition of and my thanks and heartfelt congratulations to the Tlicho people for having achieved this monumental point in their history, the product of more than decade of consultations and negotiations. The agreement between the Tlicho and the governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories is something for all of us here today to be proud of.

I would specifically like to recognize and pay tribute to a few people: Grand Chief Joe Rabesca, along with the chiefs from the various communities of the Tlicho territory, both his negotiating teams, with Mr. John B. Zoe, who was the chief negotiator, as well as Eddie Erasmus and James Washie, self-government specialists.

We believe that with the signing of this agreement we begin a new chapter in Canada's history today. I believe that with this agreement we are strengthening Canada's federation. We are in a way committing ourselves to a new north, one that represents the vision and the spirit of the people who live there. By doing so, I believe that we make our country stronger and better able to meet the challenges of the future.

This historic agreement is the first and the most comprehensive land claim and self-government agreement in the Northwest Territories. It can serve as a model, but not as a template, I caution, for other communities in Canada and in fact for other countries for implementing self-government, because this agreement defines rights and shows the world how diversity creates strength and how partnership builds on this model.

As a result of the agreement, the Tlicho will receive a block of land just slightly smaller than Switzerland. On this land the Tlicho will own the resources, which will give them the tools they need to strengthen their culture and their future. I believe that agreements such as this one provide the certainty and the security that all of us need to plan for ourselves and our future; certainty and predictable decision making that will interest investment and growth in the north.

I am very proud to be here as a member of Parliament, as a member of the New Democratic Party and as a Canadian. I am proud because the agreement represents what is best about Canada, I believe. We should and can lead the world in the recognition of aboriginal rights. In fact, we are the only country in the world to recognize those rights in our Constitution.

Our history and experience to date in recognizing and acknowledging aboriginal and treaty rights have been Canada's greatest failure and Canada's greatest shame. This is why I am proud to be able to stand in the House of Commons and celebrate with the Tlicho people; that for once, this one time, Canada is doing the right thing in recognizing aboriginal and treaty rights as they manifest themselves in this historic document and this bill today, which gives force to the Tlicho agreement.

Aboriginal and treaty rights are, I believe, an expression of Canadian values, and with this agreement we put these values into writing. We show how values that seem abstract and intangible can in fact make a difference, creating opportunity, prosperity, a stronger north and a stronger Tlicho people. The agreement will touch on all aspects of life. It is unique in that way. In addition to encouraging economic development and partnership, it also paves the way for new jobs and educational opportunities.

The Tlicho government will be able to put in place programs that promote the Tlicho language and the Tlicho way of life. I was pleased to see the strong support this agreement had within the Tlicho people and to see that in fact this agreement finds its origins in the best principles of democratic process.

Ninety-three per cent of all of eligible voters came out to have their say in this historic agreement. Of that 93%, 84% voted yes to the Tlicho agreement. We should have such voter turnout in the broader Canadian mainstream democratic process. To my mind, with no hesitation and no degree of uncertainty, we can say that the Tlicho people have spoken. They were consulted. They understood. They came out to vote. They exercised the democratic process. They have spoken.

It is our job now as members of Parliament in the House of Commons to give force and effect to that agreement and not stand in the way of it or block it in any unnecessary way. We must pass Bill C-14 so that the Tlicho agreement can come into full force and effect.

It is one of the ironies in Canada that it often takes us much longer to reconcile ourselves with the consequences of historic events than it takes for them to unfold in the first place. There are perhaps no people in Canada more painfully aware of this than the Tlicho Dene of the Northwest Territories.

The Tlicho, who number about 3,000, live in the four communities of Behcho Ko, Wha Ti, Gameti and Wekweti, Snare Lake, some of the oldest and most traditional aboriginal communities anywhere in Canada or in the north. They are also one of the most dangerously threatened aboriginal groups, having been devastated by disease from the outside world. By 1900, 1 in 10 Tlicho had died from measles. An influenza epidemic in 1928, and I quote one of the historical writers of the time, “left so many dead that in many camps there was no one left to bury them”. By 1940, many anthropologists felt that the Dogrib people could never survive, that they were on the road to extinction, an endangered species, so to speak.

The road back has been an arduous one and a journey of decades, but it has led to a settlement that sets proud new standards of aboriginal self-government, resource management and social services. In a nutshell, this agreement puts in force the conditions by which aboriginal peoples can control their own destiny.

I do not need to remind anyone of what we have heard in the House of Commons many times: that all the empirical evidence and all the studies indicate that successful economic development among first nation communities is directly proportional to their degree of self-governance, their degree of self-determination. Those are the successful models of the famous Harvard study by Stephen Cornell, who went all through the United States and showed which communities are making it and which are failing. The ones making it are the ones that have the highest degree of self-determination. That is what this act today and the Tlicho agreement give.

The first milestone on the road back from virtual extinction was the year 1970. It was then that the Trudeau government of the day approved in principle what one scientist had been calling the largest engineering venture ever undertaken by man, which was the construction of the Mackenzie Valley oil and gas pipeline. We know that the long term consequences of that pipeline were of great interest to people of the day, both in the north and in the south. There were great reservations about building this pipeline and about the effect it would have not only on the environment but in regard to the social and cultural impact on the people of the area.

There were many social concerns, of course, and at that time the Berger inquiry in 1975 led a royal commission into the proposed pipeline. After almost two years of hearings in every community along the proposed pipeline, Berger recommended a 10 year moratorium so that further environmental study could take place during the negotiation of native land claims as well.

It was Berger's point of view that northern aboriginal people, the Métis, first nations and Inuit, must become full and equal partners in any future development project and thereby reclaim former levels of aboriginal self-governance. I put it to everyone today that for 1975 this was radical thinking. This was an insight that was hard to sell and even more difficult for southerners to understand, but we can see now that there was great wisdom in what Berger wrote at that time. The moratorium was granted by the prime minister of the day, Pierre Trudeau, and the negotiations began in earnest. This, I argue, was the beginning of the road back.

At one time, really not that long ago, we talked about the northern trinity in northern Canada. The northern trinity meant that southern Canadians were the guardians of the north. The Hudson's Bay Company, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Christian churches constituted the northern trinity of southerners who were dictating how the north should develop and how it should unfold.

It really was not until the interest in the north generated by the Mackenzie Valley pipeline in that region finally broke this trinity that reason and logic and a different mindset in fact took over. That began the long and arduous process which has resulted in the coming to this debate in the House of Commons today at third reading a bill that will give manifestation to an agreement that represents a generation or more of historical progress, I would say, for aboriginal people in that region of Canada's north.

This treaty is the latest and perhaps the most innovative example of cooperation and consultation today among the three levels of government: territorial, federal and aboriginal. Many MPs here would be interested to know that the original claim that was contemplated was 230,000 square kilometres, roughly the size of the Yukon territory. This was the traditional territory called Monfwi gogwas ndeniitle and was first legally identified by Tlicho chief Monfwi at the Treaty 8 signing in 1921. This was the origin and the starting point for these long processes of negotiations.

In the final agreement, instead of the 230,000 square kilometres that constitute the traditional territory of the Tlicho people, we have ended up agreeing upon an area of roughly 39,000 square kilometres of land in fee simple title and providing $152 million of federal funding over 15 years. This land claim, with a land mass that is seven times the size of Prince Edward Island and, as I said earlier, roughly the size of Switzerland, includes the northern territory of Yellowknife between Great Slave and Great Bear Lakes, bordering Nunavut.

The agreement would mean that the Tlicho would hold complete surface and subsurface resource rights, full hunting and trapping rights and control over renewable and non-renewable resource harvesting, something that I personally celebrate. Being maybe one of the few people in Canada, other than those in this room, who has read the Indian Act, I am aware of how little access to resources was afforded to those aboriginal people under the Indian Act.

In fact, the only specific natural resources cited in the Indian Act for the use of Indians are gravel, clay, mud, sand and other worthless commodities. There is no mention in the Indian Act of oil, natural gas, diamonds, gold, pearls or rubies, any of the things we can think of that have of any value, or even trees or fish.

None of them are mentioned in the Indian Act. Indians are not allowed access to those things. They are allowed access to mud, gravel and clay, and then people in the south ask why these people do not exercise some entrepreneurship and go out and create small businesses. Out of what? Mud, gravel, clay or sand?

Are you signalling me, Madam Speaker?

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Hamilton is right when he says that previous parliaments have attempted to deal with this thorny issue, and as recently as the last Parliament. I was seconded by a Liberal MP, the member for Hamilton East, when I introduced a very similar bill in the House of Commons.

Minority government works for ordinary Canadians. We are faced with a unique opportunity to do something historic here. In my view, if we do nothing else in this minority Parliament, if we move this issue toward justice for working people, our time will be well served and our political capital well spent.

From a Hamilton point of view, which both the hon. member and my previous seconder from Hamilton raised, Cold Metal Products stands as a glaring example here. Cold Metal Products, which was located in Hamilton, went bankrupt in 2003. When it shut down, 80 members of the Steelworkers Union were shocked to learn that their employer sponsored pension plan was only 55% funded and that their pensions would be cut back, not just the employees who lost their jobs due to the bankruptcy, but the pensioners, the beneficiaries of the plan. The core plan was 55% underfunded.

This is a pattern. It is becoming a typical norm among employers. They are allowed, although I never understood why, to underfund their pension by 20%, but they push it and there is no enforcement of those who exceed that limit. They run at 50% underfunded and if they run into financial difficulty that funding is never made up.

The bill would require and mandate that the shortfall be made up so that the beneficiaries and the current employees do not lose their pension benefits.

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, December 3rd, 2004]

moved that Bill C-281, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker,it is a great honour for me to speak at second reading of the bill I introduced, Bill C-281. I would like to begin by recognizing the contribution of my colleagues in the NDP caucus in the development of the bill, first, my seconder, the member for Hamilton Centre, who was instrumental in developing the content of the bill to the form it is in now, and second, my colleague from Ottawa Centre, who brought forward recommendations regarding the bankruptcy laws as they affect workers and employees in this country. I want to recognize and thank both of these colleagues for their contribution.

Every week in this country there are roughly 200 commercial bankruptcies, 1,000 bankruptcies a month, and roughly 10,000 bankruptcies per year, many of which leave behind employees who are owed back wages, benefits and pension contributions. The total figures we can only estimate. Over $1 billion per year is a figure that has been used.

It is workers who pay the price when workplaces shut down. This is especially true when these shutdowns are triggered by bankruptcy, because not only do the employees lose their jobs and their source of income, they also often lose wages that they have not been paid, as I have stated, and vacation pay, termination pay and severance pay.

The reason for this is the order of priority in which employees find themselves when it comes to the distribution of the proceeds of the remaining assets of the company. Workers find themselves at the bottom of the list. I argue that today in the House of Commons in 2004, the members congregated here should be putting workers first in the event of a bankruptcy.

My bill simply reverses the order of priority. Back wages and benefits owing to employees would be ranked at the top of the list when it comes to the distribution of the remaining assets. I urge colleagues to remember or to at least contemplate that big money has controlled things in Ottawa for so long, in my view, that it is no surprise that many of the laws are crafted in such a way as to look after the interests of big money better than they look after the interests of ordinary Canadian voters.

Working people in Canada send us to Parliament to put their interests first, I argue, and in this case, this is one thing we could be doing to look after the interests of Canadian workers as a prime concern, as a priority, by putting them first in line in the event of a bankruptcy.

Parliament has tried to address the inadequacies of the bankruptcy act a number of times in recent years. I am the first to acknowledge that both the House of Commons and the Senate have been seized of the issue and I think this illustrates a growing awareness in Canada that the bankruptcy laws are in fact unfair to workers or at least do not recognize their unique status in the event of a bankruptcy.

When I argue about putting workers as the first priority, we have to view workers who are owed back wages as creditors. I think there is a case to be made that if the company has been operating on or using back wages owed to employees to operate the company, the employees are in fact creditors. Maybe they are creditors against their will in that they certainly did not give any approval to use the back wages and pension contributions to operate the company, but that is in fact what they are.

This is what we are asking members of Parliament to recognize. Employees are justified in being viewed as creditors in the distribution of the assets. In fact, we are asking Parliament to entertain the idea that they should have superpriority, because the other aspect we should acknowledge is the unique trust relationship that exists between the employer and the employee.

Banks, should they take some loss in the event of a bankruptcy, are in that business, we argue. They mitigate that loss by charging interest rates throughout the period of the loan. Even if the order of priority were reversed and employees were paid first, our research shows that the banks would still get most of what was owed to them. They would not lose all of it if some went to workers. The inverse is true, too, in that employees are vulnerable creditors, more so than the banks or the other lenders because they cannot spread that risk over a number of investments. All of their eggs are in one basket.

In the case of a bankruptcy, it is not just the back wages and benefits that are left owing. More often than not in recent high profile bankruptcies, it is the contributions to the pension plan that have a lasting effect, with an underfunded plan leaving employees with far, far less for their monthly retirement than they had earned and were led to believe they would receive.

All of those points add up to a compelling case that the current Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act does not serve the interests of Canadian workers-Canadian voters as it should. We in the House of Commons should put as a priority the best interests of workers and employees, not the best interests of banks and financiers who would object to this reprioritization.

We tested the views of the Canadian public. I brought with me the results of a Vector poll that we conducted with the cooperation of our partners in the labour movement, specifically the United Steel Workers of America which represents a number of workplaces that have been affected by bankruptcy recently.

This nationwide Vector poll of 1,200 Canadians, conducted with what is called a plus or minus accuracy of 1.9%, asked the following question: “Under current laws usually a bankruptcy pays its debts in this order: first, taxes, followed by the banks and other lenders, suppliers and then employees. Do you think the current bankruptcy laws are fair or not fair to employees?” Eighty-four per cent of Canadians said that the current situation was not fair to employees.

When asked a more specific question: “Sometimes bankrupt companies do not get enough money from selling off the assets to pay everyone. Under the current laws, the first to be paid are secured creditors and lenders who have a guarantee. Employees, however, are not secured creditors and may not get the wages owed to them when a company goes into bankruptcy. Should the law be changed to provide more protection for employees' unpaid wages?” Eighty-nine percent of Canadians across the country said that the law should be changed so that it provides more protection for employees' unpaid wages.

I would think that if there was any need for further argument in the House of Commons or any question of whether this is the political ground that the government wants to take, this should give it some comfort that this is what Canadians want it to do.

I welcome any other polls to this effect but I challenge anyone to show us results that are dramatically different from what we have demonstrated here today.

Canadians want a fair shake for employees. We want to put workers first. This after all is the House of Commons and it is not called the House of Commons for nothing. This is where common people send their representatives to make laws that work for them. It is as simple as that.

Lobbyists for the financial interests have been so prominent that laws have been crafted in such a way that they do not look after our concerns any more, at least not in this one example of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Bill C-281 would do three things. First, it would reverse the order of priority to put employees first in the distribution of the proceeds from the assets of the bankrupt company.

The second thing it would do, until we can add more fairness to the bankruptcy laws, is it would change the Employment Insurance Act. If employees were laid off due to a bankruptcy and were collecting EI, if they received some settlement for back wages owed to him, those back wages would not be viewed as income in the period of time they were collecting EI. If the wages were, they would be deducted dollar for dollar from their EI payments. Seeing as they earned those wages while the company was still open, those earnings when paid later on should not be viewed as income for the purpose of EI. This is a consequential amendment to the principle and the concept of what we are introducing.

Third, the bill would change the Canada Business Corporations Act to provide a more efficacious procedure by which former employees of a bankrupt corporation who are owed wages by the corporation can proceed with claims against its directors.

In other words, under the current law if the proceeds of the bankruptcy are not adequate to pay for the back wages and benefits, the employees are currently allowed to sue the directors of the corporation to make up for any shortfall. However the process is tedious. It can take years, and not all the employees involved have a union to advocate for them. The bill would expedite that process. The employees could still make a claim against the directors for any shortfall but it would be expedited by an arbitration board or tribunal which could fast track the claim against the directors.

The key principle I ask members to please keep in mind is that what we are trying to do is rejig the order of priority whereby employees would rank first in priority and not at the bottom. Canadians want this and expect it. When members of Parliament are given the opportunity they should be fighting for the little guy, speaking out for the person who is left in the wake of these corporate decisions that are far beyond their control or input.

We can point to dozens of recent examples of Canadians who have been impacted. When there are almost 10,000 commercial bankruptcies per year in Canada there is no shortage of empirical evidence to point to and to draw from. In one recent example in the province of Ontario, 1,300 unionized employees with Ontario Store Fixtures lost their jobs because of bankruptcy. Even though another company restarted the business for a brief period of time it too filed for bankruptcy. When the dust settled in that, over 1,200 employees had lost their jobs. They are owed roughly $12 million in back wages and benefits.

In the case of Ontario Store Fixtures, no money was in the bankruptcy estate to pay for any of these claims. Guess who got paid first? Any cash that was available at the time of the first bankruptcy went to the company's banker, CIBC. Assets from the auction of the property of the second bankruptcy automatically went to other secured creditors, who in this case were the shareholders of the Ontario Store Fixtures partnership.

Virtually everybody received their money except for the actual employees of the company. I ask my colleagues to consider the ancient trust relationship that exists between the employer and the employee.

I, and many people with whom I have spoken, would like to think that whatever assets remain after a bankruptcy and after the owners have walked away, that the company would like to see that money go toward paying some of the wages it owes its employees and then whatever is left could be distributed among other creditors on the list.

This is an idea whose time has come. In the interest of fairness and on behalf of Canadian workers everywhere, I urge my colleagues to allow the bill to pass at second reading and go to committee where we can give it a more fulsome review, submit amendments, craft it whichever way we want as long as the end result is that our number one concern is to protect the interests of employees in the event of a bankruptcy. We must put workers first.

[Canada Education Savings Act, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from Hamilton, I would like to ask him his views of another contradictory move from the government.

When the current Prime Minister was the minister of finance, he changed the bankruptcy laws so students who may be saddled with crippling debt load as a result of high tuition, which stemmed from his cutbacks to social transfers for education to the provinces, could not file bankruptcy for 10 years. Whereas, I believe the limit is three years for an ordinary citizen.

Not only did the government saddle students with unprecedented debt load, it took away their one avenue of recourse, or remedy, to come out from under that should the situation become unbearable to them from a financial point of view. Would the member speak to that contradiction?

[Canada Education Savings Act, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, no matter what social indicator we use, aboriginal people rank at the bottom of the socio-economic scale in this country. The level of participation in post-secondary education of aboriginal people is almost as embarrassing as the over-representation of aboriginal people in our prison population. It is a glaring and socially predictable juxtaposition that we have here.

Whatever indicators we use, the country can no longer ignore that it is in nobody's interest to have this permanent underclass and all the predictable consequences that come from having a permanent underclass. The measures we are taking are clearly not working. I try not to be critical in this regard. I simply point out that we have failed to adequately put an end to this social tragedy and until it becomes a key social objective of Parliament, we will continue to face these glaring social inequities.

[Canada Education Savings Act, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, personally, I am a journeyman carpenter. I am not university educated. I hold great value in the idea that not everyone chooses the academic route for their post-secondary learning.

When people ask me what my education is, I show them my carpenter's certificate with as much pride as people who show copies of their B.A. that they hang on the wall. I certainly value other types of post-secondary education, and in fact life-long learning. I will concede that some of the remarks from Liberals on the government side today, in speaking about Bill C-5, were that the money saved in this account could be applied later in life for life-long learning or career change education. I recognize that as a valuable thing.

I view the skilled trades as post-secondary education. I would encourage young people to consider going into these skilled trades as a viable career option. It is a well-paid viable career option. I have friends who worked at the Husky upgrader in the member's home province and who 10 years ago were making $60,000 and $70,000 a year as pipefitters et cetera, although unionized pipefitters. There is a good life to be made in the skilled trades as long as workers belong to the appropriate building trades union.

[Canada Education Savings Act, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we view this policy change as a shot across the bow on aboriginal and treaty rights and changing the definition of what education means as it pertains to aboriginal and treaty rights.

This is a fundamental shift, a unilateral policy shift by the government. Were it viewed as an aboriginal and treaty right by the government, there would be a requirement for a consultation process. The government is allowed to deviate from constitutional rights as they pertain to aboriginal people but only with justification, which is what the recent court rulings have told us.

In extreme and rare cases where there is justification, then the government may in fact deviate from these constitutionally protected rights usually with compensation and after consultation. Consultation does not mean just posting the change. It means accommodating some of the views expressed by the other party. Therefore, consultation with accommodation is a much different thing than the government unilaterally firing this salvo on the issue of whether or not education is to be considered an aboriginal or treaty right.

The reservations that I raised about Bill C-5 could be summed up in a simple way. I think I speak on behalf of many of the stakeholders who came before the committee. They said to take the same amount of money that we were dedicating into this program and put it back into the Canada health and social transfer so that the provinces could adequately fund the universities and cope with some of the systematic cutbacks of the last 10, 12, and 15 years, The government paid down the deficit and at least one-third of the money that it put toward the debt came from savings in the Canada health and social transfer. That is education, health and social welfare.

The government must have predictions. Its policy people must have worked out the total cost of this program. If it were to apply the total cost, it could put that back into the CHST and let the provinces shore up their sagging post-secondary education structure in bricks and mortar and fund those programs.