Tom Lukiwski

[October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, Bill C-55, containing the Wage Earner Protection Program Act, was proposed and passed into law with the unanimous support of all political parties in the House of Commons and the Senate. Bill C-55 also includes a comprehensive reform of Canada's insolvency laws, including the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. As such, Bill C-55 provided a balanced and complete package of reforms on bankruptcy.

In particular, the wage earner protection program has strong support from parliamentarians, labour unions, the insolvency community and employers. This program should be brought into force as soon as possible. The current insolvency system does not provide adequate protection for unpaid wage earners. An estimated 10,000 to 20,000 workers a year are left with unpaid wage claims due to employer bankruptcies. That is why the wage earner protection program was proposed. The program will improve the protection of workers during the insolvency process.

The protection of unpaid wage earners has been a major issue during every attempt at insolvency reform over the past 30 years and the issue has never been resolved.

The wage earner protection program will address this issue by providing certain payments of up to $3,000 to workers for unpaid wages and earned but unused vacation pay, so that payment of wages will no longer depend on the amount of assets of the bankrupt employer. It is estimated that this will satisfy 97% of unpaid wage claims in full. In addition, the wage earner protection program will provide prompt payment of wages so that workers receive payment of their wage claims when they need it most.

We cannot deny the importance of implementing this program in a timely fashion. However, before the Wage Earner Protection Program Act can come into force, some technical amendments have to be made to ensure that the program will be effective. The regulations necessary to operate the act must be prepared and considerable work needs to be done before implementation.

We do not have to convince Canadians that it is important to protect vulnerable workers who suffer an economic setback through no fault of their own. We do not have to convince Canadians that it is the right thing to do.

This government also understands that protecting Canadian workers when employers declare bankruptcy is the right thing to do.

[October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this diatribe many times before when the members opposite tried to incorrectly portray this government as a meanspirited government that is cutting millions of dollars away from the most vulnerable in Canadian society.

I would point out to the member, as I have done before, that I did not know that federal cabinet ministers, as an example, were among Canada's most vulnerable and yet we have cut $47 million by merely reducing the size of cabinet. I would suggest to the hon. member that our expenditure review, which will be saving Canadian taxpayers $1 billion this year, will result in over $650 million annually, which we can then use to benefit all Canadians. That is a fiscal performance to be proud of.

[October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as all members know, this government just tabled Canada's first clean air act. Canada's clean air act would set in motion Canada's first comprehensive and integrated approach to tackle air pollution and greenhouse gases and, in doing so, deliver better air quality and address climate change.

Past governments relied on voluntary measures, satisfied that industry would comply. Those days are over. From now on, all industry sectors will have mandatory requirements and we will enforce those requirements. Our plan puts the health of Canadians first and the health of our environment first.

Canada's clean air act would amend three existing pieces of legislation to strengthen the Government of Canada's ability to take coordinated action to reduce air emissions nationwide, namely, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, also known as CEPA, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act.

The notice of intent to develop and implement regulations and other measures to reduce air emissions published in the Canada Gazette on Saturday, sets out the government's regulatory agenda. The agenda will cover many industrial sectors, including the oil industry, which will directly contribute to reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases.

The oil sands are important to Canadians and the Canadian economy. Billions are being spent by oil companies in Canada. In addition to the direct royalties paid to the Government of Alberta, billions are being paid in taxes to the federal government which will benefit all Canadians.

Oil sands production is expected to triple over the next decade and that will be good for Canada's economy. The oil trapped in the oil sands has elevated Canada to the country with the second largest oil reserve in the world, only behind Saudi Arabia. However, government action is needed to ensure oil sands development takes place in a way that respects the environment, and the government will act.

The approach is much more than just a long term approach. With respect to industrial air emissions, the government has committed to determining its regulatory framework, including setting short term targets by next spring. This is a very ambitious schedule and, therefore, we will be seeking focused advice as soon as possible on the key issues.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 88 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps he just did not hear the first three responses, but I want to point out to my hon. colleague from the Bloc for the fourth time this afternoon that the Conservatives are in favour of the provisional Standing Orders. If they pass as is without amendment, we are in favour of that. We had suggested that we examine them to see if there were any amendments that all parties could agree upon, but if not, we would gladly support them. We have said that four times now. We are not reneging on our commitment. All we wanted was for staff to get together to examine whether amendments could make the provisions stronger.

In response to a comment made by the member for Mississauga South, there had been no discussion but there were discussions planned for the break week in October. Unfortunately, those discussions never took place because the Liberal Party decided to bring a motion forward to circumvent it.

The Conservatives support these provisions.

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think the last 20 minutes of comments from the member opposite just underscore my original comments that I made a few minutes ago in my presentation.

In fact, the opposition member is just trying to hijack Parliament. We had a 20 minute discourse on anything but the motion that is before this House, which is the member's total right under the procedures of this House. However, it did not speak to the motion in any way, shape or form, so I again want to let Canadians know that these are obstructionist tactics trying to delay implementation of government bills and in fact even trying to delay debate on government legislation. The member quite clearly underscored that to a level of ability which I could not.

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has just given one example of many that could be the start of a very slippery slope in this place. If a person breaks his or her word once, I suppose the person could break it all the time. When agreements have been made to pair when committees travel, for example, and one party does not keep its word because some other party broke its word on another agreement, then we begin to have serious problems, which is why I keep emphasizing and re-emphasizing the importance of members in this House keeping their word when we make agreements with one another.

All of us can give examples of agreements we have made with members opposite on a host of different issues. I would suggest that up until this point in time most members felt they could trust the person opposite. I think most members opposite would agree that if someone gives his or her word on a certain issue, we believe in that person's word and we have confidence that the person will honour that commitment. While it has worked fairly well up until now, I would suggest that the trust is gone, which is extremely unfortunate.

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member was in his lobby when I was making my presentation but I did say that it was a decision made at the House leaders' meeting of September 19. All four House leaders unanimously agreed with a suggestion brought forward by the government House leader to extend the provisional Standing Orders. The committee had some discussion on this but no motion was put forward. Subsequent to that meeting, the following day the government House leader introduced a motion in this place, which was unanimously approved, to extend the provisional Standing Orders.

I think it is the member for Mississauga South who is mixing apples and oranges, not I. An agreement was made, agreed upon by unanimous consent in this place by all four parties and it was broken without prior consultation by members opposite. Those are the facts.

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2006]

Conveniently, he did not get a report then. The member of course is one of the caucus House officers. He states that he was not at the September 19 meeting. I can only surmise that the NDP members, when they miss a meeting, do not ask anyone to give them a report on the results of that meeting. That is unfortunate. I would hope they would conduct themselves in a slightly more professional manner.