Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to make a comment with regard to time. When this bill was introduced, we anticipated that the time of Parliament would be a little different than some opposition members are suggesting now. I guess they're making an assumption there will be less time.
It's interesting to point out as well that Werner and the Bloc spent so much time discussing time, and they're the ones who asked for super movement on this bill. It is the three opposition parties who want the increase in speed, so don't point fingers across the way.
May I go back to the people who are here today. Officials want to go through the proper process and make sure there is proper due diligence. There's no question that many of the issues you raised are very important. They are issues that we in the department have examined and ones for which we have felt it was important to listen to the witnesses, listen to the input, and then submit actual amendments that would take into account those perceptions or thoughts or ideas that have come forward.
That is the way we often deal with legislation. In this particular case, because of the complexity of all the issues, we thought this was the process we would like to see. I assure you that we are flexible, and we are looking very carefully at the issues you're bringing forth.
I do want to move to one of the aspects that I think is critical, though, and that is the super-priority. I know both organizations have suggested they don't like the idea of the super-priority. I know it has been suggested that $3,000 in lost wages to a worker could be handled in different ways. I understand at this point in time that many workers don't get that lost wage for a very extended period of time. It's our hope that the super-priority would shorten that time period.
Let's look at the lending ability and the kind of argument that was brought forward—that $1 million reduced to $900,000 concept. Is it not business that looks at risk? They don't take all the money from one factor in every contract they sign. A bank, for instance, looks at companies that are dealing...and maybe one in fifteen would go bankrupt.
So in lending, they're going to look at that shared risk concept, not individual by individual and take 100%. If they do it that way, they're damn greedy, and I'll point that out. I think it's a wrong concept; mathematically, it doesn't make sense.
If we do start talking about shared risk.... We talked about fifteen corporations and that one of them potentially could go bankrupt and therefore the dollars would be shared over fifteen possible corporations in a minor interest rate change. Those are the kinds of concepts that I believe business has always operated under. They're not hard and fast in taking it all from each person.
That's my view. Is there something wrong with my view of how business really operates out there?