Dennis Mills

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on his remarks. I want to deal with that part of his speech where he dealt with the ideas of composting and recycling.

I agree with the member. This is an area where we could be world leaders.

We are world leaders right now. The problem as I see it is that we do not have the political will to implement some of the technologies we have in the area of taking care of our garbage in a proper way. I believe this is so important that taxpayers would probably support us spending their money to make sure an aggressive campaign such as the one the member described was implemented.

I had difficulty in that often we have been conditioned by the Reform Party that spending is something that its members are very shy about. Is this an area where the Reform Party would shift its traditional attitude?

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member that I appreciate the question. I believe we are on a pathway and that this bill will move us along that pathway more quickly in changing our whole system of calculation.

Some members have talked about-I know we have talked in our own policy group in my riding-about this new notion of a human development index rather than a GNP. The GNP system is not really sensitive to sustainable development. At least to this point it has not been.

I personally love the idea of exploring a whole new way of calculating the balance sheet, not only of our nation but of the planet. The GNP system of old falls off and we convert to a new human development index where the environment and sustainable development are the core factor and the driving factor in the equation.

I believe this cabinet and government is one of the first groups I have seen in a long time around here that has the courage to venture into those waters. The reason I say that is I see the reform we are going through in our social security system. I see the reform in so many other areas.

We are in a period of real reform on so many different issues. I am optimistic that in the not too distant future the whole notion of a human development index will be the new way we measure our whole economic system.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commenting on the remark by the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake who said this took a whole year.

This bill is not the only thing we have done in the last year. In fact, I was thinking as we went through this legislation today that I am absolutely amazed at how much of the red book agenda we have been able to get done in our first year. At the rate we are going we will have everything in the red book done within the first two years when the Prime Minister had said the red book agenda would happen over the term of the government.

I begin by complimenting the Minister of the Environment and Deputy Prime Minister for moving forward on this very important legislation, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I believe that the balance sheet of a nation will be judged by the way we take care of our environment.

The environmental assessment legislation is a systematic method of identifying potential environmental consequences of a proposed project and its impact on people, their livelihood and way of life. If these environmental consequences are identified early in the planning stages, then plans can be modified so potential risks are minimized or ideally eliminated.

Environmental assessment is a very logical tool for achieving sustainable development, that is ensuring that the needs of present generations can be met while allowing future generations to meet their needs.

I believe the legislation will lead to a whole new measurement of the economy. In the past the environment really has not been driving the economic agenda in our country. In fact, the environment always got a short shrift.

I actually should go back to when my colleague from Davenport was the Minister of the Environment in the previous Liberal government. He was probably the first Minister of the Environment to give the issue such a determined, sustained approach. His tenacity in making sure that this issue was always on the front burner gave all of us in the Liberal Party a real example. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Environment is following through today with that commitment from the red book.

I noticed in a book that I was reading earlier in preparing for this debate, written by Julia Moulden and Patrick Carson, Green Is Gold , that we now have industries that are starting to realize that if they commit to greening themselves or committing themselves to the environmental movement that their balance sheets can be much more profitable.

Even though the member stated that we were a year getting to this bill, ideally it should have been one we handled in the first quarter. However the fact is that we have now got the bill in the system. It will no doubt pass, we will be setting up a whole new structure and the environment will now take on a priority position.

I would like to say to members opposite that this is a bill on which we must all be united. It is a bill that regrettably once again the Bloc Quebecois will not support, not because its members are not committed to the environment, but because once again whenever you come forward with a bill that talks about national standards, a bill that can galvanize the spirit of the country, legislation that can pull us all together, the Bloc is consistent in walking away from it. They find some excuse that it impinges on the rights of Quebecers.

If there is one thing that everyone is committed to in every part of Canada it is saving the planet. I believe that Quebecers, once they understand the true meaning of the bill, will probably urge some of their Bloc Quebecois members to be a little less political and a little more concerned about what truly is important for everyone in our society, especially for future generations.

I stand here today in total support of this bill.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Standards.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question. Imagine that the Government of Canada has a national standard on the environment, say for forestry, but the provincial standard is not as high as the national standard. Which one would the member suggest be followed?

[Immigration Act, October 31st, 1994]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I stood and I was in favour of the motion.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I wonder if you could clarify for the House how we moved from Bill C-46 to the next bill. Somehow this happened at a time when the member for Peterborough was about to speak to Bill C-46. Of course, we were interrupted by the amendment from Her Majesty's official opposition.

[Bankruptcy Act, October 25th, 1994]

We are talking about wage earners and travelling salesmen. The bottom line is as the member for Kootenay East said, if you have a small business it might only employ 10 to 20 people. You are talking about a priority call of $180,000 just on 20 people. A first charge of $180,000 on a business is a heck of a lot of money.

Everyone knows I am a believer in equity participation. I used to work at Magna International. I believe one of the reasons that company has grown from seven employees to 20,000 is because every employee has shares in the company. They have a piece of the equity. That is the reason they make better products at more competitive prices. But that of course is not what we are debating here today.

I would ask all members that we defeat this bill and that we wait until the final results of the study come from Industry Canada on all the current activity in the bankruptcy area as a result of the last bill.

[Bankruptcy Act, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-237, which provides a super priority for wage earners and travelling salesmen who can claim up to $9,000 owed to them in the event of bankruptcy.

I would like to begin by picking up the point of the Reform Party member about how difficult it is for small and medium sized businessmen and women to get access to capital today. Because small business has a difficult time in getting access to capital, quite often the supporting suppliers to a small business will put their product or material into the business knowing that they have put themselves in a secure position. In fact when small businesses cannot get capital it is their suppliers that keep them going and help make them viable.

This bill is not only going to affect the way the banks look at financing small businesses but it will also create a situation with the suppliers where they will be hesitant in putting their product into a small business environment at a very generous credit condition.

We realize first of all that bankruptcy and insolvency are very complex issues. In the event of a business failing and going bankrupt there is only one pie to divide. If suddenly the priority is put on the wage earners and the travelling salesmen at a $9,000 level, not much room is left in many instances for the other components in the business equation.

I would like to repeat that the intention of the member is right. It is a complex issue. We amended the Bankruptcy Act just two years ago. Currently the Minister of Industry has the department developing a database on all the activity around bankruptcy cases. These studies are ongoing.

I really believe it is inappropriate to support this bill at this time. We should wait until we have the results of all that data which is being collected.

The member for Kootenay East has said something about the importance of the employee to the viability of the business. I share his view and I obviously believe that would be the view of the member for Portneuf as well.

In a case where we are putting all of the employees in a business in a super priority position at $9,000 per person, this would really affect the ability of a small businessman or woman to obtain the support that is usually required from banks. As we all know, even in the current condition banks are making it very difficult for small businessmen and women to obtain the necessary capital to meet their business plans and their objectives. Until we have the banks acting more progressively and until their attitudes change toward small business, this bill should be defeated.

The other thing I mentioned has to do with suppliers. I believe that if we sent a signal in a business that if the employees want to show confidence in what they are doing they should not be doing it by putting themselves in the priority position to the tune of $9,000 a head. That in turn might have an adverse reaction on the suppliers to the business. Quite often in small business situations these suppliers can make the difference in viability, as I mentioned earlier.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon member's speech, it is obvious he does not understand the role crown corporations play in this country. The member said that we should put the existence of some of these crown corporations to a public vote. That is a pretty good idea because I believe the reason we have crown corporations is that they fill a role that a lot of private corporations would not take on. I am talking about services to remote regions and disadvantaged regions.

I think of Pacific Western Airlines, for example. It needed the Federal Business Development Bank for its initial loan in order to get off the ground. It was a government instrument that assisted that company in getting started. We can go from airports, trains and post offices to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The CBC is an instrument which pulls this country together. In some parts of Canada the CBC is the only communication Canadians get. These Reformers just want to cut, cut,

cut to a point where there will not be anything left to hold this country together.

We on this side of the House realize that we have to run a lean government. However, we are not going to buy their notion of turning it into a mean government.

I wish the Reform Party would also spend some time talking about some strategies for growth. Put some ideas forward that will help small business. The hon. member is sitting next to his colleague who worked very hard for seven months to put some specific ideas forward to help small business get access to capital.

The Reform Party should spend a little less time on the deficit and a little bit more time on how we create jobs.