Pat O'Brien

[Small Business Loans Act, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me, as the member for London-Middlesex, to address the House of Commons this morning on a very important subject, Bill C-99.

I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-99 this morning as the member for London-Middlesex. We like to think that London is the unofficial capital of southwestern Ontario. Our business community is quite diverse, with small business being an important part of it.

With Your Honour's indulgence, I must confess that as you called for a moment of silence this morning my thoughts then and even now are with people from all across Canada and many people from the London area. I know my staff worked very hard to organize 11 buses from London and area. They are on their way to la belle province of Quebec to tell the people there how much we understand that they face a very crucial decision and that our prayers and our hopes are that they will remain a part of Canada.

It is with some mixed thoughts that I stand this morning to speak on the subject of Bill C-99 when frankly I would like to be with friends and fellow Canadians from all parts of Canada who are on their way to Quebec to make it clear to our fellow Canadians in Quebec that we sincerely hope they will continue the partnership and the great country we have built together. I did not feel that I could launch into debate on Bill C-99 without sharing a few personal thoughts.

Bill C-99 is very important. It continues the process of modernization and improvement that has moved the Small Business Loans Act program to a full cost recovery. We could ask ourselves what is so important about the bill since we deal with so much legislation in the House and most of it, if not all of it, is important and significant. I believe it is particularly important given that we are discussing it at the end of 1995 and as parliamentarians we face the enormous challenge of trying to help the country prepare for the 21st century. As I have already said, we certainly hope it will be a united country that heads into the 21st century with all members of the family intact.

We obviously need an economic recovery. We have made some steps in the right direction toward it over the past couple of years. Quite candidly, we have had some backward steps in that regard. It has not been a steady progression forward as we would all like. It has been a two steps forward one step back process. However we must continue and we must persist in an economic recovery as we prepare the nation for the 21st century.

There is no area of greater importance in my mind as a Canadian and as a member of Parliament than the area of small business. In times past we would lure a large employer to a community who would create 1,000 jobs. It seems appropriate to use a baseball analogy with the World Series going on. We used to look for the grand slam home run in economic terms in wanting a major employer. I have several in my riding such as General Motors Diesel and 3M, to name two.

The days are gone of attracting major employers to our cities, except for rare circumstances. We will not see situations in which we instantly gain 500, 1,000 or more jobs. It seems evident that our number one crisis is the job crisis. The debt and deficit are very crucial. My colleagues opposite certainly know that, as they speak to it all of the time. While we may differ on the pace of the deficit reduction as part of economic recovery, I do not think we differ on the goal.

In spite of the importance of the debt and deficit, the number one crisis in the country we all love is the inadequate number of jobs. The best way to solve that crisis is through encouraging small business. It will be through new small businesses starting up and employing three, five, ten or twenty Canadians that we will create

new employment. We would love to see the large corporations coming in and suddenly creating 1,000 jobs, but I do not think we will see that happen too often.

The evidence is clear that Canadians can succeed in small businesses but they need help. That is what the act is specifically designed to do. In my riding many women, for example, have shown great entrepreneurial spirit, have launched small businesses, have been successful in that regard and have employed three to five people who before were unemployed.

There is a fairly significant immigrant population in my riding. There are many Arab Canadians and a large Polish Canadian community, people from all parts of the world. I see evidence time and again of how immigrant Canadians come to Canada and successfully launch new businesses. Despite the xenophobia Canadians are from time to time perhaps prone to engage in, I can give many examples where new Canadians have come to Canada, started businesses and employed three to five Canadians who were born here in their quite successful businesses. The evidence is there that small business will really be key to economic recovery and to solving the jobs crisis in Canada. That is not totally new but it is much more obvious to us now that it will be the case.

Since 1961 more than 400,000 SBLA loans totalling close to $16 billion have been made by financial institutions to small businesses. The SBLA helps entrepreneurs whose firms have less than $5 million in annual sales.

I should like to speak about that number for a moment. Within my party there has been considerable discussion about this subject. None of the businesses that I referred to earlier do $5 million in annual sales. Some small businesses of three, four, five or ten employees do not do $5 million a year in business. We might have to look at that number as we fine tune. What is a small business? Does it need sales of up to $4.5 million to $5 million to be considered a small business? I think not. We should have a look at that definition.

The program success both as an economic development tool and as an example of public and private sector co-operation has inspired similar guaranteed programs at both the federal and provincial levels. The program will engender new approaches to encourage small business in Canada. That will be one of its most important purposes.

I will share with my colleagues in the House today-we are not as numerous as normal because many of our colleagues are on their way to or already in Montreal to make their feelings known about Canada-that the city of London has two important initiatives in the area of small business worth mentioning. The first is the advanced manufacturing technology centre that we hope will soon come to fruition. The groundwork has been laid. It is our government that announced it. It looks like we might have to scale it back somewhat because of the economic times we face.

However, at the research park at the University of Western Ontario in the city of London we are awaiting very anxiously, along with municipal and provincial government officials, the completion of the advance manufacturing technology centre. It will be located in an existing research park and will be a very important part of helping to encourage innovative technologies and business opportunities as it combines with research opportunities available at the university right now.

There has been quite a bit of time spent on the project. It will come to fruition soon and is anxiously awaited in London. I have been very pleased to spend quite a bit of time working on the project along with my colleagues in London. It will be a big benefit not only to London, Ontario, but to the whole region of southwestern Ontario.

In southwestern Ontario the agri-food industry is a major industry. We ought not to forget there are many opportunities in urban centres and in the agri-food industry for small business. The centre is awaited with anticipation.

The second successful venture that has been under way for several years in the riding of London-Middlesex is a small business centre just inside the eastern part of the city of London. It is a converted plant that closed some years ago. It was formerly called Prototool. I remember it well, being that it was my first summer job. I was there recently for a ribbon cutting ceremony because they had refurbished and expanded the centre. I made the point that every time I went there, as much as I enjoyed it, it seemed as if I was going back to work. In sense I was that day.

The small business centre is located in the George Stewart building which was named in honour of a well known Londoner who has poured many, many years into the facility. It is a business incubation centre. The centre helps those people who are starting up a business with one or two employees. These people need mentors. They certainly need start-up capital. They need the help which is available to them largely through the voluntary efforts of London's successful business people who are now mostly retired and are willing to help younger people launch small businesses. The small business centre in my riding of London-Middlesex has been very successful. It is an example of the type of program the SBLA meshes with very nicely.

I look forward to the visit of the industry minister to this centre in November. He will see firsthand the success we can have with this kind of program. It is an excellent example of why our government must continue to consider small business as a key part in our attempt to get the economy moving again.

In recent years the SBLA program had been running at an annual government cost of some $20 million to $30 million. Significant changes were made in April 1993. There was a major increase in activity from some $500 million to over $4 billion in 1994-95. In historical loss rates, this increase in lending was projected to cost over $100 million which was obviously a threat to the program in these economic times.

It is a very correct change to the program and a wise move by our government to move to full cost recovery on this program. We might say it is a bit of a user pay concept, which I think we are seeing more of at all government levels. My previous government experience was at the municipal level in London, Ontario for 13 years. There is certainly a call for more of a user pay concept at all government levels.

I would never subscribe to the user pay concept for things like health care. Certainly we on this side of the House would not subscribe to the user pay concept in health care and in certain other fundamental core services which as Liberals we believe must be available to all Canadians regardless of their ability to pay. There is however a place for the user pay concept in our society.

Moving the SBLA program to full cost recovery is employing that concept. I applaud the effort of the government in that move. To this end, the government initiated a review of the program which included extensive consultations with major stakeholders representing both borrowers and lenders. Likewise we heard from the Standing Committee on Industry and the small business working committee. All of these groups were unanimous in recommending to the government that we proceed on a full cost recovery basis which is exactly how the government has responded.

Two major changes have been made through regulatory amendments which came into effect on April 1. First, a new 1.25 per cent annual fee was levied on each lender's average outstanding balance of SBLA loans made after March 31, 1995. Second, the maximum rate a lender can charge under the SBLA has been increased by 1.25 per cent to the prime interest rate plus 3 per cent for floating rate loans and to the residential mortgage rate plus 3 per cent for fixed rate loans.

Bill C-99 will continue the process of renewal by putting in place additional changes to the Small Business Loans Act. As I said at the start of my remarks, if we are to make a serious attempt at solving the job crisis and getting the economy moving again on a steady basis, we will have to focus our efforts on small business.

I applaud the government for the changes in the bill. It clearly indicates the intention of our government. That is what I am hearing from Canadians. In all parts of Canada people are speaking out with that kind of message. Certainly in my riding of London-Middlesex new business opportunities and job creation are happening in the smaller micro-firms with one to four employees. The government is moving in the right direction.

We need to consider what is a small business. Five million dollars strikes a lot of people whom I know in business as a pretty big number to achieve. They would be thrilled with that, but they do something like $750,000 or $1 million worth of business each year. We have to continue to look at that number to determine exactly what constitutes a small business.

I want to say very clearly that this bill is a major step in the right direction. I am pleased as a member of the government to be part of the team which recognizes that we have to make this a priority.

[National Unity, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on October 30, Quebecers will make a very important choice: saying Yes to separation and to Canada's break-up or saying No to separation and to Canada's break-up. Canadians from all the other provinces hope that when the people of Quebec make their democratic decision, they will choose to remain in Canada.

The people in my riding of London-Middlesex feel that a majority of Quebecers will want to remain an integral part of this country we have built together. We think that they will vote No.

[Employment Equity Act, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I begin my remarks by thanking the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for his proposed amendment. Clearly he has heard an argument that was made during the hearings of the committee that he believes has merit. Having said that, I will not vote in favour of his amendment. I believe the essential goal of the amendment has already been captured in the change which the committee made to Bill C-64.

The standing committee achieved the appropriate balance in the legislation. It responded to the essence of the points it heard on the issue. It did so in a way that is consistent with the spirit of the bill. There are many practical reasons why going further simply will not work.

We have often heard that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. That should apply in the work of the new employment equity review tribunals. If we want the system to work as well as it must, then we should want the most competent persons to hear cases.

That becomes even more important when we understand how complex the cases that will come before these tribunals can be. They will often involve equity and human rights considerations. They will consider real world business practices and human resource management approaches. They will involve a careful assessment and balancing of needs and priorities. That demands a reasonable level of expertise in the members of a tribunal. Yet, as many witnesses pointed out, some members of the Canadian human rights tribunal panel have not necessarily had any real knowledge of employment equity issues in the past. They have not necessarily come in to cases with any expertise in workplace issues.

Some employer and labour representatives said this was no place for on the job training and yet that is what they have seen. They cited examples in which the individuals hearing cases clearly knew far less than the people appearing before them. The result was frustration, added cost and some doubt as to whether a truly just decision could be rendered. In the same vein, representatives of designated groups saw a need for tribunal members who were truly aware of their situation. They were concerned that tribunal members would not understand the barrier they faced and the need for action.

When we look at the committee's report we see that witnesses offered many suggestions on how to improve this state of affairs. This proposed amendment draws on some of those ideas.

The committee took a different course. I think it was a better course. It chose to amend Bill C-64 by requiring the president of the Canadian human rights tribunal panel to give due consideration to the expertise of individuals he or she might appoint to employment equity review tribunals. That amendment would give the president of the panel a clear direction without tying his or her hands.

In a way, that decision is consistent with the direction of the entire bill. The emphasis is on reasonable efforts to place qualified people in this role. It does not set a quota. It does not incorporate the labour relations based model into the process. It does not assume that there should be representatives of perspectives that are in probable opposition to each other. Moreover, it permits a flexible approach where appropriate. The goal is to appoint tribunal members who understand the issues and who can rule on them fairly.

Not only are there sound philosophical reasons for the House to support the committee's approach and to reject the amendment, there are sound practical reasons to do so as well. One of the most important pertains to the size of the tribunals. Tribunals do not have seven or nine people on them who can be chosen to fill certain quota needs. A tribunal will have either three or just one person.

If three persons are hearing a case, and that was the preference of the committee as hon. members may recall, how will the representation issues be resolved? That problem becomes unsolvable if a one person tribunal is established. Hon. members should remember that one person tribunals may often be appointed in less complex cases. In those instances, representation of designated groups, expertise and experience simply cannot be achieved in a fashion that most people will see as fair.

Clearly it is not possible to make a system of proportional representation work well for three people and it simply cannot work for one person. It is far better to concentrate on expertise and experience. In any event, representation is taking care of itself.

When Keith Norton, the president of the Canadian human rights tribunal panel, appeared before the standing committee he agreed that the tribunal should have membership from all walks of life. It would be similar to what we see happening across the judiciary. It is growing more and more representative of society all the time.

The committee has done its work and has done it very well. I commend its members for that work. Because of that direction I do not think we should support this amendment.

[Prime Minister Of Ireland, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Prime Minister of Ireland, Mr. John Bruton and his wife, Finola Bruton, visited Canada. Mr. Bruton, whose title in Irish is Taoiseach, visited several cities, including Ottawa.

As a Canadian member of Parliament of Irish descent, I was honoured to be invited along with several of my colleagues by our Prime Minister to meet and dine with Prime Minister Bruton.

In his excellent comments that evening Mr. Bruton praised Canada as a nation of diverse peoples who have learned to respect our differences and live together in peace.

As the people of Quebec prepare to vote in the referendum on October 30, it is the fervent hope of other Canadians that Quebecers will choose to remain a very important and cherished partner in a united Canada.

[Middle East, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.

We are all familiar with the rebuilding of infrastructure in the Middle East, especially given the improved peace initiatives in that region. We are also familiar with the important role Canada plays in Middle East affairs.

Could the minister tell us what Canada is doing to ensure we are proactive in pursuing opportunities for contracts in the rebuilding of infrastructure in the Middle East?

[Big Brothers Of Canada, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the month of September is Big Brothers Month.

Big Brothers of Canada provides boys from father absent homes with a male role model and a friend. There are 180 Big Brother agencies from coast to coast. Unfortunately, most of them have waiting lists that are almost as long as their list of matched bothers.

Nationally the organization has 9,000 young boys who have been matched with older volunteer brothers and a waiting list of 7,000 boys. In London, Ontario there are 119 matches with a waiting list of 100. That means 100 boys between the ages of 7 and 12 can only hope that they will be matched with an older brother whom they can look up to, spend time with and talk to.

It is today's reality that many children are being raised by single parents but organizations such as the Big Brothers and Big Sisters agencies help to fill the void. During this special month we recognize and thank the Big Brothers volunteers who have helped to make a difference in the lives of many boys simply by giving them the gift of time.

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, my colleague on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development spoke to the fact that the committee preferred a stand alone office of a commissioner of the environment. She mentioned that however unfortunately it was not done and that the red book commitment had been kept.

Could she elaborate on the keeping of that commitment and perhaps speculate at least and explain to the House why the committee's first option was not in fact brought to fruition?

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the very good questions from my colleague opposite.

First of all it is very interesting to me that the hon. member raises the issue of PCBs. PCBs have been a major concern in my own municipality for some 10 years now, particularly in my own riding of London-Middlesex. Let me say that when as the new member of Parliament for the riding of London-Middlesex I brought this concern to the attention of the Minister of the Environment and the Deputy Prime Minister she was very quick to respond in putting an end to a long process initiated by the previous Tory government to try to find a site for the destruction of these PCBs.

This thing had dragged on for years. There was never a conclusion to it. They were spending lots of taxpayers' money. They had not come up with a proposed site and were planning really to force a decision on one of two or three communities unhappily in the riding of London-Middlesex. None of those communities was very excited about it.

When I brought that to the attention of the minister, she took very quick action. She indicated there would be no need for such a facility in the city of London, that we had better options to enable us to eliminate PCBs without creating additional expensive facilities. I was very impressed with the response on that.

On the member's comment about petitions from the public about pollution problems be they PCBs or whatever, what the member may have overlooked in my comments is the fact that ministers will have to table in the House plans for how they will deal with environmental issues within their ministry. There will be regular ongoing reviews of these plans. As the member who is more senior in this House than I well knows, that will give members in this Chamber many opportunities to take a shot at any issue they want to address themselves to in speaking for their constituents.

In his first question the member referred to the courts. Fortunately in a democratic system like we have in this country I would submit that the courts will always be the last recourse in many cases. If the courts see fit to overrule government on environmental issues, then so be it. That is an important right we want to cherish.

On the member's second question, he quoted me correctly about saying that the auditor general has clout. I can tell my colleague that the first standing committee I was honoured to serve on in the House was the public accounts committee. The current auditor general, Mr. Desautels, in my view has tremendous clout. When he comes to that committee on any subject-and he is the star witness as we all know-he is listened to very attentively by all members of the House sitting on the committee.

I agree with Mr. Desautels that embarrassment is a major weapon in his arsenal. He told us time and again-and I personally questioned him on it-that it was not his job to indicate new policy directions for any government but it was his job to indicate where governments fell short and where they might have been able to do better.

If governments and ministers do not live up to the plans they have tabled and when reviews of the plans indicate shortcomings, I would hope the auditor general would be at the appropriate committee to embarrass the government of the day. I would welcome it, as would all Canadians.

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, in the last federal election the Liberal government said environmental and economic agendas must converge. That means all federal departments must act on this understanding.

In our red book we stated:

Sustainable development-integrating economic with environmental goals-fits in the Liberal tradition of social investment as sound economic policy. Preventive environmental care is the foundation of the Liberal approach to sustainable development.

To make this happen we promised Canadians one of the things we would do is appoint an environmental auditor general who would report directly to Parliament and have powers of investigation similar to those of the auditor general. I firmly believe Bill C-83 delivers on that commitment and more.

The House owes congratulations to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment for the leadership she has shown on this very important matter.

The environment and sustainable development must automatically be part of all the decisions made by the federal government. They must not be the result of thinking after the fact or be taken into account after the real decisions have been made; on the contrary, they must be an integral part of all government decision making.

We need to do what we can to make sure that the environmental and sustainable development considerations are integral factors in the decision making of all federal government departments. That means decisions on new policies, programs, regulations and laws as well as the existing ones. It also means decisions on how departments manage their buildings, facilities and operations.

Canadians deserve to live in a country that is prosperous and healthy and they demand that their national government take a leadership role in making this happen. Bill C-83 is a response to that demand. It shows Canadians that the government is serious about getting its act together on environmental issues. It shows Canadians that we are willing to change the way government does business and that we are not afraid to be held publicly accountable for what we do and what we do not do.

By getting our house in order the federal government can promote the shift to sustainable development throughout Canadian society. This is what Bill C-83 is all about.

I have been delighted to serve on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. One of the first big jobs we tackled was to try and find the best way for the government to meet its environmental auditor general commitment.

Last spring, the committee held wide-ranging hearings and submitted its report to the House in May.

I am very proud of our work and our report. We had real input into how the red book commitment would be delivered and we had real input in the bill currently before the House.

Under the skilled leadership of my colleague, the hon. member for Davenport, we wrote a report that called for enhanced environmental auditing of the government's policies, programs and laws. We wrote a report that says the government must be held accountable to Parliament and to the public for demonstrating progress in meeting objectives.

We wrote a report that advocates going beyond the concept of simply creating an environmental auditor general and instead establishing an independent and influential commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.

It became clear to committee members very early on in our work that much of what would be the audit responsibilities of the commissioner are in fact already carried out by the auditor general. We also recommended in our report that the auditor general continue to evolve this work and that the Auditor General Act be amended to meet new requirements in performing such a role.

Bill C-83 does this. It establishes a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development and it does it right in the Office of the Auditor General. This is not, I repeat, not a retreat from our red book pledge. Instead, it is a better more effective way to carry out our pledge to Canadians.

The Office of the Auditor General has clout. It is independent from government. It is well respected. It has solid expertise that can be put to use at once. For all these reasons the Office of the Auditor General can greatly enhance the auditing of the government's environmental performance as well as the effectiveness of the commissioner.

Bill C-83 also augments the role of the auditor general. It gives him or her the clear legal mandate to include environmental effects along with the conventional considerations for the economy and

efficiency when reporting to the House of Commons. This ensures that issues of environment and sustainable development are integrated directly into government thinking and planning. This kind of integration is what sustainable development is all about.

However this is far from being the government's first initiative to foster sustainable development. Let me name just a few: the proclamation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; actions to green government operations; the task force on economic instruments and disincentives to sound environmental practices; and the initial follow-up to the task force in the last federal budget.

Bill C-83 is just the most recent course of action to make the shift to sustainable development. This bill will promote sustainable development across all federal departments by requiring ministers to table in the House sustainable development strategies. The strategies must include their departments' objectives and plans of action to further sustainable development. All departments will be required to update their strategies every three years with ministers tabling the updates in the House.

The commissioner will be keeping a close eye on this. He or she will be completely independent and will report directly to the auditor general on all of his or her environmental and sustainable development related duties. The commissioner will also assist the auditor general in addressing the environmental and sustainable development aspects of his general auditing work.

One of the commissioner's most important duties will be to monitor and report annually to the House on the government's progress toward sustainable development. That means reviewing each department's sustainable development strategy. That means monitoring their action plans and reporting on their success. It also means reporting on anything related to environmental aspects of sustainable development that merits attention.

The amendments are indeed historic and unprecedented and have far reaching implications for the way the federal government does its business. They ensure that no matter who the auditor general happens to be, environment and sustainable development will have a high profile in the work of that office. They force this government and all governments that follow to promote sustainable development practices within all federal departments and across all major economic sectors of our country. They will hold the government fully and completely accountable to the public for its performance in making the shift to sustainable development.

Today I am proud to be a parliamentarian and I am proud to be a member of this government. We have taken a red book commitment and engaged Canadians in fulfilling it and indeed in going beyond it. We have taken a major step forward.

No, as has been pointed out by other colleagues in the House, the committee did not achieve everything it hoped to achieve. That has been very candidly stated earlier by my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, and most recently by my colleague, the chair of the committee. However we have made a major step forward. We have taken a radical departure in the way government does business. We have taken a leadership role.

[Endangered And Threatened Species Act, June 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-275 I congratulate the hon. member for Davenport for his tireless work to bring the bill before the House of Commons. More important, I congratulate the hon. member for his tireless efforts to protect Canada's endangered and threatened species.

The caribou, the sea otter, the wolverine, the burrowing owl, the blue ash and the red mulberry are just a few of the more than 240 endangered, threatened or vulnerable species in Canada.

Human activity is putting those species at risk. It is up to us as human beings to understand our failings and to work to reverse those failings. When we kill or injure an endangered species we are putting at risk a unique life form. When we buy or sell, import or export an endangered species we are trafficking in the extinction of a species.

All Canadians have a responsibility to prevent native wild species from disappearing from the face of the globe as a result of human activity. All Canadians have a responsibility to protect endangered species to the full extent of our powers. All of us must do what we can to help those species recover.

In Canada wetlands have been reduced by over 70 per cent. We have lost 99 per cent of tall grass prairie. No single Canadian is to blame. We are all to blame and it is up to all of us to act at every level of government, in every occupation, in every community and neighbourhood across the country.

Four provinces have acted to introduce endangered species legislation; Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick deserve credit for their actions. It is now clearly time for the federal government to do its part in areas of federal jurisdiction. It is also time for the federal government to push hard for co-operative national and international action.

My colleague, the hon. member for Davenport, understands that and the Minister of the Environment understands that. That is why the minister last fall outlined the federal government's intention to introduce endangered species legislation. It is why she held the first ever public consultations on the basics of such a law. It is why she has committed herself to bring such a law before cabinet in the next few weeks and to allow Canadians to

comment on the law before it receives detailed scrutiny by Parliament.

I am very pleased the hon. member for Davenport and the Minister of the Environment are working so closely together to advance the cause of endangered species. Obviously as Liberals we support their efforts and we are pleased to see real federal leadership.

However, this is not a partisan cause and I regret some of the comments I have heard in the House which clearly appeared to be of a partisan nature. I know members of Parliament from every party and every part of the country, including Quebec, want to see Canada a true world leader in protecting endangered species.

Canada was the first industrialized country to sign the United Nations convention on biological diversity. We need to transfer our goodwill and our signature on a piece of paper into real action to preserve our country's biological diversity. We owe that to future generations of human beings and we certainly owe that to future generations of endangered species.

Canadians like to keep their word. In article 8K of the convention on biological diversity, Canada promised to develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or other regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species and populations. That is one good reason the hon. member and the minister are pushing for action.

There is another good reason to take action. Canadian children expect us to act. They have petitioned and written the Minister of the Environment in unprecedented numbers to call for the protection of endangered fish, marine mammals and migratory birds.

I recently received many responses from my spring-summer householder, something all members send out. Concern for the environment was at the top of the list.

I have heard it described as a sexy issue that has now been pushed to the background. That is nonsense. If we let this issue be pushed to the background we will all pay a very heavy price.

Canadian children and all Canadians believe or should believe that living organisms have the right to live. They do not understand how someone could make a living by selling off the parts of an endangered species. Canada's children are right.

Important scientific and financial issues must be addressed. There are certainly important issues raised by provinces, aboriginal peoples and farmers that must be addressed. Legislation must be realistic and fair. Not all the issues are easy but all of the issues must be resolved.

The biological foundation for our world depends on its diversity of genes, species and ecosystems. We need each sphere of our society to demonstrate both leadership and partnership in protecting endangered species. We do not need overlap or duplication or wasteful actions. We need swift action.

Conservation of endangered species is not the sole responsibility of the federal government, nor of any government. All elements of society have an interest in protecting species and all elements of our society should be intimately involved in planning, developing and implementing conservation programs.

It is important for the federal government to pass legislation that can be a model to the world, legislation that seeks to put an end to the extinction of species as a result of human activity. The federal government must do its part to make things right for Canada's wild plants and animals.

That is the policy underlying the legislation introduced by my friend and colleague from Davenport. That is the policy underlying the actions taken by my friend and colleague the Minister of the Environment. I believe it is the policy that must guide Parliament in our work to protect endangered species, and I am very pleased to have added some thoughts to today's debate.