Geoff Regan

[Pornography, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, like many members, I recently received numerous white ribbons from people in my riding. These white ribbons signify their concerns about the effects of pornography in communities across Canada.

A number of churches in Halifax West have been actively involved in the white ribbon against pornography campaign. By distributing information pamphlets to encourage discussion and action, by wearing white ribbons during the WRAP campaign, by bringing their concerns to our attention, my constituents are taking a strong stand against pornography.

As the social action committee of the Bedford United Baptist Church stated, people acting together can make a difference. My constituents are acting together to limit the production, distribution and sale of pornography. I commend their efforts.

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to the resolution which recognizes that Quebec is a distinct society because of its majority French language, its culture and its civil code legal system.

A month or so ago our country was brought to a precipice by the referendum in Quebec. As I campaigned in Quebec during the referendum, as I talked to people in Quebec and thought about what was happening there, it was frightening that we had failed to understand each other. People outside Quebec did not have a good understanding of the concerns of Quebecers, how sincere they were in their concerns about the preservation of their language and culture within this huge sea of English that is North America. With the huge English area surrounding Quebec, including the U.S. and the rest of Canada, Quebecers have a very real concern about it.

I found a lack of understanding among some francophone Quebecers of the point of view of people outside Quebec and of their love for Quebec. There was a misunderstanding among them of how the rest of Canada would react to a yes vote in Quebec. The consequences would have been severe for all of us. Certainly there was a failure among Bloc members to recognize that.

This reminds me of the fact that we almost lost a great country.

We must remember that Canada's position in the world is a very important one. It is one that is widely respected. Why is that? We are respected as a peacemaker and a peacekeeper around the world. We are respected because we provide an example to the world of living peacefully with differences. It is a great example. We are respected widely for our exercise of the art of Canadian compromise.

A few weeks ago I was watching a CBC television program during which Allison Smith was interviewing Israeli prize winning author Amos Oz. It was interesting to hear him talk about his work. His novels have always tried to bring together the two sides, the Palestinians and the Israelis.

He was talking about the need for compromise and the need to work out solutions in that country. He talked about the example of the Israelis and the Palestinians. He pointed out that on the one hand the Israelis had always looked upon the land in the area of the West Bank as being very important to their nation and a very important part of themselves. It is essential to them to have that land for their country. On the other hand the Palestinians look at that land as being essential to their nation, an essential part of themselves.

As he pointed out often, we feel we have a misunderstanding but if we talk enough we can work out the problem. However there was not a lack of understanding on the two sides. There was an understanding but the problem was that they both wanted the same thing. There was an impasse and a conflict.

As he also pointed out, when people realize there is that kind of conflict eventually they come to the realization that the only

logical, rational response is a compromise. His phrase was that compromise is life and life is compromise.

Surely any of us who is married will understand that is true. Life is full of compromises. Certainly a marriage is made up of compromises. How can we have one without compromise? It is a very important part of a healthy marriage. Compromise is an important part of living with differences, as is all of life.

We have to recognize that we have different points of view in the country and that we have to find compromise between those points of view.

Some people have the idea that the country is made up of two founding linguistic groups. We also have the point of view on the other side that suggests that we are 10 equal founding provinces. These are two different points of view. Somewhere in the middle we have to find some common ground.

We have the history of the Maritimes. In 1867, the two big provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, joined with Quebec and Ontario in the Confederation. At that time, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had very powerful economies, stronger than Ontario and Quebec. Obviously, from our point of view, in Nova Scotia for instance, the agreement involved equal provinces, equal partners.

But there must be an understanding of the historical links between Lower and Upper Canada, Ontario and Quebec, with their two main language groups. Those groups joined forces to create this country. The two are part of one reality. Neither one nor the other represents reality; the two together do. But there are different understandings of what this country is, and it is difficult sometimes for those who understand things one way to understand the other point of view.

I want to talk for a moment about the word distinct which was dealt with in the resolution. According to the definition in The Concise Oxford Dictionary it is an adjective and has three different meanings: 1 a not identical; separate; individual. b different in kind or quality; unlike. 2 a clearly perceptible; plain. b clearly understandable; definite. 3 unmistakable, decided.

A lot of francophones do not realize that in English the word distinct is often thought of in terms of the word distinguished, which suggests some sort of superiority or a heightened level. When we talk about a distinguished person, it is a person who has achieved a high level in life. In the past that has created a problem in Canada.

The difficulty with defining the word "distinct" is to make both sides, anglophones and francophones, see that it is used differently in both languages. That was a problem I encountered when I visited Quebec. I was talking with some students at Saint-Jovite and a girl asked me "Why do the anglophones not look up the definition of the word "distinct" in a French dictionary. In French, it means "different"; there is absolutely no suggestion of superiority".

But back in Nova Scotia, in my riding of Halifax West, when I talk to the people from down home, they ask "Why will the francophones not consider the definition and meaning of the word "distinct", because it has a different meaning in English?"

You can see that it is hard to see the other side's point of view, or for them to see ours. It is always hard. The answer is not to separate but to communicate and find a compromise.

Whenever we have an impasse or a deadlock the only solution is a compromise. In the measures we brought forward this week is a compromise. For example, we know that Quebec wanted a veto for itself over constitutional change. We are providing in the system of how we govern the federal government's approach to the matter a veto to four regions, not just to Quebec. We also recognized in the resolution that Quebec is a distinct society because of its culture, its language and its civil code. This is an important compromise for the country. Together they form an important compromise position that will help us bridge toward the constitutional conference in 1997.

This is not a constitutional change. Constitutional change is not precluded or prevented by these measures. It will be up to those who meet at the conference in 1997 whether or not they wish to make future changes to the Constitution. That is left to the future for now.

People in my area are saying: "Let's deal with it quickly. Let's deal with it in a nice, clean manner and set it aside for now so we can focus on the real problems of the country".

Is Quebec distinct? If Quebec were to separate it would be as distinct as Mexico from the other provinces of Canada. It has a different language and a different culture in many ways, not in every way, from the rest of Canada. The majority language there is different. We cannot say that about any other province. It is clearly distinct in that way.

Does this make Quebec superior? No. Does it recognize and celebrate our differences? Yes, it does.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the department has examined many aspects of the bill. There will also be an ongoing monitoring process by the Employment Insurance Commission.

The Reform Party has been saying that we should make it much more like an ordinary insurance system, maybe even make it a totally privatized system. This shows me that Reform Party members are not responsive to the concerns of Atlantic Canada, that they do not care one iota, not one ounce, not even a smidgen about the people in Atlantic Canada. Otherwise they would not hold that position.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, they are incredible. The Bloc members are unable to see the benefits of these changes to the system. They fail to see the problems with the old unemployment insurance system.

Yes, I come from one of the Atlantic provinces. But, in these provinces, in my region, many people recognize that the old unemployment insurance program needed to be changed, renewed.

The hon. member speaks about my region being hard hit by these changes. As a matter of fact I think the member should examine the proposals a little more carefully and see exactly what is happening. The fact of the matter is that 45,000 more seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada will have access to employment insurance because of these changes.

Yes, there will be a reduction in the overall amount being spent, but we are focusing it much better toward the creation of employment, toward employment assistance programs, toward training programs, toward important things that are required to move this system away from unemployment insurance to insurance of employment, which is what it is all about.

In the year 1997-98 there will be a total net decrease of about six per cent. By the year 2001 the total decrease in the whole impact of the program will be about seven per cent. Considering that the cost of the program has gone from $9 billion 12 years ago to $17 billion today, it should not be surprising that we need to have some changes to this program. The fact that the total impact over the next five or six years will only be seven per cent total for this region should tell the hon. member something. We have done this by making sure that those who need it the most still have it. This means it will work well in Atlantic Canada.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

My wife is often astonished at how quickly and how frequently the schedule changes for a parliamentarian. This is an example of that. When I rose to speak an hour ago I said I would speaking for the full 20 minutes and now it is 10 minutes. I happy to comply and adjust my schedule again.

Before question period I was saying that the bill was a Robin Hood response to the problem we have with the UI system. In 1983 the UI system cost $9 billion to employers and employees across Canada. Today it costs $17 billion. The growth in the cost of this program has represented a tax on jobs in Canada and we have to deal with it.

People in my riding tell me that it has been misused in many ways and it is time to deal with it. But how do we deal with it? And why am I calling it a Robin Hood response? Because we are dealing with this problem of reducing the cost of the program by reducing benefits for the well off who have been breaking the system for a while and increasing benefits to the poor. The low-income people who have dependants will get up to 80 per cent, rather than 55 per cent of their previous income under this system. So it is an important step forward and we are maintaining the program as much as possible in a very solid way for those in the middle. That is a very important point.

Finally, I want to mention the issue of involuntary part-time workers. I have been involved in the food bank movement in the Halifax area, as people in my riding would know. One thing we always complained about for low-income people is the growing number of people who have to work part time because they could not find full-time work. One reason for that has been the incentive provided in part by the UI system to employers to only hire part-time workers, who would work less than 15 hours a week so they would not have to pay these UI benefits, for example.

By moving to an hourly based system where every hour counts and every hour has premiums paid on it, it means that people who are working part time will qualify for UI and the incentive for employers to hire only part time will no longer be there. These are important and positive points about this employment insurance program.

I urge all members of the House to vote against this Bloc motion.

[Hmcs Calgary, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, late Friday 29 Romanians and one Greek man were plucked from the stormy seas of the North Atlantic by Master Corporal Rob Fisher from Greenwood, Nova Scotia.

HMCS Calgary and a Sea King helicopter were on their way back to British Columbia from the Persian Gulf when they responded to the sinking of the Mount Olympus , racing 900 kilometres in 18 hours to reach the sinking carrier. Amid frightful conditions, Master Corporal Fisher spent four hours pulling the crew members from the sinking ship to safety.

I know all hon. members will join me in thanking the crew of the HMCS Calgary , particularly Master Corporal Fisher, for their heroic efforts, the kinds of efforts we have come to expect from the men and women who serve Canada with dedication and distinction.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I understand Liberal members have been splitting their time and I have been asked not to split my time. I will be using the full 20 minutes, plus the 10 minutes allotted for questions and comments.

I rise today with some reluctance to speak on this motion. I hope to have an opportunity to speak on the bill and on the many good points in the legislation. However, today we are debating the Bloc opposition motion condemning the government's employment insurance legislation for maintaining overlap and duplication in labour market training. I will try to confine my comments to that motion and to the aspects of the bill which relate to that motion. However, I would like to speak about the many good things the bill will do and I hope to have the opportunity to do so in the future.

If the hon. member and her colleagues in the Bloc had taken the time to give thorough consideration to the new employment insurance legislation they would see it does not maintain overlap and duplication in labour market training. After all, the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled the legislation only last Friday. It is a comprehensive document which deserves serious consideration by all members of the House.

The people of Quebec would be better served if the Bloc spent more time trying to understand this bill.

Instead they are conjuring up fallacies about its implementation.

To address the hon. member's motion directly, I suggest she refer to page 19 of the just published employment insurance guide. I know the hon. member has not seen this document. If she had she would not be wasting the valuable time of the House with this motion.

On page 19 of the guide, under employment benefits, the last paragraph of the first column states: "The legislation also proposes a new partnership with the provinces in order to eliminate duplication and encourage governments to work together to foster employment". It says the federal government will work in partnership with the provinces to eliminate duplication. That also means eliminating overlap; they are, after all, the same thing.

I do not know how much clearer the government can make it. It has been spelled out in the EI guide. I hope that by elaborating I can assist hon. members opposite, who still seem confused, to understand exactly what this means.

The labour market training initiatives under EI are not the one size fits all programming approach taken by previous governments. The federal government will work with each province individually, including the province of Quebec, because Quebecers are Canadians and are entitled to the same considerations under this legislation as are all citizens of the country.

We will work with each provincial government to help it deliver a federal program if it desires to do so or, and this is a key point, where a province is operating a program which will equally serve EI clients we will support that program. I do not know how much clearer I can make it for the members of the Bloc.

If the provincial government of Quebec agrees or if it has an employment initiative which meets the employment benefits criteria of this legislation, we are fully prepared to work with the Government of Quebec to use that initiative to help unemployed Quebecers get back to work as quickly as possible. The same thing applies in every province and territory of the country.

My colleague has already mentioned, but it bears repeating, that the good news is the Government of Quebec has passed a resolution that says it is willing to discuss labour market training with the federal government. Like my hon. colleague, I can assure members opposite the federal government welcomes this opportunity to work in partnership with the Quebec government for the benefit of Quebecers. The same philosophy will apply when the government is dealing with other provinces.

Atlantic Canadians are very concerned about the impact EI will have on their lives. We understand we cannot deal with Nova Scotia the same way we deal with Saskatchewan. I should know since my grandfather and my mother are from Saskatchewan. My grandfather was an MP from Saskatchewan and spoke often of its concerns. They are not the same problems, they are not the same situations as they are in Atlantic Canada.

We are all Canadians but there are different circumstances in the labour market and they call for different approaches in different parts of the country. That is the beauty of the employment benefit measures under EI. They provide for local decision making and ensure appropriate accountability in local areas. Also, they emphasize individual responsibility and self-reliance. All of these things are much needed in this area.

Media reports on this topic keep talking about cuts to UI as if that is all there is to this legislation. There is so much more. I look at this legislation as a Robin Hood response to a program badly in need of change and modernization. We are doing everything we can to maintain the benefits for those who need them most. We are helping out. We are providing a low income supplement for low income families with dependants so they will be better off in the future than they have been in the past. They will get more employment insurance than they would under the old UI system. They will get more now under this system.

We are aiming at those. It is true we are cutting from people who make $70,000 or $80,000 a year and collect UI on top of that. People in my riding have been telling us to do that for a long time. They have been saying people who make $60,000 a year cannot keep taking out $10,000 or $20,000 on top of that in UI year after year, and after only paying in a few hundred dollars. They cannot keep drawing out when they already have high incomes. They will have to learn to spread those high incomes over the full 12 months of the year. That is only fair.

People have been complaining in Atlantic Canada about that, in my riding certainly for a long time. We are hitting those people who really should not be taking UI every year, those with really high incomes. We are preserving it for those who need it most. That is a very important point. That is why I call this a kind of Robin Hood response to this problem.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 27th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-94, which is now before the House.

In the bill the government is taking a decisive step toward protecting the environment, jobs, consumers, and keeping our country at the leading edge of automobile technology. All are very important goals.

Bill C-94 will prohibit the import and interprovincial trade of MMT, a manganese based fuel additive manufactured in the U.S. The proposed bill, to be known as the manganese based fuel additives act, will come into effect 60 days after it gains assent.

Canada is one of the only countries in the world that use MMT. It is very rare in the world these days. The U.S., for example, banned it from use in unleaded gasoline in 1978. It is remarkable that it did it so long ago and we still have it in Canada.

Some members opposite have cited a recent U.S. court decision in favour of MMT as a reason to stop this legislation. But MMT will still be banned in California and in those states that require federal reformulated gasoline to be used. What is more, we have yet to see whether the U.S. government will repeal this decision.

We are taking this action because we need to protect the latest onboard diagnostic systems that Canada's car makers are installing in their new vehicles. These systems are extremely important for the environment. They are responsible for monitoring the vehicle emission controls and for alerting the driver of malfunctions. Without that kind of technology one cannot be aware of how well the car is working or if it is not functioning at all in terms of its emission control processes. They ensure that the cleaner burning engines of today and tomorrow operate as designed. They ensure that automobiles are properly maintained, resulting in decreased tailpipe emissions and improved fuel economy. In other words, this is one more important tool to help us address air pollution, including smog and climate change.

This government will not allow MMT to get in the way of the automobile industry's effort to make cars cleaner and more efficient and less polluting. Canada's environment and Canadian consumers have the right to the best anti-pollution technology possible. Yet Ethyl Corporation, the manufacturer of MMT through its subsidiary Ethyl Canada, denies the vehicle industry allegation about the ill effects of MMT on the vehicle emissions control

systems. In fact it makes a counter claim that MMT is environmentally beneficial.

All this is somewhat fuzzy. What is certain is that efforts to reduce motor vehicle pollution can no longer be addressed by just the petroleum industry, the auto industry, or the federal government. Progress at reducing vehicle pollution requires simultaneous action by all. The petroleum industry needs to keep making improvements in the composition and properties of the fuels engines burn. The auto industry needs to keep making improvements in the vehicle emissions control systems and technologies, such as those offered through onboard diagnostic systems. The government needs to take decisive action in Bill C-94, which removes a major obstacle to the introduction of these technologies. That obstacle is MMT.

Our strategy to reduce vehicle pollution goes beyond just taking action on MMT. The government is doing its part because we know that automobiles are a major contributor to climate change and urban smog as well as some toxic pollutants like benzene. In fact in a recently released task force report done by Canada's deputy ministers of environment it is noted that even with the improvements in emissions technology, vehicles are still the largest contributors to air pollution.

I must say that troubles me. I as a member of Parliament, and I am sure many of my colleagues, have to travel a great deal throughout my riding and often I am the only person in the vehicle. There are times when I feel uncomfortable about that. I know that it is important that I get around my riding, get around to different events, be seen and hear people's concerns. Yet I also know that I am driving a vehicle a lot more than I would like to be driving it. Unfortunately, my riding is too big to go by bicycle. It would take me forever, but it would certainly be great for my health. This issue does trouble me. We should be concerned about the impact of automobile emissions as they impact on the environment and air pollution.

On a national basis, gasoline and diesel powered vehicles still contribute some 60 per cent of carbon monoxide emissions, 35 per cent of nitrous oxide emissions or smog, 25 per cent of our hydrocarbon emissions, and 20 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions. These vehicles, gasoline and diesel powered, are very big contributors to our smog and pollution problems.

This report I just referred to stresses the need to proceed on all fronts at the same time in all of these areas. It states the following: "Vehicle technology and fuel composition, although two separate industry sectors, must be treated as an integrated system in the development of policies and programs in order to successfully reduce emissions from motor vehicles". This is good advice. It should complement our work in preparing our comprehensive motor vehicle exhaust emission standards.

To meet these standards, we are counting on integrating improvements achieved in emission control technologies and fuels. However, clearly we cannot hope to meet these standards without the kind of action we are taking against MMT in Bill C-94. And it is not simply an act of impatience. Since 1985 the federal government has waited for the automotive and petroleum industries to resolve this situation without legislation. It was not resolved. The time for waiting is over. It is now time for the government to act.

Last October the Minister of the Environment urged both the petroleum and automotive industries to voluntarily resolve the issue of MMT in Canada by the end of 1994; otherwise, the government would take action. This deadline was subsequently extended in February of this year to review automobile and petroleum industry proposals. The MMT issue is no longer an industry dispute. Its outcome can affect the vehicle emissions programs we are putting into place. In the long term it could also negatively impact on the automotive sector. Successful resolution of the MMT issue will ensure that environmental benefits are realized through the use of the most advanced emission control technologies. We have to move in this direction.

Members opposite have claimed that this legislation will have an enormous financial impact on the petroleum sector. However, let us be prudent and realistic. The economic impact of removing MMT will be small, not enormous. Estimates for the industry, an industry that involves many billions of dollars, range from $50 million to $83 million per year, which means an additional cost to consumers of 0.1 cents to 0.24 cents per litre at the pump. This is less than one-quarter of a cent per litre at the pump.

Some have said that taking MMT out of our fuel will increase benzene. That is not so. It is nonsense. Gasoline can be refined without MMT and without increasing levels of benzene. Any effort to increase benzene levels or benzene precursors will not be tolerated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. In fact this past summer the Minister of the Environment announced that benzene levels would be regulated at a maximum of one per cent per volume. So there is nothing to fear. Let us move ahead. Let us do it, because we need new emission control technologies like the onboard diagnostic systems. We need them to help achieve reductions in smog, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. We need to reduce these kinds of emissions because they have an influence on climate change and urban air quality.

This is good legislation. It is good for consumers and good for the environment. All 18 automobile companies in Canada agree, even if the Reform Party does not, that we are moving in the right direction.

I urge all members to give their support and swift passage to this bill.

[Atlantic Canada, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has been calling for a much weaker federal government. Once again Reformers are listening only to the small percentage of Canadians who are their supporters. They are not listening to Atlantic Canadians.

They want decentralization in the most decentralized federation in the western world. When Reformers want federal government to withdraw from health care they are not listening. When they talk about privatizing UI they are not listening. When they want a looser federation they are not listening to Atlantic Canadians.

Atlantic Canadians believe in a strong federal government. Atlantic Canadians believe in Canada.

[Auditor General Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-83.

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development took on the task of examining the government's commitment to establish an environmental equivalent of the auditor general. This was in fact a key red book commitment. It is an idea that has been discussed and debated for many years. It is also an idea the government is making a reality in short order.

The committee heard from many stakeholders representing a wide range of interests and opinions. Their testimony provided important insights into what must be done for Canada to achieve sustainable development.

The committee in preparing its report and the government in proposing Bill C-83 have paid careful attention to the message of stakeholders. The committee submitted its report in May of last year and the government responded just over a year ago. Its response was aimed at integrating economic, environmental and social factors in federal planning and decision making across all departments, just what the stakeholders had asked for.

Key aspects of that response include the amendments to the Auditor General Act with which we are involved today. The amendments would provide openness, transparency and leadership by government on sustainable development and continued action to make sustainable development a real practice throughout the federal government. Bill C-83 is central to integrating the environmental and sustainable development in government planning decisions across all federal government departments.

Last year I had the pleasure of being part of the Special Joint Committee for the Review of Canada's Foreign Policy. For the first time as part of a review of foreign policy one of the areas we looked at was sustainable development and the environment. We can see more and more these days how much environmental issues are international matters.

The hon. member for Peace River is here today. He was also a part of that review. It was a very interesting process. I was pleased that for the first time as a committee we recognized in our report that the federal government should include as a major plank of its foreign policy the promotion of sustainable development around the world.

Why is it important for us to make environmental matters and sustainable development more of a priority in government? One reason is that we live in a world of limited measurable natural resources.

I asked a friend of mine, a professor of geography in Halifax, if we could measure the atmosphere, the amount of air around the world. He checked with a friend in a specialized area who was more knowledgeable on the particular topic and told me there were approximately five quadrillion tonnes of atmosphere around the world. That is about one one-millionth of the total mass of the earth. Twenty-one per cent of the atmosphere is oxygen.

It is measurable and finite which means that it is limited. There is not always lots more where that came from. We have to recognize therefore that if we can measure it and if we can limit it, we can also destroy it. We can damage it. That is a very important point to realize in thinking about the environment and the world we live in.

This is the only planet we know of that will sustain and support life. That is an important point too. If we damage this one we do not have another one to go to. It is unrealistic to think we can choose some other world or that we will have some way to transport billions of people to some other planet where we can survive if we damage this one.

There is a very narrow range of conditions in which life can exist, particularly human life. Is it possible for us as human beings to actually alter or change the conditions which sustain human life? It seems to me the answer to that question is yes. We now have solid evidence that we actually have changed the conditions. We are having an impact on the conditions.

This year 2,000 leading world experts on climate change came to the conclusion and agreed, after years of debating it and not being ready to agree, that human activity contributes to global warming. We are affecting climate change. We are moving in the narrow range within which we can actually sustain human life. We should be aware of that very important point.

The planet has a limited ability to support human life. Researchers at Cornell University in the U.S. determined in a study that the earth's biosphere could only produce enough renewable resources, food, fresh water and fish, to sustain about two billion people at European standards. That is not North American standards and we should know the difference. If members know much about how Europeans live, they will know they are less wasteful of resources. They tend to follow the three r s of reducing, reusing and recycling a little more than we do. They have done it for quite a while. They have a head start on the three r s that are so important for the environment. I hope we can follow their example and catch up quickly.

Not only in Europe but in North America we have to change our practices to try to follow the three r s of reducing our consumption; reusing our receptacles for pop, bottles of various kinds and other containers; and reducing the amount of packaging of products. Often we buy products with a lot more packaging than is required. I understand marketing problems but somehow marketers have to take into account environmental issues and find ways to market with less packaging.

The whole issue of sustainable development is a new issue in foreign policy and newer one in domestic policy. Today it must be a core issue in our domestic as well as foreign policy. Sustainable development is about integrating environmental, economic and social values into decision making. That is very important for our future. If we do not include all three in deciding what will be sustainable for us in the future, how we will live in a sustainable manner and how we will support social and other programs in a sustainable manner, we have big problems. We need to think about how much we value the environment, society and the people in it and the economy. We must consider all these points and not one at the exclusion of others.

When thinking of the environment we must think about how much are interests are endangered. If we realize that we live in a very narrow range of conditions that can support human life and that we can actually affect those conditions, change them and move them outside that range, we realize our interests are in danger.

One great problem for us is to determine how to move toward goals of greater employment that are so important and at the same time deal with tremendous challenges in the environment. That is a major challenge of the next 50 years but I hope we manage to deal with it sooner than that.

Should we increase our emphasis on sustainable development? Clearly the answer is yes. We have done it in foreign policy. We are now doing it by creating a role within the auditor general's office for a commissioner who will report directly to the auditor general and will file a report annually on how the government and all departments are doing in environmental matters. It is very important to keep the government's feet to the fire on environmental matters to make sure it lives up to its responsibilities to promote sustainable development in every aspect of its activities.

I was very pleased to speak on the bill and I urge all members to give it speedy passage.