Mr. Speaker, this is what is called an absurd argument. I never made the case that without any signals or without any presumptions we should ban this and that. I never said that.
I said that the precautionary principle puts an onus on us to act when there is a very strong presumption. Of course we do not act when there is no presumption at all.
Let us take the case of endocrine disrupters in the environment. Many eminent scientists in the world are finding out that because of the toxic effluent being released in lakes and so forth fish life is being changed. There is a sort of sexual impact of great magnitude on populations of living species, including the human species.
Scientists in Scotland, Denmark, Canada and the United States have come to the same conclusion. Do we wait until the final proof has been given by all the scientists of the world, by all the scientific bodies?
I remember the argument about global climate change. The Leader of the Opposition still believes in the flat earth society. Although 2,500 scientists have told him there is climate change, he does not want to believe it. They will wait until it is too late.
This is what we are talking about. We are talking about effective presumption and when there is presumption that we move and act before it is too late.