Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident from the interventions by the Reform Party that it wants a weaker bill. It wants a bill that loses its original intent and mandate in a manner which makes it extremely weak.
The words used by the member for Lethbridge is also interesting. He talked about the players in the game and that we must be a leader. The question is in what?
Neither the member for Lethbridge nor his other Reform Party colleague referred to public health once. Their main concern is the quite evident preoccupation with the industrial side of this bill and not with its health side.
We might as well call a spade a spade and make it clear that Reform has been on the wrong tack with this bill from the word go. It has also supported in committee every attempt to weaken this bill as it is doing here in the House today.
The parliamentary secretary to the minister was quite right when she referred in her intervention to this bill being a reasonably strong bill. She went as far as to describe it in very positive terms. That description would only be valid if the amendments by the government at report stage are not carried. If they are, then this bill will be weak and it will not perform the intent that was expressed so well and so clearly by the government in 1995 when it replied to the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development entitled “It's about our Health”.
In the limited time available I will try to address Motions Nos. 2, 14, 67 and 88.
Motion No. 2 would eliminate the words “to phase out the generation and use of the most persistent”. “The generation and use” are important words. We put them in at committee. Actually it was “to phase out the generation”. We thought in the long term that a bill whose aims are the prevention of pollution and the protection of public health should have an indication of that nature in the preamble. Therefore this amendment should be resisted.
Motion No. 14 is an amendment whereby in the administrative duties of the government the products of biotechnology would be deleted. It is very unfortunate that the government would see fit to present such a motion. It implies that the products of biotechnology should be the domain of just one department, namely the Department of Industry, as if biotechnology is a matter of economic concern alone. That is wrong. Biotechnology touches on a number of values that go far beyond the economic values and concerns of society. Therefore the deletion of the products of biotechnology from clause 2(1)(j) ought to be resisted.
I will move on to an item that has already been raised by others and quite understandably so, namely virtual elimination. We must be very clear in trying to convey to the public what it is all about.
When this bill came out of committee, as it now stands before us before any amendment, the matter of eliminating, so to say in vague terms, toxic substances would be the prerogative of the ministers. The ministers, as the bill reads right now, shall make regulations respecting allowable releases. It is left to the two responsible ministers, environment and health, to make that determination.
The amendment being proposed by the government says that there would have to be a precondition before this could take place. In other words an obstacle is set in the way of the two ministers. Namely the specification by the ministers of the level of quantification for each substance on this famous list called virtual elimination would be a precondition to the making of the regulation. This is a considerable weakening of the clause as it is presently in the bill and when it came from committee.
It is quite clear that we have yielded to pressures, to lobbyists. We have somehow decided to put forward an amendment, and it is most unfortunate that the government would have done that, that is watering down and weakening the handling of the very central issue in the bill of virtual elimination of toxic substances.
Virtual elimination is a central key issue which requires considerable debate and not just the few minutes that are available to us.
The idea that was conceived in committee of the ultimate reduction of toxic substances has disappeared. There is no clear requirement to continue as it is intended to ratchet down the limits of release. The proposed amendment will legitimize the continued use of toxic substances which is a very unfortunate development. Therefore, I would urge colleagues not to vote for this amendment.
Motion No. 88 deals with the question of inherent toxicity. This amendment is extremely difficult to explain in the course of this debate. Again it weakens the bill because it removes the possibility of having access to a faster track for the elimination of harmful substances. It is an amendment that ought to be rejected.
The amendment seriously weakens the work of the committee whose permanent members attempted very conscientiously to find ways of reinforcing the thrust of the bill with the main purpose of the bill in mind, namely that of preventing pollution and of protecting human health. We are dealing here with some very dangerous substances. We are dealing here with a process that requires some clear measures that aim at the long term elimination of substances that are harmful to human health and to the environment.
The committee has attempted to do that. However, a number of amendments in Group No. 1 would weaken that effort and the substance of the bill before us this afternoon.
For these reasons I urge my colleagues in the House of Commons to reject the major amendments in Group No. 1, and particularly the ones that I referred to in my brief presentation.