Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to the amendments in Group No. 3 now before the House.
The first motion in the group was introduced by the Reform Party and seeks to amend a provision in the preamble. Once again the Reform Party chose to side with industry, which wants everything that goes against its vision of environmental and health protection to be watered down.
The wording of the preamble which is the subject of the Reform Party motion reads as follows:
Whereas the Government of Canada will endeavour to remove threats to biological diversity through pollution prevention, the control and management of any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances, products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes, and the virtual elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances;
It is thanks to the work of the committee that the words products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes were added to the bill. The Reform Party would like to change the wording to completely eliminate the notions of products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes, and the virtual elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances.
I wonder why the Reform Party is so adamant on siding with industry, which is asking that the bill, which was already watered down when it came to the committee, be further watered down. After weeks and weeks of work by the committee, we were able to strengthen a web of provisions that, originally, had no teeth to speak of.
There is a consensus that, following the work by the five parties, during which scores of amendments were discussed and some of the important ones will be accepted, the bill as it stands is a compromise. It is a far cry from what we and the environmentalists would have liked, but we believe it is a reasonable compromise under the circumstances.
What has happened today is that the Reform Party has systematically sided with industry to water down the amendments adopted by the committee.
In the same group of motions the government would split this preamble in two. It would introduce the notion of the control and management of the risk of any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances. There are some among our researchers who feel that using the word “risk” improves the clause from the environmental point of view because it makes the proof lesser than the proof of adverse effects themselves.
However, the question is asked: If this were so, why in those weeks and weeks of discussion within the committee was this notion not brought about? Why now? Why does it happen under the prompting of industry that this should be introduced?
The other side will say that risk is much more subjective than the effects themselves. People can decide what is risk and what is not risk and evade the very notion of the adverse effects. It is one more notion to add to a disposition that seemed to us to be quite clear in its effect to start with after it had been amended in committee.
I would suggest that we reject both of these amendments which will lessen the importance of this clause in the preamble. There are some who would say that it is only a preamble and a preamble is not part of the operative part of the law. However, it sets a sense of direction as to what we are trying to do.
What I find in a great bulk of the amendments that have been brought forward, except for those in Group No. 2 that we discussed, which put a timeline on consultation, and except for a few that have been proposed by my colleague from the New Democratic Party who sat with us in committee, is that they tend to lessen the power of the act as it stands today.
The sad part is that in the key elements of the legislation, which have been repeated time and again, inherent toxicity, virtual elimination and the precautionary principle, and the powers of the two ministers, the sponsors of the legislation, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health, to act autonomously in all of these respects, the amendments that have been brought in dilute those very powers.
None of the elements which are crucial to the legislation have been reinforced. On the contrary, they have been lessened, they have been weakened and they have been diluted. For these reasons—Group No. 3 amendments concerning the provision of the preamble that I discussed, all of the clauses that come up in Group No. 1, some in Group No. 2 and others in other groupings—we feel that this legislation does not stand the scrutiny of the House.
I hope that together we will defeat the amendments that tend to weaken this bill so that the bill will remain the way it is; a fair, reasonable, effective compromise which was achieved as a result of the work of many members of the House. It was diligent work, painstaking work, which led to much compromise and consensus.
It is on that basis that I would support the bill, about which otherwise I have strong reservations.