Madam Speaker, during the committee hearings we often saw that the parliamentary secretary was a step behind in some of the amendments throughout the clause by clause process. This actually replicates what we saw on an ongoing basis.
This replies to the issue with respect to the Reform and the government side on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and endocrine disrupters. There has been a bit of debate about what is the accepted definition for these very harmful substances. I would like to point out that had it not been for the due diligence of members like the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, the member for York North, the member for Davenport, the NDP, the Bloc and the Progressive Conservatives, I doubt that there would have been the political pressure for any amendments with respect to endocrine disrupters in this bill.
This is an emerging science. There is no truly accepted international definition. A definition was exposed at the Weybridge conference a number of years ago and which a number of scientists in the international community actually saw. There is a definition in the United States Environmental Protection Act.
Essentially the definition we see here, which was moved by the NDP and was voted on and approved by the Bloc, the Progressive Conservatives and some government members, is a melange of the U.S. EPA and the Weybridge definitions. To use the words of the environment officials, it is indeed a very workable definition.
The Reform Party would have us believe that the Weybridge definition is internationally accepted. It is not. That definition came out of an OECD meeting held in Weybridge, U.K. A melange of the U.S. EPA and the Weybridge definitions is what is in the information gathering section of CEPA. The environment officials consider it to be very workable.
Canada is already a world leader in endocrine disrupters research. The definition we chose to work with should reflect our strength and knowledge of these substances. The NDP motions will add the need for the government to conduct research relating to a safer environment for children by identifying pollutants commonly found in areas accessible to children and identifying the risks in order to advise the public of potential danger. This is a good initiative for the well-being of children.
Children grow at a faster rate than adults do. The ongoing development of their organs makes them especially vulnerable to toxins in our environment. The nervous system in particular can be greatly affected by exposure to some toxins. We need to do more to ensure that they are protected from dangerous contaminants where they live, play and grow.
The metabolic pathways of newborns are not as sophisticated as those found in adults. This means their ability to fight off exposure to toxins in the environment is less than that of adults. They experience greater exposure to toxins than adults do because they consume more water, fruit and vegetables and when resting breathe more air than average adults do. Their tendency to place their dirty hands in their mouths and play on the ground also provides them with a greater risk of exposure to environmental toxins.
Parents, doctors and governments need to be educated on the risks children are being exposed to on a daily basis. This is why we support the motion by my NDP friend and colleague from Churchill River. It is a valuable augmentation to the legislation. I encourage all members of this House to support that amendment.