Mr. Speaker, we certainly heard a lot of rhetoric from the member opposite. That is a very gentle way to describe it.
Is he aware that the bill explicitly recognizes the right of aboriginal governments to participate directly in advising the minister on the operation and implementation of the act? Does he recognize that this bill, unlike any other bill or anything we do, obligates the minister to conduct science on emerging issues like gender benders or endocrine disrupters?
Is he aware that the government provided money toward remediation for the community action group in Sydney to clean up the tar ponds, almost $40 million after lots of investment in terms of science?
The bill is predicated on the principle of pollution prevention so we never have to get into these circumstances. How could the member opposite say that he would vote against implementing and operationalizing pollution prevention? How could he stand here today and say he will do that?