Debates of June 1st, 1999

The Late Douglas Harkness

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus I would like to join with representatives of other parties and all members of the House of Commons in expressing our condolences to the family of the late Mr. Douglas Harkness and in saying a few words of tribute to his career in this place, to his service to his country during World War II and to his work as a teacher and a farmer.

I remember the night Mr. Harkness resigned. I was only 12 years old but I was paying attention to politics at the time. I remember that when Mr. Harkness resigned it precipitated the fall of the Diefenbaker government in 1963. This was something to be noted, not the resignation per se or the fall of the government, but the fact that somebody would resign on a matter of principle knowing the consequences for himself personally and knowing the consequences for the government led by his own party.

This is something that happens rarely in Canadian politics, too rarely I might say. I am sure there are occasions when this would have been the thing to do but it is not done any more. It is a tradition of Canadian parliamentary life which has fallen on bad times and is no longer thought to be the thing to do.

I remember that with respect, even though the principle on which Mr. Harkness resigned is not a principle I shared with him. I am sure my NDP colleagues at the time did not agree with him with respect to the arming of Bomarc missiles with nuclear weapons. Nevertheless it was a principle he held and upheld and was willing to go to the wall for politically. We have to admire that.

We pay tribute to that and to his 27 years in this place, to his distinguished military career. As I said before, we extend to his family our sincere condolences.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development, be read the third time and passed.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for waiting with bated breath over question period to hear my closing remarks on the issue of Bill C-32 and more specifically concentrating on the toxic substance contents of the legislation.

As I was mentioning, the quantity of these substances can build up over time. They cause long term, serious, adverse health effects both to the environment and to people. Once in the environment these substances will continue to damage our health and the health of our ecosystems over many generations through a subtle effect of endocrine, immune, reproductive and other sensitive biological systems. Virtual elimination is necessary to protect our health and that of our environment.

Bill C-32 allows for creative approaches in controlling toxic substances to achieve results faster and to provide greater flexibility. A reactive or control management approach is often costly and time consuming. In some circumstances traditional regulations remain the best solution. However, they are only one of several tools that Bill C-32 places at our disposal. These tools include pollution prevention plans, voluntary initiatives and economic instruments such as tradable permits to control toxic substances.

These new tools focus on environmental results rather than the means by which they are achieved. They give operators the flexibility to incorporate cost effective measures that suit the needs without the direct intervention of the government as long as the required environmental protection objectives are met. This results often in a greater reduction in toxic emissions that would otherwise be achieved through traditional regulatory approaches.

Canada can learn from actions of other countries as well. For example, Bill C-32 requires the federal government to review the decisions and control actions of toxic substances taken by other countries to determine if they are relevant and applicable to Canadian situations. The government will regularly review decisions taken by provinces in Canada or by member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to substantially restrict toxic substances.

We have listened to the concerns of Canadians about toxic substances. I believe the environmental legislation before us today addresses these concerns. A strengthened CEPA will provide the Government of Canada with the tools needed to protect the Canadian environment and the health of Canadians.

I urge the House to support the legislation and give it speedy passage so that Canada will be an environmental leader in the 21st century. It is our responsibility as members of parliament, as the Government of Canada and as proud Canadian citizens to make sure this piece of legislation goes through. Our children and our environment are depending on it.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago a concerned citizen came to my office in the riding of York North. He was very concerned about the health of the trumpeter swan in the Wye Marsh. He was very concerned about what was happening around lead contamination. I understand the member for Simcoe—Grey has some of the Wye Marsh within his riding. I was wondering what he was doing to help his constituents on this very important problem.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for her question. It is an issue that is certainly near and dear to my heart and impacts my riding as well as ridings all across the country.

As late as about three weeks ago I introduced a private member's bill banning lead sinkers and jigs. Although it was deemed to be a non-votable item at that point in time, we were successful in securing the support of the Minister of the Environment. At this time I would certainly like to thank her and congratulate her for rising to the challenge.

The lead sinkers and jigs issue that is impacting Canadians all across the country is a crucial issue and it is a hidden issue. Most people in the House and in fact all across the country did not realize the severity of the situation regarding the deposit of lead sinkers and jigs in our Canadian waters. At that time I drew a scenario. It is actually taking place as we speak today and throughout most of the year. It boils down to that this legislation will help through community buy ins, support in that sector and identifying it as such a toxic substance as it is in Bill C-32.

Between 500 and 600 tonnes of lead are deposited in Canadian waters every year. The analogy I used was approximately 500 half-ton pick-ups fully loaded with lead lined up bumper to bumper. That is the kind of situation which is taking place with respect to lead being dumped in Canadian waters.

I was proud to address that issue on behalf of not only the constituents of Simcoe—Grey, but also people who are impacted in all areas of Canada. That is certainly one measure where I think the government has been very proactive and will continue to be so.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago 28 experts, scientists, medical doctors, researchers, environmental lawyers and public policy experts gathered on Parliament Hill and met with members of parliament and senators at EcoSummit '99. The summit examined air pollution, the link to human health and what is required for healthy public policy development.

Two very important messages emerged. First, the health and scientific experts unanimously agreed that medical and ecological information clearly indicates that we face pressing health problems as a result of airborne contaminants. Second, we as parliamentarians have a responsibility to act and we must act now in the public interest.

EcoSummit participants, eminent leaders in their fields including a former Royal Society president, felt it was crucial to bring their research to the attention of parliamentarians. There is a fundamental need to develop a relationship of collaboration between scientists and parliamentarians to promote healthy public policy.

Dr. David Bates, a pioneer in and an internationally renowned expert on the study of air pollution in human health for over 50 years asked tough questions about Canada's readiness to take up the challenge of effectively dealing with the problem of airborne contaminants and human health. In his important book Environmental Health Risks and Public Policy: Decision Making in Free Societies , Dr. Bates provides an approach for better integrating medical and health public policy making. Dr. Bates clearly takes a stand on the side of public health.

In his book he quotes American Senator Edward Muskie and principal author of the 1970 Clean Air Act amendments. Senator Muskie said:

Our responsibility is to establish what the public interest requires to protect the health of persons. This may mean that people and industries will be asked to do what seems impossible at the present time. But if health is to be protected, these challenges must be met. I am convinced they can be met.

And so am I. Unfortunately, Bill C-32 will not do this. Throughout this debate I have implored my colleagues on both sides of the House to consider very carefully the impact of the amendments that we had before us at report stage. Now I ask my colleagues to very carefully consider the effect of this legislation in its final form.

Let us not forget our duties and obligations as parliamentarians. We must first establish what the public interest requires to protect the health of persons. This is our challenge.

The fundamental question before us now is, is Bill C-32 written as if the health of Canadians mattered? How each of us in the House responds to this question as our words are recorded in the Hansard of this debate or in the way we vote tonight on third reading will define us.

I have heard members in the House say that we must balance the environmental concerns with economic concerns, that without economic growth and profit we will not have the resources we need to protect the environment. This is absurd. They forget that without a healthy environment the economy will suffer. Have any of the members opposite heard anything about the Atlantic and the Pacific fishing industries?

Trickle down economic policies have not worked for the poor. To the contrary, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened. Trickle down environmental protection will not work either. The connections among economic, equity and ecological factors are inextricably woven. It is in fact a seamless web of interdependency. It is irrational, foolhardy and dangerous to overlook this.

The aggressive industrial assault against any positive environmental measures in Bill C-32 is precedent setting. The fact that parliament has so fully incorporated their concerns is shameful.

As one of three Liberal members who has worked on this bill from before its inception during the original CEPA review in 1994, through the government response in Bill C-74, CEPA 1996 and the committee process reviewing Bill C-32, CEPA 1998, I would have to say that the bill currently before the House is a pale reflection of the piece of legislation it could be, a bill that has been fought over by this unprecedented industrial lobbyist assault, by the machinations of other government departments and by pressure from the provinces.

What has finally emerged is a bill weakened by a thousand cuts, a bill so anemic it cannot be supported. My decision not to support Bill C-32 has been made after much thought and deliberation.

For the past five years I have spoken with leading experts from the fields of health, ecology, law and economics, and it is very clear that most recommendations that would make this bill a good bill were ignored.

For months during committee hearings and now during the days of debate in the House some of my colleagues and I have continued to raise issues of concern. Unfortunately there are many. I would like to reiterate only some of the most problematic ones.

There has been a weakening of the virtual elimination provisions. The residual nature of CEPA has been emphasized by restricting the authority of the Minister of the Environment to act in relation to other departments.

Additional barriers to action by the federal government have been created by lining the bill with the harmonization agreement with the provinces. Overall new hurdles have been created on acting in a precautionary way. There has been a shift away from pollution prevention.

While there are elements in Bill C-32 that would improve the existing CEPA, for example the electronic environmental registry, legislation of the National Pollutants Release Inventory and new powers for enforcement, these do little to overcome the cumulative damage made by all the other changes that weaken Bill C-32.

If I were to rewrite Bill C-32 I would ensure that it was real pollution prevention legislation, that there was a focus on generation and use, not just releases. I would ensure that pollution prevention plans were mandatory and automatic once toxic substances have been identified and not have to wait for a listing of toxics.

Pollution prevention planning leads to eco-efficiency for firms, which means better toxics management, reducing costs for industry and government. As well, the Ministers of the Environment and Health should be the ones making environmental and health decisions, not economic ministries.

More than anything, if I were to rewrite this bill I would make sure that CEPA respected subpopulations such as children. Children are not small adults. If we set environmental standards which created healthy public policy, as if the health of our children mattered, then everyone would gain.

There are other groups of Canadians who require special attention. Canada's northern people live with the consequences of toxic chemicals that are created outside of their homelands. They catch food that is contaminated and mothers' breast milk has unacceptable high levels of PCBs. If we respect these Canadians we must write environmental legislation as if their health mattered.

If I were to rewrite this bill I would listen to the hundreds of witnesses, from aboriginal people to scientists, to medical doctors and researchers, to lawyers and labour groups, to health child specialists, experts on learning disabilities, environmental groups, enlightened industry representatives, who gave us a wonderful and rich set of recommendations to choose from when the committee wrote the review and put forward very clear and damning criticism when the legislation was before committee.

I want to thank all of these incredibly hard-working individuals who, with few resources but with much wisdom and foresight, provided the committee with the evidence to make this a better bill.

Even though some say we have failed because this bill is a mere shadow of what it could be, I say that we have succeeded in creating a benchmark against which all of us in the House will be measured. It is a legacy that some day we will return to.

Some say that politics is the art of the possible, but I say that the art of possible is doing the seemingly impossible.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for the hard work she and others have done in contributing to the debate on Bill C-32.

I suppose there are some of us in the House who have supported the bill. I would point out that in terms of an industrial barrage of lobbying, I know that I have seen in my time here lobbying that was much more intense, for example, the lobbying over the bank mergers, and yet our government decided to disallow bank mergers at this time.

We have lobbyists and we have lobbyists. I am sure there are lobbyists on the environmental protection side of the issue. Therefore, to say that this bill is the result of an intense industrial lobby is perhaps somewhat unfair.

In my experience in the forest products industry we had a number of concerns with legislation that was introduced by the Ontario government during the NDP period which concerned the use of the best available technology. What that legislation did was to say that, notwithstanding the cost, if there was technology in place that would allow the removal or elimination of certain pollutants, then the law required that the best available technology be implemented. For example, if emissions could be reduced by .000 and it cost $1 billion, to use a ridiculous example, the legislation said that would have to be implemented.

I know there are differences of opinion on this issue in the House, but on the concept of virtual elimination I think there was a legitimate concern by industry that we were going to be chasing molecules or those pollutants that are not measurable by any reasonable standard and investing millions of dollars of capital to reduce pollutants which are really having no significant impact at all.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that $1 billion to change technology to deal with an environmental issue is absurd. Certainly that is the kind of absurd sort of scaremongering that we were subjected to by the industrial lobby assault against this bill.

I would like to point out to my colleague that the issue of virtual elimination, the definition itself, as originally posed in Bill C-32, was so incomprehensible that it could have led to three different kinds of interpretation. Uncertainty for industry is a big issue. However, it was the deputy minister of Environment Canada who put forward an amendment through the government which changed the definition at committee. The definition is exactly the same as it is in the toxic substance management policy. In 1995 stakeholder groups, including industry stakeholder groups, signed on to the toxic substance management policy, which has exactly the same definition as Bill C-32. They agreed with it. I have not seen industry pouring out of the country in the last five years.

My colleague says that we should not be chasing the last molecule, which is true. That is what it says in the toxic substance management policy. However, what industry lobbyists tend to forget is what happens on the second page of the toxic substance management policy, which is to say that the ultimate objective is to go toward virtual elimination without consideration for sociological and economic factors. That has often been missed.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 is undoubtedly a major bill, but it is very disappointing.

It is disappointing to Bloc Quebecois members and to those Liberal members who are most involved in the environmental field. I can think of the hon. member for Davenport, who is also the chairman of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis and former Quebec environment minister, who also voted against the bill, and the hon. member for York North, who also sits on the committee.

If those Liberal members who are most involved in the environmental field voted against Bill C-32, as was the case yesterday, does it mean that all Liberal members who have some common sense should follow suit? These are members who have put a great deal of time into studying the bill clause by clause, and now they are voting against it.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed the member opposite sat through many hearings and was involved with the environment committee and part of the CEPA review. I know how much he cares about the environment because of the contribution he made.

He asked why there are members on this side of the House who have decided to vote against this legislation. This is a democracy. I am very proud of my government because I have the opportunity, as someone who has worked diligently on this file, who understands it and who knows the legislation inside and out, to say that this bill is not good enough. I have decided that in my own conscience, because of my own feelings and my own understandings. It is not good enough for the people of York North. It is not good enough for the people of Canada. This is a democracy and I have the right to express my opinion in the House.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you seek unanimous consent to extend the question and comment period for another five minutes. This is such an important bill and such an important debate that we on this side of the House would like an additional couple of minutes to ask a few questions of the member for York North.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore has requested the unanimous consent of the House to extend the period for questions and comments by five minutes. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore.

This legislation is a continuation of the Liberal agenda to deregulate. It is a total corporate agenda, a cave-in to a lobby group. In effect, what we have is a virtual environmental protection act. The term virtual has come to mean that it is not real.

We have heard all day that this bill is supposed to be balanced. We are trying to accommodate the economy as well as the environment. We have heard members of the Reform Party say that they are in favour of sustainable development, as well as Liberal members. In fact, they are having a love-in with the Reform Party in support of this environmental protection bill, which in fact is not going to protect our environment.

We are supposed to accept the virtual elimination of the most deadly poisons and toxins known to man, when what we need is the phase-out of persistent organic pollutants. These are heavy metals. They are DDTs. They are truly unmanageable poisons and that is why we do not want them in the environment. We cannot accept any level of these toxins because we cannot manage the effects of them. We cannot manage the effects of endocrine disrupters. How low will we allow sperm counts to go before we say no, we cannot accept this any more? How many mutated embryos will we accept before we say no, we have to stop the actual generation and sale of these poisons because we cannot manage them within our environment?

Newer research is clearly showing that we are affected by very low levels of toxins; not just megadoses of poisons that cause cancer, but very low doses of common poisons in our environment, such as nitrates that we use as fertilizer and soaps that we use in cleaning.

The worst thing is that we do not know what the combination of these toxins will do to our children and to our health. We do know that it is not a benefit for us to have them within our environment. If we ignore the effects we will be propagating them by not going forward with environmental protection that is preventive and not crisis oriented, trying to clean up the mess at the other end.

When it comes to the north, the Arctic contaminants report has clearly stated that the north and the people of the north are disproportionately affected by these poisons because they stay there. They do not go anywhere else. We have lead, mercury and DDT levels that are unacceptable in mothers' breast milk.

The people who live in the north do not have the opportunity to go to a health food store to get organic produce. People who live in Old Crow, who want to buy some milk for their child, are looking at triple the cost which is paid by those living in a southern community. It is just not reasonable to expect these people, if they are concerned about their health and the levels of contaminants in their environment, not to live off the caribou and the fish which are coming more and more sparsely up the river to Old Crow. They have to depend on the country's food, the indigenous food, to bring up their children in good health.

It does not show concern for the northern people and the effects that these poisons have on them. They have no control over how or when those toxins arrive in the north because they come through the winds and evaporation.

We have a bill where the minister is going to limit her own powers to protect the environment. The minister's power will in fact be dissipated to the Minister of Industry. Maybe the Minister of Finance is not going to like how the minister wants to protect our environment. That minister will no longer have the ability to make a decision and say “No we cannot do this. This is unacceptable. The cost to human health is far to high”. That is exactly what the bill does. It dissipates the power, the focus and the concentration on protecting our environment in the best interests of our public. The best interests of the health of these citizens have become subordinate to corporate interests.

I have heard this over and over again today from some of the members who have spoken and, I think, at great personal cost. It certainly must be heartbreaking to stand up and not vote with their party on a bill that they have worked on for years in the belief that as citizens they could protect our environment.

I will jump back to the north. The bill is not about good corporate citizens. It is about those individuals and those corporations who will not and do not clean up after themselves. They do not look ahead to the cost to the environment and to health through the process they use in their industry or the product that they produce in the end.

We have the DEW line, the distant early warning sites across the north that the U.S. was heavily involved in. It abandoned those sites leaving behind barrels of DDTs and other toxins. It sometimes buried them and sometimes left them exposed. What has happened to the sites? They have not been cleaned up. The Liberal government made an infamous deal to trade used military equipment for cleaning up the north, which means of course that those sites do not and will not get cleaned up.

Corporations have gone through the Faro mine one after the other. It will cost over $100 million to clean up the toxins that were left behind. Who is responsible for that and who is going to end up cleaning it up? The people who live there or the government of the country will have to clean it up? As it stands, the mess is there.

We just had a $300,000 fine for a company that left behind a mess. Guess what? That company is out of business. Who is going to clean that up? Who is going to live with the contamination? The indigenous people in that remote area who are going to have to live with the poison.

The Royal Oak mine in the Northwest Territories has gone out of business. It will cost over $100 million to clean up the leaking arsenic in that area. Who is left with that? It is the Canadian citizens. Obviously with the company out of business it is not going to be cost effective to clean that up.

There is this whole idea that we will not clean up our environment or expect business to be responsible for what they have produced because it might not be cost effective. What is the definition of cost effective? How many lives will we abandon to sickness or death on the terms that it would be too costly to put in any kind of preventative measures on their behalf?

Last year I had the good fortune of listening to David Suzuki when he was on Parliament Hill. It was very impromptu. Members of parliament had the chance to listen to him. What he emphasized, and I suppose has emphasized throughout his career, is: that we somehow think our economy is independent from the earth that we live on; that we depend on the ozone layer for protection; that we depend on our sea for fish; that we depend on our lakes for fresh water; that we depend on the earth to grow our wheat; and that somehow we think that as a species we can live independently of our environment. This is something we cannot do. In order to have an economy we have to have an environment and we have to protect it.

This legislation does not protect the environment. It does not prevent the poisons that are being generated in great numbers by our society. I would suggest that this is pushed by greed and not by the concern for a quality of life on this planet that we truly can sustain for further generations.

I join my colleagues in sadly not supporting the environmental protection act because it does not do what it said it would do. It has become a virtual protection act.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as a former resident of Yukon for over nine years, I understand completely what the hon. member for Yukon has just been talking about.

In the aboriginal communities that she deals with on a regular day to day basis, can she not allay some personal concerns that they have addressed to her in regard to the Faro mines, the porcupine caribou herd and other instances of where we have abandoned those people when it comes to the environmental protection of the beautiful Yukon?

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of February, I travelled with the caribou commons project, which is an environmental lobby to protect the calving grounds of the porcupine caribou herd. The people in the north depend on this caribou herd which has calved on a very small coastal plain just across the border in the United States.

What they have, in effect, is this sense of powerless to protect their way of life and the sustainability of their economy which is one that depends on the fish, the berries and the caribou both spiritually and physically.

If we look at what they could be facing in terms of cost effectiveness, someone might think that it would be a a heck of a lot more profitable to have oil fields than to depend on caribou for a living. Under that logic, it would be perfectly acceptable to have roads through the habitat of the caribou, through their calving grounds and through their wintering grounds where North America has just one range left for the migrating herds. The north is then completely overlooked.

I would stress again that the effects of toxins are disproportionately dangerous for the people who live in the north as compared to the places where they are actually produced.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have about the legislation is that Canada is currently heading up a process to negotiate protocol on persistent organic pollutants in international protocol. My concern is that some of the elements that parliament fixes in the legislation may find its way into that international process.

As someone who has been involved with some of the Inuit organizations in the north, I have had the opportunity to travel in the north and to meet with some of these people. I share a lot of their concerns around contaminants leaking their way into the north.

What concerns does the member opposite have around persistent organic pollutants, how do some of the people in her riding deal with these issues and what would they like to see coming out of the international process?

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the effects of those pollutants are really insidious. They are hard to diagnose. When a person goes to the doctor, the doctor will not be able to say that the person is suffering from heavy metal poisoning because of persistent organic pollutants. It just does not happen. However, I happen to know there are very high rates of cancer, strange tumours, odd infections, people with chronic fatigue and environmental sensitivities.

What I think this legislation does is it sets a standard. How can we expect to go to an international arena and say that we have to phase out these pollutants when we have set a national standard that calls for virtual elimination, or that we will tolerate this much or three-quarters of this level in our environment rather than looking at them as something deadly which we cannot accept at all, period? We have to get them out of production and not allow them to affect our children.

By passing the legislation we set that standard. If we set it for ourselves, how can we hold an international arena to a higher standard?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this will be the last time I get to speak on behalf of my constituents of Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore on probably the most important piece of legislation facing us probably in the history of my career as a politician, being a new one in the House.

When the bill came out of committee it actually had some teeth to it. However, after the Liberals got a hold of it—with the exception of the members for Lac-Saint-Louis, Davenport and York North—they sat back, along with some of their colleagues in the Reform Party, and said that the bill was too strong and they could not have this. I find this absolutely disgusting.

It will not happen today or even tomorrow, but eventually down the road my children are going to ask me why our environment is more polluted than it was in 1999? I will tell them that it was because the government of the day, along with the official opposition, sat back and did absolutely nothing. They caved into industry standards and industry wishes and wants.

My children will one day ask me what I did to stop them. I will reply that I tried to do everything in the parliamentary atmosphere to raise the issue. The member for Churchill River, the member for Yukon, our leader from Halifax and the entire New Democratic Party, federally and provincially across the country from coast to coast to coast, have been raising the issue of the environment for years.

I can guarantee members a $1,000 Canadian that nobody on the backbench, with the exception of a few of them, ever read Rachel Carson's Silent Spring , the environmental handbook. This was a woman with all the courage in the world who stood up to big polluters and big corporations in the early 1960s, when it was not popular to be green, and told the world what was happening to our natural environment.

Allow me to talk about a few things the government has been doing. We have had three consecutive environment committee reports critical of inaction and non-protection. This is a government that leaves sick children in their homes for over a year beside the Sydney tar ponds and Sysco site until the toxic goo shows up in their basements. The Liberals say they are moving these people, not because of health reasons but for compassionate reasons. It is absolutely unbelievable.

The Liberals do not have the courage to stand up and accept responsibility for major catastrophic failures when it comes to the environment. This is a government that chooses to leave over one million tonnes of radioactive waste leaking into Great Bear Lake in the Northwest Territories. This is a government that says it takes protecting Canada's freshwater resources seriously. Unbelievable.

Great Bear Lake is Canada's fourth largest supplier of freshwater. Rather than act, the government pays lip service to the community and promises and re-promises action. Still nothing has been done to contain or remedy the problem. The waste is on a federal government abandoned site.

This is a government that last night voted, with the exception of three Liberal members, against evidence presented by its own scientists that hormone disrupting substances have been found leaving pig farms and entering into waterways. No action was taken. The Liberals voted against this information. Whatever the Liberals do they do not want to upset the polluter. My God, we would certainly not want to upset the polluters who have destroyed our environment.

What happened to protecting Canadians? Why not place a warning that this is an occurring and recurring action? Why can we not tell Canadians the truth about what we are doing to our environment?

The NDP proposed a series of motions to follow the effort of the United States to provide a safer environment for their children. All we asked was to include consideration of the special susceptibility of children faced with environmental contaminants as a reference point when investigating substances.

If the members of the Liberal government or the Reform Party had a green bone in their body or morals beyond the lobby pockets, they could have acted proactively. The choice to defeat this proactive precautionary measure was made on the same day an article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen dealing with the growing concern of pesticide risk.

To quote Julia Langer, toxicologist for World Wildlife Fund Canada:

—the regulatory process is deeply flawed. Pesticides are based on the average adult male's exposure and sensitivity to a product, a system that overlooks the vulnerability of children and women, and does not take into account a person's total exposure.

Our motion would have been to consider children when spending the millions of dollars on research, with specific considerations proposed in the United States and other countries. The Liberal government says it will spend millions of dollars on research. What will the government do with the information when it gets it?

The previous statement I gave mirrors the executive order signed by President William Jefferson Clinton in 1997, to direct government agencies to consider children's vulnerability and susceptibility in policy and regulatory considerations in 1997.

For the environment minister to stand before Canadians in the House, or on television, and state that Bill C-32 is the best environmental legislation in the world is a statement that needs to be clarified. It is really the best polluter protection legislation in the world.

On April 21, 1997 the President of the United States ordered by the authority vested in him as president by the constitution and the laws of the United States of America that a growing body of scientific knowledge demonstrated that children might suffer disproportionately from environmental health risks and safety risks. He said that these risks arose because children's neurological, immunological, digestive and other bodily systems were still developing; that children eat more food, drink more fluids and breathe more air in proportion to their body weight than adults; that children's size and weight might diminish their protection from standard safety features; and that children's behavioural patterns may make them more susceptible to accidents because they are less able to protect themselves.

Therefore, he said, that to the extent permitted by law and appropriate and consistent with the agency's mission, each federal agency should make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that might disproportionately affect children and should ensure that its policies, programs, activities and standards addressed disproportionate risks to children which result from environmental a health risk or safety risk.

I received a postcard today from a friend of mine, Mr. Derek Jones of Newellton, Nova Scotia. His big concern is the effects of dragging and the technological gear that we use when it comes to fishing.

Off the east coast of Nova Scotia in Shelburne are some of the most beautiful coral reefs in the world. Some of those reefs are called the bubble gum coral, the bushy acanella and the black tip coral. They take hundreds of years to grow. In a few minutes a dragger will come buy and sweep these things away. There is absolutely nothing in the bill to protect those species with which we share the planet.

I plead with the government one last time. I have two young daughters, Jasmin Aurora who is 11 and Amber Ocean who is 8. My wife and I named those two children after the environment: Aurora for aurora borealis, the northern lights, and Amber Ocean because of the colour when the sunset goes down on the water. It turns it into an amber colour and we call her Amber Ocean. We believe firmly, strongly and lovingly in our environment, that the environment protects us. The environment is us. It is everything that we do.

For parliamentarians and legislators to fail in the protection of our children and other species with which we share the planet is an absolute disgrace. I ask every member of the House to vote with theirs hearts, with foresight and with conviction, not to vote with what the cabinet said or what some industry person said.

They should do the right thing for once in their lives and vote against the bill, send it back to the committee, allow the committee to revamp it the way it was when it came out of committee, and not allow any more amendments to the bill from the government side. All they did was water it down and weakened it. Instead of protecting our environment, in essence it protects the industry and the polluters of the country. It is an absolute disgrace.

The member for Churchill River and his assistant, Mr. Dave Campbell, have spent a tremendous amount of time working on this bill and its amendments. They have worked with various environmental groups, other agencies and industry to come up with solutions or a long term fix to our problems. Mr. Campbell worked tirelessly on this portfolio day after day, month after month. There is probably no one in the country who has worked harder on it than Mr. Campbell.

The hon. member for Churchill River knows exactly what I am talking about because Mr. Campbell works for him. They have formed a great team. On behalf of the New Democratic Party from coast to coast to coast I wish to publicly thank the member for Churchill River, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, the member for York North, the member for Davenport, and the other members who assisted in getting the bill out of committee as it was.

Unfortunately the government got its hands on the bill afterward. It changed it and made it much weaker. The bill does nothing to protect the livelihood of aboriginal people, children, farmers, fishermen, and other people who use our resources on a day to day basis. That is most unfortunate.

If we do not learn from history, we will reap what we sow and we will rue the day we made this decision. Again I ask the Liberals to have a free vote, vote with their consciences, do what is right and think of their children. In the words of my aboriginal friends from the Mi'kmaq nation of Nova Scotia, let us think in seven generation principles, think of our great, great-grandchildren before we vote today.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore speaks very earnestly about the environment. We all care about the environment. I for one am concerned about air quality in Toronto where I live. I also know the member opposite is a very practical person because I have had the pleasure of participating with him in extracurricular activities outside the House.

I have a hypothetical question for him. Let us say that the hon. member is chairman of a company. His chief executive officer or president makes a presentation to the board of directors on a project which, after all the analyses, will cost $600 million and involve 1,000 jobs.

As chairman he would go over all the analyses and ask about the toxic chemicals being produced, whether they are satisfied with the level of toxicity and whether they have done all they can to ensure a clean environment in the factory site. Then the president would answer that they are down to .0001, that they have the best available processes in place, and that they are following all the rules.

What if someone came up with a new measuring device which found something in there that was .000005? Could they shut them down? Could they stop them from operating? Could they force them to find the solution when the solution may not be there? How would the member feel if he could not be given that assurance? What would you say then?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I remind all members to address each other through the Chair.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that if I were chairman of the board of a major industrial company the first objective of my company would be environmental protection at all cost.

Then, working in concert with the municipal, provincial and federal governments, I would ascertain the most environmentally friendly sustainable way not only of maintaining the environment in a sustainable manner but working with labour groups and all other groups to make sure we do not harm the environment in any way, shape or form. That is the seven generation principle, and that is what we should be doing.

He should know that instead of eradicating pollutants the bill will allow the government to set the level of pollutants. It gives extraordinary powers to the environment minister, he or she. We know this one may not be around long after the next shuffle. The government may set a level which does not meet any scientific or biological long term evidence to protect our planet.

If I were chairman of the board I would be working in concert with all stakeholders to protect our environment, jobs and the sustainable environment at all cost.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

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?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment has a way of leading a question with her chin. Why did she override the amendments of the members for Lac-Saint-Louis, Davenport and York North which would have made the bill stronger? Why did you do that? Did you do it because of what you cared for or did—