Mr. Speaker, I congratulate and thank my hon. colleague from Churchill River, our environmental critic, for all the work he has done in this area and for ensuring that our caucus was constantly kept up to date on the changes that were happening. He made an absolute point of letting us know his grave concern over the watering down process that was happening with the bill at committee because of the Liberal majority there.
There is no question that amendments thereafter were an attempt to offset the watering down process. I thank him for his principled position and for continually trying to improve the bill before us. Should by some horrible chance the government's amendments all go through and we have a watered down approach, I am sure he will continue to pursue better legislation for all the time he is here.
Group No. 6 is key to the legislation in that it addresses the issue of children's health as much as, if not more than others. It recognizes that children are different and respond differently to the environmental hazards around them.
I notice the hon. member for Burlington said that we do not need separate motions to protect different groups, that the bill is there to protect everyone. However the bottom line is that the bill is not following through. It is not doing the job it needs to do. We are saying that we should give kids a fighting chance as they are more vulnerable.
We all know it takes less of something to damage a child than it does others. There are numerous indications of problems which result while children are in utero. We are constantly told in the first trimester of pregnancy to be careful so that there are not problems. That is just in taking medications, let alone toxic substances which affect Canadians. Specifically children are the most vulnerable.
I have a hard time accepting that there should not be some absolute phase out of certain toxins in areas where children are most vulnerable. We do not let pedophiles hang around schoolyards. However, toxins are knocking children off left, right and centre. If the government cannot see the need to treat children with added care, then something is seriously wrong.
We need to ensure that there will be future research and studies by the health and environment ministries to specifically look at the damage children will feel.
I also want to comment on the relationship between the federal and provincial governments. The reason we have federal and provincial governments is that Canadians recognize that there are different levels in which they want to see governments involved. Canadians see the federal government, I am sure much to the dissatisfaction of the Bloc, as a tie that binds us together. We want to see all Canadians protected equally.
I do not get caught up in the provincial and federal issue because I believe that whatever we do to ensure safety and benefits and to improve things for all Canadians is the route we want to go. The federal-provincial issue has been an ongoing problem and it is an argument that both levels of government end up using. They cannot do this because it is federal. They cannot do this because it is provincial. The bottom line is that they both end up passing the buck and nothing gets done. It is time we ensure that things are accomplished while we are here.
The proposed series of amendments from our caucus and from our environmental critic to provide a safer environment for our children will ensure that consideration will be given to the specific vulnerability and susceptibility of children's experiences toward environmental contaminants and pollutants during future regulatory initiatives. There are warnings on pesticide residues on produce in the United States, including warnings for parents to take care, wash apples and peel them. We do not do that in Canada.
This series of motions will require the ministers to compile a list of substances that are specific hazards to children through the development stages and early years when they are most at risk. What that is saying is that, given the chance to know what is there, I believe parents will make decisions on what their children should have and what they should not have. They will take whatever precautionary methods they need. Not giving them information on the risks is much like the tobacco companies have been doing for years. They increase the amount of nicotine to make it addictive. It was not until years and years of constant pressure that we saw some honesty. We realized that the industry was not out there only to make a buck at the expense of the lives of Canadians, it also preyed upon children. The industry wanted to make sure that children would become addicted to the deadly toxins in tobacco products.
The New Democratic Party called attention to phthalates, softeners for plastic materials, a year before Health Canada acted. The health minister said there was not enough proof. Why act with precaution when other countries in Europe were banning these materials? I want to tell members that I was sitting across from the minister in the House when he said that there was absolutely no need at all. The lives of Canadian children were put at risk for another year. The minister said a year later “We have to ban them. They are not good”.
One of those phthalates I had wrapped up in a little shower gift to give to a friend's baby. When I phoned to find out about which products were okay and which were not, the Health Canada line did not tell me which products were bad, it told me all the ones which were good. I just had to find that toy and try to track it down because I could not find out from Health Canada. It did not want to upset industry by saying that a product was bad. Luckily, as a member of parliament, enough organizations had sent information to say that the gift was bad. Those wonderful soft fingers and toes that I was going to give that baby to chew on are now sitting in the closet. Maybe I can send them as a gift to the health minister.
The bottom line is that for a year longer children were put at risk because of the government's failure to do what was absolutely necessary. Why not have a legislated requirement to investigate any potential risk to children?
Once again let us talk about the issue of tainted blood and the arguments we heard that it was not a problem and the government was doing everything it could. We knew that in some countries other things were being done. Why take the chance? Why on earth would we take the chance of jeopardizing someone's life, except for the arrogance of thinking that we are right, like the government did? It just went ahead and did whatever. It was not going to ensure the protection of Canadians. That is the problem.
Returning to the issue of toys, the member for Acadie—Bathurst introduced a private member's motion to protect children from chemicals in toys, but Liberal members voted against our motion. It is not only the health minister who should take the credit for having to wait one year longer. Every Liberal member who voted should take the credit for jeopardizing the health of Canadian children for an extra year.
A listing process, such as the one described in our Motions Nos. 41, 70 and 73, would have avoided the Liberal government's embarrassment and inaction.
These Group No. 6 motions will assist the government in reducing the potential adverse impacts on children from a variety of substances, including pesticides. The requirement could be there for ministers to address children's vulnerability to toxic substances while gathering information for research. No one would be put at risk. We would be ensuring that one extra step toward protection.
I know there are other members who want to talk on this subject because it is very serious and there has been a time allocation ordered. Because of all the serious issues with health care, the environment for a while has been on the back burner.
It is extremely important that we ensure this is good, decent and strong legislation. We must not allow this skirting around of the issue. I encourage everyone to support our amendments. Let us put a piece of environmental legislation through that will protect Canadians.
