Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand up once more in this Chamber to address the motions in Group No. 6. That group is made of Motions Nos. 36 to 38, 41, 70 and 73. They relate to hormone disrupting substances.
During the clause by clause study of the bill in committee, the Bloc Quebecois approved the redefinition of those substances. That is why we cannot support Motions Nos. 36, 37, 41, 70 and 73, that the hon. member for Churchill put forward in the name of his party.
If they were adopted, these motions would give the federal government additional powers in areas outside its jurisdiction through clauses 43 and 45 of the act. For example, all things concerning children are under provinces' jurisdiction. With those amendments the federal government could have a say about homes, schools, daycare facilities and the like. These areas are of no concern to the Minister of the Environment.
We are in a situation where several hon. members would like to reduce the powers of the provinces by giving the federal government exclusive jurisdiction in certain areas. Again, this is the bad habit of centralization through national standards with the objective of getting one's hands on what belongs to others.
As for Motion No. 38, proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni, we cannot support it. Members of the Bloc do not accept the vision underlying this motion which narrows the definition of hormone disrupting substance by redefining it in very vague terms.
With that motion, the Reform Party is showing its true colours, in that it does not think that we need environmental protection legislation. Reformers think that we would be better off without such legislation. Everybody could do as he or she pleases and taxpayers would save money.
Throughout the committee hearings, every time we were dealing with the crucial amendments needed to set the course straight and tell the government: “You have cut the environment budget enough. You no longer have enough inspectors to enforce the current legislation”. Every time we did something to get things moving, to provide a more specific framework, Reform members were against it. They wanted to ensure freedom of choice. But enough is enough.
As I have shown by putting forward 41 amendments in Group No. 2, we firmly believe that the provinces, including Quebec, have greater knowledge of the specifics of their natural environment and are in a position to arouse the interest and encourage the participation of local residents, are more open to the claims of environmental groups, are able to conclude significant agreements with national and international partners and lastly have indicated their desire to find solutions to environmental challenges and to contribute actively to sustainable development.
Before the Kyoto summit, it was impossible to find out what was the federal government's vision, its action plan. In 1997, all of the provincial ministers of the Environment attended a meeting.
They submitted a common proposal to the federal government. It expressed their vision and they wanted the federal government to bring it to Kyoto.
They had accomplished quite a feat. All provincial environment ministers had finally sat at the same table and reached an agreement. This was too much for the federal government; finally, there was a coalition. The ten provinces, gathered around the same table, were telling the federal government “That is it”. But the federal government, and Liberal members in particular, are quite touchy.
What did they do? When they arrived in Kyoto, they took a completely opposite position. At last, the Canadian government could have had some influence on the international scene. It could have taken a strong position, with the support of the ten provinces. But it preferred to continue the tradition: what comes from the outside is not acceptable to this government.
I am not trying to impute motives here but the more I study the environment issue, the more I see this government acting just like the Reform Party. The member for Palliser mentioned the following in his speech last week “The Liberal Party spends the other 23 hours and 15 minutes—after the 45 minutes each day at question period when Liberal cabinet ministers, one after another, stand to condemn the Reform Party for all things that are wrong with this country—doing the business of the Reform Party in producing very bad legislation for this country”.
I believe we could have introduced a truly progressive act. We were prepared to do so. We wanted to finally have an act dealing with urgent problems. Unfortunately, the centralizing approach of this government, based on its policy of double social security net for environmental protection, has been disappointing.
This is why we will be voting against Group No. 6 amendments.