Madam Speaker, I would, right off, like to thank my colleague from Jonquière, who has worked so hard and with such determination to do her job as legislator on this committee. She has given us a very enlightened version of the events surrounding this bill. I would like to thank her for having shown us the negative effects of this bill.
I would like to speak of the elements of Bill C-32 that relate to health, more specifically toxic substances.
On May 27, the federal government announced with great pomp funding of $10.9 million for research on toxic substances, as part of the toxic substance research initiative. This organization has a budget of $40 million. It is a program that is intended to consolidate the means the federal government has at its disposal in health sciences and the environment. This has to last three years. During fiscal year 1999-2000, the Liberal government will fund 81 research projects in areas of research that are a priority for the toxic substance research initiative.
It was high time. I think the government has to be consistent when it looks out for the national welfare of its citizens. This government has been dragging its feet on environmental research, toxic substances found in water, in the air and in soil.
It asks no questions as to what is happening, why new diseases are developing and why more and more people have problems with asthma and younger people increasingly have allergies. There is an increase in breast cancer. It used to be that breast cancer occurred primarily among post-menopausal women over fifty. Now it is occurring even in young women. Some questions are in order.
I know that there is private research into these questions going on in certain laboratories. Is it the air we breathe, the food we eat, or toxic substances on our planet?
Finally, with much ceremony, the government announces that grants will be handed out. Of course, I am in favour of grants so that scientists can conduct research into toxic substances, but people will agree it is perhaps a bit late. Better late than never, but this government, which calls itself responsible, should have given these grants sooner.
We have been hearing about this kind of research and grants since 1993 and suddenly, on May 27, when they are about to introduce Bill C-32, they tell us they are going to increase grants and give the Centre de recherche sur les substances toxiques $10 million. That is why we are saying it was high time.
While introducing Bill C-32, they announce grants. Might this not be an attempt to help the medicine go down, or silence certain growing criticisms of the federal government in this area?
The federal government is apportioning this $40 million out over three years in order to make several announcements. As I was saying, with the good old federal government, national research and the support of clinical research for our scientists that might help us and thus prevent these increases in diseases is not free.
I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you and other members of the House know people who have friends or family members suffering from breast cancer. We have such people among our colleagues. The scientists are more and more convinced that the source is the air we breathe or the food we eat.
My colleague from Saint-Jean has just referred to some studies of the Inuit in the far north where mercury was found in breast milk. What effect will this have on a child's health? Where does this mercury come from? It seems to me one does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out.
That is why we are saying it is high time. Why turn this into something political, protecting their backsides because they were incapable of presenting any sensible kind of bill? This bill is inconsistent. Why did they not present us with a proper policy to address the harmful effects of toxic substances? This bill has been under study for months and now there are in excess of 500 amendments.
If it had been some other party that came up with such a bill, the Liberals would have been as scandalised as we. Why not start again from scratch? There is nothing wrong with that.
As a number of my colleagues have concluded, one may conclude from this that the government is trying to get its hands on more power. In the context of globalization, we know it needs powers that it does not have at the present time. In order to be sure it gets them, it will present us with bills regardless of what amendments we have proposed. That is what they always do, and it is scandalous, with the pretext that it is good governance and in the interests of national safety.
We on this side of the House are nobody's fools. When one sees the highly centralist nature of this bill, one may well ask some questions.
Let me provide a little background on Bill C-32. It was introduced at first reading on March 12, 1998, to replace the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This tactic by the Liberal government is another move towards excessive centralization.
The Liberals' approach is to do what they said they would in the September 1997 throne speech. They are relentlessly interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In so doing, they are showing their contempt for provincial jurisdictions when it comes to the environment.
This is unacceptable when the health of people is at stake. We needed a bill that would have finally put a stop to the arrival of new diseases from everywhere. As I said earlier, we are constantly confronted with new health problems. It is our children who must grow up in that environment.
The Bloc Quebecois, understandably, cannot support this bill, which should be immediately withdrawn.