Pauline Picard

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour for his excellent speech. He has reminded us that government members have remained quite silent on an issue related to the protection of personal information.

It is quite something to see that they respect a self-imposed gag order to let a bill be passed, one wonders why, when it has been condemned by just about everybody in Canada and in Quebec, because it will be detrimental to the protection of personal information. It is totally unacceptable, and I hope the people who are watching us will take good note of that.

Why do we disagree with this bill? This bill, which will support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information in certain circumstances, was introduced by the industry minister just last week.

It is identical to Bill C-54, which was introduced on October 1, 1998. This bill has already been debated. We were hoping for some amendments when the minister introduced it again as Bill C-6, because it had been so heavily criticized. But the minister is coming back with exactly the same bill as Bill C-54.

Why do we disagree? Because the industry minister has introduced this piece of legislation without any consultation with the provinces or anybody else. This bill is an intrusion into provincial jurisdictions. It will mean less protection for personal information in Quebec. Its implementation in Quebec will be a cause for confusion. If passed, this bill will be the worse administrative nightmare ever. Moreover, this bill is legally flawed.

This bill is not clear enough. All those who have examined it and appeared as witnesses before the standing committee have said so. And the list of those witnesses is impressive. We had members of the Canadian Bar Association, the CSA, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, UQAM professors and one independent expert, Ian Lawson.

I want to quote the Canadian Bar Association. “The standard was not drafted in strong enough words to make for a set of legislative rules. It does not really help to define the right to privacy or to tell the organizations to which the legislation applies how they should be protecting the people's rights”.

The Life and Health Insurance Association stated that “other provisions of the legislation are hard to interpret, especially the ones dealing with key issues such as the application and enforcement of the act”.

Professors from l'Université du Québec à Montréal stated “If one wishes to truly protect the consumer in an area as formidable as personal information, one must adopt some strict rules and not rules written in the conditional tense that, for all useful purposes, do not obligate a company to show anything more than good faith. You cannot expect this to produce that result”.

I do not think one can be any clearer than that.

In Quebec, the right to privacy is explicitly recognized in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms that was proclaimed in 1975. Also, the Quebec government has passed the only act in America to protect personal information in the private sector. This act was enacted in 1994. As I said earlier, this act is considered a model throughout the world and should be used to draft the federal bill.

God knows why the government is disregarding it. It is trying to give its bill precedence over Quebec's legislation, which is considered as a model all over the world. Why is the minister ignoring Quebec's legislation is a model all over the world? Can anyone explain why?

The Minister of Industry acted unilaterally despite his promise to consult all the stakeholders before introducing his bill. He may have done some minor consulting to make things look good, but he did not take anything said into account and proceeded to introduce his bill.

As a matter of fact, on June 12, the ministers responsible for the electronic highway met in Fredericton and decided to consult each other, if necessary, on the advisability of passing legislation protecting personal information in the private sector.

On September 21, the federal Minister of Industry sent his provincial counterparts a draft bill and asked for their comments on wanted the federal government wanted to introduce.

But the minister did not wait for the comments; he introduced his bill immediately, on October 1, 1998. His provincial counterparts received the draft bill on September 21, 1998, but the minister did not wait for their comments and introduced, on October 1, 1998, his legislation which was then called Bill C-54.

The Minister of Industry is also responsible for creating a constitutional dispute that could have been avoided had he agreed to work in co-operation with his counterparts.

The provinces have jurisdiction in the area of personal information under the Constitution Act, 1867, which gives them powers with regard to property and civil law. Every expert consulted by the Bloc Quebecois recognizes that it is first and foremost a provincial jurisdiction.

However, Bill C-6 says that it will apply to organizations under federal jurisdiction in their commercial activities, to organizations that transfer personal information from one province to another or from one country to another, and to employees whose personal information is collected by an organization under federal jurisdiction.

Moreover, clause 30(1) says that federal legislation will apply to private organizations, even though they are under provincial jurisdiction, if the federal government does not recognize the existence of similar legislation at the provincial level.

If that is not interference in areas under provincial jurisdiction, I do not know what words to use to make members understand.

Bill C-6 will be a big step backwards for Quebecers with regard to the protection of personal information.

Quebec's legislation says, in section 14, that consent to the disclosure or use of personal information must be evident, free, enlightened and given for a specific purpose.

With regard to consent, Bill C-6 puts the consumer at a disadvantage by stating, in various clauses, vague principles that open the door to interpretation.

Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to give a thorough explanation of what is wrong with this bill. In closing, I would like to remind members that this bill was introduced without any consultations with the provinces, that it encroaches on provincial jurisdictions and that it represents a step backwards for Quebec with regard to the protection of personal information.

The enforcement of this legally deficient bill in Quebec will create confusion. This bill is impossible to enforce, it is vague, it causes undue difficulties for Quebec businesses and considerably weakens the right of Quebecers to the protection of personal information.

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that we had a two tier system, I said that we were heading that way.

When transfer payments to provinces are cut by $33 billion, including $10 billion for Quebec alone, it is obvious that health care is in jeopardy.

Quebec does all it can to maintain the five major principles of medicare. We believe in universality and accessibility and when we are a sovereign country these five principles will be maintained.

We believe in those principles, but what can a province do when its funds are being cut off and hospital costs are skyrocketing? I remind the House that our population is ageing and needs more health care. Furthermore, new technologies, like laser treatments and other medical equipment, arre increasingly expensive.

When Quebec needs more money to buy new equipment and to give health care to an ageing population but its transfer payments are cut by $10 billion, how do members think it will be able maintain the five great principles of medicare?

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to rise in reply to this throne speech, as this allows us to tell those who are listening to us that, to us, this speech seems drab and empty.

Government members on the other side of the House may try hard to make us see the positive side of this throne speech, but every newspaper article we read the day after the throne speech agreed with what all four opposition parties were saying. This speech has no clear policy and no vision.

Rather, this speech is an election platform; most commitments will take effect between 2001 and 2004, and probably during the next election campaign, which leads us to believe that the Prime Minister will still be there for the next campaign.

Let us consider one example: parental leave. Overall, this seems to us to be good news, except that the parental leave proposed as a new program is not going to start until 2001. Everyone wonders why it is not now. The money is already there, it is not a problem, so why not start the program up?

As hon. members are aware, the funding for this program comes from the employment insurance fund. Only 40% of people qualify for this fund, and women and young workers are the ones most affected. If access to employment insurance benefits is not changed, one may well wonder who will lucky enough to benefit from parental leave.

First and foremost, October 12th's throne speech is a long shopping list. That list includes the government's commitment to a slight, long term and conditional tax reduction, to reducing the debt still further, to investing in capital projects, and to creating a broad range of programs ranging from improving the national child tax credit, to home care, to education.

We are familiar with the Liberals' promises. The numerous promises in the throne speech appear to be just window-dressing. We have never been given the real cost of these commitments. There is talk of compassion for families and the poor, but the only emphasis is on the homeless. Yet the government does not give us its vision of what programs and measures it will implement to help the homeless. It is fine to support the homeless in the throne speech, but since 1993, this government is no longer involved in social housing programs and has not invested anything in them. So much, then, for compassion.

Recent years have shown us that government commitments were anything but solid. Many still wonder about the ability and real desire of the government to honour its commitments. Other examples come to mind: the GST, pay equity and international aid, for which the government promised to provide .7% of GDP.

My colleague, responsible for daycare, tells me that the 150,000 places in daycare that were promised in recent budgets have yet to be provided.

That said, the fact that the government says it wants to do everything at once is a very clear indication of the fiscal leeway it has this year and of the surpluses that will be distributed in the next budget. As they say, they got the bucks. However, since they want high visibility as they move into the next millennium, they are offering a sprinkling of new programs instead of going after the real problems.

What is even more distressing is that these surpluses have been accumulated on the backs of the unemployed. There is the $25 billion from the employment insurance fund, because $5 billion a year accumulates in this fund. There is the $30 billion in the public service pension fund—if this were private enterprise, such scheming would be considered outright theft—and there are the cuts to transfers to the provinces.

The cuts in provincial transfer payments have hit the public very hard. For the benefit of those listening, I am talking about a $33 billion cut. Then the government wonders why there are health and education problems. It makes cuts and crows about the money it is saving, but the provinces are stuck with the unenviable task of running programs on nothing. They do not have the money and are having trouble maintaining services.

It is disgraceful to slough one's problems off onto the backs of others. In Quebec alone, an additional 200,000 people had to turn to welfare in 1998. They no longer qualified for employment insurance.

Health systems throughout Canada are in terrible shape and the provinces must work hard to avoid the appearance of a two-tier health system, one tier for the rich and one for the poor.

It is not just Quebec that is facing problems in its health care system, but all the provinces. The government would have people think that the problems are limited to Quebec, because of its sovereignist government, but that is not true. We must broaden our horizons and look at the other Canadian provinces, which are forced to turn to the United States to provide health care for their inhabitants.

In this regard, let us remember what Jean Charest said “Forget Lucien Bouchard. He is not the problem. The problem is the cuts made by the federal Liberal government to the Canada social transfer”. This from Mr. Charest in May 1997.

Now that the budget is balanced, it is obvious that the ruthless cuts and overtaxing to which the federal government keeps resorting in spite of the public's pleas are giving it more money than it needs, but the government is still avoiding its responsibilities.

The government prefers to spend that money on new programs, instead of fulfilling its responsibilities, which include alleviating the plight of the unemployed by putting money back into the employment insurance fund which the government pilfered, helping the sick by giving back to the provinces the money it took from them, and giving a break to the middle class by lightening its tax burden—let us not forget that it is the middle class that pays for our social programs. Instead of helping all these people, the government prefers to spend and to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. In Quebec, we already have homecare and pharmacare programs. Therefore, why not give the money to Quebec, to improve what is already in place?

I will conclude by saying that instead of using common sense, the Liberals are beginning again to spend money on all sorts of new programs whose only sure impact is to empty taxpayers' pockets. Why? This is all in the name of visibility and propaganda, coast to coast.

[Canadian Handball Team, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last July, four young members of the Canadian handball team from Drummondville took the gold medal at the UBAE grand prix in Barcelona and placed fourth in La Coupa Interamnia in Teramo, Italy.

Martine Gélinas, Stéphanie Gagné, Catherine Brunelle and Marie-Christine Gélinas surprised everyone, because they have only been playing this sport for two years.

In addition to maintaining a rigorous training program and keeping up their studies, they had to find the money to pay for their trip. It would be a good idea if Heritage Canada were to provide basic funding to all sports federations to assist athletes. The unflagging support of their trainer and their parents played a vital role in the young women's success. Their outstanding determination deserves our recognition.

Bravo to all four, and good luck in the next competitions.

[Roch Napert, June 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to congratulate Roch Napert, a retired teacher, on the publication of his second collection of poetry.

His first collection, Partir est ailleurs , was published in 1997. I will read just a few lines: “He was a man contemplating the emotion of living: first, a young man reconciling authority with his search for meaning; then, a man looking to the object of his love for his own and the other's identity; and, finally, a man overtaken by Time, and robbed of his dream”.

The collection is a snapshot of life, the language a melange of the reticent and the bawdy. His most recent collection, La nuit voyage seule , is a universal tapestry rich with experience. Inspired by the collection's title, painter Denis Nadeau stopped off at Lac Saint-Pierre to create the cover page.

Through his poetic endeavours, Mr. Napert is helping to enrich the culture of Quebec and we thank him.

[Drummondville, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this summer, Drummondville will again be a dynamic and diverse place to be.

For the second year running, the Légendes fantastiques will take visitors on a fabulous imaginary voyage. Over 300 volunteers and actors will dazzle crowds with breathtaking special effects in a charming country setting.

Visit the model of a Quebec village from bygone days and travel back in time for a glimpse of the life and history of our forebears.

From July 8 to 19, the atmosphere will be one of friendly fun and festivity. The dancing and musical performances of the Mondial des cultures are not to be missed.

Drummondville's very fortunate media representatives are here today in the gallery and join with me in inviting members and the public to pay us a visit this summer.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Berthier—Montcalm for his question.

No, it is not normal. The cuts to amateur sport mean that the 22 national organizations I mentioned earlier are subject to a new funding framework. They are doomed to oblivion because their funding was abolished.

This is why we maintain that the federal government has once again chosen to help the rich instead of the poor. This is also why the government must rethink its priorities where amateur sport is concerned. It should encourage and support our amateur athletes.

I want to give another example. When the issue of propaganda was addressed earlier, it was said that out of the $1.3 million allocated to arenas, $900,000 was handed to the Corel Centre and the Molson Centre to ensure high visibility for the maple leaf. This is very upsetting to us.

We have athletes living in poverty and getting very low wages, while the government chooses to subsidize sports millionaires. These people earn $3 million to $4 million every year, while our athletes, who truly need to be supported and from whom we expect excellence, only get between $189 and $800 a month.

This is unacceptable and we are firmly opposed to sport being used to promote Canadian unity, national unity. The only goal of amateur sport in Canada should be to promote excellence and not to display flags to promote national unity.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate, and to congratulate my colleague, the member for Longueuil, on her initiative for this opposition day.

I also congratulate the member for Rimouski—Mitis for her work on the subcommittee, where she contributed a number of rather interesting clarifications on the study of sport in Canada.

My colleague's motion reads as follows:

That, since the government ignored most of the recommendations by the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada, a Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the House demand that the government place amateur athletes at the heart of its concerns and make a commitment to placing their interests before the interests of professional sport.

I think that the most pressing problem of this government's present policy on sport is the priorities and the mandate adopted by the Department of Canadian Heritage with respect to sport. The priority is to promote national unity, which is a propaganda mandate. We are strongly opposed to using sport to promote national unity.

The sole objective of amateur sport in Canada should be to promote excellence, and not to use athletes to serve a political ideology.

While the Minister of Industry will be following up on the mandate given him by the Prime Minister to save professional hockey in Canada, and calling a meeting in mid-June at which the provinces and the municipalities concerned will have to help fund sports millionaires, this same Liberal government is dismissing out of hand any additional funding for amateur sport.

I would like to point out that a few weeks ago I tabled a petition in the House signed by over 1,000 people in my riding deploring the fact that this government wants to subsidize sports millionaires.

It is clear once again that the federal government is choosing the rich over the poor. The federal government is in urgent need of re-examining its priorities.

In November 1998 the Subcommittee on the Study of Sport in Canada submitted its report to the government. Most of the report's recommendations dealt with the increased support that ought to be given to amateur sport, but recommendation No. 36 proposed that the government invest millions of dollars in professional sport.

This is what all members of the public are opposed to. When asked, everyone in Canada, and everyone in Quebec calls for no more investing millions of dollars in professional sport, for no more support to be given to what are termed the millionaires of sport.

If this government had any gumption it would understand that if there is any money to invest it could go into amateur sport, to the athletes who are often from poor backgrounds, whose parents have had to do without things that would have contributed to their well-being in order to support their children and encourage their top performance.

On April 28, 1999, while the Minister of Canadian Heritage was out of the country, her parliamentary secretary tabled the government response on her behalf. This government said no to any additional funding for amateur sport; yes to activities that will enhance the visibility of the federal government, such as the holding of a symposium on sport to be chaired by the Prime Minister; and probably yes to professional sport.

The Bloc Quebecois has always said that the subcommittee on sport was nothing but an excuse to support professional sports. Once again, the facts seem to bear this out.

There is considerable consternation in the world of amateur sport at this time. To quote Lane MacAdam, President of the Canada Games Council, as reported in the Globe and Mail of April 29, 1999:

This is a black day for amateur sport. It would appear that the government has chosen hockey millionaires over the 1.3 million poor children who have no access to sports. Amateur sport has been cheated.

The head of Athletics Canada, John Thresher, said this in the Globe and Mail the same day:

Compared to other G-7 countries, our athletes are second class citizens.

Here is what Jean-Luc Brassard had to say, as reported by Pierre Bourgault in the May 1, 1999 issue of the Journal de Montréal :

Will we have to parade behind our sponsors' flags in the future?

Since they took office in 1993, Liberals have done everything except support the development of Canadian amateur sport. They have made it a political issue more than ever before. Members will certainly remember that the heritage minister asked the Canadian Olympic Association to delay the announcement that Quebec City had lost its bid to host the 2010 Winter Games.

They have reduced their financial support for amateur sport by more than 35%. The envelope went from $76 million to $57 million, including the recent addition of $50 million over 5 years announced by the heritage minister in 1998. The predictable result is that, since 1993, 22 national sports associations no longer receive funding from Heritage Canada.

I hope all those watching understood what I just said. Since 1993, 22 national sports associations have stopped receiving any funding from Heritage Canada.

Finally, the Liberals rejected the recommendations made in the report of the Sub-committee on the Study of Sport in Canada, accepting only those that will not cost anything, that will ensure government visibility, or that will allow the funding of professional sport.

I would have a lot more to say about such an important issue, but I will conclude by responding to the member for Bourassa, who does not seem to understand the concrete proposals made by the Bloc Quebecois to support our athletes.

Our recommendations are: to provide adequate funding for the INRS-Santé laboratory in Pointe-Claire, which remains without a contract for the current year and which may not even get all the money pledged for 1998-99; to fund the upgrading of its facilities, at a cost of some $500,000; to fund all sport associations; to review the criteria used to deliver certificates to amateur athletes to promote excellence in Quebec and Canada; and, finally, to exclude politics from sport.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, June 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate along with my Bloc Quebecois colleagues.

To start with, I would like to thank my colleague from Mercier, who vehemently condemned this bill, which is a direct encroachment on Quebec's privacy act, an act unanimously hailed as a model.

Bill C-54 is aimed at promoting e-commerce, but sadly it also infringes on the right to privacy, as explained by my colleague.

The Bloc Quebecois is against this bill and asks that it be withdrawn for five reasons. First, because the Minister of Industry introduced it without previously consulting the provinces. He went through the motions, telling everybody “Have a look at it and we will get together”. One week later he hastily introduced his bill, saying it had to go through.

We know why every bill must be passed quickly. It is because every bill is highly centralizing. The government wants to grab all of the provinces' powers, be that on privacy or, as we saw this week, the environment. The federal government wants all of the powers because it needs to position itself within the World Trade Organization, in view of what is coming down the pike with supergovernments. It wants to play the role of a country with all of the powers, one in which the provinces will be mere regions.

Nobody was consulted on this bill, and yet it was introduced. The Minister of Industry introduced this bill without consulting the provinces. There was no consultation whatsoever.

We are asking that this legislation be withdrawn because it infringes upon provincial jurisdiction, because it is a step backward for Quebecers in the protection of personal information, because its implementation in Quebec will create confusion, and because it is flawed from a legal point of view.

The Bloc Quebecois is not the only one to say that. The Chambre des notaires du Québec came to tell the committee. The Québec Interprofessional Council also came to tell the committee, as did the Barreau du Québec, the Quebec government and the Conseil du patronat du Québec. Incidentally, that organization is not pro-sovereignist, as far as we know. They told the committee that the bill had too many flaws from a constitutional, democratic and legal point of view, and also with regard to the protection of personal information.

The bill is almost unworkable, it lacks clarity, creates unnecessary problems for Quebec businesses and significantly impedes the right of Quebecers to the protection of their personal information.

Given what I just said, it would be unacceptable for government members to support such legislation.

Quebec has its own charter of human rights and freedoms, which was enacted in 1975. The Quebec government also passed, in 1994, an act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector, which is unique in America. That legislation is recognized as a model all over the world. The federal government should use it as a source of inspiration to draft its own legislation.

But no. Because it wants to have all of the powers and take credit for it, the government is trying to pass this bill as quickly as possible, so that no one will notice. Quebecers and Canadians are not stupid. They can clearly see the government's intention. They know what it wants to do with this bill.

I am going to try to show that this minister did not consult the provinces, that he acted unilaterally in tabling this bill.

On June 12, 1998 the ministers responsible for the information highway met in Fredericton and agreed to consult each other, when appropriate, when contemplating legislation with respect to the protection of personal information in the private sector.

On September 21, 1998 the federal Minister of Industry sent a copy of proposed legislation to his provincial counterparts, asking for their comments. Oddly, though, on October 1, 1998, without even waiting to hear from them, the Minister of Industry tabled his bill in the House of Commons.

In addition, as I mentioned earlier, this bill interferes in provincial jurisdiction. The Minister of Industry is now creating a constitutional dispute that could have been averted if he had agreed to work together with his counterparts.

Under the powers vested in them by the Constitution of 1867 with respect to property and civil rights, the provinces have jurisdiction with respect to personal information. All of the experts consulted by the Bloc Quebecois see this as provincial jurisdiction.

However, Bill C-54 provides that the legislation will apply to the commercial operations of organizations under federal jurisdiction; to organizations that transfer personal information from one province to another or one country to another, and to employees about whom personal information is collected by an enterprise under federal jurisdiction.

In addition, under clause 30(1) the federal legislation will apply to private organizations even if they come under provincial jurisdiction if, in the view of the federal government, the province does not have similar legislation. This is ridiculous. The result will be complete havoc.

The proposed legislation is unenforceable, interferes directly in provincial areas of jurisdiction, and is unconstitutional. The provinces' consent was not sought. It is interference in their jurisdiction, and Quebec is being forced to take a step backward with respect to the protection of personal information.

Under the Quebec law an individual with a grievance may apply free of charge to the access to information commission, which will first try to mediate between the two parties involved. If this fails, it will investigate and make a decision or an order which would be binding. In this case, recourse is simple and effective.

Conversely, the provisions on recourse in Bill C-54 are more complex. An individual with a grievance must first try to reach agreement with the organization. If this person is dissatisfied, he may ask the federal privacy commissioner to intervene, and the commissioner can make recommendations only. After this, a dissatisfied individual may seek reparation from the federal court.

How many people can afford to seek reparation in the federal court? This is totally crazy.

The Quebec law provides that an organization must inform an individual of the use to be made of the personal information gathered. Bill C-54 simply provides that people gathering personal information should be able to explain the use intended for this information.

This bill, in Quebec, will create confusion because it is weak from a legal standpoint, because the heart of the bill is appended, because Bill C-54 gives cabinet discretionary power to decide the value of provincial law and its application and, finally, because it will invade provincial jurisdiction within three years of its proclamation unless the province adopts similar legislation.

I repeat, the government tabled this bill without consulting the provinces. It is encroaching on provincial jurisdiction and forcing Quebec to take a step backward in the area of the protection of personal information.

Its application in Quebec will create confusion, and the bill is lacking in legal terms. It is unworkable, unclear, creates unnecessary problems for Quebec businesses and significantly reduces Quebecers' right to the protection of their personal information.

I urge my colleagues in this House to vote against the bill.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 31st, 1999]

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.