Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in Parliament on what we sincerely hope is the last day before we rise for the summer. I would first like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my very gracious and delightful colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan. To begin, I will also take a moment to offer some acknowledgements, as my colleague before me did. I want to thank everyone around us here, the House staff, especially the interpreters, but also the staff who work for us in our ridings. I want to mention Lyne, Dominique, Zachary, Victor and Thierry. Thierry works in both places. He is here in the whip’s office with Carl, Paule, Steeve, Marilène, Marjorie, Michel and Benjamin. What a dream team. I would be remiss if I did not speak to my constituents. I encourage the people of Berthier—Maskinongé to enjoy the summer and to rest, recharge their batteries and spend time with their families. I look forward to seeing them at our local events. I hope that they can enjoy everything our beautiful region has to offer, whether it is the Festival de la truite mouchetée de Saint‑Alexis‑des‑Monts in the coming weeks, the Festi‑Force de Saint‑Jean‑de‑Matha a little later, the Festival de la Galette de Louiseville in the fall, or other happenings in the magnificent Berthier—Maskinongé region. I invite everyone to visit our farmers’ markets. It is essential. The people at these markets are the ones who keep our regional economies going. We need to support them. First of all, we will eat better. It is good for our health and the food tastes better. What is more, it is not any more expensive and it brings incredible vitality to our regions. I go to all the markets. There is a good chance people will run into me and we can chat about all sorts of things if we are at the market at the same time. I would like that. My task today is to discuss Bill C-30. That is not as fun because Bill C-30 took no account whatsoever of the Bloc Québécois’ demands. In fact, we were not consulted at all. Bill C-30 was introduced at a time when the government had just cobbled together a majority behind the scenes through backroom deals. I do not know if bribes were paid. I cannot say that because we have no proof. However, there must have been some quid pro quo to convince several elected members to cross the floor, which changed the dynamics and altered the outcome of the election. Negotiating and getting things moving is not an issue, but we are supposed to do that and work together over the long term. Personally, I belong to the school of politicians who believe that an election campaign lasts a month and a half, not four years. In between, we are supposed to work together—the Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc Québécois, New Democrats and all the independents—to move bills forward and work for the common good. Working together does not mean changing people’s political allegiances overnight so that the government can make all the decisions without consulting the opposition. That is not the mandate the public gave this government. I am still condemning it, and I will continue to do so for as long as I can. The truth is, this grievance is not going away. Bill C-30 includes a lot of problematic provisions, including those related to pesticides. I spoke about this in my questions to my two colleagues who spoke before me. Everyone knows that agriculture and agri-food matter a lot to me. The people who work in these industries are especially important to me. It is on their behalf that I am speaking today as the former agriculture and agri-food critic. We studied this issue extensively. We heard from farmers in committee, and there was one thing that they strongly objected to. They were not asking for the minister to be given the power to provide them with just about any product upon request or to stop hassling them about health and the environment. Never in my life have I met a single, solitary farmer who has said such a thing to me. However, that is what the government is doing today. As for questions and comments earlier, it is rather mind‑boggling to see how the truth comes out in the House. I asked a colleague what he thought about allowing a minister to authorize pesticides that had been rejected by Health Canada. The colleague said he was sorry, but he did not know much about pesticides so he could not answer me. I appreciated the honest response, but it speaks volumes, because the minister does not know anything about them either. How are ministers appointed? They are appointed based on regional representation and based on whether they are a man or a woman. Cabinet needs to be gender-balanced. They are appointed based on a whole range of factors, and that is fine. That is part of politics. However, they are not microbiologists. They are not experts in the effects of crop protection products on the environment and on the people who apply them. I am not just thinking of the environment, but also of the farmers who are going to apply these pesticides to their fields. If anyone can authorize anything and people fall sick in future years, we will be no better off. While I do not want to indulge in populism, I admit that it is a very tempting slippery slope. With bills like this, it would be easy to get caught up in populism. I complained about the fake majority earlier, and I strongly criticize the fact that the opposition is being muzzled. My colleague who spoke before me talked about this: Time allocation has been moved on 10 bills so far, unless I am mistaken. This government is about to beat the Stephen Harper government’s record. That is quite a feat. The Conservatives went down in history for that. I see members laughing, but mark my words, the Liberals are going to set a new record. They have made a good start. It is so appalling. We basically have a Conservative Prime Minister dressed up as a Liberal. Is that not the case? We have a Progressive Conservative government and a Conservative opposition. When it comes time to vote on Conservative measures, not many of us vote “nay” anymore. That is my objective analysis of the current makeup of Parliament. What a mind‑boggling situation. I want to come back to pesticides and herbicides. This is also true for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA. The bill would give it more authority and change its mandate so that it is not limited to food safety, but also includes an economic dimension. What does that mean? Does that mean that, if a certain product does not make people sick, then it should be approved because it would be good for the bottom line? How are these statements supposed to be interpreted? I am not making this up. I read out parts of the bill earlier. It is completely ridiculous. I cannot imagine a bill like this passing. What really surprises me is that there has not been much reaction from the media or the public. Perhaps that is because barbecue season is here and people are not paying as much attention to politics, but these laws are going to be implemented anyway. How long will it take before we see the negative impacts? How many blunders will the minister have to make when it comes to approving these products? At the same time, I am not saying that the problems are not real. I exchanged letters with Alberta’s minister of agriculture for some time over the past few years. She told me about a significant problem with rodent infestations in the fields and asked me to approve a product that I was unfamiliar with. I told her that we had to rely on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, now known as the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, as well as on Health Canada and the experts. I have made the following comparison in the House before, but this reminds me of the pandemic, when our Conservative friends were asking us to adopt motions to lift the health measures in place for air travel. Members will recall that Canada was one of the last countries to lift them. We agreed, but nobody here is an epidemiologist. We are elected officials with a wide range of backgrounds. What did we say back then? We said that we agreed in principle, but that we needed to add a phrase indicating that this needed to be done in accordance with public health guidelines. That way, we would not just be doing things willy-nilly. We should add such a phrase to our Liberal friends’ bill to say that the recommendations of the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate must be followed. The problem is not that the analyses and scientists at these agencies are not good. The problem is that they lack resources and are inefficient. I will give a clear example. Just last week, I read that this agency has finally approved a pilot project to spray pesticides using drones. Spraying these pesticides by airplane from much higher altitudes has been authorized for years. They end up spreading everywhere, including places where they are not needed. It took five years for farmers to be granted permission to apply them in small doses using drones, targeting only the specific areas of the field where they are needed. That is what we were criticizing: inefficiency and, at times, a lack of consistency. We were not asking for just any minister to be given the power to make just any decision. That is utter nonsense. It needs to be changed. We are at the end of the session, everything is being rushed through, and this is going to be passed in the next few hours. As a citizen who cares deeply about the environment and the health of my constituents, my duty is to protect the future of our children and grandchildren. I must inform the public about this. This is very serious.
