Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands
“The government rushed through a law that lets cabinet overturn health experts on dangerous pesticides without hearing from any scientific witnesses. Now another bill will weaken these pesticide rules even more. I want an answer on why the government is doing this.”
“Mr. Speaker, it now being, as you just mentioned a moment ago, the morning of October 21, I am speaking in Adjournment Proceedings at 12:12 a.m. on a subject that I raised in question period on June 9 of this year. It is related to what was being put forward and has now had royal assent, Bill C-30, which was the omnibus bill related to the implementation of the spring economic statement. I will state one concern up front, which is that the measure I will discuss now with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health was not in any way telegraphed in the spring economic statement. If we are going to have an implementation act and it is an omnibus bill, it is justified in our parliamentary rules if the laws being changed in the spring economic statement omnibus bill have actually been announced, or at least suggested in clear terms, in the budget itself. There was one throwaway line in the spring economic statement about how the government should revise, potentially, the Pest Control Products Act to take into account food costs and food security. It was a shock to find in Bill C-30, which I read when it was tabled on April 29, that it was putting remarkable, unprecedented new powers in the hands of cabinet to overturn decisions made by the Minister of Health or by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. This is quite astonishing. The bill had only three hours of debate before debate closure measures were put in place, and because it was an omnibus budget bill, not one single witness came to committee. Of course, the committee to study it was not the Standing Committee on Health or the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, but the Standing Committee on Finance. No witnesses came forward to that committee, which was the inappropriate committee in any case, about how doctors, medical experts and pesticide regulators would take this information. By that point, it was pushed through clause-by-clause, but again, no witnesses appeared before the finance committee. The crux of what was done in Bill C-30 led to my question on June 9. I asked why this was happening. Why was there a massive rollback in the Pest Management Regulatory Agency such that a substance considered too dangerous for use by experts based on scientific review could be overturned based on the political discretion of cabinet? I did not get an answer that day, and now we have a second omnibus budget bill in Bill C-31, which is now before this place. It again opens up the Pest Control Products Act for what are now being called the “silent spring” amendments to further weaken our regulation of dangerous substances.”
Mr. Speaker, it now being, as you just mentioned a moment ago, the morning of October 21, I am speaking in Adjournment Proceedings at 12:12 a.m. on a subject that I raised in question period on June 9 of this year. It is related to what was being put forward and has now had royal assent, Bill C-30, which was the omnibus bill related to the implementation of the spring economic statement. I will state one concern up front, which is that the measure I will discuss now with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health was not in any way telegraphed in the spring economic statement. If we are going to have an implementation act and it is an omnibus bill, it is justified in our parliamentary rules if the laws being changed in the spring economic statement omnibus bill have actually been announced, or at least suggested in clear terms, in the budget itself. There was one throwaway line in the spring economic statement about how the government should revise, potentially, the Pest Control Products Act to take into account food costs and food security. It was a shock to find in Bill C-30, which I read when it was tabled on April 29, that it was putting remarkable, unprecedented new powers in the hands of cabinet to overturn decisions made by the Minister of Health or by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. This is quite astonishing. The bill had only three hours of debate before debate closure measures were put in place, and because it was an omnibus budget bill, not one single witness came to committee. Of course, the committee to study it was not the Standing Committee on Health or the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, but the Standing Committee on Finance. No witnesses came forward to that committee, which was the inappropriate committee in any case, about how doctors, medical experts and pesticide regulators would take this information. By that point, it was pushed through clause-by-clause, but again, no witnesses appeared before the finance committee. The crux of what was done in Bill C-30 led to my question on June 9. I asked why this was happening. Why was there a massive rollback in the Pest Management Regulatory Agency such that a substance considered too dangerous for use by experts based on scientific review could be overturned based on the political discretion of cabinet? I did not get an answer that day, and now we have a second omnibus budget bill in Bill C-31, which is now before this place. It again opens up the Pest Control Products Act for what are now being called the “silent spring” amendments to further weaken our regulation of dangerous substances.
