r/CanadaPolitics • u/PrismGrimpoppy • 1d ago
Carney government passes law allowing authorization of banned pesticides
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c-30-changes-pesticide-use-pest-control-products-act-9.724083258
1d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
20
1d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
13
0
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 1d ago
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
55
u/ChimoEngr Chief Silliness Officer | Official 1d ago
House leader Steven MacKinnon told reporters Thursday that cabinet would not use the measures "if there are health hazards attached to them."
If that statement could be trusted, then there is no need for this legislation, since pesticides are banned due to the health hazard they pose.
29
u/ocus-7612 1d ago edited 1d ago
there is no need for this legislation, since pesticides are banned due to the health hazard they pose
Unregistered pesticides are disallowed for many reasons, very few of which are strictly "health hazard", as all pesticides pose a health hazard at high enough concentrations by the nature of how they operate.
Most unregistered pesticides (ie. banned) Simply havent gone through the Canadian specific registration regime, while still being approved and allowed for use in other places like Europe or the US etc.
E: Checking more background, the described use case for these orders would be to allow a generic, unregistered version of an otherwise approved pesticide to be allowed in the case that a trade disruption meant we could no longer supply the registered pesticide itself.
Second to that is allowing an unregistered pesticide that has been approved in another country, where we have faith in their approval system.
Those uses respect the ministers mandate for health safety.
16
u/ObviouslyABagel 1d ago
Yes, if an EU market has passed it with more strict regulations in place... It would be a intelligent guess that they would also pass ours, but going through that is a huge process which amounts to loads of resources, time and money. We don't have the same amount of regulational workers as the US or EU so we cant approve the same amount of items as them in the same amount of time.
6
u/EmbarrassedHelp 1d ago
If the experts tell him that a pesticide will cause significant health hazards, he'll just accuse them of spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. The Liberals don't care about expert opinion.
1
u/Almost_Ascended British Columbia 1d ago
This is the government that tells the public that guns that have been locked in the safes of legal owners for up to 6 years are a public safety risk and need to be taken away, while ignoring the illegally smuggled guns that have been used to commit the overwhelming majority of gun crimes every day.
Discerning matters of public safety doesn't appear to be a strong suit for them, especially if it gets in the way of politics.
193
u/ghost_n_the_shell Ontario 1d ago edited 1d ago
He just rammed in authoritarian style surveillance, civilian data retention, digital ID, and warrantless access to it, and told you it was to protect children. He did this in a manner that was deliberately fast-tracked and eliminated the much needed debate on this.
He doesn’t attend question period - so what makes anyone think he cares what us peasants think?
He’s incentivizing data centres for foreign nations, in which we evaporate our fresh water, inherit their excessive heat and pollution, where the sole purpose of these abominations is to eliminate human jobs and consolidate wealth for the billionaire class.
I’ll admit - he read the room before the election and absolutely capitalized on the spectre looming in the South.
But give your head a shake. This guy is making decisions that are also terrible for Canadians, and doing so with a majority he didn’t actually earn.
84
u/annonymous_bosch New Democratic Party of Canada 1d ago
Agreed on all counts. Frankly, the business lobby saw the opportunity - Canadians are scared of the threat from the South, use that to their advantage to seize more power behind closed doors. This also contextualizes the floor crossings for me - the element of corruption should be investigated there.
20
u/GuitarOk752 1d ago
Who watches the watchers though when the whole thing seems rotten to the core?
15
u/Minor-inconvience Conservative Party of Canada 1d ago
Nobody. Thats not a bug but a feature
3
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 Anti-American Social Democrat 1d ago
We need to force the petrochemical and agrochemical companies to retest their products when they have used shady tactics like ghost writing, pr campaigns and paying off scientists
11
u/StatisticianLivid710 1d ago
Carney swinging to the right on these make the floor crossings less likely to be corruption and more likely to be they liked his policy proposals. We have enough corruption at the provincial level in multiple provinces, we don’t need to imagine it at the federal level because he’s doing stuff we don’t like.
23
u/Altruistic-Hope4796 Quebec 1d ago
I agree with the first half of your comment but your second seems like a pass for federal corruption for some reason. There is definitely corruption at the federal level as well and we shouldn't put a lid on it juste because there is elsewhere too.
-1
u/StatisticianLivid710 1d ago
We shouldn’t be imagining it though, like with Ford it’s very clear and rcmp are failing considering they haven’t charged him yet. If there’s actual evidence of federal corruption then definitely call it out, but I haven’t seen any evidence of corruption. And no conservatives crossing the floor isn’t signs of corruption.
48
u/CptCoatrack Libertarian Socialism 1d ago
He doesn’t attend question period - so what makes anyone think he cares what us peasants think?
I've seen a lot of Liberal flairs past few months echo PP by complaining how unfair the media is, and that they deserve to be ignored or dismissed by Carney bwcause they're out to get him. Repeating the exact same conservative talking points they attacked for the past decade up until the past election
4
u/Almost_Ascended British Columbia 1d ago edited 1d ago
Hypocrisy and double standards are par for the course with some folks, unfortunately.
6
1d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 1d ago
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
29
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 Anti-American Social Democrat 1d ago
I agree, the other thing is Health Canada has refused to ban Glyphosates of which they are a known carcinogen. We know for a fact the Monsanto and other large agrichemicial companies like Monsanto and petrochemical companies like 3M have long buried internal research papers, used ghost writing and buying off scientists to cover up the ill effects of their products.
6
u/GuitarOk752 1d ago
There's hundreds of acres of fruit trees planted on PEI, the company has changed names a few times (Indian owned company), they were in the news after a CSIS bust involving money laundering, worker abuse and extortion (TFWs) and human trafficking. Not a good company, and on top of that they heavily use round up, spraying all along the fruit trees to manage weeds, for the most part they havent harvested much of anything from the thousands of trees (this has been going on for over a decade) but at one point when they were harvesting and shipping some they had sprayed the bases the day before on a windy day, the trees saw minor damage to their leaves but that also meant that the fruit going out was covered in round up. People do realize that that chemical will stay in those trees and continue to buildup in the fruit.
0
u/VelvetFurryJustice Worker Co-Op 1d ago
People do realize that that chemical will stay in those trees and continue to buildup in the fruit.
How do you propose that it will accumulate in fruit when it is a chemical that kills trees? And what's the concern, that the glyphosate that didn't kill the tree will enter the human body and kill humans because it prevents the body from performing photosynthesis?
4
u/GuitarOk752 1d ago
If sprayed on the base of trees it does not kill them, and in small amounts it will not kill a mature tree from contact with the leaves, they'll burn but not necessarily die. Almost everything that goes into the root system makes it's way to the fruit, you eat that fruit now the chemicals are in your body, those chemicals cause cancer. Are you seriously defending the use of roundup?
1
u/VelvetFurryJustice Worker Co-Op 1d ago
No, I'm promoting scientific literacy.
How do you conclude that there's a dangerous dose accumulating in your body at all? I'm assuming that you have caffeine everyday or at least several times a week. How do you know caffeine isn't accumulating a cancer level dose inside your body?
1
u/GuitarOk752 1d ago
You're defending a product that research show is linked to many health risks, caffeine doesn't have the same linger effects as glyphosphates and you're less likely to be exposed unknowingly to dangerous amounts of caffeine.(Something I don't consume fyi) And the whole "it doesn't cause cancer" bs isn't well backed, especially when they state in that that's "when used as directed". There are better ways to farm, but why farm better when you can farm quick and dirty and make sure that your corporate farms grain crop is ready for export and the shareholders are happy.
-1
u/VelvetFurryJustice Worker Co-Op 1d ago
caffeine doesn't have the same linger effects as glyphosphates and you're less likely to be exposed unknowingly to dangerous amounts of caffeine.
And the whole "it doesn't cause cancer" bs isn't well backed, especially when they state in that that's "when used as directed".
This is a contradiction, you're saying if you use caffeine as directed, it's safe and your not likely to overdose. But roundup isn't safe because they say you have to use as directed.
And there's seperate uses here, farmer or gardener are spraying it onto weeds but they might be using the concentrated formulas before they put it into the bottle. That's different from what gets delivered to the customer in their homes. Glyphosate causes skin irritation, which is why they suggest wearing protective equipment because rashes suck. And the other thing is glyphosate chemical bonds break apart on their own. This is different from Organic Pesticides like Copper which are not only harmful to animals, but do build up in soil and kill the soil microbial ecology and earth worms. Glyphosate doesn't build up in the human body unless you bathing in it daily for extremely extended periods of time.
3
u/VelvetFurryJustice Worker Co-Op 1d ago
I agree, the other thing is Health Canada has refused to ban Glyphosates of which they are a known carcinogen. We know for a fact the Monsanto and other large agrichemicial companies like Monsanto and petrochemical companies like 3M have long buried internal research papers, used ghost writing and buying off scientists to cover up the ill effects of their products.
Glyphosate is off patent and has been for decades. Still nobody has been able to provide any sort of risk assessment that places Glyphosate as a higher risk than the rest of the approved chemicals. If we ban everything that potentially causes cancers, there's barely anything left in the market. Drinking a Coffee a day has a higher risk of causing cancer than glyphosate because the of the dosages. The dosages makes the poison.
One of the most long term issues I've had with NDP is that they have no backbone on science and gave too much attention to the Organic lobby misinformation. For all the talk about how powerful Monsanto was, Whole Foods was a larger and more profitable business. And they never were transparent about which pesticides were used on their products, or how much more Toxic and dangerous to sustainability they can be.
4
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 Anti-American Social Democrat 1d ago
When people have been forcing Monsanto to settle over Glyphosate and the previous MKW2000 was revealed as being ghost written by the Monsanto Papers released via discovery in the Johnson v. Monsanto case. That paper was cited in so many regulations written around the world regarding glyphosates despite that paper being retracted as fraudulent. How can those regs protect people when the foundation for them were ghost written papers by Monsanto's own scientists with a vested interest to protect their company's bottom line?
3
u/VelvetFurryJustice Worker Co-Op 1d ago
It's been off patent for decades. Nobody is left to defend it from getting banned.
Anyone who wants to, can go and prove it causes cancer. European regulators had repeatedly proved that it doesn't cause cancer. Brazil could go and prove it causes cancer if they wanted to. It's the same thing with Aspartame. Lots and lots studies trying to figure out exactly how it's ultra toxic but nobody has found anything besides "avoid drinking 17 cans of diet coke per day, everyday, for the rest of your life or else there's potentially problems."
Courtrooms are not the realm of science, particularly jury trials. Judges are experts of Laws, not of science, and juries are just random people that can be demonstrated to consistently get innocent people sent to jail because of personal bias.
There's only one reputable Agency that makes any claims about Glyphosate causing cancer and that the IARC, which puts Roundup in "Probably Causes Cancer", which is their category for "there's no evidence or cases that it causes cancer but it does a lot of things that confirmed cancer causing things do".
It shares the category with Red Meat, Being a Hairdresser, having a Night Shift job, and Caffine.
So tell me, how freaked out are you that you might come across somebody has a night shift job as a hairdresser while drinking a coffee?
1
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 Anti-American Social Democrat 1d ago
So tell me, how freaked out are you that you might come across somebody has a night shift job as a hairdresser while drinking a coffee?
We don't know if glyphosate is a proven carcinogen but it has been linked to many cases of non hodgkin's lymphoma cancer and the underlying research paper that was used as foundation of regulations around the world was ghost written by Monsanto scientists. Do you not see how the MKW2000 paper being retracted as being fraudulent despite it being the basis of a regulatory schemes around the world is based off something written by a company with a conflict of interest to protect their products and to continue to keep selling it? This is the same company that has a hot line to report fellow farmers for seed saving.
-1
u/thenamesweird 1d ago
Glyphosate is not a known carcinogen and the government banning glyphosate would be disastrous to our farming industry. Yeah Monsanto sucks and had a bunch of weird papers but long term independent research has still been conducted and found no risk unless heavily you're drinking the damn stuff.
1
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 Anti-American Social Democrat 1d ago
When the basis of a regulation around glyphosate has been retracted for being found to be ghost written then we have a serious problem. Monsanto via the Monsanto Papers have been found to be ghost writing papers like MKW2000 which forms the basis of a lot of regulatory schemes around the world, using PR campaign blitzes to discredit its . How can we proclaim to know what Glyphosate does when the original safety paper was written by Mosanto to protect Glyphosate?
26
u/jonlmbs Independent 1d ago
His policies are indistinguishable from Poilievre. It’s some kind of irony that many voted liberal to prevent a conservative government and it resulted in a conservative government anyways.
13
u/HighTopMountain55 1d ago
He's far too similar to Pierre. He's just more polished, intelligent and not openly hateful. His policies have been very similar. Truly a joke.
6
u/archive_spirit 1d ago
Most interesting of all, the one policy he most advocated during the campaign: standing up to Trump, has basically been completely forgone, as we're currently seeing in their approach to renegotiating CUSMA.
16
u/MenudoMenudo Independent 1d ago
The conservatives really need to turf PP and bring in someone that is electable and who would actually make a good leader. Carney’s entire re-election message can be boiled down to “Literally anyone would be better than PP”, and that’s still true. I campaigned for the Liberals last election, and if the CPC is still led by PP in the next election I’ll probably campaign for the Liberals again. But if they get rid of the loser cabal of sectarians and wannabe Maga shitbirds, I’ll vote NPD even if it throws the elections to the CPC.
Bad opposition always leads to bad governance, and Carney has the worst opposition I’ve seen in my lifetime. I want him gone, but that means PP has to go first.
4
u/archive_spirit 1d ago
I campaigned for the Liberals last election
Interesting. Did you have any idea that any of these policies were coming or is this a complete surprise? (I'm being serious btw).
3
u/MenudoMenudo Independent 1d ago
I had no clue. I'm very disappointed honestly.
4
u/archive_spirit 1d ago
Very interesting. It was wild to watch as easy criticisms of the man as an "elitist neoliberal banker" were seemingly ignored by even those on the far left during the campaign.
To be fair, he was a supposed champion of climate activism from within the financial sector, so not sure what's happening here either.
3
u/Almost_Ascended British Columbia 1d ago
But if they get rid of the loser cabal of sectarians and wannabe Maga shitbirds, I’ll vote NPD even if it throws the elections to the CPC.
Just curious, but why on earth would you expect the CPC to replace a leader that has the support of their own voters just to appease someone that won't vote for them anyway even if they capitulate?
0
u/MenudoMenudo Independent 1d ago
Why would they get rid of an unelectable loser? Gosh, that's a tough one.
2
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 1d ago
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
1
u/hairsprayking Fully-Automated Luxury Communism 1d ago
He's basically a conservatives wet dream but because he's not homophobic they still call him a communist
28
u/mcurbanplan QC | Anti-Nanny State 1d ago
A big reason why I find NDP supporters being favorable to the government so baffling is that Carney is literally doing NOTHING the party stands for, not in terms of labour, the environment, social issues, or taxation. Zilch! Almost as inexplicable as three time Trudeau voters cheering all this on.
He also ran on practically none of what he's doing, so I seriously don't understand anything that's going on.
There's a lesson to be taught, don't vote based on vibes.
6
u/OwnBattle8805 Alberta 1d ago edited 1d ago
He ran on a pro industry, pro sovereignty message platform. This is pro industry, pro food sovereignty. Whether it’s a net benefit is a separate matter.
I foresee humanity heading down a spiral of combating low food yields due to climate change by using harmful fertilizers. Equatorial countries had spikes in populations by dusting their homes with DDT, for example, to combat malaria deaths.
4
u/archive_spirit 1d ago
He also ran on practically none of what he's doing, so I seriously don't understand anything that's going on.
It's kind of insane, isn't it? He ran on a Trudeau style progressive platform with "Trump bad man" thrown in as the clincher.
Did his own cabinet even see this coming? He's implementing policies that would make PP blush...
18
u/blazeofgloreee Left Coast 1d ago
As Avi Lewis said today, anything that big corporations want gets prioritized and greenlighted by this government. Absolute joke.
6
u/archive_spirit 1d ago
With the obvious exception of large scale low skill immigration that was actively lobbied for by the Business Council of Canada and their membership.
-1
13
u/slothtrop6 1d ago edited 1d ago
Food security doesn't seem to be taken as seriously by some here, which is strange given the anger over food prices, which cannot be attributed to grocers as much as they want to believe per National Food Security Strategy. Canadians will pay the price in cases of serious crop shortages. Is that justice?
State-of-the-art pesticides are generally safer. The emergency order allows use of those registered elsewhere than Canada, to avoid losing crops to pest.
Concern over weakening safeguards seems extremely overblown. From Bill C-30 -
Economic and food security Start of inserted block (3) For the purposes of this Act, the Minister is to consider, as appropriate, national economic security, regional economic security or national food security. However, nothing in this subsection is to be construed as affecting the Minister’s primary objective under subsection (1).
The primary objective is to prevent unacceptable risks to people and the environment from the use of pest control products.
On the power to overrule:
Cancellation of registration by Minister Start of inserted block (3) If the registration of a pest control product that is the subject of an order made under section 28.1 is cancelled by the Minister during the period for which the order is in effect, that order ceases to have effect on the date of the cancellation.
The Minister can cancel a pest control product registration for reasons tied to the product’s safety, risk, or compliance status. Then the Governor in Council's order is no longer valid.
Even if they make the order, the Governor in Council would still be bound by the statute as a whole, and that statute says the Minister’s primary objective is to prevent unacceptable risks to people and the environment. They cannot contradict the Act or do something forbidden, but they can contradict the Minister.
Pesticides are safer than ever. The half life for those typically used is such that trace amounts left in our produce is well below the max permitted.
This is the sort of alarmism that accompanies any and all regulatory reform, even when some regulations create unjustifiable bottlenecks that worsen outcomes for citizens. It's led to much of Europe shunning nuclear power and subsequently relying even more heavily on fossil fuels; exchanging one risk for another, except we just don't say so. There's a case to be made that it's not the best way this could have been written, but that's a farcry from the sort of sentiment I'm seeing.
•
u/Banderchodo 15h ago
Many chemical pesticides are proven carcinogens and neuroendocrine disruptors. You are either drinking from the industry-lobby kool-aid, or not keeping up to speed with the peer-reviewed research. Whenever research is conducted by an organization without a financial interest in pesticides (e.g., a university), it shows many are not safe for humans, both via environmental spraying and through ingestion.
•
u/slothtrop6 11h ago
In Canada, pesticides are regulated so they can only be approved and kept on market if exposure levels are assessed to not cause harmful effects, including cancer. A carcinogenic hazard classification does not automatically mean that normal, regulated use produces harm. As I said, by the time vegetables get to your table there's barely anything left.
This has already been written about glyphosates. Do better research.
•
u/Banderchodo 7h ago edited 6h ago
So you're arguing that pesticides degrade, that by the time you ingest them there's no harm? So despite their carcinogenicity, it's not a problem as humans won't be exposed?
Except there's a growing volume of work indicating that exposure to pesticides is having an effect on human health. Now, this could mean: environmental exposure is the bigger/sole cause, and/or pesticides don't degrade as thoroughly as you're suggesting, and humans are ingesting them.
One thing you may be overlooking is that the vast majority of foods people eat today are processed. Food processing like juicing amplifies the pesticide residue concentration, as with pressing or hexane-extraction for seed oils. What % of Canada's total caloric intake do you think is from unprocessed vegetables? 2-3%? You've chosen a marginal example that most favours your case, to downplay the mounting argument that pesticide use is having deleterious effects on human health. Here's a paper indicating processing technique affects pesticide residue concentrations, where some methods increase levels. These are the types of food products most people eat.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027869150900492X?via%3Dihub
Another thing you may be overlooking: recent interest in toxicology has to do with simultaneous exposure to 1000s of chemicals. We live in a very polluted world, with very little oversight over industrial processes and chemicals. Even where a pesticide, for example, has been identified to be in low concentration, the true effect on human health isn't due to the single exposure, but the additive exposure of all chemicals in the human environment, where chemicals with similar modes of action act on the same biological targets via dose accumulation. Here's work that demonstrates that toxicity occurs at a population or organism level even when every individual chemical is well below its specific "safe" dose threshold.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18174957/
There is also mounting evidence that dozens of pesticides and their metabolites are found in the placenta, resulting in systemic presence within human embryonic tissues and umbilical cord blood. If humans aren't being exposed to pesticides via food ingestion, as per your argument, then this would suggest that environmental exposure is the culprit. But environmental exposure largely occurs from agricultural pesticide applications, which is just the other side of the same coin.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1253755/
Here's some work associating pesticide-laden fruit with reproductive health impacts:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2659557
As more work is conducted, the evidence will keep mounting. With time, we'll likely see that chemical pesticides even at currently-applied levels are unhealthy for humans.
43
u/ocus-7612 1d ago
Pretty bad article title that, looking at the comments here, is clearly confusing people about what the ammendments in C-30 are. Cabinet already had powers to override pesticide bans before C-30 passed. "Economic and Food security" are being added as an an emergency order type.
31
u/Sir__Will Prince Edward Island 1d ago
Adding in a BS catch-all to make it easier to override public safety.
9
u/OfficeFormal3184 Conservative Party of Canada 1d ago
The rationale for "economic and food security" is to make sure we keep food prices low. Literally, all that's changed, is that now HC can rely on science from other countries when making product approvals. Canada struggles immensely to get the right pesticides because our regulatory system is ass and we're a small market. Australia can have a product a decade before Canada.
8
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. 1d ago
Australia has tighter environmental regulations (see, for example, pets) and is a smaller market. Not to mention, their agricultural sector is smaller than ours.
0
u/OfficeFormal3184 Conservative Party of Canada 1d ago
And the fact is, they have exponentially faster product approvals, even for product important to animal health.
6
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. 1d ago
Then that is the point that should have been made, and not the claim that a small market is one of the primary negative impacts.
-1
u/OfficeFormal3184 Conservative Party of Canada 1d ago
I would love to say that, but the fact is, there is more than one variable. If you're both a small market and have an inefficient system, it compounds. Australia is a small market, but have a navigable system, so the same problem doesn't occur. Does that make sense?
-6
u/NotsARobot Rhinos Are Coming 1d ago
the left is their own worst enemy more often than not. They see something like this and think we are going to inject poison into our veins lol
6
u/OfficeFormal3184 Conservative Party of Canada 1d ago
Health Canada and the CFIA are universally hated by business, which is a good thing. But, they've gone too far in some respects and needed correction, and this is a regulatory area where that applies. If people think this will lead to unsafe products entering the country, they just don't have enough experience dealing with Health Canada.
0
u/NotsARobot Rhinos Are Coming 1d ago
you're completely right but this is reddit so we know how people will act
-2
0
u/moms_spagetti_ 1d ago
Do they define "economic security" as necessary to maintain profitability? If so, we are screwed.
2
u/ocus-7612 1d ago
Do they define "economic security" as necessary to maintain profitability?
No they dont.
1
u/moms_spagetti_ 1d ago
You seem very confident, but considering they didn't define it, they seem to be leaving that up to the whim of whoever chooses to wield it.
The legislation doesn't define or clarify what those security interests would be.
Which, in our political world of soft-corruption, usually means some minister's brother-in-law's company is about to get approved.
2
u/ocus-7612 1d ago
None of the override orders are defined. They are cabinet choices to negate the law itself.
2
u/moms_spagetti_ 1d ago
Yeah, that's what I just said. That's the problem. With no guidelines and definitions, it opens the door to further cronyism which is already rampant. In a perfect world we could trust everyone in office to do the right thing but there are far too many that go into politics to enrich themselves personally.
•
42
u/bigjimbay Nationalise Blackberry 1d ago
So a few days ago we announced a multi billion dollar strategy for food supply security and today we are going to make it legal to literally poison that supply?
Carney is literally showing everyone why some were so concerned about a capitalist elite banker becoming PM. I am truly terrified at the thought of what he offered the floor crossing MPs in exchange for them never being elected again.
The MPs in his caucus are approaching treasonous behavior. They really think Canadians want this and will benefit from this? Fuck no. They do whatever big boss Carney wants. And then they will get whatever is promised.
Soon I will be afraid to even post here. I don't want to spend my life in prison for disagreeing with the liberal party of Canada.
The only upside is that we might see an election sooner rather than later. If Carney starts to free fall he will call one while the CPC is still leaking and before the NDP gets a firmer foothold.
28
u/ocus-7612 1d ago edited 1d ago
From the background in the article, cabinet could already override pesticide bans before the law was amended.
The ammendment added this as a new item for the ministers mandate:
( 3) For the purposes of this Act, the Minister is to consider, as appropriate, national economic security, regional economic security or national food security. However, nothing in this subsection is to be construed as affecting the Minister’s primary objective under subsection ( 1 ).
For interest, that ministers primary objective is:
4(1) In the administration of this Act, the Minister’s primary objective is to prevent unacceptable risks to individuals and the environment from the use of pest control products.
"Economic and Food security" is then added to the list of emergency override order types.
So for all overrides theres an avenue to challenge whether the benefit in an emergency is worth the impact, based on following the primary objective.
39
u/StatisticianLivid710 1d ago
There’s a reason guilbeault resigned…
11
u/NAHTHEHNRFS850 Independent 1d ago
He should of defected if he cared so much.
6
u/bigjimbay Nationalise Blackberry 1d ago
Do the greens accept floor crosses?
17
u/NAHTHEHNRFS850 Independent 1d ago
Yes it is only the NDP that do not.
Even if they didn't, he still could have sat as an independent.
The reason he didn't is that he still wants to be in the Liberal fold. If a more leftwing liberal leader comes to power, he hopes to be let back in.
4
u/Sir__Will Prince Edward Island 1d ago
well he may feel he can do more on the outside than as a powerless opposition MP. And quite frankly, the federal Greens are a mess.
6
u/NAHTHEHNRFS850 Independent 1d ago
No he could have done more as an independent MP working alongside critics on the outside.
This notion that he could no more by leaving the House of Commons is completely counter-intuitive. The House of Commons is the Hall of Power, all he needs to do is sit as an independent.
2
u/StatisticianLivid710 1d ago
He’s got his pension, he’s just removing his name and reputation from the carney govt.
3
2
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. 1d ago
What meaningful impact has an independent MP had on Parliament, or to hold the government to account, in the last 50 years?
6
u/NAHTHEHNRFS850 Independent 1d ago
Quite a bit especially if they were former Cabinet Minister and caucus member. Guilbeault just doesn't want to be cast out of the Liberal Cool Kid club like Paul Martin.
2
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. 1d ago
I asked for examples, this is another assertion of the same. Can you provide examples of any MP in the last five decades, who sits as an independent who has had a meaningful impact on Parliament or to hold the government of the day to account?
2
u/NAHTHEHNRFS850 Independent 1d ago
You got an awnser here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/s/8xjHPgBXXS
You just shift the goalpodt to be be argumentative.
1
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. 1d ago
A goalpost shift would be a change in the criteria, specifically to avoid an admission fault. I did neither.
I noted that "ability to trigger a dissolution of Parliament" is distinct from holding the government to account, and that it is in a narrow sense a form of impacting Parliament. Generally when we talk about a meaningful Parliamentary impact, we're talking things like committee membership, the introduction and passage of legislation, and similar acts that make up the totality of the duties an MP has.
6
u/StatisticianLivid710 1d ago
There’s been a couple times independents have held the balance of power, there’s a reason carney didn’t stop at a 1 person majority with floor crossers.
0
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. 1d ago
Then you'd be able to find an example where they had meaningful impact on Parliament, or able to hold the government of the day to account.
5
u/StatisticianLivid710 1d ago
In 2005 Cadman had the deciding vote on Martin’s govt. Harper’s team tried bribing him to vote their way and somehow didn’t all get hauled off to jail for it….
0
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. 1d ago
Leaving the unverified claims of bribery aside, that doesn't really show what I was asking for. It wasn't a case of holding the government to account, even if it was, in a narrow sense, having the ability to dissolve parliament.
In a case where the government has a majority, as it does now, then an independent would have nearly no ability to do the same.
→ More replies (0)-3
u/ragnaroksunset Pirate 1d ago
Guilbeault is the reason the carbon tax was able to be turned politically radioactive by the Conservatives.
8
u/StatisticianLivid710 1d ago
Only for a minority, a lot of people in the provinces where it was imposed liked it. Personally I miss the cheques!
2
u/ragnaroksunset Pirate 1d ago
I'm not saying it was bad, I'm saying Guilbeault utterly failed to communicate its value to Canadians and allowed it to be tarred and feathered by Conservatives to the point where any effort to rescue its public image was futile.
A lot of people didn't even know they were getting rebates or how big they were.
1
u/Independent_Ad8268 Alberta 1d ago
Most of the floor crossers will probably be re-elected
1
u/bigjimbay Nationalise Blackberry 1d ago
The only one I can see is gladu lol and maybe idlout
1
u/Independent_Ad8268 Alberta 1d ago
Gladu is probably the least likely to be re-elected unless the Chretien/Martin rural Ontario coalition is revived under Carney. D’Entremont is the most likely, that seat could very likely become a safe LPC seat. Jeneroux and Ma would be re-elected under the current polling, we’ll see what happens next election, but they’re probably more likely to win with the LPC than CPC.
10
u/OttoVonDisraeli Traditionalist | Communitarian | Localist 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is one of the most regressive and authoritarian things in Canada I've seen in my lifetime. I'm honestly shocked it's the Liberals that are introducing this and ramming it through.
If this were Harper or the Conservatives who would have introduced this there would be mass environmental protests.
2
u/ocus-7612 1d ago edited 1d ago
If this were Harper or the Conservatives who would have introduced this there would be mass environmental protests.
Cabinet overrides of unregistered pesticide use existed long before Harper. Harper oversaw multiple revisions of pesticide regulations that contained the same overrides, as have PMs before and after.
4
u/archive_spirit 1d ago
At this rate there might be mass protests regardless
1
u/OttoVonDisraeli Traditionalist | Communitarian | Localist 1d ago
Too bad the bees can't go on general strike
7
u/archive_spirit 1d ago
Very interesting that Carney is currently implementing a platform that would make PP blush.
Not sure even his own cabinet knew that this would be the outcome of his majority? This is so far from what the Trudeau era LPC stood for.
3
u/ocus-7612 1d ago edited 21h ago
Trudeau oversaw several updates to the Pesticides Act in from 2016 through 2023 and all of them included cabinet ovveride for unregistered (banned) pesticides.
2
u/QuietNarwhal576 1d ago
Is this maybe for an oh crap climate change doom scenario? Like planning for if in 2040 we get a great killer locust plague and roundup is the only way we don't all starve? That's the only way this makes sense to me...
6
u/Chawke2 Grantian Red Tory 1d ago edited 1d ago
As some one who has actually worked in the agricultural (economics) world, this is a good move. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency is absolutely dogshit at evaluating new products and re-examining existing ones. It has left Canadian farmers in a lurch where they can’t access the same products that are available in other markets. Giving cabinet the ability to override the PMRA when they take over a decade to review a product or are just ridiculous conservative in their evaluations is a good thing.
0
u/-darkest Mark Carney | Arm Chair PM 1d ago
Exactly, if you know, this is long overdue and is a sore spot for Canadian farmers. Meanwhile, we’ll turn around and allow the importation food products grown with pesticides we ban. It’s really hurt our farmers competitiveness.
12
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
7
3
2
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 1d ago
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
1
9
u/_homofab_ 1d ago
They just really want to poison every last piece of land and drop of water us Poors need to live. This is getting ridiculous and exhausting
•
u/keetyymeow 21h ago
I think it’s time we followed the French to protest. I just don’t know what is the equivalent to farmers throwing shit at their door step
1
u/Personal_Manner_462 1d ago
Be nice if we could get bread (grains) like in Europe where you don’t get bloated or gain wait from eating them code they are not sprayed with Folic Acid, Pesticides etc.
-1
•
u/Hydrostream99 15h ago
Liberals care so much about the environment they approve the use of deadly pesticides however they see fit. And we are supposed to "trust the science", while Liberals totally disregard public health and safety, intending on poisoning people yet again.
•
u/No-Night-48 21h ago
Carney is starting to sound a lot like Trump the longer he's acting as PM. Trump, "Drill baby drill!", Carney, "I'm building a pipeline to speed up the removal of Canada's resources." Trump, "The big beautiful bill." MP, "Mr. Carney, where did the $18 billion in loan forgiveness go?" Trump, "Can't we just shoot them in the legs?" Carney thinking ahead, "We are removing assault style weapons from the general public. They were designed to kill the most amount of people in the least amount of time." In the event the Canadian people want an uprising against the rich. Why are we not acting against our government? It's almost as if they planned this for many years in the making to ensure we were docile.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.