44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 10, 2021 10:00AM
- Dec/10/21 11:26:18 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as members will recall, Health Canada caused quite an uproar over the summer when it sought to increase the allowable limits for pesticide residues on food. The public backlash pushed the government to delay that bad decision, as it was on the eve of the election campaign.
The ongoing close relationship between Health Canada and the biotechnology and pesticide industry is troubling. Now we are learning that Health Canada is considering allowing GMO producers to regulate themselves through voluntary transparency.
Three weeks ago, 100 organizations wrote to the government, calling on it to back down. Will the government heed their call?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/10/21 11:27:18 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, science and the precautionary principle should take precedence when it comes to pesticides and GMOs. The government seems to be moving away from transparency when, really, more transparency is needed. The government seems to be listening to the industry much more than to farmers and people who want to know what is on their dinner plates.
The Bloc Québécois is proposing an investigation into the links between Health Canada and the biotechnology and pesticide industries. Does the government agree that more transparency is needed?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/10/21 1:11:29 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-2
Madam Speaker, I want to say right away that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful, passionate and fascinating colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé.
I will start by being a good sport because I always like to find the good in any motion, bill or supply day topic that is presented. I will start by saying what I like about it. However, unfortunately, the thing I liked the most today was the historical content in the member for Carleton's speech. Just between us, if one day he decides to create a podcast with stories or interesting facts from history, then I will be the first to listen to it while driving home on the 417. He always has very interesting things to say. I will give him that.
I am, however, going to put an end to the suspense here. My Conservative colleagues might be disappointed, but the Bloc Québécois does not intend to support the motion. We are sorry about that. I will explain why, even though I think they may already have some idea. We do not intend to support the request to split this bill because we think that the two parts of the bill that the Conservatives want to split go together.
It is as though we are being told that on the one hand, there is a pandemic affecting businesses, and on the other hand, there may be something that could possibly affect individual workers, so maybe one day, we could address this issue differently. In reality, it is still the same pandemic that is affecting both workers and businesses. Since the bill covers two aspects of the same problem stemming from a single pandemic, I do not understand the motivation for splitting it as proposed.
As my colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned, people are waiting. I feel like coming back to that, although the Conservatives mentioned it too. We lost time because of an unnecessary election. In the meantime, people have suffered and still need support.
I do not see the point of taking a bill that has already passed at second reading and been studied in committee, and bringing it back to split it and start the process over again. In the meantime, there are businesses that will suffer from the delay in the process. I think this part was understood and that is the one the Conservatives want to hold onto, but there are likely even more ordinary folks who could suffer as a result as well.
We lost too much time with the unnecessary election to make people wait and suffer even more, when they have already gone through enough, in our opinion.
As we said during the election campaign, the initial benefits that were created were not perfect. They quite likely contributed to the labour shortage we experienced, although they were not the only factor. I am not saying that Bill C‑2 is perfect and that is why we do not want to split it, but I do think that if the bill goes to committee, it can be discussed and improved. A review of the benefits was warranted, and it still is, which is why it is important for the committee to study not only the wage subsidy and rent subsidy, but also the so-called individual benefits.
We are suggesting that there are still some workers who could be added to the list of benefit recipients. The Bloc Québécois has spoken about this a lot, but I am mentioning it again because it is important. I am thinking, in particular, about workers in the arts and culture sectors. It has been two years since musicians and actors were able to take the stage at any big shows, festivals or events. If we do not support these people, they could end up leaving the sector, taking their talents with them. Our arts and culture sector could lose its stars, its talent, its creative geniuses it they cannot earn a living. At some point, they will decide that half a loaf is better than none. If they have no way to support themselves, they could end up moving on to something else, and we would lose that talent.
The question we should be asking ourselves is: Are we prepared to pay the price of losing these creators?
Technicians, stage riggers, and people who run cables for sound systems told me that more and more of them have been leaving the field to go work in the mines, where the skill set and schedules are similar. These are not 9-to-5 jobs. These are two-week stints, like being on a concert tour. Mine work pays well, so if we do not support these people, they may decide to stay there. If we lose access to their expertise, we will be very sorry once the economy is back up and running again.
That is what is on my mind when I think about how it would be good to let the Standing Committee on Finance to keep talking about individual benefits by not splitting Bill C‑2.
It would also be good to keep working on things that affect businesses. This hare-brained Conservative motion could end up delaying work on the Canada emergency wage subsidy and support for businesses that need it.
The Bloc Québécois would like to share some thoughts with the committee regarding which areas could also benefit from government support through regulation. We are just waiting for the minister to confirm that she will be able to open up areas through regulation.
Two sectors in particular come to mind, one of which is extremely important in Quebec, namely the aerospace and aeronautics sector. This sector is one of the hardest hit by the current crisis, given that there is less travel and aircraft construction. We must support those businesses.
On top of that, so many manufacturers have been indirectly affected by the pandemic. For instance, there is a supply shortage of microprocessors, which has caused many manufacturers of trucks, armoured vans and various automotive products to have to slow down their production lines, not because of a labour shortage, but because of a parts shortage. This is a side effect of the pandemic, and these people also need help.
Ultimately, all I am seeing today is an attempt to slow down the process and delay the passage of Bill C-2 in its entirety or in part. The Conservatives are forgetting that, behind all of this, there are people who need our support, and that is the unfortunate part. I am not saying that we have to fix the mess made by the government, which delayed things with the election. However, we do need to realize that if we create even further delays, people are going to suffer. If we think about it, we are kind of doing what we accused the government of doing.
It is ironic to hear the Conservatives say that the government delayed recalling the House and that the election was pointless when they are doing the same thing by delaying the passage of bills. They are saying two different things, and I do not particularly like it. All that is to say that I do not see any merit in taking a bill that has been passed in principle, that can be improved, that is being improved at committee, and then splitting it, slowing down the process and returning to the House to do the same work over again. That is not helpful. There is already enough duplication of work with two levels of government, the federal government on the one hand and Quebec and the provinces on the other hand. We do not support making more work.
As long as there is a pandemic, it will affect both businesses and individuals. Bill C‑2 addresses both because there is only one pandemic, and therefore there is just one problem with multiple consequences. We must not attempt to separate out the consequences and deal with them individually. Instead we must take a holistic approach to the problem because it is the result of the same situation, and that is the pandemic.
1382 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/10/21 1:21:16 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-2
Madam Speaker, I let the cat out of the bag at the beginning of my speech, when I said that we did not intend to support the Conservatives in their attempt to split Bill C-2 into two parts.
Also, generally speaking, when we think about bills and how we are going to vote, we think about who the bill is intended for and who it focuses on.
We therefore have no intention of throwing a wrench into the works.
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/10/21 1:22:40 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-2
Madam Speaker, that is kind of what we are proposing.
Lockdown orders are not necessarily the reason arts and culture workers do not have work. Even without lockdown, venues are still not operating at full capacity. Lockdown is not necessarily a criterion, because we are more interested in the types of workers affected.
I think we can all agree on this, because it is part of our basic demands.
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/10/21 1:24:07 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-2
Madam Speaker, there are so many great shots I could take here, that I do not even know where to start.
The best solution is definitely independence. There is also no doubt that health transfers are needed. Quebec could have done so much more if it had received its fair share.
If we just look at the federal government's areas of jurisdiction, the bill clearly shows that some important work should have been done a long time ago, namely, EI reforms. If that had been done properly at the time, with an eye to the future, we probably would not have had to deal with so many specific, piecemeal programs here and there. We would have already had a better social safety net in place for workers. This proves why it was a mistake to not do it sooner.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
