SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 116

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 24, 2022 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 116 - Oct/24/22
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)
  • Oct/24/22 1:16:23 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-5 
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I really appreciated what she said about how pesticides affect people's lives and health. In the summer of 2021, the Liberal government decided to increase traces of pesticides, including glyphosate, in pulses and berries. There was outrage, and the Liberals were forced to backtrack. At the time, they promised to be more transparent. Today, we learned that an organization called Vigilance OGM received 229 blank pages from Health Canada in response to its ATIP request. What does that say about the Liberals' concern for people's health and their government's transparency?
102 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 116 - Oct/24/22
Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)
  • Oct/24/22 2:52:52 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 2021, Health Canada was planning to authorize an increase in the amount of pesticides on our food. However, at the request of the multinational pesticide companies themselves, the government had to postpone its decision under pressure during the election campaign. Today, Radio‑Canada reported that the organization Vigilance OGM had filed an access to information request to see the study that inspired this decision. The organization received 229 blank pages. That is what transparency means to this government. It is so transparent that we can see right through the pages. What does the government have to hide?
104 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 116 - Oct/24/22
Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)
  • Oct/24/22 2:54:10 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, our farmers were not asking for more pesticides on our foods. In fact, no one was asking for that except Bayer, the multinational that manufactures the pesticides in question. At the time, the government was accused of not conducting any studies to justify this decision, other than the study conducted by Bayer itself. Today, the government is refusing to disclose to Vigilance OGM the study that led to its decision. Believe it or not, it is justifying that decision by saying that the information in question was provided by a third party. The third party in question would not happen to by Bayer by chance, would it?
109 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border