Finance Committee on Oct. 8th, 2026

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

Thank you very much.

My next questions are for Mr. Fair.

I was reading Prosper Canada's news release following the release of budget 2025. Your CEO, Elizabeth Mulholland, said, “As more and more families struggle to make ends meet, we welcome these measures to ensure the most vulnerable are able to access critical income benefits and accompanying commitments to reduce bank fees and better protect financial consumers.”

Could you please expand on the measures in Bill C-31 that are aimed at reducing bank fees and strengthening consumer protections, and the impact you expect these measures to have on Canadians?

[Adam Fair]

I think there are a few things she was commenting on in terms of this particular bill. Our focus has been on automatic tax filing. There is a cost component to this for individuals who don't have access to free volunteer income tax filing support in their communities. They often have to pay a significant amount of money out of pocket to cover those costs. That is often cost-prohibitive for individuals, so anything that simplifies filing, deemed filing, reduces costs for households at a time when they need every dollar.

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

Absolutely.

In your opening remarks, you also mentioned some of your main goals: enabling ongoing eligibility, having timely access to benefits, making help and correction accessible, and expanding eligibility and working with provinces and territories. In our last 20 seconds, maybe you could briefly speak to expanding eligibility and working with provinces and territories.

[Adam Fair]

The provinces and the feds have all of the data between them that they need to figure out who's not filing. Previously, we worked with Ontario. They can overlap their social assistance roles with filing data to see who's missing out. A single mother, for example, who's not—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Fair. That concludes the time.

Thank you, Mr. Sawatzky.

We will now continue with Mr. Garon for six minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would have been happy to give Mr. Sawatzky some time, but I've noticed that the Liberals never want to ask questions about reforming the pesticide control regime, except when they're talking to lobbyists from the pesticide industry. I would feel bad if Mr. Priori got bored with us today. So I'll ask him a question.

Mr. Priori, we saw the Driscoll's scandal recently. We saw what happened. I would like you to tell us about the registration process for chlorpyrifos—I wrote it down; I didn't memorize it—in Canada. That was the pesticide in question. I'd like you to explain to us what happened with this product. Why is it relevant for committee members to know this, given the changes proposed by Bill C‑31? It's a long story, but we'd like to hear the short version.

What happened with that product?

[Pascal Priori]

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

This is very interesting, as the case of chlorpyrifos is emblematic of the shortcomings in the pesticide regulatory framework and the risks it poses to the public health of all Canadians.

Chloripyrifos is a neurotoxic pesticide that has been in use for a long time. There were early scientific warnings, particularly in the United States, which began to restrict its use. It was only during its re-evaluation that it was finally banned in Canada. This is a perfect example of how re-evaluation is an essential step in analyzing the data. We're talking about a substance that was commonly found on all citrus fruits and on many other fruits, including in Canada—a substance that is neurotoxic and poses risks to brain development, particularly in children. This is well documented.

Why did Canada wait so long to ban this product, and even did so after the United States? It's really—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Wait a second. You just said something that interests me. Pesticide lobbyists came to see us and told us that our control regime was terrible. We know that's not true, and you don't have to comment on any of that. However, they said that Europe had a precautionary principle that meant that we were almost like them and never authorized anything.

Are you telling me that Donald Trump's United States has exercised better control than Canada and that, compared to the United States, with what's before us, we'll sink even deeper? Did I understand that correctly?

[Pascal Priori]

Indeed, the United States has been more proactive than Canada when it comes to certain active ingredients. Canada has always lagged behind the United States. Unfortunately, with Trump's changes and the massive deregulation he is implementing, there is reason to fear that Canada will fall even further behind. The problem is that, in Canada, we don't have a legal system that protects people as much as it does in the United States. In the United States, Bayer has paid over $7 billion in settlement agreements to victims with blood cancers linked to the use of Roundup.

Here, the amount is zero, for now. How much money has been paid? Not a single penny. How much money is ultimately lost to the Canadian health care system? Companies are willing to pay. Bayer has budgeted for that, and it's part of its financial report.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Basically, Canada is an open bar for these pesticide companies.

You said something in your opening remarks that struck me. You know, the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Carney, went to Europe recently. He went there with the Minister of Finance, saying that he wanted to be an associate member of the European Union, increase trade, open borders and boost bilateral trade.

We know that agriculture is central to our identity. It may be the most important industry in Canada. It's what feeds us. I'm the member for Mirabel, and I interact with farmers every day.

I'd like to understand what you're telling me. With the standards we have—which are getting worse compared to European standards—here's what could happen: Europeans will send us tonnes of safe products, but when they see Canadian products, they'll say they don't want our junk. Ultimately, we are potentially harming our agricultural producers here at home when it comes to international trade. Have I understood that correctly?

[Pascal Priori]

Yes, the harm is real, and it has already been demonstrated in the cases of wheat and lentils. Canadian exports are currently at risk from sanitary measures imposed by the European Union that are justified based on scientific data. So that's really it: There is a risk for agriculture. The primary risk that worries us concerns the farmers—the people who produce the food in Canada. They trust Health Canada to approve the use of certain products, but when they realize years later that they're sick and that they've been misinformed, that's the dismay we face on a fairly regular basis.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

In my own riding, I know a number of farmers who have developed very rare forms of cancer. Obviously, it's not always easy to establish a causal link, but I know of some cases. This bill will give the Minister of Health a significant degree of discretion. I know that she has a department behind her, but, at the end of the day, the Minister of Health will personally have significant discretion over the process. I looked at the Minister of Health's résumé, and she knows nothing about this—absolutely nothing. Is there anything in the legislation that requires the Minister of Health to have even a basic understanding of science or health before she makes a decision, especially in the case of a minister who attends CropLife parties in her spare time?

[Pascal Priori]

Yes, that is our concern. The proposal in Bill C‑31 replaces a mandatory re-evaluation with an assessment that is not defined at all and is not tied to any definition in the act, which is otherwise quite well structured. Thus, a discretionary framework is being created, and the authorization of more than half of the pesticides may be extended without even a serious analysis of the scientific data.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

So we're potentially putting the health of Canadians at risk.

[Pascal Priori]

Oh, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Garon. Thank you, Mr. Priori.

We'll continue now with Ms. Jansen for five minutes.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Gratton, I have a question for you. Of the mining projects you mentioned that have been recently announced, how many were already in development before the election of March 2025?

[Pierre Gratton]

I didn't announce any projects. What do you mean?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

You mentioned just now the amazing projects that are going forward.

[Pierre Gratton]

There was a project in Quebec that reached a milestone a year earlier than the previous project that was in the queue.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Of the mining projects you mentioned, how many of them were already in the queue before the election?

[Pierre Gratton]

Off the top of my head, I don't know.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

It's my understanding that it was all of them.

How many had received their principal environmental approvals prior to the election?

[Pierre Gratton]

I didn't come prepared for these sorts of questions because they are not relevant to the bill.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

You were just mentioning that you're seeing a lot of movement, and I'm just wondering—