@andrewlewisfc.bsky.social:
PM Carney: “Yes there are challenges in the world, but this is what we’re for – deregulating pesticides. On a day like today, in a province like this, you can’t help but be optimistic and positive about increasing carbon emissions, and we’ve got a lot of positive work to do like exterminating Orcas”
@sarobertson.bsky.social:
PM Carney: “What’s great about this is this is a positive agenda. Yes, there are challenges in the world, but this is what we’re for. On a day like today, in a province like this, you can’t help but be optimistic and positive, and we’ve got a lot of positive work to do.”
@sustainablesong.bsky.social:
I can already anticipate the Carney cultists angrily insisting that we have to welcome consuming more pesticides without our knowledge to protect us from Trump.
@christyceeck.bsky.social:
… This is an important read.
Mark Carney is once again prioritizing corporate interests over the health and wellbeing of Canadians. He really is PM Goldman Sachs.
These changes to pesticide regulation are bananas.
… Carney is clearly pro-deregulation and looks for something Canadians will accept as a rationale. This really is disaster capitalism.
@lucindacatchlove.bsky.social:
And seem to be directly copying Trump’s deregulation in the US!
@christyceeck.bsky.social:
Yup, privatizing like the British and deregulating like the Americans.
He is Canada “Greed is good” PM.
Patricia:
The litmus test for Carney’s domestic policies: If Harper or Poilievre were doing it, would it be acceptable? Every time someone defends the Carney government’s apparent ideology that the economy trumps everything, that is the question that should be asked.
@raedeeton.bsky.social:
There is an excellent article in @motherjones.com on the use of Roundup and it being a cancer-causing pesticide. It is approved in Canada.
We Are Bombarding America’s Forests With Roundup, Scientists are wary of glyphosate. MAHA loathes it. And our yearlong investigation shows California is spraying it everywhere by Nate Halverson, May+June 2026 Issue Mother Jones
The Secret Plan to Cover the World in Herbicide 21:49 Min by Mother Jones, April 27, 2026
MUST WATCH
Canada does same to our forests – spray with glyphosate (or let industry spray) which kills the deciduous trees like aspen (and everything else) which mitigate wildfires, farmers flood their fields (where our foods come from) with it, and homeowners flooded their yards with the cancer-causing, brain damaging shit. Homo stupidio.
“It’s damaging to people, it’s damaging to biodiversity, and the system operated for thousands of years without it. There’s no reason why we can’t do the tending and learn how to live in these ecosystems without the harm and the incredible damage that they produce. … I worry about the people doing the spraying. A lot of them don’t speak English. The spraying people are getting hodgkin’s lymphoma.”
Scientist Naomi Oreskes:
“I mean, we’re really in a crucial moment here with glyphosate because you see the depths to which the defenders of glyphosate are going. If they poisoned the well of scientific debate, maybe they actually poisoned our literal wells as well. Because honestly, if this product was as safe as they said, then why did they feel they needed to manipulate the scientific literature?“
“It’s in the water, it’s in the forest, and yeah, it’s probably in you.”
@tryangregory.bsky.social:
Carney fans, we’re begging you. See him for who he is. Start pushing back. Please.
Mark Carney’s pesticide policy could put the economy ahead of your health by Althia Raj, May 16, 2026, Toronto Star
Althia Raj is a national politics columnist for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: @althiaraj
Prime Minister Mark Carney is quietly bringing-in sweeping reforms to the pesticides law, making it more difficult for the government to ensure that the air you breathe, the water you drink and the food you eat is safe from dangerous toxins.
Buried in two omnibus financial bills are provisions that overhaul the Pest Control Products Act. They change the health minister’s mandate to include economic considerations — not just risks to human health and the environment; they grant cabinet the power to overrule a minister who refuses to approve a pesticide or who determines that a pesticide currently in use is too dangerous for the environment, and they prevent that minister from launching a review on the harmful effects of that pesticide for up to six years. The proposed changes also eliminate legislated reviews of pesticides, raise the bar to launch formal re-evaluations, increasing the possibility that a product could be on the market for decades without any re-evaluation of its health and environmental risks.
“The changes that are being proposed basically will rewrite the entire purpose of the legislation from one that’s supposed to be precautionary, and public health and environmental-protection forward to one that tries to trim its sails to the developments going on in the United States,” said Jason MacLean, a researcher at the University of Chicago Law School and a witness in pesticide litigation.
“There’ll be no scientific precaution required now, because the minister can just come to a discretionary decision,” he said.
Some of the reforms — namely, cabinet’s power to overrule the minister and changes to product re-evaluation — are so contentious that the industry’s main voice, CropLife CanadaAffiliated with CropScience? Glyphosate pimp?, stressed to the Star that it did not request those changes.
“We did not ask for this,” CropLife Canada’s president and CEO Pierre Petelle said.
What the industry did ask for is the change in the minister’s mandate.
“We want … it to become a standard requirement that the agency looks at the economic considerations of a product when making its final decision,” said Petelle.Well you glyphosate-pimping douche fucker, you may as well have by demanding that, you inhumane greedy turd!! It’s evil to hide behind trusted words like “crop” and “science” when peddling a deadly chemical (glyphosate) linked to causing cancer and brain damage. You fucker, I can’t repeat that often enough.
Pesticides in Canada are covered by the Pest Control Products Act. Herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, rodenticidesthink strychnine, which Canada recently banned (in 2024), but Fucker Carney broke the ban, illegally letting Alberta and Saskatchewan use it for Richardson Ground squirrel, putting many listed species, pets, wildlife, humans at risk, their active ingredients and product formulations, are considered “legal poisons,” said University of Saskatchewan Biology Professor Christy Morrissey. “They are designed to kill things and would not be allowed for release under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or the Health Act. So pesticide regulation is based on an assessment of what is “acceptable risk” not whether a chemical is “safe,” and ultimately (it) boils down to a cost-benefit analysis,” she said.
For a pesticide to be legally manufactured, used, or sold in Canada, it must be approved by the health minister, and the regulations state the “primary objective” is to “prevent unacceptable risks to individuals and the environment.” That standard is high; risks are only acceptable, “if there is reasonable certainty that no harm to human health, future generations or the environment will result from exposure to or use of the product, taking into account its conditions or proposed conditions of registration.”
It is arguable whether that standard is often, or even frequently met.
But under Bill C-30, the health minister will now consider, “as appropriate, national economic security, regional economic security or national food security” in the decision making.
Petelle believes the change will ensure farmers factor more in the minister’s decision making, both in terms of speeding up approval for new products and forcing new considerations when pesticides are reviewed and found to be too harmful.You are a fucking idiot. I have no respect for you demanding greedy often ignorant farmers getting power over poison use in Canadas. FFS
“If the knee-jerk reaction is that product needs to be removed, or those uses need to be removed off of the label, what we’re saying is let’s have a conversation, let’s … (see) are there ways of applying the product differently? … Let’s try to work to keep this important tool in the hands of farmers but address the risk.”WTF! Farmers and strychine? Most don’t give a shit what other species they wipe out with their over exuberant strychnine and glyphosate use
This is the least controversial measure.
Under the proposed legislation, cabinet can overrule a minister who won’t approve a product because it carries unacceptable environmental risks, or who wants to outlaw a product already in use because its environmental risks are unacceptable. These moves would be done without public consultation, without considerations clearly outlined, possibly for a period of up to nine years, and would be shielded from parliamentary scrutiny. It would make cabinet ministers more likely to be lobbied by industry, while shielding the health minister from lawsuits.
Cabinet could overrule a minister if a “serious detrimental infestation” occurs and a pesticide is necessary to protect national economic security, regional economic security, or food security; as well as through a much broader measure, if cabinet feels that keeping a product initially approved helps “protect national economic security, regional economic security, or national food security.”
Once overruled, the health minister is barred from further reviewing the products — for a period of up to six years — even if the minister comes across new information that would normally prompt a review.
“There are no guardrails,” said Lisa Gue, the manager for national policy at the David Suzuki Foundation.
“It’s concentrating power in the executive branch that lacks the expertise to make that decision.”
What’s perhaps even more concerning are the wholesale changes to the way products are evaluated, with a new regime that does away with mandatory 15-year reviews and makes it possible for a pesticide, once on the market, to never be re-evaluated.
“It’s a little bit of a problem because they’re already approved on partial information,” said Michael Brewster, a senior director at public affairs firm Mercure, who worked on the pesticide file during the last Liberal government. “If you’re not having a trigger to review it, you should at least ensure that the first review, before putting it in the market, is more stringent.”
Now, the minister will only “assess” risks on the basis of available information and will only launch a re-evaluation if there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that risks have “increased significantly.” The minister is not duty-bound to seek new information or ask the company for its most recent data.
Bronwyn Roe, the healthy communities program director at Ecojustice, suggests the government’s efforts are misplaced.
“Pesticide exposure can have a broad range of health impacts including cancer, endocrine disruption, reproductive toxicity, cognitive impacts…(and) pesticide sales in Canada increased by 47 per cent between 2011 and 2021,” she said. “We do not have a problem with not enough pesticides getting to market — we have a pesticide overuse problem.”
***
Marg:
I am so disappointed in Carney. I mistakenly believed he was a liberal, and voted for him. Politicans should be required to clearly state their policies Before the election, and be removed when they change for no reason. Carney presented himself as positive toward environmental protection — and now he does this And Alto. There has been some progress toward banning or curtailing glyphosate, a known carcinogen, from use by agribusiness and forestry but I guess Carney has protected the industry, not the consumer yet again.
Vanessa:
This boggles my mind.
1- why do the liberals always hide changes to health regulations in financial bills? They tried to do this with changes to supplement manufacturing and regulations.
2- this is akin to spraying our forests with glyphosate’s (drying forests out, killing animals, moisture retaining plants and insects). The process of increasing chemicals without consulting experts (or Canadians) on the long term damage to health of citizens or nature is abhorrent
3- pesticides and chemicals fly in the face of the liberals emissions goals. Their production is derived from fossil fuels, they disrupt the soil and degrade natural carbon capture processing, they release VOCs into the air, plus increase chemicals load in food supplies – all of this increasing health risks to farmers and Canadians, adding to economic burden
None of this makes any environmental or economic sense.
Robert:
Pretty much everything Carney has announced has put us in peril, whether ecologically, financially, health, etc. Free market capitalists believe they should be allowed to do what they want, and the gov pay to clean up their mess, deal with health issues and dish “grocery” money here and there so the population does not starve. Sadly, the other major party pushes the same corp initiatives, so we are doomed as voters never learn
Joe:
Forget the environment. Forget public health. Forget the future of our children.
Carney’s all about money for the military and fossil fuels.
Never again will I vote for Carney.
Brad:
Keep doing what you are doing. Governments who disregard science and health at the expense of average citizens and future generations must be held accountable at the onset and not twenty or thirty years down the road!
Diana:
So much for the environment under Carney! Derailing it at every turn!
Frank Pelaschuk:
Rule of thumb for citizens: Whenever a gov’t, usually a majority, rams through an omnibus bill, be wary. Inevitably, that government is seeking to slip through legislation that the public may not approve, that whittles away safeguards, or is likely to favour a segment of society to the detriment of those paying the bills. Omnibus bills are too often bad bills and clear signs of a government that cannot be trusted. Think Ford, Smith, think every conservative gov’t including Carney’s.
Jake:
Carney has revealed himself as a Harper conservative. The only thing liberal about this government is its party’s name.
Darcy:
Worthy of the Trump administration.
@conorcurtis.bsky.social:
Everyone defending his deregulation is saying it’s to appease Alberta Separatists. There’s soooo much now he’s doing wrong that’s clearly not connected to that at all:
But we are told to ignore those other warning signs because it must be ‘4D chess.’ Nonsense.
Refer also to:
2025: Canada Launches Nationwide Class-Action Lawsuit Against Popular Weed Killer Brand
Gardeners across Canada may want to pay close attention to a major legal development that could impact both their health and their rights. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has officially certified a national class-action lawsuit against the makers of Roundup, a widely used glyphosate-based herbicide. This case could have far-reaching implications for individuals who have had significant exposure to the product.
The lawsuit targets Monsanto Canada ULC (now operating as Bayer CropScience Inc.), Monsanto Company, and Bayer Inc., all of which are tied to the distribution and marketing of Roundup in Canada. …
Allegations: Cancer Risk from Glyphosate Exposure
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma at the Center of the Lawsuit
The core allegation of the lawsuit is that prolonged exposure to Roundup and similar herbicides may lead to Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL)—a serious form of cancer affecting the blood, bone marrow, and lymphatic system.
The plaintiff, who serves as the representative in the class action, claims he was diagnosed with NHL in 1995 at just 17 years old. He believes his exposure to glyphosate is directly responsible for his illness and ongoing health challenges.
Failure to Warn and Alleged Misrepresentation
According to court filings, the lawsuit also claims the companies involved misrepresented the safety of glyphosate to consumers and failed to issue adequate warnings about the potential health risks. The plaintiff’s legal team argues that had the public been properly informed, many might have chosen to avoid the product altogether.
The companies named in the lawsuit strongly deny the allegations. In a joint statement, the defendants maintain that Roundup does not cause Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, referencing their ongoing commitment to product safety and scientific research.That’s how all the frac’ers talk
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The lawsuit demands compensation for both individual harm and broader punitive measures:
- $1 billion in non-pecuniary damages – for pain, suffering, and emotional distress
- $100 million under Ontario’s Family Law Act and similar laws across Canada – for affected family members
- $100 million in punitive damages – aimed at punishing the companies for alleged wrongdoing
Who Can Join the Class-Action Lawsuit?
Eligibility Criteria for Participation
This class action automatically includes individuals across Canada who meet the following criteria:
- Experienced significant exposure to Roundup before December 8, 2023
- Were diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma following that exposure, and before the same date
“Significant exposure” is defined as:
- Use of Roundup more than twice in a 12-month period
- Use of Roundup more than 10 times in a lifetime
Family Members Are Also Included
Spouses, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, or siblings of individuals diagnosed with NHL due to Roundup exposure are also eligible as part of the class.
No Immediate Action Required for Eligible Canadians
Canadians who meet the eligibility requirements are automatically included in the class action and do not need to take any immediate steps. Law firms McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP, Koskie Minsky LLP, and Merchant Law Group LLP are jointly leading the case and will provide further instructions as the case progresses.
2025: Bravo! Courageous Ontario Chiefs to seek ban on aerial spraying of glyphosate
2024: Deaths by cancer going up up up. Ever wonder why?
2021: Health Canada: Poisoning Canadians to please Monsanto/Bayer, the oil patch and frac’ers?Toxic chemical and poison use was easy enough in Canada already. Carney does NOT need to massively deregulate an already mostly unregulated poison industry.