FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

September 29, 2026

Advocates urge Senate committee to reject proposal to end mandatory post-market re-evaluation of

health and environmental risks 

 

OTTAWA/TRADITIONAL, UNCEDED TERRITORY OF THE ALGONQUIN ANISHNAABEG PEOPLE — Leading public interest organizations are warning that amendments to federal pesticide law buried in the government’s second budget bill would significantly weaken oversight of pesticide risks. Parliamentary hearings on the Bill C-31 amendments to the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA) begin today, at the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

The government is proposing to remove the mandatory requirement for cyclical re-evaluation of registered pesticides. Re-evaluations are the primary mechanism for comprehensive post-market review of pesticide risks. Advocates warn that removing this requirement would fundamentally weaken federal pesticide oversight and hamper the government’s ability to identify and prevent risks to human health and the environment.

Regular re-evaluations ensure pesticide risks are re-assessed against current evidence, methods and information about how products are actually being used. Without mandatory cyclical reviews, the default could become inaction, leaving outdated risk assessments in place and undermining public and market confidence in Canada’s pesticide regulatory system.

The groups also note that there has been no formal consultation on the PCPA amendments in Bill C-31 and argue that changes of this significance should not be buried in an omnibus budget bill.

This is the second major rollback of federal pesticide protections in 2026. Earlier this year, another omnibus finance bill (C-30) gave Cabinet new powers to override pesticide restrictions following a scientific risk assessment.

The groups are urging parliamentarians to reject the PCPA amendments in Bill C-31.

Quotes:

Cassie Barker, senior program manager at Environmental Defence, said: 

“Canadians want stronger rules to protect our health, nature, and species — backed by science. No one asked for these changes to our laws except the pesticide and chemical companies already gouging farmers and posting record profits.”

Lisa Gue, national policy manager at the David Suzuki Foundation, said: 

“These changes amount to the biggest rollback of federal pesticide protections in a generation. Regular reviews are the safeguard that forces government to revisit pesticides approved years or even decades ago using current science. Scrap that requirement, and outdated risk assessments could be left on the books indefinitely, even as evidence changes and harms become clearer.”

Dr. Trevor Hancock, representative at the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) and retired professor and senior scholar at the University of Victoria, said: 

“When it comes to pesticides, we need stronger protections, not weaker ones. People in Canada expect and deserve a pesticide regulatory system that puts human health and environmental protection first. Eliminating mandatory 15-year re-evaluations of pesticides removes the critical safeguard of Health Canada assessments of new scientific evidence and evolving standards. If the proposed changes in Bill C-31 pass, this would represent a major step backwards in Canada for science-based pesticide protections to human health and the environment.”

Mary Lou McDonald, president of Safe Food Matters Inc., said:

“Re-evaluations are the only institutional check to ensure the regulator is behaving, and that the science still holds years later. Why? Because regulators are prone to capture, and science by its nature evolves.  We can’t remove institutional mechanisms for accountability just because things are taking too long. The answer is to fix the process, not remove protections.”

Bronwyn Roe, program director, Healthy Communities at Ecojustice, said: 

“Mandatory re-evaluations are how we catch harms that were missed, or that emerged, after a pesticide was approved. Dropping this amendment from Bill C-31 would preserve independent, science-based oversight and send a signal that health and environmental protections can’t be quietly traded away in budget bills. A regulatory system that stops revisiting its own decisions loses the confidence of the public and of the markets that depend on it.”

Thibault Rehn, general director of Vigilance OGM, said: 

‘’After allowing itself the possibility of reintroducing banned pesticides to the detriment of science, the Carney government now wants to give a blank check to agrochemical companies by eliminating the cyclical evaluation of pesticides—this is scandalous.‘’

Pascal Priori, coordinator of Victimes des pesticides du Québec at Association pour la santé publique du Québec, said:

“While more and more farmers are suffering from neurodegenerative illnesses such as Parkinson’s disease and cancers, how can we explain the government’s decision to put their health at further risk? Pesticides victims cannot accept that.”

Sarah Laframboise, executive director of Evidence for Democracy, said:

“Changes this consequential deserve a democratic process that matches their significance. Bill C-31 would replace mandatory pesticide re-evaluations with a system that gives government more discretion over when a full review happens, yet these amendments were introduced through an omnibus budget bill without a dedicated public consultation or debate. Canadians should be able to see how these decisions are made, why they are made, and what evidence they are based on.”

Beatrice Olivastri, CEO of Friends of the Earth Canada, said:

“Canadians have been subject to a dark legacy of pesticides now banned – think of DDT which heavily harmed wildlife, aquatic ecosystems and bird reproduction as well as posing long-term health risks to humans, Carbofuran which is extremely toxic to birds and wildlife, reductions in the use of neonicotinoids which are harmful to pollinators – all once widely used.  Bill C-31’s proposal to remove the mandatory post-market re-evaluation of the science behind registered pesticides will expose Canadians and our environment to unacceptable risks from pesticides.”

Lucy Sharratt, coordinator at the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, said:

“Federal regulators need to be empowered to ensure the safety of these corporate products for our health and environment. It’s backwards to empty out regulations designed to examine the most up-to-date science.”

Ian Culbert, executive director of the Canadian Public Health Association, said:

“Pesticides can pose serious risks to human health, including cancer and reproductive and developmental harms. The current re-evaluation process provides a critical safeguard by requiring older pesticide registrations to be reconsidered against current science and contemporary health and environmental standards. Regulatory efficiency matters, but so does continuing assurance that the products Canadians are exposed to remain acceptable as the evidence evolves.”

-30-

 

Notes to editors: 

The “Silent Spring” amendments in Bill C-31 come on the heels of a separate set of amendments to the Pest Control Products Act. Bill C-30, another omnibus finance bill passed in June 2026, granted Cabinet the power to override Health Canada pesticide risk-management decisions and allow continued use of a pesticide despite a finding that its risks are unacceptable. It also requires the minister to consider economic and food security factors in certain pesticide decisions.

Taken together, these two sets of PCPA amendments raise serious concerns about science-based decision-making, democratic process, and health and environmental protections.

Representatives of the Canadian Public Health Association, Environmental Defence, and National Farmers Union will appear before the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on October 1.

“Silent Spring” refers to Rachel Carson’s landmark 1962 book which documented the harmful impacts of pesticides on wildlife, particularly birds, and helped galvanize modern environmental awareness. The reference draws a parallel between Carson’s warning about poorly controlled pesticide use and concerns about weakening pesticide oversight today.

The Senate previously raised concerns about the process used to amend federal pesticide law through Bill C-30, observing: “Bill C-30, as an omnibus bill amending several non-financial statutes, was considered within a limited time frame that restricted opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny. […]. Given the significance and potential repercussions of these changes, the committee believes they should have warranted a separate study rather than being included in an omnibus bill.”

Background information:

• Information note on concerns with the amendments to the Pest Control Products Act in Bill C-31.
• Letter to Finance Minister Champagne, May 22, 2026, concerning amendments to the Pest Control Products Act in Bills C-30 and C-31.
• More than 9,000 Canadians have already signed a parliamentary petition calling for the pesticides provisions in Bill C-31 to be removed and those adopted through Bill C-30 to be reversed. Petition e-7742 is open for signature until November 3, 2026.