Safe Food Matters joins other health, environmental, legal and agricultural organizations urging the federal government to remove proposed amendments to the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA) from Bill C-30 and Bill C-31.
The groups warn that the changes weaken scientific and democratic accountability. They weaken Canada’s pesticide oversight system, reduce independent scientific scrutiny, and give politicians greater influence over decisions traditionally guided by scientific evidence.
The PCPA is the federal law that governs how pesticides are assessed, registered and regulated in Canada. Since 2002, the PCPA has been guided by a core principle: pesticides should only be approved when it has been shown with scientific evidence that NO HARM would arise to people, the environment or future generations from their use.
The amendments proposed in Bills C-30 and C-31 would represent the most significant overhaul of Canada’s pesticide regulatory framework in a generation.
What Would Change?
Among the most concerning proposals:
Bill C-30: Allows Political Whims to Override Scientific Decision-Making
Bill C-30 would give Cabinet the authority to override certain science-based decisions made by the Minister of Health regarding pesticide use, and emphasize economic considerations, which should not come into safety decisions.
Under the proposed amendments, politicians could permit the continued use of pesticides despite scientific findings that they pose unacceptable environmental risks, if they are introduced on an emergency basis. It also allows for the Minister in their decision-making to consider undefined objectives such as “national economic security,” “regional economic security,” or “national food security.”
SFM and the groups argue that these broad and undefined terms could allow political considerations to outweigh scientific evidence when decisions about pesticide safety are made.
The changes assume politicians know better than scientists about solutions to pest problems. They are based on a narrative that climate change and security issues require it. However, these tools are not needed – the law already allows for the emergency use of pesticides in the Regulations, and for consideration of economic impact in the value assessment under the PCPA. And they are dangerous – the undefined claims of “security” allow economic and trade agendas to override scientific proof of ensuing harm and open the door to abuse of power and undue influence on politicians.
Bill C-31: Elimination of Mandatory Re-evaluations
Bill C-31 would remove the current requirement that registered pesticides undergo comprehensive scientific re-evaluations initiated every 15 years with public input.
These periodic reviews were established to ensure pesticide approvals remain consistent with the latest scientific evidence, changes in usage patterns, and emerging information about long-term health or environmental impacts. They also allow for public input to the decision-making, serving as a check on the scientific approach of Health Canada.
The proposed replacement — a more limited assessment process based on available information and requiring a finding that risks have “increase significantly” — raises concerns that important risks could go undetected and that comprehensive reviews may be delayed or never initiated. There is no definition of “significance.”
Importantly, the replacement raises the real possibility that meaningful public participation will be gone. The public is not allowed to see the data underlying scientific decision when they are approved, but can when they are re-evaluated. No re-evaluations will mean no public participation so no check.
Why It Matters
Like democracy, the framework for pesticide decision making relies on public input, evidence-based information, and decisions that align with the public interest and are protected by the rule of law. Handing power to politicians to make pesticide decisions under Bill C-30 completely disregards this established framework and allows for autocratic and arbitrary decision-making and abuse of power.
Scientific understanding evolves over time. New evidence about environmental impacts, chronic health effects, cumulative exposures, and ecological consequences often emerges years after a pesticide first enters the market, and the public can bring such evidence to the attention of the regulator.
Mandatory re-evaluations help ensure that pesticide approvals remain current and that regulatory decisions reflect the best available science, and allow for a public checks on decisions and public scrutiny of underlying evidence. Removing re-evaluations allows for continued exposure to pesticides that remain on the market even though they cause harm.
Undemocratic and Perhaps Illegal Process
These sweeping changes are being advanced through omnibus budget legislation rather than through a dedicated review of pesticide policy. Amendments of this magnitude should be subject to full parliamentary study, expert review and public consultation before becoming law. The law currently states that the PCPA should be reviewed on a regular basis, and this review is well overdue.
The proposed amendments were introduced without broad public consultation and could significantly alter how pesticide decisions are made in Canada for years to come.
And the amendments may be illegal. Bill C-30 is about implementing the Spring Economic Update, and Bill C-31 is about implementing budget proposals. So in substance they are about the implementation of economic plans. The changes to the PCPA are significant policy changes that require democratic debate — legal principles say they do not belong in such omnibus legislation.
Safe Food Matters Calls for Action
SFM supports the groups’ recommendation that the proposed amendments be removed from Bills C-30 and C-31 and that any significant changes to Canada’s pesticide regulatory system undergo proper public consultation and parliamentary review.
Canadians who are concerned about protecting science-based pesticide regulation, public health and environmental safeguards and democratic processes are encouraged to contact your Members of Parliament and ask them to oppose these amendments.
The group letter, signed by Safe Food Matters and numerous organizations across Canada, can be read below.
2026-05-26 Letter to Minister Champagne – PCPA amendments in Bills C-30 and C-31
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
