A coalition of public interest organizations, scientists, and environmental advocates is calling on the federal government to reverse amendments to Canada’s pesticide legislation, warning that changes contained in Bill C-30 could weaken health and environmental protections while reducing regulatory transparency.
The criticism comes as Bill C-30, an omnibus financial bill, passed its third reading in the House of Commons after the government limited debate and amendments last week before it ended the session for summer break. Advocacy groups say the pesticide provisions, combined with related measures in Bill C-31, represent the most significant overhaul of Canada’s pesticide regulatory framework in more than two decades.
Organizations including the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), Ecojustice and the David Suzuki Foundation argue the amendments were introduced without public consultation and bypassed detailed review by parliamentary health and environment committees.
“Accepting Bill C-30 means that Canada’s pesticide law will be based on financial considerations rather than health and the environment,” said Jane McArthur, director of CAPE’s Preventing Toxic Exposures Program. “This undemocratic process leaves us with harms that we reject.”
Subscribe to our Newsletter!
The latest environmental engineering news direct to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Among the changes criticized by opponents are provisions that would require Health Canada to consider economic and food security factors when making pesticide registration decisions. Critics say the legislation provides little guidance on how those considerations would be defined or weighed against health and environmental risks.
The amendments would also give cabinet authority to override decisions by the federal health minister and authorize the use of pesticides found to pose unacceptable environmental risks.
“Giving cabinet the power to authorize the use of pesticides despite unacceptable risks is a dangerous departure from science-based decision-making,” said Lisa Gue, national policy manager with the David Suzuki Foundation. “It signals that environmental protections are optional, inviting further politicization of pesticide regulation.”
The debate also extends to new provisions affecting pesticide safety information for agricultural workers.
Last year, UFCW Canada, represented by Ecojustice, launched legal action against Health Canada over its alleged failure to enforce requirements under the Pest Control Products Act requiring pesticide manufacturers to provide safety data sheets. The documents contain information on chemical hazards, first-aid measures, and product ingredients.
In June 2026, weeks before a scheduled court hearing, the federal government approved regulatory changes that allow manufacturers to provide safety data sheets on a voluntary basis rather than as a mandatory requirement.
“Health Canada is leaving agricultural workers, who are often migrant workers, without access to critical information about the chemicals they are handling,” said Ecojustice lawyer Ian Miron.
He further argued the changes could increase workplace health risks while placing an unfair burden on workers who already face limited labour and immigration protections.
The Senate committee reviewing Bill C-30 also raised concerns about the process, stating in its report that the significance and potential consequences of the pesticide amendments warranted separate study rather than inclusion in an omnibus bill.
The federal Pest Control Products Act, enacted in 2002, was designed primarily to protect human health and the environment. Opponents of the amendments say the proposed changes shift the balance of the legislation away from those objectives and are urging the government to revisit the measures.
