Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Bill
Second Reading
June 18, 2026
Moved second reading of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026.
She said: Honourable senators, I rise at second reading of Bill C-30 to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update 2026.
Like many budget bills before us, Bill C-30 is another omnibus bill. It amends a broad range of statutes, some fiscal in nature and too many that are not. That fact alone calls for careful scrutiny.
But my concern today is not about the size of the bill. It is about one specific and particular part of the bill that, in my opinion, has not received the attention it deserves: Division 8 of Part 3, which proposes significant amendments to the Pest Control Products Act.
Colleagues, throughout my professional and academic career and during my time in this chamber, I have worked on issues relating to dangerous substances, environmental contamination, toxicology and their impacts on ecosystems and on human health. It is from that perspective that I rise today.
It is not to oppose farmers, not to oppose innovation and not to oppose economic development; it is quite on the contrary. I believe Canada can have a strong agriculture sector, a competitive economy, thriving exports and robust food security. But I also believe these objectives are achieved because our public policy is guided by evidence, transparency and sound science.
The Pest Control Products Act was built on a simple yet important principle: Pesticides are substances deliberately designed to kill micro-organisms and macro-organisms. Before they are placed on the market, independent scientific experts evaluate whether the risks they pose to human health and the environment are acceptable.
That is why pesticide regulation in Canada has historically been entrusted to Health Canada and to scientific assessment processes insulated from political pressures. The purpose of the system is clear: Economic interests may be considered in many areas of public policy, but the determination of whether a pesticide is safe enough to be used should remain a scientific determination.
Bill C-30 changes this principle. The bill would require the Minister of Health to consider economic security and food security in certain decisions under the act. It would also create a mechanism allowing cabinet to authorize the use of a pesticide even after Health Canada scientists have determined that its environmental risks are unacceptable. Furthermore, cabinet could reinstate products whose registrations had previously been cancelled because of those risks.
These are not technical amendments. They represent a fundamental shift in who decides and on what basis decisions are made.
During the pre-study at the National Finance Committee hearings, senators repeatedly sought clarification on this very basic question: What exactly does “economic security” and “food security” mean? Officials admitted these terms are not defined in the legislation. They may eventually be elaborated through future policy or regulations.
In other words, Parliament is being asked — again — to grant broad new powers without knowing precisely how the key concepts governing those powers will be interpreted.
Good legislation is built on clarity. Good governance is built on transparency. Public trust is built on accountability. When key concepts are left undefined, discretion expands and accountability diminishes.
We were also told that these powers would be used only in exceptional circumstances. Yet the legislation suggests something quite different. A pesticide deemed to present unacceptable environmental risks could be authorized for three years, extended for another three years and then kept available during a phase-out for up to nine years in total. That is not an emergency situation. Actually, it resembles more of a parallel approval pathway operating alongside the scientific process and with the capacity to override it.
The scientific literature on pesticides and human health is extensive and continues to grow. For decades, researchers around the world have studied the associations between pesticide exposure and adverse health outcomes. Hundreds of peer‑reviewed studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have linked pesticide exposure to increased risks of certain cancers, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, leukemia and prostate cancer. Other studies have reported links with Parkinson’s disease, neurodevelopmental disorders, endocrine disruption, reproductive effects, liver dysfunction and damage to the nervous system.
The point is not that every pesticide causes every disease, nor is it that every study reaches identical conclusions. The point is that scientific risk assessment matters precisely because pesticides are biologically active substances whose effects can be complex, cumulative and sometimes only fully understood after many years of research. Indeed, many pesticides that were once considered safe were later restricted or banned as scientific understanding evolved.
Do you remember DDT? It came from the chemical weapons industry and was used extensively during the Vietnam War to defoliate entire trees. When the war ended, there were large stocks of this toxic substance, and DDT found a commercial application as a pesticide.
History teaches us important lessons, and we need to prioritize the precautionary approach, particularly when human and environmental health are at stake. When uncertainty exists about substances designed to kill living organisms, weakening scientific safeguards is rarely a prudent course of action.
The burden should not fall on Canadians to prove harm after acute or chronic exposure. The burden should remain on regulators to demonstrate safety before approval. This is why independent scientific reviews are so important, and this is why the authority to override scientific conclusions should be approached with extreme caution.
As an engineer who has managed infrastructure projects, I know how important the economic dimension is and that it deserves great attention. Supporters of these amendments argue that they are necessary to protect food security and economic security. Yet, the evidence presented to senators suggests that a little bit of the opposite risk may also exist.
Canada is one of the world’s largest agricultural exporters. Our producers compete successfully because international customers trust the quality, reliability and safety of Canadian products. That trust is one of our most valuable economic assets. We cannot lose this, colleagues.
Our Prime Minister has repeatedly emphasized the need to diversify Canada’s trading relationships and reduce excessive dependence on one single market, and I completely agree. Expanding opportunities in Europe and Asia is in Canada’s national interest. However, many of those markets apply stringent pesticide standards. The European Union, for example, follows a more precautionary regulatory approach than Canada.
When importing countries perceive regulatory systems as independent, science-based and free from political influence, confidence increases. When political considerations appear capable of overriding scientific determinations, confidence erodes. Confidence, once lost, is difficult to recover. You know that from personal experience. We have seen it before.
Canadian agricultural exporters have previously experienced market disruptions when products approved domestically failed to meet the expectations of foreign buyers. The lesson is simple: Approvals granted in Canada do not determine what foreign markets will accept. Weakening confidence in our regulatory system does not strengthen our competitiveness; it may undermine it.
The irony is that many stakeholders acknowledged during briefings that the principal challenge facing the regulatory system is not excessive scientific rigour; it is capacity. If approvals take too long, the solution is not to weaken the scientific basis. The solution is to improve efficiency. If departments require additional resources, then provide them with more resources. If processes can be modernized, then modernize them. However, creating mechanisms that allow scientific determinations to be overridden addresses neither efficiency nor capacity. It changes the very nature of decision making itself.
Colleagues, as mentioned, these amendments arrived within a budget omnibus bill. They were not introduced through stand‑alone legislation. They were not studied by committees with expertise in health, the environment and agriculture. The Minister of Health did not appear to explain why these significant changes are necessary. Scientists and public health experts had no opportunity to give evidence, nor did public health or environmental experts.
For a reform of this magnitude, that should concern us. The Senate exists precisely for situations such as this. We are asked to look beyond urgency, political timelines and immediate pressures. Our role is to examine legislation carefully and to ask whether Parliament has fully considered the consequences of its decisions.
Colleagues, this debate is not ultimately about pesticides. It’s about governance. It’s about whether scientific conclusions should remain the foundation of health and environmental protection. It is about whether evidence-based decision making remains a cornerstone of Canadian public policy. It is about whether governments should possess the authority to override scientific determinations whenever undefined economic considerations are invoked.
Science does not make political decisions. It is a capacity. If approvals take too long, the answer is not to weaken science; it is to strengthen the system. The credibility of our institutions depends on maintaining this distinction.
I recognize the importance of food security. I recognize the challenges facing farmers. I recognize the need to strengthen Canada’s economy. Those objectives are legitimate, valid and important. However, they are not served by weakening public confidence in the scientific systems that protect Canadians and underpin our international reputation.
A prosperous economy and a healthy environment are not opposite objectives. A strong agricultural sector and rigorous scientific oversight are not opposing objectives. In fact, they depend on one another. Our farmers benefit when consumers trust Canadian products. Our exporters benefit when trading partners trust Canadian standards. Canadians benefit when decisions affecting their health are guided by evidence rather than expediency.
For all those reasons, I believe these provisions deserved a separate legislative process, a comprehensive study and a full, expert examination before Parliament was asked to approve them. I say that because the Pest Control Act was due for a statutory review, which would have offered an incredible opportunity for consultation. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
A change of this magnitude should not be buried in an omnibus bill. It should stand alone on its own merits. I know this specific provision in Bill C-30 is one of hundreds within an omnibus bill, and I know we need to implement what the government proposed in its election platform. However, I wanted to call your attention to this important matter so that we can keep track of what happens in the future.
Furthermore, you should know that these changes were not part of the electoral platform; they were only recently devised and incorporated into Bill C-30. As for the question about who requested this change, we did not receive an answer during the committee’s deliberations.
I would like to conclude by thanking the members of the National Finance Committee for accepting my observation on this important matter.
Honourable senators, Canadians and future generations will not judge us by how quickly we passed legislation. They will judge us by whether we exercised the care, diligence and foresight expected of us. The most important thing the Senate contributes isn’t speed; it’s scrutiny and wisdom.
Before we break for the summer, I would like to point out that the collective brain power gathered in this chamber is immense. I recognize that. The last thing we want, dear colleagues, is to see that grey matter wasted, underutilized or replaced one day by artificial intelligence. Instead, we need to harness it now and use it to improve our policies, strengthen our laws and increase the prosperity of all Canadians.
I wish you all happy family gatherings during the summer. Thank you. Meegwetch.
Senator Galvez, would you take a question?
Absolutely.
Thank you. Senator Galvez, in my reading of Bill C-30, I see, in clause 53(3) of the bill that the primary objective of the minister remains unchanged. I’m curious where you see the primary mandate of the minister has changed to step away from human and environmental health?
Sorry; you misinterpreted what I said. I’m not saying the mandate has changed; I’m saying there will now be exceptions. And those exceptions, as stated, can be overridden by a decision of cabinet, even though the Minister of Health has said there are risks from these pesticides.
Senator Galvez, just to be clear, do you agree with me that the primary mandate of the minister remains to focus on human and environmental health, first and foremost?
As I said, there has been no change to the mandate, but there is a change in the exceptions.
Would the senator take another question?
Absolutely.
First, I want to say how much respect the chamber holds for this particular senator, who does so much work on climate change and environmental issues.
On that note, I did read your press release of last evening related to this bill in particular and to the second reading comments you made. I did call the minister’s office to confirm that, in fact, the minister has the power to make changes within the six years you mentioned in your release. I wanted to clarify and make it more factually accurate, so I will read it for you:
Could the minister cancel the exemption within the three-year time frame if the risk to human health is deemed, or there is evidence that it is too high?
And the answer is yes. So that would be a change in what you put out publicly last evening.
Two elements I would like to have enter this part of your debate on second reading are the two amendments made before the actual bill landed in this chamber. We conducted a pre-study before the actual bill arrived. There were several amendments put forward by none other than MP Steven Guilbeault. We know he has a serious history on environmental issues, and he put forward these amendments, which, in fact, order that any changes be made public 60 days after the order is made — not whenever or not made public or in secret, but posted 60 days afterwards. That is the rationale and exactly what has been done. I think that is exactly from the comments of the committee that studied the bill in pre-study.
On that, I was hoping you might make a comment that makes you feel a little more comfortable that there is control in those changes that could be made.
Thank you very much for your comment. I didn’t hear a question, but thank you very much for that clarification.
Bravo for Steven Guilbeault, good final exiting remarks. I’m very happy.
In my speech, I said we need to track this and see what happens in reality. When these new provisions are implemented and used, I want us to keep track of what is going on to make sure that — as you said, this is not for a long period of time — if the Minister of Health says there is a risk, things will be stopped at the right moment before any damage is done to the environment or to our health. Thank you.
Honourable senators, I rise on debate on Bill C-30.
Less than three hours ago, public interest organizations joined their voices to denounce amendments to Canada’s Pest Control Products Act included in the government’s omnibus financial bill, Bill C-30, which is being propelled to the final vote in this chamber today.
The superficial and rushed movement of this bill has been enabled by motions passed earlier in the other place, curtailing debate and amendments. And why? Is it because parliamentarians want to start their summer?
Please listen to these independent organizations, dedicated to the well-being of this country’s most precious asset — the Canadian people, human beings.
The changes to Canada’s pesticide law in Bill C-30, along with others introduced in a separate budget implementation bill, Bill C-31, represent the largest overhaul of Canada’s pesticide regulatory system in a generation. This comes after Bill C-5, after Parliament gave the cabinet the power to eliminate key environmental standards under the Species at Risk Act and the Impact Assessment Act.
This broad coalition of civil society organizations concerned with protecting human health and the environment, along with advocates for evidence-informed decision making and independent scientists, has called for these amendments to the Pest Control Products Act to be removed, highlighting that there was no consultation or opportunity for study by Parliament’s Health and Environment committees.
Our Senate committee noted in its report:
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.
The coalition stated:
The Pest Control Products Act was passed in 2002. Its primary purpose is to protect human health and the environment. However, the C-30 amendments grant cabinet broad authority to overrule the Health Minister and permit the use of a pesticide found to have unacceptable environmental risks. The amendments will also require Health Canada to consider “economic security” —
— not defined —
— and “food security” —
— not defined —
— when making decisions about pesticide registration, without specifying definitions or processes for doing so.
Please listen and think carefully about your children, grandchildren and generations to come. This is a time to apply the Indigenous principle of planning Seven Generations ahead.
Lisa Gue of the David Suzuki Foundation has this to say to you:
Perhaps the government realized that these changes to Canada’s pesticide law would not hold up to scrutiny. Giving cabinet the power to authorize the use of pesticides despite unacceptable risks is a dangerous departure from science-based decision-making. It signals that environmental protections are optional, inviting further politicization of pesticide regulation, and a worrying disregard for potential health and environmental consequences.
Pascal Priori of the Association pour la santé publique du Québec and Victimes des pesticides du Québec said:
As more and more agricultural workers suffer from neurodegenerative diseases or cancers linked to their exposure to pesticides on the job, the Carney administration’s rush to further deregulate pesticides is unjustifiable and erodes confidence in our regulatory system.
Pamela Fillion of Breast Cancer Action Quebec said:
We are deeply concerned about the weakening of pesticide protections in Canada, particularly from an environmental justice perspective. The burden and impacts of toxic exposures are not carried equally. Workers and low-income, racialized and Indigenous communities are most affected. . . . Additionally, many pesticides are known to contain endocrine disruptors which are scientifically recognized to harm bodies in ways that contribute to breast cancer and reproductive disorders that affect current generations and generations to come. Strengthening, not weakening, regulatory safeguards is essential to reducing these inequities and to preventing avoidable harm to human health and ecosystems.
Jane McArthur of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment said:
Without any public consultation, we are being forced to accept escalating toxic hazards and real-world harm — including increased miscarriages, rising neurological disease, contaminated ecosystems, and weaker protections for children, workers and Indigenous peoples. Accepting Bill C-30 means that Canada’s pesticide law will be based on financial considerations rather than health and the environment. This undemocratic process leaves us with harms that we reject. Protecting human and environmental health goes hand in hand with addressing climate change, biodiversity loss, and reducing people’s exposure to toxic pollution, including harmful pesticides. . . .
Ian Culbert of the Canadian Public Health Association said:
Canada’s pesticide law exists to protect human health and the environment. These amendments would weaken that foundation by allowing broad economic considerations and political discretion to override independent scientific assessment. Decisions about pesticides must be transparent, evidence-informed and subject to proper public and parliamentary scrutiny — not rushed through an omnibus budget bill. The federal government should withdraw these changes and undertake the full independent review of the Pest Control Products Act that has long been needed.
Bronwyn Roe, Healthy Communities Program Director at Ecojustice — an organization supporting the three young women who initiated litigation against the Canadian government this week for the high risk to their health and futures — said:
The government is gutting Canada’s pesticide protections by burying the changes in omnibus budget bills and bypassing democratic debate. Bill C-30 introduces amendments that lets Cabinet override the Health Minister’s science-based decisions to favour commercial interests — even when a pesticide poses unacceptable risks. This has happened with no public hearings and no expert testimony. When science can be vetoed by Cabinet, Canadians should understand exactly whose interests are being served. It isn’t theirs.
Cassie Barker of Environmental Defence said:
Canada’s pesticide law exists to protect our health and our environment. These egregious changes undermine that purpose. We urge the federal government to undo these destructive amendments and raise the bar on safety, because people in Canada deserve nothing less.
Félix Proulx-Giraldeau of Evidence for Democracy said:
Decisions about our health and pesticides should be based on strong science and not rushed through Parliament without proper review. These changes sideline evidence and weaken the protections that keep people and the environment safe. Canadians deserve transparent, evidence-informed decision-making they can trust.
Beatrice Olivastri of Friends of the Earth Canada said:
By forcing Bills C-30 and C-31 through Parliament in a single omnibus package, the Government is putting corporate profits ahead of public health and democratic debate. Buried in these bills are sweeping changes that would let the Cabinet override independent, science-based safety assessments. Canadians deserve affordable, safe food, transparent oversight and strong public science – not more power and profits for multinational pesticide and agribusiness companies.
Phil Mount of the National Farmers Union said:
As farmers we are acutely aware of pesticide impacts on our own health and that of our families, neighbours, customers and our agro-ecosystems. . . .
Melanie Langille of the New Brunswick Lung Association said:
NB Lung views strong environmental regulation as an important public health tool. These amendments would move Canada in the wrong direction by weakening protections in a system that already does not adequately reflect the needs of people with underlying health vulnerabilities, including asthma, COPD and other lung conditions. Decisions that affect environmental exposures should be transparent, evidence-based, and centred on preventing avoidable harm.
Meg Sears of Prevent Cancer Now said:
Ballooning use of diverse pesticides is clearly contributing to rapidly increasing cancers, in younger and younger Canadians. Canada has registered hundreds of pesticides, in thousands of products. Canada’s strong organic agriculture sector demonstrates that these are unnecessary. Substantial changes introduced in time-limited omnibus bills amount to dereliction of due process and science-based management of toxic chemicals to punt assessment for scientific review from Health Canada experts, to the Health Minister. Abandoning science-based pesticide regulation in C-30 and C-31, with no substantive debate, must be abandoned in favour of the overdue review of the Pest Control Products Act.
Mary Lou McDonald of Safe Food Matters said:
These changes are unlawful — they have no fiscal component and nothing to do with the budget. They are outside the rule of law — it is a criminal offence to use harmful pesticides in Canada, but here untrained politicians can completely sweep that away without legal recourse. And they shut down democracy — no Parliamentary debate, no public consultation on changes directly affecting Canadians and the environment. And thus it was written: Canada has become an oligarchy, pretending to be a democracy.
Laure Mabileau of la campagne Sortir du glyphosate, Vigilance OGM, said, “This is the biggest rollback on the Pest Control Products Act ever seen . . .”
As I close, let me list for you the full set of organizations that have demonstrated their support on very short notice. It would be a much longer list if this process was better, more open, more thorough and science-based.
The supporting organizations are: Association pour la santé publique du Québec, Victimes des pesticides du Québec, Breast Cancer Action Quebec, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Canadian Public Health Association, Children’s Health Defense Canada, Citizen Science Nova Scotia, the Council of Canadians, Earth Education League, Ecojustice, Environmental Defence, Équiterre, Evidence for Democracy, Friends of the Earth Canada, Friends of Goldsmith Lake Wilderness Area, GMO Free Canada, National Farmers Union, NB Lung, Pesticide Free Edmonton, Prevent Cancer Now, Quebec Environmental Law Centre, Safe Food Matters, Saskatchewan Network for Alternatives to Pesticides, Save Our Old Forests Association, Stop Spraying & Clear-Cutting Mi’kma’ki (Nova Scotia), Toronto Non-GMO Coalition, Vigilance OGM and York Region Environmental Alliance.
I share these voices with you today and ask that you give them the respect and careful consideration they deserve. Thank you. Meegwetch.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to and bill read second time.)
