Pesticides: Farmers, Victims and Health and Environmental Organizations Call on MPs to Remove Section 13 of Bill C-31

OTTAWA, Ontario/TRADITIONAL AND UNCEDED TERRITORY OF THE ALGONQUIN ANISHINAABEG PEOPLE, Oct. 20, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- At a press conference in Ottawa today, a coalition of farmers, people who have become ill, and health and environmental organizations called on the government and all Members of Parliament to remove Section 13 of Bill C-31. This measure, which has been criticized by the Senate and is currently before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, was inserted into a budget bill. It would eliminate the requirement to reassess registered pesticides every 15 years. The coalition stresses the urgent need to strengthen, not weaken, pesticide oversight in Canada.

The Impacts of Section 13

Today, the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA) requires Health Canada to reassess every registered pesticide at least once every 15 years, based on the latest scientific evidence. Section 13 replaces this reassessment with a simple “review” of information already available. A full reassessment would only take place if the risks had “increased significantly.”

The coalition identifies three shortcomings in the proposed mechanism:

• The threshold is not defined. The bill does not clearly define what constitutes a “significant” increase in risk.
• Limited data. New or increased risks to human health and the environment that are not documented in Health Canada’s register of “available information” may remain unknown or ignored. A reassessment, by contrast, allows Health Canada to require new data.
• No transparency for reviews that do not lead to a reassessment. The text requires the publication of conclusions and reasons when a review triggers a reassessment, but does not establish an equivalent requirement when it does not.
  
  

An Already Inadequate Regulatory Framework

These changes come in a troubling context:

• Pesticide sales have increased fivefold since 2005.
• Canada still authorizes 121 highly hazardous pesticides that are banned in the European Union.
• Health Canada’s directorate responsible for pesticide approvals must reduce its workforce by 31%, or approximately 190 positions.
• In June, Bill C-30 already gave Cabinet the power to override, by order in council, a scientific finding of unacceptable risk.
• More recently, 21 Canadian scientists specializing in pesticides also called on Parliament to withdraw these amendments.
  
  

An Issue of Health, the Economy and Respect for International Commitments

Farmers and their families are on the front lines of pesticide exposure. Since 2021, Quebec has recognized Parkinson’s disease as an occupational disease linked to this exposure. Studies conducted in Canada and internationally have also established associations between pesticide exposure and blood cancers, prostate cancer and birth defects. In the coalition’s view, this evidence should prompt Health Canada to strengthen oversight.

The stakes are economic as well. Diseases linked to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including some pesticides, are estimated to cost nearly $36 billion annually in Canada. Meanwhile, a proposed European measure targeting residues of banned pesticides could put up to $1.4 billion in Canadian exports at risk. Since January, France has already been blocking food products containing residues of five substances banned in Europe, four of which are commonly used in Canada. These restrictions leave Canada facing a choice: follow the American model or move closer to European standards to preserve access to these markets.

Finally, at COP15, Canada endorsed the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which calls for halving the overall risk from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by 2030. Weakening their regulation sends a message that contradicts this commitment and undermines Canada’s credibility on the international stage. COP17 begins this week in Armenia and will conduct the first global assessment of progress in implementing the GBF.

More than 13,000 Canadians have already signed an active parliamentary petition calling for the removal of the pesticide-related provisions in Bill C-31 and the repeal of those adopted under Bill C-30. ASPQ and Ecojustice appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on October 8, and the coalition submitted a brief recommending that the committee reject the pesticide-related provisions.

About the Coalition
The coalition held an information session on Parliament Hill this morning to raise MPs’ awareness of concerns about weakening the Pest Control Products Act, as proposed in Bill C-31. Representatives from the following organizations took part: Association pour la santé publique du Québec (ASPQ) - Victimes des pesticides du Québec, Breast Cancer Action Quebec, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), Canadian Public Health Association, David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice, Friends of the Earth Canada, Safe Food Matters, Vigilance OGM.

Relevant Links

• Backgrounder outlining concerns about the amendments to the Pest Control Products Act proposed in Bill C-31.
• Coalition brief recommending that the committee reject the pesticide-related provisions.
  
  

Contact
Véra Ferret, Director of Communications and Public Relations
Association pour la santé publique du Québec and Victimes des pesticides du Québec
450-626-8879 — vferret@aspq.org

Brandon Wei, Communication specialist
David Suzuki Foundation
604-732-4228, ext. 333 — bwei@davidsuzuki.org

Quotes

“The health of our bodies is intimately connected to the health of our environment. The government has a responsibility to ensure that pesticides are reassessed regularly as scientific knowledge evolves. Weakening this oversight undermines efforts to prevent serious diseases among agricultural and food-sector workers, people who consume food produced within this system, and communities living near areas where pesticides are applied.” - Pamela Fillion, Coordinator at Breast Cancer Action Quebec.

“As physicians, we know that preventing illness is just as important as treating it. Pesticide safety reviews must keep pace with the science, because evidence about health risks evolves over time. Weakening routine reassessments means losing an important opportunity to identify emerging risks and protect people from preventable harm. We should be strengthening our safeguards, not making it harder to act on the evidence. Protecting human health must come first. And that means protecting the environment we live in and the food we eat, rather than allowing them to become sources of toxic exposure.” - Dr. Helen Hsu, physician and CAPE Representative.

“We're here to spotlight the dangers of Bill C-31 on Parliament's doorstep as House and Senate committees meet on the bill today. The changes in this bill 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.” - Lisa Gue, national policy manager, David Suzuki Foundation.

“The science evolves, but instead of moving forward, this government is moving our pesticide laws backwards — trading mandatory, science-based re-evaluations for a discretionary process with no transparency and no accountability. Parliament must work to keep independent, science-based oversight intact.” - Bronwyn Roe, Healthy Communities Program Director, Ecojustice.

“We must not abandon mandatory, science-based reassessments. Today, we want MPs and Senators to remember that neonicotinoids were supposedly safe until beekeepers and scientists sounded the alarm about their toxic effects on honey bees and native bees. Now, we’re learning about impacts on human health from neonics, even though we were told there were none. A recent study in Frontiers in Endocrinology found that high exposure to neonicotinoid mixtures—including imidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam—in semen is linked to a 27% drop in sperm concentration. Maintaining the 15-year cyclical review is critical to protecting human health and the environment.” - Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth.

"We need regular, science-based re-evaluations of pesticides using up-to-date evidence and methods. The standards for re-evaluation should be strengthened, not weakened. These proposed amendments should be rejected to avoid putting farmers, farmworkers and their ecological systems at risk while undermining public and market confidence in Canada’s pesticide regulatory system." - Phil Mount, Vice-President, Policy, National Farmers Union.

“These changes directly put Canadians at risk. By removing mandatory public participation and accountability regarding emerging harms, Health Canada changes initial approvals into “forever” approvals. It is a huge gift to the pesticide industry and a huge blow to public health. Will Parliament protect industry over the health of Canadians?” - Mary Lou McDonald, LL.B., President, Safe Food Matters.

“The absence of evidence of harm is not the same as evidence of safety. Important ecological consequences can remain undetected for years. I urge Parliament to strengthen independent scientific assessment, precaution, and the capacity to respond to emerging evidence. Protecting biodiversity requires decisions that reflect what we know, but also what we have yet to discover.” - Dr. Heather Kharouba, Associate Professor and University Research Chair in Global Change Ecology at the University of Ottawa.

“We can no longer trust a government that listens more closely to agrochemical industry lobbyists than to its own scientists. The health of Canadians and the health of biodiversity are at stake. The government must stop basing its assessments and standards on outdated, unpublished studies conducted by pesticide manufacturers themselves.” - Laure Mabileau, responsible for the Sortir du glyphosate campaign, Vigilance OGM.

“Every year, we support an increasing number of farmers who have become ill. They have spent their entire lives working to feed Canada. How can we explain to them that the products that made them sick will be checked less often? The government says that health remains a priority. We would like to understand how.” - Pascal Priori, Coordinator of VPQ, an ASPQ initiative.