Bill C-30

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) modifying the Labour Mobility Deduction for eligible tradespeople by increasing the annual limit on expenses that can be deducted and by reducing the distance threshold for eligibility;
(b) making permanent the capital gains tax exemption for the sale of a business to an employee ownership trust or a worker co-operative;
(c) extending the repayment grace period under the Home Buyers’ Plan;
(d) providing temporary immediate expensing for eligible greenhouse buildings; and
(e) improving the interaction of the Electric Vehicle Affordability Program with existing tax rules.
Part 2 amends the Excise Tax Act to temporarily set the excise tax rate on gasoline and aviation gasoline to $0.00 and on diesel fuel and aviation fuel to $0.00 for the period beginning on April 20, 2026 and ending on September 7, 2026. It also amends the Excise Act and the Excise Act, 2001 to implement an additional two-year extension of the 2% cap on the annual alcohol excise duty inflation adjustment, and of the 50% reduction on excise duty rates for the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada, effective April 1, 2026.
Part 3 amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Bank Act to provide that the Investment Canada Act does not apply in respect of certain transactions made by foreign banks or entities associated with a foreign bank if the transactions are subject to an approval under the Bank Act , the Trust and Loan Companies Act or the Insurance Companies Act .
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Bank of Canada Act to combine into a single Act the Bank of Canada’s powers, duties and functions related to the recovery of costs incurred by it for or in connection with the administration of certain Acts. It also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Payments Act to provide immunity for the Canadian Payments Association and certain individuals from any civil liability, other than in contract, for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the administration or discharge of any powers or duties conferred under that Act.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things,
(a) extend, until October 7, 2028, the duration of the measure that increases the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers;
(b) remove the description of the regions in which the workers must be ordinarily resident to be eligible for the increase;
(c) provide that those regions are established by regulation; and
(d) provide that paragraph 12(2.3)(b) of that Act is repealed on November 7, 2027.
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Canada Pension Plan to reduce the contribution rate for employees, employers and self-employed persons for the year 2027 and each subsequent year.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Canada Transportation Act to require certain individuals and entities to provide the Minister of Transport with information that that Minister considers necessary for the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties and functions of that Minister or for the development of transportation policies. The Division also amends that Act to specify the individuals and entities to whom such information may be communicated.
Division 7 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to clarify the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and authorize the Governor in Council to, in certain circumstances, exempt persons, things or activities, or classes of persons, things or activities, from the application of provisions of certain Acts of Parliament, or regulations made under those Acts, that are administered or enforced by the Agency. It also makes a consequential amendment to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act .
Division 8 of Part 3 amends the Pest Control Products Act to, among other things,
(a) require the Minister of Health to consider, as appropriate, national economic security, regional economic security or national food security, for the purposes of that Act;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to, by order, after that Minister has decided that they do not consider the environmental risks of a pest control product to be acceptable, register or amend the product’s registration to permit its use in the emergency control of a seriously detrimental infestation, or amend, reinstate, or both reinstate and amend the registration of the product, if the Governor in Council considers it necessary to do so to protect national economic security, regional economic security or national food security; and
(c) provide that the Governor in Council may establish conditions in the order.

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for an extremely important review of the gaps between the spring economic statement and the reality for Canadians. I just wonder if she would like to expand on any of the points she has made, because they were excellent.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the people sleeping outside tonight cannot wait. The seniors choosing between food and medication cannot wait, and the constituents facing administrative collapse in a federal compensation program cannot wait.

Budgets reveal values, and this bill reveals them clearly. Canadians deserve an economy built on fairness, transparency and delivery, not on delay and indifference. They deserve a government that is willing to govern for all Canadians, not just for the hedge fund managers, the private equity CEOs and the finance bros who hang out at the Empire Club of Canada in downtown Toronto, such as the Prime Minister and his narrow circle of insiders. Everyday working Canadians deserve better.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, after the economic update was released, several unions praised our initiative to develop the team Canada strong initiative to recruit up to 100,000 new skilled workers. We implemented a series of measures to help these people, particularly apprentices, on their journey to certification.

I want to ask my NDP colleague whether she will support our efforts to help Canadian workers.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting, actually. In this sitting, in these last two weeks, the government has brought down the guillotine for significant major legislation, including Bill C-22, and we are poised to rise, probably by the end of today, I suspect. What is left on the agenda, which was not actually a priority for the government to push through, is the bill on apprenticeship to support union workers, so there we go.

The Liberals are pretending they support unions, yet at the same time, they are ramming down back-to-work legislation. They are invoking section 107 to take away the rights of unions to strike. My colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, has a private member's bill on that. Will the government members support it? If they support unions, they will support my colleague's bill on actually banning the use of section 107.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I highlighted earlier, a Port Alberni company was fined $429,000 for its violation in its treatment of migrant workers, and it was given a two-year ban. Clearly, two years is not enough. The company operates other companies, and the rumour is that it actually has temporary foreign workers working for them as well. It took local people to help them out, because the government failed to be there. There is no funding in Bill C-30 to create more funding to support workers whose rights are violated.

I would like to hear the member's opinion, first, about the program itself and, second, about the importance of ensuring that when workers' rights are violated, they get the support they need.

Many people have filed complaints about employers who are abusing the program. There has been no follow-up and no feedback. Temporary foreign workers are often hired without the labour market opinion having been done in the right way. Workers who are looking for work are not getting hired. We hear in my riding about abuses of workers by employers, but there is no follow-up. There is nothing. When workers are in trouble, they are not supported. When people complain about workers being violated, they do not get support, and the workers they are concerned about do not get the help they need.

I wonder if my colleague can speak about the changes that are needed in the program.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his advocacy for his community. It is absolutely essential that all parliamentarians stand up for all workers. Migrant workers have been abused in this country. Frankly, both the Liberals and Conservatives, when it was convenient for them, brought in temporary foreign workers so they could bring down wages, suppress wages. In fact, the UN rapporteur actually said that Canada's temporary foreign worker program, with the approaches the Canadian government has taken, is equivalent to modern-day slavery.

Many migrant workers are subject to abuse and exploitation, and the member cited an example from his own community. Even when abuses are found, the penalty is so small, so minimal, that it is absolutely outrageous. What the government is doing is allowing those kinds of abusive practices, and sending a message that they can actually continue. What the government can do, and what the NDP has advocated for, is to have people get landed immigrant status upon arrival. They should get status so they can be protected and not be subject to exploitation.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the fact that, through the economic update, we are continuing to implement our action plan for official languages, with $4.1 billion to support the vitality of francophone communities everywhere outside Quebec. There are also various other investments that contribute to the vitality of our francophone communities.

I would like to hear what she has to say about the importance of our official languages and the investments we are making to support the vitality of francophone communities.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give an example of the challenges that, in British Columbia, and in Vancouver more specifically, we are faced with. With the francophone community, particularly in the education sector, the federal government actually can ensure that provinces receive significant increases in funding to backstop this. Do members know what we are reduced to in our education system for children who want to have access to language training in French, in French immersion classes? We have to go in for a lottery draw. If someone is lucky enough, their name will be drawn, and then they can actually enrol in that particular school.

Many students did not get that chance, including my own children, by the way. When they were little, I submitted their names into the draw, but sadly, none of my children's names were drawn, and they could not get into French immersion. That is the reality Canadians are faced with. That is the reality British Columbians are faced with. That is the reality Vancouverites are faced with. I would call on the government members, instead of patting themselves on the back to say how swell they are doing, to look at where the problems are and to take action.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring us back to a part of the conversation in which my colleague talked about the government's removing regulations on dangerous pesticides. Just last week, the Prime Minister announced his food security strategy, and the Liberals are removing important regulations that protect Canadians regarding pesticides. At the same time, the government is cutting public agricultural research capacity at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. These cuts would close research facilities, eliminate scientists and technicians, and end programs like the organic and regenerative agriculture research program.

I would like to hear from my colleague about whether, when food security and food sovereignty matter more than ever, my colleague sees the importance of the government's pausing its changes on these regulations, pausing these cuts and actually working with farmers to protect Canada's public agricultural research system?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is actually on top of so many of the issues, and he is absolutely spot-on. The Liberal government and the Prime Minister snuck into an omnibus bill, Bill C-30, a tiny sliver of reference that they would be taking away critical regulation and regulatory practices that ensure that our food system is safe with respect to pesticides. This is what the government is doing. Supposedly it is looking after Canadians and our health, but, my goodness, what it is doing is just trying to hide this information, and there would be absolutely serious consequences for Canadians.

The government claims that it supports science, but it would be gutting science. It is actually not relying on science, and it is putting in jeopardy our health and the scientific knowledge that is there. I would say that the government absolutely needs to pause this insidious action, do the consultation and reinstate scientific experts in every part of the department.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before we continue with questions and comments, and we will have time for a very short one, I will say that there is a lot of noise in the courtyard, and people seem to be cheering. I do not know why they would be cheering. I do not think it is time for mirth or happiness just yet.

With that said, questions and comments, the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a quick question for my colleague from the NDP. The federal government says it is doing so well and its policies are just great, and its members are always patting themselves on the back. If the government is doing so well, why are so many Canadians struggling across the country?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are patting themselves on the back and think they are doing so well, because their focus is all on the big corporations. It is about the CEOs. The government is shovelling support to all of them, but everyday Canadians are all being left behind. The fact is that the divide in wealth is becoming greater and greater between the haves and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, not just a pleasure, to rise today to speak to Bill C‑30, an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026. We are told that this bill is absolutely necessary to implement the spring economic update.

Before I get too far into discussing Bill C-30, because it is my last chance to speak in this session of Parliament until September, I do want to acknowledge once again, and recognize, as I think we all do, that we are on and are honoured to be on the lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. We give them enormous thanks, a huge meegwetch, for patience and tolerance with us.

I do not get many opportunities to thank the people I need to thank the most. We are the only party in the House that does not receive a penny of support from the parliamentary budget, being both unrecognized and unfavoured. I am glad my colleagues from the NDP received funding to make up for what they lost when they ceased to be a recognized party. I have less money, but I am here, and I am not alone. We present more amendments on more bills than much larger parties do, not because we want to be meddlesome but because we want to do the work.

I particularly want to stop for a moment to thank my chief of staff, Debra Eindiguer, and my legislative director, Steven Parkinson. They work harder than any team, and they are non-partisan. I have never even stopped to ask the people on my staff team if they joined the Green Party or not, because our job is to work for the people who elected us and for the people of Canada.

In the same vein, I am very grateful to everyone on my MP team here in Ottawa, Michelle and Anna; and also, of course, in my Saanich—Gulf Islands constituency office. They all work very hard, and it is their work that allows me to stand here before us today to speak to the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-30.

I have two objections to the bill. There are reasons I find this process an offence to democracy, and reasons I find the bill offensive, but there are two big categories. The first is that it is an omnibus budget bill. I would suggest it is even improperly considered an omnibus budget bill. There is also the fact that it has been subject to bulldozer practices to accelerate it to the point that it has not been properly studied.

What is an omnibus bill? “Omnibus” is from the Latin. “Omni” means that it is a lot of things. An omnibus bill is a lot of things all at once in one package. It is the good, the bad and the ugly. It is all in one bill. This makes it difficult for members of Parliament, because inevitably and invariably, as is the case for me right now with Bill C-30, there are things that I like. I will call those the good, and I will discuss what those are.

Then there is the bad, and there is the ugly. What is really offensive in this kind of process is when the bill is not split up so it could be studied by committees with expertise. We do not actually have committees called the “we will study all the bad things committee” and the “we will study all the ugly things committee” so we could send the ugly things to the ugly committee. If there are changes to the environmental standards in this country or to health standards, from my point of view as a parliamentarian, those should go to the committees that have expertise in environmental health.

That is not the case here. Everything in the bill, whether it was about privatizing airports, getting skilled workers, getting rid of the excise tax or really drastically reducing protection from dangerous pesticides, went only to the finance committee, and the finance committee was given very little time.

How did the bill get to the committee? After first reading of the bill, which was on April 29, the day after the spring economic statement was tabled, there were only three hours of debate in this place before the government brought forward a motion for time allocation on May 25. I had not been able to get a speech in at second reading, and then the bill was passed on division. There was no recorded vote.

Off the bill then went to committee. Which committee did it go to? It went to the finance committee. I have nothing against the finance committee. I have spent a lot of time with it these last few weeks, hoping to be able to speak to my amendments. However, it was quite wrong, in principle, to send it to a committee that does not have any expertise and that did not have the time, because of the rush, to hear from a single witness in key areas where scientific knowledge, background and independent expertise could be brought to bear.

Let me just go back to the theme of the good, the bad and the ugly and take that apart. For the good, I was very pleased to see in the spring economic statement and in the funding, funding for endangered species, particularly the southern resident killer whale. My pleasure in seeing that in the spring economic statement was somewhat, or profoundly, undone by a May 8 discussion paper that suggested that the provisions of the Species at Risk Act would be lifted to allow the extinction of species. Particularly at threat are the southern resident killer whales because they are in the way of more tankers and pipelines and such, but it was good to see reference to whales in particular in the spring economic statement.

I am also relieved, having mentioned the May 8 discussion documents, and I will not mention them again, that the discussion period has been extended from June 7 to July 22. I urge Canadians who are concerned to get their thoughts in to the government. Let us hope that we do not see legislation in this place implementing anything that was in those discussions documents when we resume the sittings of the House in September.

Also good in the spring economic statement, which is also found in the legislation, is the re-establishment of incentives for electric vehicles. There are few things for which I would say, “Yes, I would certainly vote for that, and I am pleased to see it.” However, we do not see any details here. One line in the spring economic statement says, “Flexible pathways for automakers to meet Canada's climate objectives”. We have not seen any details on that yet, but we hope to.

There are other things. Certainly we are in favour of protecting auto workers with a worker retention grant and anything to do to help with housing, and that makes it difficult. We have to vote against Bill C-22 because the bad and the ugly are thrown into the same pot, and we have to vote on that one pot.

Now, I mentioned casually a moment ago that I do not think this is a legitimate omnibus bill. To be a legitimate omnibus bill, all the measures in the bill must relate to the budget in a fundamental way. I suggest that it is pretty sketchy that there is only one quite anodyne line to be found in the whole spring economic statement as a justification for the worst thing I have ever seen in an omnibus bill, which is the deregulation of pesticides. That is found on page 96 of the spring economic statement, and it only says, “Announces the government’s intention to amend the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act and the Pest Control Products Act to include consideration of food security and cost of food”.

In reading that on that day, on April 28, I certainly did not say, “Oh my goodness, ‘consideration of food security and cost of food’ must mean that the government is about to put something in that will allow cabinet as a whole, with political consideration, to overturn a decision of the minister and the department responsible after they have done a study on the danger of a pesticide.” It does not leap out at one. In fact, it is hidden. Not only does it not leap out; it is hiding, as it is in Bill C-30 in division 8.

That is not the only thing I want to concentrate on, although I will take most of the time, and I am grateful for the chance to speak to this bill now, finally, in this place. Regarding the removal of the excise tax, I have asked before about this in question period. The excise tax, I realize, is announced as a way of alleviating pressure and helping Canadians with affordability. Greens really recognize the affordability crisis. We see it as absolutely connected to the climate crisis. The cost of food goes up when crops fail because of climate disasters and extreme drought here in Canada and around the world.

There is an affordability crisis. The cost of housing is increasingly out of reach. With respect to the cost of energy and electricity in our homes, we could have virtually free electricity once we install the infrastructure. It is easy to roll out solar panels, except that our provincial utilities get in the way. In any case, the cheapest source of electricity, reducing the cost for everyone, would come from focusing on renewable electricity. I do think there is some promise, although it needs a lot of work. There is a discussion paper out on an east-west electricity grid, but to build that out, we really need to shift off of fossil fuels and on to renewables.

Another point I want to make about the excise tax is that, and this goes back to 2009, former prime minister Stephen Harper took the gas tax, which it was then called, and decided to make that fund permanent and at the disposal of municipalities for transit and infrastructure. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities never ceases to point out that municipalities need predictable, stable funding. One of the best things Stephen Harper did was to say that the excise gas tax was a permanent source of funding for municipalities for transit and infrastructure.

Bill C-30 and the spring economic statement does away with that. The Liberals say, “We are going to have this municipal fund. We are going to help with infrastructure for municipalities.” I was just in Edmonton at the annual meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They do not find the pathway to be clear. There is no map. It is not an easy route to navigate for local governments to figure out if it really replaces what they had in the transit funding and how they get from here to there. While they are building housing, and by the way, we cannot build a house unless we can flush the toilets in that house, municipalities are crying out for predictable funding for water and waste water. I would love to have seen that clearly in the spring economic statement. We are getting rid of a predictable fund, created under Stephen Harper for municipalities for transit and infrastructure, and we have replaced it with press releases.

I really hope the government means it and the money will be there for municipalities. I also hope that the Liberals will very quickly start to recognize that the local orders of government are the strongest and best partners we are going to find. They are more reliable than the Prime Minister's friend Danielle Smith. They show up, they have shovel-ready projects, they are ready to go, and they keep their promises. I was in Edmonton. I cannot quote any mayor in particular, nor what I want to, as it would not be fair, but they certainly do not feel the love right now. They do not feel that they are engaged as partners, and they do not know where to find municipal infrastructure funding.

We will move along to division 8 of Bill C-30, which is the most hidden and ugliest part of this omnibus budget bill. It is the reductions of protection for Canadians' health and the environment in the regulations made under the Pest Control Products Act. All of this appears to rest on one unproven, untested assumption. There is not even a link in the language used within the spring economic statement, the budget itself or Bill C-30, but it clearly, by inference, rests on this assumption: More pesticides are going to reduce food prices and help the economy. That is a leap. Let us say that is wrong, based on the evidence, in two ways.

It is wrong on trade and on ecosystems. On trade, our partners and allies have stricter pesticide laws than we do. As a matter of fact, historically, Canada has the weakest pesticide laws of our allies. By the way, just as an example, we were the only country in the world, well, certainly the only country in the G20, that never banned Agent Orange. We never banned 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, or 2,4,5-T, which was half of Agent Orange. It remained legal in Canada until there was an agreement between the U.S. EPA and Dow Chemical to not allow it to export it anymore because it was too dangerous. Canada kept saying it was okay, but Canadian buyers could not get any because Dow Chemical was not, by law, allowed to export its remaining stocks anywhere. I am thankful for this because we would have kept it registered forever, as far as I can see.

We continue to use glyphosate while the EU is restricting it. We also continue to use neonicotinoid insecticides. In terms of trade, it means that Canadian food exports, grain exports, have been rejected at the border in France and in other EU countries because the residues of pesticides that are legal in Canada on our food crops are not legal in the EU. We should strive to have the same high standards as the highest standards found around the world, so there would be no country where Canadian exports would be rejected at the border because they have too many toxic chemicals in the residues. That would be, I think, a good place to go to ensure that we are providing good trade links and reliable export markets for Canadian farmers, but we do not.

Of course, the reason Canadian beef is not allowed in many EU countries is that, years ago, the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, found that the hormones injected into Canadian beef increase the risks of human cancer. That is why we lose markets there. We should strive to ensure that we have reliable and certified organic markets for the growth and production of food products so that we have markets in countries that have stricter standards for health protection than we do. We are not doing that; we are going in the other direction.

It is astonishing to me that, when we think about food security, we are not talking about indigenous communities. Food security often means being able to access food off the land. I will use as an example the Tsleil-Waututh Nation in Burrard Inlet in Vancouver, which has been doing extensive work on restoring the ecosystem health of Burrard Inlet. It has been planting eelgrass and doing much work in what had been an industrial setting to get it clean and healthy enough to produce shellfish that can be harvested for human consumption, which is a right the Tsleil-Waututh Nation has.

Quite casually, we keep hearing from government ministers, both in British Columbia and Ottawa, that we can dredge the Vancouver harbour. This has been thrown about as if it were a great idea, without any consideration. They have not talked with the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. If we dredge the Vancouver harbour, we are going to stir up 100 years' worth of heavy metals and toxic chemicals. It is not going to be possible to harvest shellfish from an area where 100 years' worth of industrial waste was stirred up so we could move bigger tankers loaded with dilbit, which is a mixture that cannot be cleaned up if it is spilled. This is all madness. It is not food security for first nations if we keep contaminating the territories where they harvest their food.

I will come back to the ecosystem issue. I think it is nonsense that this would help food production because food production in agriculture needs pollinators. The reason the EU has reduced neonicotinoid insecticides is that the insect pollinator population is going down, which is related to the use of pesticides like neonicotinoids. Bill C-30 has now gone through clause-by-clause and has received all of the amendments it is going to get. It says that, if the government agency decides it is too dangerous for the environment to use this particular pesticide, and it does not set out the criteria but gives the vaguest of language, cabinet, if it decides in its political discretion to “protect national economic security, regional economic security or national food security”, would allow a dangerous pesticide to be used.

So be it. There is no appeal. That is it, and an extension can last up to nine years. I am incensed that this is happening.

If people think there has never been a time in Canada where anyone would ever put the economic interests of an industry ahead of human health and safety, let me quote from 1976 and the then minister of natural resources for the province of New Brunswick, Roland Boudreau. When it became clear that children were dying of Reye syndrome in New Brunswick because of forest aerial spraying by the forest industry. He stated, “I don't like to see people dying. This is one of the things I really wouldn't like to see. But at the same time, knowing the forest as it is, my decision will have to be with the forest and with the future of New Brunswick.”

We are opening the door and going backwards. Is there any other country on earth going backwards on pesticide regulation? Members have guessed it. It is the Trump White House. This story is from the New York Times on May 7. It states, “Trump Administration Lifts Ban on ‘Cyanide Bombs’ on Public Lands”. It did that so it could kill coyotes. In this country, even without Bill C-30, the PMRA reversed itself to allow for liquid strychnine to kill gophers on prairie lands.

We need more protection for human health, not less. If the government tells us that it wants to build Canada strong, then it must stop and think twice. It is killing the precautionary principle and running the risk of killing Canadians. This is not hyperbole. It has happened in the past. The government and the right hon. Prime Minister are opening the door to the most regressive policies Canada has ever seen to protect human health and the environment. It is not even helpful for the economy, but they do not bother doing the studies. They just make the assumptions and issue the press releases.