Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Senator Richards’ amendment.

While participating in the study of this bill, I was struck by the story of a genetically engineered Atlantic salmon species being released into the wild without anyone really being aware of it. Mark Butler, a senior advisor with Nature Canada, spoke of “[t]he risk to wild salmon and the implications for Indigenous peoples’ rights. . .” that such a species could have.

This amendment would ensure that until a proponent can demonstrate that a living organism that has a wild counterpart can be used safely, its development, manufacture, import or use is prohibited. To be clear, colleagues, I would underline for you all the term “with a wild counterpart.” We’re talking about, in this case, a fish, but it could include lobsters, rabbits and larger animals of that ilk and not microscopic organisms such as bacterial strains.

It is worth noting that similar recommendations have been made for chemical substances of very high concern to put a strong onus of proof on proponents to demonstrate the need. It is also in line with the precautionary principle that I referenced in my previous speech found in section 2(1)(a) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA. The proponent should also have to demonstrate that the new living organism is needed.

I would also like to draw the attention of senators to part 3 of the amendment that seeks to ensure there is an increased level of transparency and accountability with regard to decisions undertaken by the government under the authority of this act concerning genetically modified organisms with a wild counterpart. This approval took place under the radar.

I know that some industry groups have argued that this places in jeopardy the confidential business information, or CBI, of current and future proponents. However, there are several protections in the regulations governing CEPA that would protect CBI, including the powers that exist under section 313(1) that states:

A person who provides information to the Minister under this Act, or to a board of review in respect of a notice of objection filed under this Act, may submit with the information a request that it be treated as confidential.

This approach, as Senator Richards said, is based on the example of a company called AquaBounty. This is a company operating a land farm in P.E.I. as we speak that breeds genetically modified salmon, and they’re selling that salmon with no label. In this instance, there is no requirement for genetically modified salmon to be clearly labelled, so concerned citizens have to dig for information on the potential health concerns of consuming this salmon.

Karen Wristen of the Living Oceans Society told us the story of AquaBounty. As a lawyer in the NGO space, she should not have been taken by surprise that a new species of salmon had been introduced into Canadian waters, but Ms. Wristen told our committee:

In the complete absence of any public information in Canada regarding the risk assessment or the status of AquaBounty’s application, the Living Oceans Society and Ecology Action Centre filed for judicial review of the decision to permit the manufacture and export of AAS. It would be fully a year before the government produced its record of decision and longer still until we were finally permitted to see the risk assessment.

Honourable senators, I was discomfited to hear about the details of their lawsuit, and I believe we have an opportunity here with this amendment to ensure that government decisions and all relevant information is released to the public in a timely and transparent manner. Some may know that I brought this amendment forward in the committee. It passed the first time we considered it at clause by clause, and then failed when we had to redo the votes due to a technicality. Senator Kutcher told the committee then that:

I’ve learned that Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada have now initiated a comprehensive review of the New Substances Notification Regulations (Organisms), which are a part of the regulations that implement part 6 of CEPA. As such, changes to those regulations will be examined closely during part of this review, and it would thus be premature to propose amendments to this part of the act before those consultations and subsequent regulatory modernization initiatives have run their course.

Trust us and wait. While a review and potential changes to the New Substances Notification Regulations (Organisms) would be welcome, regulations are not enough. Changes in the act are required to ensure that Canadian consumers are protected now. We have a chance to do this through this amendment.

The Assembly of First Nations, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Atlantic Salmon Federation — who knew nothing about the development of this new species until the court action I mentioned — the Living Oceans Society and Bob Chamberlin, a B.C. Indigenous leader, all endorsed this amendment when they either appeared as witnesses or submitted briefs to the committee. They feel it ensures the public is able to learn about and participate in the process of authorizing activities related to genetically modified organisms with a wild counterpart.

I’d like to thank Senator Richards for his devotion to the iconic Atlantic salmon, and I would urge all honourable senators to adopt this amendment. Thank you.

Senator Patterson, will you take a question?

Yes.

Thank you, Senator Patterson. This may also be addressed by Senator Kutcher. You made significant reference to Atlantic salmon. Was there any discussion of the impact of this proposed amendment on Pacific salmon and/or are there examples of the situation you described occurring on the West Coast?

I don’t know of the occurrence of this genetically modified engineering on other species in Canada. As far as I know this is the first, and this was the only species that we were told about in committee.

With respect to Senator Kutcher, we had one witness. It’s unfortunate we didn’t have time for more, but this amendment basically ensures that if this kind of genetic engineering of wild species happens again, there will be some public transparency that did not exist in the AquaBounty case. Thank you.

As I heard your discussion of this amendment, you were referring to consultation and work that’s under way by environmental protection and Health Canada. Is it possible that those two agencies are working with those individuals who are working with B.C. salmon? Is it possible that they have more information and are working with fish farmers, for example, on both the West and East Coasts? Is it possible that this additional consultation that they’re proposing is actually required before we make such an amendment?

Thank you for the question. You’ve suggested in your question that concerned groups like the Living Oceans Society and the Atlantic Salmon Federation, as I understand it, could be working with Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada, who have now initiated a review of the so-called new substances notification regulations, or SNAc — significant new activity — provisions, as they’re called.

These organizations, Ecology Action and Nature Canada, had to sue the courts to even get information about the risk assessment that had been done by the department. They do not have a good working relationship with the department that is charged with reviewing these regulations. They had to sue them to find out what was going on, and it took a year. I don’t believe that we should wait and trust the department to examine this issue in the fullness of time. We’ve waited some 20 years for these amendments to come forward. Governments don’t move rapidly.

In the meantime, we have what I think is the alarming potential for an explosion of other genetic modifications that could threaten other species. So I don’t think there is a potential for cooperation here. It certainly hasn’t existed in the past. Thank you.

I must first say that I appreciate your argument. I support the concerns of Senator Richards in this area considering the impact of Atlantic salmon on our region, both environmentally and for tourism and food. The issue is very important and the GMOs are a source of major concern.

That being said, my question for you is simple. I believe that this is a completely legitimate concern, but is this bill the right bill and the right vehicle for addressing this issue? I ask the question since this is a bill on chemical substances and as Senator Kutcher said, we are dealing with GMOs, organisms.

Thank you for the question, Senator Cormier. I know you’re from a region that cherishes the Atlantic salmon.

There’s no question that this amendment is within the scope of the bill. The bill covers substances, including living substances that could pose a danger to human health, so this is the bill to deal with this. As Senator Kutcher said, the department is going to be reviewing the regulations, and it’s going to take care of it, the same department that is in charge of administering this bill. So we’ve got the right bill.

The question is: Do we wait for the government to do its regulations? Do we trust a department that secretly, apparently, at least without public consultation and notice, allowed these genetically modified species to be released into a fish farm on Prince Edward Island, which is now producing and selling, without labels, this genetically modified fish?

Let’s act now and not wait for the government to move on this. Thank you.

Senator Patterson, there are a few more senators who wish to ask questions, but your time has expired. Are you asking for five more minutes to answer questions?

No.

Honourable senators, my plan was to ask questions, but since Senator Patterson is not taking any more, I’ll make a few comments.

I am very concerned about some of the discussion here this evening. I have several concerns, and I want to touch on a few of them.

If I followed correctly what has been said, there is a company on Prince Edward Island that I was not aware of, to be honest with you, producing a food product in our country and selling it with no label. I’ll take your word about what you’re saying.

That concerns me greatly. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency usually oversees the production and the selling of products, and licenses companies and distributors to sell products. Certainly, any food product in this country that is being sold without proper labelling — I mean, you can buy a muffin at the store now, and there is a label attached which shows the ingredients, inspections and whatever the case may be.

I’m also very concerned that, again, I’m unaware of the fact that there is a story of a genetically engineered salmon species being released into the wild without anyone being aware of it, as indicated by the comments Senator Patterson made earlier. That’s of great concern for the simple reason that no one is aware of it. That is one part of the concern I have, that a species will be released into the wild and the fact that it’s a genetically engineered salmon species that would then interact with the wild Atlantic salmon or whatever species that it would come into contact with.

These are very serious concerns, in my view, that we need to take a very serious look at.

I made some notes when Senator Patterson was speaking that Mark Butler, Senior Advisor at Nature Canada, spoke of the risks to wild salmon and the implications for Indigenous people’s rights that such a species could have. Again, this is another serious issue that has been raised. Our Fisheries Committee is in the process of concluding a study into Indigenous fishing rights. This genetically engineered salmon species is a detriment to not only the Indigenous people’s rights, but, indeed, for Canadians’ rights in regard to interfering with any product in the ocean that is processed, at the end of the day, for food.

I’m very concerned with some of the things that have been brought forward here this evening in relation to this, Your Honour. What risk assessments are being done? Who’s looking into it? What departments are looking into it?

This is about food. As we all know, we have a global shortage of certain food products for various reasons, whether it’s COVID, climate change or whatever the case may be. Looking down the road at the future of food availability, we have to ensure that everything is being done to ensure that food is being grown properly, whether it’s a vegetable, fish, animal, or whatever the case may be, and that it’s being processed properly, that it’s being labelled properly and that it’s being sold with everybody’s health, first and foremost, in their concerns.

I wanted to touch on a couple of things that were raised, Your Honour. I am very concerned about some of the discussion here this evening in relation to the safety of our food supply. Certainly, when you talk about genetically engineered salmon, if that is the case, if this is going on — I have no reason not to believe what is being put forward here this evening — the question is: What’s next? What happens after? This company had to apply for some type of licence from someone, whether it was the provincial government of Prince Edward Island in this case or the federal government. It had to apply for a licence to be able to produce and process food. Maybe someone can enlighten me on what’s going on here, but I certainly believe we have to take a second look at some of the concerns that have been raised here this evening. I want to ensure I’m on the record in saying that.

Thank you.

Honourable senators, I want to thank Senators Patterson, Richards and Manning for raising these very important issues.

As someone from the Atlantic and someone who loves Atlantic salmon, I am very much in favour of ensuring that we study these issues carefully so that we actually know what we’re amending. I think herein lies the rub.

We didn’t hear from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, so we don’t know anything about the labelling. We heard some witnesses say something. We didn’t hear the wider range. We don’t know. We have to either accept it prima facie or we have to do a thorough study.

We didn’t hear from DFO, so we don’t know what the issues are around this. We didn’t hear anything from AquaBounty, the company that has been pilloried in the chamber. We should hear from them if we have concerns. I think that’s only fair. We didn’t hear from Indigenous peoples on this issue, and this is a very important issue to talk about.

We didn’t study this, and I would urge us to be very cautious about making amendments in the chamber at third reading on issues that we did not study.

We were told in committee by officials that Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada have initiated a comprehensive review of the New Substances Notification Regulations (Organisms) — this is an organism; it’s not a substance — which are regulations in Part 6 of CEPA. Bill S-5 deals with chemical management, not the regulation of living organisms. So a study is already under way to deal with this particular issue.

Frankly, I feel it would be premature to propose amendments to this part of the act before those consultations are done and before we have a fulsome study so we actually are fully informed when we take the step to make an amendment. I would vote against the amendment on that basis.

Senator Kutcher, would you take a question, please?

From you, Senator Manning, always.

I hope you say that after I’m finished.

As we all know and as they tell us here, the committees are masters of their own destinies. Maybe you could elaborate for us. Why did you not hear from DFO? Why did you not hear from Indigenous groups? Why did you not hear from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency? Why did you not hear from AquaBounty? You may not be able to tell us, but I’d like to know the answer.

I didn’t select the witnesses for the committee, as the honourable senator would expect. The issue here is that the committee was studying substances. It was an act that addresses chemical substances management. There are other parts in CEPA where this can and should be brought forward because it’s an issue that must be studied. You’re absolutely correct that to expect a committee or our chamber to make decisions about something that the committee didn’t study would be quite inappropriate.

I want to quickly confirm what Senator Patterson said, namely, that Part 6 of the act deals with living organisms. Thus, we cannot say that the issue of genetically modified salmon is completely beyond the scope of this bill. I would go further. When studying this bill, there was a great deal of discussion about animals, especially animals used in experiments. We had many discussions and made many amendments. I can tell you that animals used in these experiments will be very well protected by the bill we studied.

Therefore, if that is the case for laboratory animals, I believe it is very clear that the issue of genetically modified salmon is a complex question and that there was no transparency on that issue. Clearly, you are right that the committee did not spend months studying this matter, but that is true for all the elements of Bill S-5. We summarily studied several extremely complicated things and tried to understand them by reading up on them, so you are right, not everything was discussed at committee.

I was, however, one of the people who voted in favour of this amendment the first time, and I plan to vote in favour of it a second time.

Senator Miville-Dechêne, you mentioned we had studied animals. Did we study animals to understand the impact of testing of substances on the animal or did we just study animals?

You’re correct, Senator Kutcher, we did study animals as part of our study of this bill, because we did not want tests to be done on these animals. I think this issue is important because I consider salmon to be living beings as well. In this case, genetically modified salmon are absolutely within the scope of the bill, but what’s even more important is transparency. During the study of this bill, I fought for transparency, for the ability to know what is in these substances, and now, we want to know whether these genetically modified organisms are toxic.

I don’t think we should wait around for a study that will come at some unspecified time. As you know, this bill has not been amended or reviewed in 20 years, so it would be appropriate to include this amendment in the bill as a precaution, because we will eventually receive the studies that will have been conducted, but this will take time, and this bill will not be reviewed after they’re received.

Honourable senators, this company is well known in Prince Edward Island. AquaBounty is an American company, and they’ve been producing salmon in Prince Edward Island. In fact, their salmon is the first genetically modified fish to be harvested and sold in Canada.

Most of the discussion here this evening is public information in Prince Edward Island. It’s been reported in the local media; it’s been reported in the national media. All the comments Senator Patterson, Senator Richards and others have made are well known and well understood in Prince Edward Island. The issue is, in my mind, one of transparency.

If my colleagues want to Google this, they can see all the media stories and reports. There’s nothing secret about this. AquaBounty announced how much genetically modified salmon they are producing. They’ve indicated that between the P.E.I. plant and their American plants, they have produced 84 tonnes of salmon recently. The genetically modified salmon from P.E.I. has only been sold in Canada. None of the genetically modified salmon produced in the United States has been sold in Canada. They’re quite correct that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has said AquaBounty’s salmon has been evaluated by Health Canada and found to be safe for consumers, and can be sold in the country without labelling.

The problem, of course, is they won’t disclose where this salmon is sold. When asked, they say they sell it through food distributors. But if you sit down in a restaurant in Canada or go to your grocery store and buy Atlantic salmon, you might like to know if it’s genetically modified or not. I think that’s the issue and I think others have stated that. Any action by the Government of Canada will take years, if not decades, to rectify a problem we can address this evening. I’m therefore voting in favour of the amendment, colleagues.

If you speak again, Senator Richards, it ends debate entirely. I understood that you were asking a question of Senator Downe. Are you asking a question?

Thank you. Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I see two senators rising. Do we have agreement on a bell?

Is there leave to have the vote now? If you’re opposed to leave, please say “no.” The vote will take place now.