Environment Committee on Nov. 29th, 2022

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here with us today.

My first question today I'd like to ask to Ms. Wristen.

Thank you for joining us today and for the work that you do and that Living Oceans Society has been doing for decades now to ensure that we do have a healthy marine environment and a thriving and sustainable blue economy. We know how important that work is, especially today as we see, amongst other things, the major stresses that wild Pacific salmon are facing in B.C.

With this in mind, I take your comments regarding the genetic engineering to heart, but in this committee we've heard concerns from several witnesses, including Mr. Affleck, who is here today, about the Senate amendment requiring the minister to make a determination that there is demonstrable need for a new living organism being a deviation from the risk-based approach of CEPA.

I was hoping you could make the case to this committee as to why the committee should consider the departure from this approach when it comes to new living organisms, given the profound concerns that you've raised and the example that you spoke about earlier.

[Karen Wristen]

Thank you for the question.

I should begin by saying that the need to demonstrate the need for the living organism isn't a departure from the risk assessment; it's in addition to the risk assessment. Let's be clear on that. We definitely do need to have risk assessments.

When we think about living organisms that have wild counterparts, there are considerations that go far beyond the purview of those doing the risk assessments. Those are considerations of a social, cultural and economic nature that are held by, in the case of the AquAdvantage salmon, first nations, who fear for the cultural integrity of their peoples if the salmon are lost, and fishermen, who fear for the genetic integrity and resilience of the stocks.

There's an even better example of why we should think about demonstrable needs, and that is the example of the aquarium Glofish that has now colonized rivers throughout Brazil. It's a small thing, and nobody knows what damage it's doing in the environment, but it has literally colonized rivers throughout that country. It's been spotted in rivers elsewhere. Did we need to put nature at risk to that extent in order to make a coloured aquarium fish? That is a poster case of a situation in which demonstrable need ought to have been demonstrated.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you for that.

You also mentioned some concerns specifically about the AquaBounty salmon that went through a process that you participated in directly. That being said, the Senate made some amendments as part of their process, particularly those that address public participation, which now requires, as part of section 108, that the minister will ensure that the public is provided with opportunities to participate meaningfully in the assessment and that public comments shall be solicited as part of that in respect to the testing of all the evidence and that they can request additional evidence from any individual.

With this mind, I was hoping you could comment on those amendments that have been made and whether they satisfy some of the concerns you've raised with the committee here today.

[Karen Wristen]

They do go a great distance to satisfying those concerns.

I am aware that Nature Canada has filed or is about to file a brief with you in which they detail slight tweaks to the language that would make even clearer exactly what we want.

I would commend those amendments to you when you receive them.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you very much.

Next I'll turn to Mr. Affleck.

You mentioned in your opening remarks that you are in support of two of the amendments the Senate has made but that you have concerns with all of the other ones that were made by the Senate.

I was hoping you could speak to some of those, specifically to highlight some of the concerns that CropLife has with the amendments the Senate has made at this point.

[Ian Affleck]

Thank you.

I think the key point is that while we're concerned about the amendments by the Senate, we're supportive of the amendments to CEPA as the bill was originally tabled. They were significant in number and made CEPA even more robust than it was when it entered the process.

I think I mentioned two. One was the demonstrable need piece. The other was about some of the provisions around CBI. I think there were other portions. The watch-list was another example of how there are currently mechanisms within departments to deal with that through “significant new activity” notices.

This would be somewhat redundant to activities that already exist. Throughout the amendments, there were a number that moved us away from the risk-based approach into a hazard-based approach or that added elements into the discussion that were not science- and risk-based.

There was a long suite of amendments from the Senate, and many weren't directly impactful to our industry. I would hesitate to go through others, but those are a few of the highlights in my opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have about 10 seconds, Mr. Weiler.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I'll cede the last 10 seconds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Madame Pauzé, go ahead.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much to all the witnesses for being with us at this late hour.

Mr. Affleck, you said there was a risk that genetically modified living organisms could end up in the environment.

[Ian Affleck]

I would say they are deliberately placed into the environment.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

No, not deliberately, but they can end up in the environment.

[Ian Affleck]

Do you mean a genetically modified plant?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

My question follows up on what Ms. Wristen said earlier about genetically modified animals, which could end up in the environment, escape into the wild and reproduce.

Do you agree?

[Ian Affleck]

CropLife Canada focuses on plant-based biotechnologies, so in our space we are deliberately bringing these products into the marketplace and putting them into the environment for the benefit of agriculture. We don't represent the elements on the animal side.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

So, you focus on genetically modified plants.

When I go to the grocery store and want to choose a vegetable to buy, I'd like to know what I'm eating. I'd like to be able to make choices. Why is your organization fighting labelling tooth and nail ?

[Ian Affleck]

I think there are two points on that.

When it comes to mandatory labelling by the Government of Canada, that's focused on health and safety and nutrition. We think it's paramount that the government continue to focus on those two elements and that if there's mandatory labelling, it be related to health and safety and nutrition, and that when products of biotechnology are approved, they've been deemed both safe and equally nutritious so they wouldn't hit either of those two check marks for mandatory labelling.

The second point I would put there, for someone who's looking for choice in the marketplace, is that there are many brands that have chosen to take that on. There's the Non-GMO Project with 80,000 different products; the organic system, which is non-GMO; and then “free of GMO” labels that others may use. If someone's looking for those options in the marketplace, the market has responded to provide them, but when it comes to government-mandated labelling, we feel strongly that the government needs to maintain a health and safety focus. Otherwise, the public will be confused as to why a label is there. It would represent a health and safety risk that doesn't exist.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You talk about confusing the public. To my knowledge, only Canada and the United States refuse to label products for their populations.

Is there a way for our citizens, Canadian men and women, to know what they are putting on their plates? Europeans are allowed to know, but not Canadians or Americans. Why?

You say that the government is focused on health. As a matter of fact, as a vaccinated adult, I want to be able to focus on my health and know what I'm putting on my plate.

[Ian Affleck]

I think you can feel confident that the risk assessment process has ensured that those products are safe before they enter the food system.

If we look at Europe and Canada, there's a good example of how the trust in our food system and the trust in biotechnology in Canada are much higher than they are in Europe, where they have taken a non-health and safety labelling approach. That hasn't helped consumers there feel more comfortable.

I will just add that Health Canada did a great study in 2016 in which it asked people, the general population, why they wanted products labelled. The response was that it was because people didn't know what GMOs were. The findings of Health Canada were that putting a label on a product won't help you know what it is; it will only help you know where it is, and that what is needed is more proactive communication about what GMOs are, why they're safe and why they're in the food supply, so it—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'll stop you right there: I do not agree at all with the fact that I have to rely on what is currently in place.

Ms. Wristen, in 2013, Fisheries and Oceans Canada published a scientific report on genetically modified salmon. In that report, from pages 16 to 18, there was a reasonable degree of uncertainty about the high level of danger that genetically modified salmon could represent for the Canadian environment and the Atlantic wild salmon population. The Atlantic Salmon Federation also expressed its concerns before a Senate committee. We see that the industry does not want any labels for plant-based products, but I'm sure that it's the same for salmon.

In your opinion, what are the potential dangers for biodiversity and human health if Canadian legislation is not updated on the issue of genetically modified living substances?

[Karen Wristen]

Thank you for the question.

I will take the human health issue first. The concern here is with respect to unintended consequences of gene editing and genetic engineering, which can be the production of proteins that are allergens for some people. That's not to say that every GMO product has allergens in it, but that potential is there. That is why most people want labelling. It's because they fear that there may well be products in the genetically modified—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

Ms. Collins, I don't know if you want to continue.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I would like to just let Ms. Wristen finish the question.

[Karen Wristen]

That was the health side of things.

On the genetic issue that was raised, the problem is that these fish will compete. They're quite capable of interbreeding with wild Atlantic salmon. They are also capable of competing with them for food, and given that they're engineered to grow more rapidly than normal fish, one assumes they will be very hungry and will take up a great deal of the food supply. Those Atlantic salmon that we have left on east coast are in a perilous state and cannot withstand that kind of interference. The only answer to CEPA toxicity that was given in the risk assessment was containment, and that requires a company to have a culture of safety that treats its biosecurity seriously. We have grave concern that is not the case with AquaBounty.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

Just to follow up on that—and I come from a riding on the west coast of Vancouver Island—we heard from a witness in the previous panel who was representing the Snuneymuxw First Nation—just a little bit north of where I am—and she expressed similar concerns that I've heard from first nations leaders on the coast about both the danger to the food system and the importance of salmon to the culture of first nations along the coast. We also heard from indigenous folks who are concerned about the patenting of salmon DNA and what that means for their cultural rights. Can you speak at all to those issues?