Environment Committee on Feb. 13th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, you can't amend your own amendment.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I see.

The BQ-11 amendment is directly inspired by the AquaBounty affair and everything related to genetic modification. Our goal is to protect wild animals that are already in the wild. If you take a living organism and make it into a genetically modified animal and it goes into the wild, it could come into contact with just about any other animal.

In the case of AquaBounty, the good news is that the company has decided to stop producing genetically modified salmon, and I applaud them for that. However, this almost happened, although it was the company that changed its mind. So we want to tighten up the rules to make sure this doesn't happen again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Shall we go to a vote on amendment BQ-11?

Go ahead, Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Just quickly, Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank Madame Pauzé. I think we have a number of amendments that are similar and that are aiming to get at the same issue. I appreciate her amendment, and I'll be voting in favour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there anyone else?

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to amendment NDP-35.

Ms. Collins, did you want to introduce your amendment?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a question for the legislative clerk.

With regard to both BQ-11 and my previous amendment, NDP-34, I initially was informed that they would be ruled out of scope because of the words “wild counterpart”. Neither of them were, which I'm pleased about. I just wanted some clarification here, because based on the advice about “wild counterpart” being ruled out of scope, that language was taken out of my new NDP-35.

I just wanted some clarification on that first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Well, it's easier to justify why something is out of order than why it's in order, I think.

We don't have a really good answer to your question, Ms. Collins. All I know is that it hasn't been flagged as out of order. That's a good thing, I guess.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

It is a good thing.

I adapted some of my language just to ensure that this amendment would be ruled as in scope. I think the stronger language that people would have seen in the initial NDP-35, which talked about wild counterparts, and that you saw in NDP-34 and BQ-11, which we have just voted on.... However, I will move what I submitted to the legislative clerk most recently, which actually changes that to an “organism that is not a micro-organism”.

I think, critically, what we're talking about here is protecting biodiversity, protecting wild counterparts and protecting animals that could be threatened when we have genetically engineered organisms being produced and then potentially escaping into the wild.

We know that this has already happened. We heard in the testimony in committee that in Brazil there was a glowing fish that had been genetically engineered and that escaped into the wild. It has wild counterparts. This is extremely dangerous and could have cascading effects for biodiversity, and we are in a biodiversity crisis.

I want to thank Nature Canada for its extensive work in this area and, really, the efforts that it and many others have been making to protect human health, to protect nature and to really ensure that we're not further exacerbating the biodiversity crisis we're facing.

I will leave it there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there anyone else?

Mr. Duguid.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, I thank Ms. Collins for that intervention. We very much agree with the spirit of her comments, and we will have an upcoming amendment that I think addresses those concerns.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

Madame Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to comment that amendments BQ-11 and NDP-35 are along the same lines as the wording the Senate added, but are even more precise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Pauzé.

We will now proceed to the vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That brings us to G-14.1. Who is presenting?

Mr. Weiler.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is in line with what we were talking about before. There were some major concerns that came up in the course of our study around new living organisms, particularly the process for assessing those. Given that transparency and public participation are a key part of this, this amendment really relates to that.

This motion I'm proposing will require ministers to consult interested persons on the assessment of a vertebrate animal that in its unmodified form is native to Canada before the period for assessing information expires under subsection 108(1) or (2).

This motion includes the phrase “prescribed living organism or group of living organisms” to capture living organisms not included in the phrase “vertebrate animal that in its unmodified form is native to Canada”.

That's the motion. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there any discussion?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, is Mr. Weiler really referring to amendment G-14.1, not amendment G-14.2?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

He is talking about amendment G-14.1.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Fine.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will now hold the vote.

Mr. Weiler, is your hand still up?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I am afraid I was proposing G-14.2. My explanation was about G-14.2 because the order got switched in the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Why don't we reverse a bit and go to G-14.1?

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

Okay. Let me run it back to G-14.1.

This is a small change that will be made to subsection 106(9). It will require that publication of a notice of waiver shall be “as soon as possible in the circumstances”. It's a small change, but it will ensure that this will be done as soon as possible, rather than not having any type of timeline or time pressure put on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of comments.

First of all, this is adding something very small that won't give a ton of reassurance to most environmental stakeholders, I think, especially if we don't have strengthened provisions for public participation. That said, a small step forward is supportable.

We already talked about G-14.1 and G-14.2 a bit. To Mr. Duguid's comments that the government was not supporting NDP-35 because it had additional amendments coming forward.... Madame Pauzé's amendment and my amendment are trying to ensure we're not allowing industry to decide, and that we have information provided showing that these living organisms are actually needed and what their risks are for people and the environment—that they aren't toxic, or capable of becoming toxic. That shifts the burden to the proponent.

The industry has everything to gain by putting these new living organisms forward and selling them. So many people had concerns about AquaBounty because of the fact that we had a genetically modified organism produced for human consumption without adequate consultation, especially when it came to consultation with indigenous communities and first nations along the coast of British Columbia. We heard from many people how this was a deep concern, given the cultural significance.

We need to go much further than what I see proposed by the government here. I will be supporting G-14.1 with this small step forward, but I have deep concerns about the government's willingness to ensure that proponents have to provide adequate information, that there will be tight timelines and that we're protecting human health and the environment in this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there anyone else?

We'll go to a vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

(On clause 39.1)