Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: I’m going to try this question again today. My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Gold, I understand that the government has confirmed that there is a drafting error in Bill C-13, which is currently before the Senate’s Official Languages Committee. This appears not to be a minor grammatical or typographical error. I understand that the error is the exclusion of a coordinating amendment that would ensure that former and potential employees outside of Quebec would still be able to file complaints under subsections 18(1.1) and (1.2) of the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act. By fixing this error, the Senate could protect minorities by ensuring that francophones outside of Quebec have the same rights as those who live in Quebec.

As the Government Representative in the Senate, I’d like to ask you this: Are you aware of this error? Have you informed the committee of this error and how it might be fixed?

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, almost a year ago, on June 22, 2022, I rose on debate in this chamber and spoke about Bill S-5 and changes that I strongly felt were necessary to not only make it a stronger bill but to ensure that it responded to the serious and legitimate concerns that stakeholders had raised to me and later in committee.

I presented amendments in committee that had been accepted by the committee, but, to my great frustration, were then defeated by the same committee when we had to unexpectedly redo an entire week’s worth of clause by clause because the previous virtual participation of a senator and member of our committee had been deemed out of order due to their being out of the country at the time.

It was aggravating enough to have had amendments passed in committee and then have to vote again days later and have those same amendments defeated after the government had more time to formulate rebuttals. But what added insult to injury is to receive the message back, which we’re debating today, and see that other amendments of mine were deleted on the other side and know that this bill isn’t as strong as it could be.

My amendments on genetically modified organisms in clause 39.1 of the bill were aimed at responding to very thoughtful and alarming concerns by Nature Canada and other witnesses who appeared before the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee. They added transparency and opportunities for public input when the minister is considering allowing new genetically modified organisms to be bred and sold in Canada.

It was disappointing to see those amendments removed during committee in the other place and to be replaced, as we see in this message, with watered-down versions that do not provide a robust regulatory process that supports true consultation. I would add that my recommendations were supported by the Assembly of First Nations and the Atlantic Salmon Federation.

In this disappointing message, we see that notices are the only thing required and that the minister shall, “consult any interested persons before the expiry of the period for assessing that information.” That qualification of “interested persons” as opposed to my original wording of ensuring the public could participate meaningfully puts the onus on the public to stay abreast of regulatory developments as opposed to putting the onus on the government to make sure that they are doing more than just posting a notice on some government website most people won’t see or be able to find.

I am reminded again of Ms. Karen Wristen of the Living Oceans Society who told our committee that she had been taken by surprise that a new species of genetically modified Atlantic salmon had been introduced into Canadian waters in Prince Edward Island. As a lawyer working actively in the environmental non-government organization space, she was disconcerted — as was I — as she told the committee that she didn’t know about such a significant event. It makes me wonder how other potentially interested parties will be kept abreast of opportunities to participate and provide input to the minister.

In considering my response to the message, I made sure to follow up with Mr. Hugh Benevides and Mr. Mark Butler of Nature Canada to get their thoughts on the proceedings in the other place, as I believe our role as senators includes ensuring voices that are otherwise marginalized are heard during the legislative process. I understand from them that there were compromises offered to try and find a middle ground between the amendments we passed in our committee process and the amendments passed in the other place. It was their hope that all parties would appreciate the compromise, pass them as recommended and then have senators be satisfied once we received the message since these suggested amendments would have ensured an opportunity for at least some degree of public participation in the all-important work of risk assessments.

Instead, the offer of a compromise was rejected in the other place. There is now no guarantee that the CEPA — the Canadian Environmental Protection Act — ministers will determine that any persons are interested and therefore ought to be consulted. It’s entirely at the discretion of the minister, in a department that doesn’t seem to consider this issue of genetically modified organisms being introduced into Canada is at all important. There is neither a requirement as to the type or quality of the consultation or that any information will be brought to the consultation, nor do the amendments made in the other place allow the regulations to provide for the consideration of Indigenous knowledge or scientific information provided by other than the proponent — obviously very self-interested — or the government.

The compromise amendments to proposed section 108.1, on the other hand, would not depend on any determination by the ministers who might be interested. The opportunity to “. . . bring forward any relevant Indigenous knowledge and scientific information . . .” would not depend on such a determination as set out in subsection 108.1(1).

Instead, a proponent filing information indicating a wish to manufacture or import a new living organism under section 106 of the CEPA would trigger automatic publication of that fact in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act Registry, subsection 108.1(2), thus notifying Indigenous peoples and the public of the proposed new living organism. But no such thing happened in the case of the genetically engineered salmon, forcing members of the public to seek judicial review in the Federal Court.

The proposed amendment to the regulation-enabling section 114 would simply allow the government, following its still-promised but yet-to-be-seen reform of the New Substances Notification Regulations (Organisms), to include provisions in the regulations for how the regulator may receive “. . . any relevant Indigenous knowledge and scientific information . . .” so that it may be considered as part of the assessment.

Colleagues, as we’ve heard, this is the first time in decades that the CEPA is being substantively amended. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in the other place, after studying these issues carefully, recommended in 2017 that:

The Committee recommends that CEPA be amended to establish a more open, inclusive and transparent risk assessment process that better enables public participation in the evaluation of new living modified organisms.

Especially considering this clear recommendation from a thoughtful and thorough committee study in the other place, I felt it important that we take this opportunity in this chamber to address that recommendation rather than letting it join the many well-intentioned parliamentary reports that are sitting on a shelf somewhere gathering dust.

Honourable senators, I am speaking today because I’m incredibly disappointed in the convoluted journey this bill has taken throughout the legislative process. It is discomforting to me that we have lost the opportunity for full, meaningful public participation in a decision as important as the introduction of genetically modified organisms in Canada, including iconic species like Atlantic salmon. We have a real example here of the perils of this watered-down bill. That’s why I will be voting against this message. Thank you.