The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Renée Dupuis: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In recent years, women’s health research has shown that there are gaps in our knowledge about how diseases affect women. Some of these gaps in our understanding are a direct result of the fact that medical research has been conducted only on male animals and men.

The fact is, women have long been systematically excluded from studies for a variety of reasons, including convenience and prejudice. This shortcoming manifests itself in different ways, including gaps in the ability to recognize women’s symptoms, gaps in the treatments women receive, gaps in clinical management, and the risk of re-hospitalization for women aged 55 and under, which is almost double that of men the same age.

Medical circles now recognize the importance of parity in research. In their view, there is no reason to adopt a male-centric standard for heart attack symptoms, for example. Such a standard is unjustified and biased. We now know that both women and men are at risk of cardiovascular disease. Until very recently, it was thought that only men were at risk, because research focused exclusively on men, and some research found that women with cardiovascular disorders had atypical symptoms compared with men.

It is becoming increasingly clear that women and men are equally at risk of such diseases, but we’re only just beginning to recognize how symptoms present in women, because research is finally being done by and with women.

We know that health research and health care are heavily subsidized by public funds. Can you confirm that all federal health research agencies and programs now require that research on diseases not specific to men or women include both women and men in their studies?

Hon. Mary Coyle: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, today, June 8, is World Ocean Day, a day when people around the world rally to protect and restore our shared oceans and to ensure a stable climate. Canada has 162,000 kilometres of Arctic Ocean coastline, with sea ice across three territories and four provinces, much of it in Indigenous territory.

Yesterday, the CBC reported that according to new scientific research, the Arctic Ocean is predicted to be free of summer ice potentially as early as 2030, depending on global emissions — a full decade earlier than previous estimates. This big melt would significantly impact Arctic communities by damaging infrastructure built on increasingly unstable permafrost, and it would threaten the way of life of Arctic residents.

Ice-free summers would be devastating for the fragile ecosystems that depend on sea ice, from algae to polar bears. Canada is an Arctic nation, and the Arctic is the earth’s air conditioner, with Arctic ice and snow reflecting back 80% of the sun’s radiation. Ice-free summers in the Arctic Ocean will lead to more extreme weather events in the rest of Canada and certainly well beyond.

Senator Gold, what plans does the Canadian government have in place to respond to the multiple and serious implications of the loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for raising this important question. The melting of Arctic ice at an accelerated pace is a preoccupation for all the reasons you mentioned, and they go beyond that, including the challenges for those who rely on the hunting and gathering their food — during my visit to the North a few years ago, that was evident even then — the search and rescue that follows all of that and, indeed, to our sovereignty. The government has taken action with regard to the health of our oceans, and I could — there’s much to say there.

With respect to the particular question, as there is less and less ice in the Arctic, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans along with the Canadian Coast Guard have expanded our presence and capabilities in the short-term to defend our sovereignty, defend the communities that are affected, respond to the increasing risks of climate-based disasters and are working in the scientific community to address and to continue to further address how to mitigate the effects of this seemingly, for the moment, irreversible and dangerous trend.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for her question. It is clear that women face unique challenges when it comes to being research subjects with a view to improving clinical outcomes in areas such as ovarian and uterine cancer, sexual and genetic health, gender violence and health during pregnancy.

The new National Women’s Health Research Initiative launched in October 2022 will advance a coordinated research program that addresses under-researched and high-priority areas. This investment will drive research to enhance health outcomes and eliminate gaps in access to care. I will bring your specific question to the attention of the ministers responsible.

Hon. Brian Francis: My question is for the representative of the government in the Senate.

The Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island passed a unanimous motion in May 2022 urging the federal government to rename the Confederation Bridge to Epekwitk Crossing. This change would correct a clear error made in the late 1990s that resulted in the current name being chosen rather than the proposed one that recognizes and celebrates the presence of the Mi’kmaq who have lived on these lands since time immemorial and continue to do so.

Senator Gold, could you please inform this chamber whether the federal government plans to rename the Confederation Bridge to Epekwitk Crossing? If yes, what progress has been made in the last year? When can we expect a name change to happen? If not, why?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): The Government of Canada makes its decisions based on the needs of our Armed Forces and our priorities in that area. It will continue to make its decisions for the good of the communities served and Canada.

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Leader, the Government of Canada is preparing to replace 14 CP-140 Aurora aircraft, surveillance planes that are used by the Royal Canadian Air Force to patrol Canada’s coastlines.

Under the army’s procurement system, which is known for being ineffective, the Government of Canada seems to have decided or wants to grant this $9-billion contract directly to aerospace company Boeing, not to name names, rather than hold an open bidding process under which a Canadian consortium, Bombardier and General Dynamics, could make a bid and provide equivalent equipment.

That does not make any sense because usually the government would award a direct contract to favour a Canadian company, but in this case, it is awarding a direct contract that will negatively impact a Canadian company.

Can the Leader of the Government explain what this government is thinking?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I will bring this to the attention of the appropriate minister and endeavour to have an answer back as quickly as I can.

[Translation]

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. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, Senator Patterson, and for giving me the opportunity to respond to the question in the chamber, as we did privately yesterday.

Indeed, the government has become aware of this issue and is very aware of this issue.

The first point I wish to make, colleagues, is that this drafting error has no immediate legal effect because the section that is involved does not come into effect until the second anniversary of the date of the act’s implementation following receiving Royal Assent. Keep that in mind as I provide the rest of my explanation.

The government is advised of this issue and is exploring other legislative pathways to correct this issue outside of Bill C-13, if required, such as a financial piece of legislation or a stand-alone bill. I repeat: This issue has no effect following Royal Assent of the bill. The government is exploring other ways to address it outside of Bill C-13, given the importance of passing the bill in a timely fashion.

Colleagues, this is not the first time this issue has arisen. As colleagues know or should know — those who have been in this chamber for more than a brief period — we had a similar issue arise with Bill C-12, which amended the Old Age Security Act. An issue arose at a late stage of the process. The government committed to rectifying this technical matter separately so that the bill could move forward in a timely fashion and receive Royal Assent. We delivered on that promise some weeks later through a separate legislative vehicle.

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I can assure this chamber that, as it has done before, the Government of Canada will deliver on this commitment.

Senator D. Patterson: Thank you, Senator Gold. I was glad you didn’t say that the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act would be the fix. I don’t think that would be appropriate, nor would, frankly, burying it in a compendious omnibus budget bill that is incapable of amendment be the appropriate fix.

I wonder if you would agree, Senator Gold, that the most appropriate fix for this error might be direct and focused legislative action.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The attempts to use the combined force of the opposition parties in the Senate to make sensitive intelligence material public is irresponsible, and in that regard, the position of the Government of Canada has always been to work with the opposition parties in the hope that they would agree to a responsible process for the review of such documents such that parliamentarians can do their work without endangering not only the national security of Canada but the safety and security of those intelligence officers in the field that work on our behalf.

The Hon. the Speaker: Let the senator answer the question, please.

[English]

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.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the message on Bill S-5, Minister Guilbeault’s update to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, known as CEPA. Bill S-5 will make changes to CEPA that are exciting and timely, with Canada following Quebec in recognizing citizens’ rights to a healthy environment. This message also accepts and even improves the Senate’s many amendments to minimize and, hopefully, eliminate the cruel practice of toxicity testing on animals. Thank you, Minister Guilbeault and Senator Gold, for this fantastic result that Canadians, the government, the Senate and the other place can jointly celebrate.

Colleagues, for context, CEPA is an important statute that has been used to ban plastic microbeads in toiletries, to prohibit asbestos and to prevent the use of dangerous chemicals in baby bottles. Last year, the government used CEPA to ban single-use plastics to address the plastic pollution that is filling our waterways and oceans and killing marine life like whales and sea turtles. This change is being fought in court by Dow, Imperial Oil, and other representatives of Big Plastic, along with the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

However, let us focus on the positive with this Bill S-5 message, particularly the acceptance and enhancement of Senate amendments aiming to reduce and, hopefully, phase out animal toxicity testing.

As senators may recall, in Question Period on March 3 of last year, I asked Minister Guilbeault if the government was open to Senate amendments to strengthen Bill S-5 to support the government in fulfilling their election commitment to phase out chemical testing on animals by 2035. The minister’s answer was an enthusiastic yes, and shows that even ministerial Question Period can be helpful and useful.

Today, I also want to thank Senator Galvez, who has agreed to put forward some amendments that were drafted by my team with the support of associations involving animal rights. Thanks to the minister’s openness and Senator Galvez’s willingness to participate in the adventure, we have a bill which is now close to Rideau Hall that contains provisions about animal testing thanks to all of us and the efforts that were made.

This change is a big deal. As I said at second reading of Bill S-5, toxicity testing is the most harmful and painful use of animals in scientific research. Toxicity tests impacted approximately 90,000 animals in 2019 alone. Moreover, such tests fall into the Canadian Council on Animal Care’s Category E tests. What is a Category E test? This is the most severe category of harm that can be imposed on an animal. Category E tests cause death, severe pain and extreme distress and may include procedures such as inflicting burns or trauma on unsedated animals and forcing ingestion or topical application of deadly substances.

I was shocked to learn of the scale of this testing in Canada. I was also surprised to learn of the range of species involved in Category E testing. That includes guinea pigs, rabbits, mice and other small mammals, pigs, sheep, beavers, chickens, turkeys, hummingbirds and many species of marine and freshwater fish. With this message, we take a major step to a more compassionate and humane Canada, recognizing that these animals are our fellow creatures and sentient beings who deserve our respect.

With the openness of Minister Guilbeault and the assistance of Senator Galvez, we now have a promise fulfilled.

I would also like to thank and congratulate the organizations responsible for this milestone.

They are Animal Justice Canada, Humane Canada, the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods, Humane Society International/Canada and the Canadian Society for Humane Science.

Camille Labchuk, a lawyer and the Executive Director of Animal Justice — a national animal law advocacy organization — has the following message for us, senators:

The amendments to Bill S-5 championed by senators improved upon the aspirational preamble originally included in the bill. Instead, we now have a bold and concrete path forward, aimed at getting animals out of painful toxicity tests for good. This will bring us more in line with other jurisdictions that are leading change for animals used in science, like the US and the EU.

Animal lovers across the country are grateful for the work of senators on this bill and many others. The Senate has been a true leader in driving change to Canada’s outdated animal protection laws, whether it be animals used in testing or cosmetics, whales and dolphins trapped in aquariums, sharks killed for their fins, or other wild animals in captivity.

In this tremendous achievement, I would like to single out for special recognition Kaitlyn Mitchell, a staff lawyer for Animal Justice. Her expertise was critical in developing our Senate amendments regarding animal toxicity testing. Wherever Ms. Mitchell is today, I say, “Thank you,” and please stand and take a bow. You have saved countless animals from meeting a horrific and painful end through your personal determination and legal skill.

I trust senators will join me in congratulating Ms. Mitchell and all of the organizations and individuals who played a role in this landmark accomplishment.

On a related and positive note, the government is taking action to end animal testing for cosmetics through measures in Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. This fulfills the goal of former senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen’s bill on this subject in the Forty-second Parliament.

We are seeing progress for animal welfare on many fronts in Canada, with several major government election commitments on this subject also awaiting further fulfillment. This progress is something to celebrate in this time of crisis for the environment and our fellow creatures, whom the Honourable Murray Sinclair has taught us to consider as “all our relations” as we pursue reconciliation with nature.

Therefore, I trust colleagues will join me in concurring with this excellent and well-received message from the other place.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

An Hon. Senator: Dispense.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the message from the House of Commons regarding Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act.

As all of you are well aware and, I am sure, appreciate, my speaking time today is unlimited, so in order to ensure senators are under no illusions about precisely what we will be voting on, I thought I would begin my remarks by reading the entire message that the Speaker read to us the other day, unless somebody suggests I dispense. I might be convinced to do that.

The Hon. the Speaker: Those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising. Is there an agreement on the length of the bell?

Pursuant to rule 9-10(2), the vote is deferred to 5:30 p.m. the next day the Senate sits, with the bells to ring at 5:15 p.m.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Yussuff, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the second reading of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).