Environment Committee on Nov. 25th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Weiler.

Thank you to the Chair.

I would like to direct my questions to Dr. Chandrasekera. I hope I've pronounced that correctly.

Mr. McLean just talked about why we're not moving more quickly toward non-animal testing. There are three specific things that have been recommended by Humane Canada and Animal Justice, and I'm wondering what your thoughts are of them.

I will quickly go through them and turn it over to you, because I know we don't have much time. One of them was to include a target date to phase out toxicity testing on animals as a way to encourage faster progress toward this. The second was that instead of including “reduce, refine or replace” to remove “refine”. I know you talked about defining it, but they suggest we remove that. The third was requiring it only be used as a last resort, especially by the ministry in Canada.

I want to read one quick thing from the Animal Justice brief that was submitted. Most of the tests that are done on animals fall into category E, which are the most toxic of tests. They said “Tests can involve forced ingestion followed by vomiting, forced inhalation causing throat and lung irritation and burning to animals restrained in inhalation chambers”. Once it's done, the animals are killed.

I think when the alternatives are here, it behooves us to try to move more quickly to reduce the suffering of these sentient beings. What are your thoughts on these three things, Dr. Chandrasekera?

[Dr. Charu Chandrasekera]

I agree with the recommendations that were put forward by Humane Canada and Animal Justice. I've seen their briefs.

This is long, but what I proposed in my brief, which you will get to see soon, is along the same lines. You need to make the language a bit more specific, practicable and scientifically justified, instead of reasonably possible.

Also, with refinement, we have to be a little careful because, for the foreseeable future, we are going to be using animals and those animals deserve better care. If we are going to be refining, my proposal is that we need to make sure that the procedures are being refined to minimize pain, suffering and distress, and not just improving cage size or giving them extra bedding. In that case, refinement will still play a role until we are able to replace all animal testing, which will take a bit of time.

I'm sorry. I forgot the last section that you mentioned.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

What is the use of animal testing as a last resort?

[Dr. Charu Chandrasekera]

There are some methods that we do not yet fully have replacements for. Developmental neurotoxicity is one of those examples.

What we need right now is to adopt everything that we have available at our disposal. The entire tool box of new approach methods that we have at our disposal needs to be incorporated into every protocol and every procedure possible. At the same time, invest big time into developing these technologies where we are lacking them. That is where we are lagging behind other countries as well. The United States has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the development of these new methods.

I don't think the Canadian government has done nearly enough—actually, it's not done enough at all—to move this field forward by investing in the development, validation and acceptance of these methods.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

I will cede my time back to Mr. Weiler, or whoever wants it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There are 30 seconds up for grabs here. No?

Mr. Duguid is moving adjournment. I don't see any objections.

Thank you to the witnesses. I wish everyone a good weekend.

Thank you very much. We'll see you next week.

The meeting is adjourned.