Evidence of meeting #45 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Yes, there's the redundancy about CMR, and then, for the bill to be coherent, it should say “highest risk” and not “highest concern”.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of clarification about the subamendment that I proposed.
It still keeps the principle of highest risk. It did not revert it to “concern”. It really just outlines those principles. You'll notice it says “or poses the highest risk”, similar to how it's mentioned in other parts of the bill.
Really the concern here, if people were following the Senate committee hearings, is that the Senate had introduced this language to explicitly spell out that CMR—carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic to reproduction—are critical elements that need to be reinforced throughout this bill. We know that in the previous regime, as we've heard in testimony, virtual elimination wasn't working. It needed to be addressed, in part because these principles weren't incorporated or being reinforced throughout.
I do hope that the committee will support including these terms here as well and will not water down the amendments the Senate put forward on this aspect.
Thanks.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. We're debating Ms. Collins' subamendment. Would anyone else like to add something? No?
We can vote on the subamendment.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The subamendment was defeated, so we go back to amendment G-11. Was there any more to say about that?
It doesn't look like it, so we can vote on G-11 now.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
G‑11 being agreed to, we must now vote on clause 15 as amended.
Shall clause 15 carry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
(Clause15 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is it the committee's wish to now adopt clause 16 of the bill?
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
On a point of order, I'm just clarifying. There's clause 16, and then it goes on to clause 16.1, etc. I think there are proposed amendments.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The proposed amendments are to clause 16.1.
Shall clause 16 carry on division?
(Clause 16 agreed to on division)
(On clause 16.1)
This brings us to clause 16.1 and amendment G-12.
Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move this amendment.
Basically, instead of putting in a prohibition with exceptions that are very large, it's putting in a positive requirement that the minister look for alternative methods other than animal testing. I, like many others, find that the testing on vertebrate animals should be minimized as much as possible and eventually eliminated.
I would like to propose the following:
The Ministers shall, to the extent practicable, use scientifically justified alternative methods and strategies to replace, reduce or refine the use of vertebrate animals in the generation of data and the conduct of investigations under paragraph 68(a).
We know that our government is already working on a number of fronts to reduce reliance on animal toxicity testing by investing in research to support the development and use of alternative non-animal methods and developing a strategy on animal testing under CEPA. The government will engage with stakeholders to continue to move forward. We know that Health Canada is already working towards a ban on cosmetic testing on animals.
I think we're all in accord, but I wanted to have a positive requirement that the government look at ways of testing these substances other than using animals.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I would like to point out to the committee that if we adopt the amendment that Ms. Taylor Roy has just moved, NDP‑15 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Are there any comments on G‑12?
Go ahead, Mr. Longfield.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I'm commenting because I have constituents who are watching this section carefully.
The Guelph Humane Society and the University of Guelph have been working on reducing testing and getting to a better place than where we are right now. I hope that going forward with this legislation—engaging with stakeholders being a part of it—we'll get to a better place.
Liberal
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I would like to clarify something.
As we have seen elsewhere, we're talking about replacing, reducing or refining the use of vertebrate animals.
What is meant by “refine”? Does it mean vertebrate animals will continue to be used for testing if we can find another technique?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I think that question is for the department's representatives.
Ms. Farquharson or Mr. Moffet, would you be willing to answer that question?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chair, we're also joined by Mr. Carreau.
Liberal
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Mr. Carreau is from Health Canada.
Liberal
Greg Carreau Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
As was outlined, the government is actively working to reduce reliance on animal testing, with the ultimate goal of phasing out animal testing over time. However, as it stands currently, alternatives have not been sufficiently developed in order to replace all of the animal testing that's required to ensure the safety of Canadians from chemicals.
The term “refine” is intended to be included in the scope of efforts to reduce animal testing, such that when animal testing is absolutely essential to protect Canadians, it is done in a way that is as humane as possible to the animals during the testing process.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
As I understand it, the idea of “to refine” means to modify the process or procedures in the direction of being less harmful to animals. Okay.
Go ahead, Mr. McLean.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Going forward, I'm fully in support of not using vertebrate animals for the testing we need. With the amendment—and the spirit of the amendment is very clear and very positive—I'm wondering if there is a gap between the words that are in the legislation right now and the words we're proposing to change them to.
As much as we're hoping for the gaps to be filled, is there a gap between the wordings being proposed in the amendment and the current state of where we are in Canada? Where things are going to be is obviously what we have our eye on all the time. Between that and where we are, are we going to have to fill the gap in the meantime? Is there anything missing here? If you don't mind my saying this, is the amendment a nicer way of saying exactly what's in the current legislation? If not, is there a gap between what's in the amendment and what's in the legislation?
The question is for Mr. Carreau.
Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health
Thank you for the question.
There are certainly gaps in the sense that alternative methods to replace animal testing aren't fully developed and aren't fully validated with respect to their ability to replace all animal testing currently. However, the proposed amendments we're talking about in amendment G-12 would enable a strong message that alternative methods will be considered and used to the extent practicable, recognizing that the animal testing will still be necessary to protect Canadians and human health.
I hope that's clear.
