Environment Committee on Jan. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Next are Mr. Kurek and then Ms. Collins.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I have a further question, just to clarify this issue.

I know the Senate more or less added this part to the bill on some of the concerns we heard in testimony about how it was very much agreed about the need to limit, reduce and ultimately eliminate animal testing. In what seems like a refining of the language here, Ms. Taylor-Roy mentioned that she tried to put it in a positive way, and certainly when I read through this, it looked like a refining of the language to find the right balance that is necessary, as was mentioned, for the health and safety of Canadians when there are not other scientific methods. I'm just wondering if the changes do in fact refine. I'd like to clarify that a bit.

I know that Mr. McLean asked about this as well, but does this clarify and make more definitive exactly what the responsibility of the government is and what the impact is on research and industry? Does this fit within what is required to actually be reasonable while attempting to accomplish the intent to reduce and eventually eliminate animal testing?

That's for whoever is best to answer.

[Laura Farquharson]

Maybe I can answer that, just on the way it's structured.

I think the way that the amendment came to this committee was that no research and investigation should be done unless it's not reasonably possible to obtain data otherwise, so it's like a test that you have to ask every single time, and it may even extend to past tests.

I think the idea was that everybody has the same goal of eliminating vertebrate animal testing and in the meantime reducing it, and that's the duty on the government. It's to keep moving in that direction, but we don't want an administrative sort of checkpoint for every single action that the researchers are going to be doing. We want a general duty, a way of working, that will move us towards elimination of vertebrate testing, but not an administrative requirement to answer that question in every single case.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you for that.

I'm curious. I guess this is probably a bigger question that is not just related to this amendment.

You mentioned the administrative checkpoint. Could you comment on reporting requirements specifically related to this amendment in the bigger picture as well when it comes to the impact this amendment would have specifically on research institutions, on public and private entities that are doing testing currently, whether those are companies or departments of universities?

I'm wondering about the administrative and reporting requirements associated with what's being proposed here.

[Laura Farquharson]

In this particular section, there are no administrative requirements placed on others.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Okay.

[John Moffet]

Yes, exactly. This is an obligation on government: “The Minister shall, to the extent practicable, use....” This is not an obligation on industry. This is not an obligation on university labs, except to the extent that they are working directly for ministers or the department in conducting risk assessments. As said, there are no reporting obligations either, other than the overarching reporting obligations that the ministers have to provide an annual report of activities under the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

My understanding is that animal testing does not generally fall under federal jurisdiction. I'm wondering if that's the reason there's no obligation for entities except when you're talking about cosmetics, which we regulate through the Food and Drugs Act, I guess—or, no, the products act.

Anyway, can I go to Ms. Collins now?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Definitely, I appreciate hearing from the officials. What the testimony clarified for me is that the Senate amendment actually created a requirement for the minister. It created a requirement for the minister to answer this question each time; it is a kind of checkpoint. That seems beneficial in my mind, especially given that this government has committed to introduce legislation to end cosmetic testing by 2023—this year—and also to phase out toxicity testing on animals by 2035. If the government is serious about that, there should be some kind of requirement or checkpoint when it comes to addressing these issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's a statement, not a question.

Go ahead, Madame Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I will also make a comment. I think that this amendment sets aside clause 16.1 of the bill, which was proposed by the Senate.

Earlier, I raised a question about the word “refine”, referring to the use of vertebrate animals. This brings us back to NDP‑14, which would have removed that verb. If we were to accept that, wouldn't there be a temptation to find other ways of doing things rather than using vertebrate animals? Otherwise, we're just trying to refine what we do to vertebrate animals.

I would like to point out that there are exceptions in the Senate clause. It states that ministers may not use methods involving vertebrate animals, but provides for exceptions, such as if it's not reasonably possible to obtain the data or conduct the investigation differently. It's much more restrictive. The idea of refining the use is sort of there, but the clause is much more specific, indicating cases in which vertebrate animals may still be used.

For these reasons, I will be voting against G‑12. I find that the current clause 16.1 is ultimately comprehensive and more detailed, prohibiting this use, but providing for exceptions. When you use the verb “refine”, however, nothing is specified. It says nothing at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.

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

Thank you.

I just want to be clear: That was certainly not my intention. With regard to the original amendment that was put in, the exceptions did not require any kind of checklist, and the exceptions are very large. After meeting and talking to many animal rights organizations and organizations that are doing research on non-animal testing, my intent here was to put the onus on the minister to ensure that the minister would support and look at all of these new techniques and ways that are being utilized to do research without using animals. I met with numerous people who are doing amazing things, and there's just not the support of the use of animal testing.

As was said, we don't control all animal testing, but certainly I felt that what the minister engages for research should be trying to look at all of the non-animal testing options that are out there, that are commercially available, even if they're not widely used. That was the intent. I felt that the original exceptions in here were so large that.... It was basically the same thing, except saying now that we want the minister to go out and look for these other alternatives before using animal testing. That was the idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'm curious whether Ms. Taylor Roy would be open to, potentially, a friendly amendment that would have this same language as an addition, rather than replacing lines 3 to 21. That way we would keep the checkpoints and the requirement to answer this question each time, but also have the additional.... What I hear is that her intention is to add a requirement for the minister to have a broader view of these strategies and this movement towards reducing and replacing the use of animals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are you proposing a subamendment?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Yes. A subamendment would be to keep the same language but not to delete the rest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Could you give me a moment, please?

Ms. Collins, can you explain again what you are proposing? We talked about section 68.1.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Right now, the way that amendment G-12 reads is that it would replace a whole section. My proposal is that rather than replacing it, it would be in addition to it. At the beginning of lines 3 to 21, you'd have this paragraph, and then you'd keep lines 3 to 21 as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Have the legislative clerks registered that?

We're going to take a break because this may be a little more complicated than it seems.

Is this at the beginning or at the end?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

My proposal is for the beginning, but I'm open to either one. I hear the value in Ms. Taylor Roy's proposal to add a requirement for the minister but to delete the other requirements and the requirements specifically to answer this question each time. Having checkpoints would do a disservice and water down the Senate amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Can we pause for a minute while the legislative clerks look at this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I call the meeting back to order.

Before we go back to Ms. Collins, I believe Mr. Duguid has a point of order or some kind of—

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Yes. I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I had the opportunity to have a brief word with the legislative clerk, who helped me understand the complexity of the amendment that has been proposed. I know there's been some work done on that.

Mr. Chair, I think members on this side of the House would like to see that amendment in writing. We're almost at the close of our time. It might be good to start fresh at the next meeting, so I would propose adjournment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The idea is that Ms. Collins will submit the amendment to us in writing, and then we'll start the next meeting with a discussion. It's a subamendment, basically.

Is everyone in agreement to adjourn?