Environment Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2023

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

The original amendment that I put forward was to replace what was there with a positive obligation on the minister to look for alternatives to animal testing.

Madam Collins had suggested going back to the other one, but she withdrew that subamendment.

The other subamendment I put forward was from animal rights groups I had spoken to that had asked for further clarification on the word “refine”. I was going back to my original amendment, which now is not being amended by Ms. Collins. I am trying to add a small section that just talks about the concept of “refine” to ensure that we're talking about reducing distress for the animals.

That's where it is right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Before, we didn't really know what “refine” meant. It was too large a term and it could have meant anything. Now we're narrowing the meaning of “refine”.

Is there anyone else before we vote on the subamendment?

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

Is it just removing “shall”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It adds a section to define what “refining” means because previously it was a bit too broad.

Go ahead, Ms. Collins.

Your screen is frozen, unfortunately.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay. It looks like maybe my connection is unstable. Hopefully you can hear me.

I just want to reiterate my appreciation for this amendment. I do think it's valuable to clarify what the word “refine” means, especially, limiting it to “minimizing pain”. I commend Ms. Taylor Roy for her work on this. I'm just wondering, if we have a general consensus around the table to move forward with the subamendment, whether we could do it by unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there unanimous consent for the subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we continue to debate, if necessary, the amendment.

Ms. Pauzé, did you want to speak to amendment G-12?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, I did.

I am wondering why the amendment is proposing that the text up to line 21 be replaced, when it seems to me that the “Exceptions” part could very well apply, even if the amendment was adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

So this amendment doesn't have to remove the exceptions, according to you.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, exactly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I could not answer you.

I don't know who could shed some light on this.

Go ahead.

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

Part of the reasoning was the original list that's in there. When you look at the exceptions that are there, they are so broad that it's really just more illustrating. I felt that putting in a positive obligation was more effective or would help more with advancing the field than listing this, because when you look under the exceptions under that list that was part of the original amendment from the Senate, they do not apply if “it is not reasonably possible”. That terminology, “reasonably possible”, was not supported by the animal rights groups. “Reasonably possible” was seen as too broad an exception, basically, to actually give this any teeth. The whole of that proposed subsection 68.1(2) was seen as very.... They preferred the positive obligation with the language that I put forward. I suppose that's the best way to say it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

So it's about strengthening the wording.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

In response to some of that.... You'll see that NDP-15 is the next amendment. It won't be movable if this one passes. I did want to change that language of “not reasonably possible to obtain the data”. I do agree that it's not strong enough, so I'd change it to really similar language to what Ms. Taylor Roy has changed it to, but without deleting the stronger Senate amendments.

Even though I appreciate the addition of a positive requirement for the minister, the requirement around what the minister shall not do, as we heard in the testimony from the officials, has an administrative requirement. It's a requirement to answer this question each time, and it creates a checkpoint. I think that is a valuable thing. The reason the Senate put this in is so that it would have a stronger checkpoint requirement to answer the question each time.

With regard to Madame Pauzé's question, I think it does delete something significant. It also adds something positive, but in my mind, I can't support the deletion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there anyone else? Shall we go to a vote on G-12?

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

I just have a question for clarification.

If the amendment that I put forward, which has been amended by Mr. Weiler, is voted down, what happens to the next...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

To NDP-15...?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If G-12 is adopted, NDP-15 cannot be introduced.

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

Okay. That's if this is adopted, but if this is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If this negatived, then NDP-15 can be.

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

Okay, but if NDP-15 is not adopted, then we're left with the original language, which has that proposed subsection that says “reasonably possible”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, I believe so.

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

That's one of the things to consider. I think that removing that language is very important for the groups. I would urge those who are in favour of this to vote for this amendment, because I think it addresses the concerns. We want to have what was in the Senate language amended, in the end, to make it stronger.