ENVI Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
Laura Farquharson, Jacqueline Gonçalves and Greg Carreau answered questions.
The committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on Clause 16.1 of the Bill.
“Restriction — vertebrate animals
68.1 (1) 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).”
The debate continued.
Patrick Weiler moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding after paragraph 68.1 the following: “2) For the purposes of subsection (1), methods and strategies to refine the use of vertebrate animals include minimizing pain and distress caused to vertebrate animals used in the generation of data and the conduct of investigations under s 68(a).”
By unanimous consent, after debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Patrick Weiler and it was agreed to.
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Taylor Roy, as amended, and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Gérard Deltell, Terry Duguid, Damien C. Kurek, Lloyd Longfield, Greg McLean, Leah Taylor Roy, Joanne Thompson, Patrick Weiler, Bob Zimmer — 9;
NAYS: Laurel Collins, Monique Pauzé — 2.
Clause 16.1 carried on division.
Clause 17 carried on division.
On Clause 18,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Tuesday, December 14, 2021, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved : That Bill S-5, in Clause 18, be amended(a) by replacing line 6 on page 13 with the following:
“71 (1) Subject to section 72, the Minister may, for the purpose of assessing”
(b) by replacing line 24 on page 13 with the following:
“(c) send a written notice to any”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Laurel Collins, Monique Pauzé — 2;
NAYS: Gérard Deltell, Terry Duguid, Damien C. Kurek, Lloyd Longfield, Greg McLean, Leah Taylor Roy, Joanne Thompson, Patrick Weiler, Bob Zimmer — 9.
Clause 18 carried on division.
On Clause 19,
Laurel Collins moved, — That Bill S-5, in Clause 19, be amended(a) by replacing line 14 on page 15 with the following:
“72 (1) The Minister may not exercise the power under para-”
(b) by adding after line 20 on page 15 the following:
“(2) Despite subsection (1), if available information is insufficient to assess whether a substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic, the Minister shall exercise the power under paragraph 71(1)(c) in relation to that substance, a product that contains it or a product that may release it into the environment.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Laurel Collins and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Laurel Collins, Monique Pauzé — 2;
NAYS: Gérard Deltell, Terry Duguid, Damien C. Kurek, Lloyd Longfield, Greg McLean, Leah Taylor Roy, Joanne Thompson, Patrick Weiler, Bob Zimmer — 9.
That Bill S-5, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 20 on page 15 with the following:
“stance into the environment if the information that is available is not sufficient for determining whether the substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic, including with respect to the matters referred to in subparagraphs 68(a)(iii.1), (iii.2), (v), (vi) and (vi.1), and subsection 76.1(2).”
Debate arose thereon.
Laurel Collins moved, — That the amendment be amended
(a) by substituting the following for the portion “by replacing lines 17 to 20 on page 15 with the following:”:
“(a) by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 15 with the following:
72 Despite subsection 71(1), the Minister must exercise the powers under that subsection in relation to a substance, a product that
(b) by replacing lines 17 to 20 on page 15 with the following:”
(b) by substituting, in the French version, the following for the portion “71(1)c)”:
“dans l’environnement, les pouvoirs prévus à ce paragraphe”
By unanimous consent, after debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Laurel Collins and it was agreed to.
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May, as amended, and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Laurel Collins, Monique Pauzé — 2;
NAYS: Gérard Deltell, Terry Duguid, Damien C. Kurek, Lloyd Longfield, Greg McLean, Leah Taylor Roy, Joanne Thompson, Patrick Weiler, Bob Zimmer — 9.
(a) by deleting, on line 29 on page 15, the word “may”
(b) by replacing, on line 29 on page 15, the word “specify” with the word “specifies”
By unanimous consent, after debate, the question was put on the amendment of Monique Pauzé and it was agreed to.
“and publish a plan with timelines”
The question was put on the amendment of Laurel Collins and it was agreed to.
the development and timely incorporation of scientifically justified alternative methods and strategies in the testing and assessment of substances to replace, reduce or refine the use of vertebrate animals.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Taylor Roy and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Gérard Deltell, Terry Duguid, Damien C. Kurek, Lloyd Longfield, Greg McLean, Leah Taylor Roy, Joanne Thompson, Patrick Weiler, Bob Zimmer — 9;
NAYS: Laurel Collins, Monique Pauzé — 2.
“(1.1) The plan shall include timeframes not exceeding five years for implementing the measures set out in the plan.”
The question was put on the amendment of Monique Pauzé and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Laurel Collins, Monique Pauzé — 2;
NAYS: Gérard Deltell, Terry Duguid, Damien C. Kurek, Lloyd Longfield, Greg McLean, Leah Taylor Roy, Joanne Thompson, Patrick Weiler, Bob Zimmer — 9.
(a) by deleting lines 1 and 2 on page 16.
(b) by adding after line 30 on page 16 the following:
“(7.1) The Ministers shall review the plan within five years after it is published and every five years after that.”
(c) by renumbering subsections of section 73 and amending all references accordingly.
Debate arose thereon.
At 4:27 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 4:28 p.m., the sitting resumed.
At 4:33 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 4:50 p.m., the sitting resumed.
At 5:01 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 5:05 p.m., the sitting resumed.
By unanimous consent, Clause 19 was allowed to stand.
On Clause 20,
Damien C. Kurek moved, — That Bill S-5, in Clause 20, be amended(a) by replacing line 21 on page 17 with the following:
“(3) The Minister may delete a substance from the List,”
(b) by replacing lines 23 to 25 on page 17 with the following:
“specified on the List, if
(a) an order is made under subsection 90(1) adding the substance to the list of toxic substances in Schedule 1;
(b) an assessment of the substance conducted under this Part determines that it is not toxic under section 64; or
(c) on the basis of new information received by the Ministers regarding the physical or chemical properties of the substance, the Ministers no longer have reason to suspect that the substance is capable of becoming toxic.
(3.1) For greater certainty, subsection (3) does not limit the authority of the Minister to delete a substance from the List.”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, Clause 20 was allowed to stand.
At 5:17 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 5:18 p.m., the sitting resumed.
That Bill S-5, in Clause 21, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 20 to 23 on page 19 with the following:
“(c) recommending that the substance be added to
(i) the list of toxic substances in Schedule 1, and
(ii) if applicable, the Virtual Elimination List compiled under subsection 65(2).”
(b) by replacing line 25 on page 19 with the following:
“ferred to in subparagraph (2)(c)(i) if the substance is deter-”
(c) by replacing, in the English version, line 37 on page 19 with the following:
“naturally occurring inorganic substance; or”
(d) by replacing lines 2 to 4 on page 20 with the following:
“production.
(4) The Ministers shall propose to take the measure referred to in subparagraph (2)(c)(ii) if the substance is determined to be toxic and the Ministers are satisfied that the substance
(a) is persistent and bioaccumulative in accordance with the regulations;
(b) is present in the environment primarily as a result of human activity;
(c) is not a naturally occurring radionuclide; and
(d) poses an unacceptable risk in accordance with the regulations or is a substance described in subsection 56(5) or (10).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Laurel Collins, Monique Pauzé — 2;
NAYS: Gérard Deltell, Terry Duguid, Damien C. Kurek, Lloyd Longfield, Greg McLean, Leah Taylor Roy, Joanne Thompson, Patrick Weiler, Bob Zimmer — 9.
“(6) After taking into consideration the comments filed under subsection (5), and within one year after publication of the statement referred to in subsection (1), the”
Debate arose thereon.
Monique Pauzé moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the word “statement” with the words “final decision”.
By unanimous consent, the subamendment was withdrawn.
On motion of Terry Duguid, it was agreed, — That the committee do now adjourn.
At 5:29 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.