Committee
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 150000
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I call the meeting to order.
Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome Mr. Zimmer, who's joining our committee today for clause-by-clause of Bill S-5.
We have with us again Mr. Carreau, Ms. Farquharson and Madam Gonçalves.
(On clause 16.1)
I'm just going to take a minute to situate myself. I believe, G-12 had been tabled, so it's on the floor. We're opening the discussion on it. Would anyone like to speak to G-12?
Do you have your hand up, Ms. Collins?
Collapse
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
View Laurel Collins Profile
2023-02-02 15:46
Expand
I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In our last meeting I had proposed a subamendment. After speaking to members of the committee, I don't have support for the subamendment. In the interest of time, I'm not going to move it.
I can speak more maybe after other members of the committee speak.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay.
Would anyone like to speak to this amendment?
Mr. Weiler.
Collapse
View Patrick Weiler Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to propose a subamendment to this amendment.
Currently, the amendment says:
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).
Then proposed subsection (2) would say, “For the purposes of subsection (1), methods and strategies to refine the use of vertebrate animals”. Here I want to strike “shall” and add “include minimizing”, and then from there it continues “pain and distress caused to vertebrate animals in the generation of data and the conduct of investigations under paragraph 68(a).”
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Can you send it in writing to the clerk? It can't be distributed to everyone, because it's not bilingual, as far as I know. The clerks would like to see a written version.
Mr. Patrick Weiler: Gladly.
The Chair: In the meantime, after you've done that, of course, we can open discussion on the subamendment.
We have Ms. Collins, please.
Collapse
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
View Laurel Collins Profile
2023-02-02 15:48
Expand
I appreciate the intent of this motion in general. I think the addition is valuable, and I think the addition of the subamendment is also valuable.
I will be voting in favour of the subamendment but, in the end, voting against the amendment, just because it is deleting an important section about what the minister shall not do and really taking out some of the checkpoints and the requirements to answer this question each time.
I really appreciate the additions that are being added here, and I appreciate the work of both Ms. Taylor Roy and Mr. Weiler.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, we have Ms. Taylor Roy.
Collapse
View Leah Taylor Roy Profile
Lib. (ON)
I just want to comment on that.
I did meet with some of the animal rights groups—Animal Justice and Dr. Chandrasekera—after the last meeting to discuss this. They're satisfied with this. It has the positive intent of advocating for increased use of non-animal testing to support that kind of research and development in that area.
On the subamendment that Mr. Weiler just made, it also addressed the issue of “refine”, which some people want to remove and some want to include, but it just tried to tailor that to specify that it was only talking about basically reducing pain when it came to the refinements.
I do think this amendment is very much supported by the animal rights activists. I would hope that people will support this as well.
Thank you.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Is there anyone else?
Mr. Kurek.
Collapse
View Damien Kurek Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Chair.
I know that the subamendment was read into the record and there was talk about it being sent. I am just wondering if we can have the exact wording read again. Thank you.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Don't you have it yet? Has it been sent directly?
Okay, we'll get it to you in a second.
Collapse
View Damien Kurek Profile
CPC (AB)
I'd just like to know.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Absolutely.
As we wait for the written text to arrive, does anyone else want to speak to it?
Ms. Pauzé, go ahead.
Collapse
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2023-02-02 15:51
Expand
Since the text that was sent is not in French, could Mr. Weiler reread it?
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I am being told that it's bilingual. So you will be able to read the French version.
Collapse
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2023-02-02 15:51
Expand
Oh, okay.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
The text will be sent in both official languages to all the committee members by email.
Collapse
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2023-02-02 15:52
Expand
Mr. Chair, I would like to put a question to the person who made this proposal.
There are restrictions, but I am wondering why it is also proposed to remove all the restrictions. I am trying to read the exceptions and the amendment side by side, and it seems to me that it could work.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Isn't it an addition?
Collapse
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2023-02-02 15:52
Expand
No, it is an amendment by replacement, so all the exceptions would also end up being removed.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Are you talking about the amendment or the subamendment?
Collapse
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2023-02-02 15:53
Expand
About the amendment. I have not received the subamendment yet.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
We are now debating the subamendment. You should receive the text of the subamendment by email.
Ms. Taylor Roy, do you want to elaborate on the amendment?
Collapse
View Leah Taylor Roy Profile
Lib. (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.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
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?
Collapse
View Damien Kurek Profile
CPC (AB)
Is it just removing “shall”?
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
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.
Collapse
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
View Laurel Collins Profile
2023-02-02 15:55
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Is there unanimous consent for the subamendment?
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we continue to debate, if necessary, the amendment.
Ms. Pauzé, did you want to speak to amendment G-12?
Collapse
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2023-02-02 15:56
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
So this amendment doesn't have to remove the exceptions, according to you.
Collapse
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2023-02-02 15:57
Expand
Yes, exactly.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I could not answer you.
I don't know who could shed some light on this.
Go ahead.
Collapse
View Leah Taylor Roy Profile
Lib. (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.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
So it's about strengthening the wording.
Collapse
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2023-02-02 15:58
Expand
Okay.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Ms. Collins.
Collapse
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
View Laurel Collins Profile
2023-02-02 15:58
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Is there anyone else? Shall we go to a vote on G-12?
Collapse
View Leah Taylor Roy Profile
Lib. (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...?
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
To NDP-15...?
Collapse
View Leah Taylor Roy Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
If G-12 is adopted, NDP-15 cannot be introduced.
Collapse
View Leah Taylor Roy Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay. That's if this is adopted, but if this is—
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
If this negatived, then NDP-15 can be.
Collapse
View Leah Taylor Roy Profile
Lib. (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”.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, I believe so.
Collapse
View Leah Taylor Roy Profile
Lib. (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.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay, let's vote.
Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Ms. Collins.
Collapse
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
View Laurel Collins Profile
2023-02-02 16:01
Expand
I was just going to tell Ms. Taylor Roy that I think there's [Technical difficulty—Editor] motion, and there would be support for the next one, too. I was just going to encourage us to vote.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay, let's go on with the voting on G-12 as amended.
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 16.1 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 17 agreed to on division)
(On clause 18)
The Chair: Now we have PV-14, which is deemed moved.
Ms. May, the floor is yours.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is an amendment in order to direct the minister to require testing by industry where the available information is inadequate to determine if the substance is toxic. This amendment is also consistent with concerns that were raised when the Senate studied Bill S-5 before it came over to this place.
The concerns raised by the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources are resolved through this amendment. This makes testing mandatory where available information is inadequate. It's quite straightforward language, so I'll just leave it there and say that it's well-supported by the Canadian Environmental Law Association and, as I mentioned, also by the study the Senate committee did.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Is there anyone else? Would anyone like to speak to this?
Ms. Collins.
Collapse
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
View Laurel Collins Profile
2023-02-02 16:03
Expand
I'd just like to say thank you to Ms. May for putting this forward. I think mandatory testing is important, and I'll be supporting the motion.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Is there anyone else? No.
We'll go to a vote. We're voting on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 18 agreed to on division)
(On clause 19)
The Chair: We have, to start, NDP-16.
Ms. Collins.
Collapse
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
View Laurel Collins Profile
2023-02-02 16:05
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is a very similar motion trying to get at the same issue of mandatory testing, so I won't take too much time with it.
Thanks.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Would anyone else like to speak to this? Let's do a vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we move on to PV-15, which is deemed moved.
Ms. May.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In reviewing the clause-by-clause amendments in preparing for the committee, my staff and I realized that there had been an error in transcribing from one set of documents to another, and inadvertently it lacks the sense it needs.
As you'll recall, under the motion this committee passed, I'm required to be here on a short timeline to get amendments in. I can't fix them afterwards, so I will at this point let the committee know that thanks to the generosity of the member from Victoria, Laurel Collins, we've been working it out. She has a subamendment prepared, so I'm going to turn it to her because, as it now stands, PV-15 isn't ready to be voted on.
If Ms. Collins is prepared to put forward a solution, I would welcome it.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Ms. Collins, your solution would not be NDP-17, would it?
Collapse
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
View Laurel Collins Profile
2023-02-02 16:07
Expand
No, it's a subamendment to PV-15.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Just a moment, please.
Do you have it in writing?
Collapse
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
View Laurel Collins Profile
2023-02-02 16:07
Expand
I do, and I've sent it to the clerk. It should be in their email.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Does the clerk have it in both languages?
A voice: Yes.
The Chair: We'll distribute that.
Thank you.
Collapse
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
View Laurel Collins Profile
2023-02-02 16:07
Expand
Just to be clear, Mr. Chair, I will be proposing NDP-17. This is a completely different subamendment for PV-15.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Right now you're proposing something before you propose NDP-17?
Ms. Laurel Collins: Exactly.
The Chair: Would you like to speak...?
Collapse
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
View Laurel Collins Profile
2023-02-02 16:08
Expand
Just so folks know what is being added here, it's really the same text that you see on your page with simply the addition of a paragraph (a). The part that you have on your page will become paragraph (b).
The addition would be 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 and a product that”.
With the chair's permission, I will pass it back to Ms. May to speak to her full amendment.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Go ahead, Ms. May.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I'm just making sure everybody has received—
Collapse
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2023-02-02 16:09
Expand
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, don't we have to vote on a subamendment first?
Collapse
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
View Laurel Collins Profile
2023-02-02 16:09
Expand
Mr. Chair, could I suggest that we have unanimous consent, out of consideration, to amend this to what it was originally intended to be?
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
This is a subamendment. It's not that Ms. May is not presenting PV-15.
Collapse
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
View Laurel Collins Profile
2023-02-02 16:09
Expand
No, and I'm not trying to, in any way, change Ms. May's intended amendment.
She had intended to originally submit this amendment. There was a transcription problem, so her amendment was missing the first half of what she had intended.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Basically you're presenting a whole new amendment.
Collapse
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
View Laurel Collins Profile
2023-02-02 16:10
Expand
No. I'm presenting a subamendment to her amendment to return it to the original intention.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay. We have to vote on the subamendment to PV-15.
Collapse
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
View Laurel Collins Profile
2023-02-02 16:10
Expand
Mr. Chair, perhaps you'll allow me to say that I do hope that, out of generosity and in the spirit of good working together, even if members don't support the amendment itself, they will at least allow it to be fixed for the record to what it should have been.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Do we need to discuss the subamendment?
Yes, we have Ms. May.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
As you know, I find it really unfortunate that my rights are restricted in this way when I could normally have fixed this on the floor of the House at report stage, had this committee not passed the motion that restricts my rights.
I know that under the rules you've passed, I'm not allowed to speak to another member's subamendment, nor am I allowed to amend my own motion. That's why we're here. That's why the subamendment from Ms. Collins fixes something in PV-15 that needs fixing.
It's a very straightforward measure. It's just to say that, “Despite subsection 71(1), the Minister must exercise the powers under that subsection in relation to a substance and a product that” and then it replaces as it continues here. This is, again, about ensuring that we have adequate testing of toxic substances.
That's the framework of PV-15, and we did have a glitch in the way it was drafted.
I hope that all makes sense now.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Ms. Collins is rectifying the glitch.
Mr. Kurek.
Collapse
View Damien Kurek Profile
CPC (AB)
I would suggest, looking around the table, that there is unanimous consent to see the subamendment adopted.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Now we go to PV-15 as amended.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thanks, Damien and all members of the committee.
In the interest of time.... I have described it. It's now fixed. It's before you in its proper form.
Although my and Laurel's previous efforts to make sure testing is mandatory and more complete.... This is basically a continuation of a framework of amendments put forward by the Green Party to make testing mandatory where existing information is insufficient.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Does anyone else want to speak to PV-15 or can we go to a vote?
Collapse
View Damien Kurek Profile
CPC (AB)
I'm sorry, Chair. I just have a question for the officials.
Some concerns were raised in testimony about the administrative burdens of a few things. I am just wondering if the officials could give us some feedback on this amended amendment and whether or not it's solving something that needs to be addressed.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Ms. Farquharson, go ahead, please.
Collapse
Laura Farquharson
View Laura Farquharson Profile
Laura Farquharson
2023-02-02 16:13
Expand
Right now, if there is information missing to assess the substance, the departments use various tools. If there are information gaps, they might do the testing themselves. They might do monitoring and partnering with academia, or they might leverage data from other jurisdictions. They use the powers in this section to gather information and gather what they need.
The answer is that it's not clear that anything is broken here. I think by making it mandatory, you're creating a situation where you're asking for.... It's not necessary. That's what I would say.
There are two people from the science side of things on this call, so they might want to expand on that.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I can't see everybody who is on the screen. Do any of the other officials want to speak to this?
Ms. Gonçalves, do you want to speak to it? Go ahead.
Collapse
Jacqueline Gonçalves
View Jacqueline Gonçalves Profile
Jacqueline Gonçalves
2023-02-02 16:14
Expand
Just very briefly and to reiterate what Ms. Farquharson said, in any instance where we feel data is missing to help complete a risk assessment, there are many mechanisms we can use, including requesting data from industry to complete those risk assessments.
Thank you.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Ms. May.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
If I may, the department should not be troubled by an amendment that says that, if the information that is available is not sufficient, their answer is that they'll always find a way to make sure the information available is sufficient.
The amendment covers a circumstance that is plausible: that the information available is not sufficient. In other words, this poses no disruption to the department's response of how they'll always be able to find the information. They'll look at it themselves. They'll search out other researchers and academics—
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
This just requires them to.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
This is just to say that, if they happen to find themselves in a situation where the information is not sufficient, it becomes mandatory.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Does anyone else want to speak to this amendment?
Shall we go to a vote?
(Amendment as amended negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2023-02-02 16:17
Expand
Mr. Chair, I assume you are getting ready to put clause 19 to the vote, but I have a short amendment to propose.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Amendment PV-15 was just defeated.
Do you want to propose an amendment to clause 19?
Collapse
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2023-02-02 16:17
Expand
Yes.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Go ahead.
Collapse
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2023-02-02 16:17
Expand
I would just like the word “peut” to be removed, on line 29 in French. Instead of “peut préciser les initiatives”, it would say “précise les initiatives”.
The same amendment would be made in the English by removing “may”.
Collapse
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Do we agree? It seems to be pretty straightforward.
I think we have unanimous consent for the wording to be amended.
(Amendment agreed to)
Collapse
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2023-02-02 16:17
Expand
Thank you.
Collapse
Results: 1 - 100 of 150000 | Page: 1 of 1500

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data