• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 148 Ï NUMBER 425 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 42nd PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, June 3, 2019 Speaker: The Honourable Geoff Regan CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 28377 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, June 3, 2019 The House met at 11 a.m. would allow ingredients for use in foods and natural health products that would not be allowed in cosmetics. Prayer [English] PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS This bill originated in the Senate, and it came out of the Senate at the end of the summer session last year. It was passed unanimously Ï (1105) in the Senate. Therefore, members can imagine my surprise when [English] various stakeholders began to approach me and the government to indicate they could not support the bill in its existing form and that CRUELTY-FREE COSMETICS ACT amendments would be needed in order to drive it forward. That Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) moved that Bill began the process of talking to each stakeholder group and finding S-214, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (cruelty-free out about the amendments that they wanted to the bill. cosmetics), be read the second time and referred to a committee. She said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill S-214, a bill that was introduced in the Senate by Senator As can happen, not everyone wanted the same amendments, so Stewart Olsen. The bill aims to ban cosmetic testing on animals in negotiations were undertaken to come to a consensus on what Canada. Bill S-214 would amend the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit amendments should be made. We have now all come to the place cosmetic animal testing and the sale of cosmetic products developed where we believe we could improve the bill, and I am going to take a or manufactured using animal testing. It would also ensure that no few moments to go through the amendments we would like to see to evidence from animal testing may be used to establish the safety of a the bill. cosmetic in Canada. [Translation] The first amendment, reference to a cosmetic for human use, is At present, there is long list of approved cosmetic ingredients. intended to provide clarity to the principle that the ban is not New scientific methods have been developed to test products on intended to apply to products that are included in the definition of human tissue collected during surgical procedures, making animal cosmetics but are for non-human use, such as pet grooming products. testing obsolete. For example, the ban should not prevent non-invasive and non- Cosmetic animal testing has been banned since 2009 in 27 EU toxicological testing of a finished product, such as a dog shampoo, countries, and the sale of cosmetic products or ingredients subject to on a dog to ensure its effectiveness and likeability. new animal testing has been illegal since March 2013. Israel imposed similar bans in 2007 and 2013, and similar policy change is also under consideration in India and South Korea. The second amendment refers to the party to be held responsible for ensuring that the cosmetic products comply with the ban. This In most other countries, cosmetic animal testing is neither should be consistent with the regulated entities that currently have expressly required nor prohibited, so cosmetics companies and legal responsibility under the Food and Drugs Act, which are the ingredient suppliers decide whether they want to conduct such manufacturer or the importer. It is important that the people who are testing. producing cosmetics, producing the ingredients for cosmetics, and In a few countries, including China, cosmetic animal testing may those who are importing, have the responsibility of making sure that still be a legal requirement for some ingredients and finished they have met the requirements in Canada. In the past, there have products. been people who have been distributors of the product, not the manufacturer or importer, and they do not always have the necessary Given the push by Health Canada to adopt a risk-based system for information. Therefore, we would hold the manufacturers and classifying food products, prescription drugs and cosmetics, this bill importers legally responsible to ensure that they comply with that. 28378 COMMONS DEBATES June 3, 2019 Private Members' Business To be sold legally in Canada, the cosmetic product must be filed prevent other activities, like hunting, fishing, farming or going into with Health Canada by the manufacturer or importer. The cosmetic other areas. That was a concern. notification system provides Health Canada with a list of all products on the market and the party that is responsible for the regulatory compliance. Retailers may be the responsible parties if they are also Another concern had to do with applying to countries that require the manufacturer or importer of record. As to a ban on conducting animal testing in order to be approved. For example, if we want to animal testing on finished cosmetic products, this would apply, sell in China, we have to do animal testing in order to sell the appropriately, to a person, as the ban would be on the act of doing product there. We did not want to limit people from being able to the testing rather than on the ability to sell the product. participate in markets in other countries that have other require- ments, so that, as well, was written into the bill. Amendment number three is that it is a principle that the ban should not apply to animal testing of any substance regulated as a food, drug or device in the context of those regulatory uses under the Another question came up as to how this would impact jobs in Food and Drugs Act and associated non-cosmetic regulations. As I Canada. What we typically talk about, for the purposes of this bill, mentioned earlier, the government is moving away from the separate are rats, mice, rabbits and some guinea pigs that have been approval process that existed for food, drugs, natural health products predominantly used for the purpose of these tests in the past. There and cosmetics, and going to a risk-based approach, which puts are a very small number of jobs in Canada associated with that. In additional burden of proof on those things that have higher risk. fact, most of the larger cosmetic firms have already adopted this, because of its use in the other counties that I mentioned. We do not Amendment number four is that the operational details of the sales believe there will be a huge impact on jobs, but think it is something ban as they relate to reliance on new animal test data for cosmetic that should be looked at. purposes should fit within the Canadian regulatory context in order to operate officially, as well as to align with the European Union. One of the discussions was about aligning ourselves with the Ï (1110) European Union and the State of California in terms of what they have established to make sure that would be applicable with all of the countries that have globally agreed to the ban. It was in December when we first came to agreement on all these different amendments and began to put them into the legalese of all It is understood that the Minister of Health has the ultimate the members' bills that come before the House. That activity has responsibility for the protection of public health and safety with taken place. respect to consumer products. As such, the minister should have the power to issue an exemption to the ban if the minister determines it is necessary to address a serious or imminent risk of injury to health, Getting to this point and to the first hour of second reading has for the protection of human health or the safety of the public, and been a pleasure, but we are very close to the end of the session. It that there is no acceptable non-animal approach available. This gives does not appear that this bill will actually be passed in this powers to the minister, and these are powers that the minister ought parliamentary session, because there is a polarity of views and there to have to make sure that public safety is protected. are some other discussions to be held. However, I feel that we have The minister deciding to use the power to issue an exemption increased the amount of support on all sides of the aisle. I will be gives rise to the next amendment. Public transparency and interested to hear the comments that other parties are going to make accountability are key principles with respect to regulation. As after I finish my speech, to see where they are on this bill and to see such, the public and stakeholders should be able to expect that they the potential to introduce this into the 43rd Parliament, which I hope will be made aware when there is either a violation of the ban or the to return for. minister has exercised the authority to provide an exemption as previously outlined. Public notification should consider due process, but also be transparent and easily accessible to interested parties. I would like to thank a lot of the stakeholders across Canada that participated in both bringing this legislation forward and with the Amendment seven has to do with the principle that the ban should amendments: the Animal Alliance of Canada, The Body Shop, be on a go-forward basis and not apply to any animal testing Cosmetics Alliance Canada, Cruelty Free International, Humane conducted, or the use of data arising from it, prior to the ban coming Society International/Canada, and Lush fresh handmade cosmetics.

Load more

  102

Copy Link