Environment committee  Mr. Chair.

Environment committee  In the interest of moving this along in an efficient way—I think we have consensus on almost everything from this point on—if Mr. Cullen were agreeable to withdrawing amendments NDP-13.2, NDP-13.3, and NDP-13.4, we could move right on to amendment G-15.2 and amendment G-15.3, and

Environment committee  We could, but I think there is very close consensus and I would ask, through you, whether he would be interested in withdrawing—

Environment committee  Chair, I think the first difference is the timeframe. The NDP is recommending within 12 months for the reassessment, and the government is recommending within 24 months. If I could defer to the department in the spirit of doing it as quickly as possible, which is the more reali

Environment committee  Amendment NDP-3 on page 12 and the government's motion on page 15.2 are dealing with the same issue of medical devices. Mr. McGuinty brought up the issue of unintended consequences. We agree, and I'm hoping we can find some middle ground here. I thought we had some. The proposal

Environment committee  Thank you. I move new clause 3.1.

Environment committee  I've already made them.

Environment committee  That is correct.

Environment committee  No, that's fine, Mr. Chair.

Environment committee  Chair, all I can say to Mr. Cullen is that we don't support the amendments for the reason I've expressed, which is that we're putting the cart before the horse. We need to first assess DBP and BBP.

Environment committee  Thank you, Chair. This again includes the precautionary principle, as requested by Mr. Cullen. The last clause dealt with cosmetics. This deals with products being brought into contact with the mouth of a child who's less than three years of age. It deals with DEHP. Again, the

Environment committee  That is the original.

Environment committee  I do have a salient point, which is that if the bill were permitted to continue on in its present form and, as the clerk identified, it would be a stand-alone, is that constitutional? Is it a legal bill? I would suggest that it may not be successful if it were stand-alone. Maybe

Environment committee  Thank you, chair. So clause 3 is dealing with cosmetics. What Mr. Cullen is proposing is that we add to this, with a subamendment, DBP and BBP. What's being proposed in the total picture is that those be reassessed, and if they are assessed as being dangerous at that time, then

Environment committee  That's fine.