Before we get too deeply into debate of this issue, the clerk has advised me that there are some procedural problems with this particular amendment, as well, that members should be aware of. I can read those procedural problems, if you'd like. That might help to clarify.
This is now regarding amendment G-5, which is what we're discussing. It proposes to replace clause 2 in its entirety and establish a framework for making “regulations under subsection 30(1) of the Food and Drugs Act respecting cosmetics that contain bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate”.
Clause 2 is the interpretation section of Bill C-307 and provides a definition for the term “minister”. Amendment G-5 does not propose to amend this definition and is not relevant to clause 2.
As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”
That's the procedural problem. Our Justice people are saying it's not a problem, so now it's up to the members of this committee to take a look at that and, of course, proceed as we desire.
Go ahead, Mr. Bigras.