Environment Committee on May 1st, 2007

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I had not finished.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'm sorry, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I was asking for an answer here.

You're suggesting that the Food and Drugs Act is the best wording in this bill. You said that this is the traditional mechanism used to deal with the cosmetics, the Food and Drugs Act, as opposed to CEPA. Why is that? Are there enforcement mechanisms in the Food and Drugs Act that will help deal with phthalates in cosmetics?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rochon.

[Jean-Sébastien Rochon]

Thank you.

The Food and Drugs Act is indeed tailored to deal with products such as cosmetics. There are currently cosmetics regulations under the act. They're an enforcement regime that is, again, tailored to these kinds of products. I really can't speak to this with much proficiency, but there is some expectation, I believe from stakeholders, that these products are being dealt with under the Food and Drugs Act.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So you're suggesting that is the appropriate place.

But Bill C-307, as written, is to have it under CEPA and to have the minister—You're saying that the specific minister, the Minister of the Environment, may not be the appropriate minister, so you're saying Governor in Council, to get the general budgets. The principles are still the same. You're dealing with the authority to deal with it, but also under the proper statute.

Is that what you're saying?

[Jean-Sébastien Rochon]

That's correct, Mr. Warawa.

I guess this brings us to the question of the bill itself. There are a number of concerns with Bill C-307.

To begin with, it is unclear under what authority the Minister of the Environment is expected to make these regulations.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

There are two important things, and there's no disrespect to our esteemed guests here.

One principle the committee must accept as we enter into this debate is that the bill, in principle, has been accepted by the House of Commons. What the committee has been charged with is making refinements to the bill, not dissuading itself from the true intention of the bill.

We were willing to entertain this conversation, even though I suggest that further on, this is all assuming the passage of a government amendment that we haven't seen and that, I will argue, goes to the very heart of the bill and changes the nature and heart of the bill. We've had consistent rulings in the environment committee and other committees of Parliament that you simply can't do that. Committees are masters of their own fate—to a point. The “to a point” is that when we are given the task of addressing a bill, we accept it on principle, which the House of Commons has—on division, I might add.

The debate that we're getting into now and the allocation of where the designation goes makes assumptions of fundamental changes to the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I do want to move on.

Mr. Bigras, if you could briefly make your point, then we'll go back to Mr. Warawa, and we'll move on.

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I think it's clear, Mr. Chairman. According to our rules, this amendment is out of order. I repeat, we're getting into a substantive debate and we'll end up—I understand that this may be a point of information. From the beginning, we've allowed the government and opposition members to challenge the purpose of this amendment.

However, you need to be firm, to clearly state that this amendment is out of order and that it's time to move on to the next one. Those are the rules. Unless the clerk tells me I'm wrong, we must follow the rules. Some questions have been allowed, to clarify the situation, but now it's time to move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, very briefly, please.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I suggested this amendment in order to provide clarity and to assist where we believe this committee would like to go, and provide the appropriate tools. An analogy I would use is that of somebody building a house and banging a nail with a screwdriver. We're handing them a hammer and saying, this is the appropriate tool

. So if the goal is to deal with phthalates, we're suggesting that the Food and Drugs Act would be the appropriate statute, not CEPA.

The member is quite right: if they want to move ahead and provide a bill that is not well written, is not using the right tools, the committee has that right. I'm suggesting that it should be well written, and we're hoping to be able to support the bill. If it's poorly written, using the wrong statute for enforcement, then one would question why it would not have the right tools. Is it for optics? We need to have a bill that is realistic and uses the right tools.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa.

I don't believe Mr. Cullen was that convinced of this. I think at this point I would have to take the clerk's advice and say that this amendment is beyond the scope of Bill C-307 and therefore rule it inadmissible.

We'll move on, and hopefully G-7 will, as you pointed out, clarify this.

Yes, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, Mr. McGuinty had his hand up before you ruled.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

A ruling has been made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I apologize, Mr. McGuinty. I wasn't aware that you did. Is it pertinent to this discussion?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It is.

I don't think anybody wants to leave this process, Mr. Chair, and deliver up ineffective legislation. I'm sure the writer of the private member's bill wants to see it work. We've got expert advice sitting in front of us here. We've received government amendments that are longer in text, I believe, than the entire Bill C-307 itself. I haven't heard, as a member of Parliament, the overarching rationale for these changes. It would be helpful, I think, for all members of Parliament to hear where this is taking us.

I think Mr. Cullen is absolutely right when he talks about one change having distributive effects later on and effectively gutting the bill. I don't think anyone is interested in gutting the bill. I assume we want to work and come out of here with a good piece of legislation that will achieve the ends that Mr. Cullen has put in terms of the overall essence of the bill.

I have heard nothing, but I have received and have had deposited in front of me 16 separate amendments from three parties. It would be useful not to commit to anything at this stage, but to hear what the rationale is here. Have we got this so fundamentally wrong?

I don't think, Monsieur Bigras, with all respect, that we can go on and consider these one after the other, rule them in or rule them out, and make changes if we don't have some overarching understanding of what the government is proposing. That would be my suggestion.

Can we hear a generalized statement? We were beginning to hear a statement from, I think, one of our witnesses, or perhaps Mr. Warawa. To put us in a situation where—This is not an apples and oranges situation. I don't think we want to say to Mr. Cullen that we're going to rewrite his bill completely, that it's going to be unrecognizable when it comes back to the House of Commons. But we need some kind of statement as to where we're going here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Your point of order, Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The question that was put forward to the committee, as is oftentimes the case with amendments, was on admissibility. Is the amendment admissible? Has the amendment threatened the very will and intention of the bill that's been passed by the House? That's the point. Of course we're looking for improvements. We've been meeting with government officials; we've been meeting with the parliamentary secretary, and other members from around this table. Of course that is the intention. But if we're talking about admissibility, the permission to actually make the amendment or not, this has been ruled inadmissible. The debate as to whether it's an improvement to the bill or not is not admissible by definition. To go round and round in this conversation about further improvements and whether the right tool is being used.... This has been accepted by the House of Commons in its intention and direction. To change that intention and direction is not admissible under the rules by which we govern ourselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Overall, Mr. Cullen, I tend to agree with you.

On Mr. Warawa's point that it would be better if it dealt directly with the Food and Drugs Act, and so on, I can understand what he's trying to do. I think the time at which it's being done is the problem.

I would suggest we proceed. I think your original discussion, Mr. Cullen, was that by the time we get to G-7, Mr. McGuinty's points will be put forward.

Mr. Warawa, you will need to argue the point as to where exactly the overall bill is going in order to make it a better bill and a functional bill for the people of Canada. That's what all of us should be here for, and hopefully by moving on we'll get to that point. And we'll get the explanation, Mr. McGuinty, so that all of us can be clear about it.

I would like to vote on clause 2.

(Clause 2 negatived)

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm sorry, what were the votes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The votes were four to three, with four abstentions.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Fantastic.

(On clause 3—Regulations)