Evidence of meeting #54 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cullen.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Good morning, everybody.
Today we're looking at Bill C-307, Phthalate Control Act. We are going to proceed.
As you know, clause 1 will be postponed pursuant to Standing Order 75(1). We'll begin with clause 2.
(On clause 2--Definition of “Minister”)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I believe that our first amendment is a government amendment, which I believe you're not moving, Mr. Warawa.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
G-4 is being withdrawn, and so we'll begin, then, with G-5.
Go ahead, Mr. Warawa.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to begin by noting that there are two chemical names for DEHP, and they are di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
The current version of Bill C-307 uses the first name for DEHP. The listing of the substance in schedule 1 of CEPA uses the second name, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Therefore, I'm proposing that we use bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in the revised bill, and I have submitted this wording to the clerk of the committee in my proposed amendments. However, in my remarks today I'll refer to DEHP, just for simplicity and because it's the name the committee is used to using.
There are two concerns I have respecting clause 2. The first is that the current version of the bill requires that the Minister of the Environment be called upon to regulate the purposes that are related, in essence, to health protection. The amendments proposed by the government would remove the need to refer to the minister and instead would refer to the Governor in Council.
Second, Bill C-307, as it's currently written, would use CEPA to control phthalates in cosmetics. However, cosmetics are usually regulated under the Food and Drugs Act. Clause 2 would therefore be replaced by a clause that would regulate DEHP cosmetics under the Food and Drugs Act.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, I understand the parliamentary secretary's intention here. There are other aspects of this bill, DBP and BBP in particular, as well as other components, that require the minister to be involved. So while he's talking about the Food and Drugs Act in particular with respect to DEHP, I don't see why striking the minister completely from the bill would make a great deal of sense, because there are ministerial authorities that still need to be there. There are products and chemicals he has jurisdiction over, particularly in terms of listing and authorities to do a redesignation.
So I understand the intention of being specific about this, but striking the minister from the bill entirely doesn't—
Maybe he can clarify.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Warawa, we are into debate here. If we could just ask, I think you did request an opinion.
Jean-Sébastien Rochon Counsel, Department of Justice
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With the amendments proposed by the government, there would be no need to specify that “Minister” refers to the Minister of the Environment. The reason is that the motions put forward by the government would rely on the Food and Drugs Act, which is an act administered by the Minister of Health. The regulations made under this act are made by the Governor in Council.
I would also refer to the Hazardous Products Act, another act administered by the Minister of Health. Here again, orders and regulations made under this act are made by the Governor in Council.
Therefore, there's no need, with these amendments in mind, to specify that the minister referred to in Bill C-307 is going to be the Minister of the Environment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Cullen, I believe you had a comment. Then we'll have Mr. Bigras.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Again, I appreciate it.
There are two things. One is ministerial accountability, which I know the government has a certain amount of keenness on, that is, knowing where the lines of authority are and who's essentially holding the bag for decisions that get made.
Second is that this amendment is contingent upon and assumes the passing, further on, of other amendments the government has suggested, which I, as the mover of the bill, am opposed to.
I go back to my recommendation, particularly when one looks at G-7 in terms of an amendment. G-5, G-6, and others are somewhat contingent upon whether G-7, as an amendment, lives or dies. We're having a debate about something that's yet to come, because the essence of what the government is attempting to do to this bill—and we have some arguments around G-7—happen later. It feels like we're going to have to return to clause 2, depending on what happens further on in clause 3.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
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.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I don't want to repeat what you said, given your assessment, but in my opinion, amendment G-5 completely changes the spirit of the bill and even the responsibility for applying its provisions. Clause 4 of the bill very clearly says that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is being amended. Therefore, I concur with your assessment of amendment G-5.
Counsel, Department of Justice
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wish to clarify that Justice is not opposed in any way to the interpretation of the legislative clerk. The government's position, however, is that these amendments are necessary in order to ensure the validity of the bill if it passes.
As I was saying, I'm not an expert in committee procedure and I defer to the clerk in these matters, but the government's position is that this motion is necessary in order to reach the objectives laid out in this bill while ensuring that it is valid.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to ask about the importance of referring to the appropriate statute, in this case the Food and Drugs Act, as opposed to CEPA; again, we have to make sure that the piece of legislation, if this does carry forward—
I neglected to begin my comments by thanking Mr. Cullen for his hard work on this bill. I hope there is consensus found at the committee and that this bill does move forward, but it has to be a bill that deals a good piece of legislation, a bill that goes to the appropriate statute.
My question is for you, Mr. Chair, and for Mr. Rochon.
The bill as presently written is referring to CEPA. Is CEPA the appropriate statute to deal with this clause?
Counsel, Department of Justice
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CEPA is a statute that has regulatory authority that would allow us to make some regulations with regard to cosmetics, toys, and so on. The concern is that these regulations are now found in other statutes that are tailored to these needs: the Food and Drugs Act with regard to cosmetics, the Hazardous Products Act with regard to children's toys, and so on.
I believe the idea behind the motion is to ensure that the current regime in place, the regime that's already existent, is applied and remains ongoing, and should be sufficient in order to—
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we are starting to get into a debate, when you in fact ruled this amendment out of order. In my opinion, we're getting to the crux of the amendment. You made a ruling and you may perhaps wish to check with the members to validate it, but it seems to me that we are debating the essence of amendment G-5, when you already deemed it to be out of order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Bigras, basically what I'd hoped to do was introduce the fact that there were concerns. Obviously we want a workable bill, and I think this discussion does lead, hopefully, to an understanding of the government's position on how to make this workable. I didn't actually rule it inadmissible; I simply said there are some concerns.
At this point, let's carry on debate to be sure we have it clarified, because I think this will make it much easier as we proceed.
I believe, Mr. Cullen, you're next.