Environment Committee on May 3rd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

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 they would be regulated. That is what's being proposed. At this point, they will be assessed.So to add them to this before they're assessed is somewhat putting the cart before the horse.

The precautionary principle is part of that. That's what was recommended by Mr. Cullen, so it's part of that, but it is dealing specifically with cosmetics. Proposed clause 4 will be dealing with items that could be put in the mouth of a child. But specifically, clause 3 is dealing with cosmetics, and I think it sends an unhealthy message if we're making regulations before we've had scientific reassessments for DBP and BBP.

So I would not support that and would recommend that the committee not support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

My advice from the clerk--I'll be very upfront with you--is that this is inadmissible, but I'm hearing quite a bit of consensus around the table. So my instinct says we should accept that and let it proceed.

I'm certainly open, though, to members and members' comments--

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

That being what?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

That I can rule it inadmissible and you can overturn the ruling.

Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Can I clarify something, just to be clear on this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No, he was next, and then Mr. Bigras.

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

Well, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Sorry, sorry. Mr. Bigras first, and then Mr. Regan.

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

I understand what you have just told us, but my concern is what could happen to this bill when it gets sent back to the House. So, if your opinion is correct...We can always discuss the merits and ultimately overturn your decision, but I would like the clerk to tell us what could happen to the bill if this amendment is passed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras, I did consult on some of these issues. Basically I was told that if no member from this committee stands up and objects to what we tabled in the House, there's not likely going to be any changes to it.

So I would be looking for consensus here that we vote on the proposed change, and then we vote on this and proceed.

I think that's what I'm hearing in people's comments. It's okay.

Mr. Regan, please carry on.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, so you're saying that even though under the rules, when a private member's bill comes to a committee, strictly speaking, you're not allowed to amend acts or sections of acts that aren't referred to in the original private member's bill brought forward.... In other words, in this case, the bill amends certain sections of CEPA; it doesn't amend the other acts. And therefore, strictly speaking, it wouldn't be able to do that.

My question is, if we were all to agree to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Hazardous Products Act here, and this goes back to the House, can one party then object to it and say to the Speaker that it shouldn't go forward because of this? And would the Speaker then be likely to rule that the bill is out of order because the committee exceeded its authority? That's the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Again, I've listened to the Speaker a lot over the years, and usually he will say that he supports the ruling from the chair.

So obviously my decision would be to rule whether it's admissible or not. I have advice from the clerk. If there are no objections within this committee, and the mover of the bill said he understands that to make this bill more functional, he's taking the advice of the department, that's good enough for me, because we want a functional bill.

Obviously if someone here is violently opposed to that, they can raise it in the House, open the question, and there would be a question about that portion of the bill.

We have to hear Mr. Bigras in order to make sure he knows and understands what I'm proposing.

Mr. Bigras.

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

I understand completely what you are proposing. By way of corroboration, I am going to tell you about a precedent. Precedents can guide our decisions.

Bill C-257 was approved in committee. Amendments had been made, and there was consensus among committee members that the amendments were in order, despite the view of the chair. A vote was taken and the ruling of the chair was overturned. When the bill went back to the House, the Speaker felt that the changes went beyond the scope of the original bill. The amendments were not accepted, and we went back to the original bill that had been tabled in the House to begin with.

So I would like to know if, based on the precedent of Bill C-257, the same thing could happen to the bill we are considering today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Again, the clerk advises me that if it had to do with money, there' s no question that could happen.

Mr. Cullen, can you bring some light to this?

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

Yes. I completely hear Mr. Bigras' point. I just want to remind committee members that what we've conceded to do in changing what may be technically inadmissible is simply a matter of a vehicle. In order to make this bill most effective, which everyone has claimed to support, it's a little strange for me to imagine that there won't any money matters involved, that there's going to be a motion in the House by any of the parties to say this is a bad thing, even though we know the thing we're doing is a good thing.

If we're trying to make this thing happen in the most effective way, and we all agree to that, it seems to be one of these moments in parliamentary history where you say, yes, this is Parliament trying to get the job done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

My feeling is that we've discussed this enough, and I will listen briefly to Mr. Bigras. But I'm prepared to put this to a vote and we'll move forward.

Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. That is not the reason this has happened. First, it was not a question of money, nor of royal assent, but rather a question of including the notion of essential services in the bill, and the Speaker of the House felt that that went beyond the scope of the bill.

We cannot say anything we like, such as that it is a Bloc Québécois bill on replacement workers. I do not want to be a party-pooper. But there are 308 MPs in the House, and any one of them can get up and say that the bill goes beyond its original scope...I do not want to be a party-pooper, I want to make sure that the work we are doing here can come to an appropriate conclusion and follow a normal procedure. We must not keep working just to end up in a situation like the one I was talking about, especially when there are precedents, and when they have been brought to our attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

My only comment is that sometimes change is the thing that scares people most when it comes to precedents.

Mr. Cullen.

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

Through you, Chair, to the clerk, to break this logjam.... I understand Mr. Bigras' reservations, and we don't want to see the baby tossed out with the bathwater, if you will, but I'd ask him if the changes that have happened that he is worried about in regard to admissibility are because we are using the Food and Drugs Act as opposed to CEPA, which was the original design of the bill. Is that where the contentious point of admissibility is?

Maybe I could have some clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

This bill is the authority. It is to be the authority, and so by adding another act, we are in effect--

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

Right, then to find a way to remove Mr. Bigras' concerns, is there language that can be proposed that would allow the authority to stay within this bill, then, for this particular part?

It's a little frustrating, to be honest. We're being given that this is the best vehicle, and now we're essentially having to try to find a substandard vehicle in order to appease a technicality in the House. That's unfortunate if it's the route that we go, but we don't want a situation where there may be a difference of opinion on this in the House and someone can object on a technical reading and have the bill dismissed. That would be even more unfortunate.

Are we prepared to find another vehicle to do it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, do you have a brief comment?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

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 the department could advise us.

I think there is consensus that we want this to go ahead, but the way it is now, it may not be successful either. There may be problems either way. It would have a greater chance if it is improved to be a good bill and if there is unanimous support for it to continue on, I suspect the Speaker would support the ruling and advice of the committee.

I have a question. Is there a risk of it moving forward? Is there a constitutional problem or a legal problem with the bill, as it was originally written?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Again, I would like to see us vote on the proposed amendment and I would like to proceed. I cannot really imagine the Speaker overruling the committee on an item like this. I just don't believe that would happen.

Mr. Cullen.