Evidence of meeting #55 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I'm going to go to Mr. Cullen and ask him to tell us exactly what his subamendment is. Then I'm going to call the vote, please.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The only reason I'm hesitating, Chair, is that I feel that by adding a subamendment to include those other two phthalates, I put in jeopardy the entire bill. I'm not sure government opposition to this will not arise in the House of Commons under a technical excuse, ending up with the bill not going ahead.
I'm not sure what assurances I can get from government today that even though we have a difference of opinion over the elements, they will not end the bill's existence in the House over this technicality. I'm not sure if there's a willingness there.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
As I understand it, Mr. Cullen, and I'm sure you do as well, it's simply a matter that these are being evaluated. It's just a matter that you don't want to put them in and take them out, or vice versa, and that is really the disagreement. It's not a matter of questioning the motive. It's just the timing, I guess, more than anything else.
I don't know, Mr. Warawa, but I don't believe you can give those assurances.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
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.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
In light of the entire intention of the bill, I won't move those subamendments, just to allow the process that we've negotiated here to go ahead. And I would encourage the government to consider including those two phthalates in their ban in future stages.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Okay.
I'll call the vote, then, on what is proposed clause 3 in amendment G-7.1.
Again, we won't worry about numbering here; we'll just deal with it as it appears in front of us.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Now we are going to deal with proposed clause 4 as a separate motion.
Again, Mr. Warawa, I would ask you to explain that and then move it, if you so choose.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
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 issue is whether it should also include DBP and BBP. The position of the government is that it very well could, but at this point we need to reassess DBP and BBP. That will be a high priority of the government. After the reassessment, they could very well be prohibited, but at this point it would be just DEHP for products being in contact with the mouth of a child.
May 3rd, 2007 / 12:15 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Cullen, where did this definition come from?
Maybe the department can help us on this as well.
12:15 p.m.
Director, Risk Management Bureau, Department of Health
Sorry, I don't understand which definition we're talking about.
12:15 p.m.
Director, Risk Management Bureau, Department of Health
The one that was in the government's amendment came from CEPA. I'm not sure of the origin of the definition of the one that we approved earlier.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
It helps, except it does speak about cost-effective measures, which basically brings an economic test to bear. That is unusual in a precautionary principle. It tempers the precautionary principle in a significant way.
I'm not sure if this is the common parlance or common use in the federal government today, but it's certainly not the common use internationally.
12:15 p.m.
Director, Risk Management Bureau, Department of Health
I'd just like to note that the term “cost-effective” is used both in the clause we had approved earlier and this proposed clause 5. We used the wording that was in CEPA--we actually used exactly the wording that was in CEPA--because that had long since been debated. We thought that was the most expedient way to enter that idea here.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Before you do that, Mr. Warawa, I want to make sure everybody understands that we are on clause 3, that our first amendment was to clause 3. Now we're into the second amendment, which will be a new clause.
So we need to vote on clause 3 as amended in order to complete what we have just done.
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Warawa has made his comments. I think everybody knows where we're at here.
Mr. Cullen, sorry.