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.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
So the 24-month period, then, might give the officials more time to discern—
Director, Risk Management Bureau, Department of Health
More time to do that, which is a bit of a new and emerging area in science.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
I would like to point out to Mr. Cullen that on page 13.1, two products are mentioned, BBP and DBP, and on page 15.2, paragraph (c), it just mentions DEHP. Why are you comparing the two?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We're looking at proposed clause 7 on page 15.3. I believe they're both there.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Where are they mentioned in French? Do you see it? In the French version of amendment G-7...
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Yes, “within 12 months of the coming into force of this Act [...]”
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
As to the crux of the matter in terms of doing this reassessment, our understanding is that this is what we'd call a paper assessment, that there is much out there in the scientific literature about these chemicals and what's happening. It's not as if we have to go into the field and start doing....
That's why we're comfortable with the 12-month reassessment, because it's gathering evidence and work that has already been done in the field.
One of the things we found through the CEPA review was that the pace of things, in terms of assessment and getting the assessment back out, is often a concern for Canadians. That's why we feel confident with the 12 months and the possibility of getting it done.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Just to clarify, Mr. Bigras and Mr. Lussier, there is an error in the printing of the French version on page 15.3. That should be 24 months.
Basically, we haven't gotten this moved yet, but I believe we do have the issue discussed as to 12 or 24 months. Do any members have any further questions about this issue?
Mr. McGuinty.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Cullen raised an important point. Let me just get this on the record: is this merely a paper assessment?
Director, Risk Management Bureau, Department of Health
It is a paper assessment. There might be some situations, but we will not likely go out and do a new research project that could take two or three years. We will be looking at the information that's out there.
That said, to collect all that information, to understand it, to talk to any other experts, to do a report, to do the peer review that would be necessary to do that, and to get our heads around this cumulative impact assessment and look at examples used in other places is a complex challenge for a risk assessor. So I feel that it would be very tight and that we would probably shortchange the risk assessment if we were to require all of that to happen in a 12-month window.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
What I propose, then, and what we will do is vote on amendment NDP-3.1. If that's carried, obviously we will not vote on page 15.3, proposed clause 7. If it is not carried, we'll have some things in between, but we'll then go immediately to page 15.3, proposed clause 7.
So you have moved—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
You have moved amendment NDP-3.1 on page 13.1. We'll proceed to the question.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
There are things between amendments that we have to do.
While we're waiting here a minute, let me tell you that we have this room booked a little later. I would ask members, if at all possible, to carry this on a little past one o'clock. I'd need consensus to do that. Wouldn't it be nice to finish this while we're here and have the experts here?
That's coming up; I'm not asking you now.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Maybe we could order more cookies for Mr. Godfrey. It's on the record, Mr. McGuinty.
I'm advised that I don't need consensus to carry on, so we'll just keep going. There go your cookies, Mr. Godfrey.
Next is amendment NDP-3.2 on page 13.2. It will become new clause 3.2, not 3.1, as listed. It's very similar to part (a) of amendment G-15.2.
