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.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chair, I'm trying to move a subamendment, just for starters here, that the “section 5” that's in the fourth line of this clause 3 as proposed be replaced with...was it new clause 2.1 that we just passed?
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
It's the one that says:
In the administration of this Act, the Government of Canada shall apply the precautionary principle
etc. And then we added the adverse. It said clause 2.1. It was page 5.2 and it says 2.1 on here.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
So it's clause 2.2.
Okay, so clause 2.2 should replace “section 5” in there, or is that just administrative? That's looked after on its own.
I guess the question I'm asking is if we need this subamendment. Or does it happen automatically?
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Do you correct this automatically? Because “section 5” would mean something else entirely that it's going to refer to.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Let's proceed as he has moved it, and the editing will take care of getting the numbers right.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Right. I think we're going to get into trouble if we start trying to do editing here.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Yes, no problem. Are there any other comments regarding clause 3 on amendment G-7.1?
Mr. Warawa, did you wish to speak?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Yes, I was just going to respond to Mr. Regan. What was handed out is the proposed new bill, and clause 5 will become clause 2.2, and clause 6 will become clause 5, and clause 7 will become clause 6.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This is the 10% disagreement in terms of a difference of opinion as to what was heard from witnesses.
For committee members, for ease of understanding, there are three phthalates in play here--DEHP, BBP and DBP. If you follow beyond this--and I'm not going to refer to it any deeper than this--we have two NDP amendments that are similar to this one presented by the government, but they include all three phthalates instead of just the one.
So for ease of principle so that we can have the debate, essentially, or the difference of opinion between committee members, if we don't amend, do we--not friendly--subamend?
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We subamend clause 3, and when we get to clause 4 I'll suggest the same thing, to include BBP and DBP in this piece. I think that's the easiest way to have a discussion.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Can we hold for one second, please, Mr. Cullen?
The clerk has brought to my attention the fact that we are in effect changing some of the authority here in clause 3. We are changing it to the Food and Drugs Act, as opposed to this bill being responsible for these regulations. So there is a procedural concern here that the clerk has raised.
Mr. Cullen, do you have a comment on that?
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes. I think as we've gone through the learning process of how to most effectively do this, we took advice from departmental officials and others that, for efficacy, this was the most direct and cleanest way to do it. I know there's some concern about how much you change a bill in terms of its intention, but the intention remains. It's the vehicle being applied to get it done, based upon the advice of those who are actually going to do the work.
The second point on this in terms of our subamendment is that we've seen other cases.... I know there are concerns about doing a reassessment, which I think comes later in the bill. We'll be seeking a reassessment of these because we think the original assessment was flawed, and also looking to remove the products at the same time. This follows directly out of our notions around the precautionary principle, which states that in the absence of 100% proof, if there's cause for concern, you can still act. That is why we've moved the subamendment to the government's 7.1.