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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Let's begin, then with new clause 2.1.
I believe our first amendment, then, would be—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I've been advised that amendment G-5.1 on page 5.1 would be the one we need to look at first.
This is very similar to amendment NDP-0.2 on page 4.1, and NDP-2 on page 11.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We can only adopt one of these, so we would either need--
Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think on amendment G-5.1, new clause 2.1 covers off what we attempted to do in our two clauses, so I can withdraw those and we can put the vote up on this one.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Then we just won't move amendment NDP-0.2 and amendment NDP-2. Is that correct, Mr. Cullen? Okay.
Mr. Warawa, we'll go over to you, then, to move this amendment G-5.1 on page 5.1.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Is there any discussion about this amendment?
Go ahead, Mr. Godfrey.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Just as a reminder, and to make sure everybody is clear, we are always going to be using the nomenclature “bis”, as opposed to “di”, throughout the piece. Is that correct?
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
It's just to line it up, because I noticed even our expert witnesses fell into the bad habit of getting back to DEHP. So we've got to keep calling it BEHP now, is that it?
Director, Risk Management Bureau, Department of Health
I would suggest, for the purpose of the discussion we're having here, that we use nomenclature we're all familiar with--DEHP--but that the legal drafters use the “bis” terminology.
It's actually not used as an acronym, but the “bis” terminology is consistent with what's already on schedule 1 of CEPA, so we'd want to do that. But I think that for the purposes of not confusing everybody here, we should use DEHP, because that's been the terminology of the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Nothing is easy, Mr. Godfrey; nothing is easy.
(Amendment agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
If members could turn to page 5.2, we're just finishing off clause 2.1. We're looking now at Mr. Cullen's amendment on page 5.2.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
As committee members are reading along, this is, as Mr. Bigras pointed out earlier, the stated use of the precautionary principle, which is gaining momentum and needs to have more momentum. That is particularly because some of the changes we made are not to use CEPA, which has it built in, and the committee recommended, through our recent CEPA report, that it get more...that we use the precautionary principle in the way that we determine the use of these products in cosmetics, consumer products, and the rest.
This is just a restatement of that principle. I'm not sure where government or department officials are on that, but this is just a statement of purpose. This needs to be there, that it has to be something the government considers when it's allowing or not allowing these chemicals into our products.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Warawa, I'm advised that amendment G-7.1 is very similar to this, so could members please compare the amendment on pages 5.2 and 7.1.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair. I was looking for that, so thank you for helping me.
Can I then ask the department to explain what the difference is between the amendment on page 7.1 and the NDP amendment?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
So what we're asking for is 5.2 compared to 7.1, and obviously members are going to be looking at which one they should--
NDP
