Environment Committee on June 12th, 2007

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I guess mine is fairly to the point. Can we have a subamendment at this point? I was just going to say, after “further witnesses”, “possibly recommend”.

I think a lot of us are with you, Bernard, in respect to looking at this seriously. It's not an issue of a stand-off and trying to stall you on this, but it's an issue of actually wanting to get a bit more testimony and, as Nathan had pointed out, in terms of the alternatives and so on. So sooner than later.... But my commitment as a committee member as long as I'm on this committee is to bring the witnesses forward, and if that's where the evidence leads and there are decent alternatives, let's do it. This is above party interests.

So that's what I'm proposing as an amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would suggest that what we do is deal with our amendment and then come back to this as an additional amendment.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Okay. Well, maybe note it down, then. I'm just saying that after further witnesses, we “possibly recommend”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You know, then, what Mr. Vellacott's going to further amend, but I think we should deal with this amendment first.

Mr. Bigras, I believe, had a comment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I've already put water in my wine, not phosphorous in my water. I think that the proposal that Francis made is headed in the right direction, that is gradual elimination. We currently have substitutions. I have at least eight to suggest to my colleagues, if they want to buy them. I support the principle of my colleague's amendment. I think we can proceed—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

If Mr. Bigras, the mover of the motion, agrees to that, then we can go on to Mr. Vellacott's addition and deal with it as the next item.

Yes?

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

Just to be clear, Chair, about the last thing Mr. Bigras said, if he has a substitution list, there's some language included here about substitution or pending viable substitutions. That's what I was seeking to include.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I believe what he was accepting was simply the wording of Mr. Scarpaleggia, that we phase out and that we include—

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

You said at the end that you were including—

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

I in fact accepted my colleague's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think Mr. McGuinty is next on our list. Are you speaking to this, now that it's been accepted? Or should we—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

No, I'm speaking to.... We're off that amendment; it's been defeated. I'm speaking to this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No, it has not. We have not dealt with Mr. Vellacott's; he hasn't moved it yet.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm not speaking to that, no. Well, actually, I'm speaking to both.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It has now been accepted by Mr. Bigras, so now we have the new wording.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So I can only speak to Mr. Vellacott's, then?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Well, he hasn't made a motion yet.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I see. I'm speaking to Francis's.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Great.

I support what Monsieur Bigras said. He has watered his wine. We're not calling for an outright ban; he's calling for a phase-out.

I think phase-out implies the conditionality of substitution. I don't think we need to make specific references to substitution or substitutable products. If there are already products in the marketplace, consumers will find them. I would be anxious to see this come to a vote as soon as possible.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We can vote on what has been accepted here and then move on to Mr. Vellacott, and he can then amend further, just so we're clear on where we are. I think everybody understands exactly what's happened here.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

What is on the table right now is the original motion, which has a friendly amendment that has been accepted. Is that what we're discussing right now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, that's correct. Now Mr. Vellacott, I believe, has another motion.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, that may or may not be, but I would like to speak to the motion that's on the floor.

What it's calling for is a phase-out, recommending that the government amend the phosphorus concentration regulations in order to phase out concentration of phosphorus in dishwasher detergents and laundry detergents—that was accepted—and that the adoption of this motion be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity.

The first point is that we've heard that the phosphorus is in dishwasher detergents, not in laundry detergents; that's already been removed. The only thing it's in is dishwasher detergents. That's the testimony I've seen in written form; therefore the motion may not be correct in that.

The other thing, Chair, is that this motion was formed, and is very similar to—basically the same motion as—what was first introduced before we heard from the witnesses. The question is, then, what was the purpose of the witnesses? Is this committee now going to be in the habit of drafting motions before we even hear from witnesses? It very quickly loses credibility, Chair, if a motion is formed and decided on—instead of “limit” the concentration, it's “phase out” the concentration, but it's still the same goal of removing a substance—before we've even heard from the witnesses, before we've heard what the alternatives are, if it's possible to have alternatives.

I support hearing from more witnesses. This motion that's before us does not permit hearing from more witnesses, and therefore I can't support it, because it's not based on logic; it's based on politics.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Scarpaleggia.