Environment Committee on June 12th, 2007

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Well, I will be voting against the amendment because I think there's a way that we can do both. There's a future business issue, and I'm in total agreement with bringing some new witnesses in, but I think there's a way we could move this motion forward in order to bring it to the House for a broader debate, while respecting Mr. Bigras' intent by also being cautious and reasonable enough to admit to the possibility that there are some substitutes to phosphates that could be more dangerous than the phosphates.

I don't know where we are procedurally, but I have an amendment that I could submit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

If you have another amendment—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

There you go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

—I think we should deal with the first amendment first.

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

Step by step.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments on Mr. Warawa's amendment?

Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

It's quite simple. We're moving a motion that precedes the hearing of witnesses. I don't think that anyone here can say he is satisfied, not with the questions or answers, but with the time that we have had to speak with witnesses. I don't believe it would be appropriate to vote immediately on this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey, I think everybody gets that, so if we could get to the amendment that we have from Mr. Warawa, which is basically to eliminate after “Sustainable Development”, and replace it with “hold further hearings on the issue of phosphorus to study possible impacts on the environment”. That's the amendment we're now voting on.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Now we'll come back to Mr. Scarpaleggia. Do you wish to make an additional amendment?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Yes, I do.

I suggest that we be consistent with the way we've acted before, where we've employed the term “phase-out”. This is more open-ended; it could mean total elimination, depending on what the substitutes are. So I would suggest that we say after “regulations”`: “in order to phase out the concentration of phosphorus in dishwasher and laundry detergents”. It would make it stronger, I think, but also leave it open to some—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think the laundry detergents are already under legislation, so—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

But there are concentrations of phosphates in the laundry detergents. They're very low, and some don't have any, some do. That's why I threw it in there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay, we'll make sure the clerk has it right. Perhaps he could read the amendment.

[The Clerk]

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development recommend that the government amend the Phosphorus Concentration Regulations in order to phase out concentration of phosphorus in dishwasher detergents and laundry detergents and that the adoption of this motion be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay, are there any comments on that amendment?

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, again we've heard numerous comments by members of the committee that the testimony was very brief. The typical opportunity to question the witnesses is a 10-minute first round and a second round of 5 minutes. What did we have today? Two minutes. We heard four opportunities, two minutes each. That's eight minutes of questioning. So the comment that we did not have an adequate amount of time spent on this today is true. For us now to forge ahead without the facts is beyond belief.

Chair, I'd like to read a comment that was the government's response from the CEPA review in 1995, noting that they didn't want to single out cleaning products. They said it was inappropriate. This is what they said, and I quote:

We cannot commit to further regulation of phosphates in cleaning products such as automatic dishwasher detergents, or to regulation of other nutrients in other products such as water softeners and fertilizers, until we have studied to what extent nutrients from sources other than laundry detergents are causing damage to the environment.

Chair, that is a reasonable approach where you do not try to kill a fly with a hammer; you look at science, you listen to witnesses, and then you provide a motion. If the committee wants to move forward before we hear from the witnesses, it's politically motivated. It's not based on science and it's not based on fact. It's the wrong direction. We need to hear from the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen.

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

I understand the parliamentary secretary's concerns with the speed with which this is happening, and I share some of those concerns. I'm recalling the process we went through with something like phthalates, which were rather limited in terms of their scope, as compared to something that's far-reaching.

I like the amendment that Mr. Scarpaleggia has raised in terms of seeking to phase out, because this is an identified problem with an identified source.

The question I have perhaps, through you, Chair, to Mr. Bigras, is around the question of substitution. There was only anecdotal reference to what this.... This is always the question when you seek to ban or phase out something: what are you seeking to replace it with? I can't recall in the testimony it clearly being demonstrated that there were viable economic substitutes available that were less. If I'm wrong and there was testimony given, then that gives me greater assurance to vote for it. I understand the pressure of the Parliament potentially ending and Mr. Bigras wanting to get this through...but I would hate to have egg on our faces later on if there's something we're glaringly missing here that is pointed out through further evidence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

What I understood from Mr. Carey was that the substitute is now undergoing a health review, but not an environmental review. Obviously it would seem to me we would want to have both, particularly from the environment committee, to be asking for that environmental review of a replacement. So that is the question I believe he raised, and he didn't answer--

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

So this is my question, through you. And I'm not ready with language for an amendment, but something to incorporate something about pending viable substitutes. If the health review or the environment review comes back and says this is more damaging in this particular product....

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It seems to me that we could come up with a compromise, where we did more hearings and then we accomplished what Mr. Bigras did. To me, that would work.

I'm not sure you go that far, Mr. Scarpaleggia, in your amendment.

Mr. Vellacott, then Mr. Bigras, and then Mr. McGuinty, I think it was.

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

Could we have the clerk read it one more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think the key thing is “in order to phase out”, instead of the word “limit”.

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

Perhaps you could read it again, entirely, if you don't mind.

[The Clerk]

It reads:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development recommend that the government amend the Phosphorus Concentration Regulations in order to phase out concentration of phosphorus in dishwasher detergents and laundry detergents and that the adoption of this motion be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity.