Bill C-307 (Historical)

Phthalate Control Act

An Act respecting bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzyl butyl phthalate and dibutyl phthalate

This enactment requires that, within 12 months after it comes into force, regulations respecting cosmetics that contain bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate be made under subsection 30(1) of the Food and Drugs Act.
The enactment also requires that, within 12 months after it comes into force, an order be made under section 6 of the Hazardous Products Act to add certain products to Part I of Schedule I to that Act.
The enactment further requires the Minister of Health to take steps to regulate the use and labelling of medical devices that contain bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
Finally, the enactment requires the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health to complete a reassessment of benzyl butyl phthalate and dibutyl phthalate under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 within 24 months after the enactment comes into force.

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the debate on private member's Bill C-298, the perfluorooctane sulfonate virtual elimination act that was developed by the member for Beaches—East York. I want to thank her for getting the issue on the agenda.

It is very important that we have looked at this particular chemical that exists in our environment and has, I believe, been misused over the years. It is a very serious issue. I am glad we have made some significant progress on virtually eliminating it or that we will be moving to that shortly.

It was interesting listening to the member for Nanaimo—Alberni who talked about the process that the committee went through in working on this bill, some of the compromises and give and take that was made to this legislation to make it possible to gain support I gather in all corners of the House. Certainly, we in the NDP are supporting this legislation. I think that shows the kind of work that can be done in the House of Commons on legislation.

I wish that we had been able to muster that same kind of non-partisan cross-party effort on the big environmental bills of our day. It would be great if we could bring back the clean air and climate change act that had that same kind of cooperation through committee. Every party was allowed to bring its ideas to the table. The final document, the rewritten bill, reflected the ideas of all political parties in this place. Sadly, the government has refused to put it back on the agenda.

While we are making progress on this very specific chemical, we are missing progress on that very important and large piece of work on climate change that all Canadians recognize as crucial. It is going to be a sad day if we do not make progress in this Parliament on that big issue.

I also want to mention that Bill C-298 is similar in its intent and work to one that we passed last night at third reading, another private member's bill, Bill C-307, from the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the phthalate control act, which also sought to limit the use of a particular chemical that was harmful to our environment and to our health.

I think we have been making progress again on some very specific issues but it is too bad we cannot get the big issue of our day, the climate change issue, back on the agenda of this place and make some real progress there.

With regard to the specific bill before us, it mandates the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health to make regulations that would keep the release of PFOS into the environment at a very low level where the substance actually cannot even be accurately measured. That is what it means to be put on the virtual elimination list. It is not being eliminated virtually, but it is going to be removed enough to a point where its presence in the environment is negligible. That is a very important step to take.

It seems that PFOS is one of those substances that seemed like a good idea at the time. It was a very popular substance when it was first introduced. It was used in many fabrics as a stain resistant substance, usually as a stain repellant. It was used in rugs, carpets, upholstery, clothing, food packaging, cleaners and in firefighting foams. It was used in very many places across our society. It was thought to be inert at the beginning.

Few tests were ever completed on the chemical's effects on people and wildlife and on the environment, but recently more testing has been done and it has been shown to have some very serious problems. For instance, animal testing was done. It was shown to be a carcinogen. It did cause certain kinds of cancers and damage to the immune system. That was an important step forward where we realized some of the harm that could be caused by PFOS.

This led, I think in the year 2000, to the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States banning the substance. It said that continued manufacture and use of PFOS represented an unacceptable technology that should be eliminated to protect human health and the environment from potentially severe long term consequences. I know as well that Environment Canada and Health Canada agreed in their own studies and work on PFOS.

We also know that PFOS is bioaccumulative. It does not disappear; it persists in the environment once it is introduced there. That is a very serious consequence of the use of this particular chemical.

Environment Canada and Health Canada stated in the Canada Gazette:

PFOS has been detected throughout the world, including in areas distant from sources, and in virtually all fish and wildlife sampled in the northern hemisphere, including Canadian wildlife in remote sites, far from sources or manufacturing facilities of PFOS and its precursors.

We know that it is a very difficult substance to eliminate now that we have introduced it into our environment. We know that its health effects are very serious as well. It is persistent, it is bioaccumulative and it is toxic, all good reasons why we should be eliminating its use in our society.

This is a very important step to take. I gather from reading the original speeches by the member for Beaches—East York on this that there are proposals to eliminate this substance globally. Sweden has proposed a global ban on PFOS as part of the persistent organic pollutants treaty, which is being discussed. I hope that Canada, given the steps that it seems we are about to take with it, will strongly support Sweden in those efforts because it is an action that needs to be taken.

We need to act quickly on this. Originally it looked as though it could take years for this to take place, even if we took the actions suggested in this legislation. We need to make sure this process is expedited so that PFOS is eliminated as soon as possible and not allowed to continue to do the harm it does to our health and the environment.

This bill points out some of the difficulties with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and how hard it is to get a harmful substance on the virtual elimination list. We are acting seven years after the Americans acted on this issue, which shows that our mechanisms are much slower, even though our own agencies such as Health Canada and Environment Canada conducted their own studies that showed the importance of taking this step.

I hope this bill will also improve our ability to react on other chemical substances that we should be concerned about for our health and the environment. I hope that this will be part of the review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act so that we can make sure this weakness in our legislation and in our approach can be cleaned up and improved.

I am hoping that we are taking an important step. It sounds as though we may have unanimity in this place, as we did last night when we voted on final reading of Bill C-307. Everyone in the House agreed to that similar measure going forward.

As I conclude, I would still like to challenge members that even though we are making progress on these very specific chemical compounds, we must also make progress on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The best way for us in Parliament to do that would be to bring back the legislation that was worked on in the first session by all political parties, where all the ideas were brought to the table and a new piece of legislation was written. We need to get that back on the agenda of the House of Commons. I would urge the government to do that without delay. If we leave this Parliament without having moved in a significant way on climate change, we will have missed the important opportunity to do something significant for our environment and the citizens of Canada.

Phthalate Control Act

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between all the parties and I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to pass the motion for Bill C-307 unanimously.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-307 under private members' business.

The House resumed from November 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-307, An Act respecting bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzyl butyl phthalate and dibutyl phthalate, be read the third time and passed.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to Bill C-307. It is also an honour for me to be part of a government that takes its responsibilities, works with them and works with the opposition parties to ensure this minority government works in a truly effective manner.

Much has been said about committees not working or functioning as well as they could be. The truth is, when we get the cooperation from the opposition parties on committees, they work extremely well. This is a case in point when we look at Bill C-307.

We took a bill that was seriously flawed and when we received the cooperation from the opposition parties, under the leadership of maybe the best environment minister we have had in centuries, along with his very able parliamentary secretary, it was made into legislation that could be truly effective to ensure the health of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

This should be an example to the opposition to quit the obstruction in the other committees. We can make some progress if we can only get the cooperation of our members opposite.

I will not go into the technicalities of the bill. I congratulate our minister and his parliamentary secretary and all members of the committee for their cooperation. I urge my colleagues to continue this cooperation and ensure that this minority government succeeds.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague who spoke earlier, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak about this important piece of proposed legislation.

Before I begin to speak about Bill C-307, I would like to congratulate my Liberal colleagues in Ontario for addressing the issue of potentially harmful chemicals.

As has been publicized, the Ontario McGuinty government's new toxins reduction strategy includes a range of measures to protect the health of Ontarians. Instead of waiting for the government to act, the provincial government in Ontario will appoint an expert medical and scientific panel to advise which toxins should be the focus of immediate attention, action and possible reductions. The Ontario government intends to do this immediately while new toxin reduction legislation is in the developmental stage.

An early priority for the expert panel will be to provide recommendations on how best to address bisphenol A, widely used, as we have heard, in plastic baby bottles and similar consumer products.

The Ontario government is also undertaking a number of initiatives that will be included under a toxins reduction strategy to help protect Ontarians from potentially harmful environmental toxins, including: first, legislation to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides, to be introduced in the spring of next year; second, working with Cancer Care Ontario and the Ontario Medical Association to identify, target and reduce the number of cancer-causing agents released into our environment; third, the imposition of tough new standards to reduce the amount of harmful air emissions on 14 toxins; fourth, replacing coal-fired electricity in Ontario, phasing it out completely by 2014; and last, implementing new province-wide standards and rules to protect children from exposure to elevated lead levels that may be present in the drinking water system of older neighbourhoods, older schools and older day care centres or facilities.

The Ontario government is already receiving praise for this recent announcement from various groups, including Environmental Defence and the Ontario College of Family Physicians. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Government of Ontario for putting the health of Ontarians first.

I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of my federal Liberal colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. His private member's bill, Bill C-439, proposes to prohibit the use of bisphenol A in certain products and to correspondingly amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

There is considerable data which suggests that any exposure to bisphenol A is damaging to human health. It appears that the risks of using this toxic chemical outweigh the benefits. I believe the government should act now to regulate a ban on bisphenol A.

Surely Bill C-307 should warrant the same attention as Bill C-439, and it is my hope that the House will support both of these important pieces of proposed legislation.

After considerable discussion, debate and amendments in committee, Bill C-307, the phthalate control act, is now a strong bill, which all parties should certainly consider supporting.

I would like to congratulate the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his ongoing contribution to the toxins debate in Canada, particularly with regard to phthalates. I would also like to congratulate the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, including, of course, my Liberal colleagues, who have played a very important role in facilitating the successful outcome of the committee deliberations.

Bill C-307 deals with three major chemical compounds, part of a large group of chemicals known as phthalates. These substances, which were examined under the bill, are DEHP, BBP and DBP. For those of us without a scientific background, they are plasticizers, substances which enhance flexibility in plastic compounds. They are used in thousands of products, ranging from children's toys to medical devices to cosmetics.

Studies have linked such substances to infertility and other health related issues, but the three substances considered in Bill C-307 have been evaluated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in the past. One of the substances of the three, DEHP, was in fact designated toxic through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The environment and sustainable development committee has heard that not all types of exposure were in fact evaluated by the federal government studies when looking at the other two substances. Therefore, proposed Bill C-307 calls for a more comprehensive reassessment that will include exposure through the use of consumer products, including cosmetics. This will help ensure the assessment of the cumulative effects of these substances on human beings.

Something which we are just beginning to grapple with in the scientific community is the question of whether we are able to measure a multiplicity of exposures, these compounds themselves, or how these compounds interact with other compounds, which are in our environment at large in Canada. Essentially, the study is of the cumulative effects of all these factors in combination with one another.

As I mentioned earlier, phthalates are found in thousands of products in our environment such as toys, medical devices, cosmetics, but also in many other items such as shower curtains and the vinyl that we find in products, for instance the vinyl dashboard in motor vehicles. We are concerned by the multiple exposure to phthalates, which perhaps in isolation may not have the impact which is feared on human health, but in combination can be particularly toxic. These repeated exposures could be enough to cause harm to human health.

We know that certain other countries, as my colleague from the NDP mentioned previously, including the entire European Union, have tighter restrictions on chemicals such as phthalates than Canada currently does. It is also fair to say that when Bill C-307 arrived at committee this past March, all members were in favour of closer scrutiny of these compounds, but the now amended Bill C-307 is in better form than it earlier was.

All members of the environment and sustainable development committee should be commended for introducing and passing amendments to the bill. It is our hope that the House will see fit to pass this important legislation.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-307, the Phthalate Control Act, essentially seeks to better control, if not to forbid, the use of phthalates in a wide range of commonly used objects because those substances represent a risk to the health of Quebeckers and Canadians.

The initial text of the bill obliged the Minister of the Environment to make regulations prohibiting the use of three types of phthalates. The prohibition applies first to BBP, which is found in many products for use by a child in learning or play, and products that are put in the mouth of an infant when used. The second product the bill seeks to prohibit is DBP, which is quite often found in cosmetics as well as in the products mentioned previously that are put in the mouth of a child or infant when used. The third product this bill seeks to prohibit is DEHP, which is also found in cosmetics, but especially in medical devices. However, the bill excludes blood bags from this prohibition.

Furthermore, the purpose of the bill is to amend Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to include the three aforementioned products, BBP, DBP and DEHP, on the list of toxic substances.

Phthalates are part of a family of chemical products mainly intended for industrial use. Phthalates are found in a number of common consumer products such as adhesives, vinyl flooring, lubricating oils, capacitors, detergents, solvents, pharmaceutical products, electrical wires and cables and cosmetic products such as perfume, deodorant, shaving lotion, shampoo, hair spray and nail polish.

The use of phthalates as softening agents is another common application for these products. Most PVC-based—that is, polyvinyl chloride—rigid, semi-rigid and flexible articles also contain phthalates.

The proportion of phthalates can be as high as 50% in some products, for example, plastic bags, window frames, food wrap, raincoats, shower curtains, rubber boots, garden hoses, bath toys and medical devices.

The toxicity level of phthalates varies depending on the kind of compound. DEHP phthalates have a higher toxicity potential than the other two. The main effects of phthalates reported in experiments conducted on various animal species are testicular atrophy, decreased fertility and a lower fetal weight. Some researchers also believe that phthalates can be carcinogenic.

According to a report by the Institut national de santé publique du Québec, experts have concluded that BBP has little or no effect on reproduction and development. However, for DEHP and, to a lesser degree, DBP, the results arouse more concern. The use of various medical devices that contain DEHP raises some concern about the effects on the development of premature male babies who need intensive and prolonged care.

Let us now talk about the precautionary principle. This principle was officially recognized and confirmed by the international community in the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted at Rio in 1992, a convention that was ratified by Canada.

According to this principle, when there are sufficient grounds to believe that an activity or product could cause serious and irreversible damage to health or the environment, mitigation measures must be taken until the effects can be documented. Such measures may reduce or put an end to certain activities or ban certain products.

In Canada, these phthalates are no longer present in toys or objects that could be put in a child's mouth. In 1998, following a study of the risks associated with objects intended for children, Health Canada concluded that the amount of phthalates found in flexible PVC products could pose a risk to the health and safety of children. Manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers have since been obliged to ensure that flexible plastic soothers and rattles are free of DEHP.

As to DEHP in some products designed for use in children's education, we think the precautionary principle demands that they be banned.

With respect to DEHP and phthalates in medical devices, we must protect at-risk groups by doing everything in our power to promote the use of alternative DEHP-free products. Nevertheless, until such phthalate-free medical devices are on the market, Quebec's public health institute does not recommend restricting access to certain treatments or procedures, because the health benefits outweigh the dangers associated with DEHP exposure. Until suitable substitutes become more readily available, we believe that it may be risky to ban DEHP in all medical devices, excluding blood bags.

I would now like to discuss phthalates in cosmetics. DEHP and DBP are present in perfume, deodorant, after-shave lotion, shampoo, aerosol sprays and nail polish.

Many environmental groups and consumer associations have strongly denounced the use of phthalates in cosmetics. According to Health Canada, DBP in cosmetics presents no health risks in concentrations of less than 10%. In 2004, Health Canada announced its intention to amend cosmetics regulations in order to require cosmetics manufacturers and distributors to list the ingredients on the product label. According to our investigation, this change, which would have at least informed the consumer, never went into effect.

To summarize, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-307. There has not been enough research to date on the effects of phthalates on human health. While awaiting more precise answers regarding the health risks associated with phthalates, the government should limit as much as possible the exposure of vulnerable populations to various chemical compounds, as a precautionary measure.

We note that some of the bans proposed in the original bill have been amended, since they went too far, given that reliable, effective and safe replacement products were unavailable for certain medical devices.

It has always been clear to the Bloc Québécois that implementation of the bill tabled by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley should not give rise to more health problems than it solves.

The Bloc Québécois position is supported by the Institut de santé publique du Québec, which stated in a 2004 report that until medical devices without phthalates are on the market, it is not recommended or even warranted to deprive the public of some types of treatments or procedures that can be beneficial to health and whose outcome outweighs the dangers of exposure to DEHP.

The Bloc Québécois believes that Bill C-307 responds to the concerns of the Institut de santé publique du Québec with respect to medical equipment and that it provides protection as well as fulfilling a need. We will support it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

When we were last studying Bill C-307, the hon. member for Burlington had the floor and he has eight minutes remaining in debate.

The hon. member for Burlington.

The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-307, An Act respecting bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzyl butyl phthalate and dibutyl phthalate, be read the third time and passed.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member who brought Bill C-307 forward. It is important and I know he wanted me to speak from my heart, so that is what I am going to do. He did not want me to speak from paper, so I am not going to speak from paper. I want to say why it is important.

It is important to my family. I have had a close family member, my mother actually, who has had very serious operations all her life, been in the hospital numerous times as a child, as a young adult and as an adult. She has very serious complications and issues that she has to deal with in relation to her health and the operations required.

Never in my life would I have every thought that we had to worry about the bags that were hanging from the gurneys and in the beds that were keeping her alive, and keeping her well, that there may have been other issues that I was not aware of other than the immediate issue facing my mother.

I appreciate that the member, and members of the House, have taken the time to study the issue, to look at what the problems might be with these things so that the public knows. What we are talking is some of the chemicals that go into those medical devices, and I use this as an example, that make those things flexible, to make them more usable.

The bill, once passed, would make some changes or potential changes based on scientific evidence, that will make it safer for my mother and women like her, that when they are in there for other serious issues, that they do not have to worry, and their families do not have--

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House today to speak on the third and final reading of Bill C-307, the proposed phthalate control act.

When the government took a look at the original bill, it was badly written and, quite frankly, was not a good legislation. However, I am happy to see that the government was able to significantly amend the bill into a form we could support.

As my hon. colleagues have already advised the House, our government supports Bill C-307 in its amended state.

The amended bill would ensure that the substances under consideration, known as BBP, DBP and DEHP, would continue to be managed through the existing process for dealing with substances that may pose a threat to the environment and to human health.

At the second reading debate, the government expressed concern that Bill C-307, as originally drafted, would circumvent the comprehensive scientific assessment of phthalates, by imposing an immediate and outright ban on the use of BBP, DBP and DEHP.

I am very pleased that the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has acknowledged the government's concerns and agrees to respect the scientific assessment process provided for under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, otherwise known as CEPA.

As we have heard today, the federal Departments of Environment and Health have already assessed the risks associated with the three subjects named in Bill C-307. Actions have been taken, where warranted.

Having said that, the government fully supports the reassessment of BBP and DBP within the next two years, provided that these assessments use the appropriate process, the CEPA review mechanism. We are also prepared to support additional regulatory measures to strengthen control of DEHP, which has been proven to have associated health risks.

Both of these measures are included in Bill C-307 and are consistent with the government's commitment to protect human health and the environment, as reiterated in the recent Speech from the Throne. They are also consistent with the government's chemical management plan, which I will discuss in more detail shortly.

I am pleased to confirm that Bill C-307 no longer subverts CEPA, which provides the framework for identifying, prioritizing and assessing existing substances for controlling or managing those considered to pose a risk to Canadians or the environment.

One of the stated goals of CEPA is to manage risk from substances. This recognizes the reality that, from time to time, we will come across substances that may pose a threat to the environment or to health but that also offer important benefits.

DEHP is such a substance. There are health concerns associated with human exposure, but a ban on DEHP could create severe problems for the medical community as there are currently no viable alternatives for this plasticizer in certain medical devices.

CEPA's management process relies on scientific evidence and comprehensive research and monitoring programs. The science around phthalates is constantly evolving, so we welcome the reassessments of BBP and DBP called for in the bill, Bill C-307, as they will help build our knowledge and support sound decision-making.

One particularly important aspect of the CEPA process is that the public and interested groups are given adequate notice about risk assessments that are planned or underway. They have also the opportunity to comment on the results before decisions are made. This public involvement element was lacking in Bill C-307 as originally presented to this House.

CEPA also allows for some flexibility in terms of risk management responses, taking into account not only environmental and health issues, but also social, economic and technological factors. Regulations are sometimes the answer, but not always. For example, Bill C-307 would provide for the development of clinical practice guidelines for using medical devices that contain DEHP.

The government is committed to working with all our partners to ensure that Canada is at the forefront of international chemicals management and that our citizens and our environment is protected.

Last December, we unveiled a chemicals management plan. This plan provides for immediate action to regulate chemicals that are harmful to human health or the environment, and is a key element of our government's comprehensive environmental and human health agenda. We have committed $300 million over four years to implement the chemicals management plan, which will build on Canada's position as a global leader in the safe management of chemical substances and products.

Taking action now will significantly reduce future costs associated with water treatment, the clean up of contaminated sites and treating illnesses related to chemical exposure. It will improve the quality of life of Canadians and better protect our environment. This plan will also improve the conditions for business in Canada by ensuring a level playing field and a predictable, science based regulatory regime.

It provides for strengthened regulations and enforcement, restrictions on reintroduction and new uses of controlled substances, rapid screening of lower risk chemical substances, accelerated re-evaluation of older pesticides, mandatory ingredient labelling of cosmetics, regulations to address environmental risks posed by pharmaceuticals and personal care products, enhanced management of environmental contaminants in food, health monitoring, surveillance and research, increased risk communications to the public and good stewardship of chemical substances.

Under the umbrella of the chemicals management plan, our government has developed a comprehensive strategy for phthalates that includes many of the measures provided for in Bill C-307. An example of that is the phthalate strategy includes reassessments of BBP and DBP under CEPA, the implementation of controls to protect children under the age of three and the development of clinical practice guidelines for medical devices containing DEHP. It also provides for the addition of DEHP to Health Canada's cosmetic ingredient hot list, as well as the assessment and risk management of other phthalates in cosmetics.

As part of the reassessment process, the government will be reviewing the scientific evidence used to support recent regulatory actions taken by the European Union on DEHP, BBP and DBP, among other phthalates. Our government will also continue to monitor the evolving science on the use of DEHP in medical devices and will take further actions, as required. I should point out that none of Canada's major trading partners, including the European Union, has prohibited DEHP in medical devices such as blood bags and intravenous tubes.

Our government will continue to monitor 11 phthalate metabolites and 8 parent phthalate compounds as part of the Canadian health measures survey. In addition, phthalates will be included in a proposed bio-monitoring study for children from birth to six years of age. Data from these studies will inform any future actions by the government.

In short, our government is already taking comprehensive action to assess and control phthalates and other potentially harmful substances. Because amended Bill C-307 is consistent with these actions and with our government's overall commitment to protecting Canadians and their environment, we will vote in favour of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to speak to the third and final reading of Bill C-307, An Act respecting bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzyl butyl phthalate and dibutyl phthalate. I would like to thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for presenting this to the House.

Although I am pleased to speak in favour of this legislative proposal, it is important to note that, in its original form, the bill was poorly drafted. The government worked hard and is presenting this bill to the House with considerable changes that strike an effective balance between public health and environmental and economic considerations. Our changes have produced a stronger and more practical bill that still achieves its purpose of protecting health, especially that of young children.

As we have heard today, Bill C-307 addresses a group of chemicals known as phthalates. These compounds are commonly used as plasticizers to enhance flexibility in plastics. Phthalates are used in a wide range of products from medical devices such as blood bags and intravenous tubing, to cosmetics such as nail polish, to soft vinyl toys. The phthalates covered by the legislative proposal are known by their acronyms BBP, DBP and DEHP.

During debate at second reading of Bill C-307, the government had concerns about the original bill. It would have banned these three substances from the Canadian market, which was a position we could not support for a number of reasons. First, the peer reviewed scientific evidence did not support such a drastic measure. The three substances were reviewed as to their impact on the environment and on health. The results show that a ban would be neither necessary nor viable, economically speaking. In fact, such a strategy would place an unnecessary burden on manufacturers and could result in significant costs to the consumer and the medical community.

As mentioned during the debate at second reading, studies conducted in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999 found that DBP, BBP and DEHP phthalates do not harm the environment. Specific studies of the impact of these three chemicals on health found that two of them, BBP and DBP, do not pose an excessive health risk. However, exposure to DEHP raises serious health concerns, particularly for children.

As my honourable colleague explained, measures were taken to protect the health of those most at risk, including children under the age of three. Canadian manufacturers voluntarily stopped using not only DEHP, but also all phthalates in products for babies that could be put into a child's mouth. Furthermore, Health Canada stated that DEHP is not currently being used in the production of cosmetics.

That being said, DEHP still has a number of important and necessary applications in Canada. For some products, such as medical and scientific devices, there are no viable substitutes for it. That is the second reason we cannot support a total ban, as originally proposed by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. Health Canada's medical devices bureau has undertaken thorough studies of these compounds and has found that DEHP has a number of advantages that other plasticizers simply do not have.

Despite the potential effects of DEHP exposure on humans, its advantages outweigh the risks. This is the main reason we could not agree to a total ban at second reading. Now that the bill has been reworked, it allows the continued use of these products. It also provides for additional regulations governing the use of DEHP and for further studies of the other two chemicals. The government is prepared to support the bill.

The new provisions in clause 2 of Bill C-307 ensure an important balance within the bill. Clause 2.1 presents a minimum threshold under which a product or device will not be considered to contain any BBP, DBP or DEHP.

Clause 2.2 contains the precautionary principle. Where the threat of serious or irreversible damage results from the use of one of these phtalates, the Government of Canada cannot use a lack of full scientific certainty as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to protect human and environmental health.

Improving the environment and the health of Canadians was a central theme in the recent throne speech. To quote the document, “Our Government believes that action is needed now to ensure our quality of life, particularly for those most vulnerable to health threats from the environment—our children and seniors”.

It is from this perspective that we can accept the amendments made to clause 3 of Bill C-307. Clearly, further measures are needed, in addition to the existing voluntary measures, to help reduce Canadians' exposure to DEHP.

In accordance with the precautionary principle previously cited, clause 3 requires the Governor in Council to adopt regulations under the Food and Drugs Act in order to govern the use of DEHP in cosmetics. As already mentioned by my hon. colleague, these measures will specify that DEHP may not be used in new formulations of cosmetics and will allow Health Canada to take quick and decisive action if this prohibition is contravened. This regulation must be in place within 12 months of the coming into force of the proposed legislation.

Also in accordance with the precautionary principle, the Governor in Council is required to make an order under the Dangerous Goods Act prohibiting the use of DEHP in products whose use involves the product being brought into contact with the mouth of a child of less than three years of age. Once again, this order must be made within 12 months of the coming into force of the proposed legislation.

Clause 3 of Bill C-307 also establishes certain obligations of the Minister of Health with regard to the use of DEHP in medical devices, including developing requirements for labelling and collaboration with the health care sector in order to develop clinical practice guidelines for the use of medical devices that contain DEHP.

The Minister of Health will also be required to prepare a list of medical devices available in Canada that do not contain DEHP and to consider giving priority to licence applications for medical devices that do not contain DEHP.

Lastly, Bill C-307 will require the government to reassess BBP and DBP under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. These reassessments must be completed within 24 months after the coming into force of this legislative proposal. They will ensure that the government has access to solid scientific evidence to support future decisions about the use of specific phthalates in consumer products.

As I mentioned when I began, the government has made a great deal of effort to improve a bad bill. I believe that Bill C-307 is now more solid and more balanced and can more effectively control these three substances than when it was originally introduced in this House.

I encourage the members on all sides of the House to vote for this bill.

It is especially important to understand that the phthalates in blood bags allow blood to be kept almost twice as long as if the phthalates were not present.

In the end, not only did our government have to adjust to meet a demand, but it also had to take into account medical and scientific constraints regarding the use of this product.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the subject of Bill C-307. First, I want to tell my colleagues that I will be using acronyms for the substances affected by the bill throughout my remarks. You will probably understand why just by reading the title of the bill, which is already quite complicated.

Bill C-307, an act respecting the phthalates BBP, DBP and DEHP, essentially seeks to better control, if not to forbid, the use of phthalates in a wide range of commonly used objects because those substances represent a risk to the health of Quebeckers and Canadians.

To begin, let us specify what phthalates are. The phthalates BBP, DBP and DEHP are part of a family of chemical products mainly intended for industrial use. Phthalates are found in a number of common consumer products such as adhesives, detergents, solvents, certain pharmaceutical products, electrical wire and cables and cosmetic products like perfume, deodorants, after-shave lotions, shampoos, and so forth.

The use of phthalates as softening agents is another current application for these products. Most PVC-based rigid, semi-rigid and flexible articles contain phthalates.

The proportion of phthalates can be as high as 50% in some products, for example, plastic bags, food wrap, shower curtains, bath toys, medical devices, and containers for blood storage, to name only a few.

In scientific terms, the toxicity level of phthalates varies depending on the kind of composition. Thus, DEHP phthalates have a higher toxicity potential than other phthalates and some researchers believe that phthalates could be carcinogenic.

According to a report by the Institut national de santé publique du Québec, experts have concluded that BBP has no effect or negligible effect on reproduction and development. However, for DEHP and, to a lesser degree, for DBP, the results arouse more concern.

In addition, the use of various medical devices that contain DEHP raises some concern about the development of premature male babies who need prolonged care.

For all these reasons, in our analysis of the bill, the Bloc Québécois has favoured the precautionary principle.

What is the precautionary principle? The precautionary principle was officially recognized and confirmed by the international community in the convention on biological diversity adopted at Rio in 1992, a convention that was ratified by Canada.

According to this principle, when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an activity or a product may cause serious and irreversible harm to health or the environment, mitigation measures must be taken until the effects are documented. These measures may include, in the case of an activity, reducing or terminating this activity or, in the case of a product, banning this product.

So much for phthalates. In terms of the bill before us, the initial text obliged the Minister of the Environment to make regulations prohibiting the use of BBP, DBP and DEHP in certain products.

The bill required a regulation prohibiting the use of BBP in products for use by a child in learning or play, and products that are put in the mouth of an infant when used, including feeding bottle nipples, teethers, soothers, pacifiers and other similar products.

It prohibited the use of DBP in cosmetics, products for use by a child in learning or play, and products that are put in the mouth of an infant when used, including feeding bottle nipples, teethers, soothers, pacifiers and other similar products.

It prohibited DEHP in cosmetics, medical devices other than blood bags, products for use by a child in learning or play, and products that are put in the mouth of an infant when used, including feeding bottle nipples, teethers, soothers, pacifiers and other similar products.

Furthermore, the text amended Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to include BBP, DBP and DEHP as toxic substances.

From the outset of committee study of Bill C-307, the Bloc Québécois expressed concerns about prohibiting phthalates in medical devices.

Although it is important to promote the use of devices that do not contain phthalates, this does not mean that we can forego the use of tools required to care for Quebeckers and Canadians.

This position was taken by many intervenors, including Quebec's Institut national de santé publique.

The Bloc Québécois therefore tabled an amendment to meet that objective. Although the wording of our amendment was rejected, the committee nevertheless integrated the Bloc Québécois' concern regarding medical products. Bill C-307 was amended to include a distinct mechanism for medical products. That mechanism centres on safety and risk identification, rather than a simple ban on products containing phthalates.

Thus, the preferred approach is based on identifying the risks associated with medical devices, and allowing Quebeckers and Canadians to make the final decision on refusing medical instruments that contain phthalates.

Products that are free of phtalates are also promoted—and this is key—by drawing up a list.

This is why we, the Bloc Québécois, are in favour of Bill C-307.

There has not been enough research to date on the effects of phtalates on human health. While awaiting more precise answers regarding the health risks associated with phtalates, the government should limit as much as possible the exposure of vulnerable populations to various chemical compounds, as a precautionary measure.

We also note that some of the bans proposed in the original bill have been amended, since they went too far, given that reliable, effective and safe replacement products were unavailable for certain medical devices.

We in the Bloc Québécois believe that Bill C-307 responds to our main concerns.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the parliamentary secretary's closing remarks, I share his concern. I share his profound conviction that we are doing good around the world, but it is also important to remind his colleagues in his own caucus that it is very important that as we build the rule of law and democratic traditions and structures in countries like Afghanistan that we work very feverishly here in this country never to undermine them.

I am speaking today about the merits of Bill C-307, Phthalate Control Act. I would like to begin by congratulating the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his ongoing contribution to the toxins debate in Canada, particularly with regard to phthalates.

The bill before us has been carefully examined in committee and the Liberal Party and its members have played some important role in facilitating the successful outcome of our discussions.

On background, first let us look at the bill. It deals with three major chemical compounds, part of a large group of chemicals known as phthalates. The three phthalates that were examined under this bill are DEHP, BBP and DBP. What are they? For average Canadians who are watching or reading, they are plasticizers. They are substances that enhance flexibility in plastic compounds. They are used in thousands of products, from children's toys to medical devices to cosmetics.

Studies have linked certain phthalates to infertility and other health issues. However, the three phthalates considered in this bill have been evaluated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in the past. One of the substances of the three, DEHP, was in fact designated toxic through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

We heard extensive testimony in committee that not all types of exposure were in fact evaluated by the federal government studies when looking at the other two phthalates. The proposed bill calls for a more comprehensive reassessment that shall include exposure through the use of consumer products, including cosmetics. This would help ensure the assessment of the cumulative effects of those phthalates on humans.

Something, which we are just beginning to grapple with in the scientific community and that is, for anyone listening or reading, it is really a question of whether or not we are able to measure a multiplicity of exposures of these compounds themselves or how these compounds interact with other compounds that are in our environment at large here in Canada, the cumulative effects of all of these things combined.

As I mentioned earlier, phthalates are found in thousands of products in our environment: toys and medical devices, cosmetics, but also basics, such as shower curtains or the vinyl that we find in vinyl products or the vinyl dashboard in cars, for example. We are again concerned by the multiple exposure to phthalates which perhaps, in isolation, may not have the impact that we fear on human health, but in combination can be particularly toxic. These repeated exposures could be enough to cause harm.

Both speakers who have preceded me have spoken about the precautionary principle which underlies Bill C-307, and they were right in giving it the attention they did. It calls for the introduction by government of cost effective measures to prevent serious or irreversible damage even if we do not have full scientific certainty.

We know that certain other countries, as my colleague from the NDP has mentioned, including the whole European Union, have tighter restrictions on chemicals such as phthalates than Canada does. However, it is also fair to say that when Bill C-307 arrived at committee last March, all members were in favour of closer scrutiny of these compounds but, to be perfectly frank and honest about it, the bill was in an unworkable, unacceptable and, frankly, very unrealistic form.

As I stressed in committee, we need to achieve what the French would call le juste milieu to deal effectively with phthalates, the right balance between the reflection of health and safety and reasonable demands on industry, while facilitating products which are important and useful for our citizens, and ultimately moving to implement tighter restrictions on these risky compounds.

As it was originally drafted, the bill would have banned the three phthalates completely in commonly used applications but government members, as they are want to do, balked in committee, proposing instead to rewrite the bill in its entirety, or worse, throw it out not seeing beyond its face value. I think it is fair to say that the five Liberal members on the environment committee were instrumental in reconciling the two parties that were embroiled in a spat and then helped broker a compromise so the bill would not die in committee.

I had two central concerns to ensure the bill stayed alive. First, I wanted to ensure that it maintained the science based process that exists in the current legislation. We do not invent legislation here that is not science based. That is not the Canadian way.

Parliament needs to respond from time to time to concerns that are raised, as we did by holding hearings on these very compounds, but scientists and the scientific method are best qualified to provide the final recommendation to the minister about what applications are safe based on current research.

Second, the outright ban would have caused users of phthalate products, including hospitals, to scramble to find substitute products that may or may not work as well as the current ones. This we did hear in testimony objectively from witnesses.

We are not in a situation to recommend to Canadian health care providers that they ought not to be using products that play an indispensable role in health care. Risks need to be balanced. Banning a breathing tube, as the NDP sought in its first draft, because it might potentially have a long term hormonal effect, may in fact have a very immediate impact on a patient's survival.

Again, a science based approach that balances these risks is preferable to a political solution on the one hand emanating from the NDP, which is, in some respects, to frighten Canadians about these products, whereas the Conservative Party would have thrown the bill out at first blush for its own political purposes as well.

The amended version of the bill was supported by all five Liberal MPs and ultimately passed in committee. When the bill gets royal assent, it will require that the chemicals in question are reviewed again with the provision that they will be banned from certain applications if they are found to be toxic.

As my colleagues pointed out earlier, substitutes are already available for many of these products. Bill C-307, as it is drafted now, would encourage research into safer alternatives for a greater number of products, including, of course, medical devices, rather than an unrealistic first off approach found in the first version of the bill, which sought an outright and immediate ban on the use of these products.

Bill C-307 does show that from time to time we can cooperate effectively at committee, usually when the lights are dimmed and the cameras are off, and we can achieve a good outcome as this is.

The official opposition will be supporting the adoption of Bill C-307.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the committee for its good work. I also want to thank my friend and colleague, the member for Abbotsford, for his good work. He sat on that committee and worked hard, as he does in his constituency. He has done a great job on the environment and I want to thank him.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-307, the phthalate control act. I want to thank the member who brought this bill forward for the 20 minutes we heard him speak.

This bill seeks to conduct a reassessment of the risks of the two phthalates, BBP and DBP, within 24 months of the enactment of the bill. Bill C-307 would see the Department of Health publish a document concerning the labelling that is necessary to comply with the requirements of the medical devices regulations in relation to the risks inherent in medical devices that contain phthalates.

The bill would also require that the government take regulatory action under the Hazardous Products Act and the Food and Drugs Act to reduce Canadians' exposure to one phthalate in particular, DEHP, in cases where the risk to human health has been clearly determined.

Furthermore, the bill would require that the Minister of Health undertake a number of actions regarding medical devices which contain DEHP. I am pleased to say that the government supports this bill as amended in committee.

I am also pleased to say that this bill is a great example of what can be accomplished when all the members collaborate. The members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development rolled up their sleeves and worked together to ensure that Bill C-307 is legislation of which all members can be proud.

We put our political differences aside and worked together on the bill for the safety and health of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the environment committee for their hard work and diligence in crafting this bill.

Phthalates are a group of chemicals that are used to make certain types of plastic more soft and malleable. Bill C-307 deals with three of these phthalates, which I will refer to in their common names, BBP, DBP and DEHP.

Phthalates can be found in many places in our society, from ordinary household objects to manufacturing substances. One of the most important abilities of phthalates is to soften plastics, an important and lifesaving aspect for the medical community.

The first chemical, BBP, is a commonly used plasticizer which can be found in food conveyor belts, artificial leather, traffic cones and many other plastic types of foam. DBP can be found in many cosmetic products, particularly nail polish. DEHP is commonly found in medical devices, intravenous tubing, blood bags and other plastic medical instruments.

Recently, Health Canada found traces of phthalates in children's toys. I share the concerns of all parents who are being vigilant about chemicals to which their children may be exposed. This bill's emphasis on medical devices which contain phthalates addresses one of the government's priorities, the safety of all Canadians, one of the themes in last month's Speech from the Throne.

Health Canada's document will identify what devices and chemicals contained in devices need to be labelled as an inherent health risk. Canadians need to use these lifesaving devices, but they will not be risking their lives to use them.

The bill as amended by the committee tasks the government to reassess both BBP and DBP for any potential risks. These reassessments will be conducted by Health Canada scientists under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, also known as CEPA 99.

Previous Government of Canada assessments of BBP and DBP found these phthalates not to be toxic as defined under CEPA. However, several years have passed since these assessments were conducted and there will be new science reviewing whether or not these substances pose any risk to human health. This government will reassess these two phthalates to determine if, in light of the new information, there are unacceptable risks and detrimental health impacts.

The reassessments will provide the scientific backing required for any action the government may feel is necessary and warranted. This would include the consideration of human exposure to phthalates through the use of consumer products, including cosmetics, and of any communicative effects BBP and DBP may have on humans.

There are those who may argue that conducting these assessments merely delay action on BBP and DBP. I assure the House that this government takes decisive action on chemicals where risks have been determined. We will take action based on science.

The government will conduct risk assessments of BBP and DBP under CEPA to determine the risks to human health and then, if these phthalates are determined to be toxic, the government has a variety of legislative instruments to protect Canadians. If we do not find a scientific approach to risk management, we put in jeopardy the intent of this bill and could undermine the legislative integrity of the government's actions.

It should be noted that we support the precautionary principle which has been added to this bill. The precautionary principle says in effect that the knowledge does not have to be absolute before intervening but it must be enough to justify our actions.

I should also add that the Canada Health measures survey, which is a national survey involving measures, including blood sampling from 5,000 Canadians, is currently being conducted. This national survey will generate data to help us better understand the levels of chemicals in Canadians. The survey includes 11 compounds that could be found in people resulting from phthalate exposure.

Bill C-307 as amended by the environment committee is a much improved version of the bill. It seeks to assess and manage the risks associated with certain phthalates without undermining the science based approach to chemical substance management. That is good news.

This legislation will, if passed, support the government's continuing efforts to protect Canadians from exposure to toxic chemical substances with effective science based risk management solutions.

The government will be supporting Bill C-307 and I encourage all members of the House to support the bill.

Before I close, I want to acknowledge the men and women in uniform who have fought valiantly to protect Canada and to contribute in bringing democracy, safety and freedom to the world. My father served in the Canadian army. He was in the tanks division and was a tank instructor. He was a Canadian from Edmonton and went to England and served Canada and the world over there. My father passed away in July of this year and I miss him greatly.

I have been honoured to meet with many veterans. I am so proud of what we are doing in the world and particularly in Afghanistan. One would ask what would happen if Canada was to abandon Afghanistan, as has been suggested by some in this House. Women and children are now being given the opportunity to attend school. I dare not imagine what would happen if Canada were to leave Afghanistan.

I am supportive of us being in Afghanistan and that we stay there until the job is done. We need to honour those who have given their lives and we need to honour the reputation of Canada.

I remind every one of us to visit a cenotaph in our communities and to honour those Canadians who have served our country so valiantly. We must never forget the ultimate price that so many Canadians have given.

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

moved that Bill C-307, An Act respecting bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzyl butyl phthalate and dibutyl phthalate, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, no offence to the distinguished Speaker, but one of my favourite parts of this bill is to hear the various Speakers in the House attempt the pronunciation of the name of this bill, which we did not do, Mr. Speaker, I will offer you that. That was done by some of the drafters of the legislation who worked with us.

All kidding aside, this is a very serious piece of legislation. We have been working through it for over a year and a half now with various supporters from across the non-profit sector and the health community and various members of Parliament. It has received broad support.

While I have to mention a small source of disappointment here, there have been many inspirational moments along the way as we have worked diligently on this bill to see it through. It is something that we believe is good for Canadians and particularly good for the health of our children.

The first point came when we saw that what was meant to be an hour or so of debate in committee turned into four to six hours, with constant foot dragging by some within government, and with some within the bureaucracy itself taking out elements of the bill that, I would remind those in government, have now been adopted in full scale and measure in California law and in the entire European Union.

Somehow the claim that this was dangerous for the Canadian economy was some sort of excuse for stripping out the important aspects of health. Now, tonight, when we have an opportunity, an opportunity we believed we had with all four parties in this place, to move this bill through quickly and get it into law, which all parties claim to want to do, we have the government deciding that it needs to take the full measure of its time to debate.

To debate what exactly? Nothing. The government has nothing to fundamentally disagree with in this bill. We have made the changes. We have listened to department officials. Now the government wants to spend yet more time on it. This is apparently a government in a hurry to not do much, because tonight we have the opportunity to move this bill through and all three opposition parties are willing to do so. The government is not willing to do so and for no coherent reason whatsoever.

We have attempted time and time again to work with government officials and to work with my colleagues on the government benches, to allay their fears, to modify the bill and to work this legislation through to a point of satisfaction. We have arrived. The bill is satisfactory to all parties. We expect unanimous consent on the bill.

However, here in an opportunity we have to move it forward, there is some strange alchemy that happens in the deep bowels of the government such that it decides this cooperation just does not feel right somehow, so it has to wind the clock out again.

Nevertheless, we need to talk about the merits of the bill and its prospects of improving the health and welfare of Canadians in regard to dealing with phthalates. This group or family of chemicals is the absolute poster boy for unintended consequences.

Typically when a chemical is designed by chemical manufacturers and producers, they design it for an industrial purpose, to apply it in some commercial product and to perform some function. In this case, it is the softening of plastics. Phthalates allow certain plastics to be more malleable. It seems like a pretty innocuous effort, but unfortunately this type of chemical also leaks out and causes serious and considerable health effects, particularly in children.

Now clearly we took on an issue and wanted to prove a point. We think we have been able to establish that point: the merits of the precautionary principle, the principle that says we must take all precautions before we allow something onto the market and into Canadians' blood. Unfortunately, the sad history of chemical law in Canada has been far too cautious in the other direction. There is an assumption of innocence until proven guilty. Unfortunately, that has led to far too many ailments for Canadians, far too many illnesses and deaths.

In this case, phthalates now have been substantially proven across this whole region, in Health Canada reports and in others in the United States and Europe, to have serious health considerations. We think the bill is measured in its approach to banning this in some of the most serious and significant areas.

It is also duly noted that one of the few ways phthalates can be released from a product is through mastication, or chewing, and the unfortunate convergence of having this material in toys and implements for children that are meant to be chewed has created this awful scenario. That of course was not designed by the manufacturers, but it creates a health worry for Canadians.

Right now in Canada when a parent or a family member buys a toy for a child, there is absolutely no way to know whether it contains these chemicals or not. There is no proper labelling system in this country and there obviously is no proper ban; hence the need for this bill. We also find this chemical in women's cosmetics and certain vinyl sidings and floorings and in some surgical equipment.

Through all of this, there is this constant effort to pit the economy against the environment. We heard time and again from some witnesses, particularly those from within the department, what would happen if we banned phthalates in medical equipment. I can remember one official who said that Canadians would die on the surgery tables because there would be no medical equipment available to them because of this bill.

That is remarkable because in that same testimony there were nurses and doctors from the United States who brought products with them that were phthalate free. They had lists of entire hospitals that have declared themselves phthalate free and have banned the chemical entirely from their hospitals with no consequence.

It is an important lesson for us all as parliamentarians when we think about doing our work in this place, that the interests of the people we hope to represent must be first and foremost. Any argument made against those interests has to be verified before we accept it.

When the manufacturing sector, for example, comes forward with a doom and gloom scenario, or a department official for whatever reason presents evidence, too often in this place we are willing to take it as scripture. We are not willing to challenge it to its core and present alternative views and really get to the truth of the matter.

WIth respect to phthalates, the truth of the matter is that the role and responsibility of government is to protect our citizens. Whatever stripe the government has, its role and responsibility first and foremost is to look after the well-being particularly of those who are unable to look after it themselves, in this case children and those receiving care at a hospital.

As these plastic softeners are removed in California and Europe and many other states, Canada must get in line because there will be a reverse consequence on industry. If we do not ban this chemical in our manufacturing cycle, it will put Canadian companies at a disadvantage because they will not be able to sell into those markets anymore. They will only be able to sell to the Canadian market which allows these toxins to be present in materials.

It becomes an absolutely insane scenario. Clearly we have made enough arguments in this place and at committee that this should be accepted.

It is important for us all to look at how the government has functioned to this point similar to the previous regime when dealing with chemicals. It is very difficult for Canadians to get a full grasp of the myriad of chemicals, thousands upon thousands of chemicals, where the studies are often limited and scripted to not necessarily bring us to the full conclusion.

There are studies that have been done over a 24 hour period, nothing longitudinal at all. There are studies that have been done where there is no combination of chemicals given. Two chemicals may appear safe on their own, but combine the two and put them in a breakfast cereal and there is a real problem.

There is no capacity within the government as it goes through its chemical screening to present to Canadians a completely safe product stream with any kind of certainty.

This is a bill which sets a precedent. Health Canada did a study and tested the products not so long ago and came to the conclusion that this was safe for Canadians. We questioned what products had been looked at. Did the study look at children's toys? Did it look at cosmetics? No, it did not.

The study had excluded the very products where the concern lay and yet officials were standing in front of us saying that these things were okay. They said that a certain group of chemicals was okay to apply when the main area of concern, the main way in which they enter the human system, was excluded from the study. It is patently ridiculous, specious and dishonest. It is time for us to take full measure and account for what it is that we accept and what we allow into Canadians on a daily basis.

Motions in Amendment

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-307, the phthalate control act, introduced by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who takes the environment very seriously.

I have followed the progress of my colleague's work on this bill, in the drafting process and in getting ideas together. This bill should be supported by all parliamentarians and all Canadians because it will reduce the risk of cancer and other diseases in a vulnerable part of our population. There is no appreciable downside to the bill. It is all good. It meets all the tests for developing environmental legislation in this country. As such, I hope that the bill can receive reasonably speedy passage.

As soon as things like this bill are put in place, the cumulative impact of the products on people's lives will be taken away. As soon as we start to reduce that cumulative effect there will be a reduction in the serious and debilitating illnesses and diseases that are a real plague in modern society.

Some of the statistics that come out about the rate of cancer in our society are truly frightening. We need to confront things as soon as possible. We need to take action. We need to take away the risks of living as much as possible. Preventing disease is much more practical and reasonable than trying to deal with it once it has happened.

When we understand that a substance can be harmful to humans, then surely we should follow the precautionary principle and take it out of manufactured products. There are substitutions. There are other products that are just as good. These are the things that drive the bill forward.

I congratulate my hon. colleague for putting forward this bill. It is not something that will catch the headlines, but it will help Canadians in the future. It is something we can all support to make a difference in the lives of Canadians.

If the principles that my colleague has put forward in this private member's bill are carried forward with many other substances, we would be much better off. We all make compromises in what we do in this society. If we understand that products that we are using are harmful to people's health sometimes we make compromises and allow it to continue which is a real detriment to our society.

Before I was elected to Parliament, there was a Conservative member who put forward a private member's bill regarding taking the compound out of cigarettes that allowed them to stay lit when they were not being smoked. I was impressed that a private member's bill could make such a dramatic change to people's health in terms of things that some people were ingesting through their use of tobacco. Cigarettes play a major role in people's lives. We know of people who have died in bed because of smouldering cigarettes.

That private member's bill from the last Parliament will have a major impact on people's health. I see Bill C-307 in the same light. It is something we should all be behind. It is something that means something to Canadians in a very positive and progressive fashion. The bill can set a pattern for how we deal with similar substances in the future.

We all care about children who are at risk. Canadians care about children, how they are treated, how they grow up and how they are socialized. We should be involved with doing what we can to prevent contact with substances that can lead to cancer and debilitating disease.

I trust that Parliament will push this bill forward and that we will see it in place as soon as possible. It will make a difference for Canadians forever more.

I thank my hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley who has worked so hard to bring this bill forward and to put it in a form that everyone can support.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak to Bill C-307, the phthalate control act. The bill seeks to regulate the use of certain phthalates in products that Canadians may be exposed to.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development for their hard work in reviewing this bill.

BillC-307, as amended by the committee, will ensure that the government takes the appropriate evidenced based approach to protect Canadians from exposures to levels of phthalates that can cause them harm.

The amended bill restricts the use of DEHP in children's toys, cosmetics and medical devices using the appropriate existing federal statutes and regulations.

Under the current regulatory regimes and in keeping with the federal constitutional jurisdiction, Health Canada has legislative authorities in place to regulate the safety and effectiveness of medical devices and their manufacturers under the Food and Drugs Act and the medical devices regulations.

One phthalate known as DEHP is used as a softening agent for many medical grade plastic materials made from polyvinylchloride, PVC.

Without a softening agent life saving medical devices such as medical tubing and blood bags would be brittle and crack during use, or could not be sterilized as effectively.

Alternative materials have been developed for use in some medical devices for certain medical applications. In other cases non-DEHP containing devices are not available or do not perform as well as devices made with DEHP.

In these cases an individual risk evaluation must be undertaken to fully understand the implications of alternate treatments or no treatment compared with the use of a medical device containing small quantities of DEHP.

Only a physician in consultation with the patient can make the final decision as to what is an appropriate medical treatment. No medical device or drug is 100% safe and effective. This is an important consideration in any decision when seeking medical treatment.

It follows then that the government's response to the phthalates in medical devices must differ from its approach taken with other consumer products.

Concerns have been raised about the safety of DEHP in medical devices since the 1980s. These concerns are based on studies showing that DEHP administered at high doses to rodents caused certain adverse effects, particularly effects on the developing reproductive system in young males.

There is concern that DEHP has the potential to produce similar adverse reproductive effects on humans, although there are no reliable data demonstrating that it does.

Health Canada has extensively studied the safety of DEHP in medical devices. In 2001 Health Canada completed a review of the scientific and medical literature and in the fall of 2001 convened an expert advisory panel to review the report and provide specific advice on managing the risk associated with the use of DEHP in medical devices. The recommendations of the advisory panel were made public in January 2002 and implemented.

In 2003 Health Canada published a draft position paper regarding the use of DEHP in medical devices. Health Canada has committed to finalize this position paper within the next few months.

Bill C-307, as amended in committee, recognizes that it is not in the best interests of Canadians to ban all medical devices containing DEHP in Canada at this time because alternate treatment options may not exist; and secondly, alternate treatment options may present higher risks to the patients.

Bill C-307 will aim to provide Canadians with continued access to needed medical devices, such as blood bags and intravenous tubing, when DEHP-free devices are not available or appropriate.

Under this bill the Government of Canada will work with the health care community, hospital associations, industry and other stakeholders to facilitate the development and promotion of clinical practice guidelines for the use of DEHP-containing medical devices. It will finalize and release a position paper on the use of medical devices containing DEHP and develop a guidance document on labelling requirements for these products.

The government will also give priority to the review of phthalate-free medical devices intended to be used on vulnerable patient groups. These actions will lead to a phase-out of the use of DEHP in medical devices starting with those used on vulnerable populations such as children, pregnant women and newborns.

This approach will aim to provide Canadians with continued access to the best available medical devices and treatment options. Health Canada continues to monitor and review the approaches of other global regulatory agencies with regard to the potential risks associated with DEHP and other phthalates used in medical devices.

Since the 1980s' Canada's risk management approach to this subject has been evidence based, recognizing the balance between potential exposure to DEHP with the need for medically necessary treatments.

I can assure members that Canada's approach to minimize the risk associated with medical devices containing DEHP is one of the most stringent in the world. I would also urge members to support Bill C-307 as amended by the committee and proposed actions by Health Canada and Environment Canada aimed to ensure the health and well-being of Canadians.

I would like to take a moment to reflect on the hard work of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, the member for Langley, and his lead at the environment committee. We all know that can be a very challenging position. The member for Langley has demonstrated that the committee process is active and well through the cooperation of the mover of the bill and others to demonstrate that this Parliament is in fact working.

As I mentioned previously, Bill C-307 was amended at committee to make sure that we clearly reflect the realities in the medical community. Medical devices are very important. On one hand we want them to be available; however, as I said, there are always risks with some devices. I think the committee has struck a balance. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment should be congratulated for navigating this bill through the committee.

I think Canadians, in particular vulnerable Canadians such as children, pregnant women and newborns, will be better off for the hard work of the committee, and particularly the member for Langley, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-307, the phthalate control act.

The bill seeks to regulate the use of certain phthalates in specific consumer products and cosmetics that Canadians may be exposed to. I am pleased to say that after a lot of hard work by all the members in the environment committee to fix some of the major errors of the bill, we think we have found a way to move forward with the bill. It was good to focus on solutions. Solutions are very important for our environment.

As previously mentioned, phthalates make up a group of chemicals that are used to make certain types of plastic softer and malleable. These plastics may be used in a variety of consumer products, such as shower curtains and blood bags, including small toys or other children's products.

Bill C-307 deals with three of these, which I will refer to by their common substance names: BBP, DBP and DEHP.

The government recognizes that the current state of scientific knowledge and evidence for one of these phthalates, DEHP, warrants more aggressive measures to help reduce Canadians' exposure to it. These additional measures will complement and strengthen the existing voluntary actions taken since 1998.

Briefly, I would like to outline the existing activity related to DEHP in consumer products and cosmetics, the only phthalate so far that has been declared toxic under CEPA 1999.

Toys, equipment and other products for use by a child in learning or play are covered under the Hazardous Products Act. There currently exists guidance to industry on the requirements for plastic used in toys designed for children under the age of three. In 1999, Health Canada requested Canadian industry to discontinue the use of phthalates in the manufacture of soft vinyl teethers and baby products that could be mouthed by young children.

Based on Health Canada's retail market reviews and intelligence gathered from various levels of trade, including importers, exporters, distributors and retailers, the evidence shows very little Canadian manufacturing of children's plastic toys, rattles and teethers. The vast majority if not all of this activity takes place offshore, predominantly in Asia.

As a continued precautionary measure and to ensure a level playing field for all industry, the government will implement within 12 months of the coming into force of the act a prohibition of DEHP in products intended or likely to be used for sucking, chewing, feeding or mouthing by a child under the age of three. This prohibition will be accomplished by using the authorities of the Hazardous Products Act. The prohibition will allow for continued use of existing compliance and enforcement strategies to monitor the marketplace and will ensure that established mechanisms for communicating consistent messaging and directives are used to inform industry and the general public.

The government's actions also will bring Canada more in line with the European Union's actions for similar types of children's products. Having similar requirements may foster opportunities to share compliance information, leading to opportunities to help limit the numbers of non-compliant products entering our country.

Our government takes pride in the fact that the best suitable risk management options are discussed and selected based on sound science. As hon. members of Parliament, it is our duty to ensure that risk is taken into consideration when weighing control measures for chemical substances used in consumer products.

The mere presence of a chemical substance does not necessarily mean that the public is at risk when using those products. The bill's approach for phthalates achieves this goal by focusing our actions where the greatest risk exists for the consumer products: those intended or likely to be used for sucking, chewing, feeding or mouthing by a child under the age of three.

In addition to actions proposed for the specified consumer products, DEHP in cosmetics will also be addressed by Health Canada through the authorities provided in the Food and Drugs Act under cosmetic regulations.

While the phthalate DEHP has not been reported in any cosmetics notified with Health Canada, it is used in other countries as a cosmetic ingredient. By controlling DEHP, it will make it clear to cosmetic manufacturers that they cannot use DEHP in new formulations and it will allow Health Canada to quickly identify and take action on any cosmetic product sold with DEHP in the formulation.

The government would like to note that the estimated risks from other phthalates in cosmetics such as nail polish are negligible, based on several scientific expert panels in Europe and the United States.

New regulations that came into force for the Canadian cosmetic industry in November 2006 require manufacturers to label product ingredients. This means that if a phthalate is used in cosmetic preparation, it would be identified on the product label, allowing customers to make an informed choice about which brand to use.

As a result of this bill, the Government of Canada is committed to reviewing the available science on phthalates. Pending the results of those assessments, the government will have the opportunity to further control specific phthalates in consumer products and cosmetics, based on sound science and potential risk to users.

The government is supportive of Bill C-307 as it shows Parliament's commitment to improving the health and safety of vulnerable populations, our children.

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

Mr. Speaker, for members who are following the process of the bill, many, unlike you, will get dismayed by the language and terminology used and contained within it. The chemicals that are addressed within the bill, while complicated in their nature and obvious pronunciation, which again you had no problem with and it was quite remarkable, many parliamentarians will say that this is awfully specific and they may ask why this has been raised at this time.

A number of principles are contained within the bill, which we fought for rigorously and had considered for a long time. This is one of the few and rare exceptions that we will be bringing something as important, as specific, to the protection of Canadians and their health, particularly to the health of our children.

The concept around the family of chemicals known as phthalates has been raised by New Democratic members in this place for 12 years now. Various members from different parts of the country have raised the issues of what is contained in our consumer products in particular, how that will eventually affect the health of Canadians and the way the government is ill-equipped to deal with it on a day to day basis.

Many Canadians, when considering the role of governments or the role of private industry, assume that governments will take on the capacity of protecting the overall health and well-being of Canadians, by not allowing products and chemicals that harm us to enter our bloodstream, our health and our environment. They would never knowingly do this.

The challenge facing government is the enormous number of chemicals that are introduced each and every year by various industries, both domestically and internationally, and how to contain them and have some sort of understanding of what effect those chemicals have on human health.

This particular group of chemicals known as phthalates are used predominantly in the softening of plastics. Various members in the House will know that even the cords we use in our microphones allow this plastic flexibility. They are often use in children's toys, rubber duckies, teethers, et cetera to soften the plastics. Oftentimes they contain serious quantities of phthalates in them. This would not be a problem, except for the fact that government health agencies around the world have identified certain parts of these chemicals to be developmental and reproductive toxins.

For a number of people watching, they might wonder why these chemicals, which are known to have such harmful effects, have been used for so long. In various lab testings they have been found to cause tumours. They are endocrine disrupters. That means they go to the genetic reproductive level of humans and cause disruptions. In particular, they get concentrated in small children and affect their developmental growth.

How could we have allowed these chemicals to go through our manufacturing process and be used for so long? Clearly, there must be some reasons. For a number of years, industry has presented various reasons.

Recently the government was engaged in the review of the Canadian Environment Protection Act, known as CEPA for short, which was designed some years ago. It was up for review for a number of years and, finally, after haranguing, we were able to get it through the committee and present a number of important recommendations. I suggest those recommendations dovetail in with the recommendations proposed in Bill C-307.

Government is oftentimes catching up to the developments that go on within the chemical and manufacturing industries. The innovation and consumer demand for new and innovative products is so high that the manufacturers are seeking new ways to present their products.

Unfortunately, when dealing with these three phthalates, BBP, DBP and DEHP, they are often presented in such a way where the proper rigorous testing is never brought. Government does not have the resources at capacity, and we have heard this from testimony in front of us and also when we reviewed CEPA, to do the proper testing.

It seems that in government there is a certain amount of aversion to raising any alarm bell. These very chemicals were reviewed in 1994 and 2004. They were found to be what is called not CEPA toxic. Unfortunately, the nature and design of the tests can often predetermine the results. When the government, particularly in 1994 but also 2004, went through the testing, it eliminated things like consumer products.

I have already listed some of the products that contain these chemicals, but there are others such as cosmetics, nail polish, blush and mascara. All these are also known to contain these chemicals.

When the government went through the review on the exposure of Canadians to chemicals and whether that exposure would be harmful, it excluded all consumer products. It seems a bit dastardly and at the very least shortsighted. One tries to take some measure of faith within the hard-working civil servants, but that oversight needs to be corrected.

The bill seeks to correct that. There would be another review process for these chemicals. We would include consumer products. We would also include up to date information, not information that was known 13 or 15 years ago.

The bill seeks to do a number of other important things, but it is important at this time to recognize the validators that have come on board such as the Canadian Cancer Society and a whole swath of environmental and health groups that have seen their way to support the merits of the bill, as well as other jurisdictions, in particular Europe, which has been conducting a process called REACH. It is a new vision of looking at chemicals, trying to instill principles such as substitution. It is also the review of chemicals in such a way that we avoid unnecessary risk and harm. It is the precautionary principle, which is written into Canadian law but is almost never practised.

Let me deal with each of them separately.

The precautionary principle says that even in the absence of 100% certainty, we take a cautious route and try not to expose Canadians to something we suspect might be harmful, but still requires further study. We do this all the time and every day in our lives. We know there is not a 100% certainty of falling off a bicycle and getting a head injury, but we put on a helmet anyway. The precautionary principle says that there is some chance this could happen, and we all recommend that for our children. We say in this cautious way that we will recommend this thing. That principle is built into the bill, and we believe for the first time in Canadian legislation. It says we must take a precautionary approach.

The second principle is one around substitution. Oftentimes when legislators of all levels of government seek to ban a dangerous chemical, unfortunately the industry will come forward and raise the economic spectre. It will say not to do it, that it will be too expensive and it will cost Canadians jobs. We have to weigh out that fear. Is it true or is the industry avoiding change?

What the substitution principle says is that the government, when a known dangerous chemical is being introduced into a product, must first seek and demand of the manufacturer, not of citizens or government, to look for alternatives. Is there an alternative available to soften plastics or to apply cosmetics that will function in the same way the manufacturer seeks, but will not harm Canadians?

That substitution principle is one of the recommendations the environment committee, I believe unanimously, suggested in its review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and it is one of the essential things within this bill.

I want to point out a number of other things that are required under the bill.

It requires that regulations respecting cosmetics that contain DEHP, one of these chemicals, under the Food and Drugs Act. It requires products such as toys that contain DEHP and that may come in contact with the mouth of a child less than three years to be prohibited.

An important side note is a certain amount of leaching goes on in a plastic water bottles over time. One of the quickest ways to have these chemicals enter into the greater environment is to chew it, to masticate it.

The sad irony is we were finding products and toys that were designed to be chewed also containing these harmful chemicals. That is the absolute principle of unintended consequences. I believe no manufacturer in the world would put these chemicals in toys, knowingly realizing that children would be releasing these chemicals into their mouths. This bill would prevent that.

There is also a whole sector around medical devices. Here is another system of unintended consequences. There are medical devices that are plastic but they are softened. We know through studies that these chemicals will leach out of the plastics and into whatever is being used. We have blood transfusions and transfusions of many kinds and other testing. This is the absolute last moment, with the vulnerable population of children and now the vulnerable population of those seeking medical attention. They are in hospital for an obvious reason and now, lo and behold, while they are there receiving things like transfusions, they may be receiving a known reproductive toxin.

There are a number of things that did not happen in this bill. I suppose in a minority Parliament, as in many places in life, that concessions have to be made. We wanted to go a step further than the bill describes. There should be an outright ban on all these chemicals in cosmetics and toys. We also asked for a phase-in period for medical devices.

There is still reluctance on the government's part. We appreciate that there have been some concessions by the government and those within the bureaucracy, but we still believe, in principle, that there is much further to go. We still believe that when the government goes through its testing and retesting, with the proper parameters, and with a good look at these chemicals, it will realize there are substitutes available. We had witnesses come before us to talk about medical devices. They said that they had held these medical devices in their hands and they did not contain any of these chemicals. They can be made and at a cost benefit.

Hospitals in this country and across the United States have labelled themselves phthalate free. When people enter those hospital, there is no chance of contact because they have self-initiated. When they looked at the studies and did the research, they encouraged the manufacturers. The manufacturers have stepped to the plate because, lo and behold, there is a market. They have made the products that then go to the hospitals where there is no potential for contamination.

We think some Canadian hospitals have moved this way, and there will be growing numbers. We would recommend that the government get ahead of these health and hospital groups and look at making these things come true.

Another essential principle is identifying vulnerable populations in the bill. When we deal with the notion of toxins in our environment, oftentimes in past legislation and with previous governments adults have been the test group. Many would argue that it makes sense.

However, when we look at the conditions and the nature of children, they have a higher absorption rate of many of these toxins because of their body mass to skin ratio. These are used by the medical and health communities to determine someone's vulnerability to a toxin. Children are almost in all cases more vulnerable than an adult.

Recently one of the environment groups in Canada did toxicology of our blood. It tested famous Canadians. The former minister of the environment and the leader of the NDP found they were exhibiting levels of mercury, PCBs and other things in their blood, some that have been banned for a number of years. They are bio-accumulative. They come through our bloodstream.

One of the results of this testing showed that even in families that had made a concerted effort to live well had toxic levels as high as other Canadians in some cases. They do not live in a particularly toxic air shed or environment, they try to eat well and do all the things we tell Canadians to do. In fact, their children's toxicity was higher than the adults.

One of the first nations' elders in my community commented to me the other day, while we were talking about another issue, that “we must become good ancestors”. I thought this was a powerful way for us to think about it as the leadership in our country. We must conduct ourselves in a way that future generations will look back and thank us for the work that we did and honour our memory, not in a way that we have seen our generation conduct itself by leaving behind problems and not solutions. We are leaving behind a more toxic world, not a cleaner one.

In a small way, but an important way, we believe the bill pushes us in the right direction: substitution, precautionary principle and looking at vulnerable populations. I think Canadians when given the measure will find important, will find meritorious. We look for support for this bill from all sides.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-307.

Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

I understand that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is withdrawing Motion No. 2 so we will not be debating or voting on Motion No. 2.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-307, An Act to prohibit the use of benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) in certain products and to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development entitled “Bill C-307, An Act to prohibit the use of BBP, DBP and DEHP in certain products and to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999”.

In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, October 31, 2006 your committee has considered and held hearings on the subject matter of Bill C-307, An Act to prohibit the use of benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) in certain products and to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and agreed on Thursday, May 3, 2007 to report it with amendments.

[Jean-Sébastien Rochon]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

The position is that the bill has some problems with the heads of power insofar as it can't fall under the criminal law power. If you consider Bill C-307, you'll notice that the regulation-making powers don't specifically refer to CEPA. That being said, we must understand that the authority to make the regulations that are currently sought in clause 3 of Bill C-307 would be under the bill itself.

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

I do not think that the two are redundant. M. Cullen tells us that he would like the precautionary principle to apply to the whole of Bill C-307. Further on, the government says that it wants the precautionary principle to be considered in other acts to which the bill would apply, such as the Food and Drugs Act and the Hazardous Products Act.

I think that by passing the two amendments, we would reinforce the precautionary principle whenever the act applies, and even in the details of clauses that would apply under other acts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Bill C-307 is the first order of business. We will proceed quite quickly, I hope, through that.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So the first order of business will be Bill C-307.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

My hope would be—because I haven't seen the same sort of interest in Bill C-298, if that's a fair word to use—that if you've done what I as chair have instructed you to do, we'll be through Bill C-307 fairly quickly and possibly even have time to get to Bill C-298. That's what I would attempt to do, to get us back on schedule.

We have arranged witnesses for our next sessions. We hate to start changing air tickets, and so on. Some people have already adjusted to meet what we've asked them to do.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you for your comments--from the chair, and also from the members in the committee. There is a willingness on behalf of the government to find common ground.

For clarification, on Thursday, then, we will continue with Bill C-307; and Bill C-298 will be on Tuesday of the next week. Is that correct?

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

Sure.

I'm as much concerned about the bill and the merits of what we're talking about as the process this committee adopts in the future. I think we have to be very cautious as we go through considering these types of amendments in what we do in the future, whatever bills and considerations various committee members or government bring forward, because precedence is everything in this place—everything.

We will accept the notion of pausing today's meeting and bringing it back, and we'll have to work with the clerk as to the next discussion point.

I will submit to the committee members, though, as we go in—and the lines of communication have always been open and have been ongoing—at the substantive changes, these are just differences of opinion, fundamental. There's not a lot of nuance left in the discussion.

So we'll have those discussions. We'll attempt to forge the consensus that you, Mr. Chair, seek. At the end of the day, I will remind committee members that Bill C-307, as written, has been accepted by the House, and this committee is charged with the duty of refining it, not changing its substance and merits and direction, and that will remain my intention.

I know Monsieur Bigras has some concerns. We've talked to them about this, and we will continue to talk to government. I assume, from the chair and the clerk, that the meeting next week or at the end of this week will be our next meeting time. I'm not interested in delay. We've had this bill for a number of months already. It was introduced last year. I think it's time to get on with this and just understand that there will be differences of opinion on some of the merits that we talked about.

But under precedent and respect for this place and the House of Commons, we will not change the principles and merits of the bill. They're fundamentals. That is an absolutely disastrous course to walk down, regardless of what's contained in this particular bill.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

We have a number of concerns with clause 3 as it's written.

First, the bill would take regulatory action on DBP and BBP without scientific assessments in support of that action. Risk assessments conducted in 1994 and 2000 found that DBP and BBP did not pose a risk to human health. Taking regulatory action without scientific evidence could result in legal challenges in trade disputes. Therefore, we're moving to withdraw references to DBP and BBP in clause 3.

We are, however, committed to reviewing new information on DBP and BBP. We will move to add a fifth clause to the bill that would commit the government to reassess DBP and BBP under CEPA. It will be amendment 15, which will be discussed further.

Secondly, as currently written, Bill C-307 would use CEPA to control phthalates in toys and other children's products. Again, these products are normally regulated under the Hazardous Products Act. We need to deal with the appropriate statute.

Our amendments would therefore replace clause 3 with one requiring the Governor in Council to make an order under the Hazardous Products Act to prohibit the use of DEHP products that could be put in the mouths of children less than three years of age.

Finally, Chair, the prohibition of DEHP for medical devices may result in effective devices being withdrawn from Canada. Alternative devices that are phthalate free have not yet been tested for all of the uses and, in some environments, are currently licensed devices. Without sufficient safety and effectiveness testing, these devices may introduce other safety risks to Canadians. No other country has stipulated a phase-out time for DEHP in medical devices. No other country has stipulated a phase-out time. We move to withdraw reference in the bill to regulations pertaining to DEHP in medical devices.

However, we're committed to phasing out phthalates in medical devices, starting with those used by the vulnerable populations, and they are children, pregnant women, and newborns. We will move to introduce other measures to meet those objectives. The objectives and motions are found in a new clause in amendment 15.

Thank you, Chair.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It is.

I don't think anybody wants to leave this process, Mr. Chair, and deliver up ineffective legislation. I'm sure the writer of the private member's bill wants to see it work. We've got expert advice sitting in front of us here. We've received government amendments that are longer in text, I believe, than the entire Bill C-307 itself. I haven't heard, as a member of Parliament, the overarching rationale for these changes. It would be helpful, I think, for all members of Parliament to hear where this is taking us.

I think Mr. Cullen is absolutely right when he talks about one change having distributive effects later on and effectively gutting the bill. I don't think anyone is interested in gutting the bill. I assume we want to work and come out of here with a good piece of legislation that will achieve the ends that Mr. Cullen has put in terms of the overall essence of the bill.

I have heard nothing, but I have received and have had deposited in front of me 16 separate amendments from three parties. It would be useful not to commit to anything at this stage, but to hear what the rationale is here. Have we got this so fundamentally wrong?

I don't think, Monsieur Bigras, with all respect, that we can go on and consider these one after the other, rule them in or rule them out, and make changes if we don't have some overarching understanding of what the government is proposing. That would be my suggestion.

Can we hear a generalized statement? We were beginning to hear a statement from, I think, one of our witnesses, or perhaps Mr. Warawa. To put us in a situation where—This is not an apples and oranges situation. I don't think we want to say to Mr. Cullen that we're going to rewrite his bill completely, that it's going to be unrecognizable when it comes back to the House of Commons. But we need some kind of statement as to where we're going here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa.

I don't believe Mr. Cullen was that convinced of this. I think at this point I would have to take the clerk's advice and say that this amendment is beyond the scope of Bill C-307 and therefore rule it inadmissible.

We'll move on, and hopefully G-7 will, as you pointed out, clarify this.

Yes, Mr. Warawa.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Before we get too deeply into debate of this issue, the clerk has advised me that there are some procedural problems with this particular amendment, as well, that members should be aware of. I can read those procedural problems, if you'd like. That might help to clarify.

This is now regarding amendment G-5, which is what we're discussing. It proposes to replace clause 2 in its entirety and establish a framework for making “regulations under subsection 30(1) of the Food and Drugs Act respecting cosmetics that contain bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate”.

Clause 2 is the interpretation section of Bill C-307 and provides a definition for the term “minister”. Amendment G-5 does not propose to amend this definition and is not relevant to clause 2.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

That's the procedural problem. Our Justice people are saying it's not a problem, so now it's up to the members of this committee to take a look at that and, of course, proceed as we desire.

Go ahead, Mr. Bigras.

[Jean-Sébastien Rochon, Counsel, Department of Justice]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With the amendments proposed by the government, there would be no need to specify that “Minister” refers to the Minister of the Environment. The reason is that the motions put forward by the government would rely on the Food and Drugs Act, which is an act administered by the Minister of Health. The regulations made under this act are made by the Governor in Council.

I would also refer to the Hazardous Products Act, another act administered by the Minister of Health. Here again, orders and regulations made under this act are made by the Governor in Council.

Therefore, there's no need, with these amendments in mind, to specify that the minister referred to in Bill C-307 is going to be the Minister of the Environment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to begin by noting that there are two chemical names for DEHP, and they are di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.

The current version of Bill C-307 uses the first name for DEHP. The listing of the substance in schedule 1 of CEPA uses the second name, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Therefore, I'm proposing that we use bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in the revised bill, and I have submitted this wording to the clerk of the committee in my proposed amendments. However, in my remarks today I'll refer to DEHP, just for simplicity and because it's the name the committee is used to using.

There are two concerns I have respecting clause 2. The first is that the current version of the bill requires that the Minister of the Environment be called upon to regulate the purposes that are related, in essence, to health protection. The amendments proposed by the government would remove the need to refer to the minister and instead would refer to the Governor in Council.

Second, Bill C-307, as it's currently written, would use CEPA to control phthalates in cosmetics. However, cosmetics are usually regulated under the Food and Drugs Act. Clause 2 would therefore be replaced by a clause that would regulate DEHP cosmetics under the Food and Drugs Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Good morning, everybody.

Today we're looking at Bill C-307, Phthalate Control Act. We are going to proceed.

As you know, clause 1 will be postponed pursuant to Standing Order 75(1). We'll begin with clause 2.

(On clause 2--Definition of “Minister”)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Are there any comments?

I'd like to thank our guests for being here.

I'd just remind members that if you have any amendments to Bill C-307, we need those as quickly as possible, because we will be looking at this bill on Tuesday.

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Marian Stanley, Manager, Phthalate Esters Panel, American Chemistry Council]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee.

My name is Marian Stanley. I'm a chemist by training. I'm a senior director at the American Chemistry Council and I've managed the Phthalate Esters Panel, which is a part of that council, for the last 17 years.

The panel represents the major producers of phthalate esters in the United States and North America. Since its inception in 1973, the panel has demonstrated its commitment to the safe use of its products by sponsoring health, safety, and environmental research.

The panel strongly supports the regulation of chemicals based on sound science. Phthalates are among the most well-studied chemicals on the planet and they have been the subject of hundreds of studies in laboratory animals and numerous government-sponsored assessments in Canada, the U.S., the EU, and Japan. These assessments have studied the risks to human health posed by exposure to phthalates.

The phthalate panel firmly believes the weight of scientific evidence demonstrates that the ban on phthalates proposed in Bill C-307 is unnecessary to protect human health. Bill C-307 proposes to ban butyl benzyl phthalate, dibutyl phthalate, and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in products for use by a child in learning or play and in products that are put in the mouth of an infant when used. At the outset, the proposed ban of these three phthlates in children's toys would do little to protect children's health.

Butyl benzyl phthalate is most commonly used in flooring and insulating sealants. Dibutyl phthalate is used primarily in adhesives as a solvent for organic compounds and in nail polish. These are cellulosic plastics, not vinyl. Another way to think of this, think of screwdriver handles: they are also plasticized by dibutyl phthalate, a cellulosic plastic.

DEHP is used primarily in medical devices, as Dr. Cammack described, and in some soft plastic toys, as Ms. Axmith talked about—swim wings, plastic waterslides, but also in things like raincoats, backpacks, flip-flops, and other products children use in their daily life. These are not intended to be placed in the mouth by children and are safe as they're currently used.

In addition, numerous government risk assessments of these three phthalates have demonstrated that exposure to phthalates in toys and children's products generally poses no significant risk to children. Both the U.S. national toxicology program, the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, as Dr. Cammack described, and the European Union have performed risk assessments of these three phthalates proposed to be banned by Bill C-307, and these agencies have found no significant risk to children from exposure to these phthalates.

Similar to its being banned in toys, the proposed ban on DEHP in cosmetics would be of little benefit to human health because DEHP is not used in cosmetics. DEHP is a vinyl plasticizer, and, generally, what I put on my face isn't vinyl. As for dibutyl phthalate, exposure levels to dibutyl phthalate from nail polish are extremely low, such that the risks from exposure to DBP are minimal. For example, dibutyl phthalate exposure levels for the thousands of study participants derived from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention biomonitoring data show that levels of exposure to dibutyl phthalate are well within the safety limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These levels already incorporate a number of conservative safety margins. Because the animal data is reviewed, the no-effect level is then assessed, and the “up to 10,000 factor of safety” level is already applied, you've got a built-in precautionary system at work in North American regulatory agencies today.

I'd like to make two points. The measured exposures to dibutyl phthalate and the other phthalates are lower than previous estimates. Additionally, for dibutyl phthalate, the EPA has rereviewed the toxicology data and raised the safety factor for dibutyl phthalate threefold. In effect, that means that a woman using nail polish with dibutyl phthalate would have to use five bottles a day and absorb every single molecule of dibutyl phthalate to reach a level that caused no effect in rodents.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has regulatory authority over cosmetics, studied the CDC's biomonitoring data in 2001 and said it found no reason for consumers to be alarmed at the use of cosmetics containing phthalates. The FDA continues to evaluate available data on phthalates in cosmetics and has not seen any data that led it to take further steps. Moreover, an extensive 2002 review by the cosmetic ingredient review expert panel--this is an FDA-sanctioned independent body of toxicologists and dermatologists that regularly reviews all compounds used in cosmetics and personal care products--found that dibutyl phthalate and other phthalates used in cosmetics were safe as currently used.

Finally, the 2006 EU risk assessment of dibutyl phthalate mentioned above specifically found no concern for consumers using nail polish containing dibutyl phthalate.

The deck that you all have has a page on DEHP in medical devices. I won't go over that, since Dr. Cammack covered it so very thoroughly, but there are some highlights there for you to read at your leisure. On page seven in the deck that I've given you is a table that summarizes the reviews of the three phthalates that are included in Bill C-307. It looks at the reviews that were conducted in Canada, the European Union, and the United States. So this would be a very quick resource for you.

I'd like to conclude by saying that the extensive science shows that bans proposed in Bill C-307 are unnecessary to protect human health. The government-sponsored risk assessments in North America, Japan, and Europe have demonstrated that human exposure to phthalates in consumer products, including toys and cosmetics, is well below any level that has been shown to cause adverse health effects in laboratory animals, and they are well below government-established safety levels.

Consequently, the effect of these bans on phthalates proposed in Bill C-307 would be to place a significant burden on both manufacturers and retailers of phthalate-containing products and on the consumer and medical patients who rely on the performance and convenience made with phthalates, while it would provide no measurable benefits to human health. For this reason, the phthalate esters panel opposes Bill C-307.

Thank you for your time.

[Marion Axmith, Director General, Vinyl Council of Canada]

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

My name is Marion Axmith. I'm the director general of the Vinyl Council of Canada, which is a council of the Canadian Plastics Industry Association. I've been with CPIA for 24 years and I've worked on the Vinyl Council managing the Vinyl Council for the past 14 years.

Our members include a wide range of companies, from resin producers to additive suppliers, compounders, processors or manufacturers, and recyclers. The Canadian plastics industry is about a $51-billion industry. It employs approximately 150,000 Canadians.

The Vinyl Council members are members of a responsible industry within Canadian society. In 1999 we launched our environment management program to manage and reduce our environmental footprint. The program is a commitment to manufacture vinyl products in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. It is our road map to ensure we protect the environment and health during manufacture, use, recycle, and disposal of our products. We continually improve our performance. We strive for sustainability and we improve our capacity to listen to all our stakeholders.

We are here to speak to you about Bill C-307, which is an act to prohibit the use of three phthalates—BBP, DBP, and DEHP—in certain products. We are here to argue that Bill C-307, in its current form, is not necessary, as it circumvents the existing CEPA process for evaluating the safety of chemicals in Canada.

Incidentally, Canada has one of the best screening processes for chemicals in the world today. As I'm sure you're aware, CEPA has already screened 23,000 chemicals over the past six years or so. They've identified 199 of these for further review, and none of these phthalates, which are the subject of this bill, are on that list. They're not on that list because they have been assessed and they are not substances of concern.

What are phthalates? You've heard Dr. Cammack talk about DEHP, but generally phthalates are a class of compounds used mostly with a plastic called vinyl to make that plastic soft and flexible without compromising the strength of the vinyl. As Dr. Cammack said, DEHP has been used safety in medical devices for almost half a century and it provides many very useful benefits, including flexibility, a resistance to kinking, and the ability to withstand harsh sterilization methods while at the same time remaining very cost-effective.

Of the other two phthalates, BBP is most commonly used in flooring, carpet tile, caulking, and sealants. DBP is actually not used in vinyl at all and it is not found in children's toys. The main use for that one is in adhesives, cosmetics, and mostly nail polish.

On DEHP, Dr. Cammack covered the medical devices side. It is used in some plastic toys, inflatable toys like beach balls or water wings, that sort of toy, but it is not used in toys that are put in the mouth by children.

The product that keeps coming up and keeps getting mentioned is teethers. Most of the teethers made in Canada today are not made from vinyl. They do not have phthalates in them. They're made from silicone. So phthalates used primarily in vinyl are a very important part of our everyday lives.

In the next slide in front of you we've covered most of the benefits of the product, so I'll move directly to page 6.

Industry's perspective is that science should prevail here. We feel it's very important to remove this debate from the political arena and move it to the scientific and medical arena, where it can be properly studied and reviewed. The weight of scientific evidence to date demonstrates that bans on phthalates are unnecessary to protect human health.

As you're aware from your March 20 meeting, Health Canada has expressed concerns about the legislation as it is currently written, and I'd simply like to take you through some quotes that I pulled out of the transcript of that meeting from Mr. Paul Glover, who is the director general of the safe environments program of Health Canada. These are quotes and these are some of the things Mr. Glover said at the March 20 meeting:

The risks posed by these substances to human health and to the environment were formally assessed under CEPA. The assessments for BBP and DBP were published in 1994 and in 2000 respectively. Both of those were found not to be CEPA-toxic, and therefore no further action was required under CEPA. That was primarily on the basis of exposure, or the lack of it.

...we also have no long-term safety data on the alternative chemicals used for medical devices. It is important to note that some phthalate-free medical devices have not yet been tested for all of the same indications of use as if they had phthalates in them. Therefore, it may not be suitable to simply substitute these.

So the Vinyl Council would respectfully like to put on the table two proposed amendments to this bill. The first one occurs in clause 3, to amend that, on page 1 of the bill, by replacing lines 9 and 10 with the following:

the coming into force of this Act in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, direct Environment Canada and Health Canada to review the use of the three phthalates: BBP, DVP, DEHP.

The second amendment refers to clause 3 on page 2, by deleting lines 9 and 10, which in effect would delete “medical devices” from the bill.

In summary, I want to stress that the Canadian plastics industry is a very responsible sector. We care deeply about the health and safety of Canadians. The Canadian public is our clientele. Canada has one of the best screening systems in the world for assessing chemicals, and we are asking that CEPA and the CEPA review process be allowed to work. Use this excellent system that the government has put in place.

We cannot make policy based on rumour, innuendo, and fear-mongering. Follow the science, use the excellent CEPA screening system that already exists.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to requesting an extension of 30 sitting days under Standing Order 97.1(1), to consider Bill C-307, An Act to prohibit the use of benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) in certain products and to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I was a little disappointed that this motion cut into the time for private members' business. I think Mr. Cullen's Bill C-307 is an important bill, and we had to cut the discussion short. We all had to reduce the amount of questioning time to be able to deal with this motion before us.

Bill C-298, PFOS, is another very important private member's bill. We had to cut back discussion on both these bills to deal with this.

Mr. McGuinty has said he's doing this to clear up the confusion. I don't believe there is confusion in the committee. The committee can choose to discuss whatever we want. We've been notified that the minister will be here to answer questions on whatever we want to ask him. So the motion is redundant, and it tragically cut into valuable time to deal with private members' business. I don't believe there's confusion around this table.

[Paul Glover, Director General, Safe Environments Program, Department of Health]

Yes, I will, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. It's a pleasure to be here and to have the opportunity to speak to this bill.

As you are aware, Health Canada is responsible for helping Canadians maintain and improve their health while respecting their individual choices and circumstances. We work to prevent and reduce risks to individual health and to the overall environment. We also protect Canadians and facilitate the provision of products vital to their health and well-being.

Our department regulates and approves the use of thousands of products, including medical devices and chemical substances. We do this by being risk-based, and it's important for that to be a critical element as we move forward on this. “Risk-based” means you take a look at both the hazardous profile of a substance and at the exposure, and put those two things together to say whether there is a likelihood harm will result. It is not simply based on the hazardous properties of the substance; it is those properties and the likelihood of exposure that drive the department to act.

Health Canada, to be clear, supports the human health objectives of Bill C-307. However, we do have some concerns with the bill as it is currently written. Please allow me to elaborate.

We've heard a lot this morning about different types of phthalates--BBP, DBP, DEHP. There is a range of phthalates. Three of these phthalates mentioned in the bill have received government action since early in the 1990s. The risks posed by these substances to human health and to the environment were formally assessed under CEPA.

The assessments for BBP and DBP were published in 1994 and in 2000 respectively. Both of those were found not to be CEPA-toxic, and therefore no further action was required under CEPA. That was primarily on the basis of exposure, or the lack of it. DEHP, as you've heard, was found to meet the criteria of CEPA-toxic and was added to schedule 1 of CEPA, giving the government the authority to take regulatory action if necessary.

In addition to the CEPA risk assessments that I mentioned, actions were taken to address risks to human health posed by DEHP in products that pose the greatest risks of health based on the exposure to children. In 1998, based on a risk assessment, Health Canada issued a public advisory on soft PVC toys and child care products containing another type of phthalate, DINP, for which there was a demonstrated health risk through prolonged daily mouthing by children under three years of age--so it was in products designed to go into children's mouths. Canadian industry was requested to immediately stop the sale and production of products containing DINP.

In anticipation of a similar request on DEHP, Canadian industry voluntarily removed DEHP from use in production of children's products likely to be mouthed or chewed, such as soothers and teethers. In essence, we took action on DINP; the industry saw the writing coming and, ahead of us, took voluntary action to remove DEHP at the same time. Although this is a voluntary agreement, Health Canada has evidence that indicates the agreement is working. A 2007 Health Canada survey of child care and other products likely to be mouthed by children under three years of age supports this conclusion. Based on 52 samples collected in 14 different retail outlets, the study did not find any phthalates in child care products intended for mouthing, such as pacifiers and teethers.

We can turn now to the issue of medical devices containing DEHP. Health Canada is very cognizant of this issue. You have heard about the expert panel; in 2003 Health Canada posted on its website a draft position paper for medical devices containing DEHP that included the expert advisory committee's recommendations to develop clinical practice guidelines. This position paper is currently being finalized and will be promoted to the medical community this year.

Next we can turn to cosmetics. They are regulated under the cosmetics regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act, which prohibit the sale of cosmetics that may contain any substance that may cause any risk to the health of the users when the cosmetic is used. The cosmetics regulations require that cosmetics be notified to Health Canada with a list of ingredients and their concentrations within ten days of a cosmetic's sale in Canada.

Neither DBP nor DEHP is found on the cosmetic ingredient hotlist, which you heard of earlier. It doesn't, by the way, require a CEPA assessment, but it does require an assessment to go on the Health Canada list of substances; they're not on that hotlist.

Neither DBP nor DEHP has been found in cosmetics products notified to Health Canada in the work that we have done.

Health Canada believes there is merit to take additional measures to predict the risks of phthalates to the health of Canadians, especially young children, but Bill C-307 is problematic as currently written. Our specific concerns include the following.

DEHP is already on schedule 1 of CEPA, so such an action is not necessary.

Second, given that DBP and BBP were assessed and found not CEPA-toxic, deciding now to add them to schedule 1 without the benefit of reassessment would be problematic and would disregard the evidence-based processes under CEPA. In essence, we have to go back and reassess those before the ministers could approach the Governor in Council to say that there has been a change.

Third, we are concerned with the way the bill is currently written that Bill C-307 may contravene Canada's international trade obligations by imposing technical regulations on imported products without supporting scientific evidence—that is, we have old risk assessments that, if not updated, could create legal concerns for us.

Fourth, with respect to the prohibition of DEHP in medical devices except blood bags, it should be noted that none of Canada's major trading partners, including the United States and the European Union, have prohibited DEHP in medical devices. In the case of the European Union, the European Parliament has urged national governments to restrict the use of DEHP in medical devices for vulnerable groups, except where such restrictions would have a negative impact on medical treatments.

Five, we also have no long-term safety data on the alternative chemicals used for medical devices. It is important to note that some phthalate-free medical devices have not yet been tested for all of the same indications of use as if they had phthalates in them. Therefore, it may not be suitable to simply substitute these out. We would need to assess them further. The bill as written could mean that Canadians might not have access to life-saving medical devices in that case.

Finally, Bill C-307 would use CEPA to control phthalates in products. While that's possible, CEPA may not be the most effective federal act to manage the risks posed by the phthalates in question. Cosmetics are regulated under the Food and Drugs Act; consumer products, including products for children, fall under the Hazardous Products Act.

So as I said from the outset, we do support the human health aspects of this bill, but we feel that, as currently written, there are a number of problems.

We thank you for the opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Good. Thank you.

I'd like to thank our guests. Mr. Carreau, you made it, and with no beeper. Hopefully, it all goes well later with your beeper.

We will just suspend for a moment to change witnesses, and we'll go on to Bill C-307.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We have a quorum.

I would just like to review quickly with members what I hope to accomplish.

Obviously we have two private members' bills that we're looking at today: Bill C-298 and Bill C-307. As you can see, we've allocated 45 minutes for each of these bills. So I would like to ask members, if they would agree, to go to five minutes on the questions on the first round instead of the normal ten minutes. That way we can get the maximum number of questions.

Our other question will be that we have now scheduled Bill C-298 from 11 o'clock until 11:45, with the possibly of extending that 15 minutes if necessary, due to the motion already having been dealt with. We'll wait until Mr. McGuinty gets here. Mr. Regan will talk to him; he understands what I'm trying to do.

I will hold you to five minutes. Perhaps we could start with Bill C-298. As you can see, we have witnesses and we have department people here as well. So if we could keep it to five minutes, and I would ask our witnesses as well if they could keep it as short as possible, five minutes ideally, then we will have the maximum time for questions and can get through both these bills.

Perhaps you could begin, Mr. Khatter.

Phthalate Control Act

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-307, an act to prohibit the use of certain phthalates, BBP, DBP, and DEHP in certain products, and to amend CEPA 1999.

The health of Canadians and our economic and social progress are fundamentally linked to the quality of our environment. This government is committed to the protection of human health and the environment and is taking action on a number of harmful chemicals. We are doing so under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, CEPA 1999, which is one of the government's most important progressive tools for achieving pollution prevention and sustainable development.

Through an open and transparent process established under CEPA 1999 the government ensures that substances used in Canada do not pose undue risks to Canadians or to the environment. For instance, since 1994 no new substances can be manufactured or imported into Canada until the potential risks to human health or the environment are assessed and appropriately managed. If risks cannot be managed, the substances are banned in Canada.

CEPA 1999 also mandates the government to review, and where necessary to manage, risks associated with the large number of substances that were already being used in Canada before 1994.

CEPA 1999 is guided by a set of principles that guide actions to protect our health and our environment. The act seeks to: contribute to sustainable development by preventing pollution; promote coordinated action with partners, including the provinces, territories, and aboriginal governments to achieve the highest level of environmental quality for the health of Canadians; and manage risks from substances and virtually eliminate releases of substances that are determined to be the most dangerous.

The CEPA management process is composed of a number of integrated components. Under CEPA the government has established programs of research and monitoring to strengthen the scientific basis for making decisions. For example, CEPA requires research to determine how substances are dispersed and how pollution can be prevented and controlled. Research into the impacts of substances on both the environment and human health are also mandated by the act. This includes investigation into the role of substances in illness and health problems and specifically, substances that can affect the endocrine system of humans and animals, including fish.

The results of such work, as well as information gathered through monitoring changes in the environment and human health, are vital to building sound knowledge for decision making under CEPA 1999. They also inform the public, industry and other interest groups about the environment and human health issues.

Science is also at the heart of assessing the impacts of substances on the environment, as well as the risks to human health of exposure to harmful substances.

Risk assessment also helps to identify the sources of pollution that pose the greatest risk. In essence, risk assessment provides information on which many activities under CEPA 1999 are based.

CEPA 1999 defines a process for ensuring that the public and interested groups have adequate time and opportunity to comment on or object to the results of risk assessments before decisions are made and action is taken. Once a risk has been determined, action is planned on how to manage it.

Under CEPA 1999 a variety of tools may be used to take the best action, action that protects the environment and human health, that is cost effective and that takes into account social, economic and technological factors as well as provincial and territorial governments.

CEPA 1999 provides for certain instruments to be developed, ranging from regulations to the requirement to prepare and implement pollution prevention plans, to guidelines and codes of practice.

Other approaches outside of CEPA 1999, such as voluntary agreements or actions under other federal, provincial or territorial legislation may also be used to manage the risks.

Follow-up to ensure that risk management decisions are carried out is as important as assessing the risks and putting the risk management tools in place. In fact, involving the public and other interested groups in the creation of effective approaches to reduce risks helps to promote awareness and to achieve high levels of compliance with the management decisions once they are made. When non-compliance is a problem, a range of activities will be used, from promoting awareness of the measures required to reduce or prevent risks, to strict enforcement actions.

CEPA 1999 provides the framework for the identification, prioritization and assessment of existing substances and for the control or management of those considered to pose a risk. This framework is broad, open, transparent and evidence based.

With regard to the phthalates targeted by Bill C-307 specifically, the government has undertaken thorough environmental and human health assessments under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of BBP, DBP and DEHP.

Furthermore, the government has taken action to address the risks that were identified through these assessments. From a health perspective, the human health assessment concluded that two out of the three substances, namely BBP and DBP, did not pose any undue health risks. However, the human health assessment of the third substance, DEHP, concluded that there are health risks associated with the exposure of this substance.

In response to the assessment conclusion of DEHP, Health Canada requested the Canadian industry to discontinue the use of all phthalates in the manufacture of soft vinyl teethers and baby products that could be mouthed.

This government is committed to the protection of human health and the environment, and we have already taken the steps through the appropriate procedures and authorities in regard to BBP, DBP and DEHP. This government is concerned that the legislation proposed by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley would circumvent this process. At the same time, we understand and share the concern of the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley that the health of our children is too important not to impose some sort of precautionary principle or backstop regulation.

This government is committed to addressing risks from substances wherever they are identified through a comprehensive, open and transparent approach and through cooperation with other governments and all stakeholders. We will continue to work with all of our partners to ensure that Canada is at the forefront of international chemicals management and that Canadians and the environment are protected.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I want to thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for all the work he has done on this very, very important bill.

As has already been pointed out, Canadians are very concerned about the number of toxins found in our bodies. In fact, this was discussed at a meeting on health and the environment that many people in Victoria attended last weekend. They wondered about the lack of interest and the lack of urgency that the Liberals had shown and that the Conservatives are now showing with regard to regulating the 4,000 chemicals that were approved before the government passed the Environmental Protection Act and that are still on the market, such as the phthalates we are talking about this evening.

Two decades went by before these products received serious study in Canada. The three chemicals we are talking about today are among the 69 substances on the priority list for the CEPA review process. Two of them, DBP and DEHP, are already considered toxic, within the meaning of section 64 of the act, and a decision on the third, BBP, is pending.

We know that these chemicals are toxic and represent a threat to our health. How could we let them into our lives?

It happened because our governments, the people who are responsible for acting in our best interests, protecting us and protecting our health and that of our children, have long been refusing to act according to the precautionary principle. In fact, during the last debate on this bill in this House, the parliamentary secretary seemed more concerned about the economic impact than about the health of Canadians.

One of the great failings of our society is our persistent refusal to act according to the precautionary principle when it comes to toxins in our environment. As far back as 1964 the World Health Organization told us that 80% of all cancers were due to synthetic human made carcinogens. Now there is overwhelming evidence that the huge increase in cancer rates is linked to the increased chemical production of the last 100 years.

What have we done with that knowledge? We have put, it seems to me, profit before people. We have allowed chemicals to enter our environment, our household products, and our children's toys. If we want to have a sustainable health care system, we will use preventive medicine. Reducing toxins is our first start.

We know that, compared to the European Union, Canada is dragging its feet on regulating these chemicals and that it is not acting according to the precautionary principle.

What I do not understand is that we, the public, have to prove that these chemicals are hazardous, whereas the chemical companies do not have to prove that their products are safe.

We have to start shifting priorities.

Let us remember this principle requires government to act even in the absence of certainty if there is a risk of irreversible damage. Studies have linked serious health defects to all kinds of problems, from endocrine disrupting mechanisms to developmental and many others.

This bill is important, because it points to the need to act.

I would like to address this evening some of the parliamentary secretary's concerns during the last debate. He indicated, for example, that the human health assessments concluded that two of the three substances, namely DBP and BBP, do not pose any undue health risks. He failed to mention that there are few cumulative or interactive studies possible, given the wide number of chemicals we are exposed to on a daily basis.

The U.S. national academy of sciences has decided that DBP is a developmental toxin and BBP is a development and reproductive toxin. California has placed these products on the proposition 65 list of harmful substances. Yet, we have not ensured that Canadian children are protected from direct exposure to these chemicals.

The parliamentary secretary also indicated it would be premature to act in light of the ongoing study of the 4,000 products still on the market. I certainly agree that a comprehensive response is needed, but a specific response to these particular chemicals does not preclude comprehensive action as he suggests. Indeed, both are needed. How long does it take to put in place regulatory mechanisms, especially for known toxins such as the phthalates.

Canadians have in fact benefited somewhat from decreases in some of the phthalates due to actions not taken in Canada, but from other jurisdictions.

Canada does need a regulatory backstop to ensure that Canadians are protected and Canada does not become a dumping ground for these toxins. The question when addressing potential toxins should not be, do we remove them? It should be, do we allow them to enter our environment in the first place?

Many Canadians have concerns about the way we still approve chemical products. Is it too lax? Are enough tests done? The onus is on whom to show that the products are safe?

Bill C-307 should be brought to committee to highlight that the chemical approval process in Canada should find ways to better protect our children. That must be the fundamental goal. I urge my colleagues to approve this bill at second reading and to bring it specifically to the committee's consideration to bring out these various issues.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-307, introduced by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, seeks to prohibit the use of phthalates in certain products. Last week, I commented on perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which Bill C-298 seeks to add to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

My argument last week was based on two studies conducted at great expense by private organizations to determine whether 68 toxic chemicals were present in blood and urine samples.

The first study, conducted by Environmental Defence and entitled “Polluted Children, Toxic Nation: A Report on Pollution in Canadian Families” included 13 individuals—6 adults and 7 children.

The second was mentioned by Kenneth Cook of the Environmental Working Group in Washington, D.C., during his testimony before the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The results of these two private studies—and I use the word “private” because they had to assume the cost of the analyses themselves—are alarming. In the first study, 68 chemicals were analyzed and 13 individuals participated at a cost of $10,000 per person for a total private investment of $130,000. As for the second study, Mr. Cook said that the 10 blood samples cost $10,000 each for a total of US$100,000.

In other words, when an individual conducts a study he has to invest over $100,000 to get results. Despite this significant investment, subsequent criticism is often on the statistical reliability or the sample coverage.

I was saying that the alarming results of both studies led me to conclude that the toxins absorbed or accumulated by adults, through ingestion, inhalation or contact with the skin, can also be transmitted to the fetus through the placenta in the uterus. This is an incredible discovery that demonstrates that newborn babies no longer have the option of taking positive action against toxins later on in life through healthy living, a strictly controlled diet or a pure environment. Babies no longer have that option later in life, for they already have toxins in their system from birth. They are born contaminated.

The results of the analyses of the 68 chemicals studied confirmed that on average 32 chemicals were detected in the parents and 23 chemicals were detected in the children who volunteered for the first study.

What we do not know about is the synergy in this cocktail of toxins in the organism. In chemical reactions there are reducing agents, oxidizing agents and buffers. How do all these chemicals react with one another? Do some chemicals wait for certain others to reach certain concentration levels in the blood to start a reaction produced by another latent toxic chemical? Who knows? No one knows because such in-depth research is rarely ever done.

There are many unknowns when it comes to the interaction of toxins in the human body. Far too often, medicine detects results without knowing the cause: cancer appears, fertility decreases, fetal weight drops, a number of cases affect childhood development, respiratory problems increase—especially asthma in young children—as does the incidence of diabetes.

Who is responsible for this? Is a combination of toxic chemicals responsible? Medicine cannot pinpoint the guilty party.

As for phthalates, Bill C-307 proposes limiting, as much as possible, the exposure of vulnerable populations to such products based on the precautionary principle.

By virtue of that principle, when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an activity or product could cause serious and irreversible harm to human health or the environment, measures must be taken to mitigate the risk until the effects can be documented. Such measures may include, if a certain activity is at issue, reducing or ending the activity or, if a product is at issue, banning the product.

Accordingly, PVC-based soft materials must be kept away from children's mouths. Manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers are obligated, under Health Canada regulations, to ensure that soft plastic teethers and rattles do not contain phthalates. The same is true for children's educational toys. The full array of products intended for commercial and private use is far too extensive to list here tonight. Suffice it to say that the majority of items made from PVC-based plastic, whether rigid, semi-rigid or soft, contain phthalates.

Furthermore, I do not mean merely traces of phthalates in these products, since certain products can contain up to 50%. These include the plastic bags we use everyday, food wrap, plastic rain gear, your shower curtain, Mr. Speaker, waterproof boots, garden hose, children's bath toys and intravenous blood bags. In short, phthalates are everywhere in our daily lives.

We agree with the principle of this bill. We believe, however, that some of the bans proposed in this bill are already effective enough, while others perhaps go too far, considering that practical, effective and safe replacement products are not available. Accordingly, we will propose some amendments at the committee stage.

The House resumed from June 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-307, An Act to prohibit the use of benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) in certain products and to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, be now read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C-307, An Act to prohibit the use of benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) in certain products and to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

At the outset, I would like to inform the House that we intend to support the principle of the bill introduced by the NDP member. The precautionary principle must guide our deliberations throughout the study of this bill. We must ensure that if Canadians are to come into contact with a certain number of substances—even if we are not aware of all of the health risks they may pose—we are guided by the precautionary principle.

Phthalate is used along with other chemicals in many products. It is in BBP, DBP and DEHP, which are used to coat a number of products, making them more supple and flexible. The most commonly used compounds are the DEHPs, which are present in 40% of soft PVC plastics.

PVC is also used in the manufacture of various products, such as toys, flooring, tiles, blood bags, medical devices and food packaging. PVC is also found in the additives of cosmetics such as nail polish, hygiene products such as shampoo, and pharmaceutical products.

How can we be exposed to these substances, which can most certainly be considered toxic, depending on the dose and the percentage used in each product?

First through the mouth. I am thinking in particular of our children who use soothers or pacifiers which may be composed of these substances, substances which can have an impact on their health.

Second, in toys.

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

moved that Bill C-307, An Act to prohibit the use of benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) in certain products and to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, for all interested members and Canadians watching, the pronunciation of the bill is not a requirement to support it. It is sound government policy and I know there is support from various sides of the House for such sound legislation.

I would first like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for seconding this.

We have seen some small steps from the government to conduct itself in such a way, when it comes to the health and protection of Canadians, to operate under some fundamental principles. One of those principles is called the precautionary principle. It is a principle that has been outlined for a number of years and is used in jurisdictions across the world to prevent undue harm and unnecessary harm falling upon their citizens.

I will take the tobacco companies, for example, and then I will get to the specifics of the bill.

For many years, there were claims that there was no ill health effects due to tobacco. Companies would rely upon some sort of naive and false version of true and pure science needing to connect completely the smoking of tobacco to the many forms of cancer that were supposedly caused by that. For decades, these companies hid behind pseudo-science and the need to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt, meanwhile making record profits and costing taxpayers not only the physical cost of cancers and the pain to those people and their families, but hundreds of millions of dollars in health care costs.

It was only when public support grew to a level sufficient to push governments, both at the federal and provincial levels, to do something about this, that the companies finally had to come forward and admit there was enough health science to prove that smoking was harmful for our health.

No politician in our country will get up and suggest that we should reverse the direction that has been made when it comes to smoking, the prohibition of where people can smoke and the ability to sell to minors. Therefore, we have moved beyond that debate.

However, when it comes to chemicals and the toxic soup that Canadians are asked to swim through each and every day of their lives, the question for government and the responsible leaders of our country is, what are we doing to protect the health of Canadians? Are we doing all that we can?

Clearly, when we look at the group of chemicals to be banned under my bill, we have not done enough. This would ban three specific chemicals, and I am not as courageous as the Speaker in terms of attempting the pronunciation of all these. I will leave that to the organic chemists, but I do definitely take my hat off for the Speaker's efforts. There are three: BBP, DBP and DEHP.

These are specifically placed in products used by some of the most vulnerable people in our society and placed in such a way that allows toxins to then leach out of the products and into the humans who use them. In particular, many of these chemicals are placed in products which children frequently use. Knowing that these chemicals have been associated with a whole list of extremely serious health risks and knowing that they can be brought into a young person's body is the same as knowing the way those products are designed.

I will give an example. Many soothers are put on the market that contain two of these chemicals. Chewing the product will allow the chemical to be released from the product. There is this sad and twisted irony in the way these products have entered into our distribution chain and marketplace, completely unintentionally. They are causing extremely worrisome effects felt by the most vulnerable in our population, who are children.

The bill promotes the banning of these chemicals within 12 months, once the House has passed this bill. Many jurisdictions have already taken these first courageous steps, and I will speak to that.

Also a commercial element is involved for Canadian manufacturers looking to make some of these products. We are talking about children's toys, cosmetics and some medical devices as well. The European market and a number of American markets and others have banned these products over a series of time. If Canadian manufacturers hope to sell any of the listed products, they will be unable to export to any of those markets. Therefore, on the health of Canadian economy and on the health of individuals, this makes clear sense.

These chemicals allow plastics, in particular, to become softer. The original forms of plastic in commercial use were extremely hard and durable, but were not malleable at all.

It is an important consideration, whenever we look at banning a chemical through the manufacturing process, that reliable alternatives can be used and are safe. In this case there are a number of them. What is most attractive about phthalates, this family of chemicals, is that they have an extremely wide use. Manufacturers in other jurisdictions have been called upon to get a little more specific about the replacement chemical to be applied.

A number of these chemicals are also used in cosmetics. When we put these chemicals into things like children's toys, which children then chew on, or in cosmetics that are applied to the face, they leach out or off-gas. A number of studies have been done on carpets and paints. There is that new car smell with which people are familiar. Those are primarily the same group of chemicals and they are not necessary.

In not being necessary and not being implicit to the manufacture of any of those products, it causes one to wonder why government has not taken this step before. Given that we have a new government, we are willing to push this and see what kind of support we can get from around this House to doing something progressive.

The problem with the ability of these chemicals to enter into our into our bodies, is they do not have a chemical bond. That allows them to off-gas quite easily. The other secondary problem is that they accumulate in the fatty tissues of organisms. This is a process of bioaccumulation. Any trace amount that passes through one's system stays there because it gets trapped in the fatty tissues.

A recent study was done by Pollution Probe, I believe. It is one of the environmental groups that was studying the actual chemical makeup of Canadians and the levels of toxicity. It was by no means a conclusive study because the sample was too small. However, one of the things that was most interesting was that children in some cases had higher levels of these toxins than their parents did, even though they had obviously been on the Earth for a much shorter time. Part of the reason is the child might be consuming toxins at a much greater rate as a ratio to their body mass and also that the bioaccumulation, the ability of certain chemicals to stick in our bodies, then gets passed on to children.

A great list of unbelievable diseases and effects is associated with these chemicals. It strikes one as incredible that they even exist at all in commercial use, but let us blame the times and ignorance when they were first brought in. However, knowledge being power, clearly it is incumbent upon us to do something about it.

In particular, a number of studies have shown the abnormal reproductive development in small male children. I have an incredible list of the effects of these chemicals and I will table these documents. I hesitate doing that however because what these chemicals can cause is absolutely unbelievable. They primarily target the reproductive systems of small children and in particular small young males.

Again, when one steps back to the precautionary principle, if there is evidence linking this, in the absence of absolute 100% confirmed science, it is incumbent upon us to remove any chance at all of inflicting this upon any younger members of our society, who through no fault of their own, through their simple existence in their day to day lives, start to incur some of these health effects.

The list of general disorders and malformations is long and disturbing. Some of the less graphic in nature are strong links to allergies in children, premature deaths, testicular cancer. In animals that were tested with these chemicals, there was reduced fertility, spontaneous abortions, birth defects, damage to liver, kidneys and lungs. These things are absolutely incredible in terms of the number of disorders to which they are linked. There is no need or cause to be alarmist. It is simply to point out where the studies have led us

Just last month the United States national toxicology program published a draft brief on one of these chemicals, DEHP, examining its risks. The study found that they were probably affecting humans in their development and/or reproduction and that current exposures were high enough to cause concern.

When reading the list of possible ailments that would fall on those in our society, that in itself is enough to cause members to take a serious and hard look at what has been proposed in the bill, to determine that the measures are reasonable and responsible and that the bill should be supported. I will take a small quote from the study, which is extensive. I can table that document as well. It says:

Although there is no direct evidence that exposure of people to DEHP adversely affects reproduction or development, studies with laboratory rodents clearly show that exposure...can cause adverse effects...Based on recent data on the extent to which humans absorb, metabolize and excrete DEHP, the NTP believes it is reasonable and prudent to conclude that the results reported in laboratory animals indicate a potential for similar or other adverse effects in human populations.

This is not an alarmist group at a federal level in the United States.

When we look at other jurisdictions in the world and see what they have done with this family of chemicals, we find a long list of legislators are raising the alarms and seeking to pull these chemicals from our system.

The European Union has a more comprehensive ban than the one suggested in Bill C-307. I am always encouraged by that. If we can get the European nations to agree on anything at any given point in time, we have truly pulled off a miracle. In respect to something such as this, with the strong chemical manufacturing element of the European economy and this having gone through all of the hoops and levels required in that quasi-federal governance, it shows that its ban in specifically targeting those products aimed at children, especially, shows the strength and intention of the will of European parliamentarians. We would be well to heed their call.

Argentina, Fiji, Finland, Japan and Mexico have all banned this group of chemicals in children's toys. It is a wide and diverse group of countries. There are many more under consideration. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recommended considering alternatives containing products when performing high risk procedures on male newborns, pregnant women with male fetuses and male preteens eight to twelve years old.

Even without the full “proven link” that has been sought by companies from tobacco on down, the U.S. FDA has said that on those vulnerable groups, particularly pregnant women who are due to bear male children and young male boys, we must find alternatives because other options are available.

For the life of me I cannot understand why members in the House would not support such an initiative, with options being available and given the list of dastardly diseases and effects related to these chemicals.

Health Canada has an even stronger policy when it comes to phthalates. Though it is still in draft, it recommends that DEHP not be used for certain procedures and that DEHP containing products be labelled.

I want to quickly go to alternatives. It is important for people to realize that if companies have sought alternative and responsible products, they be allowed to use them so they remain profitable. A number of European based companies and some American ones have been able to find alternative and responsible products to replace these. Some cosmetic companies have already started a phase in.

My last point, for members in this place and for those watching, is the principle of precaution, the principle of using sound judgment, even in the absence of full and complete knowledge on an issue in cases such as this, is paramount to the type of decisions we make. The onus we use must be reversed. It must not be left to consumers to somehow prove that the products they buy their children are safe. They simply do not have the time, wherewithal or capacity.

The onus must be put on those making the products and those attempting to introduce those products into the marketplace. It is simply responsible government to do this. It is responsible for all of us to strongly consider the bill. I look forward to the debate that ensues.

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-307, An Act to prohibit the use of benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) in certain products and to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to ban a collection of chemicals known as phthalates that end up in products, particularly products used by young children. This would be one of the first times in Canadian law that the onus of responsibility would be shifted on to the manufacturer to prove that a product was safe prior to its arrival in the marketplace. This is a bill that addresses the most vulnerable populations in our society, particularly children and pregnant women. There are similar bans in Europe and many of the United States.

Support from the environment groups and health groups across the country has been strong. I look forward to support from members across the aisle and around this House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)