Bill C-307 (Historical)

Phthalate Control Act

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

Phthalate Control Act

[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.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague from Skeena to expand on the comment on which he began his speech and ended his speech. It had to do with the precautionary principle that must guide us especially when we are dealing with the well-being of children. It has always driven me crazy that the onus is on us to prove that a chemical is dangerous. The onus is not on the chemical company to prove that it is safe. I cannot for the life of me understand how chemicals are innocent until proven guilty, especially when we are faced with the near impossible task of making the direct link to a specific cause when we are exposed to such a chemical soup. That task is nearly impossible.

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

Mr. Speaker, the precautionary principle is already in Canadian law. Our central piece of environmental legislation is currently under review at committee. We spent an entire day and more in conversation around the precautionary principle. When first introduced to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act it was much heralded. It was a central way of thinking, particularly about pollutants that have the potential to cause harmful effects on Canadians and Canadian society.

That principle clearly states that we must not wait for absolute truth to make a decision. If we waited for such absolute truth, for example, it has never been proven that there is 100% causation between the smoking of cigarettes and cancer. It is virtually impossible to prove 100% because there are so many elements and variables.

Scientists, health officials and environment officials have said to us that when they examine groups of chemicals such as phthalates, the risks are so high and so great that even if they are 10% right on some of their reports, even at that small margin with most of it being wrong, the responsibility is ours to do something. Even with 10% of it being right, it is incredible that we would even consider allowing their use. If we had known what we know now about the toxicity of these chemicals, would we have allowed their production? It is unlikely. As we go forward with hundreds being introduced every year and combining in certain ways, we must consistently ask ourselves if we are doing justice by Canadians who place their trust in us that we are looking out for their ultimate well-being.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the member says in his bill that phthalates will be banned from certain products, what products are we talking about here? Could he give us a brief outline of the three phthalates?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can keep this brief. The great importance of the debate we are having now is the need for a committee review to actually open up the discussion.

Of the three, BBP is the first. It is specifically banned from children's toys and anything meant to be used in children's mouths. DBP would be banned from children's toys and similarly anything meant to be used in children's mouths. It is also used in cosmetics. DEHP would be banned from children's toys, anything for children's mouths and any cosmetic. We also have to look at medical devices and blood bags because it is also used to keep blood bags soft. There has been great concern coming from the health practitioners. Someone who is using a blood bag most likely is ill. The potential leaching of these chemicals into a person who is not well seems contrary to the whole idea of entering a hospital in the first place.

Those are the specific bans that we are seeking. To be perfectly frank, there is a debate about where, when and how much needs to be banned, but the principle of the ban is strong and is supported by legislatures around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-307 by the member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley, which is an act to prohibit the use of three types of phthalates, BBP, DBP and DEHP. I thank him for his work on this.

The Government of Canada is very concerned about the potential risks to human health, especially to children, from chemical substances used in manufacturing and which may be found in products that we use every day. For that reason we committed in the Speech from the Throne to achieve tangible improvements in our environment, including reductions in pollution. In the speech the Governor General of Canada stated:

Recognizing the important role of parliamentarians, members of Parliament will be asked to conduct comprehensive reviews of key federal legislation, including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, I am on the committee that is reviewing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, known as CEPA 1999. We are committed to working within that process. We are also committed to ensuring that CEPA 1999 is improved in order to increase its effectiveness in reducing the use and release of harmful substances.

This government has concerns about Bill C-307 because the departments of environment and health have already been actively engaged in scientifically assessing the environmental and human health risks of specific substances named in Bill C-307. The government has also taken action to address the risks that were identified through the scientific assessments.

Phthalates used in plastics also have important economic and operational benefits in Canada. I would first like to briefly explain the uses of phthalates in everyday life.

BBP is a plasticizer used in a variety of plastic products, including vinyl products such as floor tiles. It is also used to manufacture traffic cones, food conveyor belts, artificial leathers and plastic foams. The plasticizer makes the products flexible and easy to fabricate.

DBP is used in cosmetics and is a particularly common nail polish ingredient which makes polish resistant to chipping.

DEHP is a plasticizer used in medical devices such as intravenous tubing and medical bags which renders medical tubing resistant and resilient to kinks. Kinks can dangerously restrict the flow of medicine and life-saving fluids to patients, putting the safety of Canadians at risk. DEHP is also used in fragrances, hydraulic fluid and as a solvent in light sticks.

Health Canada and Environment Canada carried out assessments of these three substances between 1994 and 2000.

The assessments carried out under the authority of CEPA were peer reviewed to ensure accuracy and adequacy of coverage and were published for public comment prior to being finalized. The assessments concluded that all three substances are not harmful to the environment.

The human health assessment concluded that two of the three substances, namely BBP and DBP, did not pose any undue health risks. Therefore, Bill C-307 prohibitions on BBP and DBP are inconsistent with the peer reviewed scientific assessment conclusions.

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 put in the mouth.

Today DEHP is already no longer used in the Canadian manufacture of soft vinyl teethers or baby products that could be put in the mouth and DEHP is not found in any cosmetics notified with Health Canada.

DEHP continues to be used in scientific medical devices. Based on extensive reviews conducted by Health Canada, it has been concluded that the use of DEHP has important benefits that are lacking in alternative substances.

One particular use of DEHP that potentially causes exposure to humans is its use in scientific medical devices. Based on extensive reviews conducted by Health Canada, it has been concluded that the use of DEHP has important benefits that are lacking with the alternatives. The use of DEHP in medical devices was reviewed by the Medical Devices Bureau of Health Canada. In addition, clinical practice guidelines have been developed with input from stakeholders and posted for comments on the Health Canada website.

Bill C-307 would have economic and practical repercussions in Canada since some alternatives to DEHP do not offer the same benefits that this substance possesses. Others are much more expensive, while others have inadequate safety data. Therefore, in these limited cases, the benefits of continued use outweigh the risks. The member's bill acknowledges these benefits by stating that the prohibition on use for medical devices should exclude blood bags, but these exclusions would have to be extended to other medical uses.

It is worth noting that on November 16, 1998, Health Canada issued as a precautionary measure a public health advisory informing parents and health care providers of very young children about the potential health risks posed by soft vinyl children's products containing another plasticizer, di-isononyl phthalate, DINP. This substance was not part of the assessment under CEPA but was found to be a replacement for DEHP.

At that time, parents and caregivers of children under the age of one were advised to dispose of soft vinyl teethers and rattles. In the interest of the health and safety of children, Health Canada also requested the industry to immediately stop production and sale of those products. As a result of this action, soft vinyl teethers and rattles containing DINP have been voluntarily withdrawn from the Canadian market.

Beyond these specific substances, the Government of Canada is very concerned about the risks to human health and especially to children from these chemicals. To prevent exposure to new harmful chemicals, Health Canada and Environment Canada assess potential risks of chemicals before they come into use in the Canadian marketplace and take steps to manage the risks or to prohibit the use of new chemicals where the risks cannot be adequately managed. This program has been in place for nearly 15 years and over 800 chemicals are assessed annually.

Through this program we collaborate with other countries to harmonize our assessments of new chemicals before they are introduced into commerce. This prevents the creation of new problems. This is an example of pollution prevention in action, which is a cornerstone of CEPA.

This government remains concerned about the human health impacts of existing sources of pollution and in particular, air pollution. This government is in the midst of comprehensive and integrated action to protect the health of Canadians and the environment. Canadians will see in the coming months, as we develop our made in Canada approach for reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases, additional initiatives to protect our health and our environment.

We also recognize that instead of focusing our attention on one or a few substances at a time, this government needs to take a more comprehensive and integrated approach that will put Canada at the forefront of substance management.

The House of Commons assigned the review of CEPA 1999 to the Standing committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on April 26 of this year. The committee began hearings on May 10. The environment committee's review of CEPA will provide the Government of Canada with an opportunity to review the contribution of CEPA to the goals of pollution prevention, sustainable development and federal-provincial-territorial cooperation.

As I have said, this government is committed to ensuring that the health of our citizens and our environment is safeguarded. While we appreciate the intent of the member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley to eliminate phthalates, the government has already taken steps through the appropriate procedures and authorities in regard to BBP, DBP and DEHP.

Bill C-307 attempts to circumvent the comprehensive scientific assessment of phthalates and instead make an assessment based on politics. This legislation would unfortunately confuse and create redundancy within the process. I would encourage the member to respect the scientific assessment process. He indicated that he disagrees with the scientific assessment of phthalates. He called it pseudo-science.

I encourage him to instead use the appropriate process, which is the CEPA review. I would recommend that he bring his concerns and recommendations regarding phthalates to the department, which is carrying out the assessment. I look forward to discussing it in that context.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be using the parliamentary secretary's speech as a structure for my remarks.

The first thing to be noted is that the addition of toxic substances such as the three phthalates proposed by the bill is not something that requires us to wait for the CEPA review. If the member would look at the Canadian Environmental Protection Act itself and at schedule 1, he would see that since CEPA 1999, on a fairly regular basis, we have added various substances, until these that would be added would be numbered 80, 81 and 82. Therefore, there is a process that does not require us to wait for that.

Second, the crucial part of his argument, and he appealed to scientific research to guide our efforts, according to him, is that the last scientific studies were concluded in the period from 1994 to the year 2000. What has happened since then is that we have learned a great deal more about phthalates.

In fact, there have been several reviews by the national toxicological program referred to by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. The first one to examine phthalates was in October 2000. In other words, it was outside the period that Health Canada was reviewing. There we are talking about DBP. This is the one that finds itself in children's toys and that sort of thing.

What they concluded after that first panel was that DBP can cause reproductive toxicity in adult rats and developmental toxicity in rats and mice, and it does so by oral routes, through the mouth. It induces structural malformation. These data are assumed to be relevant to humans. That is from a study which was concluded outside the scientific period.

Since then, and the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley also referred to this, there was another panel on phthalates in October 2005. There was quite a controversy about phthalates in August 2005. That panel has even more scientific evidence to point out the dangers of phthalates in general and some of those mentioned in the bill very specifically.

The idea is not to circumvent the CEPA review or science, but to incorporate science at a faster rate than we have been doing. The hon. member will know from sitting on the CEPA review that one of the most painful parts of this process is how long it takes us to recognize dangers and to act on them.

The other thing he will know from this review is that if we do not put these substances on now as dangerous, they tend to get ignored by the officials, who turn to things that are mandated. If we mandate the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment to do something, they are more likely to do it. That is what the bill would have the effect of doing.

This is not in the least inconsistent with peer review. This is simply a way of incorporating what we have been learning all through this process and, like the proposer of the bill, I think this is exactly what we ought to be doing. We ought to be finding ways of expediting our inclusion on toxic lists of things for which new evidence is emerging.

I would also point out that in his remarks one of the things he seems to have ignored is the specific limitations that the bill would place on the use of these three phthalates. It does not say they cannot be used for vinyl flooring or linoleum, which is one of the things that phthalates are used for. It excludes the blood bags that he refers to. Presumably when it gets to committee we can refine further some of these exclusions.

It is very specific. It is not going to be a disruptor of the economy to say that this should be done in very specific instances where there is stronger evidence since the last time Health Canada looked at it and where the international response has been far more vigorous than it has been in Canada.

I think the reference to the ban in the European Union for all toys and child care articles tells us that we are too slow. Why should we wait on these prohibitions when the evidence from larger markets on the precautionary principle shows that we would not want to take a chance on this stuff? Why would we not want to act now?

Why is it that we must wait until the CEPA review is finished? The CEPA review may not be finished for another year, and yet the accumulating evidence, including last month's toxicological study from the National Institutes of Health in the United States, tells us that we know enough under the precautionary principle to say that these three substances ought not to be used in this very particular way, not the generalized way described by the hon. member.

In conclusion, I am going to urge my colleagues to support this bill. I do so because there is the scientific weight of evidence in terms of risk to human health. I do not think we need to know more than that. We can refine this if we send the bill to committee. I think this is exactly what parliamentarians should do. It is not something that is inconsistent with the spirit of CEPA, which allows itself to have these toxic substances added from time to time as the scientific evidence becomes stronger.

[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.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Not any more, the parliamentary secretary will tell us. That is true. However, he must admit that certain toys could contain PVC. Of course, in 1998 the government decided to change its directive to state that even imported products intended for infants must not contain these PVC ingredients.

Third, by inhaling certain dusts found on construction materials. That too can be dangerous.

Fourth, by absorption through the skin. We know that certain medical devices and accessories contain PVC, which makes the material more flexible. So inevitably, being absorbed through the skin, these products directly enter the body, and people are exposed to these substances.

Finally, by ingestion, since certain food product containers may contain the PVC in question.

What are the effects of exposure to PVC?

First, there is an impact on the endocrine system. I will leave it at that. Problems related to the endocrine system have been detected in certain adolescents, certain young people.

Next, there is also an impact in terms of testicular problems. We have come to realize that overexposure to these products could even have some degree of impact on human fertility.

Finally, it is most probably with regard to children that we have to be concerned about the effects of this certain exposure.

To summarize, here is where PVC is to be found.

It is found in three major types of products: toys, cosmetics and medical devices.

With regard to toys, in 1998, following an assessment of risks associated with objects containing DINP that are intended for children, Health Canada concluded that the amount of DINP released by flexible PVC products could pose a risk to the health and safety of children aged three months to one year. Manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers have since been obliged to ensure that flexible plastic soothers and rattles are free of DINP, DEHP and all other phthalate products.

In Canada and the United States, phthalates are no longer found in toys or objects that may be put in children’s mouths. However it is still possible to find this type of product in toys designed for older children, thus posing a potential risk of exposure for them. So phthalates can be found in certain toys, and children over the age of three could very easily leave their toys lying around, with the result that infants might put this type of product containing PVC in their mouths. So it seems clear to me that there must be a total ban so far as toys are concerned.

Next, regarding cosmetics, hon. members will recall that a few years ago, the government and Health Canada announced their intention to amend the cosmetics regulations so as to require that cosmetics manufacturers and distributors disclose the ingredients on the labels. The government opted for an approach that would provide transparency for consumers so that consumers could know more about the products they use and see whether they contain PVCs. On this, I agree completely with the hon. member. We have to make sure that PVCs in cosmetics are banned, even if this is not necessarily what Health Canada recommended.

Lastly, the only reservation I have about the member's bill concerns medical devices. We know that some medical procedures present a higher risk of DEHP exposure, such as multiple transfusions of blood products and extracorporeal oxygenation in newborns, pregnant women or nursing mothers, multiple transfusions of blood products in general and also heart transplants or cardiopulmonary bypass procedures. We have to protect these groups at risk, but we have to make sure that people can continue receiving quality care. Before we issue a complete ban, particularly in connection with medical devices, we have to make sure that there are replacement products on the market. Otherwise, people's quality of life could be threatened.

The Institut national de santé publique du Québec even feels 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.

In general, we will support the bill on two of the three categories of products mentioned. With regard to medical devices, we want assurances, before they are banned completely, that replacement products are available so that people will receive quality care.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in the debate and to join with others who are supporting the good work done by my colleague, the member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley. I congratulate my colleague for bringing forward an issue that pertains to the health and well-being of our children. There is probably nothing more important that we could do as legislators than to protect the very youngest in our society from toxic and dangerous substances.

Mr. Speaker, you will know, since you were here long before I was, that this issue has been debated many times in the House. The last time I recall the debate was back in 1998 when my colleague, the member for Acadie--Bathurst, brought a motion to the House recommending that labelling be placed on all products that contained phthalates so that parents would know how to choose products that were safe for their kids.

In 1999, I brought forward Bill C-482 which was intended to amend the Hazardous Products Act to prohibit the sale and advertising of products that contained phthalates in certain quantities that were dangerous to young children.

We have been at this a long time and it is time for action.

What I find so interesting in today's debate is that back in 1999 when the Liberals were in government they used the same arguments against moving in this direction, acting on the precautionary principle, that the Conservatives are now enunciating. It is because they are in government and they are getting the same material from the same bureaucrats and the same political advice from industry heads and so on without thinking about the real issues here and what this place can do.

It is interesting to hear the Conservative member say that Health Canada took measures back in 1998. What did it do? It put out a warning. It put out an advisory. It encouraged industry to stop producing products that might be dangerous. However, no definitive action was taken to ensure that these products, which children chew on and which can be dangerous to their health and well-being, were removed.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

That's nonsense. It has already been banned.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

My colleague from the Conservative side says that it has been done but I beg to differ. It has not been done in terms of the scientific evidence that is available on all the toxins mentioned by my colleague from Skeena--Bulkley Valley on a widespread basis so that all children are not exposed to these very dangerous toxins.

As my colleague on the Liberal side said, the science is in. We have had numerous studies suggesting that we know enough about these phthalates to take more serious action to protect our children. We no longer need to second guess these studies. We do not need to suggest that all of the evidence is not in. We have the science and all we need is the political will of the government of the day to act on this advice and take much more decisive action than the feeble steps that were taken by the Liberals back in 1998 or 1999.

Where does all this lead us? After all these years of debate I hope we have a consensus to move forward with something much more definitive and clear in terms of legislative action. My colleague from Skeena--Bulkley Valley has suggested a clear route in terms of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I think he can address the Liberals' concerns about the use of CEPA and suggest that we will not slow down the process at all. We will take shortcuts or end runs but we can use CEPA for what it was intended and that is to protect human beings from products that are dangerous to our health and well-being.

We have a growing consensus. We have the most up to date science. We have many advocates who know the impact on children's health in terms of their abilities. We know the connection between the exposure to phthalates and the serious neurological problems and learning disabilities. Now is the time for action. We can do it now by voting in favour of the bill, sending it to committee, looking at some of the concerns that have been raised, fine tuning the process and taking a step forward.

It is critical that we act decisively to protect our children and to build a strong marketable economy. Other countries have taken serious actions on this issue and they have not lost economic growth or business opportunities. The numerous countries that have chosen to act in a more decisive way than Canada have benefited in the long run because they have acted in terms of prevention of health problems and not waited for serious issues to develop which are costly to our health care system.

The precautionary principle is one that we have tried to get the government of the day, whether Liberal or Conservative, to address over the years. The concept is simple: do no harm. It means do not allow products on the market, even though we are not sure about them, because we can always act afterwards but of course it is too late. It is instead to put the onus on industry, toy producers, manufacturers of soothers, plastic blood bags and whatever other plastic products are out there to ensure those products will not leach phthalates into the blood systems of young children who will then suffer serious consequences.

If we would just apply that one fundamental principle, which is so intrinsic to who we are as Canadians in terms of our Food and Drugs Act, we would be so much further ahead in terms of this nation and our future.

I urge everyone to support the bill so we can finally do what Canadians are counting on us to do.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The time provided for the consideration of private members’ business has now expired and the motion is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate on this bill.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I would also like to thank the member for Niagara Falls for explaining the government's activities in this regard and how he sees the matter unfolding.

Ordinarily I might not be predisposed to support a private member's bill of this nature because there is a governmental process and regulatory process to deal with these issues. The member from Niagara illustrated that process quite well. The member will understand, as I am sure the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley understands, that there are frustrations with the process. Quite often the speed at which it goes forward is not satisfactory to Canadians. It is sometimes good that a member brings forward a bill like this one. For that reason, I will be supporting this bill.

It is important that the bill go forward to committee for refinement. At that time the government will have a chance to make a presentation in the committee and if it has had a chance to advance the markers far enough, then the member may be convinced to withdraw his bill if the markers are brought forward in a way that meets these commitments.

It seems to me that when we are talking about the health of infants and when there is enough evidence to show that there is a substantial risk to infants, then we have to advance quickly. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act foresees this, but it does not prevent our doing it in the manner that has been brought forward, that it be done a little bit in advance.

As was mentioned, BBP would be banned from children's toys and anything meant for use in children's mouths. DBP would be banned from children's toys and again anything meant for use in children's mouths, and from cosmetics. DEHP would be banned from children's toys, anything meant for use in children's mouths, cosmetics and medical devices other than blood bags.

In all cases I believe there are alternate products that can be used, which should be explored as is being done in other jurisdictions. It is a bit disappointing that Canada would be behind the others. It puts us at additional risk. As these products are being replaced in the market, if we do not have the legislative or regulatory framework to advance the markers in Canada, we will probably be the last ones receiving this excess production of these chemicals. They will continue to be used in Canada while alternatives are used in other markets.

The coming into force of the ban is not quite what I would have liked. I would have liked it to be better than a year after the bill goes through the House. Again, there is a regulatory framework within Canada that has to be dealt with. Hopefully at committee some improvements can be made.

Generally speaking, when commercial enterprises in this country realize what Canada is doing, what the Government of Canada wants to advance and what Parliament is suggesting, quite often we can get some cooperation. I certainly would hope that we see cooperation from the market on this point and that products which are intended for use by children and infants and which contain these chemicals would be pulled back.

There is a lot more that the government could do to assist. How can parents be expected to know about all this? I have seen initiatives that have been cut by the government that could have helped.

We had the child care program. I visited a day care in the town of Yarmouth that was looking forward to the child care program which had been signed with the province of Nova Scotia. It would have been able to expand on its parent education programs. That day care could advance these types of things with parents and work with the communities. Unfortunately that was not passed. Five billion dollars were removed and another $6 billion for the anticipated years. Hopefully that will be brought back.

What are phthalates? They are used in many plastics to help make them softer and more pliable. Many are used in cosmetics to add lustre and texture. They are also used in fragrances to preserve the scent. In some cosmetics the concentration of phthalates is as much as 20% of the weight. Every year 4.5 million tonnes of phthalates are used worldwide.

Phthalates have no chemical bond to the products to which they are added, so they often leak out, or off-gas, as has been said. The new car smell, the smell of a new shower curtain or the scent of new plastic is undoubtedly largely comprised of phthalates.

If we look at plastics being more pliable, different scents and lustre in cosmetics, we will see, I think, that civilization does not depend on the continued use of these chemicals. Somehow civilization will find a way to get through without them. If there is any sense of risk, I think they should be removed from the market.

More importantly, phthalates are bioaccumulative and not water soluble. They persist in the fatty tissues of animals and humans, so the more contact infants, individuals or animals have with these products, the more this builds up in their systems. We might remember mercury as being another product that did that. We easily understand the dangers of mercury. This is similar.

Links have been made between BBP, DPB and DEHP and certain reproductive and developmental disorders such as abnormal reproductive development in infant boys and links to other health defects such as child allergies, premature births, damaged sperm, genital defects and testicular cancer. In animal tests, exposure caused reduced fertility, testicular atrophy, spontaneous abortions, birth defects and damage to kidneys and liver.

If we think of more pliable plastics, lustre in cosmetics and having a little more scent around and compare that to the lifelong risks, beginning at birth and early childhood and continuing on, I think it is quite easy to decide what we should be doing.

There are alternatives, as I mentioned. The corporation BASF has already excluded DEHP from production in Europe and has replaced it with safer alternatives. Why not Canada?

Companies like Reilly Industries and Velsicol produce alternative plasticizers that are safer and better performing. The alternatives work at lower temperatures and lower concentrations.

Some cosmetics companies have already started to phase out use in response to the phthalate ban in Europe. Again, why not Canada?

Argentina, Fiji, Finland, Japan and Mexico have banned this group of chemicals from children's toys. Again, why not Canada?

If we look at the act, as was mentioned by the member from Niagara, we see that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, is an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

Government is committed to the implementation of the precautionary principle and this is what it says in this act:

--where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation....

If we look at bioaccumulation in the fatty tissues of infants and the risk of developmental problems in infants and later in adults, the risk to health is quite easy to see.

We should be taking effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

The act is reviewed every five years. Two committees of Parliament are now apprised of the act: the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. However, we should not consider that just because the act is already under review, and probably other substances will be considered, we cannot act on these substances. We have enough knowledge to bring it forward, to bring it to committee, to have expert witnesses appear, to make modifications if they are required and thus protect our children and our environment.

When the member for Don Valley West spoke in the House, he mentioned that the addition of toxic substances such as the three phthalates is not something that requires us to wait for a CEPA review. Since 1999, we have added various substances to the list on a fairly regular basis and nothing precludes us from doing the same now. Environment Canada and Health Canada carried out assessments on these three phthalates between 1994 and 2000, so there should be a lot of knowledge about this.

My time is running short, but I think that if we look at what has happened internationally, it is quite easy for us to see that we should be doing the same in Canada. It is the minimum we should be doing.

There are many other products like this in our environment, such as linoleum, where children play, where we live every day. Many plastics products include these chemicals that surround us. As a start, the very minimum we should do is get this away from infants. Then, through the Environmental Protection Act, we can make sure that we remove these chemicals from circulation generally if that is what is needed and would improve our environment.

We know that there are alternatives out there and we know they are effective. They perform better. They are not more expensive. The more their production is in demand, the more there will be and the better they will be used. I am pleased to support the bill. I congratulate the member for bringing it forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I have listened to the debate this evening. Canadians watching and members of Parliament listening in on the debate will wonder why so specific a private member's bill has come up, a bill so specific in its target. Why go after these three chemicals in particular?

We believe that this goes to the very heart of the debate on chemicals in our society and government's responsibility to attempt to protect those citizens we represent. The evidence is conclusive on the effects, as listed tonight, that some of these chemicals have on Canadians and in particular young Canadians, those who certainly cannot make the choices for themselves, small infants and even babies.

The effects and risks posed by these chemicals far outweigh any potential benefit we can see in having these chemicals in our society. What also goes to the heart of the matter is the way in which the burden of proof is on governments or citizens at large to somehow prove a chemical unsafe, rather than on the companies that have introduced those chemicals into our society to prove the safety occurs in the chemicals themselves, to prove that these are safe products to put on the market. These chemicals are certainly put in products for those who are most at risk in our society, those who have the least amount of power, children in particular.

The debate also calls into question the very fundamental nature of the one act, the most important one, that we are now dealing with in Parliament with respect to the environment, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The government has made claims, as have previous governments, that the act is strong enough to protect Canadians' health, that the act is well placed to keep those harmful substances away and well regarded in the international community. Yet when we look at it, there is a particular list, a list that calls for chemicals to be virtually eliminated. It is a list of banned substances. When we look over the entire life of the act and the use of the list, we see that there is not one single chemical that has made it onto the list all the way through the many hoops and processes that are in place.

Of all the toxins that exist in our society in the manufacturing and chemical sectors, not one single toxic material has been placed on the virtual elimination list in all the years that it has existed. Clearly, in this system, while the CEPA tools and components are there, governments have refused to act with the courage and conviction to actually use those tools effectively.

This bill changes that story. Based on the precautionary principle, which is used around the world and has not been properly adopted in Canada to this point, it suggests for the first time that the burden of proof must be on those who are introducing the chemical and that if there are risks, even though the science is not 100% complete, then the precautionary principle states that citizens should not incur those risks. Clearly, citizens cannot go out and do the research to understand all the thousands of chemicals that are in our society and have a full and comprehensive understanding of what the effects may or may not be on their lives.

That is the responsibility of this place. It is the responsibility of government and the people working on behalf of government to keep Canadians safe, to keep those harmful elements away from us, particularly when they are of such a complicated nature like these chemicals.

A lot of people will say that we need 100% proof, that we need to have complete and conclusive science not to be refuted in any way. This very much reminds me and other Canadians of the debate around smoking. For years upon years, the smoking industry said it had scientists and health officials who said it was okay to smoke. For years and years, governments delayed and stalled, but finally they took courage and acted.

What we know is that the onus must be placed upon those introducing the chemicals to Canadians. What we know is that the responsibility of parliamentarians, if nothing else, is to try to protect the health of Canadians. We look forward to the full study and the speedy passage of this act to finally change the story, to finally give Canadians the assurance that the people they elect and send into this place are defending their interests and defending the health of all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 6:30.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.