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.

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)