Thanks for the question.
I think we'd agree with the member that in the way the bill is phrased at the moment, it's a bit of a blunt tool. We need to take some serious action. We need to take serious action now—we've been waiting years—on DEHP-containing medical devices. We need to have a process to make sure that in places where we need to exempt it, we can exempt it.
To answer the question about whether there are non-DEHP alternatives, I have a document that we unfortunately couldn't pass out because it's too dense to translate and it's 14 pages long. There are 14 pages of alternatives in all the different product classes that are non-DEHP-containing alternatives, silicon, polypropylene, and nylon, to the DEHP products that are on the market. They're all marketed in the U.S. and Canada.