Mr. Speaker, in response to the parliamentary secretary's closing remarks, I share his concern. I share his profound conviction that we are doing good around the world, but it is also important to remind his colleagues in his own caucus that it is very important that as we build the rule of law and democratic traditions and structures in countries like Afghanistan that we work very feverishly here in this country never to undermine them.
I am speaking today about the merits of Bill C-307, Phthalate Control Act. I would like to begin by congratulating the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his ongoing contribution to the toxins debate in Canada, particularly with regard to phthalates.
The bill before us has been carefully examined in committee and the Liberal Party and its members have played some important role in facilitating the successful outcome of our discussions.
On background, first let us look at the bill. It deals with three major chemical compounds, part of a large group of chemicals known as phthalates. The three phthalates that were examined under this bill are DEHP, BBP and DBP. What are they? For average Canadians who are watching or reading, they are plasticizers. They are substances that enhance flexibility in plastic compounds. They are used in thousands of products, from children's toys to medical devices to cosmetics.
Studies have linked certain phthalates to infertility and other health issues. However, the three phthalates considered in this bill have been evaluated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in the past. One of the substances of the three, DEHP, was in fact designated toxic through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
We heard extensive testimony in committee that not all types of exposure were in fact evaluated by the federal government studies when looking at the other two phthalates. The proposed bill calls for a more comprehensive reassessment that shall include exposure through the use of consumer products, including cosmetics. This would help ensure the assessment of the cumulative effects of those phthalates on humans.
Something, which we are just beginning to grapple with in the scientific community and that is, for anyone listening or reading, it is really a question of whether or not we are able to measure a multiplicity of exposures of these compounds themselves or how these compounds interact with other compounds that are in our environment at large here in Canada, the cumulative effects of all of these things combined.
As I mentioned earlier, phthalates are found in thousands of products in our environment: toys and medical devices, cosmetics, but also basics, such as shower curtains or the vinyl that we find in vinyl products or the vinyl dashboard in cars, for example. We are again concerned by the multiple exposure to phthalates which perhaps, in isolation, may not have the impact that we fear on human health, but in combination can be particularly toxic. These repeated exposures could be enough to cause harm.
Both speakers who have preceded me have spoken about the precautionary principle which underlies Bill C-307, and they were right in giving it the attention they did. It calls for the introduction by government of cost effective measures to prevent serious or irreversible damage even if we do not have full scientific certainty.
We know that certain other countries, as my colleague from the NDP has mentioned, including the whole European Union, have tighter restrictions on chemicals such as phthalates than Canada does. However, it is also fair to say that when Bill C-307 arrived at committee last March, all members were in favour of closer scrutiny of these compounds but, to be perfectly frank and honest about it, the bill was in an unworkable, unacceptable and, frankly, very unrealistic form.
As I stressed in committee, we need to achieve what the French would call le juste milieu to deal effectively with phthalates, the right balance between the reflection of health and safety and reasonable demands on industry, while facilitating products which are important and useful for our citizens, and ultimately moving to implement tighter restrictions on these risky compounds.
As it was originally drafted, the bill would have banned the three phthalates completely in commonly used applications but government members, as they are want to do, balked in committee, proposing instead to rewrite the bill in its entirety, or worse, throw it out not seeing beyond its face value. I think it is fair to say that the five Liberal members on the environment committee were instrumental in reconciling the two parties that were embroiled in a spat and then helped broker a compromise so the bill would not die in committee.
I had two central concerns to ensure the bill stayed alive. First, I wanted to ensure that it maintained the science based process that exists in the current legislation. We do not invent legislation here that is not science based. That is not the Canadian way.
Parliament needs to respond from time to time to concerns that are raised, as we did by holding hearings on these very compounds, but scientists and the scientific method are best qualified to provide the final recommendation to the minister about what applications are safe based on current research.
Second, the outright ban would have caused users of phthalate products, including hospitals, to scramble to find substitute products that may or may not work as well as the current ones. This we did hear in testimony objectively from witnesses.
We are not in a situation to recommend to Canadian health care providers that they ought not to be using products that play an indispensable role in health care. Risks need to be balanced. Banning a breathing tube, as the NDP sought in its first draft, because it might potentially have a long term hormonal effect, may in fact have a very immediate impact on a patient's survival.
Again, a science based approach that balances these risks is preferable to a political solution on the one hand emanating from the NDP, which is, in some respects, to frighten Canadians about these products, whereas the Conservative Party would have thrown the bill out at first blush for its own political purposes as well.
The amended version of the bill was supported by all five Liberal MPs and ultimately passed in committee. When the bill gets royal assent, it will require that the chemicals in question are reviewed again with the provision that they will be banned from certain applications if they are found to be toxic.
As my colleagues pointed out earlier, substitutes are already available for many of these products. Bill C-307, as it is drafted now, would encourage research into safer alternatives for a greater number of products, including, of course, medical devices, rather than an unrealistic first off approach found in the first version of the bill, which sought an outright and immediate ban on the use of these products.
Bill C-307 does show that from time to time we can cooperate effectively at committee, usually when the lights are dimmed and the cameras are off, and we can achieve a good outcome as this is.
The official opposition will be supporting the adoption of Bill C-307.
