Environment

Over the past several weeks, MPs on the Environment Committee including myself have been considering a proposed law (Bill C-307) for three chemical compounds that are part of a large group of chemicals known as phthalates. These three compounds are all ‘plasticizers’, substances that enhance flexibility in plastics and are used in thousands of products from children’s toys to medical devices to cosmetics.

Phthalates have become controversial in the last several years because of research that links certain phthalates to infertility and other health issues.

The three phthalates that we examined (DEHP, BBP, and DBP) have been evaluated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in the past, and DEHP was designated toxic. We heard testimony, however, that not all types of exposure were evaluated by the federal government studies when looking at the other two. We also found out that certain other countries, including the whole European Union, have tighter restrictions on these chemicals than Canada does.

The bill was introduced by NDP member Nathan Cullen last year and arrived at committee in March. As originally drafted, the bill would have banned these three phthalates completely in commonly used applications. The government was not comfortable with this approach and proposed numerous amendments to rewrite the bill in its entirety.

Parliamentarians Working Together

All members of the committee were in favour of closer scrutiny of phthalates. I was pleased to help broker a compromise so that the bill would not die in committee.

I had two central concerns. First, I wanted to ensure that the bill maintained the science-based process that exists in the current legislation. While Parliament needs to respond to concerns that are raised, as we did to hold hearings on these phthalates, scientists 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. Risks need to be balanced. Banning a breathing tube because it might potentially have long-term hormonal effects may 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.

The amended version of the bill was supported by all five Liberal MPs and ultimately passed the committee last week. 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.