Bill C-469 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (use of phosphorus)

This enactment amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to prohibit the use or sale in Canada and the import of dishwasher detergents and laundry detergents that contain phosphorus.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill C-469, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (use of phosphorus), requesting an extension.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I had a question directly, mainly, to Giorgio at this point.

You mentioned a petition that 7,000 people had signed, which was available to all parties, I gather. You mentioned that you had some role or influence in the creation of Bill C-469. I would just ask along those lines, then--because it's good when we get input from across the country, from different people and players, and so on--what kind of direct involvement you had in the drafting of this particular bill. In what fashion were you consulted?

[Dr. Richard Carignan]

No; my only point was that, by getting into a discussion of agriculture and buffer strips, we were getting off today's topic, which is Bill C-469 dealing with phosphorus concentrations in detergents.

We should not just forget about the other issues. However, my view is that those issues have to be resolved one at a time. You will never be able to draft legislation that deals with all sources of phosphorus at the same time. We have to resolve this problem piece by piece. And, phosphorus concentrations in dishwasher detergents are a small piece that we can resolve easily.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So July 2010 seems to be the standard that's been set in numerous jurisdictions. So Bill C-469 could speed up that process by maybe even as much as a year or a year and a half, but it could create a problem with product availability for consumers.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here, and also to Dr. Carignan for being here.

Ms. Jelley, I would like to ask you some questions about the date of the act coming into force. As you are aware, the government introduced a notice of intent to regulate back in February, and for the benefit of you witnesses, I just want to read what Bill C-469 requires.

It says in proposed subsections 117.1(2) and 117.1(3), respectively, that:

Paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) come into force 180 days after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.

Paragraph (1)(c) comes into force 360 days after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.

So if Bill C-469 were to receive royal assent this fall, what would it mean to the industry if we had this in effect six months after receiving royal assent? What would it mean to consumers to have that product available?

[Giorgio Vecco, Coordinator, COMGA (Gatineau River Watershed Committee)]

I will read my statement.

The Comité du bassin versant de la rivière Gatineau, or COMGA, is a regional issue table that brings together a variety of players with an interest in the watershed. Its main mandate is to execute the Water Management Master Plan, or PDE, and its mission is to ensure proper protection of the quality of our water resources.

Following increased detection of algal blooms caused by external phosphorus imported into the lakes of the Gatineau River watershed and Quebec in general, the COMGA introduced an on-line petition on August 16th, 2007, calling for a ban on the use of phosphates in laundry and dishwashing detergents.

When the petition was completed, some two months later, 7,843 people from across the province had signed it and were in support of a complete ban on phosphates in soaps. That petition was immediately presented to the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the Green Party.

The involvement of the Bloc Québécois, through its environmental critic, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, Mr. Bernard Bigras, resulted in the tabling of Bill C-469, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, with a view to banning the manufacture, sale or importation of laundry or dishwasher detergents containing phosphates.

Phosphates are still allowed in Canada in concentrations as high as 2.2 per cent by weight, in laundry soaps. As for automatic dishwashing soaps, the proportion of phosphates can be much higher. Some have as much as 8.7 per cent by weight, which reflects the maximum concentration allowed under the laws of certain U.S. states.

The COMGA supports any legislation intended to reduce phosphorus imports into our waterways, as they are one of the main causes of algal blooms from cyanobacteria. That is why we support a ban on the use of phosphates in soap. However, it is important to remain vigilant as regards the formulation of alternatives to phosphates. The addition of phosphates to soaps makes them better at cleaning, because they soften the water and release the dirt in suspension, making oil and grease soluble. Without the softeners, these soaps do not work well in hard water. Hard water is water with a calcium concentration of between 80 and 120 parts per million, which is the case in many municipalities across Quebec.

In the late 1980s, a number of European countries and some U.S. states eliminated phosphates from soaps with a view to avoiding eutrophication of waterways and the formation of mucilage in sea water. The softening action was achieved through the use of other sequestering agents, such as EDTA, NTA, zeolite and sodium citrate.

The COMGA believes it is extremely important that the use of sequestering agents intended to be an alternative to phosphates in the manufacture of soap also be legislated based on their environmental impact. For example, EDTA has sometimes been shown to be extremely toxic. It forms highly stable complexes with metals and can keep in suspension such heavy metals as mercury, cadmium or lead, which are deposited and remain inert on the bottom of waterways. EDTA may also react with iron in hemoglobin, turning it into a poison. Another sequestering agent, NTA, is suspected of causing mutations in humans.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to present the views of the COMGA on this subject.

[Chera Jelley, Director, Policy, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association]

Thank you.

I'm dealing with a cold, so I apologize in advance if I start coughing.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, it's a pleasure to appear before the committee today. Unfortunately, as the chair has pointed out, Shannon Coombs, president of the CCSPA, was unable to attend at the last minute. I will try to answer any questions you may have to the best of my ability. I am Chera Jelley, and I'm the director of policy for CCSPA.

The Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association is a national trade association, which represents 46 member companies across Canada. Collectively it is a $20 billion industry, directly employing 12,000 people in over 100 facilities. Our companies manufacture, process, package, and distribute consumer, industrial, and institutional specialty products such as soaps and detergents, pest control products, hard surface disinfectants, deodorizers, and automotive chemicals.

On September 26, 2007, CCSPA announced an industry-led initiative to limit the phosphorous content of household automatic dishwasher detergent manufactured for sale in Canada, to a maximum of 0.5% by weight, effective July 2010. Regulatory and legislative changes with these same goals are currently under way in several U.S. states and in the provinces of Manitoba and Quebec. It is critical to have the same regulatory requirements in both Canada and the U.S., to ensure an integrated and harmonized North American market. This will allow our industry to remain competitive on the global market.

On February 15, 2008, the Government of Canada announced its intention to regulate the phosphorous content in laundry detergent and dishwasher detergents to a maximum of 0.5% effective 2010. The notice of intent was published the following day in the Canada Gazette, Part I. CCSPA supports the intent of the notice of intent and will be participating in the consultation process, both on the NOI and the anticipated regulatory amendments to the phosphorous concentration regulations under CEPA.

CCSPA recommends to the committee that Bill C-469 not proceed as it conflicts with existing federal regulation, the federal notice of intent to create new federal regulations, the draft legislation in Manitoba, and the draft regulations in Quebec.

There are a few reasons why Bill C-469 should not proceed. As stated in CEPA, it is recommended that separate regulations be established in order to deal with the concentration levels of a prescribed new trend in products such as laundry detergents and dishwasher detergents. The intent of CEPA was not to prescribe concentration limits within the act itself; it was done to keep the legislation concise and with the knowledge that it is more efficient to create or amend regulations rather than amend existing legislation.

As the senior counsel for the Department of Justice pointed out at the committee last week, CEPA is a framework that enables the creation of regulations. He said that the regulations are the best place to make these changes. If it is done via legislation, which is the intent of Bill C-469, it ties the hands of a flexible regime, i.e., CEPA. Changing the act itself actually weakens the regime; it doesn't make it stronger.

It is important to note that reducing the amount of phosphorous in automatic dishwasher detergents and laundry detergent will not solve the blue-green algae problem, as the largest contributors are human sewage waste and agriculture runoff. Laundry detergents and automatic dishwasher detergents account for approximately 1%.

Unless the two significant contributors are addressed, blue-green algae will continue to be a problem. An example would be Italy, which is one of three European countries to have a specific household automatic dishwasher detergent limit. Italy reduced the phosphorous content in household automatic dishwasher detergent to 6% over an eight-year staged process. While the eutrophication has been reduced, it is widely believed that it was a combination of substantial investment in upgrading waste water treatment facilities and consecutive years of dry summers.

In conclusion, regulatory authority already exists under CEPA to create regulations that limit the phosphorous content in products such as dishwasher detergent and laundry detergents. Providing limitations and regulations rather than legislation allows flexibility for future changes and/or additions. Making changes to legislation is often more challenging.

The federal government has already indicated their desire to regulate the phosphorous content in these products through a notice of intent. This will allow the government to amend the existing federal regulations and will ensure consistency with proposed regulations in Quebec, draft regulations in Manitoba, and current regulations that already exist in several U.S. states.

In our opinion, amending legislation may provide a cumbersome challenge for future governments to modify phosphorus levels for the targeted product categories in this discussion. Therefore, CCSPA recommends one of two options. The first is that the bill not proceed; instead, a motion should be passed requesting that the federal government proceed with a federal regulation under the phosphorus concentration regulation. The second is that the bill be amended to instruct the Minister of the Environment to create federal regulations under the phosphorus concentration regulations.

This will ensure that regulations are created, rather than amendments to CEPA.

As the officials from the Department of Justice have pointed out, amending the act, which Bill C-469 proposes, will actually weaken CEPA, not make it stronger. While we support the intent of the bill, we think it is better to amend the existing federal regulations.

Thank you for allowing me to participate today, and I welcome any questions.

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

We can hear from the witnesses now, but I would like to have ten minutes at the end to take another look at our future committee work. I think that would be appropriate. We are not going to get into a second debate, but we should consider whether the Committee could meet next Thursday in order to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration. That way, we could complete our study of Bill C-469 and, next week, begin our consideration of other items, as agreed recently.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I don't have a problem with giving an extension to Bill C-469, but the testimony we heard at our last meeting from the department—Daniel Blasioli said what is being proposed would actually weaken CEPA—really concerned me.

What's being proposed by a Bloc member, Mr. André—and thank you for being here--and what the government did by notice of intent in February are pretty similar, but they have different results. In doing it by regulation as opposed to by a private member's bill, you use CEPA and amend what's already in CEPA to 0.5%. Its effective coming into force date will be July 2010.

So the bills are similar. The Bloc wants it to come into force approximately a year earlier, and we can hear from witnesses what the ramifications of that will be. But I want to remind the committee that what's being proposed will actually weaken CEPA. We don't want to weaken any environmental legislation; we want to strengthen things when we can. We just did a total CEPA review about a year ago.

I'm a little concerned, and I would ask if Mr. Bigras would be willing to remove Bill C-469.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by reading the motion I am tabling, and then I will explain my rationale.

That the Committee report to the House at its first opportunity the following: Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, your Committee is requesting an extension of thirty sitting days to consider Bill C-469, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (use of phosphorus) thereby providing the Committee with a total of ninety sitting days during which to complete its study of the bill. The Committee finds it necessary to consult further in order to give the bill the consideration it requires. Therefore, it requests an extension of thirty sitting days.

The reason I am tabling this motion today is as follows: as you know, we have a schedule for our study of Bill C-469. According to that schedule, we were supposed to hear from witnesses today and go to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on Wednesday. However, it is now clear that no committees will be meeting on Wednesday. Because we have until June 11 to study this bill, I am proposing an extension.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So Bill C-469 is proposing that this take place substantially earlier, and timing is very important. Given the mass production nature of the detergents, is it likely that the implementation of Bill C-469 in Canada alone--if it was just in Canada alone--would limit the industry's ability to reformulate and provide Canadian consumers with safe and effective and affordable products?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you for being here.

I have a number of questions. Hopefully we can have short answers, so that I can have a chance to share my time with Mr. Harvey.

I think you were in the room when we heard from Mr. André. He has indicated that there's an appetite to look at exemption for hospitals and also an appetite to consider the 0.5%.

Are there other specific exemptions? Could you make a recommendation to the committee on Bill C-469? What specific exemptions would you like to see? Is it just hospitals? What exemptions would you recommend?

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

The presenter of Bill C-469 often mentioned septic facilities. The word “defective” is very often associated with them. Will the government's research make it possible to establish, for example, the distances that must be respected between a lake and septic facilities? Does the department intend to intervene in those construction rules?

[Margaret Kenny, Director General, Chemical Sectors, Department of the Environment]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. We are very pleased to be before you today to assist you in your consideration of this bill.

I would like to begin by spending a moment on the important issue of blue-green algae and the role of phosphorus in its growth. We know that phosphorus-loading into our surface water can lead to a number of problems, including oxygen depletion, and that it can act as a nutrient that supports the growth of these algae.

When the nutrient levels in the water are high, the blue-green algae can form blooms that dominate the natural community and are capable of producing toxins that can be harmful to humans, livestock, and fish. The toxins themselves are odourless and tasteless, but there are other compounds that can result in foul taste or odour problems, which can impact on the recreational use of water and drinking water.

Environment Canada has been studying blue-green algae for a number of years and agrees that it is of the utmost importance that we reduce the risks of these toxins.

One factor in the proliferation of these blooms that we can affect is the concentration of phosphorus entering our surface waters. In fact, Environment Canada introduced regulations to do so in the 1970s, at that time under the Canada Water Act; these were later reflected in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Since the regulation came into force, the use of phosphorus in laundry detergent has steadily diminished, but the growing number of dishwashers in Canadian households has meant that the phosphorus from this source has increased. This is why the government recently published a notice of intent in part 1 of the Canada Gazette to amend the phosphorus concentration regulations.

The notice of intent indicated that the proposed changes to these regulations would introduce a limit of 0.5% or lower by weight of phosphorus. At the present time, dishwasher detergent can contain up to 8%. As such, the results of this proposal would lead to considerable reductions in the level of phosphorus entering these waters.

At the same time, this notice proposed to further reduce the limit of phosphorus in laundry detergent from the current level of 2.2%, again to 0.5%.

Finally, the notice of intent indicated that other cleaning products would be examined to determine the feasibility of reducing their levels of phosphorus as well.

Over the past several months we've undertaken significant consultations, examined the current science in the field, and identified some best practices in other jurisdictions. On this basis, it is clear that the proposed changes I have described would require reformulation of products that are currently in the marketplace.

Industry has indicated that it's willing to meet these new limits, but it needs time to reformulate in order to find safe and effective alternatives. In fact, the Canadian Consumer Speciality Products Association in October led an initiative to voluntarily limit phosphorus concentrations to 0.5% by weight by July 2010. We also recognize that a number of U.S. states as well as the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba are proposing limits that would come into effect in 2010. For these reasons, we believe that consideration of any new standards should consider a similar date.

In undertaking our consultations and carrying out our research, we've also determined that it's important to consider reasonable exemptions for reasons of health and safety. This is of particular importance for institutions such as hospitals and restaurants, where machines use much bigger loads, have higher temperatures, and are cycling through much faster than those we would typically find in our household machines. Phosphorus plays a role in cleaning and sanitation for these specialized applications.

The results of our consultations have also underlined considerations regarding the level of phosphorus that could be prescribed in regulation.

It's important to note that all other jurisdictions, including Manitoba and Quebec, that we're aware of, have proposed limits of 0.5% phosphorous to accommodate incidental presence and the technical difficulties in trying to ensure 0% phosphorous.

Such a complete ban on phosphorous of these products in fact could constitute a violation of Canada's obligations under the WTO agreement on technical barriers to trade and NAFTA, as it could be seen as a measure that would be more trade restrictive than necessary, particularly when other jurisdictions are not imposing such a ban.

In addition to looking at ways to amend the phosphorous concentration regulations, Environment Canada is also working with provinces and territories to develop common standards and regulations for municipal waste water effluent that would also reduce the level of phosphorous entering our surface waters.

According to our current scientific information, this in fact is one of the most important sources of phosphorous entering our waterways, and the development of national standards implemented in jurisdictions for municipal waste water effluent will raise the Canadian standard for treatment and ensure that more phosphorous is filtered out during that treatment. We anticipate proposing such a regulation this year.

Before concluding with these remarks, we'd like to emphasize that each water body and its drainage basin is in fact unique and that the best approach to phosphate control and management can differ from system to system. While it may seem pollution sources are sometimes obvious, in reality this problem is complex because there are a number of sources.

In any given watershed, some of the phosphate sources can be difficult to locate and measure because they spread out, such as in the case with poorly managed septic systems. That is why we believe it's important for Environment Canada to continue to work with municipal, provincial, and territorial partners to ensure we take the necessary care to protect and preserve waters.

As outlined above, the Department of the Environment agrees that the proliferation of blue-green algae is an important and complex issue, so we are supportive of the intent of Bill C-469. Our intention is to amend the phosphorous concentration regulations to effectively reduce the amount of phosphorous these products contribute to Canadian waters, while providing the time necessary for the proposed limits to be met.

I will conclude simply by saying that Bill C-469 is certainly an option for addressing this important issue. It does, however, pose a number of challenges that will require consideration.

We'll be happy to answer any questions members of this committee may have and to provide any follow-up analysis or information you may request.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would like to begin.

The clerk is handing out the report of our steering committee. It's very brief. We met yesterday to consider business after we've finished Bill C-469.

The committee looked at Mr. Scarpallegia's proposal and agreed that we should have two information meetings on the description, history, technology, future developments, and so on, of the oil sands. The intention is to make the meetings largely informational to begin with. Of course, in the fall we will begin with a more complete study.

So I would like you to think about that for a minute. If you agree, we will proceed to get witnesses for the 16th and 18th. They will provide us with information on the subject. We'll do our best to get a wide range of witnesses.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Once we finish Bill C-474--which we're all hoping will happen in a rapid manner on Monday--we'll be going to Bill C-469, from Monsieur Guy André. He's been invited to appear before the committee on Monday.

That will be immediately after the study of Bill C-474. Normally we allow the member introducing the bill to make a 10-minute presentation, followed by a question period of about 30 minutes.

That is the approach we would propose to take on Monday. Of course, by then you'll have the regular chairman. Mr. Mills will be back from Russia and be in the chair, and I'm sure you'll all look forward to that.

This is a meeting pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) to consider the main estimates for the Department of the Environment, as well as for the Parks Canada Agency, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. In that regard, I am pleased to welcome, from the Department of the Environment, Ian Shugart, the associate deputy minister.

Perhaps, Mr. Shugart, you would be prepared to introduce the people who are here with you.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Objection. On Monday, we had decided to study Bill C-469 on blue-green algae.

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

I have no objection to our meeting on Wednesday, but I would like you also to consider—and we will be talking about this at the Steering Committee meeting—the fact that Bill C-469 is still on our list of things to do. I simply want to remind you of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes. We'll get you a revised list with all of those dates that I've mentioned.

Of course, we do have main estimates, which we have to look at before the end of the month. We have in effect probably the 28th or thereabouts; that date would work.

Then we do have Bill C-469 as well.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to wrap up the debate on Bill C-469 to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to prohibit the manufacturing, sale or importation of laundry and dish detergents that contain phosphates.

To close the debate, I would like to thank all members of Parliament who spoke in favour of this bill and who are particularly concerned about the environment. I listened to my Conservative colleague. I agree with some of the things he said, but not with others. If he is at all concerned about the environment, I think that the least he should do is vote for this bill so that it can be referred to the committee for further study. This bill deserves that much.

I call on all parliamentarians, including the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. We know that Lac-Saint-Jean, for example, has been affected by the blue-green algae problem. We hope that the member will take that into account when it is time to vote, as well as the concerns of environmentalists in the Lac-Saint-Jean region, of course.

As I said when debate commenced on second reading, this bill was tabled because last summer we all saw the problem with phosphates throughout Quebec and all over Canada. We know that detergent products containing phosphates help spread cyanobacteria. We have talked about this. Everyone here in Parliament has heard about the problem with cyanobacteria.

Aside from the measures each of us must take as individuals, the federal government must also take concrete action to solve this problem, following in the steps of the Government of Quebec, which has implemented an action plan for fighting cyanobacteria. Since Ottawa is responsible for regulating imported products, we are—as is the Quebec National Assembly—calling on the federal government to take action through this bill and ban phosphates in detergents.

I have read and listened carefully to members' comments. Of course, we will look at some of the recommendations in committee. That is why it is important for this bill to be referred to committee, so it can be studied by the committee, as I already mentioned. As I was discussing with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, people deserve to have their say and for this to be studied.

It is important that we take action to preserve our lakes, and that we keep our water clean. We must also work on environmental issues and on all the issues currently affecting our planet. This bill is a start. It does not completely resolve the cyanobacteria problem. That much we know. We also know that there are other problems related to cyanobacteria, but let us start by at least partially resolving it. That is important.

This is why I am asking all parliamentarians today to move forward and vote in favour of this bill, which would partially resolve the issue of blue-green algae and cyanobacteria throughout Quebec and the rest of Canada. I urge anyone who is concerned about the environment and all the issues affecting our planet's future to vote in favour of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the debate today on Bill C-469, which seeks to prohibit the use or sale in Canada and the import of dishwasher detergents and laundry detergents that contain phosphorus.

First, I want to congratulate my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who introduced this bill and who is nothing less than the driving force behind the decisions made by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Since June 12, 2007, the committee has called on the federal government to act quickly to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to forbid the sale or importation of products containing phosphates. The member for Berthier—Maskinongé is rendering a service to the residents of his riding who are affected by the problem of cyanobacteria, but the Conservative government does not appear to be aware of this. He is also rendering a great service to all regions of Canada affected by this problem.

Earlier, my NDP colleague spoke of Lake Winnipeg, which is affected by this problem. It is rare that a provincial minister testifies before a parliamentary standing committee. However, the Manitoba Environment Minister came before the standing committee to say that Manitoba supports the Bloc Québécois motion calling for the prohibition of phosphates. I am firmly convinced that she is very happy to see the Bloc Québécois member introducing this bill today. We hope it will receive the support of a majority in Parliament.

This problem is not new but it has grown tremendously in recent years. I will cite three years as references. The first year is 2005. At that time, cyanobacteria were found in 50 lakes in Quebec. The following year, that number doubled. There were 107 lakes affected by cyanobacteria; and two years later, the problem had spread to more than 200 lakes in Quebec. That means that within two years, there was a four-fold increase in the number of lakes affected. We may well imagine that in 2008 the problem is not getting smaller; on the contrary, it is growing. Regions all over Quebec are affected.

I see the Conservatives representing their electors today in the House of Commons. The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean says he is representing the people of his riding. However, last year we saw alerts in the Pointe-Taillon national park in Lac-Saint-Jean. People were asked to be careful because the lake, lac Saint-Jean , in the Pointe-Taillon area in particular, was affected by the cyanobacteria phenomenon. Today we see the Conservatives voting in parliamentary committee, and in the House of Commons I am sure, against a motion, against the bill introduced by my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, when these people need to be defended. That member is not defending the interests of his riding.

We must be vigilant because the phenomenon will spread in the coming weeks. It is not for nothing that the Government of Quebec is organizing an information session on February 28 to alert people and organizations to the fact that this phenomenon will get worse this spring.

My Liberal colleague was right. In the 1970s, the government used the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to regulate laundry products containing phosphates. Those products were not banned, as the Bloc Québécois would like, but limited to containing a minimal amount of phosphates.

Why was that decision made in the 1970s? That decision was made because many homes and cottages had washing machines and people were using products containing phosphates.

In the 1970s, dishwashers were not that common in cottages. An increasing number of baby boomers have acquired second homes that were considered cottages at the time. Those homes are increasingly becoming primary residences. Baby boomers are increasingly living in cottages, which they are converting from summer homes to primary residences equipped with dishwashers that use phosphates and make the cyanobacteria problem even worse. We have to do something about this.

There are some good corporate citizens out there. For example, just two weeks ago the Jean Coutu pharmacies decided to ban the sale of products containing phosphates.

In the meantime, other companies are selling products that contain phosphates, at the expense of public health, environmental protection and property values. When you own a property or purchase a residence on the shoreline of a lake that has been struck by cyanobacteria, clearly that limits your ability to go swimming or do other water sports. All in all, it has a direct impact on the value of properties that people bought some years ago.

The issues addressed by the bill my colleague has introduced are not environmental only. It also addresses health, social and economic issues. Are we the only ones who are considering this kind of measure? The answer is no. Switzerland and Washington state have already adopted regulations of this kind, banning the sale of products containing phosphates. The Bloc Québécois is not alone in considering this kind of measure. Progressive states and countries have already introduced regulations like this, which are now the law of the land. As well, as of early 2008, the European Union will be adopting the same kind of regulations, to ban both laundry detergent and dishwashing detergent containing phosphates.

This bill is a logical next step from the intention that a majority of members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development expressed on June 12, calling for a ban on the sale and importation of these kinds of products.

Earlier, the Liberal member said the Liberals would be proposing amendments. All of a sudden the Liberal Party seems to want to backtrack from the position it stated in committee. I invite the Liberal Party to vote for this bill in principle. I also invite the NDP to support this bill in principle and be realistic when it comes to the amendments they want to make. I have seen the plan presented by the NDP; I have seen that it is proposing to expand buffer strips around lakes from 3 to 10 metres. We must be aware, however, that there are regulations in place in Quebec. Federal legislation must not interfere directly in matters within the jurisdiction of the provinces. We must be careful in that regard. What the NDP says is that the regulations have to be changed. Perhaps, but personally, I have always understood that land planning issues are matters that come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.

Is the NDP trying to tell us today that it wants to interfere? I think that the consensus today and in the days to come should be that we vote for the bill and for the principle behind my colleague’s bill. We can thus echo the motion from the standing committee and respond to the request by the government of Quebec, which wants to legislate, but wants to see the measure that was introduced on December 5 expanded.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening to Bill C-469, which arose from two or three sessions the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development held last spring—a committee of which I am a member. This bill is modelled on a private member's bill that I tabled shortly beforehand, Bill C-464, which shares the same objective as the Bloc bill.

My colleagues and I support Bill C-469 and we will vote to refer it to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development to be studied and amended. My own Bill C-464 is more detailed. I hope a few amendments will be made in the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development to add more detail to Bill C-469.

There are some shortcomings with this bill. I would like to go over them briefly. It is normal for private members' bills not to be entirely perfect, because of course private members do not have the same resources at their disposal as governments and ministers introducing legislation. It is very normal and understandable that bills might need some amendments and a bit more work in committee.

My own bill, Bill C-464, would technically eliminate phosphates from dishwashing detergent. In fact, it would reduce the phosphate level to 0.5% by weight. The main reason for this is that it makes virtually no sense to completely eliminate the phosphate levels in dishwashing detergent, because, number one, there are phosphates, I am told, in the packaging of detergents, which is what keeps the packaging firm. There will always be a trace amount of phosphates in any detergent.

When we get to committee, we will have to hear from industry representatives and technical experts from the Department of the Environment, but I am surmising that we might have to amend the bill to allow 0.5% by weight.

Also, it is quite possible we will have to amend the bill to allow some exceptions. For example, a minimal amount of phosphates may be required for detergents that are used at the institutional level, for instance, in hospitals, nursing homes and schools, where there are obviously some potential public health concerns that would have to be alleviated by having some level of phosphates in the detergent. No doubt we will get to that issue in committee.

By way of history, it is very interesting to note that laundry detergents have had very low levels of phosphates for many years, because the regulations under CEPA for laundry detergents were created within the context of the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes water quality agreement. These levels were regulated long before dishwashers became popular and essentially ubiquitous. At the time, the government was focused only on laundry detergent. That is why the CEPA regulations at the moment do not include regulations for phosphates in dishwashing detergent. That is a bit of an anomaly of history and is something to take note of.

The issue of phosphates in laundry detergent is really not a pressing issue at all. It is the dishwashing detergent that we have to focus on and that is why my bill focused specifically on that.

We have to ask ourselves why we need this Bloc bill or my bill in the first place. I will give credit to my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who presented a motion to the environment committee to have discussions on the issue of phosphates. This was done many months ago and yet there has been no government action on this issue. This is why we need two private members' bills. Even if they are not perfect bills, we need private members' bills because the government has not acted on the issue, even though the issue of phosphates in dishwashing detergent made headlines all over Quebec almost a year ago.

Some people may say that the government is working on amending these regulations. There are two things wrong with that explanation. First, it does not take a lot to make a minor change to CEPA regulations to deal with phosphates. Second, three or four weeks ago when officials from Environment Canada appeared before the environment committee, I asked the question: why do we not have regulations in CEPA to deal with phosphates in dishwashing detergent?

Do members know what I was told? I do not blame the officials for this. In fact, the minister himself should have been present to answer the questions, but he could only stay an hour that day.

I was told that it was not a priority. They said that phosphates in dishwashing detergent is not a priority for them. That was two weeks ago. Then, of course, there was probably a bit of public pressure or some media attention given to the issue again and, lo and behold, we were told a couple of weeks later that the government will amend CEPA regulations.

This is endemic in the Conservative government. The government never acts on the obvious. It never recognizes the truth of the matter until public pressure is put on it. Then it reacts, but late. That is why we need two private members' bills: to put the government on notice that it should be doing the right thing.

Some people, especially on the government side, originally responded that phosphates in dishwashing detergent make up only 1.5% of the problem of phosphorus in water. Of course, there is the whole issue of agricultural fertilizers and runoff from agricultural lands that gets into the waterways, and of course that is a problem. There is also the problem of municipal sewage effluent, which leads to phosphorus in waterways.

So why devote energy to removing phosphates from dishwashing detergent when this is not a huge part of the problem? In politics, there are issues that are catalysts. They may sound simple and be simple, but they somehow allow us to open the door to a broad range of other related issues.

When it comes to climate change, we might focus on something like home renovations to make someone's home more energy efficient. The problem is much more complex than that, I agree, but when we talk about something that is concrete and understandable, we generate public debate. It creates the impetus or the political will to deal with the larger problem, which is a lot more complicated.

It is the same with the phosphate issue. It is a small part of the problem, but it gets discussion going about the quality of our water and also about the need for a national water strategy, which we still do not have. After it was mentioned in passing in the last budget and given lip service in the throne speech, we still do not have a national water strategy. Maybe we need to be talking about dishwashing detergent, because even though it is a small problem, it is something people can relate to and understand.

While the problem of dishwashing detergent is minor in some parts of the country, it is in fact major in Quebec, especially in lakes in the Laurentians, where much of the phosphorus is from cottagers using dishwashers.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to continue on with my speech on Bill C-469, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, a bill to essentially remove all dish and laundry detergents that contain phosphorus. I want to thank the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé for this well-intentioned bill.

When I was last speaking to this issue, I was talking about Lake Winnipeg and how it is the pride and joy of Manitoba. I am so proud to have it as part of my constituency.

This government has shown its commitment to Lake Winnipeg. Last November the Minister of the Environment demonstrated the government's commitment by coming to Manitoba and announcing that Lake Winnipeg was going to get $18 million of new money toward cleaning up Lake Winnipeg. I want to thank the Minister of the Environment for making that announcement and for standing up for the cleanup of Lake Winnipeg when it did not happen for 13 long years under the previous administration.

This fund which the minister announced is a dedicated stewardship fund for Lake Winnipeg. It provides funding to retain the experts and the tools that are needed to physically clean up the lake and remove all the excessive nutrients which helps with these algae blooms that occur and which create toxicity in the system.

The good news is that we will be able to restore the ecological integrity of Lake Winnipeg with this investment, but the lake will not clean itself up. It took a commitment by this federal government to start the process of cleaning up the lake. Luckily our party, a party that does care about Lake Winnipeg, was able to take action after all those years of neglect.

I have talked with many of my constituents about Lake Winnipeg. They have told me that not only is it important that we are cleaning up the lake, but also that future nutrient loading be reduced to ensure that the lake stays clean, and that there has to be a long term solution. My constituents and I have definitely taken a very serious interest in the introduction of this bill. It is a well-intentioned bill and I support the principles of it.

Dish and laundry detergents are only part of the problem in my riding though. They are not the sole cause of all the blue-green algae. While a bill such as this would help reduce the amount of phosphorus entering our waterways, there will still be other sources contributing to the problem. That is what the stewardship fund of $18 million is going to also help to address.

It is important to also note that detergent manufacturers may view this measure as unfairly targeting just them, as there are many other sources of phosphorus, including natural sources, municipal sources and agricultural sources.

I must remind the hon. member who has sponsored this bill that we are fortunate to have a free market economy that allows consumers endless choices when it comes to the products they buy. When it comes to chemical based detergents, there are other products on the market that they could buy which do not contain phosphorus. I have always said that when we look at the problems in our watershed, and I have talked about Lake Winnipeg, every person in Manitoba, every person in Saskatchewan, Alberta and northwestern Ontario has only one person to blame, and that is the person who is looking at them in the mirror. We all have a responsibility to address this problem and reduce the amount of phosphorus that we are using in our households and in our yards.

We are all responsible for making the individual everyday choices that are going to be good for the environment and good for our waterways, so let us recognize those Canadians who are making a difference in their everyday lives. When it comes to collective urban waste, it is also helpful that municipal waste water treatment plants that are being developed are employing advanced techniques to remove phosphorus before discharging their waste.

Nevertheless, last September the government announced its intention to take action to cut water pollution by setting hard and tough new national standards for sewage treatment. Municipal waste water effluent is the single most significant contributor to water pollution, and this government is taking action. The government is assisting municipalities to meet these standards. The unprecedented $33 billion building Canada initiative will provide assurance to Canadians that long term, stable and predictable funding will help support infrastructure projects such as sewage treatment systems.

It is important to note that advances in technology are allowing farmers to adopt nutrient management strategies. The environmental farm plans that have been developed at Agriculture Canada have really helped farmers determine how to use fertilizer, how to apply manure and how to protect any water that is actually draining off their own farmlands and barnyards, in order to prevent those products from getting into the waterway.

Fertilizing, for example, used to be guesswork, but today, new technology allows farmers to apply the exact amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that is need on their land. That is important to make sure that everything that is being applied is being used by the crop and is not running off as excess fertilizer.

While the government cleans up Lake Winnipeg after years of neglect, we are excited about these new technologies that will prevent the nutrient loading in the future.

It is important for the government to support these advances in technology that allow Canadians to work toward their own phosphorus reduction. Measures such as these go a lot further in reducing nutrients in our environment.

Canadians can have confidence that their government will continue to work with its partners on its action plan for clean water to achieve real results and tangible improvements in Canada's water.

On behalf of my constituents, I would like to thank the hon. member for the introduction of this private member's bill and for initiating this important debate we are having here today. I look forward to supporting it when it comes to a vote.

The House resumed from January 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-469, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (use of phosphorus), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Phosphates

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after tabling an initial petition of more than 1,000 signatures last October, today I am tabling in this House a new petition signed by more than 2,000 citizens from the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé.

The petitioners are asking the federal government to act quickly and eliminate dishwasher and laundry detergent containing phosphates. I invite all members of this House to do the same by supporting Bill C-469.

The Environment

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition calling for the elimination of detergents containing phosphates. It has been signed by 409 citizens of Verchères—Les Patriotes, and 171 others signed a reply coupon about this that appeared in my householder last fall. In all, 580 people have expressed their support for this measure.

I would invite the members to do the same by supporting Bill C-469, which was introduced by my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé.

I would also like to salute those companies, such as Innu-Science in Sainte-Julie, that are miles ahead on this issue and have been providing biodegradable household and industrial cleaners for 15 years now.

Youth Commitment to the Environment

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to tell the House about a group of grade six students who have done something extraordinary.

This group of young people from Saint-Gabriel-de-Brandon and Mandeville was given an assignment: they were to do something concrete to help someone in need. They decided that their “someone” would be Lac Maskinongé, a lake that has been affected by a blue-green algae bloom. They decided to circulate a petition in their community to support Bill C-469, to prohibit the use of phosphates in dishwasher and laundry detergents.

On behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I would like to sincerely congratulate these young people, and the person responsible for the project, Éric Turcotte, on their civic commitment to the environment.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

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

When Bill C-469 returns to the House for study, the leading speaker will be the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake and he will have eight minutes.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will use those two minutes wisely.

I am pleased to rise today, on behalf of my constituents of Selkirk—Interlake, to address Bill C-469, the PMB that seeks to amend the Environmental Protection Act. This bill seeks to take off the market all dishwasher, dish and laundry detergents that contain phosphorus.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé is well intentioned with this bill. However, it is important to recognize that there are other sources of phosphorus entering into the environment and we need to look at ways of reducing all phosphorus.

Phosphorus from dishwasher and laundry detergents is only one source of all phosphoruses that go into the water and enter our lakes, rivers and streams. We know that the main sources of phosphorus in our waters are from urban waste water and septic systems which are used across Canada and in my riding are used in many cottage areas and communities surrounding Lake Winnipeg. There are also fertilizers and, yes, detergents we want to control as well.

We also know that this excessive nutrient loading is causing algae problems in our lakes and nowhere in Canada is this more evident than in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake and in Lake Winnipeg, with its huge blue-green algae that is experienced every summer. Lake Winnipeg is the pride and joy of many of my constituents, but it is suffering from excessive nutrient loading causing large amounts of blue-green algae that build up in the lake year in and year out.

For 13 years the Liberals did nothing to fix the problem in Lake Winnipeg and only allowed it to get worse. Fortunately, last November the Minister of the Environment came to my home province of Manitoba and demonstrated this government's commitment to Lake Winnipeg by announcing an $18 million investment toward cleaning up the lake. This is a dedicated stewardship fund for Lake Winnipeg. It is providing funding to retain the experts and tools that are needed to physically clean up the lake and remove the excessive nutrients, including phosphorus.

With that, I will conclude now and continue in the next hour of debate.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to participate in the debate on Bill C-469, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (use of phosphorus), tabled by the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

As my colleagues have pointed out, there are other bills on the table not only in Ottawa, but also in Quebec, where Bill 194 is before Quebec's National Assembly.

In addition to these bills, industry too is taking action. I have here a news release from the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association announcing a voluntary commitment to limit phosphorus content to 0.5% by weight, effective July 2010.

What is the member for Berthier—Maskinongé proposing in his bill? Simply put, the bill aims to prohibit the manufacture, sale and import of these products.

The bill clearly states that once it comes into force, it will be against the law to manufacture, for use or sale, a cleaning product or water conditioner that contains nutrients, such as phosphorus. This would also apply to products for use in dishwashers.

The bill also proposes that the importation of such products be prohibited 180 days following royal assent. With respect to the sale of such products, the prohibition would come into force 360 days after the bill receives royal assent.

I would like to say a few words about phosphates. I found it very interesting that people do not realize that the phosphates and phosphorus that end up in our lakes do not come from dishwashers alone. That much is clear. I will come back to that in my discussion of concentrations, percentages and how much dishwashers contribute, but we know that the main sources are agriculture and waste water.

When it comes to waste water, it is not easy to figure out how much comes from treatment plants because not all of them put waste water through a process to remove phosphates with a chemical known as alum. Not all treatment plants contribute to the problem. If waste water does not undergo tertiary treatment, phosphates often go right through treatment plants.

The other issue concerns septic tanks and septic fields. I believe there are also bills on the table in Quebec to strengthen or give more teeth to the regulations on septic tanks and septic fields. It is also important to point out that some isolated residences in our society still discharge household waste directly into septic tanks and therefore directly into the environment.

The aging of a body of water is known as lake eutrophication. This happens when nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen are added to the water and cause aquatic plants and algae to grow.

Statistics show how many lakes and rivers have been affected in recent months. Quite often, lakes and rivers are affected, with the result that people are prohibited from using these bodies of water, especially as sources of drinking water.

Since 1972, various statutes have prohibited phosphates in laundry detergents. At that time, legislators no doubt neglected to realize that dishwasher detergent use would increase.

Was this an oversight? Was it a deliberate choice dictated by manufacturers at the time? Was it due to the fact that we had few dishwashers in our homes and cottages at the time?

We know that these regulations on laundry detergents have existed for many years. The aim of this bill is to strengthen those regulations by including dishwashing detergents.

Last spring, the Bloc Québécois submitted a proposal to Environment Canada calling on the government to regulate phosphates. Ottawa is responsible for imported products. The member for Hochelaga therefore felt that the two levels of government, Quebec and Ottawa, needed to work together and with all the other provinces to address the problem of blue-green algae.

On June 12, 2007, determined to fight the spread of blue-green algae, the Bloc Québécois introduced and won adoption of the following motion in the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108 (2), the Standing Committee on the Environment and the Sustainable Development recommends that the government amend the Phosphorous Concentration Regulations in order to phase out concentration of phosphorous in dishwasher detergents and laundry detergents and that the adoption of this motion be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity.

On December 5, 2007, the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development officially tabled the committee's first report, Blue-Green Algae (Cyanobacteria) and their Toxins. The document is now officially before the House.

The Bloc Québécois is well aware that banning detergents containing phosphates—such as laundry and dish detergents—will not be enough to completely eradicate blue-green algae. Other measures must be taken by governments. However, the federal government can ban the use of phosphorus in dish detergents as quickly as possible.

In 2002, Quebec established a very good water policy. Among the commitments of the policy introduced by the Parti Québécois in 2002, article 3 set out the obligation to protect the quality of water and ecosystems. In both cases the objective is the same: to protect water quality for human consumption and use, such as swimming and bathing, and also to protect ecosystems, which are composed of living things, in our lakes and rivers.

As I was saying earlier, the Government of Quebec has taken action. I would like to go back to the choice society must make between prohibiting phosphates in dish detergents, or paying to remove these phosphates in treatment plants once they have been dumped into the sewers and transported through the sewer system to those plants.

I would like to talk about the studies conducted at Lake Champlain. I believe this is related to the comment by my colleague from Outremont, who spoke about this situation. A number of studies were conducted at Lake Champlain that revealed that it was about 50% cheaper for residents of Vermont, New York and Quebec to ban phosphates in dish detergents than to have them removed in treatment plants.

This concludes my speech on phosphates.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity earlier, in a previous question, to congratulate my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé on his initiative, and I would like to begin by reiterating my congratulations.

The bill is C-469, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (use of phosphorus).

From the question I put to my colleague earlier, it will be clear that we in the NDP are persuaded that any attempt to end the plague of blue-green algae—my colleague called it a “wave”, and it is indeed a wave of blue-green algae, but more importantly it is a plague—that does not include a strong agricultural component is destined to fail. Even though we agree on the effort being made here, in terms of prohibiting the use of phosphates in dishwasher detergent, we believe that the federal government can do more, particularly when we see the very large amounts of money we have available right now.

We have calculated the cost of providing proper compensation for farmers in Quebec, where there is a 10-metre riparian buffer strip. On average, we could pay $1,500 per hectare per year as compensation for that buffer strip. There are 7,000 kilometres of buffer strips, and it would be of little consequence if that were increased to 10,000 kilometres—because human nature being what it is, I imagine that as soon as compensation is offered, more will be discovered. A strip one kilometre long by 10 metres wide is exactly equal to one hectare. At $1,500 per hectare, the 10,000 hectares in question in Quebec would cost $15 million. It was calculated that it would cost $50 million altogether to provide genuine protection for all of the navigable and floatable watercourses in Canada. And this is a federal responsibility; Fisheries and Oceans Canada is already working on it.

We are not saying that the federal government will dictate any conditions. Nothing would be imposed; rather, it would be a matter of working together with the provinces and reaching agreements. I am persuaded that if our common goal is to achieve a result, we will be able to find ways of doing it.

We already have experience in this: the Bloc Québécois insisted on voting against an NDP bill whose intent was to make pesticide rules throughout Canada as stringent as the rules that already exist in Quebec. Do we think that a pesticide that makes its way into the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin, but originated in Ontario, could not have negative consequences for the health of people in Quebec?

This demonstrates that we have to take a comprehensive view when we are dealing with environmental issues. When we talk about sustainable development, we have to take the environmental, economic and social aspects into account. We also have to understand that political borders mean very little.

When I was the Quebec Minister of the Environment, I remember spending two days in the United States with Manitoba Premier Gary Doer, to meet American officials. At the time, the governor of the state of North Dakota wanted to divert the water from Devils Lake to the Sheyenne River which, as we know, is a tributary of the Red River, which flows into Lake Winnipeg, a body of water that is already quite polluted by a number of other sources of pollution. Such a measure was out of the question as far as we were concerned. It is interesting to note that U.S. authorities were happily prepared to circumvent the Boundary Waters Treaty, which has been in existence for about a century between the United States and Canada. We managed to find a solution, in cooperation with the Americans.

So, considering that we are able to deal with these issues at the international level, the various levels of government within a country should be able to cooperate and find solutions. Indeed, it is all about finding a solution.

When I became minister in 2003, there was a huge blue-green algae problem in Missisquoi Bay, which is the body of water located at the top of Lake Champlain, on the Quebec side. Also, the river with the same name meanders over a long distance in the United States, before reaching Canada in Missisquoi Bay. It was estimated that 60% of the phosphorus that was creating a major blue-green algae problem was from the United States. Therefore, there would have been no point in introducing a bill that would not have had an international component. And there would have been no point in trying to solve the issue, if we did not deal with the agricultural aspect.

Whenever I talk about this issue, I am always careful to point out that we have no intention of blaming the agricultural industry. I realized something a long time ago, namely that 95% of farm producers already spend huge amounts of money to comply with agricultural standards.

The problem with riparian buffer strips that are only three metres wide is that it is virtually impossible to enforce them very effectively. It is very difficult.

The New Democratic Party thinks that if we followed the example set by Prince Edward Island and extended these strips to ten metres, we would get much better, much more positive results.

Throughout all my work with the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec, that group has always stated unequivocally that it was not fundamentally opposed to wider buffer strips. Farmers have always told me, though, that this was their land and they wanted to be compensated if they were not going to be allowed to use it. We are actually asking them for something: to provide part of their arable land in the greater public interest.

Lawyers might say that people have no right to be compensated for complying with laws and regulations. This case is unusual, though, because our consciousness has been raised and we are realizing now that some of the things we did in the past with our means of production are having undesirable effects. So if we want to ask producers to refrain from farming within a 30-foot or 35-foot riparian strip, they should be compensated. That is what the NDP is proposing.

My colleague who introduced the bill on the phosphates in dishwasher products sits on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. We, for our part, are studying the possibility of working together with the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I would like to tell the House a little story. When we were in the Saint-Valérien-de-Milton area last summer to announce our plan, it was very interesting to see important representatives there from both the environmental sector, including Richard Marois of the Montérégie regional environmental council, and the agricultural sector. This was the best possible proof, in my view, of what a good job the NDP is doing. Instead of a divisive plan, we had one that brought the agricultural community and the environmental community together in support of a common cause. That is precisely what needs to be done in environmental issues.

I listened very closely to what my Liberal colleague from Ottawa South had to say and could not make any sense of it at all. I simply could not get over it. This is what he said was the most important, and I will quote it, because stuff like this simply cannot be made up:

“We can't punish the industry”.

What an amazing knee-jerk reaction from someone who once chaired a round table on sustainable development, namely the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. He is pitting these two areas one against the other. He said that we cannot punish the industry. The idea here is not to punish the industry but rather to protect the environment.

The member referred to Bill C-464 introduced by his colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, whom I know well and for whom I have the highest regard. The issue is not whether or not to support the industry. Yet, those were his words.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis will soon be hosting with people from McGill University an important evening event at which experts will give presentations about water. I want to make sure that someone in the audience asks him a question, quoting word for word what the member for Ottawa Centre just said. It sure is amazing to hear the colleague of a member who will be hosting an event about water protection tell this House that we should support the industry. That is precisely the message contained in his Bill C-464.

Sometimes a choice has to be made between supporting the industry and supporting the environment. The member for Berthier—Maskinongé is on the right track. We will support his bill, but we would like its scope to be expanded. That is why the NDP will continue to work in conjunction with the agricultural community.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for introducing this bill, which would address a complicated issue that has a profound impact on the health of Canadians.

I would like to start by saying that I appreciate the objective of Bill C-469 and I will support it so that the House may bring it before a committee. However, a number of things must be examined before this bill can become law and take effect.

I would like to take a few minutes to debate some logical and necessary amendments, which I feel should be included in the bill at committee stage.

Why regulate phosphorus?

It is important to understand why it is necessary to regulate phosphorus. Scientists have known for a long time that phosphorus, a naturally occurring substance, contributes significantly to the growth of blue-green algae, which contains cyanobacteria that is toxic to aquatic life as well as to humans when we drink it. Boiling the affected water does not destroy cyanobacteria, so it is vital that we stop phosphorus pollution at its source.

To give members an idea of the severity of the problem and of how blue-green algae is becoming an increasingly serious threat to the health of our communities, I note simply that last summer a record number of Canadian lakes and rivers were contaminated with this algae. In Quebec alone, 156 were affected and 90 were closed to swimming and boating. That is more than double the number of closures in the summer of 2006.

While the primary cause of blue-green algae is runoff from farm fertilizers and septic systems, together accounting for 98% of the problem, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé is correct that the phosphorus levels in certain kinds of detergents, where it is added as a stain remover and cleanser, are also of significant concern.

However, Bill C-469 goes too far. It calls for a complete ban on phosphorus when regulating the amount of phosphorus in detergents is all we need to do. It does not adequately distinguish between laundry detergents and different types of dishwashing detergent.

Allow me to make four points that will help clarify these issues for the House.

First, Bill C-469 rashly calls for the prohibition of phosphorus in laundry detergents. Phosphorus is added to laundry detergents to help with rinsing ions, such as calcium and magnesium, in hard water so that other components of the soap can properly clean the clothing. However, the member's bill does not consider the fact that for several years now Canada has had regulations limiting the concentration of phosphorus in laundry detergents. The Phosphorus Concentration Regulations, in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, limit the concentration of phosphorus in laundry detergents to 2.2% by weight. And these regulations are very effective.

For example, they helped drastically reduce the proliferation of blue-green algae in the Great Lakes, while still allowing consumers to use the minimum amount of phosphorus needed to do their laundry. I must also point out that manufacturers have found another ingredient that can help remove ions from hard water. Of these manufacturers, 95% have completely stopped using phosphorus. It is now almost exclusively used for industrial and commercial activities.

Therefore, prohibiting phosphorus in laundry detergents seems pointless and inconsistent with our current regulations.

Second, Bill C-469 refers generally to all dishwashing detergent. In truth, we need be concerned only with automatic dishwashing detergent. Phosphorus is added to automatic dishwashing detergents so it can break up dried or greasy food soils, remove calcium lime film, sanitize dishes and help keep the dishwasher's jets and pipes free from obstruction so the machine can operate using less water and less energy. This is very different from liquid hand-dishwashing detergent, which is surfactant based and does not contain phosphorus. In my view it makes no sense to regulate all dishwashing detergent in general when we need be concerned with only one specific kind.

The problem dates back to when the original phosphorus control regulations were drafted, which was long before automatic dishwashers became a popular household appliance. Accordingly, while the phosphorus concentration of laundry detergents in Canada can be no more than 2.2% by weight, today most major brands of automatic dishwashing detergent have phosphate levels ranging from 3.3% to 8.7%. Some are as high as 20%. As we can see, the challenge is therefore not that these products contain phosphorus; it is that we are not controlling how much they contain.

Fortunately, Canadian industries are well aware of the problem. They are moving to correct it. The Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association, whose member companies produce 86% of all the household automatic dishwashing detergent in Canada sold in Canada, is leading an industry initiative to limit phosphorus in automatic dishwashing detergent to a maximum of 0.5% by weight, effective July 2010. This would be the toughest standard in the world.

I believe we should support these companies in this initiative. Banning phosphorus outright would seem to unnecessarily and unduly punish an industry that is already adapting to address our concerns.

That is the third problem with Bill C-469. The wording of the bill does not take into account the fact that phosphorous is still an essential ingredient in dishwasher detergent, especially in industrial and commercial settings, where the machines are designed for large volumes of dishes and shorter cycles.

Unlike laundry detergent, the phosphorous in dishwasher detergent disinfects the dishes. Banning it completely could therefore seriously affect the health of Canadians. Experiments have shown that there is no suitable substitute for phosphorous at this time that can provide the level of cleanliness that consumers are looking for. One possible substitute, an alkali metal carbonate salt, has not yet been thoroughly tested and, therefore, the necessary quantities cannot be produced.

My fourth and final point has to do with the fact that, in deciding what Canada should do, the honourable members should have a clear understanding of the measures taken by some other jurisdictions, such as the United States and the European Union.

In the United States, regulating phosphorous is a state issue, not a federal one. In the 1990s, the state of Arizona began to phase out phosphorous. In response, its citizens started driving across the border into neighbouring states to get better automatic dishwashing detergents because those available to them did not work.

As of today, most jurisdictions in the U.S. are working with industry and moving to the standard of 0.5% in household automatic dishwashers by July 2010. Across the Atlantic, only a few countries in the European Union even have regulations on phosphates and none of them have implemented a complete ban. I mention this to underscore that North American industries are already moving to a standard that is equal to or better than standards anywhere else in the world.

I agree with the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé. Quite frankly, the government dragged its feet on this file. It only recently announced that it will review the changes to the regulations.

Before Bill C-469 was introduced in the House, my Liberal colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis presented another bill on this topic, namely, Bill C-464. My hon. colleague's bill takes into account the factors I have discussed here today and supports Canadian industries by asking the government to limit the maximum concentration of phosphorous in dishwasher detergent to 0.5%.

In closing, it seems only logical to harmonize regulations across the North American market and that Parliament should seek to implement regulations in line with those of the rest of the international community.

It is my hope that if Bill C-469 is sent to committee it can be amended in a way that reflects the wisdom of Bill C-464.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

moved that Bill C-469, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (use of phosphorus), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pride today to introduce for second reading Bill C-469, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to prohibit the manufacturing, sale or import in Canada of dishwashing or laundry detergents that contain phosphorus.

The Bloc Québécois introduced this bill because many of us, like the hon. member for Shefford, noticed how widespread cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae, had become last summer, and how serious a concern this was for the people of Quebec.

We know that blue-green algae pose a public health risk as potential irritants, allergens and toxins.

Besides this public health risk, the proliferation of cyanobacteria has a significant impact on the health and quality of lake water, not to mention the adverse effects on wildlife.

This is not a new issue, but the ongoing proliferation that has been observed over the past few years is a growing concern and calls for concerted action to put an end to this phenomenon.

Things have been getting worse: in Quebec, this phenomenon affected 50 lakes in 2005, 107 in 2006, and nearly 200 in 2007.

In the riding that I have the honour of representing, Berthier—Maskinongé, blue-green algae were found in five lakes and rivers in 2007. This is a major problem in our region and in many others in Quebec.

Quebec is not the only province whose lakes and rivers are deteriorating. Other Canadian provinces are facing this threat too. Blue-green algae have invaded waters in Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and even Alberta.

Blue-green algae blooms are happening for a reason. It is important to explain what causes these organisms to appear and multiply in our watersheds, our lakes and rivers, and in all of our water sources.

Excessive growth of cyanobacteria is due to an overabundance of nutrients in the environment. Of these nutrients, phosphorus has the greatest impact.

Phosphorus is a naturally occurring nutrient used by algae and aquatic plants, and blue-green algae blooms occur when the amount of phosphorus in a water system exceeds the ability of the system to absorb it. The presence of excess phosphorus is directly linked to human activity. We must therefore act to address this phenomenon.

Human activities that lead to surplus phosphorus in the water system include dumping untreated or inadequately treated water, agricultural activity, fertilizing lawns, using septic systems, recreation and tourism, and deforestation.

We know that dish and laundry detergents are made with phosphates, compounds that contain phosphorus and that, when present in excessive quantities, contribute to the development of blue-green algae and cyanobacteria.

While regulations have been in place for many years to limit phosphorus levels in laundry detergents, that is still not the case for dishwasher detergents and, more importantly, there is not a total ban.

Given this growing issue, it is important to remind this House that it is the Bloc Québécois that took the initiative. Indeed, in the spring of 2007, the Bloc Québécois critic on the environment and member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, whom I want to thank for his excellent work regarding this issue, blamed the Minister of the Environment for not dealing with this issue quickly. My colleague rightly pointed out that Ottawa could simply amend its regulations, without passing legislation, and thus take action quickly to protect our bodies of water.

Since Ottawa is responsible for regulating imported products, we felt that cooperation between Ottawa, Quebec and the provinces was necessary to deal effectively with the issue of blue-green algae.

On June 12, 2007, given the government's lack of concern, and its own desire to fight against the spread of blue-green algae, the Bloc Québécois tabled a motion, that was adopted by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, recommending that the federal government phase out concentrations of phosphorous in dishwasher detergents and laundry detergents.

Like several environmental groups, we condemned the Conservatives' decision to oppose this motion, which proposed a measure that is easily achievable and that would definitely have helped in the fight against the spread of these algae in our bodies of water.

We now know where the Conservatives stand regarding anything related to the environment. Because of this government's failure to do something, I started a petition, in September 2007, to get the federal government to act and amend its bill, so as to eliminate phosphates from dishwasher and laundry detergents.

In October 2007, I tabled in this House a first series of petitions with over 1,200 signatures, and this week I will again present a new series of petitions signed by over 2,000 people, asking the government to act.

I would like to thank the environmental groups, volunteers, not-for-profit organizations and municipalities that collected signatures for this petition. In doing so, they showed that they were determined to take action.

However, this government has refused to shoulder its responsibilities on this issue. That is why we introduced this bill.

Bill C-469 would prohibit phosphates in dishwashing and laundry detergents. Currently, section 117 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, prohibits the manufacture for use or sale in Canada or the import of a cleaning product or water conditioner that contains a prescribed nutrient in a concentration greater than the permissible concentration prescribed for that product.

Bill C-469 adds provisions after section 117 that prohibit certain substances in dishwashing and laundry detergents and stipulate when these prohibitions come into force.

In short, the bill would prohibit the manufacture for use or sale in Canada, the import and the sale of laundry or dishwashing detergents containing phosphates.

The bill would also amend subsection 119(1) to make it comply with the amendments to section 117.

This is a small bill, but it represents an important step that this government and all parliamentarians could take to combat the problem of blue-green algae.

We are calling on the federal government to take action in this area of federal jurisdiction to preserve the quality of our bodies of water. This legislation that we are proposing supports the various measures taken by the Government of Quebec to effectively fight blue-green algae and preserve the quality of our water and our aquatic ecosystems.

Recently, in the fall of 2007, in response to the spread of blue-green algae, Quebec's environment minister consulted with various stakeholders about how to address this wave. In the wake of these consultations, the Government of Quebec announced in December 2007 the adoption of regulations under its program to combat blue-green algae.

Quebec's action plan includes a series of regulatory tools and prevention and awareness mechanisms to help municipalities meet the challenges posed by the spread of blue-green algae. The plan also provides for the adoption of a regulation prohibiting the sale in Quebec of dishwashing detergents containing more than .5% phosphorus by 2010.

The Government of Quebec is addressing this environmental problem by duly exercising its powers under the Canadian Constitution. It is important to realize that the issue of jurisdiction in environmental matters means that, in practice, a policy to address an environmental problem could fall under the jurisdiction of either level of government. In other words, there can be a number of solutions to an environmental problem and therefore a number of jurisdictions involved.

As far as the use of phosphates is concerned, the National Assembly of Quebec has taken action in its jurisdiction. We are calling on the federal government to take its responsibilities and take action in its jurisdiction to protect our lakes and rivers. Since Ottawa is responsible for regulating imports, the federal government must also take action in order to have a real impact on manufacturers and force them to change their practices.

The adoption of such standards by Ottawa, with respect to the manufacture of laundry detergents and dishwasher detergents, would force manufacturers to adapt or be shut out of the Quebec and Canadian market. Since this is a very important market for them, the manufacturers will be much more likely to offer a product in compliance with the new Quebec and Canadian standards.

The Government of Quebec has urged the federal government to change its regulations in order to intensify the commercial impact of banning dishwasher detergents and other detergents that contain phosphates, thereby strengthening and making more effective the legislation that Quebec wants to implement.

The Bloc Québécois is well aware that banning detergent containing phosphates will not be enough to eradicate blue-green algae from our waters. This problem is complex and has been around for a number of years and will not be resolved in the immediate future. Other measures have to be taken by the Government of Quebec. We will be able to put an end to this problem with well-targeted action. We need to see an effort by all levels of government, municipalities, waterfront property owner associations, farmers and the general public. However, the federal government can ban the use of phosphates in detergents and it can do so quickly.

By taking swift action in this matter, the federal government will strengthen the Government of Quebec's action plan. By supporting Bill C-469, the federal government will also establish a clear consensus on the use of phosphorus in detergents.

I am calling on all parliamentarians to vote in favour of this bill.

Environmental Protection Act

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

moved for leave to introduce a bill entitled An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (use of phosphorus).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in this House to introduce for first reading a bill entitled An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (use of phosphorus). The purpose of this bill is to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to prohibit the use or sale in Canada and the import of dishwasher detergents and laundry detergents that contain phosphorus. It has become necessary to prohibit detergents that contain phosphorus, because in large quantities, phosphorus contributes to the spread of blue algae.

Given the Conservatives' lack of action, the Bloc Québécois decided to introduce this bill, since the problem of blue algae is getting worse. The federal government must take the measures falling under its jurisdiction to protect our bodies of water.

For these reasons, I would invite all the members in this House to vote in favour of this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)