Environment Committee on June 9th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

If we can begin, Mr. Bigras has put a motion before us.

Mr. Bigras, please address that motion to get us started.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any comments or questions?

Mr. Bigras is proposing a 30-day extension, which of course will take it into the fall.

Mr. Warawa.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras.

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

Mr. Chairman, the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary go well beyond the purpose of the motion I have tabled.

You are free to give him some time to provide a rationale for his decision on the motion, but I would ask that you invite him to address the specific purpose of the motion, which is whether or not we should extend the period for consideration of this bill. We are not asking to extend the study of that matter. We simply want to ensure that the decisions we made collectively and on which we agreed will elicit a response. Unfortunately, some information was not available to us when we decided to plan our future work. On Monday, I believe the issue brought forward by Mr. Scarpaleggia and the Liberal Party will be on the agenda for consideration. That motion is intended to adjust our work schedule based on information that was unavailable to us last week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Godfrey, you may speak very briefly to the extension motion.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

We support this motion. This will allow Mr. Bigras to continue his discussions with the government throughout the summer, prior to clause-by-clause consideration. Next Wednesday is the ceremony with the Aboriginal people, and we have to respect that. However, we also have to respect Mr. Bigras' rights. We can extend this study into the fall. Discussions could then continue after we have heard from our witnesses today. We support the motion aimed at obtaining that extension of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Is it the committee's will to vote on this now or to do it later? I think it's pretty straightforward--

[An hon. member]

Let's do it now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think we should do it now. Then it's done.

Are you in favour of this motion to extend?

(Motion agreed to)

Yes, Mr. Bigras.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Certainly that decision needs to be made now. If we were going to do clause-by-clause on Monday, we could then...or on Thursday. That needs to be decided. But we can come back to that.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses. I would ask you each to make a brief presentation. Then we'll open it to questions from our members.

Mr. Marois.

[Richard Marois, President, Conseil régional de l'environnement de la Montérégie]

Good afternoon.

First of all, I want to say that I was notified rather late. As a result, I didn't have the time to do an in-depth analysis of the bill. However, I do want to talk a little about how we are dealing with the phosphate problem in our area.

To begin with, I want to point out that our regional council held a regional forum in April on the impact of blue-green algae, or cyanobacteria, in the Montérégie area. There is no doubt that discussions did not focus solely on the impact of detergents. Other important consequences for waterways and the groundwater in Montérégie were also discussed at that time.

Regulations dealing with the use of detergents would clearly be important and have an effect on the phosphorus problem in Canadian lakes. On the other hand, we believe regulations will resolve only part of the water contamination problem. The following is an overview of our discussions in relation to the different themes.

Let us begin by talking about agriculture. A number of participants emphasized the need for responsible agricultural practices, including protection of buffer strips and more environmentally friendly agricultural methods. Examples such as the La Guerre River project, organic growing and the addition of mycorrhiza foster more responsible agriculture and encourage a reduction in what is now extensive use of fertilizers, as well as a reduced need for watering—thereby decreasing water contamination caused by phosphorus, phosphates and other residues. Indeed, a resolution presented at the forum suggested that financial support be provided by governments—and I include both levels of government—with a view to fostering responsible agriculture and this type of growing practice and vision.

The next theme had to do with residences located on the shores of waterways or in isolated areas adjacent to a sewer system. The deterioration of some lakes and waterways has been caused by the poor use and poor protection of shoreline areas by residents, such as excessive cutting of vegetation or the use of fertilizers or pesticides in order to have a more even lawn. As we see it, the solution to that problem lies more in awareness raising and education regarding the environment. Unfortunately, monies available from the government—federal or provincial—for actions in this area are, in our view, inadequate or rarely available.

There is also the matter of the wastewater systems used at isolated residences. On the J.E. program that aired on the TVA network—I believe people here are familiar with it—we spoke out against the practice of discharging wastewater directly into the St. Lawrence River, into drainage ditches and waterways. That unacceptable practice is prevalent across the country. Rivers, lakes and ditches are thereby overexposed to contaminants of every imaginable kind, including nitrates, fecal coliforms and other pathogenic bacteria.

According to figures from the Ministry of Sustainable Development, the Environment and Parks (MDDEP), in Quebec alone, there are more than 850,000 septic systems being used by some 1.4 million people. Given that every individual discharges at least 250 litres of wastewater every day, more than 120 billion litres of wastewater are being released annually into the environment. We know that at least 60 per cent of these systems cause pollution because they are obsolete and no longer meet standards. Why is there no subsidy program in place? At the same time, infrastructure programs have helped urban residents, through subsidies of tens of billions of dollars, to build large sewer systems and filtering plants. Are there two classes of Canadians in this country?

In our opinion, the solution must come from both levels of government. Subsidies currently are available for the construction of wastewater treatment plants in municipalities that make the request. However, no subsidy currently exists for the construction of certified septic systems for isolated residences or sewer system in areas located too far away from urban facilities that no one can possibly afford to build.

Small municipalities and regions should be able to benefit from the Infrastructure Canada Program, which should include bringing such facilities up to standard. The operating and maintenance costs of these facilities could be paid through tax accounts, as is currently the case for subsidized systems. The impact of such a subsidy or regulation would be to encourage people to comply with current regulations, thereby allowing less advantaged or regional communities to have septic systems that meet health and environmental concerns. We don't want any more Walkertons.

We also believe that sewage treatment regulations and standards set by provincial ministries of the Environment across the country should be standardized.

However, it is important not to forget the groundwater. A study by Robert de Tilly of the MDDEP revealed the increasing possibility, as a result of climate change, that our waterways, including the St. Lawrence River, will evaporate over the next 25 years on an irregular basis, depending on the temperature. Indeed, that phenomenon has already been observed in the St. Lawrence River. You may want to refer to certain studies carried out by the Comité ZIP Ville-Marie in that regard. That has consequences for the water table. The capillary fringe, which is the area immediately above the water table, dries out because it follows the level of the groundwater. Over the years, significant cracks could open up in clay soil, possibly causing large fissures or crevices in houses located in the Montreal and South Shore areas. That could give rise to uncontrolled migration of contaminants of all kinds through the groundwater and into our waterways.

Let us look now at chemicals and detergents. All consumer products, such as detergents, cleaning products and soaps, should be subject to regular monitoring. These products should be required to comply with standards from the time of their development, based on the precautionary principle. Chemical substances already in use or their replacements should be required to have demonstrated their efficiency in relation to their potential impact on the environment. An unproven replacement product could create new problems in a not-so-distant future. As a result, it is essential to ensure that all new products are also environmentally friendly.

In closing, we believe that regulations dealing with detergents can be effective and positive, but without proper support from policies adopted in other areas, such as public health and the environment, they will not be enough. These regulations are intended to reduce the use of phosphorus, but in our opinion, they are not based on a comprehensive vision of the problem, which we see as key. Sustainable and integrated management have to occur at a broader level and consider all the factors that could potentially affect our environment and our waterways.

I will stop there and wait for your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much, Mr. Marois.

Now we'll go on to Ms. Jelley. I'll just let everyone know that Shannon Coombs was to be with us on video conference, but her husband just had a medical problem, so she's presently on her way back and unavailable.

Thank you for filling in. We appreciate your being here.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much.

We'll begin with Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Dr. Carignan--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'm sorry, we have a teleconference.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

That's what I was wondering.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Go ahead, Dr. Carignan.

[Dr. Richard Carignan, Full Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Montréal, As an Individual]

Hello. I am Richard Carignan, speaking to you from Montreal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Very good. We can hear you.

[Dr. Richard Carignan]

Is it my time to speak? I will address you in French.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, you can begin.