Environment Committee on June 9th, 2008

[Dr. Richard Carignan]

I was asked to talk about Bill C-469. I was not asked to discuss agriculture or other sources of phosphorus. I believe the discussion has gone well beyond the subject. I intend to focus on the subject of today's meeting.

I have read Bill C-469; it strikes me as very naive. On has the sense that it was written by a kid in grade school. First of all, there is a very serious spelling error: in the French the text reads “interdiction de phosphore” in the singular; it should be “interdiction du phosphore”. The word “phosphores” cannot be plural; therefore, it must be “du phosphore”.

In the text I have in front of me, there is no mention of a specific limit or cap. However, it is very important to specify the maximum concentration. The majority of U.S. states or Canadian provinces that have recently passed similar bills have set a level of 0.5 per cent. That should be stated.

I am also wondering why the people who drafted this bill did not take inspiration from other bills that were recently passed in some U.S. states, such as the State of Washington, and four or five others. Indeed, this is a North American problem.

I would also like to correct an error made by the previous speaker. Of course, when you consider all the phosphorus imported from the large rivers of Canada, phosphorus in automatic dishwasher detergents only contributes approximately 1 per cent of that total. However, when you consider phosphorus of human origin imported into recreational lakes, including phosphorus from septic systems, that percentage rises to 10 per cent. I agree that removing phosphorus from dishwasher detergents will not resolve the problem posed by cyanobacteria, which has been evident for a number of years now. However, it is one way of reducing phosphorus from human sources. And, it is a way of reducing by about 10 per cent, at no cost whatsoever, the concentration of phosphorus from human sources in recreational lakes.

That is pretty well all I wanted to say. It is important to specify in the bill the maximum concentration that will be allowed—say, no more than 0.5 per cent.

I also believe that institutions like hospitals, where human health depends on the use of clean surgical and other instruments, should not be subject to this legislation. It should specifically target automatic dishwater detergents or domestic products, as opposed to those used in institutions such as hospitals.

I really cannot add much more. In terms of the differences between a bill or amending a regulation such as the one in place under CEPA, I have no idea what the advantages or disadvantages might be. While I am not familiar with the legal repercussions, I have noted that bills have been tabled in the U.S. states, even though they most certainly have environmental protection regulations. Most U.S. states have opted for legislation. However, you are the ones with the expertise to determine whether it would be better to amend an existing regulation or introduce a bill. I cannot comment on that.

That completes my opening remarks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Vecco, welcome.

We'll ask you to make a brief statement and then we'll get on to questions.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much. Now we will begin with our questions.

Mr. Godfrey, please.

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

The bill as currently written deals with both laundry detergent and dishwashing detergent. To Ms. Jelley, on the action caused by phosphorus that allows soap to do its thing, is there a fundamental difference between what phosphorus is used for in laundry detergent as opposed to dishwashing detergent? Is it more difficult to replace it in one than in the other?

[Chera Jelley]

There is quite a difference between what phosphorus does in laundry detergent and in automatic dishwasher detergent. Most laundry detergents in Canada have been phosphate-free for years. It was a lot easier to replace phosphorus in laundry detergent because it was mostly used to lift soil during the cleaning process. In automatic dishwasher detergent it's a multifunctioning aid. It breaks up the soils and provides consumers with clean dishes. It actually aids in the cleaning process, which it wasn't doing in laundry detergent. It's a lot more difficult to reformulate automatic dishwasher detergent because it aids in the cleaning and sanitation of dishes, where it didn't do that in laundry.

[Dr. Richard Carignan]

I would like to comment on that. Phosphorus plays exactly the same role in both dishwashing and laundry detergents. This lady does not seem to have a complete grasp of her subject. The chemical role is exactly the same.

I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the final presenter, who raised a red flag with respect to potential replacements. Some phosphorus replacements are almost as dangerous for the environment as phosphorus is. As a result, there is also a need to legislate replacement products such as NTA, or nitrilotriacetate, which is not good for the environment. Therefore, the bill should also address replacement products, to ensure comprehensive legislation. We cannot simply replace phosphorus with another product that is known to be harmful to the environment, which is what manufacturers have done in the past.

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

Ms. Jelley, do you have a view about the need for this law or some law or regulation to address the problem of replacements for phosphorus? Is there a process you would suggest so that Mr. Carignan and others would be reassured that the government was not just getting out of one bad thing and into another?

[Chera Jelley]

Our industry and our CCSPA members have committed to find a replacement for phosphorus that is as effective and has a better environmental profile. That is the commitment our members have made. Research is still ongoing on what that replacement would be. They're well familiar with the problems that other replacements that have been tried in Europe have caused.

[Dr. Richard Carignan]

I would just like to add that there are automatic dishwashing soaps already on the market that do not contain phosphates. There are replacements out there that do not harm the environment.

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

And what exactly are they?

[Dr. Richard Carignan]

There are sodium citrate compounds that are an effective replacement for phosphorus. Tests have been conducted and the results were published in a number of Quebec and Canadian journals in recent months. Some of these products were considered to be as effective as detergents containing phosphorus. However, in terms of my own experience, I have yet to see anything as efficient and effective as phosphorus. But, perhaps we have to make Canadians understand that they cannot have a perfect dishwashing detergent that leaves no traces on their dishes—by that I mean chemical traces—and that at the same time does not harm the environment. So, we have to choose: are we going to make the environment pay or can we get along with glasses that may have small water spots on them after drying? I think it's up to Canadians to decide.

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

Now, what I'm trying to do is help the committee understand where changes would have to occur, if there are changes to be made to the bill, that would help alleviate concerns. One would be to go to the 0.5% rather than total elimination. That one would align itself with what's happening in various American states.

Another question is the starting date. This bill would have the act come into force under the 180 days, which puts us into next year as opposed to 2010. Another issue is law or regulation, or law asking for a regulation rather than a law just being a law. And then I guess the final issue is the question of whether there should be exemptions for certain kinds of institutions, whether those are hospitals or indeed—I don't know—university kitchens or other large-scale institutions.

Are those the primary concerns of the industry, Ms. Jelley?

[Chera Jelley]

Yes. As I stated in our presentation, we would recommend that this be a regulation rather than amending CEPA. If the bill proceeds as is and amends the act, then it will conflict with existing federal regulations. That is a major concern for us.

CCSPA has announced an industry-led initiative that would limit the phosphorus content in household automatic dishwasher detergent to a maximum of 0.5%, so we would support the committee in amending the bill if that is the desire of the committee. As well, we have asked for an implementation date of July 2010. Again, that is in line with the U.S.

The problem with the date of 2009 is that our member companies are still developing new formulations. If it proceeds in 2009, there is no guarantee that our members will be able to have products available for 2009. Our member companies represent 86% of the market in Canada. If we don't have a product for sale for 2009, that means there'll be a huge shortage of the product and it would probably increase the cost of the alternatives.

As well, in our industry-led initiative we support an exemption for commercial and institutional facilities. In these facilities, such as hospitals, universities, schools, restaurants, and hotels, their machines are completely different from a household machine. Their wash and clean cycle is one minute, compared to 30 minutes in a household machine. It's a completely different machine, so you would need a complete exemption for that sort of facility. In the U.S., they have a maximum of 8.7% for those sorts of institutions.

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

Were you aware of Mr. Scarpaleggia's Bill C-464?

[Chera Jelley]

Yes.

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

Was that more along the lines of what you were requesting, that is to say a bill that requested a change of regulations?

[Chera Jelley]

Yes. Instructing the minister to create a regulation is a better way to go about this because it wouldn't conflict with existing federal regulation. The only concern we had with Mr. Scarpaleggia's bill is allowing an exemption for commercial and institutional uses, but other than that, the bill is well written.

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

Mr. Chairman, if I understood correctly, Mr. Carignan is generally favourable to the idea of granting an exemption to hospitals, universities and commercial facilities, in particular.

[Dr. Richard Carignan]

I agree with it where hospitals are concerned, but for all other commercial facilities, I do not.

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

With respect to machines that clean in less than one minute, what substitutes—products or machines—could you suggest for commercial facilities such as hotels?

[Dr. Richard Carignan]

In hospitals and certain commercial facilities, it is very important that dishes be properly washed. I agree with the industry that, for that very reason, the best product is phosphorus. This is not as important an issue where household use is concerned, because there is no risk that the general population will be contaminated. If I were drafting a bill, I would exclude hospitals and possibly some commercial institutions.

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

What about schools?

[Dr. Richard Carignan]

As regards restaurants and hotels, I think that needs to be discussed. For the universities, it's not as important an issue. In any case, I would certainly exempt hospitals. There are always trade-offs and, since a choice has to be made, I would say that, at the very least, hospitals should be exempted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Bigras, please.