Evidence of meeting #19 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was elimination.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mario Silva
No, that's what the meeting is. It's to discuss what we're going to do.
Monsieur Harvey.
Director, Bureau of Risk and Impact Assessment, Department of Health
There is a group called the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water, which has been concerned with, and has looked at, the issue of contaminants like pharmaceuticals and personal care products in source water for drinking water.
There is a group in Health Canada that is concerned with...from the result of CEPA 1999 and its provisions for exemptions, or recognition of other acts, such as the Pest Control Products Act, as CEPA equivalent. The Food and Drugs Act did not meet those requirements, so there is an effort under way to look at environmental impacts of a number of chemicals that were identified as pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and so on.
That is why I said yes. I am not involved in any of that work directly, but I do know also that several provinces were concerned about the pharmaceuticals showing up in source water and a potential impact on drinking water. I know work is going on, but I can't give you any details.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Since a little while ago, we have been talking about reducing emissions at the source, which is clearly simpler, to my mind, than having to clean it up once it has got into the environment.
On the weekend, I spilled a glass of wine on a carpet. Until I had to clean up the mess, I had never realized how much a wineglass could hold. I think it is probably the same thing once a product has spilled into the environment. When the time comes to decontaminate, it is definitely more complicated.
I do not understand how it is that still today people wonder whether certain products should be completely withdrawn rather than running the risk of spilling them and watching them end up in the environment.
Senior Adviser, International Joint Commission
In 1990, the International Joint Commission, in one of its semi-annual reports, had a few words to say on this subject. Here is exactly what it said in English:
We said it was time for a choice; should we “continue attempts to manage persistent toxic substances after they have been produced or used, or...eliminate and prevent their existence...in the first place?”
Liberal
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association, PollutionWatch
Mr. Chair, I only hope the member is not proposing the banning or prohibition of wine. That's my only concern.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mario Silva
On that note, it is 11 o'clock. I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward.
The meeting is adjourned.