Evidence of meeting #64 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 products.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Order, please.
I want to welcome our witnesses.
I apologize for the delay. We're going to be pretty rushed here today.
What I propose is that you take up to 10 minutes for your statements, and then with the time we have left, we'll cut that down for members asking questions. We'll do the math on it, so we get at least one round of questions.
We'll begin with Mr. Carignan.
Dr. Richard Carignan Full Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Montréal, As an Individual
Thank you for giving me the opportunity--on very short notice, however--to talk about an old problem with known solutions, but perhaps a timely problem for Canada and for Quebec.
I'll make it very simple. If you look at the screen, I've subdivided into two groups all microscopic organisms using photosynthesis. I have what I've called the “other algae”. The algae are mostly harmless, I would say. They're generally useful. They're part of the normal food webs. They're filtered by zooplankton, which is in turn eaten by small fish, eaten by large fish. So they're a part of the normal food webs.
I've called my second group cyanobacteria, and they are often harmful. They're generally inedible. They don't participate as much in normal food webs. They confer a bad taste, a bad odour to water. What's important to us here today is that they may produce toxins, toxins that cause skin irritation and symptoms that are like gastroenteritis. Also, they may affect the nervous system. Because of that, public health departments are aware of cyanobacteria. In Quebec at least, when they observe toxins in the water, they generally close the body of water to most uses.
On my next slide, I have taken a few pictures in lakes and compared them on a scale, which is phosphorus concentration in the water. It goes from 2 to 20 micrograms per litre. And remember that 1 microgram per litre is a very small quantity. It's about one thimblefull in an Olympic-size pool, so it's a very tiny quantity.
Phosphorus is an essential element. Every living organism needs it. But it is also a limiting factor in lakes. It limits the growth of life in lakes. At 4 or 5 micrograms per litre, rocks begin to be slippery with algae growth. At 8 to 10 micrograms per litre, we begin to see nuisance aquatic plants. Above 15 or 20 micrograms per litre, the water tends to turn pea-soup green or broccoli-soup green, as you prefer, but there's clearly too much phosphorus.
In Quebec, in the Laurentian lakes where I work, we tend to see cyanobacteria at phosphorus levels ranging between 8 and 10 micrograms per litre, cyanobacteria developing toxins that close down all the uses of a lake.
It's important to note that cyanobacteria are a natural phenomenon, especially in the shallow lakes that have surrounding soils rich in phosphorus. I took that picture in Alberta. There has never been any human development on the watershed, but you can still see cyanobacteria in this lake. So it's a natural occurrence.
The natural phosphorus loads to lakes and rivers are generally small. But it is an essential element, as I said. Naturally, it comes from atmospheric fallout, wet and dry fallout. It also comes from streams. Phosphorus is lost by forests, wetlands, beaver impoundments, and so on. So these are the natural sources of phosphorus in aquatic systems, and phosphorus concentrations are naturally low.
With regard to phosphorus pollution, humans have increased a lot the phosphorus concentrations in many aquatic systems. It's not a recent problem, it's an old problem, and there are many causes for it. In decreasing order of importance, I would say the first cause is unsustainable agriculture. By that I mean agriculture that has always maximized crop yield but never looked at the quality of the receiving waters. Phosphate in household detergents is also still a big problem, as is industrial urban effluence, by which I mean outdated sewage treatment facilities. Those are very common in Quebec at least; I don't know about the other provinces in Canada. As well, the use of fertilizers on lawns and gardens, deficient septic systems, excessive forest clearance in watersheds, and excessive residential development on lakeshores are all potential important sources of excess phosphorus in aquatic systems.
Some of these sources will be hard to deal with. It will take generations to fix the problem. Some, like phosphates in household detergents, we could get rid of within a few months.
In terms of solutions for excessive phosphorus, there are long-term solutions and short-term solutions. I think in the next generation or two we'll have to revise our agricultural system--that is, what should we produce, how should we produce it, and what is the best way to produce it without affecting the receiving waters?
As an example, in Baie Missisquoi on Lake Champlain, you're looking at about 100 square kilometres of water that contains far too much phosphorus, far too much algae, and far too much cyanobacteria. All the uses of that water, including skiing and swimming, are forbidden.
Again, let's look at Baie Missisquoi. I'll focus on that little spot just to indicate what I mean by sustainable agriculture. Looking at this small spot, magnified, I think in the next generation we will have to combine agriculture, silviculture, and forestry on wide buffer strips. The present buffer strips are about five metres, and they're not even enforced. We should do silviculture and forestry on wide buffer strips in order to combine spots that lose nutrients with spots of nutrient sources, the forest, in order to minimize phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizer losses to rivers, streams, and lakes.
Phosphorus in dishwasher detergent is an important source that we could easily deal with. In 1972 the Canada-U.S.A. agreement on Great Lakes water quality limited phosphorus in laundry detergent to 2.2%. Apparently, and I don't exactly know the reason, dishwasher detergent slipped through the cracks, as far as I understand the problem.
I've fooled around in the last few years measuring phosphorus in dishwasher detergents. Remember that about 55% to 60% of households now have dishwashers. Dishwasher detergents are still full of phosphorus, especially these new gel caps that are widely advertised on TV right now. They are the richest in phosphorus. I've calculated very roughly that dishwasher detergents can contribute from 5% to 20% of the phosphorus load from the average household.
That's a fairly big number. And I'm being very conservative here; countries like Switzerland estimate on the higher side, that 20% of phosphates now come from dishwasher detergents.
Several American states and some European countries have completely banned phosphorus from all household products. Other states, such as Massachusetts, right now have bills in front of their legislatures.
Read this:
No household cleansing product which contains a phosphorus compound in concentrations in excess of a trace quantity...shall be distributed, sold, offered or exposed for sale at retail...or used in a commercial establishment in the commonwealth after July 1st, 2010.
This is what is coming elsewhere in the world.
I'm going to ask a question: why are we behind in Canada?
That's all. Thank you.
Conservative
Dave McCartney Manager, Wastewater and Drainage Service, City of Ottawa, Canadian Water and Wastewater Association
Good morning.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee on behalf of the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association. I hope my remarks are helpful.
Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee on behalf of the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association. I hope my address will be of use to you.
I'll be talking, primarily from the perspective of a municipal engineer, about the implications for phosphorus of the effective treatment of waste water.
As has been mentioned, phosphorus is an essential nutrient that supports the growth of algae and other biological organisms. Algal blooms are undesirable because of the potential for the production of toxins that are dangerous to humans, livestock, and wildlife. Fortunately, modern drinking water purification systems can effectively remove these toxins, and in the case of the Ottawa River, the presence of algal toxins in the incoming water from the Ottawa River has never been detected.
A second problem with algal blooms is that when the algae die off, the decomposition process depletes the water of oxygen. This can result in fish kills. This process is known as eutrophication.
For these reasons, it is important to control the amount of phosphorus that enters surface waters from municipal waste water treatment plants and natural surface runoff.
The amount of phosphorus that can be discharged into a given water body, without triggering algal blooms, is dictated by its assimilation capacity. Assimilation capacity is affected by a number of factors, such as the physical size of a lake and the flow rate of a river.
For example, the Ottawa River has significant assimilation capacity. It is large and doesn't have high background levels of phosphorus. For this reason, the discharge criterion for the city's waste water treatment plant, the Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre, is set by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment at 1 milligram per litre, or one part per million.
In contrast, the Rideau River has very little assimilation capacity. It's relatively small and already degraded by nutrients coming primarily from agricultural activity and urban stormwater runoff. The city operates a small pilot plant in the village of Manotick that discharges into the Rideau River. Its effluent limit for phosphorus is set at 0.03 milligrams per litre, only 3% of the concentration that can be discharged into the Ottawa River. This kind of treatment is both difficult to achieve and very expensive.
Municipal waste water typically contains between 4 and 16 milligrams per litre of various phosphate compounds, in both dissolved and solid forms. In Ottawa, it's about 5 milligrams per litre, which does not sound like much, but it translates into about 750 metric tonnes per year.
Now modern secondary waste water treatment plants, such as Ottawa's, have very little difficulty achieving the 1 milligram per litre discharge target. An important point is that if you have modern sewage treatment, the technology is there, it's proven, and you can stay within those kinds of limits. To get down to the very low limit, which I was speaking about before, is problematic, and it's probably right on the cutting edge.
Phosphorus is removed from waste water in three ways. First, in the primary treatment process, the waste water is slowed down by passing through large tanks to allow heavier solid material to settle out. Biological removal and chemical precipitation occur in the secondary treatment process. In the case of the Pickard centre, this is called the activated sludge process.
Naturally occurring bacteria are used to absorb organic material, including dissolved phosphorus and iron or aluminum salt. In our case, ferrous chloride is added to convert dissolved phosphorus into a solid form that will precipitate out of the water. After being aerated to encourage bacterial growth, the mixture is allowed to settle out in large clarifiers, and the clean water is removed from the surface and discharged into the river.
The settled sludges are removed, returned to the beginning of the secondary treatment process, and added to the incoming waste water. It's important to maintain the correct balance between the amount of return sludge and incoming waste water. So excess material is removed to maintain the balance.
The waste material removed in the primary and secondary treatment process is pumped into large enclosed vessels known as anaerobic digesters, where different types of bacteria break down the organic material to produce water, carbon dioxide, and methane gas.
In Ottawa's case, the gas is removed and used in a cogeneration plant to produce electricity and hot water for plant processes and building heating. This saves the city about $1.4 million net in electricity and natural gas purchases.
The stabilized digested sludge, commonly referred to as biosolids, are then dewatered in centrifuges, much like the spin cycle of a dryer. The biosolids are about 33% solid and have the consistency of wet soil.
Ottawa's biosolids are beneficially recycled, either as a supplement in the manufacture of compost or directly by land application. In both cases, the phosphorus in the biosolids is available as a nutrient. This is a fairly common practice across the country.
As I mentioned previously, stormwater runoff also contains phosphorus from animal feces and fertilizer. In new urban developments, stormwater management ponds are used both to hold back storm flows to prevent erosion of downstream creeks and rivers and to provide passive treatment of organic waste and bacteria. Heavier materials settle out, and the action of plants and bacteria, including algae, remove organic materials and nutrients such as phosphorus. These ponds are capable of removing up to 95% of the incoming phosphorus.
Some of the sequestered phosphorus is eventually released when the plant life dies off in the fall. This is not problematic since the receiving water is too cold to support algal blooms.
That concludes my presentation.
Bob Friesen President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be here.
To tell you a little bit about the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, CFA is a federation of farm organizations. It counts as its members a general farm organization out of every province as well as numerous national commodity organizations. By virtue of our membership, we represent every agricultural commodity that's produced in every region of Canada.
To preface my comments on the issue that's in front of us, let me also say that Canadian farmers are coming out of the worst four years of net income in their entire history. They have record farm debt. I say that not because this is the committee to ask for more money for farmers, but because the challenge of net income has resulted in farmers' increasing their productivity, achieving better efficiencies, and an emphasis on farmers' reducing their input costs.
This in turn has had an influence on agriculture's contribution to the level of phosphorus in our waterways in Canada. How has that happened? Well, to reduce their input cost, farmers have gone to much more soil testing, and much more specific soil testing to determine what level of fertilizer they need to apply. They have much better management of spreading animal nutrients on land, as well as the volume and/or level of animal nutrients that are spread on the land; and much better erosion prevention, because again, this impacts on productivity and efficiency. There is no over-fertilization. Farmers simply can't afford not to make sure that the equilibrium in fertilizer application and what the crop can utilize isn't thrown out of whack. They're quite prepared to go to any sort of education program that will help them do all of these things much better.
Farmers are also quite willing to be accountable and responsible. The only thing farmers are not willing to be is responsible or accountable for a disproportionate level of blame for any problem we might have.
We know that fertilizer is absolutely essential in the production of food and fibre and that animal nutrients are inevitable, so what is the solution? What is the key?
We believe that management is the solution and the key. For years farmers have implemented and developed better and better nutrient management plans and improved their environmental farm plans and best management practices. That is exactly why the Canadian Federation of Agriculture members have put so much emphasis on what we call a public goods and services pillar in the next generation of the agricultural policy framework. We believe that good incentive-based public goods and services initiatives in the agricultural policy framework will help farmers do what they otherwise could not afford to do.
For example, some of you may have heard of the agricultural land use services initiative, which we've talked about for quite some time. It's an incentive-based program that helps farmers perhaps develop bigger buffer zones. It helps farmers take unproductive land out of production. They could take land that is prone to erosion out of production, but there would be incentives applied to that. They also believe that any of these actions helps meet social expectations.
They know they can't pass these added costs on to the marketplace, so they believe the public should help them pay for some of the costs of implementation through incentive-based programs.
This is a win-win-win. First of all, it's a win for farmers and the general public because it creates a stronger crosswalk between farmers and the public in recognizing that farmers are trying to meet social expectations. This helps farmers do what they otherwise could not afford to do. It's a win for governments because it would eventually decrease the load on business risk management money or, as some of you may know them, safety net programs. It would be a win again for the general public because it would help preserve Canada's natural capital.
Again, let me say that farmers are willing to be accountable and responsible, not for more than their contribution to the challenge or situation we have at hand, but to continue to improve what we think is the key and solution to any challenges with phosphorus, and that is best management practices, animal nutrient management, as well as environmental farm plans.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
John Carey Director General, Water Science and Technology, National Water Research Institute
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd first like to point out that I've been accompanied today by one of Environment Canada's scientists, Dr. Susan Watson, who is available for any detailed technical questions.
Also, I believe you have a copy of my presentation, and in the interest of time, I don't propose to read the whole thing. I'd perhaps just touch on a couple of highlights and make some closing comments, if that's all right.
The first part of the presentation talks about harmful algal blooms and some of the complexities of them. In particular, some of the features that make it rather difficult for us to accurately and quantitatively assess risk from these include the fact that the cyanobacteria that produce the toxins don't always produce them. The triggers that cause them to produce toxins are poorly understood. So you could have a bloom of cyanobacteria that you could see in the pictures but without their producing toxins; in other cases, they can produce toxins, be liberated into the water, and the bloom will disappear and the toxins remain.
As for the microcystins produced by one particular species of cyanobacteria, we know of 90 different versions of microcystins and probably 200 or so related peptides that are toxic. This makes chemical analysis of them in monitoring programs a challenge; and we don't actually have analytical standards for many of the toxins that are produced.
So the highlight of the first section, or the take-home fact, is that individual species produce compounds that are different in potency, toxicity, and stability; and even within a species, there's a lot of complexity in what's produced.
We certainly agree, and have been studying these blooms right across Canada, including in prairie dugout lakes, such as Lake of the Woods and Lake Winnipeg—and Lake Erie has some similar types of blooms. In fact, pictures of Lake Winnipeg and Lake of the Woods would look very similar to the pictures Dr. Carignan presented to you.
On the potential for toxicity from these species, we've highlighted three factors on page 3 of the presentation. The potential for toxicity increases with eutrophication and, most notably, phosphorus loading. And some of Dr. Watson and her colleagues' research has indicated that algal populations with more than 50% of their population made up of cyanobacteria seem only to occur above 10 micrograms per litre of phosphorus. That's in the ballpark Dr. Carignan presented; he suggested 8 micrograms, but that's within a margin of error. So we would agree with that.
Some of the other important things we would highlight include temperature and extreme conditions. As our climate warms and growing seasons become longer, we anticipate being subjected to more severe blooms. In addition, in areas such as Lake Erie, or elsewhere in the Great Lakes, the introduction of exotic species like zebra mussels has changed the ecology. In the scientific community, we have a phenomenon we're looking at right now called the nearshore shunt, in which zebra mussels growing in shallow water seem to be trapping a lot of phosphorus, and giving rise now to a reoccurrence of algae. We thought we had eliminated some of the nearshore algae problems, but they're coming back now, and we believe these are likely related to the exotic species—zebra mussels—concentrating phosphorus in the nearshore water, putting the concentration up above 10 micrograms per litre and giving rise to some of these nuisance species.
In our 2001 report on nutrients in the environment—which this committee asked for in 1998-99—we did attempt to quantify as best we could the sources of phosphorus in the Canadian environment. In that report, the figures we quoted were that agriculture was the major source, at 56,000 tonnes annually. Municipal discharge we estimated to be 7,900 tonnes. These figures are not in my document, by the way. Industrial discharge was 2,000 tonnes, septic systems were less than 2,000 tonnes, and aquaculture was 500 tonnes. What this means, according to the 1996 figures, is that municipal discharges contribute about 12% of the total discharge of phosphorus.
Also in that report, you'll see that we estimated, as best we could based on 1996 numbers, that of that municipal discharge contribution, about 7% of it would be coming from dishwasher powders. That means that of the total discharge to the Canadian environment based on our numbers and that report, just under 1% of it would be coming from dishwasher powders.
The major source is agriculture. That's why, since that report, we've been focusing on what we can do working with the farming community to try to reduce agricultural contributions. Some of the projects we've had under way include the development of better beneficial management practices that could be employed.
In particular, we're concerned about some in the prairie provinces, because it looks as though the soil conditions there mean that the phosphorus is mostly dissolved, not bound on solids. So whereas in eastern Canada the beneficial management practices are foresting or at least having better cover along the riparian areas, such as Dr. Carignan mentioned, to prevent soil erosion, it looks as though that might be ineffective as a phosphorus control practice in western Canada if the phosphorus is largely dissolved and not bound on soil. So we're studying what can be done in places like the Red River Basin to develop beneficial management practices that are regionally relevant to local conditions. We're working with agriculture to do that, developing standards that would be linked to the environmental farm plans that were mentioned. That's how we see them being applied.
We've also initiated this year a study to try to link individual farms and sub-watersheds to their recipient water downstream. A farmer way upstream in the Red River may not actually personally connect with Lake Winnipeg and their contribution to the water. We are trying to develop this on a watershed basis, and we hope this will eventually be part of a broader Lake Winnipeg Basin initiative. Models would integrate the application of beneficial management practices throughout a watershed and tell us what that might achieve for a downstream water body in terms of the total loading of phosphorus.
We're trying to develop practices that will both attack this and reduce this agricultural source, along with better tools that would allow us to link individual farmers to the downstream environmental outcomes, so they can clearly identify their contribution to being part of the solution.
In addition to that, we're trying to better quantify inputs of septic systems to nearshore areas. We're focusing for the moment on Lake Huron, where there are nearshore algal growths and beach closures that we think might be due to septic systems. We hope in the future to do that on Lake Winnipeg as that initiative increases, and also on Lake Erie.
We think the best approach to this is on a watershed receiving water approach, looking at the total loading for each system, since it seems to us that the systems could be quite different. A Laurentian lake, for example, is likely to be quite different from a water body like Lake Winnipeg, which has a contributing area of nearly a million square kilometres, largely agricultural.
We're trying to develop those ecosystem-based, watershed-based approaches, based on loading to the sensitive water body. A couple of things come to mind as you consider this question, and I think we can be guided to some extent by history. In the 1970s, when the Government of Canada regulated phosphorus content in laundry detergent, what we saw was a switch to nitrilotriacetic acid initially, and now there are many other detergent builders. Nitrilotriacetic acid was the substitute for phosphate in laundry detergent.
Just this year we included--we screened in--in the domestic substance list screening, nitrilotriacetic acid, based on human health effects. It's important, if you're going to promote substitutions, to understand the toxicity of the products that will be substituted.
The second thing that happened when we regulated nutrients, when we reduced nutrients in places like Lake Erie, is that eventually when we got the numbers down to near our targets.... Of course phosphorus is essential for productivity as well, and so you have a trade-off. Eutrophication of course is overproductivity, but you have a trade-off between productivity of the system and effects due to eutrophication.
What we saw on the south shore of Lake Erie and in Ohio were fishermen groups complaining that we'd cut the phosphorus down too low and the walleye were too small. They launched campaigns to have phosphorus additions. There were even suggestions in Lake Ontario--although we didn't believe them--that we'd reduced the phosphorus so low that we couldn't support the salmon we were stocking.
There's a balance to be considered as well with respect to the impacts of banning something; there are potential effects that also need to be considered.
Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Thank you, Mr. Carey.
Members, as you can see, we do have a problem with the time.
I'm going to say two minutes now, just so we can get one round. If you can be very concise and if the answers can be very precise, it will help us a lot.
Go ahead, Mr. Scarpaleggia.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Please be brief in your answer.
Mr. Carey, what would Dr. David Schindler's opinion be about initiating a total ban on phosphates? Apparently there are still some quantities left in laundry detergents and in dishwashing detergents. Would he be for or against it, in your opinion? I know you can't speak for him, but do you know if he's been on the record one way or the other?
Director General, Water Science and Technology, National Water Research Institute
I think he would generally be for reductions on phosphorus. I suspect that he would tell you, as I have, that the major source is agricultural sources. If we really want to reduce them, we need to--
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Thank you very much.
Dr. Carignan, why do you think European nations and some states have asked for a total ban when there are some balancing effects to take account of?
Full Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Montréal, As an Individual
It's because it is a problem.
John Carey's estimates and mine are no different. In the Laurentians there's no agriculture, and you can find lots of lakes with excessive phosphorus problems. If you attempt to trace that excessive problem to sources, you come back to septic systems, to outdated sewage of fluids--
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Excuse me for interrupting, but we have so little time.
Would you think, then, that we should have a watershed approach to these issues?
Full Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Montréal, As an Individual
No, no. It's far--
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Should we just ban phosphates altogether in detergents?
Full Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Montréal, As an Individual
It would be far simpler to ban phosphates from any household products, as some American states and some European countries have done already.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Okay.
Maybe Mr. Carey could answer this. You'll recall when the government added road salts to the toxic substances list. What it ended up doing with the municipalities was to develop a road salt management plan to reduce the use of road salts. I suppose that would fall under the rubric of a federal initiative.
Do fertilizers come under the Fertilizers Act, or would they come under CEPA? Is there any mechanism for federal leadership in encouraging farmers to develop plans for reducing fertilizers in the way municipalities have done with salt? That would essentially be my question.
Director General, Water Science and Technology, National Water Research Institute
The responses with respect to salt happened during the risk management phase and after risk assessment. Risk assessment put it on the list; risk management asks what we can do to mitigate those risks while we capture the benefits. I would put phosphorus in the same boat.
It's essential for agriculture to use nutrients to achieve the yields that they require. What we're looking at is beneficial management practices as a risk management--
Liberal
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I have just one more point, Mr. Chair.
There's a gap we could fill. We should be doing this with fertilizers, as we've done with road salt.
Director General, Water Science and Technology, National Water Research Institute
Yes.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the witnesses for their presentations and for being here.
What we should hope for today is that this issue is put down as soon as possible on the agenda of an upcoming meeting of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, where I believe it can be seriously examined. I understand that it involves all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal.
Mr. Carignan, in your presentation, you mentioned seven causes that require a comprehensive action plan. Would ordering a ban on phosphorous in dishwashing products be an easy first step to take, a first step that is not conclusive, that would not enable us to solve all the problems, but a promising first step?
In addition, I would like you to tell us about the example of Switzerland, which has different ways of fighting phosphates.