Environment Committee on June 4th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'm sure the member could provide that.

Mr. Bigras, you mentioned the different products from a magazine article. I think it might be interesting for the committee to have a copy of that as well. Perhaps you can give that to the clerk to have it reproduced, along with a copy of the study requested, so he can distribute them to the members.

We'll go to Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. André.

Before I start I want to clarify if I'll be the last one in this round and then we'll move on to the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Correct.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Harvey, so please stop me at five minutes.

Mr. André, did you have a chance to read the briefing notes we received from the Library of Parliament?

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

No.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

That's unfortunate, because it's quite a good document that addresses Bill C-469.

Mr. Scarpaleggia asked you some questions I was going to ask, so that leaves one big question for me. You told him you are open to amendments to exempt hospitals, for example. You're open to amending the amount from zero to 0.5%, which is in harmony with what's happening in Quebec, Manitoba, and a number of U.S. states.

Mr. Scarpaleggia asked why you were moving forward with this if it is by regulation. I believe you said you felt the legislation would be better than regulation. The report outlines the difference, and there is almost no difference between going with regulation versus legislation. You can accomplish the same thing.

So you're aware that the government introduced a notice of intent to regulate in February. If the same result can happen through regulation or legislation, and the process has already begun and likely will be completed before the legislation, why would you continue to move forward?

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

Thank you for your question.

As I previously said, other regulations are of course being prepared. In the United States, a number of states, including Washington, are following suit and will be adopting a rate of approximately 0.5%. The European Union is headed toward 0.5%. The Government of Quebec, for example, has legislated 0.5%. The federal government, as I told you, won't have any regulations before 2010 and will adopt 0.5%.

We are therefore prepared to accept 0.5%. As I explained, when we put the bill in place, there were domestic products—they're still around—with 0% phosphate content. However, after contacting businesses, we saw that some businesses couldn't guarantee that they could meet that 0% figure.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Excuse me. I'm sorry for interrupting you, but my time is going very quickly.

So you're saying you want to move forward.

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

Yes.

You're asking why right now and not in 2010? That's because the government's regulations come into force in 2010. But why not right away; why wait until 2010? That's what I understood.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I was asking why you were moving forward when the government was already doing that by regulation. Maybe we can get into 2010, as opposed to what you're proposing maybe a year earlier.

You did not have a chance to read the document, but you now have it. I encourage you to read it.

My question for you is on consultation. Who else have you consulted with? Have you consulted with industry and hospitals? Specifically on the science of the disinfecting properties of phosphates for hospitals, the example you used was that you tried it in your dishwasher, and therefore the alternative works.

With respect, you don't live in a hospital; you have this cabin, this cottage. So can you share with the committee the science you would be able to share with hospitals? Because there will be witnesses coming. What science are you using as your base to suggest that phosphates can be eliminated? I'm hearing from industry and hospitals that they need it.

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

As I said, after studying the matter, we agree with you that we should keep a percentage of phosphates for certain industries, or for health services. We are in favour of that position.

However, some other scientific studies, which I don't have with me, talk about salt-based products that could eventually replace phosphates. I don't have the exact term, but I have it in my documents. It's not fully developed yet. To answer your question, you'll have to retain a certain phosphate level in some industries and hospitals; that remains to be seen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

First, phosphate isn't a disinfectant. It is a substance that helps to soften water. The bonds between water molecules come undone and that enables the water to act as a solvent and to clean things. So it's not an element that disinfects, like chlorine or ozone. A little earlier, I was looking at the calculations in your study. It states that every resident produced about 80 grams of phosphates in water and that approximately 50% of that phosphate came from personal items, from the home.

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

It talks about phosphate use.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

That 50% figure was directly linked to detergents. That means approximately 200 grams per inhabitant, which is the equivalent of one cup per capita, per year, roughly. That's what you're talking about.

A little earlier, my colleague talked about regulations that concerned not only the phosphates in soaps, but the industry as a whole, whether it be for agriculture and so on. Consequently, why introduce a bill that ultimately attacks a very small part of the blue algae problem?

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

First, let's clarify matters: we're talking about roughly 60% of the 800 grams.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

It's 250 grams.

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

We're increasing it a little. I think it's nevertheless quite significant because lakes in tourist developments are significantly affected solely by this type of phosphorus coming from septic tanks and phosphates from detergents. This is nevertheless having a significant impact. You know that, you're in Quebec, you've no doubt seen certain phenomena. Lac-Saint-Jean has been affected.

Why move forward with this bill? There's one aspect that comes under federal jurisdiction when we talk about importing.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. André, that's not the question. Regulations have already been made and will be implemented in 2010. They will cover the entire phosphate problem, not just 1% of the problem. That problem is all of the fertilizers that wind up in water, whether it be matter from the management of septic tanks, fertilizers used by residents near the lakes, whether it be as a result of deforestation, changes in river systems and so on.

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

I would urge you to take another look at those regulations because they contain nothing for chemical fertilizers, septic tanks or anything else apart from phosphates.

There are other aspects: the issue of chemical fertilizers, the issue of buffer areas around banks, for farmers, which you've no doubt heard about. As you know, this is a provincial jurisdiction, so that of Quebec. The jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec in this matter must be respected because they're starting to act. You know that a plan has been put forward by Quebec's environment minister on the reforestation of banks and improvement of the quality of septic tanks, and to enable municipalities to act, to move forward, to regulate and even to issue fines to people who do not comply with the rules.

Even today there are non-compliant septic tanks in a number of Quebec regions. There are people who don't even have septic tanks, and domestic waste goes directly into the... So there are still a lot of things to do, and a large part is under provincial jurisdiction. The idea behind this bill is that the federal government can act. That is why Quebec has asked the federal government to act in this area of jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

Thank you very much, Mr. André. I should tell you it's a little déjà vu. I remember talking 35 years ago about how we had to get phosphorous out of our water systems. So it's good that it finally appears to be happening.

I should also mention that in the part of the world I come from, GPS is now used in the distribution of agricultural fertilizer and seed. So in places that are close to waterways or where phosphorous isn't needed, it's not applied. It has become a very scientific operation in the agricultural industry. I'm not sure if it's legislated or not, but it is certainly economically advantageous for a farmer to control his application of very expensive fertilizers, as they are today.

That's another plus for your bill. Thank you very much for bringing it forward. I know the committee will look at it. We have several other witnesses, so thank you very much for appearing.

I will now call on our witnesses from Environment Canada and the Department of Justice. My understanding is that we will have a short presentation from Environment Canada, and then we'll get right into questions.

I understand, Ms. Kenny, you're going to make a presentation. I want to welcome you here. I know members will have questions for you.

Thank you.

[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]

Thank you very much, Ms. Kenny.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks very much, Ms. Kenny.

In so many freshwater settings, municipalities are often conflicted because they want the expansion of property-base municipal tax revenues. There have been pressures in different settings in the province of Quebec, particularly in better typical home or cottage country explosions and so on in terms of growth. There have been some variations in patterns of development among the municipalities. Some require 100 feet of frontage, 200 feet, or 50 feet, and minimum setbacks. It isn't consistent right across our provinces.

Have you, in all your consultation, come across any economic analysis that shows just how far property prices can fall when a waterway or a lake is affected by blue-green algae or in the early outbreaks of blue-green algae? Have you come across any analysis that shows the economic ramifications of an outbreak?

[Margaret Kenny]

I regret to say that in fact in this instance our consultations have focused on actually putting a standard in place and more of the technical aspects around that, such that we have not explored on an economic basis this larger real issue you are describing.