Environment Committee on June 4th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would like to begin.

The clerk is handing out the report of our steering committee. It's very brief. We met yesterday to consider business after we've finished Bill C-469.

The committee looked at Mr. Scarpallegia's proposal and agreed that we should have two information meetings on the description, history, technology, future developments, and so on, of the oil sands. The intention is to make the meetings largely informational to begin with. Of course, in the fall we will begin with a more complete study.

So I would like you to think about that for a minute. If you agree, we will proceed to get witnesses for the 16th and 18th. They will provide us with information on the subject. We'll do our best to get a wide range of witnesses.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We will proceed and report on Monday's meeting. We have confirmed four speakers, and there's a probability of two others from Manitoba. We will likely have six witnesses and proceed on that basis.

Are there any questions? We're all clear.

We will now welcome our guest and have him tell us about the bill. Welcome.

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

Mr. Chairman, thank you for welcoming me to the committee to talk about Bill C-469, which I introduced in the House of Commons in October 2007 and the purpose of which is to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I am pleased to be here because I come from the riding of Berthier-Maskinongé, where there are approximately 700 lakes and a number of rivers. There are also a lot of recreational and tourist activities. In summer, people swim and take part in other aquatic activities. Last year, in the same riding, five lakes were hit hard by cyanobacteria, as a result of which a number of aquatic activities were compromised.

As you know, this bill proposes a ban on the manufacture, import and sale of laundry and dishwashing detergents containing phosphorus, in order to halt the spread of cyanobacteria, so-called blue algae, which we have experienced in the past few years. The bill we are studying today is in fact the logical extension of the decisions made by your committee.

On June 12, 2007, considering that there was an urgent need to take quick action to combat the spread of blue algae, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, tabled and had adopted by your committee, a motion requesting that the government act quickly to amend its regulations to prohibit the use of phosphates in detergents.

Seeing that the government refused to respond favourably to the motion at that time, and still concerned to combat the phenomenon of blue algae, on October 25, 2007, in response to pressure by citizens in my riding and an increase in the phenomenon across Quebec, I introduced Bill C-49 to ban the manufacture and import of detergents containing phosphates within a 180-day time period, as well as the sale of such products within 360 days.

Through the bill, we asked the government to act in its own area of jurisdiction. Since Ottawa is responsible for regulating imported products, the federal government has a duty to act in order to have a real impact on manufacturers and to force them to change their practices. Furthermore, if the ban applies across Canada, no business has any interest in manufacturing, importing or selling detergents containing phosphates.

In the meantime, it should not be forgotten that, on September 25, 2007, the Government of Quebec announced that it intended to introduce a government program to combat blue algae, which would include, in particular, a ban on phosphates in dishwashing detergents. Quebec's environment minister urged the federal government to do the same by amending its regulations to increase the commercial impact of the ban on dishwashing and laundry detergents containing phosphates, and thus to reinforce the legislation Quebec intended to pass and make it more effective.

Lastly, it was not until Bill C-469 was passed on second reading, on February 13, 2008, that the federal government finally presented its plan. On Friday, February 15, the government announced that it would follow in lock step with the governments of Quebec and Manitoba by restricting phosphate concentrations in various detergents.

Consequently, according to the announced plan, the federal government intends to impose a phosphate limit of 0.5% by weight on dishwashing and laundry detergents by 2010.

We have observed that the federal plan is similar to the Quebec plan. However, the government could have been more ambitious, because the ban is not total and, more particularly, will not come into force until 2010, whereas replacement products, as you know, already exist.

I think it is important to repeat that there is an urgent need to act as soon as possible to address this issue, in order to halt the spread of blue algae.

From the outset, we decided to intervene in this matter because we can all see the extent of this spread. The phenomenon is not new, but it has expanded in recent years. Cyanobacteria were detected in 50 lakes in Quebec in 2005. The following year, that number doubled to 107 lakes affected by cyanobacteria. In 2007, more than 200 Quebec lakes were affected by the same phenomenon. So there have been four times as many lakes affected in two years.

There is no indication the phenomenon will decline in 2008. On the contrary, it should increase, hence the importance of acting quickly. The longer we delay implementation of these measures, the faster the situation will deteriorate, and more waterways will be affected.

That is why we are asking that the new regulations apply starting in 2009, particularly since, as I've already mentioned, large quantities of replacement products are already accessible on the market.

I am entirely aware that the ban on products containing phosphates in detergents will not be enough to completely eliminate blue algae from our waterways. We all know that surplus phosphorus in waterways comes from many human activities, such as the discharge of untreated or insufficiently treated waste water, defective septic facilities and, especially, agricultural activities.

However, it should not be forgotten that, in certain regions, fewer agricultural activities are carried on near waterways. For example, people are increasingly choosing to live permanently on the banks of waterways, which I can see in the riding that I represent. Many people who occupied so-called secondary residences at the time are choosing to occupy them permanently. These are no longer summer cottages, but rather principal residences equipped, for example, with dishwashers that use phosphates, which amplifies the cyanobacteria phenomenon, hence the importance of this bill and the need to act quickly.

But as I said, removing phosphates from detergents will not completely solve the problem. Other action will be necessary, such as preserving or restoring vegetation and the natural character of banks and lakes—action that is currently being taken to a greater extent in Quebec—avoiding the use of chemical fertilizers and ensuring that septic tanks operate properly and are maintained.

All these issues, which concern land use and agricultural practices, are the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Moreover, the Quebec government's action plan proposes a series of regulatory prevention and awareness tools and is making them available to the municipalities to help them address these challenges.

Mr. Chairman, I will close by repeating that the ban on phosphates in detergents can easily be implemented by the federal government. From the very start of this process, we have been open to discussion and proposals to improve the bill, like the possibility of adding an amendment that would avoid penalizing hospitals, if there are no replacement products.

I believe it is fundamentally important to repeat that it is important that we take action quickly and ensure that the regulations apply as soon as possible in order to prevent the situation from worsening.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much.

We can go to one round of questions, and then we'll get to our other witnesses. We are a little tight on time.

I'll begin with Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. André, thank you for coming to present your bill to us.

If I understood correctly, there is currently no exemption in your bill for commercial or industrial uses. However, you would be in favour of exempting, for example, hospitals, universities, public institutions and so on, where a lot of people eat in cafeterias or, in other words, people clean dishes or do laundry on a large scale.

Would you be in favour of amending your bill to include exemptions?

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

Yes, thank you for your question, sir.

We've studied the subject. I worked in the health system in a previous career. This is a question that we in the Bloc Québécois have considered recently.

You know, some products are currently under review to replace phosphates in detergent, such as salt-based products. To date, however, those products have not been scientifically tested.

I believe that phosphates are currently used extensively to disinfect certain items, particularly in hospitals. Of course, this bill should not partly undermine public health or hospital care. So we would be prepared to examine that issue.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

So you would only exempt hospitals, not academic institutions or restaurants, for example?

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

We've considered the issue of hospitals. There may be other places for which it is demonstrated that removing phosphates from detergent is harmful and endangers the public health, and you have to be open in that regard; but we must not adopt an extreme position either.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Do you know whether the draft regulations announced by the government include exemptions?

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

With regard to the regulations, I didn't see from the documents that they necessarily exempted hospitals or other institutions.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

So you're saying that products that don't contain any trace of phosphorus or phosphates are currently being sold in the supermarkets. Is that already happening?

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

As I told you earlier, there are nearly 800 lakes in my riding and a lot of tourists. There has actually been a high degree of cooperation among people who live on the banks of these lakes with the municipalities and merchants.

Merchants in these tourist regions—let's take Saint-Mathieu or Saint-Gabriel-de-Brandon, for example—are promoting phosphate-free products because they want to keep their environment, their lakes, in good health. Because this is really a threat—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I understand, Mr. André, and I don't want to interrupt you, but you said earlier that those products haven't been scientifically assessed.

So do we know whether we can in fact substitute those products for products that might contain 0.5% traces of phosphates? Can we go ahead and state that those products contain no phosphates, that we can use them to replace the products that currently contain phosphates or products that would contain a 0.5% phosphate level?

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

When I talked about scientific evidence, I was thinking of products that could be used in hospitals to disinfect dishes as well as certain materials and substances. In Quebec, the Jean Coutu drug stores have decided, on their own initiative, to sell only phosphate-free products. These are found in a number of other businesses. I know you're interested in this aspect of the issue. I use them in my dishwasher, and I see they are as effective as products containing phosphates. These products already exist, and I believe the idea is simply to promote them. The stage is set. We must now adopt legislative measures that will make it possible to do prevention work to keep the water in our lakes as clean as possible.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

But as you know, the industry is proposing to reduce the phosphate content of its dishwasher and laundry products to 0.5%. You know why it's proposing a reduction of that degree rather than fully eliminating them? There must be a rationale behind that. Since the provinces of Manitoba and Quebec have also proposed 0.5%, and that's also the limit imposed in certain American states, would you be open to the idea of adopting that percentage?

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

Yes, we would. We mentioned 0% because, after checking what there was in the field, we noted that there were phosphate-free products. I have contacted manufacturers on a number of occasions. Those manufacturers say it's impossible to guarantee 0% phosphate content. As regards the 0.5% rate, in view of the fact that Quebec, Manitoba and some American states have legislated to that effect, I believe we would be ready to examine the matter.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

As you know, I introduced a bill that would limit phosphate use to 0.5%. So you and I are on the same wavelength. However, since there will be regulations, why should we include these provisions in the bill? Doesn't that constitute duplication? Shouldn't we simply state in the bill that the government shall regulate phosphate levels?

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

I believe that a bill is more structural in nature that regulations. Passing a bill rather than mere regulations can be more beneficial. It's in that perspective that we're introducing this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, Mr. André, I congratulate you on your initiative. I had the opportunity to go to your riding a few months ago. I saw that this kind of measure is awaited, more particularly by shoreline residents—who live near the lakes and rivers—not only in your riding, but in all Quebec regions. I'm thinking of Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean, among others.

We realize that this measure is not simply linked to the fact that the contamination or eutrophication of the lakes is attributable to agricultural activities, but also to human activities. The bill is entirely valid in that sense.

You answered Mr. Scarpaleggia's question on various aspects. I understand that you would like an exemption for health institutions such as long-term care centres and hospitals, of course, while ensuring that a number of public health standards are met.

You also told us that you are prepared to amend the bill to include the 0.5% limit provided for in the federal and Quebec regulations. So we are nearly in agreement. The only thing we are discussing is when the regulations should apply.

Should they apply now or in 2010? Is that in fact what I understand from your testimony today? Nearly everyone agrees, except as regards the regulations' immediate application. We may wind up agreeing on that.

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

You've given a good summary of the evidence, Mr. Bigras. I thank you for your question.

We wondered why we wouldn't act immediately. Manitoba and Nova Scotia are experiencing the same phenomenon, but I'm going to talk to you about Quebec, which I know better.

People are ready and organized. We travel to certain regions where there are lakes. As I mentioned to Mr. Scarpaleggia, phosphate-free products can be found. People are aware. The municipalities are legislating on shoreline vegetation. They want to take measures to monitor and supervise septic tanks to a greater degree. Why not act now, when we know that the phenomenon is increasing year after year?

Last year, 200 lakes were affected. How many will be in 2008? The number of lakes affected could increase by 100 or so and reach 300, and this trend will continue. Once a lake is affected, it takes a few years before it becomes healthy again and people can carry on aquatic activities safely.

The eutrophication of Lac Mandeville, which is located in my riding, is extensive. The lake is dead right now. It contains such a high quantity of phosphorus that one of the solutions contemplated is to empty the lake. That's incredible but true. Some studies are looking at that option. Of course, there is the matter of phosphates in detergents, septic tanks and agricultural pollution. We're talking about lakes in which people have swum for years.

Our freshwater is our wealth of the future. If we can't guarantee the safety of aquatic activities, there's a serious problem. We have the means at our disposal, and we can act quickly. The phenomenon is growing. Why wait another two years?

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

So you're saying that action should be taken now. What struck me first was that there are replacement products. In principle, it seems to me that should make it possible to introduce the regulations sooner.

I'm consulting the March 2008 issue of the consumer magazine Protégez-vous. What first strikes me is that there are replacement products. Furthermore, phosphate-free products are sometimes more effective—and I don't want to mention any well-known names—than products containing phosphates. In those containing phosphates, levels range from 2% to 6%. Phosphate-free products have been analyzed, taking the 0.5% rule into consideration. Not only are there replacement products, but very often they are more effective than the products containing phosphates. That seems a bit paradoxical to me.

There is another point that I'd like to talk to you about. The Library of Parliament briefing notes tell us: “The vast majority of phosphorus inputs from human activity are caused by agricultural practices and human waste management. Of this, a small proportion, perhaps 1% or 1.5% in total, comes from dishwashing detergent.”

I remember the arguments at the time my motion was studied. We had heard from a witness at that time, Mr. Carignan—whom we'll be hearing from again soon—who told us that there was a danger in using a Canadian rule and results, and in trying to apply them in Quebec's regions. He cited the Laurentians as an example—it wasn't particularly in the Hautes-Laurentides, where there isn't any agricultural activity—where there are contaminated lakes.

Are you seeing the same thing in your region? Isn't it clear that the contamination is very often naturally due to agricultural activities, but also, in some regions where there are no agricultural activities, to the contamination of lakes. So it's directly related to use. That was my first question.

A second thing intrigues me, and that is whether there isn't also an economic impact on the property values of residences around those same lakes. Let's take the case of someone who bought a cottage in 1960, when water quality was up to standards, and now, 30 or 40 years later, there's a contaminated lake in the same place.

Doesn't that also have an impact on those citizens who acquire these secondary residences, which, at some point in their lives, very often become principal residences? So there's an environmental aspect, of course, but it seems to there's also an economic aspect to this issue.

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

Of course, I agree with you, sir.

When a lake is closed in summer because the cyanobacteria count is too high, that has significant economic effect on the community. Lac Maskinongé, in Saint-Gabriel-de-Brandon—you must know it—is regularly closed. That has a disastrous economic effect because that community's economy is based on the tourist industry. Lac Maskinongé is where people engage in aquatic activities and live in cottages. They live their entire lives there in summer. This has an economic consequence for the community, with respect to cottages and houses. The people who come to live beside a lake choose a lake with water they trust. They want that lake to be healthy, to meet health standards and public health standards. In that case, this has an impact.

Agriculture is an important phenomenon. We know that chemical fertilizers and all the pig manure that is discharged results in a lot of phosphorus, which causes cyanobacteria. In my riding, in the Laurentians and in other ridings—I've visited a few other places affected by cyanobacteria—there are places where there are just cottages, where there is no agricultural activity.

I put my hands on an Ontario government study conducted by Gartner Lee Ltd. concerning the Muskoka lakes—a number of Ontarians know them—where there are a number of residences. That study showed that every residence located 300 meters from the lakes produced approximately 800 grams of phosphorus per person. If you multiply that by the number of cottages and the number of persons, you'll understand that a significant quantity of phosphorus is being discharged into those lakes. From 30% to 40% of the phosphorus came from septic facilities. Septic facilities that are non-compliant, not maintained or too close to lakes can have a significant impact on phosphorus rates. From 55% to 60% of the phosphorus came from detergents containing phosphates. That's a study by the Government of Ontario, the reference of which I could give to the committee.

That has a significant impact. Of course if there were also agricultural activities around those lakes, that would become—

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

Is it possible to get a hold of the study that the member just presented?