Environment Committee on June 4th, 2008

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The evening of the Speaker's celebration adds a certain congeniality to Parliament when it goes on. So I won't use my full time.

I have just a few questions, and I apologize for being late, as you may have answered these already.

Of the total phosphorus being put out, 1% to 2% is identified by this bill. I'm trying to get a sense if there is any way to understand whether it contributes to 1% to 2% of the problem. Is it proportionally higher or proportionally lower? To be specific, if the vast majority of phosphorus going out into the environment and affecting lakes is coming from farms, is it because these are located closer to those lakes and there's greater interaction between the two ecosystems? In a sense, the 1% or 2% coming from those detergents might actually have an effect of maybe 5% or more on the overall problem of hypereutrophication of lakes.

[John Carey]

I would answer that by saying that watersheds are different.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Say it again, sir.

[John Carey]

Watersheds are different, and it's a bit risky to draw on national averages as if they represented individual conditions. What we have heard about the blue-green algae problem is that in areas on the Canadian Shield where agriculture is not a major factor, we still see this enrichment. In those particular areas, or those particular lakes, it's certain that the contribution from these detergents is higher.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Do you mean on the shield itself?

[John Carey]

In specific watersheds the contribution will be higher where agricultural practices are less important.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Ms. Kenny, I'm trying to imagine. Sometimes when we are considering legislation, we try to have some understanding of the effect it will have on your lives. For instance, you folks have to deal with the chemical manufacturers on the other end.

If such a bill as this becomes legislation, does its passage create a leap of joy from you and make all of your work easier? Does it create a series of consultations that are difficult? What's your perspective on this being a reality and on our moving to 0% from these products?

[Margaret Kenny]

Based on the consultations we've undertaken so far, we believe there can be a significant reduction in the concentration of these detergents and cleaning products to considerably less than they contain in the marketplace at this time.

When we put forward a regulation like this, we also need to put in a compliance promotion process whereby we would be notifying industry and following up with industry. We'd also put in an enforcement plan, so that we would be testing products and following up on complaints and concerns. That is part of the regulatory process.

There are times as well, such as in an instance like this with laundry detergents, when we revisit and update the regulations.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I think many committee members understand that process. This is more the question whether, when you present a regulation such as this—because you have these consultations going on all the time—the sense from industry is “Forget it, this is absolutely impossible, you're going to take most of the products off the shelves”, or frustration and annoyance, but they'll comply.

[Margaret Kenny]

The industry has indicated that if they have suitable time to identify alternatives that are safe and effective, they will undertake to comply.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Let me understand that, and this will be my last question. In terms of replacement costs, sometimes we have gone through a chemicals management regime, banned or limited one chemical, and had it replaced by something that in the end turned out to be worse.

Is there any concern or consideration for the replacements we're talking about in this situation? Or are the replacements known and not cost-prohibitive, and such that it's simply a matter of changing the manufacturing process?

[Margaret Kenny]

Certainly that is an important question to raise with the industry. I believe that with some of the alternatives we have seen, we have not identified issues. It may be that industry also has proprietary chemicals they're looking at for which I would not have the answer.

At Environment Canada and Health Canada, we have a list of priority substances that we are examining right now. It is readily available on our website. Industry has access to knowing what our priorities are in terms of concerns for certain chemicals.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

A last, quick question goes to Mr. Carey. Why have the provincial initiatives been focused on Manitoba and Quebec so far? Why not Ontario, and where is Saskatchewan? Is this just a random sequence, or is it just for reasons of politics? By politics, I mean that those particular provincial councils have decided to take this on; I'm assuming there are blue-green algae outbreaks in those provinces as well. Or are there not nearly as many?

[John Carey]

The blooms are certainly more obvious in Lake Winnipeg, for example. The blue-greens occur naturally right across the country in virtually every lake. The bloom phenomenon is what's getting folks' attention. It certainly started there first, although Lake Simcoe, for example, and Lake of the Woods in Ontario have the same problems.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

[Daniel Blasioli]

Mr. Chair, for the record, Ms. Kenny's comment that industry has indicated their willingness and ability to comply refers not to the 0% in the proposed bill but to the 0.5% that has been the subject of consultations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you for being here.

I have a number of questions. Hopefully we can have short answers, so that I can have a chance to share my time with Mr. Harvey.

I think you were in the room when we heard from Mr. André. He has indicated that there's an appetite to look at exemption for hospitals and also an appetite to consider the 0.5%.

Are there other specific exemptions? Could you make a recommendation to the committee on Bill C-469? What specific exemptions would you like to see? Is it just hospitals? What exemptions would you recommend?

[Margaret Kenny]

I could quickly say that--based on our consultations--many of these institutional products are used in a variety of settings. They wouldn't just be limited to one type of institution. It may be restaurants, hospitals, bottling plants, etc., and so our sense is that the whole breadth of the use of the product needs to be considered.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So it's not just a simple exemption.

[Margaret Kenny]

It gets more to the industrial and institutional use, yes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Are there currently any products that have been scientifically tested that could replace the detergents containing phosphorus as institutional commercial cleaners, taking into account the health and safety of Canadians? Are there any scientific test results?

[John Carey]

I'm not aware of any, but we'd have to go back and check to see if anyone else has. I'm not aware of any, no.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

For my next question, the issue that I don't think we've resolved yet is the date of coming into force. We've heard that Manitoba and Quebec and a number of U.S. states have chosen the date of 2010. Can you share with the committee whyJuly 2010 is the generally accepted date?

[Margaret Kenny]

We have looked at various jurisdictions, various states within the U.S. We've talked to the industry. There are a good many small manufacturing companies that are involved in this industry in Canada. They have indicated they need a certain amount of time to reformulate, to repackage, to re-source ingredients, etc., and ensure they're working with a safe product. It tends to be a market that moves between Canada and the United States, so right now there are over a dozen states that are also introducing “coming into force” dates of 2010, so it was felt there would be some expediency in having a uniform time for companies to comply.