Environment Committee on March 21st, 2024

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll cede the rest of my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here, either online or in person.

Mr. Sauvé, in 2023, you co-authored a scientific article with Benoit Barbeau, among others, who has already testified before the committee. The article was entitled “How Should We Interpret the New Water Quality Regulations for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances?” I don't know if you remember that; I know you're being approached to do many things.

[Sébastien Sauvé]

I remember it very well.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

At the end of your article, you say that as toxicological science and PFAS removal technologies advance, it's likely that guidelines for water and other exposure pathways will gradually become more stringent.

It's true that science and technology are advancing, but how can we be sure that regulations will follow suit and be tightened?

[Sébastien Sauvé]

I'm not a regulatory expert, but that comment was made to compare with what we know about toxicology for lead, arsenic, and mercury. There are almost no recorded cases where the threshold value has increased; it has always decreased. We've never gathered more data and concluded that it was less toxic than we thought in the end. There are always other effects and other studies.

In the case of PFAS, we currently have data and we're going to accumulate new data, and that data will certainly show us that the effects are being felt at lower and lower thresholds.

At the moment, the thresholds have been established, at least in the United States, as the commissioner mentioned, based on a cost-benefit analysis. So they analyze the number of human lives that will be saved or improved, and they assign a value in millions of dollars to the costs incurred and the savings realized.

PFAS are some of the most difficult molecules to remove. As the technology and the means available to remove PFAS improve and cost a little less, we will have to redo a cost-benefit analysis and it will become more profitable to have stricter regulations and lower our thresholds.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

What I often hear from industry representatives is that they are really good now, that the reverse osmosis process is really very efficient, that they may not need to reduce production or that we may not require stricter regulations.

Your neighbour Ms. Barker also talked about the need for strict regulations.

I'd like to hear what you have to say about the fact that Parliament should provide for a precautionary principle, first and foremost.

[Sébastien Sauvé]

Obviously, the precautionary principle is important.

The problem right now is that we're trying to remove these substances from our drinking water or our water sources, but it's very difficult. And yet they were put there. Without regulation, their use has been allowed for all kinds of things and, in most cases, they are simply there for comfort's sake. They are not considered essential in products used to package hamburgers or to make waterproof mascara.

So we need better upstream regulations.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

As we know, industry will surely have both feet on the brakes trying to block regulations.

Can you tell us about the 500 samples you collected and analyzed, and share some key findings with us?

[Sébastien Sauvé]

I took about 500 samples; I took a little less, but I've added more since then. What I can see is that 95% to 98% of all samples had concentrations below the thresholds proposed by Health Canada. In other words, the vast majority of the samples would meet the drinking water standards proposed by Health Canada. It must be clearly understood that we're talking about drinking water only.

Doing this kind of large-scale study allows us to identify the places where there are problems. We found five or six in Quebec. The municipalities involved have begun to put in place specific water treatment systems and to close wells. People are also installing this type of system in their homes. So there's a real impact on water quality and on people's health in those places.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Absolutely.

When applying the regulatory principle, regulatory agencies should consider that all PFAS are likely to have adverse health and environmental effects. So the prohibition should be extended to all non-essential uses. As you said earlier, is it necessary to use it in makeup, for example?

Could you explain to us what you call the hazard quotient in the context of these pollutants?

[Sébastien Sauvé]

Some aspects are specific to the U.S. regulations, but I will try to simplify the concept of the hazard quotient.

Often, concentrations in the environment will be measured and compared with known data on thresholds where there is an effect, a toxicity or an impact on health, among other things. If you fall below the thresholds, you have a lower hazard quotient; if you are above the thresholds, you have a problem.

In the case of PFAS, the problem is that these comparisons tell us that we are all overexposed. In our blood, we all have a PFAS concentration above thresholds, and they are starting to affect the immune system and cholesterol, for example, and increase the risk of cancer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for being here today. My first question is for Ms. Barker.

I have spoken to firefighters from my home community of Victoria and from across the country who have been extremely impacted by forever chemicals. Many of them have colleagues who have lost their lives to cancer. Firefighters shouldn't be dying at higher rates from cancer than from firefighting.

Can you tell me a little more about the impacts of PFAS—forever chemicals—on firefighters and in firefighting equipment?

[Cassie Barker]

Firefighters themselves are extremely articulate on this very complex issue. If you ask a firefighter about PFAS, they will tell you that not only are they being exposed through their gear and the foams they've been using on the job, but they've also been actively doing research to draw the linkages between the types of cancer they're dealing with in these exposures, which is very difficult and very expensive work.

They are also doing that work on children's cancers, because their children also disproportionately suffer from cancers.

This is a huge issue in Canada and around the world. This is something that their unions have been actively pushing, not only to protect their workers but to protect their communities.

This is an opportunity for Canada to celebrate the good work we've done. We have a draft assessment in front of us that is quite strong. It makes the case on health and it makes the case on environment. It draws out a clear class-of-chemical approach, instead of going one by one through thousands of these substances. By taking the precautionary approach, to MP Pauzé's point, this is an opportunity for us to demonstrate to not only ourselves but the world, that Canada has and continues to be a real leader on toxics.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Firefighters keep us safe. We should be doing everything we can to keep them and their children safe.

One thing that a firefighter told me was that, if you were to throw his gear into an Olympic-sized pool, the toxicity level of that pool would mean that they would have to treat it as a contaminated site. The impact that is having on our groundwater, that this gear is so filled with forever chemicals....

The plastics industry has said that these forever chemicals are essential. I'm curious. We've heard such deep concerns from firefighters, communities, municipalities and everyday Canadians. Can you talk a little about your response to the industry when they say something like that?

[Cassie Barker]

I would say to companies, from production through to public brands, and retailers throughout the supply chain that the smart money is moving away from PFAS. Insurers are creating a carve-out for PFAS, so they are no longer covering these liabilities. This is a moment in the markets, let alone in regulation, when people who know are doing better.

We have tools here in Canada. We have risk assessment. We can manage the risks of substances such as the textiles you discussed when it comes to turnout gear for firefighters. There are PFAS not only in their gear but also in our clothing, in our rugs and in our upholstery. We need to go beyond firefighting foam in our regulations and deal with these opportunities that are right in front of us—existing substitutions to make safer products—because, to your point, these are some of the most toxic substances. CEPA has been designed to prioritize these substances. We have schedule 1 and part 1 of that list that can give us all kinds of tools that we need to address this and to protect firefighters and the rest of Canada.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

As a mom of young children, I think about every time my child puts a toy in their mouth and the rugs that they're crawling on. Lots of other jurisdictions in the States and in the EU have tackled this.

Can you talk a little bit about what we can learn from those jurisdictions and what we need to do here?

[Cassie Barker]

The EU has laid out a road map beginning from an 18-month period to a 13-year period. The far end of that gives lots of time for innovation in the market to address uses such as in electronics, where the market needs to shift and innovation can meet that gap, which is what happens when we make strong rules. Industry adjusts and reformulates.

The 18-month window is for known substitutions. We have a lot of opportunities in the moment to look to the leaders who have already done a lot of great research on this issue to get rid of PFAS in their own products. Moms know that a lot of children's products are now labelled PFC-free. This is one way that we're trying, but we can't buy our way out of this problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go now to the second round. I'm going to reduce the allotted time by 40% because it is tight today. We're talking about three minutes and a minute and half.

Mr. Deltell, go ahead for three minutes.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will immediately pick up the conversation with Ms. Barker about firefighters.

You explained to us very well the challenges that we are facing with this issue, especially for the people who are protecting us, our firefighters.

Do you have an example in the world where this issue is addressed correctly that Canada can get inspiration from?

[Cassie Barker]

I think that the U.S. states have increased reporting. They now require reporting on product applications. They are moving on specific product types. We heard about cosmetics. We heard about food contact materials. These are exposures that seem unnecessary. These are non-essential applications of this chemistry.

This is a moment for Canada to look to textiles that wash off into our waterways. Often these coatings are fragile. They degrade quickly into PFOA, which should be controlled in our water. This is a moment for Canada to not be the first nor the second. There have been many jurisdictions that have moved.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

It's never too late to be good.

Mr. Sauvé, I sense that you have something to say about this. Please go ahead.

[Sébastien Sauvé]

I would just add that there are fluoride-free fire foam formulations. So we could have regulations to ban foams containing PFAS or simpler versions that break down and whose residue is a source of contamination.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Do the foams you're talking about currently exist, and are they being used by firefighters?