Evidence of meeting #101 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pfas.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
In which states or cities are they currently being used?
Full Professor, As an Individual
I know that in Quebec, some firefighters use the new formulas and some others prefer the old formulas because they're accustomed to them and don't want to change what they use. There could be stricter regulations to ensure that certain products are no longer used.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
In that regard, does any city in Quebec come to mind off the top of your head?
Conservative
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you very much.
I hate to beat a horse, but I am very interested in this topic of PFAS as well.
In my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, there is an organization called the York Region Environmental Alliance, which has done a lot of work on this. Of course, the firefighters for both York and Richmond Hill have as well. I've met with them and talked about this.
You just said that a lot of the firefighting foams are alternatives now. There is something available. What are the essential uses or projects that we have to continue to allow these chemicals to be put into? Which ones are absolutely essential?
Full Professor, As an Individual
“Absolute necessity” is a relative term. To me, there are probably some medical or hospital applications where PFAS are needed. PFAS are part of the chemicals in some antibiotics. There have to be some exceptions for medical applications. I can live with that.
Scientifically, it is feasible to make electric car batteries, currently, without PFAS, but factories and productions cannot scale it up very quickly. Industry will need delays before they can adapt. However, they would rather not do it. Unless we give them a deadline, they will never do it.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I know my time is short. I want to ask Ms. Barker a question, too.
It says here that there are 4,700 human-made substances that have PFAS in them, and I understand the number is growing all the time.
Is it possible to go through the risk management process and look at each individual PFAS to determine whether it is toxic or not, especially given cumulative effects, or is there an argument for these being put together as a class and not allowed, except when they are proven not to be toxic?
Senior Program Manager, Toxics, Environmental Defence Canada
The world's leading scientists on this issue have been pushing, since 2015, for the world's governments to deal with a class-based approach. When Canada began this process in 2021, 4,700 was the number being used by the OECD. In the past three years, every time we look, we find more PFAS.
Industry has had a number of opportunities to disclose the knowledge they hold around these harms and around the uses and releases. This is not an unknown issue. Research has demonstrated that this data has been hidden from regulators. It's been hidden from people. There are efforts right now to undermine the class-based approached. It should be considered meddling that is not desirable for real action.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor for a minute and a half or two minutes, which will give you time to ask a good, well-developed question.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to come back to the issue of federal pollution management. This may be somewhat related to Ms. Taylor Roy's questions and the answers given.
In 2021, the Canadian Environmental Law Association said that it would be better to consider PFAS as a class of substances, rather than looking at them as individual substances.
Since then, a few amendments were made to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act last year. We've been working on that.
In your opinion, is Canada adequately regulating these substances?
I'm going to ask you my other question right away, to give you all the time you need to answer.
I was listening to a podcast where you talked a lot about what's going on in the United States. What's the situation in Canada compared to other countries?
Full Professor, As an Individual
There are two aspects to regulating PFAS as a class of substances.
I think the advantage of doing that is the ban on use, as my colleague was saying. PFAS should be regulated as a large group of substances so that they won't be used in everything.
Then, from an environmental standpoint, we have to be able to measure the concentrations of PFAS in drinking water. So we have to put in molecules and target something measurable.
In this case, I think the Health Canada approach, which involved about 30 different PFAS, was the right one. Because of the legislation and the way it works, the United States has targeted only four to six specific PFAS. So it's not taking that broader approach that's consistent with what the European Union is doing. The European Union groups them all together.
On the other hand, the Americans are much stricter when it comes to the few PFAS they are able to measure. In fact, they are the strictest in the world. They're mired in an approach where they can't include all PFAS, because their legislation doesn't allow it. However, they're the most stringent in the world in terms of what they can measure.
Liberal
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for Ms. Barker and Mr. Sauvé.
We've heard about the high levels of forever chemicals in fish and the impacts on northern communities, on indigenous rights, on the right to fish and hunt, and on cultural practices as well.
Can you talk a bit about the disproportionate impact of PFAS on marginalized communities and northern communities?
Full Professor, As an Individual
A lot of those communities eat a lot of fish and a lot of sea mammals. The sea mammals, because they're at the top of the food chain, are very contaminated with PFAS. They end up having a higher burden and a higher load of PFAS because of what they eat.
It's better for them to eat fish and sea mammals because it's very nutritious. It's a high-quality food compared to fast food or the alternatives.
Yes, there's definitely a higher burden on them, but I want to emphasize that the fish at the supermarket is also loaded with PFAS. It's the fish that you're buying and eating, but it's not at the same level as some of those indigenous communities that really depend on it for food.
Senior Program Manager, Toxics, Environmental Defence Canada
I would add that we shouldn't be setting up an impossible choice for people to practise their culture and to eat food that is nutritious and available.
I think that the choice should most definitely be put to industry to question all of these claims of essentiality that are being put onto PFAS. It is likely that the range of comments and the nature of the undermining efforts, not only in Canada but around the world, are to push on not regulating this class and not taking strong action.
Liberal
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Mr. Chair, I'd like to move that the committee resume debate on the motion that I moved on March 19.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
For clarity, are you asking to resume debate on the motion for documents right now?
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Yes, it was the notice of motion from March 19 that the committee order the production of “Environment and Climate Change Canada's provincial-territorial computable general equilibrium model”, with a whole bunch of technical stuff in it.
