Health Committee on March 28th, 2018

[Dr. Steve Hrudey]

I would agree entirely with Professor Attaran's comments, and would go a step further. I think the fluoride case is a fantastic example of the complexity of chemical risks in drinking water. Fluoride is one of only a handful of substances for which we actually have reliable proof that excess levels above appropriate standards cause human health effects via drinking water exposure. That whole statement needs to be taken together. There is a limitless list of chemicals that will cause you harm. Do they cause you harm via trace-level exposure in drinking water? No. Fluoride needs to be controlled in the levels that are applied. How do we know that it can cause harm to human health via drinking water? There are places in the world, including places in Alberta, where fluoride is naturally high and does cause tooth mottling and, at very high levels, can cause bone problems. However, in terms of the controlled levels that are applied in drinking water for public health purposes, it is extremely beneficial.

The decision by Calgary City Council to remove fluoridation was a regrettable one, I think, but it points to a broader issue in our society that is best described by the term “chemophobia”. We believe that all of these chemicals are somehow killing us, and at the same time I'm looking at cases like the one in New Zealand I talked about. People there didn't want to chlorinate their water, and there were local politicians involved, and there's a big national debate there about chlorination. They fear that chlorine is doing them harm, while the failure to chlorinate killed four people and made thousands ill.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Interesting.

Have there been any recent studies or any studies at all on fluoride and its effect on aquatic life in our rivers? Do you have any ideas or thoughts on that at all?

[Prof. Amir Attaran]

I'll defer to Professor Hrudey on that. It's not my area.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Sure.

[Dr. Steve Hrudey]

The main point is that what's good in drinking water is not necessarily the same as what's good for fish, because they live in the water.

However, I'm unaware of any studies indicating that at the levels that would be applied in drinking water, and therefore find their way into sewage, there's any harmful impact on the receiving waters from fluoride content. There are far more things to be concerned about in waste water than that.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Very interesting.

We received a submission from Dr. Hardy Limeback, who wrote to this committee that having fluoride in our city waters is not the way to go. He said, “In my opinion, the harm from fluoride accumulation in Canadians exceeds the claimed benefit.” He is saying otherwise.

Mr. Attaran, perhaps he's not for vaccinations either. I don't know.

Anyway, I found that interesting. There are conflicting thoughts on fluoridation.

I know that my colleague Mr. Lobb has a couple of questions, so I'm going to share my time with him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

You only have 10 seconds left.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Okay, next time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We have to go to Mr. Davies.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

Grand Chief Abram, I would like to start with you.

The Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians' 2018 water report, “Bad Water is Bad Water”, has set out a number of very stark and startling, and frankly disconcerting, facts about the state of water in indigenous communities in this country. The report says that “The Government of Canada is not only in violation of its legal obligations to First Nations, it is actively denying a basic human right.”

I have two questions. In your view, why has the federal government failed to fulfill its obligation to ensure safe water in first nations communities? Can you give this committee a bit of an idea of the scope of the problem and how extensive it is or is not?

[Grand Chief Joel Abram]

I think it's mainly budgetary. I'd like to think that it's not intentional, and there may be some capacity and remoteness issues involved that may affect the cost in certain areas. However, that doesn't speak to first nations who are not remote and don't have any treatment facilities either. For instance, one of our communities, the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, has the fourth-largest membership of first nations within Ontario, with just over 9,000 members. Their community did not have water treatment facility until quite recently, and thankfully they were recently approved for a water tower and a distribution system, in terms of waterlines.

Previously most of the residents were on a well system. Because of the algae problem within Lake Erie—they had a lot of blue algae coming in due to the flooding and climate change, flooding the wells making the water undrinkable—they had to shut a lot of their wells down.

It's pretty endemic across Canada. I'd like to think that it's not an intentional thing, but we do view it as a basic human right, as an indicator of good public health, and that we are just as deserving of clean water as anybody else. I'm hoping it's not intentional. I'm thinking it probably is more a budgetary matter, but I can't think of any other place where a significant portion of the population, based solely on their ancestry, would be denied the proper funds to do this public function of ensuring clean drinking water.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Dr. Hrudey, according to research that I read from 2014, Canada is one of only two countries in the OECD that fails to comply with WHO recommendations and does not have legally binding drinking water guidelines.

Do you believe that compliance drinking water guidelines should be legally binding rather than voluntary?

[Dr. Steve Hrudey]

It depends on what you're talking about as guidelines. In Canada we have 12 different jurisdictions—I guess 13 now—that implement drinking-water controls, and places like Alberta have adopted the health-based Canadian guidelines as regulatory requirements. As I understand the requirements in Ontario, the Ontario drinking water objectives are legally required. I can't argue that drinking water is safer in Alberta than it is in Saskatchewan. But ultimately, it comes back to—and I hate to sound like a stuck record—the focus on operational competence. If you can legislate that, then go for it, because that's what we need. We need to have the support of the systems, the resources, to make sure the job gets done right. Having an open-ended list of chemicals with the most stringent standards in the world will not provide you with safe water.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm going to follow up on that, Professor Hrudey. If I heard your testimony correctly—and excuse me if I don't have it exactly—you feel that this bill may distract from its noble aim. I heard Chief Abram say that he didn't think this bill would have an impact on indigenous lands. We heard testimony at our last meeting from Mr. Leonard, a lawyer who has represented four Alberta bands in challenging water problems in that province. He called this bill at best a distraction and a waste of time, and at worst something that will place un-meetable burdens on first nations.

I'm just wondering why you said that this bill might distract from its noble aim.

[Dr. Steve Hrudey]

The simplest thing is to look at numerical standards and say that a smaller number per contaminant must be safer than a higher number. But if both of them have safety factors of a 100-plus, reducing a number that already has a safety factor of 100-plus to make it 200-plus achieves nothing. That's the simple interpretation that will likely be put on things.

I accept the intentions of MP Scarpaleggia in wanting to have safer water. Guidelines could focus on...as I've talked about in the drinking water safety plan approach and have outlined in some detail with many references in my written brief. That is the international best standard that Ontario, Alberta, Australia, and the World Health Organization have adopted. If you call that a drinking water quality criterion—it's not numerical; it's operational—then you can ensure safer drinking water. It's a question of where your focus is. Simply lowering the numbers doesn't accomplish much. That implies that we have evidence that the numbers we have right now are causing ill health, and I don't believe that's true.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Professor Attaran, I'm just trying to figure out what this bill does. My understanding is that it amends the Department of Health Act to require the Minister of Health to conduct a review of drinking water standards in member countries of the OECD and, if appropriate, to make recommendations for amendments to national guidelines with respect to drinking water.

Is there anything in this bill that requires anything to be done to improve water quality, or are we talking about review and recommendations?

[Prof. Amir Attaran]

We are talking about review and recommendations. I made the point that although the step taken in this bill is a good one, and I certainly support it, I think it would be advisable to perhaps be more ambitious—if the committee is comfortable being so. The way to do that is to emulate the more rigorous model in the Pest Control Products Act, where a special review does lead to certain mandatory action on the minister's part.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay, thanks very much.

That completes our first round. We have to make a decision. We were late because of the vote. My understanding is that the bells will ring in less than 15 minutes. If we want to hear from our departmental officials, we'll have to change panels now.

What is the direction of the committee? Do we carry on with our current panel, or hear from the officials?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I move that we change them up.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Change them up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Is that the consensus?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I prefer to keep the witnesses here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

It looks like the consensus—or the majority, at least—is to change the panels now.

I really want to thank the presenters very much for their contributions. We've all learned a lot in that short time. We're going to change panels now. We'll suspend for a minute, as quickly as we can, and have the officials come forward.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We'll try to keep moving because we have very limited time. We've asked our presenters to shorten their opening statements.

As an introduction, we have from the Department of Health, Mr. David Morin, Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch; and Greg Carreau, Director, Water and Air Quality Bureau, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch.

Are you both going to make opening statements, or just one of you?

[David Morin, Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health]

Yes, we have opening statements. Thank you.