ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, November 4, 2003

¹

1535

The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

Mr. Steve Clarkson (Director, Environmental Contaminants Bureau, Department of Health)

¹

1540

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

¹

1545

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. James Riordan (Executive Director, National Office of Pollution Prevention, Toxics Pollution Prevention Directorate, Environmental Protection Service, Department of the Environment)

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. James Riordan

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)

¹

1555

Mr. James Riordan

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Steve Clarkson

º

1600

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

Mr. James Riordan

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

º

1605

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

º

1610

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. John Cooper (Acting Director, Water Quality and Health Bureau, Department of Health)

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. Joe Comartin

º

1615

Mr. James Riordan

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. Alan Tonks

º

1620

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. James Riordan

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.)

º

1625

Mr. John Cooper

Mr. Andy Savoy

Mr. John Cooper

Mr. Andy Savoy

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. Andy Savoy

Mr. Steve Clarkson

º

1630

Mr. John Cooper

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. Andy Savoy

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

º

1635

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

º

1640

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Steve Clarkson

º

1645

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. James Riordan

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. James Riordan

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. James Riordan

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Steve Clarkson

º

1650

The Chair

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

Mr. John Cooper

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Steve Clarkson

º

1655

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. John Cooper

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. John Cooper

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

»

1700

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

Mr. John Cooper

»

1705

The Chair

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

»

1710

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Steve Clarkson

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Steve Clarkson

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 034

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, November 4, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good afternoon to everybody in this room, and a special word of welcome to our witnesses today from the health and environment departments.

    Today we are in the trichloroethylene business, so let's try to navigate through those waters and see what transpires.

    I understand, Mr. Clarkson, you have a statement. Would you like to proceed?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson (Director, Environmental Contaminants Bureau, Department of Health): Oui.

    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for inviting representatives of Health Canada here today to discuss the commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report as it relates to trichloroethylene, or TCE.

    As you are aware, the focus of the audit--I refer to section 4.20--was on whether Health Canada had fulfilled the minister's commitment to the petitioners, specifically on whether we had reviewed the TCE guideline for Canadian drinking water quality and had worked through the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water in order for recommendations to be implemented as early as possible. As the commissioner stated in section 4.32 of her report, Health Canada has met the commitment to the petitioners, while she noted a number of delays that resulted in 26 months passing between the date of the commitment and the completion of the review.

    Health Canada recognizes the importance of having up-to-date science-based guidelines in place to protect the health of Canadians and appreciates the comments made and concerns raised by the commissioner. As this is a general consideration related to process, I would like to come back a bit later in this presentation and discuss some proposed measures to address this issue.

[Translation]

    First of all, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to focus on TCE and provide this committee with a brief description of this contaminant, with an update on where we are in finalizing a revised guideline and with a brief explanation of the process and timing and some of the challenges we faced in developing the risk assessment which contributed to the delay.

[English]

    TCE is a volatile organic compound. It is used extensively in the automotive and metals industries for vapour degreasing and cold cleaning of metal parts. It is also used in a variety of other industries and may be present in some household or consumer products. Since TCE is a volatile liquid, it is primarily present in the air in the environment. The main exposure to TCE is generally from inhalation through airborne distribution, particularly in occupational settings.

    TCE readily evaporates from surface water but may occasionally be found in groundwater. TCE is not a concern for the majority of Canadians, those who rely on surface water as their source of drinking water. Most drinking water supplies in Canada contain less than 0.0001 milligrams of TCE per litre. TCE contamination of groundwater supplies usually stems from old industrial dump sites.

    As stated in the report, Health Canada recently completed its review of the health risks associated with TCE and drinking water. This review factors in routes of exposure to TCE via drinking water ingestion as well as through inhalation and skin absorption from activities such as showering and bathing. It assesses recent information on cancer risks and takes into account new scientific studies that suggest a potential link between TCE and reproductive effects.

    We are currently working through the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water to revise the existing TCE guideline from 0.05 milligrams per litre to a proposed level of 0.005 milligrams per litre. During its October 22 to 24 meeting, the committee reviewed the proposed revised guideline and approved public consultations on it. Committee members agreed to move forward towards implementation of the proposed guideline by working with municipalities and utilities during the consultation period.

    While Health Canada takes the lead in conducting the risk assessments for microbiological, chemical, and radiological contaminants on which drinking water guidelines are based, the approval and the implementation of guidelines are achieved cooperatively through the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water. This leads to the establishment of common benchmarks for drinking water quality for all Canadian jurisdictions. In addition, Canadian guidelines are used by international agencies such as the World Health Organization, which recognizes the water quality program of Health Canada as a Collaborating Centre for Water Quality.

    At this point I would like to go back to the report and briefly discuss some of the key reasons for the delay in reviewing the guideline. The existing guideline developed in 1987 only considered health risks associated with the consumption of drinking water and possible carcinogenic effects from trichloroethylene. The limited animal and human studies available at that time did not allow for a guideline to be developed that could be based strictly on possible carcinogenic effects through ingestion, nor was there sufficient information to include exposure from other routes such as inhalation and dermal exposure. Only recently has it been determined that exposure to volatile organic compounds such as TCE via inhalation from drinking water sources may be equivalent to or greater than the consumption of drinking water.

    At the May 2000 meeting of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water, Health Canada recommended and members agreed that the reassessment for TCE begin as soon as possible, based on new evidence regarding the probable carcinogenicity of TCE and the potential for exposure through inhalation via uses of drinking water sources such as showering and bathing. As reported by the commissioner--I refer to section 4.32--this process was delayed for a number of reasons, including a decision to wait for and build on the results of a comprehensive health risk assessment of TCE by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA, and to work on other priority issues such as recent studies linking the by-products of chlorinated disinfection to increased cancer risk.

    The key challenges, however, were related to developing new methods for risk assessment that accounted for all routes of exposure related to drinking water and to the importance of factoring in very recent animal and human health effect studies related to TCE.

¹  (1540)  

    Finally, I would like to return to the issue of how we can best ensure up-to-date Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. There is a need to understand which of the over 23,000 chemicals used in Canada are present in lakes, rivers, and aquifers used as sources of drinking water and, of these, which may be present in treated drinking water. We need to better understand the health impacts of these contaminants as well as those associated with emerging threats such as endocrine-disrupting substances, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products.

    In order to ensure that we are well positioned to respond to emerging threats to human health through drinking water, we are proposing to streamline the guideline development process. This will include strengthening our relationships with our scientific partners in such organizations as the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the World Health Organization, and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. It will help us coordinate priorities and risk assessment by establishing earlier linkage with scientific experts in Canada and abroad. It will build on existing expertise, encourage the sharing of research and results, and reduce duplication in conducting health risk assessments.

[Translation]

    The Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water has been reviewing its guideline development and approval processes to streamline the process and increase transparency, while maintaining scientific integrity.

    In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that Health Canada is committed to working with its provincial and territorial partners in developing the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality, which will protect the health of Canadians.

    Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Clarkson, there are two passages in your brief that absolutely require clarification for this committee. On page 2 you have a reference at mid-paragraph to a figure of 0.0002 milligrams of TCE per litre. Did I hear you say 0.0001 in your presentation?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: You did, Mr. Chairman.

¹  (1545)  

    The Chair: Which one is correct?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: It's 0.0001.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Then, on the top line of page 4 in the text, is there perhaps something missing, like “risk of exposure”, rather than the way the text reads? It doesn't make sense the way it is written right now: “Only recently has it been determined that exposure to volatile organic compounds...may be equivalent to or greater...” What kind of exposure is the reference to here? Is it risk or is it direct exposure?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: It's been determined that if you take a shower, you can be exposed to any of the volatile materials that may be in the drinking water in which you're taking your shower. Things like chloroform or trichloroethylene, if they're present, have volatilized and you will inhale them, as opposed to where, if you drink the water, you induce them into your system by ingestion.

    The Chair: So it is inhalation versus consumption.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: That is correct.

    The Chair: Consumption means direct drinking.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: Yes.

    The Chair: Then why don't you have “drinking of water” in plain English? It is the consumption of drinking water. I see your qualifier comes later. It is the contact with the volatile organic compound that is compared to the consumption of drinking water.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: There is the possibility, depending on how much you bathe or shower, that your inhalation of trichloroethylene or another volatile would be greater than what you'd actually consume by drinking the water.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: I have to correct myself, Mr. Chairman. I've been advised that the figure I should have been quoting contained two 0's and a 1, or 0.001 milligrams of TCE per litre.

    The Chair: That is closer to the EPA figure of 0.005.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: Most supplies have less than 0.001 milligrams per litre, and that is the proposed limit we're going to, Mr. Chair. This is a statement of what the most levels of TCE have been found to be in Canada, at that level or lower.

    The Chair: Mr. Clarkson, thank you for the clarification.

    Mr. Riordan, would you like to speak?

    Mr. James Riordan (Executive Director, National Office of Pollution Prevention, Toxics Pollution Prevention Directorate, Environmental Protection Service, Department of the Environment): Yes, thank you.

    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for inviting representatives of Environment Canada today to discuss the commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report as it relates to trichloroethylene.

    It is important to note that since 1995, shortly after the departments of Environment and Health identified trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene as toxic substances, the use of these substances has declined significantly. Since 1995 the amount of TCE used in degreasing has been reduced by 45%, and the amount of perchloroethylene used in the same sector has declined 66%. Perhaps even more significant is that the number of industrial users of trichloroethylene in the degreasing sector has been reduced by 77%, from more than 1,300 users of trichloroethylene to 300 users of trichloroethylene. So in effect, the majority of facilities have not only reduced the use of the substances, but they have stopped using them altogether.

    As the commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development stated in her report, the department at that time noted that this reduction was the result of steps Environment Canada had taken, working with the various users of these chemicals to develop management strategies and regulatory controls. These regulatory controls were finalized and put into law in July of this year. Given full compliance, the use of trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene will decline by an additional 65% by January 1, 2007.

    Beginning this coming year, 2004, companies are prohibited from using more than 1,000 kilograms of trichloroethylene annually unless they receive additional consumption units from Environment Canada. The amount of consumption units is capped at historical consumption. In other words, the new regulations will freeze the amount of trichloroethylene used in Canada for degreasing; that's freezing the use. Then in January 2007, Environment Canada will reduce the amount of consumption units available so the use of these substances will be at only 35% of current levels. As a result, the use of trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene for degreasing will drop 65% between now and 2007.

    It is our assessment that the use of a cap-and-trade system to control the use of trichloroethylene in degreasing will be more effective than the approach being taken in the United States, which requires the use of best available technology with no firm use-target. Canada's performance-based approach sets a firm cap on the amount of trichloroethylene that can be used, it gives clear timelines, and the focus on performance will foster more pollution prevention and may encourage more facilities to eliminate their use of these substances altogether.

    The new solvent degreasing regulations are just one aspect of Environment Canada's efforts to manage the risk these substances pose to human health and the environment. While over 90% of trichloroethylene use in Canada was as degreasing solvent, only 20% of the amount of perchloroethylene used is for degreasing. The largest amount of perchloroethylene is used in dry cleaning, which is managed under the Tetrachloroethylene (Use in Dry Cleaning and Reporting Requirements) Regulations, which came into force on March 12, 2003.

    In closing, I'll point out that Environment Canada's efforts to manage the use of trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene have resulted in a significant decline in the use of these substances, and the current regulations will ensure their use continues to decline into the foreseeable future.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Riordan.

    Are the data you gave us provided by Stats Canada or are they provided by industry? I'm referring to the consumption.

    Mr. James Riordan: Both, Mr. Chairman. All perchloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene are imported into Canada, and we have data from Stats Canada measuring the importation of those two substances. At the same time, in August 2002, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, we did a section 71 survey of all industries to determine their use. Then we compared the two to determine whether or not industry was reporting what Stats Canada was recording, and the numbers matched up, Mr. Chairman.

    So we know what's coming into the country, and we know what's being used in the sector. We know it's now frozen at its current level of use and will be reduced 65% from use today. That's use. We're not talking about trading emissions; we're talking about the actual use of the chemical.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    And we start now the usual round with Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen for appearing.

    I guess the big concern is that maybe this is just the tip of the iceberg, that this is a much broader problem than we might expect. The question is, how come the process is so slow if in fact they were identified as contaminants in 1987? It has to be a major concern to all of us that legislation is only coming into effect now, and as the commissioner pointed out, that's really the bottom line. In other words, something isn't working.

    How many other chemicals are there out there we haven't even started working on? How can we speed up that identification and take appropriate action? Do you have enough staff working on this? Is that where the problem is? How many people really do work in that department on all of this? Can't we learn from other places, the European Union or the Americans? Obviously, they've identified this as a serious problem. And again the question is, how many other things are out there you haven't even started working on yet? Looking at that chart, I'd say that's a pretty big condemnation of the whole process.

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. James Riordan: As I stated in my opening comments, what's important are the results and that, once you identify a chemical as a problem, you begin to put pressure on the people who deal with that chemical. The flow chart you're referencing is what I would call the formal legislative process, but what we were dealing with was identifying a problem and seeing measurable results, a measurable decline in the use of a chemical. This happens with other chemicals as well.

    You ask, what can be done? I think you have done it. You have given us new legislation, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which now has targets, timelines, and legislative requirements for us to develop proposed regulations within 24 months, and that's what we're doing now.

    Mr. Bob Mills: But there are 23,000 chemicals out there, and we're talking about one. It's taken this long, and this is in fact our example.

    It would seem to me that this committee should want you to come before us every year at least, to come up with an action plan, to come out with a report on how well you're achieving the identification of chemicals in our drinking water, and to tell us what you're doing about it. It seems to me we could speed that process up dramatically. It can't take that long to do it.

    I don't think you're answering the question as to what others are out there and how we can speed this up. It has to be faster than 15 years.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: The federal-provincial-territorial committee deals with drinking water guidelines; drinking water guidelines are developed cooperatively. As you probably know, the provinces are responsible for ensuring drinking water quality for their population. Health Canada plays an important and sometimes, we think, a leading role, helping in this particular process to protect Canadians. We have a process of yearly review of what areas this committee should be working on, and we have a number of things on the go. We have, I think, three of our guidelines out for public comment.

    The provinces are responsible for monitoring their particular areas. They bring in the information they gather. The fact that there are 23,000 chemicals out there doesn't mean we really have to be concerned about 23,000 chemicals getting into the water. We have, as I said, systems in place to try to determine what may be threatening our water supplies.

    We have a process throughout the various agencies involved in water, not only the drinking water folks but also those who are responsible for protecting source water, developing a source-to-tap approach to protecting the water that goes into drinking water systems.

    Mr. Bob Mills: When you ask the municipalities, they say, we don't have the resources to do adequate testing. Then you ask the provinces, and they say, well, that's really a municipal issue. And the circle goes like that. And then you ask the feds, you guys, and it's, well, it's really that we can't step on the provinces' toes. It seems like a passing-the-buck kind of thing. Somebody needs to take responsibility, design a program of action, and then take care of the water problem, and I don't see that happening.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: We have over the past three or four years initiated research into something called chlorinated disinfection by-products. Chlorination is very important to ensure that you have drinkable water and that you don't have a situation develop like the infamous Walkerton.

    At the same time, in doing that, we have learned that there may be increases in certain kinds of cancer, bladder cancer, for example, that appear to be linked to the use of chlorination because of the disinfection by-products that occur due to the reaction of the chlorine with sediment, turbidity products, and other organics that are in the system. We've been investing time and effort in trying to determine how we are best able to protect Canadians there.

    Recent reports of finding some pharmaceuticals in drinking water sources has led to us trying to initiate some investigation to determine on a pilot basis in the city of Windsor, I think, what kind of pharmaceuticals are showing up and how much. So we're not without some efforts to keep abreast of what's going on.

    Do we have resources to do everything with 23,000? No, but I think we have a system that is cooperative in nature with the provinces to decide where we should focus our resources, where we think the risks are greatest.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

    Monsieur Bigras, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    In your presentation, you refer to the fact that quite often, former industrial sites are the source of this contamination. However, I would remind you of one thing: federal sites are also a source of contamination. Take, for example, the contamination at CFB Valcartier in the Shannon region. Your government - perhaps not your department, but DND -- is in part responsible for this situation. You say more cooperation is needed between municipalities and the federal and provincial governments.

    How do you account for the fact that in the case of the contamination at CFB Bagotville, even though DND has been aware of the situation since October 1997, you didn't apprise the Quebec government of the contamination and the danger of seepage into people's well water until December 7, 1999?

    I'm trying to understand your claim to want more discussions with the provinces and municipalities, when in fact you failed to share information you already had with the government.

[English]

    Mr. James Riordan: Mr. Chairman, there is no one here from Environment Canada who can speak to the subject of contaminated sites.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, am I to believe that the officials who are here to present testimony don't have these reports?

    I believe otherwise because they participated in various meetings, the minutes of which I have here. I obtained them under the Access to Information Act. If you like, I can pass them on to you, along with some e-mails exchanged between government officials.

    You say you can't answer my question concerning Shannon. This is one case of TCE contamination. You maintain that you are not aware of this situation. Is that correct?

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Clarkson.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: We are aware of a problem with trichloroethylene contamination of drinking water sources in Shannon. It appears that is a result of migration of trichloroethylene that was disposed of within the base at Valcartier. Our role here in Health Canada is to deal with setting guidelines for drinking water quality. The responsibilities within the federal government rest with the departments that have responsibility for, ownership of, or control over the federal properties on which contamination has been identified.

    I do know that the Treasury Board has been coordinating a cross-government attempt to deal with federal contaminated sites. They have a website on which you'll find an inventory of some 2,300 or so sites. Maybe I shouldn't have used a number; I'm not that current with it. But the federal government is in the process of dealing with its contaminated sites.

º  (1605)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Most likely you know that in light of the contamination originating from CFB Valcartier, analyses show that levels of the contaminant in municipal wells in Shannon exceeded the acceptable level. No doubt you're aware of this fact.

    Based on the information you have, are the test results in compliance with the new guideline you're trying to bring in?

    I'm all for revising the guideline, but can you tell whether tests carried out at the time on these wells -- tests the results of which you have received -- corresponded to the new guideline that will be adopted?

    The problem is real and remains unresolved. The contamination stems from the military base and seepage has occurred. This federal government is responsible for this state of affairs. After all, you can't say the Government of Quebec is responsible for measuring the level of contamination at CFB Bagotville. To my knowledge, that's Health Canada's responsibility.

    Who is responsible for doing that, Health Canada or Environment Canada? How do you explain the fact that when you realized in 1998 that contamination had occurred, this was DND's responsibility and you conducted some tests. Yet, Health Canada failed to inform the Quebec regional public health branch of the contamination and of the danger of contamination of groundwater supplies and of wells in Shannon? Why did Health Canada not pass along this information to the proper authorities?

[English]

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: You have indicated that Health Canada was in possession of these results in 1998. I'm not aware of this, but it is possible. But as I explained earlier, the base is the responsibility of National Defence. Health Canada has a role to play with regard to developing the guidelines. Except for a limited number of areas within the department where we have responsibilities for federal public servants, we have no authority to assure that those guidelines are followed or that correction is taken when the guidelines have been exceeded. This is either a provincial responsibility or the responsibility of another federal department such as National Defence or the Correctional Service. We provide the guidance as to when one can decide whether the drinking water is potable or whether it is not.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Late in the fall of 1997, you conducted a study that indicated contamination had occurred. That's what I don't understand. You had this information in the fall of 1997. TCE levels fluctuated between 48 and 62 ug/g per litre .

    If Health Canada knew this, why didn't it share the information with the Quebec government so that it could advise residents not to drink the water?

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Clarkson, perhaps you may want to reply to Mr. Bigras in writing after having consulted the people in your department on the issue of notification Mr. Bigras is pursuing. Does Health Canada have the responsibility to notify either the provincial government, the municipality, or another federal department? Was that done, and if it was not done, why not? There may be some institutional member in your department who can give a satisfactory reply to Mr. Bigras.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: Thank you for that suggestion, Mr. Chair.

    If I may, though, I'll add that in general, the information Health Canada collects from its research regarding levels of contamination, which it comes by through contractors or its own testing, is shared with the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water. It may not be shared the minute we collect it, but it's shared as part of our cooperation and partnership with them.

    We will, as you suggested, look into this particular one and provide Mr. Bigras with the information, and I presume the chair would prefer to have a copy as well.

º  (1610)  

    The Chair: Of course. It would come to the committee clerk so it could be distributed to the members of the committee.

    Merci, Mr. Bigras.

    We now have Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I think, Mr. Clarkson, this would go to you. You made reference to a study on pharmaceuticals that's based in Windsor. If I understand that study correctly, when they're doing the study, they're just looking to identify if there are pharmaceuticals getting into our drinking water. We know from our medical experience the number of extra hospitalizations we have resulting from pharmaceuticals being mixed, with people ending up causing themselves health problems. Is there any research going on about the cumulative effect of pharmaceuticals in the water as opposed to simply identifying whether they're there?

    The Chair: We are meeting on trichloroethylene, but we are now moving into a broader issue. If you are able to answer it, by all means go ahead.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: I'm not aware of anything, but perhaps my colleagues who are closer to the issue than I may be able to provide a more definitive answer.

    Mr. John Cooper (Acting Director, Water Quality and Health Bureau, Department of Health): Mr. Chair, if I can, I'll give a very general answer. The research at this point is mostly on identification of what is getting through the treatment processes. They're finding things like carbamazepine and lipid regulators that do get through. There is very little research looking at the health risk, at health impacts, because the levels are so low they're barely detectable. There's also a question of being able to look at the metabolites of these particular compounds that are getting through. Certainly, one of the areas they will need to look at in the future is the effect of the combination, but I am not aware of ongoing research, at least in Canada, in this area.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I guess the follow-up to that is, if that's the case, when you're setting standards, whether they be for TCE or any number of others, is cumulative effect of other chemicals mixed with TCE taken into account in terms of assessing health risk?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: That kind of methodology for risk assessment is not well developed; one might argue it's not really developed at all. There are some efforts going on within the safe environments program, part of Health Canada, where they try to look at cumulative effects of contaminants, but it's directed at things like polychlorinated biphenyls and perhaps some old pesticides. I'm not aware of anybody doing work of that nature.

    We must realize that the levels we're talking about here for pharmaceuticals are not much above detection levels and are certainly not the kinds of levels people experience when they're being treated with these medications or drugs.

    But the answer is, I'm not aware of anyone doing cumulative studies. The methodologies haven't been developed. It's a very challenging thing. Risk assessments on single items pose their own challenges.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Riordan, you made a comment or gave some statistics on the reduction in the use of TCE in Canada. It's my understanding that at least part of that reduction came about because of workplace health and safety claims to our workers' compensation boards across the country; that was one of the motivating factors in reducing or completely eliminating the industrial use of the chemical from the workplace.

    If that is the case, how much of the reduction has been because of that as opposed to government regulation? And as a follow-up to that, perhaps following on Mr. Mills' questions and maybe echoing some of the frustration amongst the committee about how long it takes, I'd like to know how much your department and perhaps Health as well are involved in this and how much of it comes from some other reason, whereupon you get around to looking at it.

º  (1615)  

    Mr. James Riordan: I don't think there's an easy answer to that question. There are probably a variety of reasons, the economic swings and so on. There are a variety of reasons something might change in terms of the use of a chemical. There are new chemicals; there are over a thousand new chemicals invented each year in Canada alone. So I would say it would probably be a combination of things. First is the fact that two government departments, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health, have identified something as a substance of concern, have carried out a detailed scientific assessment, and have found it to be toxic. That alone attracts people's attention to a substance.

    Then we begin to work, as we do in our regulatory process, with the affected community, both the users of the chemical and the producers of the chemical, as well as interested non-governmental organizations, provincial governments, and so on. That provides some momentum and more focus on the substance. You get to a point where some people say, well, all the signals are pointing in the same direction and we should probably move on to something else. That's what happened with trichloroethylene, and that's what happens to other substances or chemicals as well. Steven mentioned PCBs. There are a variety of substances like that with that cumulative effect where people say, look, we're just not going to use this any more.

    With regard to the regulatory process you asked about--if I got your question right--the regulatory process takes time. It requires identifying the regulated community or what will be the regulated community, identifying risk management objectives, and identifying tools you might use, regulations or guidelines. We're talking about a regulation on my side and a water quality guideline on Health Canada's side. Then there's the normal judicial consultative process that goes on with the regulation.

    As I mentioned earlier, with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act we now have prescribed time limits within which to do this. Since March 2000 we've had a number of substances that were identified as toxic under CEPA 1999, and we have respected and met those legislative timelines in every case. We're getting better at what we do.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, witnesses, for being here today.

    I have a general question first of all. In terms of risk management, do you ever reach a point where a carcinogenic link to a chemical leads you to the conclusion that the risk of that chemical is just too great and that it should be prohibited entirely?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: Such a conclusion occurs occasionally.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Can you give the committee an example of that?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: James will probably describe the virtual elimination provisions under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of things like PCBs--polychlorinated biphenyls--polychlorinated dioxins, and furans. These are things that have been identified for virtual elimination.

    There are places where it has been decided that the risks in certain applications are too great and that use in those applications will be prohibited. The Hazardous Products Act has a number of things it will prohibit in terms of substances being sold to and used by consumers, but it recognizes that in industrial processes there are possibilities for suitable controls where the risks are managed and the use is possible.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: When you consider TCE, do you see in your mind anything that comes close to that kind of scenario of pervasiveness and carcinogenic propensity ? Does that come anywhere close to leading you to the conclusion that it should be a prohibited chemical?

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: The classification comes from Health Canada's assessment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which concluded this was a probable human carcinogen. I think that under those particular conclusions, consumer use would be something we would discourage.

    As to usage, James may be able to provide some information. He did tell you already that most of it is used in the industrial sector. I don't know if we've explored the consumer market extensively, but there are possibilities that if they were still used in consumer products...

    Do you have any information, James?

    Mr. James Riordan: Well, you can stand that as a model.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: When we do risk management strategies, James's group takes the lead, but we in Health Canada work with him, and we look at where the greatest impact is likely to be taking place.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: In Ontario, industrial use as it relates to the workplace is under, I think it is, WHMIS, which is the provincial regulatory architecture that prevails. Are you saying that for TCE, while you're not aware of what the consumer risk applicability would be, the risk applicability meets the provincial guidelines for use within that regimen in industrial applications? Is that what you're saying?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: I will try to answer it this way. The use of chemicals on an industrial work site is under the control of the province. That said, there is, as you said, WHMIS, but WHMIS is under the Hazardous Products Act, and it's meant to be an information system that includes an educational side for workers and for those who can benefit from the labelling WHMIS does require. WHMIS has certain cut-offs, and if certain concentrations exist for products that are on a list of controlled substances, then labelling has to be done and something called a safety data sheet has to be provided. This is an example of the federal government and the provinces cooperating to develop one system across the country so you get uniformity rather than a system in each jurisdiction.

    But as to the actual decision as to whether trichloroethylene can be used and what limits there ought to be in terms of a threshold limit value for exposure over a period of time, those are up to the provinces. I think there may be examples in the past of federal government involvement helping to establish limits, but they're set by the provinces.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: This is my final question, Mr. Chairman.

    There are various indicators. You have a substance, TCE, and it has been established by Health Canada that in certain parts it is a health risk, whether through ingestion, inhalation, or drinking. Now, if you backfilled from that, you would then be concerned if you saw an increase in the production of the chemical TCE, would you not?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: Not necessarily. The assessment is an attempt to do risk, risk being a combination of the hazard posed by the substance plus the exposure to it. For instance--and this is an extreme example--if you have a very hazardous substance but it is only used in an industrial plant as an intermediate in a manufacturing process, then Canadians in general are not being exposed to it. Then we will not be suggesting from a health perspective that there's a risk to Canadians.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: So inventory control and data with respect to the production of the chemical wouldn't necessarily lead you to the conclusion there's a higher risk to the general public.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: That's right.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Savoy.

    Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming.

    In terms of the federal-provincial-territorial committee you've spoken of and in terms of the revised guidelines for TCE under the CDWG, we understand a lot of work has gone into revising the guidelines and dropping the limit from 0.05 to 0.005.

    But it would be nice to know on the ground in terms of impact on our municipalities, under each provincial jurisdictional testing regime--the clean water act or whatever it may be in whatever province we're speaking of--how many actually test for TCE and how does it work in terms of municipal water supplies and systems? You said in your statement that the federal-provincial-territorial committee allows you to establish a common benchmark for drinking water quality for all jurisdictions. How many actual jurisdictions would test under their clean water act or drinking water monitoring program in each province? Of the 10 provinces and three territories, how many actually do test for TCE?

º  (1625)  

    Mr. John Cooper: All 10 provinces do test for TCE. In fact, since we started working on the guideline for TCE, we've asked for exposure data in terms of what levels they are finding in the drinking water sources and supplies. In addition, there was a study done in 1995, a Raven Beck study, that sampled, I believe, about 4,000 groundwater water supplies for TCE, and 98.6% of these came in at levels of less than 0.001. So they had a good sense that this is not a widespread issue of contamination across the country.

    Since we started working on the guideline, we've asked for follow-up information from the provinces. Since the decision was taken October 22 to 24 to approve the guideline for consultation, provinces have undertaken to revisit the information they have and their monitoring on TCE to ensure they can meet this guideline within their jurisdiction.

    Mr. Andy Savoy: I understand and applaud the initiatives taken to reduce TCE in our industrial processes and PCE in dry cleaning primarily, but would it be fair to say that TCE and PCE could be introduced into drinking water systems now, five years from now, or 10 years from now?

    Mr. John Cooper: That is certainly one of the biggest concerns, much like the leaking from old dump sites in Shannon and in Beckwith Township.

    Mr. Andy Savoy: Many of the testing regimes in the 10 provinces you're speaking of only require a front-end PCE or TCE analysis. If you're found to have zero or nearly zero, you don't require any in the future; you just go strictly to bacteriological. So you look at your organic testing and your various jurisdictions...

    I know that in New Brunswick, for example, once you get a clean bill of health on your organics, well, you're free and clear; you cut your organics testing out. Once you get a clean bill of health on your inorganics, you cut that out, and then you go to microbiological for the future. That's the way the New Brunswick Clean Water Act is written.

    What kind of safeguards do you have in place if TCE or PCE is reintroduced into the drinking water system? How is it going to be caught if we aren't actually testing for it on a regular basis?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: I said earlier that we in Health Canada assist by developing the guidelines. We are interested betimes in doing our own work to gather information, but the enforcement, whether these guidelines are applied or not, rests with the provinces. It only rests within the federal jurisdiction--

    Mr. Andy Savoy: That's exactly my point. The system we have for drinking water in Canada today has some serious flaws because jurisdiction isn't controlled by one entity. There's no common benchmark, as you said, across Canada; it's different in all provinces.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: The guideline is adopted by the jurisdictions. The understanding is that the limit adopted by the jurisdictions will be at least as stringent as the guideline. I know that the Province of Quebec has exceeded the stringency of the federally developed guideline with some more stringent ones--one or two. Maybe other jurisdictions have done similarly, but by and large, there is an agreement that the target will be at least as stringent as the federal one.

    My colleague thinks you might benefit from some additional information he can supply.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. John Cooper: One of the objectives of the committee on drinking water is to ensure that Canadians have access to safe drinking water, which means that if they know there are certain issues, problems like old dump sites...it could contain TCE. Now, I believe Ontario and Quebec together have used 90% of the TCE in the country. If you have a community that's close to an old dump site, then through the CDWG we will be recommending that monitoring of TCE be an ongoing process, because TCE can show up five, 10, and 20 years down the road.

    In addition, I would like to point out that in general, since Walkerton, provinces are moving to much more rigorous drinking water protection regimes that include source water quality monitoring, lab accreditation, certification of operators, regulation, and enforceable standards. The drinking water guidelines are now being brought in as enforceable standards within provincial legislation.

    If you look across Canada, we have Alberta, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Ontario with enforceable standards that include this broader sort of source-to-tap approach. Other provinces have committed to moving in this direction, and we expect this to be an ongoing process and an objective that will serve Canadians better.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: It's also been my experience that at least some of the municipal purveyors of drinking water take their jobs very seriously. I've heard them at meetings, and it's almost as if they have a crusade to ensure their system provides safe drinking water. Obviously, this may not be the case everywhere, but certainly most people who operate drinking water systems appear to be very dedicated in attempting to ensure there is good water going out of their plants.

    Mr. Andy Savoy: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Savoy.

    Perhaps we can clarify a few items here emanating from the chart, the exhibit produced by the commissioner. In 1987 TCE is described as “possibly carcinogenic”, and in 1993 it is described as “probably carcinogenic”. Evidently something happened between those years to move from a certain level of alertness to a higher level of alertness. What would it have been that would have moved the definition in that direction?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: The decision in 1993 was based on the priority substance assessment that had been carried out by Health Canada on the health component of trichloroethylene because it had been listed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as a priority substance.

    The Chair: But why was it “possibly carcinogenic” in 1987 and “probably” in 1993?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: One of the reasons was definitely the fact that the data available on which a decision could be made in 1987 was less certain regarding the carcinogenicity. The possible human carcinogenicity was based on animal testing and maybe on epidemiological studies from workplace situations where there had been exposures to the chemical.

    The Chair: If you connect the two points, it shows a trend line towards, possibly, even a higher degree of danger. What are the prospects for putting this TCE on the virtual elimination list?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: From a drinking water perspective, if we accept the proposed guideline, you have a limit in terms of what you can do from a technology point of view. Setting a limit below 0.005 milligrams per litre isn't going to improve anything much, and you certainly, because the source of entrance into drinking water systems or contaminated sites--

    The Chair: Let me interrupt you here. You may be right in saying it's not going to improve much, but then we find out that the EPA sets a standard that is 100 times better than ours, and I mean 0.005 rather than 0.05, which is ours. Evidently, because of their assessment of this substance, they are much more sensitive to the danger than we are.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: I think, Mr. Chair, that you have identified our limit incorrectly vis-à-vis the U.S. limit. Theirs--if I may use whole numbers--is five and ours is 50 at the moment.

    The Chair: So that's only a difference of 10 times, not 100.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: That's the current number.

    The Chair: But still, it makes a certain difference.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: We are proposing that we go to the five. That is the proposed limit that is going to be discussed, and that's going to go out for public consultation.

    The Chair: Why did you decide to go for five and not for 50?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: Why revise to five rather than maintain our 50?

    The Chair: Oh, sorry. You're going to five?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: That is the proposal, yes.

    The Chair: This is the intent for July 2004?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: In that order of time, yes. The consultation document that will be released shortly will have a proposed limit that is equivalent to the number the U.S. derived. Our rationale for going to that number is different from theirs.

    The Chair: And so there is a gap of 11 years between the time TCE is declared to be toxic under CEPA and the time the target of 0.005 comes into force.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: I would claim that the protection provided by the 50 was a number conservatively arrived at, one that used the science available at the time and a methodology that is common in Canada.

    The United States had something--and still has, to a large extent--called the Delaney clause, where if they determine something is carcinogenic, they have to take every reasonable measure to avoid any exposure to such a compound. They declared trichloroethylene was carcinogenic for the purposes of that clause. Their theoretical objective is zero because that's where you reach zero risk, when you have zero exposure, but when they looked at what was possible from a technological point of view, they concluded that the best their systems could do was five. In the United States the number is set federally, and the federal government then assists the states with a funding scheme so they can reach those numbers.

    We in Canada looked at it using our risk assessment methodology. We used conservative risk factors to provide a margin of safety in our estimates regarding the protection of human health, and at that time 50 seemed to be an appropriate number. If you ask most risk assessors, they'll say the difference in protection that's achieved for the population at large is marginal at these levels, between 50 and five.

    The Chair: This is all very fine, but why do we have to wait until the fall of 2004 for the implementation of this goal?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: As I said earlier, we are in a partnership with the provinces and we follow a process.

    The Chair: Partnership is fine, but public health is more important than partnership, isn't it? What is so essential and untouchable about a partnership that a decision you are certain has to be made cannot be made this year rather than in the fall of next year?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: I think the partnership is essential in terms of making decisions not just for today but for the future. We need their cooperation in terms of gathering data, in terms of deciding what exposures are--

    The Chair: But you have been gathering data for over ten years, Mr. Clarkson, since 1987.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: That's not what I was trying to say, Mr. Chair. I was saying that if we arbitrarily abrogate our partnership--

    The Chair: You're in charge of the public health. There is nothing arbitrary about your making a decision this year rather than next year. You have all the data you need.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: If I abrogate the system, then I lose the partnership and the collection of data for future work.

    The Chair: There is no one around this table who would believe that, Mr. Clarkson, when it comes to matters of this significance.

    Now, could you tell us--it may be strengthening your argument of partnership, perhaps--where would you have difficulties in achieving the 0.005 milligram per litre level in Canada? In which regions would you have difficulties?

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: There is no technical reason the numbers can't be achieved. The technology exists for that number to be achieved.

    The Chair: Well, then that's one reason more to accelerate the process, if there is no technical reason. What stands in the way? Tell us.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: The committee has agreed to try to move forward in terms of alerting communities that going to the proposed guideline is advised.

    The Chair: Do you have a reason to believe the provinces will adopt the 0.005 milligrams per litre?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: If the process follows what it has followed in the past, there's every reason to believe they will.

    The Chair: What is the process that makes it impossible to achieve reaching the target this year rather than in the fall of 2004? What is inherent in the process that is so untouchable?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: Partnership doesn't work well, in my view, if one partner abrogates the system unilaterally.

    The Chair: Of course, but you could have a conference call, a telephone conversation with all the 13 partners, and respect the process, couldn't you?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: That's conceivable, yes.

    The Chair: And you could decide it even tomorrow by way of a conference call. Will anyone deny you if you anticipate this date?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: I can't say.

    The Chair: Well, would you like to try?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: There is a public consultation phase that's built into this. That's the next phase in this particular part of the process.

    The Chair: Well, do you expect any opposition?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: It would be unlikely, but I can't deny it could occur.

    The Chair: Can the public consultation not be accelerated in the next few weeks so you achieve this by the end of the year?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: I think that part of the difference between your interpretation and my interpretation is that you say the value that is currently out there is not as protective to human health as five would be, but I say it's still a very good value. There are large safety factors that were built into that particular number when it was set.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clarkson.

    Second round, Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bob Mills: I share some of the frustration of our chairman. I'm listening, we're talking about our health and our grandchildren's health, and it's very frustrating to think we wouldn't put that as the top priority. It takes us ten years to identify a chemical, and once we do identify it, then it takes us another number of years before we take any action.

    I would like to think that we could identify a chemical, decide it's carcinogenic, and put all our efforts into cooperating with all of the jurisdictions to make it happen. Now, maybe I live in a dream world and that's not possible, but I find it hard to believe that any politician at any level could argue against public health. That's just difficult for me.

    As well, I listened to the environment commissioner make her report, and my question to you is, as she's telling you it has taken too long and there are a number of problems, what are you going to do about that? What will your response be to the environment commissioner next year when she does her report? How are you going to respond to her report?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: Perhaps Mr. Cooper will add more, but in the statement there was a commitment to look at fine tuning our guideline development process to try to speed up the process so it doesn't take as long as it does to go from identification and assessment to a final guideline.

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Riordan, do you agree?

    Mr. James Riordan: I would give a similar response. We told the commissioner that we were about to publish the regulation and that we had adopted a more streamlined risk management process that came out of, as I said earlier, the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which has prescribed legislative timelines within which we work.

    Mr. Bob Mills: We'll never have another 11 years, then. But if I'm here another 11 years, I don't want to have to come here with another chemical and say, well now, in 2003 you guys you said you were going to do it faster. Can you guarantee that?

    Mr. James Riordan: Since CEPA 1999 we've added 42 substances to the schedule 1 list of toxic substances, and we have not gone over the two-year timeline.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: There is another point, that 1987 was the point at which a guideline of 50 micrograms per litre was established. It wasn't as if we'd been without a guideline since 1987. That was when the first guideline--or at least the 50--was set as the limit.

    Mr. Bob Mills: With the more and more boil-water warnings and so on and more and more chemicals being identified, I think the perception of many people out there is that our water is becoming more and more dangerous to give to their kids or to shower with. Is that true?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: I think that Walkerton raised the profile in everybody's mind, and perhaps our awareness of boil-water orders is such that they seem to be more frequent. There have been a fairly high number of boil-water orders over the years. They're often made as a precautionary measure more than as a result of a need to do something because you have had contamination, a breakthrough or something. And boil-water orders are geared to the microbiological; they don't really deal with the chemical.

    Mr. Bob Mills: Finally, how much coordination is there with the work of other countries? I don't know the leaders, but there are probably leaders in this area of identifying chemicals and the dangers of these chemicals, be they Europe, the U.S., or wherever. How much communication is there between you and them?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: There are two levels here you are referring to. I think that in both cases, though, there is a considerable amount of effort to cooperate. We work through the WHO, the World Health Organization. We interface with the U.S. EPA all the time on what they're doing with drinking water. We're linked up with the American Water Works Association; they have a research program. We try to avoid duplication to maximize what resources we have. That's on the drinking water side.

    There are similar activities happening on the chemical side. We had recent meetings with the Europeans because they're attempting to do something similar under their proposed legislation to what we are doing under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

    Mr. Bob Mills: Do your two departments communicate well?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: All the time.

    Mr. James Riordan: I would just add, because you asked who the leaders were, that Canada is a leader. Canada is the only country in the world that has made a commitment to evaluate every chemical in commerce in the country. That's the reference Steven made to the 23,000 chemicals in commerce, and that's in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. No other country has that in their legislation. Canada also has a new substances notification program, which requires assessment of every chemical that's proposed for use in Canada. So we're seen in some of these international forums, like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United Nations, and the U.S. EPA, as leaders in risk assessment and risk management.

    Mr. Bob Mills: I've been told that you needed 250 new staff members but that you've only gotten 100. Are you short 150 staff members for this kind of evaluation?

    Mr. Joe Comartin: That was just on the pesticides.

    Mr. Bob Mills: Well, on the staffing question, is there a problem?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: We don't have unlimited resources. We have, I think, adequate staff in Health Canada to do the CEPA part 1 partnering with James's group. Certainly, we could do more revisions of guidelines or we could develop more guidelines with more staff, but I don't know if the provinces could keep up with us if we had more. There is in reality a limited amount of scientific expertise that's available within the country, and there is competition between various groups for that.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Cooper.

    Mr. John Cooper: If I could, I'll respond to the questions from both the chair and Mr. Mills, just to give further clarification regarding the delay until fall 2004 in the implementation of the guideline. It's true that the process does define a consultation period to allow for public input into the guideline. Two weeks ago the committee on drinking water approved the guideline going to consultation, but they also made a decision to go out to communities they feel are at risk of contamination from TCE to address the issue on an immediate basis rather than waiting for the consultation period to be finalized. So action will be undertaken in the interim, and that's just a point I wished to make sure the committee was clear on.

    The Chair: What action?

    Mr. John Cooper: If there is an area that has a TCE level above the proposed new guideline level, then action will begin now as opposed to our waiting for the fall of 2004, when the guideline becomes official. It's just to say we're not sitting waiting for the guideline process to finish before taking action, sir.

    The Chair: And “now” means when?

    Mr. John Cooper: “Now” means right after the committee meeting finished. We have been in touch with the provinces, trying to identify any areas that may be a problem.

    The Chair: When did that meeting take place?

    Mr. John Cooper: October 22 to 24 of this year.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: It was the one that was mentioned in the opening statement, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I want to follow up on the last point. You're saying, Mr. Clarkson, that the technical capability to reach the minimum standard of five is available. You also just said that if there was a particular area in proximity, say, to a degreasing factory that had polluted the aquifer, the standard was unacceptable and an action would be required. I think the committee would like to understand what that action is and how it is invoked. Who is accountable?

    The research and the work you have done and reported on have brought us to this point, but how is the accountability loop closed when you have local, provincial, and federal jurisdictions? I think that's the Walkerton issue, that for whatever reason the loop was open-ended. We don't need to go through that, but the committee would like to understand if the technical capacity is there. I think that this is what we want to understand. What is the action, and who is accountable to make sure that action is going to be taken with respect to the standard you have arrived at through your scientific and empirical analysis?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: The message is, as I said before, we've handed off the information to the provinces. The representatives on the Canadian drinking water committee are primarily representatives from the provincial environment and/or health ministries. They have taken back this message. They were planning to consult with medical officers of health to identify areas where they had potential TCE, but it's really the municipal ones if that's where the source is.

    There are a lot of groundwater supplies going through private wells, and the owner of the house has to first determine whether they're in an area at risk and then decide whether they will use one of two different kinds of treatment technology. They either use a point-of-entry system, where they put in a device that takes care of all the water in the house, or they use a point-of-use system. There, if you take your drinking water from the kitchen tap, I suppose you'll have something like a Brita water filter--not a Brita but that kind of idea.

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I see. So you have the technology scaled for whatever application is required. If it's well use, you have that technology in your action plan. What if it is a municipal water treatment system? Is the technology available in terms of dealing with that and meeting that--

    Mr. John Cooper: Generally, you use a combination of air stripping, which blows air into the water so a volatile chemical will evaporate, and activated charcoal filters, and that will bring down your levels well below five.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Are these expensive applications?

    Mr. John Cooper: In terms of the residential point of entry or point of use, they're generally, I believe, about $200.

    It would also depend on your municipality; the charcoal filter bed and the aeration would not cost that much. In certain instances you just use fountains to blow the water up into the air. But no, these are not major costs, and for municipalities it would represent a very insignificant portion of their overall costs.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Have you reached a point where you have an inventory of those communities that are categorized as not being close enough to the standard of five you have established? Do you have that inventory? Whose responsibility is it to gather that inventory if you don't have it?

    Mr. John Cooper: This is what we do through the committee on drinking water; we work with our provincial partners to gather exposure data across the country. We've been working for the last two weeks and were working prior to that, as the TCE guideline was being developed, asking them for information.

    We have reinitiated that process now that we've agreed to go out to consultation on the new proposed guideline to make sure there are no communities...there probably will be isolated situations where it is above five but below 50. The provinces have indicated they intend to identify those areas and to work to adjust to the situation.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

    Before we conclude, let me ask a few questions. I appreciate Mr. Cooper's clarification earlier about the meeting that took place on October 22 to 24 and about the decision made on that occasion. We would very much like to see it confirmed in writing by way of a published press release or whatever because that would help to refresh our memory.

    I'm going back to this federal-provincial-territorial committee, Mr. Clarkson, which is so dedicated it cannot be given a push now and then when necessary. Is this committee planning any review of any chemicals, and if so, what are the timelines expected for completion?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: John, perhaps you could provide the details better than I.

    Mr. John Cooper: Is that the evaluation or the reassessment?

    The Chair: The reviews.

    Mr. John Cooper: I presume that by “reviews” you mean the assessment of existing guidelines. We have 83 existing guidelines, and then we have developed new guidelines for substances for which we don't have guidelines.

    Currently we're working on re-evaluations of chlorinated disinfection by-products like trihalomethanes and also arsenic and TCE. We're also looking at new contaminants, including haloacetonitriles...

    The Chair: Would it be easier for you to provide this committee with a list of the substances, also the timelines, so we have a complete picture of what is being planned with this federal-provincial-territorial committee?

    Then, the corollary to that question is, is Health Canada planning to accelerate the process, particularly for priority chemicals?

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: You mean priority chemicals as determined by what priority-setting method?

    The Chair: I mean priority chemicals as defined by CEPA. You already identified some a moment ago, Mr. Cooper, and I can read them to you from a list provided by Health Canada: arsenic, chloral hydrate, chlorate, chlorite, chlorine dioxide, cyanobacterial toxins, microcystins, cyanogen chloride, haloacetic acids, methyl tertiary-butyl ether, MCPA pesticide, natural protozoa, trihalomethanes, turbidity, and viruses.

    Mr. John Cooper: Those are all guidelines we are either currently working on or will be working on over the next year.

    The Chair: Yes, and the question is, does Health Canada plan to accelerate the process?

    Mr. John Cooper: As Mr. Clarkson pointed out, we certainly intend to streamline the process by engaging experts early on in the process.

    The Chair: Does “streamline” mean accelerate or not?

    Mr. John Cooper: To the extent possible, we will be accelerating it by bringing in the experts earlier on and by strengthening our relationships with agencies that do risk assessment so we can share the information rather than duplicate it. At the same time, we can't accelerate it to the point where we are not doing a credible risk assessment of a chemical.

    We certainly want to take advantage of the risk assessments done by other agencies. We do work very closely with the World Health Organization, USEPA, Environment Canada, and the PMRA. They all do risk assessments, they all have substances that relate to water, and it's our intention to strengthen the relationships we already have and share that information.

    The Chair: Some of these substances have been identified in several IJC reports over the last ten or fifteen years, so there is an element of urgency that is building up. It's not a new issue, but certainly from a health perspective it's one that requires attention because so much time has gone by. So the question is—probably it is a policy question, which you may not be in a position to answer—what can be done or ought to be done in order to accelerate the process?

    If you feel you can't answer it now because of understandable reasons, perhaps you may be in a position to do it in writing--unless we put this question to the minister in the form of a letter

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: I don't quite understand what you mean by “accelerate”. We have a process for guideline—

    The Chair: It's only based on the fact, Mr. Clarkson, that the TCE history is sounding a bell of alarm. This history doesn't show a commitment to a speedy resolution in the handling of a certain substance, given that it has been dragging on over a period of 11 years, between 1993 and the fall of 2004, during which time TCE has probably been acting as a carcinogen to humans. That tells us, maybe wrongly, that the system is not proceeding at a speed that is desirable in order to protect the public interest. Now, maybe this conclusion is wrong, but then the onus is on you to prove it is wrong.

    Mr. John Cooper: Mr. Chair, perhaps I can add that while I think accelerating and streamlining the process are important measures we have to undertake, the situation with TCE was far more complex than that. We were dealing with a substance in drinking water you could absorb through drinking, through dermal exposure, and through inhalation. This required a new protocol to be developed in terms of how to develop a drinking water guideline that would factor in those three modes of exposure.

    The Chair: But we had the American protocol already.

    Mr. John Cooper: The Americans have not developed a multi-route exposure protocol.

»  (1705)  

    The Chair: No, but at least they have a benchmark.

    Mr. John Cooper: The American benchmark established in 1987 was based on links between cancer and the inhalation of fumes off TCE in the workplace. It had no links to drinking water other than the fact that they knew TCE could end up in drinking water. Because it could end up in drinking water, they had to have a guideline, so they chose a guideline at the lowest possible level treatment could achieve, a level they could ensure. That's how they came up with five. It wasn't scientifically based on ingestion, inhalation, or dermal exposure to drinking water. Currently the USEPA is still undergoing its review of TCE.

    The Chair: I have two more questions, and one has to do with the newly formed interdepartmental committee of ADMs. Will that committee review the process by which drinking water guidelines are set?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: I don't know what its agenda is going to be, but I understand a little bit about it. It's meant to focus on the federal government or house and will deal with issues of water with respect to federal responsibilities. It may choose to review the output of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water, but I'm not aware there is any proposal in that particular committee. The proposal I know of at the moment is that the Canadian drinking water committee will be reporting to an entity under the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Advisory Committee on Population Health.

    The Chair: And finally, there's a question that relates to the Deputy Minister Sustainable Development Coordinating Committee, which was also recently formed. The question is whether water becomes a priority for you and for Environment Canada as a result of information from that committee.

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: I would say, Mr. Chair, that water has always been a priority with us in Health Canada--one among many priorities, because there are a lot. We have worked with the provinces for 30 years, devoting all our efforts to working forward on guidelines and guideline revision as fast as we can, respecting our process but also taking care in our risk assessments that our recommendations are based on good science.

    I'd like to say that for trichloroethylene we've had a number in place that has been largely protective of human health since 1987, and you focused on this today. One problem with trichloroethylene is largely, in my view, a result of groundwater and source water being threatened because of poor waste disposal practices, so there's a combination of things at play in terms of threatening our drinking water. The entire fault doesn't lie with a guideline that has sat there being looked at each year in terms of a number of things the committee is doing.

    We've launched a very extensive effort to deal with chlorinated disinfection by-products because that's where the committee thought we ought to focus a good deal of our resources. This was an area where we didn't have guidelines, or the ones we had were suspected of being too high, and we wanted to look into lowering them.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clarkson.

    Yes, Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Chair, there's just one question you reminded me of there. With landfills getting bigger and older and with more and more contaminants seeping further and further into our aquifers, aren't we going to have more and more problems? Isn't TCE going to increase even though we've stopped using it? If it's coming from landfills--and that's one of the sources of it--isn't it just going to get worse?

»  (1710)  

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: It's possible, but if you mean landfills used as municipal waste disposal sites--

    Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, that's what you're saying, isn't it? And commercial--

    Mr. Steve Clarkson Beckwith Township is a case where apparently there wasn't any effort made to do anything other than dump the TCE and other things there. There was no effort at containment. There was nothing built in. As James has already said, there's nobody here who can deal with contaminated sites, but I can say there is a recognition of the need to put in containment systems. Now the systems militate against anything migrating off the site, but with the old ones it's too late.

    Mr. Bob Mills: There are some 50,000 or more of those kinds of sites. That doesn't bode well as that stuff spreads, because it's going to spread, isn't it, if it's already there?

    Mr. Steve Clarkson: It's quite possible, yes. Certainly, the Beckwith Township experience shows you can get migration.

    The Chair: That's an example of why we shouldn't reduce taxes. It's so we can have revenue to do certain things.

    Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, I just have a question that stems from that. Then you have a time lapse problem. If you're ever going to deal with the TCE, then it's not just a case of treatment at the consumer end or even at the municipal end. I take it that provincial standards are applicable to the residue that comes out of old landfill sites and what not and that the province is responsible for testing at various places around those sites.

    There are two parts to the question. First, is the present collection of degreased agent that has TCE as part of it being monitored, and is that subject to stringent controls? I remember, when I used to work in a garage, we had a hydraulic pumper that used to come around and suck out all of the solvents we used. I take it that, for the cleaning of wipers and so on in those plants that deal with that, there is legislation that's in place. I take it that this is a provincial issue. Does that come up in your discussions at your committee as an issue in terms of dealing with this time bomb, if you will, this time lapse issue?

    The second part of the question is, does the technology exist to treat the effluent that comes out of the landfills? Is that another question that is being dealt with by your committee?

    Mr. John Cooper: In terms of the potential down-the-road impacts from leechates from dump sites, that is certainly a concern. Federally and provincially, environment and health ministries have both been working collectively on source-to-tap or multi-barrier approaches to protecting water, recognizing we have to protect the lakes, rivers, and aquifers too. Part of that protection is identifying old dump sites and ensuring we have monitoring systems in place to ensure that any leechate coming out is known about and acted upon.

    This source-to-tap approach is in its infancy right now, but there are provinces like Ontario that have just proposed implementing source protection plans for all its major water basins. Quebec has identified 22 basins for which it will develop watershed management plans, and Alberta is proposing the same thing. So we are looking towards better protection of the watersheds and therefore identification of the potential sources of contaminants within those.

    In terms of your second question, in terms of the technology for dealing with those issues, it's extremely expensive and certainly not an area of our expertise or an area we actually deal with in our committee on drinking water, but it's being dealt with through science and various other groups.

    The Chair: If you were to tour some locations in Europe, you would be quite impressed by how far they have progressed with their technology.

    Let me try to conclude now this way. We certainly appreciate the complexity of the issue and the requirements of the process. The clarification by Mr. Cooper was certainly very helpful because there was a moment when I would have despaired and concluded that the process took precedence over the substance. I would like to be able to turn my light off tonight when I go to sleep and believe that actually the substance takes precedence over the process, and I think we are perhaps moving in that direction.

    However, I would also caution Health Canada not to put too much faith in the process when the performance of Saskatchewan and Ontario in North Battleford and Walkerton has been such that it does not inspire the highest level of confidence. Maybe the process leads to delays that are not in the interests of the population at large, regardless of the importance of federal-provincial and federal-territorial relations. Those two examples are very clear in everybody's memory, of course.

    I would not put too much weight on the data on page 2 in the table presented today by Health Canada. I find it disturbing a bit that we moved from 0.0002 on paper to a verbally presented 0.0001 and then to a correction to 0.001. That tells me there is no accuracy in the text of the presentation to this committee, and I hope that this is limited to the presentation and is not reflective of the operations of the department.

    Finally, I will undertake on behalf of the committee to write a letter to the minister in which we will seek her confirmation that the action on TCE is being completed as indicated today. We would also like to bring to her attention the importance of accelerating the process for the priority chemicals that are on the website of her own department so we can at least have some degree of assurance in her reply that this meeting was worth the effort. We also hope her reply will be a positive one.

    Are there any comments, any suggestions? If not, I thank Mr. Clarkson, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Carrier, Mr. Riordan, and Mr. Leah for their presence, and we look forward to other meetings. Thank you very much.

    The meeting stands adjourned.