Past Session:

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Issue 14 - Evidence

OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 25, 2001

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill S-18, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (clean drinking water), met this day at 6:20 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: I call the committee to order.

Senators, today we will hear from Health Canada officials and from the Food Inspection Agency.

As you are probably aware, we have already had a couple of meetings on this subject. Have you read the transcript of the last meeting?

Mr. Rod Raphael, Director General, Safe Environments Programme, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada: Yes, sir.

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Mr. Raphael: Health Canada's responsibilities for drinking water are quite varied. We conduct research, do assessments of contaminants in drinking water supplies, help monitor water quality on First Nations lands and set health and safety standards for pre-packaged water and ice - called "the bottled water regulations" by some - regulate and assess the safety of water used in food production and provide advice regarding the provision of potable water to employees in the federally regulated workplace.

Health Canada also works very closely with the provinces and territories to develop and establish the guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality that are used by federal, provincial and territorial government departments as a benchmark for determining the quality of drinking water supplies in their jurisdiction. These guidelines are used by federal departments, and in some areas they are referenced in federal regulations under the Canada Labour Code.

Since the tragedies in Walkerton, Ontario and North Battleford, Saskatchewan, there have been calls for national drinking water standards. In essence, some might say that the technical version of these standards already exists in the form of the guidelines for drinking water quality.

[Translation]

As I mentioned, these guidelines will be developed by Health Canada, in close collaboration with representatives from each of the provinces and territories, through federal-provincial-territorial committees on drinking water. This collaboration has been active for more than 30 years. Committee members meet twice a year to review the guidelines and set new ones in light of the most recent scientific data. Officials from Health Canada act as scientific advisors to the committee, by conducting the scientific risk assessments for the guidelines.

Through a consensus process, the committee votes on all proposed guidelines, and makes its recommendation to its parent committee, the federal/provincial/territorial committee on environmental and occupational health. Health Canada publishes on its Web site the summary report of the recent committee meetings.

[English]

The guidelines established by this subcommittee are applicable to drinking water from all private and municipal water sources across the country. Each province and territory then establishes its own requirements and approach to ensure the safety of drinking water supplies based on the Canadian guidelines. The health protection provided by the guidelines is compatible with that in other jurisdictions found in the United States and, at the international level, with the World Health Organization.

This cooperative approach to developing Canadian guidelines is necessary because the responsibility for safe drinking water in Canada is shared by many levels of government. Indeed, all levels of government have some responsibility for ensuring the safety of the water we drink. In most areas, the provinces and territories are responsible for setting and enforcing standards, guidelines and regulations to ensure drinking water treatment adequately protects public health. Municipal governments are generally responsible for supplying safe drinking water to their residents as an essential public service. Municipalities do so in conformity with standards or objectives for drinking water established by the province or territory in which they are located.

Historically, drinking water quality has been considered a natural resource area of activity and is generally in the area of responsibility of the provincial and territorial departments of health or environment.

The subcommittee provides a forum for frank discussion on water quality issues in all jurisdictions. Throughout its history, a relationship of trust has developed between the members of this group; they often turn to one another and Health Canada for advice and scientific information related to health issues. The focus of the relationship is on preventing health concerns and timely remediation of issues that do arise.

In light of the incidents of water-borne disease in both Walkerton, Ontario and North Battleford, Saskatchewan, the subcommittee has moved forward to develop a document that lays out best management practices for ensuring the quality of drinking water in Canada. A draft version of this document is currently being reviewed by the subcommittee. The final document will be published and will form the basis of an expanded technical document to be used by drinking water authorities and treatment plant operators to ensure that in every jurisdiction safe and reliable water is possible.

Rather than solely focus on numerical guidelines, the best management practices focus on ensuring that multiple barriers are in place to protect water quality from source to tap. These barriers include selecting and protecting source waters, buildingand maintaining appropriate treatment plants based on the characteristics of the source water, maintaining distribution systems, monitoring water quality and responding appropriately to incidents and emergencies that may affect public health.

[Translation]

Every provincial and territorial government has, over the past two years, reviewed its drinking water legislation and regulations to ensure these are adequately protective of human health.

The Government of Canada is also reviewing its programs and policies to enhance health protection.

[English]

The federal government is responsible for drinking water supplies on federal and First Nations lands. Responsibility for safe water on reserves south of 60 degrees latitude is shared among Health Canada, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and First Nations communities.

In communities north of 60 degrees latitude, including the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, much of the responsibility for drinking water on reserves has been delegated to territorial governments through transfer agreements.

Health Canada works in partnership with First Nations communities to sample and test all of the First Nations community water supplies according to the guidelines. Results are provided to the band, which has custody of the information.

Funding for drinking water infrastructure in First Nations communities is provided by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Health Canada maintains national surveillance for infectious diseases, including those linked to contaminated water, and conducts studies on water-borne illness.

During the Walkerton and North Battleford tragedies, Health Canada scientists were invited to assist local health authorities by leading the epidemiological investigation and identifying both the extent of the outbreaks and the sequence of events leading to them.

I apologize that we do not have one of those scientists with us today to respond to you should you have specific questions about the response in Walkerton and North Battleford.

Health Canada is positioned to respond quickly and effectively in the case of an emergency affecting the health of Canadians - emergencies including those arising from water-borne disease.

In the area of pre-packaged water and ice and water used in the preparation of food sold in Canada, Health Canada's role is to establish policies and standards relating to their safety and nutritional quality. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for the enforcement of the regulations and guidelines established by Health Canada.

[Translation]

Although the specific regulatory requirements for pre-packaged water and ice are stipulated in the food and drug regulations, Health Canada continually assesses the need for new and stricter regulations to prevent microbiological, chemical and radiological contamination of bottled water, pre-packaged ice, and water used in food production.

These regulations take into consideration the maximum acceptable concentrations outlined in Health Canada's guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality.

[English]

Health Canada advises the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on specific requirements to ensure the safety of water used in food production. In addition, Health Canada is responsible for providing the agency with appropriate, accurate and timely assessments of microbiological, chemical and radiological contaminants found in bottled water and pre-packaged ice.

This concludes my remarks in regard to Health Canada's role in the area of drinking water quality. As I conclude these comments, let me introduce Mr. Keith Conn, from Health Canada's First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Ms Claudette Dalpé, from the Health Products and Food Branch and Greg Orriss, from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Mr. Orriss will answer questions involving the activities of the agency in water.

Mr. Greg Orriss, Director, Bureau of Food Safety and Consumer Protection, Office of the Vice-President ofPrograms, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Honourable senators, I am pleased to be here this evening to clarify the role of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency with respect to enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act.

CFIA's responsibilities for the enforcement of the act are articulated under section 11 of the Canadian Food Inspection Act. Specifically, subsection 11(3) of the act states that the agency is responsible for enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act as it relates to food, as defined in section 2 of that act.

The CFIA is also responsible for federal food safety inspection and key compliance, enforcement and stewardship roles. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency verifies that the food industry has implemented and followed procedures that meet established federal safety standards. The agency carries out inspection, enforcement and compliance, surveillance and monitoring, emergency food recall measures, and develops communication and education programs to inform Canadians about the measures they can take to protect their health.

The agency enforces specifically division 12 of the food and drug regulations concerning pre-packaged water and ice. The agency is also responsible for assessing the safety of water used in food processing. This is presently regulated under various regulations under the Canada Agriculture Products Act, the Fish Inspection Act and the Meat Inspection Act.

The agency has taken action to heighten industry awareness of the potential health risks associated with water used in or on food products. On October 25, 2000, the agency issued to food processors and producers an advisory entitled "Safe water for food processing." This advisory reminded the food industry of their responsibility to maintain effective programs to ensure that the water used in food processing is safe and meets the requirements in the guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality.

The agency plays a cooperative and leadership role in implementing partnering arrangements with other federaldepartments, with provincial and territorial governments, and with other agencies that share jurisdiction over bottled water and water used in food processing. Partnerships in cooperative strategies are essential in preventing the introduction of water-borne hazards into the Canadian food supply.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to clarify the role of CFIA. I will be pleased to answer questions.

Senator Christensen: As you have stated in your presentation, and as we know, the issue of water is certainly a patchwork quilt across the country. A number of jurisdictions, including municipal, provincial, territorial and federal, are involved in the issue of water. When something goes wrong, it is difficult to trace who has the responsibility and where the responsibility lies to do what.

In your estimation and evaluation, will Bill S-18 deal with the problem and make it easier to ensure safe water in Canada, or will it make it more difficult? The intent of this bill is to bring things together, to make people more confident that our water is safer and to be able to make that process easier. In your estimation, will that happen?

Mr. Raphael: From the information that we have concerning Bill S-18, it would be difficult to answer the question as to whether it simplifies or clarifies the system, because of the interjurisdictional relationships, some legal and some by agree ment, that exist in the area.

We will need a sense of how Bill S-18 might be rolled out or how a compliance enforcement mechanism might be included within the regulations, in order to really provide a proper answer as to whether the bill might simplify or clarify the current situation. Also, we will need to understand the effect of those regulations or subsequent elements in the development of the bill on the provincial jurisdiction that exists at present.

Senator Christensen: As the bill is now written, it is not clear to you whether those things would be possible?

Mr. Raphael: We would need to understand the regulations and the strategies in terms of compliance enforcement and the interjurisdictional aspects of the bill and how that would operate. Right now I am not in a position to say that it actually clarifies, improves or adds a burden to the system.

Senator Christensen: What effect do you think this bill would have on areas that fall under the federal responsibility, such as northern communities and First Nation lands?

Mr. Keith Conn, Acting Director General, Community Health Programs Directorate, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Health Canada: Honourable senators, as my colleague has stated, without a regulatory framework it would be difficult to assess the impact on First Nations lands, in particular. I could not comment on the North, because that is essentially the jurisdiction of the territorial governments. However, we do have a program in place with First Nations communities in terms of testing and monitoring drinking water quality, working closely with the communities and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Aside from what my colleague has offered, I cannot comment whether this is good, bad or an improvement.

The Chairman: Mr. Raphael mentioned that the federal government controlled or at least analyzed water and ice that went into food preparation. Would any of the contaminated water in Walkerton or North Battleford have been used in food preparation?

Mr. Orriss: Even prior to Walkerton, there were specific regulatory requirements under the legislation that we enforce relative to the safety of water used in food production and processing.

After Walkerton, we strengthened our capacity to look at the impact of potentially contaminated or contaminated water supplies as we became aware of increasing boil water advisories. We issued an advisory to all of the major industry associations, reminding them of their responsibility to take steps to ensure the safety of water at all times, including when there were boil water advisories or periods of contamination.

Specifically with respect to your question on Walkerton and North Battleford, yes, we have a process in place and we have advised our inspection staff to conduct an analysis when there is such a boil water advisory to determine the geographical area that is affected and the food processing establishments that fall within that geographical area, to deal with their provincial colleagues, as food inspection is a shared jurisdiction in some areas, and to assess the impact of the advisory on the potential contamination of food and take appropriate action to ensure continued safety.

The Chairman: Mr. Orriss, it is my impression that it has always been your responsibility to ensure that water used in the preparation of food is pure, or at least not contaminated. Was a mistake made? Was contaminated water being used in food preparation in these towns?

Mr. Orriss: Certainly the municipal supplies would be used in food processing in those areas. We have followed up with industry to ensure that they have secondary treatment systems should such incidents take place. We have to analyze the specific circumstances in terms of the nature of the contaminate and the potential impact, depending on the stage of food processing and so on, on the ultimate safety of the food. We have to take the necessary action to ensure the ultimate safety of the food.

Senator Spivak: Your presentation raises very many questions. There seems to be no critical analysis of the role of the federal government, which one would expect after the horrific impact of what has happened in Canada with regard to the quality of water. I find none of that in your presentation.

Do you think we should have mandatory national water safety standards, as they do in the United States, either under criminal power or peace, order and good government? There is no constitutional barrier to that. Where do you think the federal government leadership role is? Should it be in the Department of Health? Canadians expect that sort of leadership from the federal government, even though the issue of water is a shared jurisdiction.

It seems to me you presented your role as a rather ancillary one. It also strikes me as kind of illogical that you have direct responsibility for bottled water and ice but not responsibility for water that people drink. I would like to know your view of the federal government's role.

What, in your view, are the causes of what happened? What is your view of accelerated build-up of intensive agricultural production? I understand that Walkerton was the centre of very intensive agricultural production, and not only in cattle. Now huge hog production facilities are being contemplated.

What should the role of the federal government be? How would you evaluate it in light of what has happened? What is your view as to the causes of what happened in Walkerton and other places? Obviously the system you are depicting here has not worked.

Mr. Raphael: I would first like to address the issue of the federal role. The direct response of Health Canada in the hours and days after the crisis began in Walkerton highlighted what I think is a close relationship, especially in the public health area, involving scientists and specialists. More than that, very early on we had signals from very senior elements within government that there is an interest in enforceable national standards. I believe that the motion passed in the House of Commons was a culmination of many of those voices coming together and asking for and demonstrating federal leadership and signalling officials to pursue with vigour a package of nationally enforceable standards. The words of Minister Rock and the Prime Minister were clear signals of where the federal government is going with respect to that. That was not new. The Speech from the Throne also demonstrates a sense of having stronger guidelines and looking for standards.

The impact of Walkerton has been to shake all jurisdictions involved with water to their foundations and to provoke them to examine their practices, including looking at the raison d'être for some of their activities. We are now engaged in such a national examination through a number of federal-provincial bodies right up to and including federal-provincial ministerial councils such as the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

You asked me to comment on the role of the federal government. That role has been demonstrated, from the point of what was done in direct response to Walkerton and the policy consideration that has resulted, including a positive signal being given by the Senate through the discussion of this bill. The parliamentary motion and the examination of Bill S-18 by the Senate indicate federal leadership.

In terms of the causes of what happened, we are still waiting for the final report. Although the testimony involves operations, monitoring, compliance and enforcement of monitoring regimes, it would be unfair for me to pass judgment. The report will give us a clear sense of what happened and the various elements of the Walkerton situation.

In terms of intensive agricultural production and its involvement with Walkerton, I would say that Health Canada, through its population and public health branch, its laboratories and epidemiologists, has been tracking public health impacts of such operations. We have produced reports that clearly denote some concern for ground water quality in proximity to those operations.

In terms of whether those operations actually cause or are a causal factor in Walkerton, I will await the findings of Justice O'Connor. However, it is fair to say that Health Canada is concerned about groundwater and other potential health impacts of those kinds of operations, as we would be with anything in close proximity to either groundwater or population centres.

I would refrain at this point from saying that this or that particular thing is the cause of what happened in Walkerton. I think we should all await the findings of Justice O'Connor.

Senator Spivak: As officials, if asked for advice, would you advise the minister to go ahead with mandatory national safety standards for water?

Mr. Raphael: We are following up on the parliamentary motion. We are working with our colleagues in other federal departments as well as with our provincial colleagues on that point. In addition to the environment ministers considering this issue, the federal-provincial agriculture ministers met in June to consider what national standards might mean. Their communiqué was very supportive of standards that clearly put farming practices in terms of best management practices for environmental safety and quality.

Although I have not said what I would be advising the minister if asked, we have had, through the House of Commons motion, a clear signal of what the government is expecting officials to move on expeditiously at this point.

Senator Cochrane: My first question is for the representative from CFIA. What is Health Canada's role in ensuring that Canadians have clean drinking water? What are you telling Canadians about the health of their drinking water?

Mr. Orriss: It may be more appropriate for this question to be answered by Mr. Raphael, if you do not mind.

Senator Cochrane: In your presentation, Mr. Orriss, you spoke about the measures that can protect the health of Canadians. However, go ahead, Mr. Raphael.

Mr. Raphael: Health Canada has a variety of roles. We perform scientific assessments, we do research, we communicate quite openly on health threats that we know and understand, and we also advise jurisdictions, including colleague departments at the federal level, as to Canadian guidelines for drinking water quality. We believe we have potentially within those guidelines the technical aspects of what would bear up under scrutiny in terms of standards.

However, when you speak about Health Canada's role in informing Canadians, it is one of directly having provision of information. We have an extensive set of materials that are publicly available at sites across the country. We also have an extensive Web site in terms of water quality that has links to provincial aspects. If Canadians are interested, it is possible for them to access some of their provincial people through the Health Canada Web site.

We see our role as not only providing the scientific basis and underpinnings for activity and action, but also to inform Canadians as best we can of potential or real health threats facing drinking water. In such a role, we have been called in to provide assistance to local public health officers in a number of places, some more famous than others, such as Walkerton, but we provide such public health officers with advice across the country.

We see ourselves not only in terms of talking to Canadians about water and water quality and putting them in touch with their local officials and local providers of water and water quality and their local regulatory authorities, but also providing a scientific service to some of those local providers and regulators who may need our assistance.

Senator Cochrane: There are many homes in Canada that do not have access to a computer, and thus the Web site you referred to. Who else do people rely on? Does Health Canada send out a notification or a special warning? What do we do with those people who do not have the latest technology?

Mr. Raphael: We have extensive contacts with local public health officers, as well as local physicians and physician networks through the provincial health authorities. We became involved in Walkerton when we received a call from both the local medical officer of health and the chief medical officer of health from the Province of Ontario.

Our activity outside of that emergency link to public health officers includes regular information sessions. We depend heavily on the use of public health professionals in local areas, hospitals, clinics, and so on, to help to provide information to interested people in the public.

In referring to the Web, it was not to the exclusion of other forms of communication and information. Generally, however, everything we have is available on the Web, but is also available in hard copy fact sheets. Some of you may be familiar with a document we produce entitled "It's Your Health." That document is widely disseminated. Those are the avenues and venues that we tend to use.

Senator Cochrane: Within the data that you have been collecting from right across our nation, because we do have water problems right across our nation, what indicators do you have regarding hospital admissions for serious stomach disorders? There must be a database somewhere that will tell us that. Also, what costs are associated with the consumption of poor quality water by Canadians?

Mr. Raphael: I again apologize for not having someone here from the Population and Public Health Branch of the department. That branch deals with surveillance and monitoring ofwater-borne disease and illness. The basic problem in that area is the difficulty of quantifying the impact of water-borne illness. And until a proper epidemiological investigation can be carried out, it is a very difficult to determine whether the illness is in fact water-borne.

I will provide the committee with an answer to that later because I know that the materials do exist at Health Canada concerning the economic burden of illness that takes into account the impacts of water-borne disease.

Senator Cochrane: I would like to have that, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Conn, can you tell us about the state of drinking water in Aboriginal communities? I am particularly interested because I visited the Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories this year. I am curious about the state of drinking water in those communities.

Mr. Conn: Senator, to elaborate on Health Canada's role with regard to safe drinking water in First Nations communities, through our First Nations and Inuit Health Branch and our environmental health program we do have an established drinking water safety program. That program works in partnership with First Nations communities to ensure that water quality sampling, monitoring and surveillance programs are in place in those communities in accordance with the guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality.

The drinking water safety program essentially provides that mechanism for advice in support of communities operating and maintaining their systems, identifying and resolving water quality issues and establishing water quality sampling and monitoring surveillance programs. We also participate with the Indian and Northern Affairs vis-à-vis training water treatment operators in communities.

As Mr. Raphael mentioned, we are also involved in general community awareness education campaigns on the importance of testing and monitoring of water systems within communities. We also work closely with Indian and Northern Affairs in the larger training program for First Nations communities.

The state of drinking water in those communities is such that we believe that with increased testing and monitoring and enhanced communications we could eliminate certain issues that those communities face that are faced by any other jurisdiction or municipality. We are working with communities themselves to establish effective protocols for identification and intervention in water quality issues in the communities and effectively increasing our communications with chiefs and councils so that direct action can be taken.

We are aware generally that there are issues within communities in terms of drinking water quality, where systems, processes and training could be enhanced to improve water quality, so we are working on those issues with communities. I cannot really comment on the North. I am not familiar with Nunavut and the Yukon Territory.

Senator Adams: In Nunavut, when we hear about things like what happened in Walkerton, people do not always understand what causes it or what it means.

Health Canada has no standards for water treatment in cities or small communities. Where I live, the Department of Public Works is responsible for water and sewers in the communities. Only Rankin Inlet and Iqaluit in Nunavut have water and sewer services. The rest of the communities have a pump house system, and I do not know how often the water tanks are cleaned. That is the kind of issue that mainly concerns me. We do not have to worry about caribou contaminating our water supply as cows and pigs can do in other parts of Canada.

In the last 15 to 20 years, people in our communities have begun to die from cancer. We do not know what is causing this. It could be something to do with the drinking water or the food. We never had this problem before the government stepped in to provide us with housing, roads, et cetera. Now more people are dying from cancer and other illnesses. We would like to know what is causing it.

If Bill S-18 is passed, will we be provided with assistance with our water systems in the North?

Mr. Conn: First, without the benefit of all three territorial governments and their departments of public works, it would be difficult to assess the impacts of the proposed bill.

Second, there are levels of service in terms of industry norms. Obviously, there is a significant concern about the environment that you describe in terms of the climate and geography of the North. Certainly there would be an examination by public works. They would be best positioned to assess that, in terms of what is appropriate for the environment in the North.

Without a clear understanding of the types of standards that are being proposed, or without a clear framework, it would be difficult to assess the effectiveness in the North broadly without that analysis.

Senator Adams: Many elders in some of the northern communities have running water. They cannot even drink that water because people are not used to chlorine water in the house, especially for making tea. The majority of elders drink tea. I live at Rankin Inlet; we are about five miles south of the river. People haul fresh water in four-wheelers because they do not really trust the water.

We have intake from the lake two miles away. Water must circulate back to the lake. In some places, the fish are almost clear in colour because of the chlorine in the lake. Years ago, we had witnesses who said that if you boiled water for drinking and if I poured that water in the lake it would pollute the water. Is that the truth?

Do you remember that, Mr. Chairman? Perhaps it was Senator Kenny at that time.

The Chairman: Do you have another question, Senator Adams? I was intrigued with your suggestion that the chlorine that circulated back to the lake turned all the fish clear in colour.

Senator Eyton: Bill S-18 is not a large bill; obviously it is more complex than it might appear. Bill S-18 was introduced because water, and the question of its quality and safety, is a great concern to Canadians. As we are discovering, the question is more convoluted than I might have imagined at the beginning.

I find it intriguing to think that if I go to my hotel room tonight and use the bottled water that is there on the counter the Prime Minister is responsible but that if I drink the water from the tap the mayor and the premier are somehow responsible. I find that strange. Similarly, if I fly in an airplane I know that the Prime Minister is responsible. It is complex.

Health Canada clearly has a responsibility for bottled water, ice, buses, trains and First Nations. These areas are clearly within federal jurisdiction. Bill S-18 says that we have one organization that is competent that can, and we think perhaps should, provide a national standard and consistent national enforcement.

You have told us that there is a subcommittee that has been around for some 30 years and that it meets two or three times a year. The difficulty is that the guidelines that are developed and change over the period are voluntary. We all know that voluntary systems work much of the time, perhaps most of the time. There will always be exceptions and difficulties coming out of that.

I would like you to forget about your roles with Health Canada. We have the subcommittee and there are voluntary guidelines. Surely, given the concerns of Canadians, now is the time where the federal government should seize the opportunity and the need and define a mandatory national standard with consistent national enforcement. As it happens, the federal government is the only body that can do that.

Is that not a good idea? Is that not something we should try to do? How do we go about getting that done? Bill S-18 looks like a simple bill that has some merit on the face of it.

Mr. Raphael: First, I am Canadian and I do drink water. I have the same concerns as everyone else for drinking water quality. I am fortunate to work in an area that allows me to know maybe a little more and work with some experienced scientific professionals. Perhaps that allows me to understand more than someone else might - in terms of the opportunities that I have. However, I share the same concerns as everyone else and want enforceable national standards for water. Those concerns were embodied in the parliamentary motion and its passage. All but one party within the House of Commons voted for that motion. That reflects what Canadians want in terms of water of top-notch quality and an appropriate system in place to monitor that water. The object is also, one hopes, to conserve and protect water, to avoid it becoming contaminated. As some of us who are working more closely to the file realize, it is far more expensive to try to treat and clean water once it has been contaminated than it is to prevent the contamination in the first place.

Senator Buchanan: I do not wish to suggest that there is anything wrong with the water in Halifax, which I think is probably the best in the country, but recently my wife decided that we should buy an 18-litre bottled water dispenser. A $10 deposit on the bottle is required, and then it costs $2.50 to refill it.

I have heard people say that there is no difference between bottled water and municipal water. I do not know whether that is true.

Senator Eyton said that Health Canada and not the provinces or the municipalities is responsible for pre-packaged water. Has Health Canada compared various brands of bottled water with water from municipal systems in various parts of the country? Have you ranked the various brands against municipal water?

Ms Claudette Dalpé, Associate Director, Food Regulatory Program, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada: There has been no attempt to compare municipal water to various brands of bottled water because bottled water products can be municipal water products.

Senator Buchanan: That is interesting.

Ms Dalpé: It should be realized that bottled water not represented as mineral water or spring water can be only municipal water that is either further filtered or simply bottled under sanitary conditions for human consumption to be sold in retail stores.

The Chairman: Can it be chlorinated?

Ms Dalpé: It can be chlorinated, but that must be declared on the label, and that is out of my jurisdiction. Labelling is a CFIA issue. The bottler is required to remove any by-products of chlorination; if that is done, the company need not indicate on the label that the water had been chlorinated previously. The label must indicate that the water is chlorinated if no de-chlorination has been carried out. If chlorine and other by-products have in fact been removed, there is no requirement to declare that on the label. The bottled product must be labelled as to the treatments that have been applied to it.

My colleague from CFIA may have a different answer with regard to comparisons, but I do not think we have done comparisons on collected data because, as my colleague from CFIA explained, they are responsible for enforcing the standards under the Food and Drugs Act and the definition of food. Therefore, their activities are more related to bottled water products or water used during the manufacture of other food products.

Senator Buchanan: That is a very interesting answer. I have been told that some bottled waters are just that, bottled municipal water. Nevertheless, most people who buy bottled water think they are drinking something other than municipal water. Some bottled waters are labelled "Pure Glacial Water" or "Pure Spring Water." Pure spring water does not come from a lake just outside of Halifax and we have no glaciers in Nova Scotia, although there are some in Newfoundland.

Is the general public supposed to read the label to determine whether they can get the water they are buying out of the tap?

Mr. Orriss: All bottled water must meet the requirements of Division 12 of the Food and Drug Regulations and those of the Canadian drinking water guidelines. CFIA has a program to monitor the water quality, to ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements and the guidelines.

In most cases, bottled water is subjected to further filtration from a taste perspective. It is more a matter of consumer acceptability. As Senator Adams indicated, many people do not like the taste of chlorine so, in most cases, bottled water is treated to remove chlorine and sometimes other chemical residues.

With respect to the labelling of the bottled water, the labelling must be truthful. Under section 5 of the Food and Drugs Act, we regulate truthfulness in labelling. No person shall label a product in a manner that creates an erroneous impression or that is deceptive in any way. We look at that as well.

The issue of bottled water is a very interesting one. At the international level, at a commission involving 165 governments, an extensive discussion took place about whether water could be labelled as natural mineral water. This is a sensitive and more complex issue than we sometimes realize; the discussion took up the time of 165 governments for about a half a day.

With respect to the question on the safety of bottled water, any bottled water sold in the country must meet the requirements of Division 12 of the Food and Drugs Regulations. We do conduct inspection programs. We monitor and take samples of the water to verify compliance. Our results have shown that the bottled water industry in Canada has excellent controls. We have had very little problem with bottled water samples from across the country.

The Chairman: Do you analyze water for antibiotics or hormones?

Mr. Orriss: Our analysis is focused on the requirements of Division 12, which are microbiological requirements. We also work closely with the provinces to examine the chemical quality of the source water being used, and we assess the treatment system to determine whether there is a concern about chemical residues.

Specifically, no, we do not analyze for antibiotic residues.

Senator Spivak: Do most companies that sell bottled water from municipal sources pay for it?

Ms Dalpé: My answer must be taken with a grain of salt, or a grain of chemicals. There is usually a requirement, be it provincial or municipal, to have a permit to draw water in large quantities. Therefore, I would think the answer to your question is yes.

Senator Spivak: Published reports have not supported that answer, but that is fine.

Senator Sibbeston: Bill S-18 is drafted with a view to improving the water situation in our country. One thing I have not heard anyone say thus far in your presentation is this: "Yes, Bill S-18 will be beneficial. It will strengthen the system and provide certainty of jurisdiction vis-à-vis the federal government's role in dealing with water, particularly water in our community water system."

Does this proposed legislation make a change, or strengthen the department's jurisdiction and responsibility over water in communities throughout our country? That is my first question.

Second, occasionally we will hear, from First Nations reserves and areas throughout the country, about severe contamination, that the water is undrinkable. Obviously, your role is to go in there to inspect and to write reports. Are these problems resolved? Has any action been taken either by you or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to ensure that the condition of water improves for First Nations people throughout our country?

Mr. Raphael: With respect to your first question, we have not done a detailed analysis of the potential regulations or outcomes of those regulations that might flow from Bill S-18 and the amendments to the Food and Drugs Act. Other than saying that there is a general direction to setting federal standards for community water systems, to the extent we know what that is or what that would be in terms of performance criteria, we do not yet have the sense of how governments, other than the federal government, would get there, in view of the existing system that exists federally, provincially and also municipally. It is important to realize that until we have understand what those intermediate pieces are we should be cautious, at least from the perspective of Health Canada, in speaking to what the potential impacts of the bill might be.

The bill is clear in the sense of making the federal government responsible for standards for community water systems. That is fair. How we would actually accomplish that and the actual impacts on the present system I cannot really speak to.

Senator Sibbeston: As senators, we are here to determine what the effect of this legislation will be. You pass it off vaguely by saying that you do not know how it will all turn out in terms of the regulations and so forth.

Is it not a fact that, in terms of the federal government, it is your department that will be responsible for any changes or regulations that are drawn up and any effective changes that may arise from this legislation? Are we not talking to someone in government who has the responsibility and who will be responsible for putting into effect these proposed legislative changes? If that is not you, who is it?

Mr. Raphael: That is a fair point. It is with respect to that activity or action of having regulations and then policies, as well as operational changes, that I am advisedly cautious in either tooting the horn of Bill S-18, or slamming Bill S-18. In Bill S-18, I do see a positive direction as I compare where Bill S-18 is going with some of the elements of the parliamentary motion. I can see a positive direction and signal. However, I cannot say that it is beneficial to the overall system, because as a federal official I do not control the provincial regulatory or governmental perspective; nor at the municipal level would I be able to say this is going to happen and therefore something else will happen.

We must be aware of the system in which we live. I cannot foretell the outcomes and impacts as we go down the regulatory path to put in place regulations under the amendments proposed by Bill S-18.

Mr. Conn: In response to the questions regarding First Nations reports on drinking water quality issues, certainly in our role as inspector, and in providing assistance to communities, action is taken across the board. That action may include a boil water advisory as a result of poor water quality. Where systems were poorly maintained, corrective action may be recommended in consultation with the local chief and council and the Department of Indian Affairs for some remediation, equipment, and/or closer attention to operational maintenance of systems.

Where a water treatment operator may not be fully trained, a drinking water safety-training program is available to assist communities. Action is taken and there is follow-up through the environmental health officers, employed by us across the country, who work intimately and closely with communities. These are dedicated individuals looking at rectifying situations, and who ensure that measures are taken to prevent reoccurrence.

Senator Sibbeston: Mr. Chairman, in situations where water contamination and pollution is severe, where it requires more than forever boiling water or making slight changes in the system, are these larger problems ever fixed where industry or some other cause of pollutant is of major concern? Some of these situations may require massive and great changes in dealing with the cause of the pollutants. You can boil water for a while, but not for the rest of the century.

As Canadians, can we be told that the government takes these issues seriously? If need be, are they prepared to take whatever measures are needed to rectify the situation, even though the problems may be severe and may require millions of dollars in costs to repair?

Mr. Raphael: With respect to your point about the bigger problems being fixed and people boiling water for extended periods of time, we identify with our provincial colleagues some of the areas for priority action.

At the same time, we work with the Infrastructure Canada program. The federal government has put aside, in a partnership mode, $2 billion to be matched with provincial and municipal dollars for the development, deployment, modification and upgrading of infrastructure. Many of the bigger problems are being looked at within the infrastructure program. Agreements are being signed on a province-by-province basis on the basis of priorities identified. Through that program, some of these larger funding issues are being identified. It is fair to say that they are not all being addressed, but at least they are being identified for action and activity.

Senator Grafstein: I wish to congratulate the department. As I have gone about my business of trying to determine how we might resolve this problem of safe drinking water in Canada, I have seen the high degree of respect that regulators and politicians right across the country have for the department. I had to give very careful thought to how to develop a scheme that would receive not only acceptability publicly but would also work. After looking at all the various options, I concluded that Health Canada, with its agencies and fine research facilities that are respected right across Canada, is the place for renovating what I consider to be a horrible failure of responsibility.

In no way, shape or form do I direct that to the department, because I think the department was there. My first glimmer on how to sort this problem out came from what I heard from Walkerton. When the research facilities and accountability mechanisms at the provincial and the municipal levels fell down, the one place that provided solid background and research on this was the CFIA, which has earned a high degree of respect.

That is why I concluded that, if we are to sort this problem out from a federal standpoint, we must put it in the hands of an agency that is already skilled and organized and has demonstrated a great history of public confidence. This is a question of public confidence and accountability.

If you are unable to comment on this, we will leave it to your ministers to do so. However, we must agree that there has been a failure in the existing system of safe water regulation in every region of the country, particularly where the federal government has a direct responsibility, that being in the Aboriginal communities. We must agree that there has been a failure, not only in Walkerton and Battleford, but also right across the country.

I start with that premise. I found it difficult to come up with a legislative solution due to a lack of information and facts. I discovered that, although the Department of Health is responsible for establishing standards, it does not keep collected in one place all the health statistics of people affected physically by bad drinking water in Canada. Therefore, we have no way of determining the absolute cost to the taxpayer of the failure of the provinces and the cities to provide clean drinking water.

Is that correct? Does the Department of Health collect that information across Canada as part of its responsibilities under the Canada Health Act?

Mr. Raphael: The department does collect and access such information through the Canadian Institute for Health Informa tion, which is a federal-provincial body that shares health data. It is fair to say that some of this public health information has not been of high priority until very recently, in terms of managing the information systems. However, in the last few years there has been an attempt to rationalize public health surveillance of this information and to share databases. I use the word "share" because Health Canada is quite often not the prime collector of this information. In fact, we are really the prime collector. The prime collector is usually the local public health unit. In many areas, even the provincial government is not the prime collector.

We have protocols, agreements and processes that allow this network to be formed around the collection of data, but the information management challenge and data challenge that you have put forth is quite real. In the last few years there has been attention through health infostructure funding that looks not only at providing help for getting networks together but also at helping the first line collectors of information.

Senator Grafstein: You have been doing it, it has been late and it has been complex, but can you give us up-to-date statistics? This committee will have to address a serious question if it is to support my bill. The members must be satisfied with the cost-benefit analysis provided. I have suggested that the cost-benefit analysis be done by looking at the existing costs to the health system of not having clean drinking water across the country.

I will give you two statistics that frighten me. I was told that in Vancouver 17,500 people a year suffer from stomach ailments directly or indirectly related to bad drinking water. Apparently that has gone on for years and years. I do not know how true that is, but it would be very helpful, Mr. Chairman, if we could have an analysis done by the department, as best they can, on the cost to the health system of not having regularly supervised mandatory and consistent standards across the country. If that is an impossible task, you can tell the chairman that, but give us what you can.

Mr. Raphael: Before you came in, Senator Grafstein, there was a reference to the burden of illness issue and the cost manifestations therewith. We do not have someone with our team today from that part of the branch, but we have made a commitment to provide that type of information. We will add the Health Canada study that you spoke of about Vancouver and the impact in that city of water-borne illness.

Senator Grafstein: Dr. Schindler, one of Canada's outstanding experts, told me that when he did his search he could find no information of this nature, but he did find it in the United States. Based on statistics available in the United States, the health of between 900,000 and 1 million people is directly affected by bad drinking water. We then extrapolated that the Canadian figure would be at least 10,000. However, I know the number is larger than that, based on anecdotal information.

The Chairman: The witnesses have already said that they will supply the information. Perhaps you could move on to another subject.

Senator Grafstein: I wish to follow up on Senator Sibbeston's point on the deplorable state of drinking water in the Aboriginal communities, for which, under the Constitution, the federal government has responsibility. In your testimony, you said that in the northern communities that has been delegated to the territorial governments and that you do the testing and the results are provided to the band, who has the custody of the information.

In terms of responsibility, if there is a failure of drinking water in the Aboriginal communities, for whatever reason, bad testing, no training, bad equipment, insufficient sampling, who is responsible? Is the federal government responsible, or does the federal government delegate the responsibility to the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and so on? Who is responsible?

Mr. Conn: Senator, that is an excellent question. In my understanding, the Yukon and Nunavut are responsible for the health systems for the North, broadly speaking. They run the health systems across the board, in hamlets and communities and even in First Nation communities. The responsibility is probably spread throughout various regional health authorities and ministries within the territorial governments.

As far as the First Nations communities south of 60 degrees, it is our opinion that it is a shared responsibility between Health Canada, the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the First Nations governments in terms of the operation, maintenance, training and supply of infrastructure and resources to essentially instil effective systems for drinking water treatment. In that sense, in terms of surveillance and monitoring, there is a shared responsibility closely with First Nations communities.

Has there been progress? Absolutely. Have we got more homework to do? Absolutely. Is there are a need and a call for more resources and supports by First Nations? Absolutely. We have some work to do, but the challenges are laid out clearly. There is interest and energy out there to look at better communications, community preparedness and early detection systems. Practical things for communities to look at include the presence, absence and testing for E. coli. We are making progress in terms of communities that did not have that capacity and skill. We have more to do, absolutely.

Senator Grafstein: I understand all that. My research belies this conclusion. I have not finished, Mr. Chairman, I am up to about the 28th statute. I estimate - and I am not sure I have them all - that there are something like 40 federal statutes, or more, relating to clean drinking water.

If the Governor General could read that information and tell me whether or not she is responsible, as the holder of the royal prerogative, for accountability, I would be surprised. I cannot find accountability there.

My bill is trying to cut through 40 pieces of legislation and hold people responsible, as opposed to shared responsibility, because obviously the shared responsibility, you must agree, has not worked. It has not worked in Ontario, Saskatchewan or the Yukon. We know of the problems in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, as Senators Adams, Watt, Sibbeston and Christensen have outlined.

I hope the committee will join me in trying to bring accountability and responsibility to a focus, so that we know, if something goes wrong, who is responsible. Shared responsibility, in this instance, has not quite worked.

The next thing I would like you to do is to collect those pieces of legislation and allow the committee to go through them, to see if they share my view that it is a confusing morass and if a minister would have difficulty determining where accountability lies in those statutes. It is all over the place.

I leave that, Mr. Chairman, for a piece of homework. It is not difficult. I will have read them all before this committee is finished, but the more one reads it, the more one becomes confused.

Chairman, I will conclude by two other comments, if I might. I know the hour is late and I appreciate your indulgence. Again, I have read your brief and you have done a magnificent job of establishing standards. However, standards are not enforceable across the country. They are standards and the provinces can adopt them or not adopt them, as they see fit. There are no teeth in standards. Standards are consensual documents.

The Province of Quebec disagrees with the quality of your standards. In a press release last June, Quebec said that the federal standards of collating something like 52 or 59 elements or indicia in your table - you measure between 52 and 59 elements, in terms of the standards. The Province of Quebec has said that it will have something like 72 or 79. They will be higher than the highest standards in the federal government.

My question to you is: Will the federal government sustain its existing standards, or is the Province of Quebec right that there are higher standards, ones that might catch things like E. coli and other things? By the way, there are many chemical and mineral problems. This is not a simplistic problem. Which standards are we to believe will be the better standards? The federal standards are lower, apparently, than the proposed Quebec standards that they say will be the highest in the world? Have you done an analysis of those two?

Mr. Raphael: We have not done an extensive analysis. I have not seen the report to which you refer.

Senator Grafstein: It was a press release.

Mr. Raphael: I did hear about it, however. My first reaction would be to ask Quebec, which has agreed with the Canadian guidelines for drinking water quality, possibly what variances they see between them. Generally, we consider the Canadian guide lines for drinking water quality as having a figure of about 83.

Senator Grafstein: Eighty-three?

Mr. Raphael: Eighty-three. There are 59 that are numerical elements and there are other elements that are not numerical.

Senator Grafstein: Can you provide for us in writing your conclusion as to why your standards are better than their standards; is that fair?

Mr. Raphael: That is a fair question.

Senator Grafstein: It is difficult in Canada to obtain all the facts. As I say, I am doing all my research myself. I am the speechwriter and the drafter of the bill. There is not a chorus of assistance. I am trying to keep it straight in my head and it is pretty difficult. My file is very thick.

I did come across an interesting study done not too long ago by the Sierra Club. Their lawyer had done a study that rated the regions across Canada. It was a very sorry picture. I do not know if you have seen that, whether you have analyzed that or whether you might agree with that analysis. It is a public document on the Internet. The representative from the Sierra Club told me that the biggest problem they had in trying to do a fair comparison was the lack of a database. It is difficult to get the health statistics; more important, however, it is difficult to get a collation in one place of all the boil advisories in Canada in the last six months. They are kept all over the place. It is very difficult to get this information.

My other hope, whether or not this bill succeeds, is to at least have in one place a database for Canadians, so that we can find out what is going on. I am told that in the United States, using a zip code or a telephone code - I am not sure which - one can get the most recent statistics within that code. In the United States, the federal authority is responsible for clean drinking water; due to the federal efforts, the public can, by punching a button, access a database and find out when the last boil water advisory was.

I have spoken to the local officials in Toronto and the province and have learned that they do not even talk to one another. It is very important to look at the Sierra Club's analysis, which shows the problem of information as it relates to municipal, provincial and territorial governments. We are trying to find out whether the federal government should be involved. The more I read about this the more I believe that without the leadership of the federal government this problem will not be solved in Canada.

The Chairman: I want to thank the witnesses for their attendance here this evening. You have answered our questions and have suggested a few others that we will want to get answers to.

The committee adjourned.

Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Issue 14 - Evidence

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources