ENEV - Standing Committee

Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Past Session: Past Session:
37-1 37th Parliament, 1st Session (January 29, 2001 - September 16, 2002)
Select a different session
 

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

Issue 16 - Evidence, October 23, 2001

OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 23, 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 5:35 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

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

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have a quorum. We welcome our witnesses this evening on Bill S-18. Please proceed.

Mr. Ron Patterson, President, Canadian Water and Wastewater Association: Honourable senators, thank you for this opportunity. After our oral presentation today, we intend to table a detailed written presentation in a few days' time.

I am the town engineer for the town of Amherst, Nova Scotia, a town of 10,000. I have spent considerable years managing the water and wastewater utilities in our region. I am the Nova Scotia representative as well as the President of the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association.

With me is Mr. André Proulx who is also an engineer specializing in drinking water systems. He is the Second Vice President of our association and represents the Ontario Waterworks Association on our board. Mr. Proulx has had an equally long career in drinking water systems. He now works for Delcan Corporation, a Canadian-owned consulting firm with more than 500 employees.

Also with me is Mr. Ian Douglas, a water-quality engineer and the Manager of the City of Ottawa's water-treatment facilities. He is Chair of the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association water quality committee.

Mr. Duncan Ellison is here as the Executive Director of the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association and a former federal public civil servant who has had a distinguished career in several departments including Health Canada and Environment Canada as a specialist in environmental health risk assessment and management.

The Canadian Water and Wastewater Association is the national voice of the municipal water and wastewater sector, providing municipal liaison services and channels to the federal and national bodies whose legislation, policy and programs impact on the provision of municipal water and wastewater services in Canada.

This association has the additional functions of ensuring that there is a pan-Canadian flow of information, that the national standards of excellence are implemented, and that we maintain a current professional contact with counterpart associations in other countries including the U.S.A.

Our board of directors reflects our provincial-territorial diversity and includes representatives from the seven regional associations of professional and technical people who provide municipal water and wastewater services in Canada.

The matter of water regulation in Canada and the role that the federal government can and should play is very complex. We will forward to you a written brief on our presentation for future consideration. Should you wish, after review of that written brief, we will be prepared to meet with you at your convenience to discuss any issues that might arise.

The assurance of safe drinking water supplies for Canadians is now achieved through a multifaceted interrelated process involving legislation and programs at both federal and provincial-territorial levels, and the professional activities and investments of the municipalities across Canada with their private-sector partners. The process has been developed, modified and refined over the years.

The objectives of municipal water supply systems are to provide safe and healthy water on a continuous basis to all of our customers as well as meeting fire protection needs.

The municipal water sector in consort with its regulatory community are continuously reviewing current practices, looking for improvements and are investing in enhanced treatment facilities. There are more than 3,000 public water systems serving more than 24,000 Canadians.

The Chairman: I apologize for interrupting. Does your association represent a certain percentage of those 3,000 water systems? How many of these public water systems are in your association?

Mr. Patterson: We have a membership in the order of 180 utilities. Many of the 3,000 utilities listed are very small and we do not represent them all. We represent in the order of 180 municipal utilities. I would correct the fact that there are 24 million Canadians.

In addition to our direct membership, there are seven regional associations including the Atlantic Canada Waterworks Association, RÉSEAU environnement in Quebec, the Ontario Waterworks Association, the Western Canada Waterworks Association, the British Columbia Waterworks Association, and the Northern Territories Water and Waste Water Association. Those associations are members of Canadian Water and Wastewater Association, or CWWA. Their total membership would represent a very high percentage of those 3,000 utilities.

The Chairman: I wanted to know how powerful a group you are.

Mr. Patterson: We can stand up and say that we represent those utilities, but I cannot say that they all pay membership dues to us.

Unfortunately, from time to time, a water-related health incident will occur, as they will in other sectors such as food, occupational health and safety. These incidents occur for reasons not necessarily related to the overall governing structure. From these incidents, lessons are learned and the process and requirements are adjusted to prevent any reoccurrence.

Walkerton triggered that process, and reviews and modifications are now being undertaken in Ontario and elsewhere. The federal government and the provinces and territories are now examining their regulatory schemes. Municipalities are looking at their operations. All levels of government and the stakeholders are also reviewing the overall water management framework as it affects the supply of potable water for Canadians.

From these incidents and a continuous improvement approach, improvements have been identified and implemented. Others are being proposed or planned, not just in Ontario, but across the country.

Senator Grafstein is to be congratulated on his initiative that provides an alternative to the current federal-provincial territorial legislative framework. Proposing to regulate drinking water quality through the Food and Drugs Act as a food provides an interesting and feasible alternative as the need to control the presence of additives and contaminants in food is quite analogous to the presence of additives and contaminants in water.

Such alternatives should always be examined to determine if the present regulatory scheme is the most efficient and effective.

Bill S-18, if enacted, would significantly change the current long-developed and well-refined framework within which municipalities act to provide safe drinking water. The likely consequences of Bill S-18, with its potential for new and different inspection programs, is the creation of uncertainties and probable duplication of effort with existing provincial and territorial responsibilities.

This could be confusing and disruptive if it resulted in a second set of regulations to be adhered to by our municipalities. Regulatory overlap is not something that CWWA supports.

The Senate should note the current initiative to review and reformulate the overall water management framework being developed through federal, provincial and territorial discussions that will involve all stakeholders including the municipalities. This is taking place through the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment and its water planning committee.

The framework is to manage the quality of water from the environment to the tap, and back to the environment in a harmonious and integrated manner.

Participating in this process is the federal-provincial territorial subcommittee on drinking water that reports to the multi-jurisdictional committee on environmental and occupational health.

Canadian Water and Wastewater Association looks forward to the completion of the current review of activities under CCME that is examining the water management framework.

The Canadian Water and Wastewater Association, representing the municipal agencies directly responsible for the delivery of safe drinking water in Canadian cities and towns, believes that adequate and specific adjustments are being made to the current legislative framework to meet the needs of Canadians and sees no benefit to the enactment of the proposed amendment to the Food and Drugs Act as represented by Bill S-18.

Canadian Water and Wastewater Association does, however, urge the Government of Canada to examine and strengthen its role in the assurance of safe drinking water within its existing legislative and constitutional powers, and to seek other non-duplicative ways to provide support to the current programs and activities in this sector.

I will make the following suggestions of ways this can be accomplished: first, strengthening the research into the health effect of contaminants and additives in drinking water; second, strengthening research and optimizing existing and new treatment technologies to reduce the presence of additives and contaminants to appropriate levels; third, facilitating investment in new or rehabilitated water treatment and distribution infrastructure; fourth, encouraging the development and implementation of training, education and certification programs for treatment plant and distribution system operators employed by our sector; and, finally, encouraging the accreditation initiatives of our water utilities.

Should the senators believe that a legislative base for federal involvement is needed, then CWWA notes that the twice-proposed Drinking Water Material Safety Act would fill essential gaps in the overall legislative framework and provided a direct basis for federal involvement. This proposed legislation had the support of the provinces and territories as it complemented existing provincial and territorial programs and legislation.

I will now discuss these recommendations in further detail including how the government can strengthen its presence.

CWWA notes that the guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality have been developed on a pure health risk assessment basis. The difficulty lies in translating these pure health risk assessment guidelines into practical and affordable risk management decisions that provide appropriate levels of health protection.

CCWA therefore recommends that the federal government should strengthen its research capability and activities in the following three ways: first, determining the health effects of contaminants and additives in drinking water; second, evaluating substances already identified as being of concern for drinking water quality; and, third, identifying and assessing treatment technologies to reduce the presence of additives and contaminants to appropriate levels.

These would benefit all Canadians by providing risk management information to those provincial, territorial and municipal agencies who have to make and implement risk management decisions.

We note that the former proposed Drinking Water Material Safety Act would have provided both a basis for assessing the guidelines and for setting standards for additives and components in drinking water systems. CWWA recommends that the federal government consider reintroducing the Drinking Water Material Safety Act to provide a legislative basis for the federal involvement in the existing federal-provincial-territorial drinking water program.

Municipal infrastructure is constantly in the headlines and CWWA knows that senators are well aware of the needs and problems facing our municipality in this area. We note that the provision of safe drinking water requires increasingly complex treatment infrastructure and the maintenance of distribution systems that presents differing burdens on large and small communities, especially where the introduction of new treatment technology is required.

It is the policy of CWWA that municipal water and wastewater services should recover the full cost of providing these services, including capital, operating and depreciation costs. This longstanding policy has been reflected in policy statements now being made by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and their provincial and territorial counterparts. CWWA recommends, therefore, that the federal government continue to participate in the municipal infrastructure programs. However, this support should be tied to the provinces and municipalities instituting full-cost-pricing policies.

Operator training and certification issues are also current. The water sector employs more than 200,000 persons across Canada. Training and education of staff employed in the technical areas of treatment plants and distribution systems has been a basic practice in this sector for more than 80 years. Even in the Southern provinces and three territories where mandatory operator certification is not currently in place, voluntary certification under the auspices of our regional associations does take place. Nonetheless, CWWA urges two things take place in respect to training and certification: One, that the federal government provide financial assistance and expert resources for training, education, and certification programs; two, that the federal government provide assistance and support to all provinces and territories in implementing mandatory certification requirements of programs across Canada.

We advise that the public water sector is also developing and implementing accreditation programs to ensure that water utilities are operating at peak efficiency and effectiveness to achieve the highest quality water. These include programs developed by the American Water Works Association with the assistance of the United States Environmental Protection Agency for surface water supply systems. The original Qual-Serve program and its successor the Partnerships for Safe Drinking Water Program have been internationalized by AWWA in the form of the International Water Treatment Alliance. The CWWA and our regional associations are developing plans to fully implement this alliance across Canada.

ISO 9,000 and 14,000 standards are being increasingly adopted in the municipal water sector. A special form of utility-wide performance and quality control assessment is the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points program being developed by the World Health Organization's water program.

Federal, provincial and territorial officials working in drinking water safety are aware of these developments and encourage the municipal sector to undertake these programs. Some of these programs may be part of the future of water management framework.

CWWA recommends that the federal government encourage and support the development and implementation of these utility-based certification and accreditation programs with financial and human resource support.

In conclusion, CWWA's position on regulatory overlap is firm, but we do encourage and support a strong federal presence in national drinking water programs.

Senator Buchanan: I have no questions. Mr. Patterson is an expert. He answered all the questions. Of course, he is from Nova Scotia.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I was involved for several months in the work being done to ensure fluoration of domestic water. I was working with the Ministry of Social Affairs, the equivalent in Quebec of the Department of Health. The opposition to that measure had to do with the qualifications required from the treatment plant staff.

How could the federal government involve itself in a provincial jurisdiction? Would provincial governments accept an intervention of the federal government in that area? I have not looked into the matter. I put the question to you. You support an intervention by the federal government. However, did you ask provincial authorities whether they would agree with the proposals that are being put to us? Unless obviously you just send them a cheque.

Mr. Proulx: Our recommendation was not to introduce Canadian regulations. Currently, the provinces are responsible for the certification of drinkable water or waste water plant employees, for distribution systems and sewer systems.

We suggest to that the federal government should try and convince the provinces that do not have a mandatory certification system. Seven provinces and three territories do not have any mandatory system. Other provinces and territories have a certification system that is not mandatory, but at least they have a system. They are beginning to insist for a consistent system being put in place. Alberta, Ontario since 1993, and Nova Scotia have mandatory programs. The systems are relatively new. The requirement to put in place such systems in all provinces would help at the level of the qualification of personnel and the maintenance of the systems. We recommend that the Department of Human Resources Development pursue the education program as well as the certification programs.

[English]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: What do you call additives in drinking water? Are you talking about chlorine and the various products to make sure the water is safe, or are you talking about other products such as fluoridation of water? I understand you determining the health effects of contaminants, but is it additives that are supposed to make the water of a better quality and sometimes have some good effect for health reasons?

Mr. Ian Douglas, Chair of the Drinking Water Quality Committee, Canadian Water and Wastewater Association: Additives are sometimes both things. Usually any chemical that is applied to water for the purposes of making the water safe would be also considered an additive, things such as alum, chlorine, et cetera. The one you mentioned, fluoride, is perhaps a case of something that is not added for treatment purposes or the safety of water but for therapeutic health benefit. Additives would encompass that. In the context of the Drinking Water Safety Materials Act, additives went beyond that into devices for treating water; anything that could be applied to potable water prior to consumption.

[Translation]

Mr. Duncan Ellison, Executive Director, Canadian Water and Waste Water Association: I would like to add something with respect to training. The Canadian Water and Waste Water Association has a national committee on training, education and certification of operators, and that committee was supported by Environment Canada. The committee included representatives from the provinces who are responsible for the certification process as well as representatives from the regional associations. The problem for the provinces is that they are not authorized to go out of their respective provinces to attend a conference or a symposium held outside the province. The federal government provided the necessary funding to pay for the travel and lodging of the provincial representatives. It is a support that is minimal but absolutely necessary in order to have a national committee. We can have discussions about the training courses, the curriculum, the exams and the methodology to guarantee the results, about reciprocity between the provinces to make it possible for operators that have been trained and certified in one province to go work in another one using the same standards.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: With the new systems on the Internet, could your association give that training without moving about thousands of people? There are so many of them. Continuous training can be done on line and lifelong learning through the Internet.

Mr. Ellison: Yes, this committee was created for managers and the people who deal with provincial policies. From time to time, it is necessary to bring together 25 people from all parts of Canada to discuss the problems and find some solutions together. The Internet is a tool that can be used by community colleges that are offering training courses.

[English]

Senator Christensen: Mr. Douglas, I notice that you are drinking boiled water. Is that any indication?

Mr. Douglas: It is a taste preference. I am happy to drink the water in Ottawa. I get asked that question every day.

Senator Christensen: We are talking about a certification system. You are talking about a certification that would be countrywide: one system where everyone would have to be certified under that system. Is that the system that is in place already?

Mr. Douglas: I believe provincially, right now it is in place, in at least a number of provinces. I am not sure how many. In Ontario, there is a certification program.

Senator Christensen: Who sets it?

Mr. Douglas: It is set through the Ministry of the Environment. It is an Ontario environment-training consortium. It is a series of courses, exams, training, and experience that operators have to meet in order to become certified. In Ottawa, our treatment facility is complex. It is considered a Class 4 plant, so the operators have to be at a certain level of expertise to operate that type of plant.

Senator Christensen: Does your association support that certification system?

Mr. Douglas: Yes we do and hope to have the system working across the country.

Senator Christensen: In your presentation on page 5, you are recommending that the federal government should strengthen its research capabilities and activities. Are we able to do that under present legislation, or do you feel there would need to be other legislation in place to allow the government to do all those things?

Mr. Patterson: The current research capabilities or research efforts are being handled through Health Canada. The framework is in place to do it. It just needs additional financial and human resources to keep up with the demand in that area.

Senator Christensen: Once the research is done, what about the implementation of the findings from that research? As it is now, there seems to be such a fragmentation of jurisdictions.

Mr. Patterson: It is straightforward. The federal government is responsible for the health risk assessment, and then the provincial jurisdictions are responsible for the management decisions. It cannot make the management decisions until the assessments have been done.

Senator Christensen: Would not Bill S-18 bring it together more than it is now and help with the fragmentation?

Mr. Ellison: One of the concerns about simply doing this under the Food and Drugs Act is that the issue of the additives and the contaminants could be addressed as they are in foods or drugs. This is a broader issue than that, and that comes down to the fact that removal of these very often involves intensive research into the capability of the treatment technology which is available to remove contaminants from a water source, or how to assure that the additives which are there are limited to their required amounts.

We believe that this could be done without a legislative basis. In fact, Health Canada largely does that at the request of the provinces now, and there is a very fine cadre of scientists who work in the drinking water section of Health Canada that work on that.

Our argument for suggesting that there should be a legislative basis, and in particular the Drinking Water Material Safety Act, and I will speak to this as an ex-senior federal public servant, is that without a legislative mandate, funding often gets cut off. This is one way to support the idea of a legislative mandate, because it gets included in the list of acts that a minister is responsible to, and he can go to the Treasury Board and argue that he has mandatory responsibilities that are reflected in legislation.

The Drinking Water Material Safety Act addressed a much wider issue of drinking water safety than just simply additives and contaminants that would occur in the food process.

Senator Christensen: On page 6, you are saying in the second paragraph that the water services should recover fully the costs of providing the services. From whom should these costs be recovered fully?

Mr. Patterson: Those costs will be recovered from the user. Many utilities in Canada are selling water at less than cost, and water should be sold at its true value. I could digress here. In Nova Scotia, for example, we are required to include depreciation of the asset as an operating cost, and that is good planning. The consumer, in paying the water rates, is paying for the future replacement of the infrastructure. In most provinces in Canada that is not a requirement. You see many utilities where the treatment plant wears out, there is no money in reserve, and they cannot get funding from the infrastructure programs. What do they do? We are saying that if full cost pricing was implemented across the system and utilities would be forced to include that in their operating costs, we the customers would be paying the true cost of producing that water and providing for the future replacement and enhancement of the treatment facilities.

Senator Christensen: It has been the practice in municipalities to provide the service of sewer and water treatment. Is there any move towards privatizing that service?

Mr. Proulx: There is a move towards that in some municipalities, and it has already been privatized in other municipalities. I could not give you a percentage. They hire private sector people to build the facilities and others are hiring the private sector to build and operate the facilities.

Senator Christensen: How are they working?

Mr. Proulx: The position of the Ontario Waterworks Association is clear. We support what is best for the particular municipality. If it means that a private sector operation is best for that municipality, then that is what we support.

We also make it clear that municipal sector operations are well run also; there are many well-run municipal sector operations. From that point of view, both can run the systems and both can run them efficiently to the benefit of their customers. It is individual to the municipality.

Hamilton has a private sector operation, and a number of municipalities, such as Moncton, which has gone with a design-build-operate facility, and it is working well for them. Edmonton Power Corporation, EPCORP, runs a strong and efficient facility in Edmonton.

Senator Christensen: In those cases they are doing 100 per cent recovery from the consumer user.

Mr. Proulx: That promotes the 100 per cent cost-recovery because it is a private sector operation.

Senator Christensen: We have a small municipality in the Yukon that is looking for a waste treatment facility that is doing just that. It seems to be a novel idea up there for a community of five hundred people. We wonder how they will be able to pass on that cost to the users.

Mr. Proulx: In the small municipalities, there is a definite need for technical knowledge. Small municipalities do not have that core, so there is a definite need. Is that with the private sector? Perhaps, but it could also be a big brother or a big sister approach from the local, larger municipality. There are different models, and many of them are being viewed through the Walkerton inquiry as well.

Mr. Douglas: Sometimes the public feels that the drinking water is affecting their health. I hope they do not think profit is the number one objective, which brings us back to the drinking water guidelines. The standards, protocols and procedures must be in place to protect the long-term maintenance of that infrastructure. If you are going to hand it over to someone, you might want to consider a 20-year or 25-year term. This will help to ensure that they do not run it into the ground, take their money in the contract and then leave. These are the concerns we have with privatization.

Senator Christensen: To go back to Bill C-18, it seems that you do not feel that by implementing this piece of legislation, it would not reduce the fragmentation that now exists and it would not give a focus to the problem of clean water and water delivery. Is that correct?

Mr. Proulx: No, and as I previously said, not only would it not do that but it would prove to be disruptive to the current system. We feel it is well refined, and we would like to see it stay as it is, in a condition where we Canadians are forcing the improvements that are necessary on a year-to-year basis.

The Chairman: I want to explore the full cost pricing. You used an example from Alberta, EPCOR. Maybe it can be twisted the other way. EPCORP is owned by the city of Edmonton, but they use the profits to expand all over. Now, they are selling services 300 to 400 miles away. They are talking about moving into Ontario. They are not really the private sector because they are owned by the city of Edmonton. However, they are taking that profit and going on to other ideas.

It is hard to stop people taking the profits and not expanding the organization. That is one thing that worries me about the full cost pricing.

I wonder if there should be a certain amount of cross-subsidization between mining or manufacturing companies that use large amounts of water. Perhaps they should pay the individual that provides them with the water. This would be particularly helpful in the West where we are running short of it. We have not found a way of diverting natural water sources to Alberta, but we will.

There is the necessary level that Mr. Douglas talks about, and an industry level. Pricing often means that you are turning the elephant loose amongst the chickens, and I am not sure that your cost pricing would work that way.

Mr. Proulx: First of all, in respect of full cost pricing, we are not suggesting one flat rate. Some municipalities can have different types of rate structures within them. These can be both inclining or declining rate structures. Waterloo is restricted on ground water so they have an inclining rate structure. The bigger the user of water, the more they have to pay. Other municipalities have focussed in the opposite way: the more you use, the less you have to pay. There are arguments for both sides.

Right now it is within the municipalities' jurisdictions to set the rates. All we are getting at is that it should be full cost recovery, flat rate, declining rate or inclining rate, to ensure that you are receiving all the funds to support the complete water system.

Senator Adams: About one month ago, we had witnesses from Department of Health and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In my home region, about 85 per cent of people depend on water delivery. They do not have a water and sewer facility in the community. Rankin Inlet is the only one that I know that has water and sewer facilities.

The witnesses from those departments I mentioned did not have a manual to explain how the system would work in the community and how to treat the water. As engineers you gentlemen are familiar with these systems. Right now, DIAND has provided 100 per cent funding for community water systems. Are you able to consult with government representatives so that we can know how this will work?

Mr. Patterson: I witnessed that in June when I was in was in Kugluktuk, Nunavut. I walked around town as the man was making the water deliveries. I asked him numerous questions about the water and systems and he had the answers right there. He told me that if he makes a mistake that his customer tells him right away.

I am not sure there is a viable alternative to that system. That system works for those Northern communities. The community that I was in was largely on solid rock. I do not have a clear answer for you. I know the existing level of funding, and I would think that, through the Northern Water and Wastewater Association, there should be some technical expertise. However, I do not know that for certain.

Mr. Proulx: The NRC, jointly with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, has a program to look at best practices across Canada: one of them looks specifically at that specific kind of geography and also considers municipal size issues across the territories and Canada.

They are going to look at best practices and will hopefully come up with something that will help those municipalities. The NRC-FCM project has specifically identified those small municipalities to make sure that they are being addressed in the scan. It is not only the South, the East or the West. It is the North as well.

Mr. Douglas: I would add that the CWWA has a fair membership of technical knowledge. If you wanted to pose a question or look for comments, you could pose them through CWWA and we could put the word out to get comments on new ideas or improvements. We are used as a technical resource on those sorts of issues.

Senator Watt: To what extent is your organization familiar with what is happening in Nunavik and Northern Labrador?

Mr. Patterson: We have a director, Bob Phillips, from Cambridge Bay. He is from a department that has to do with health and environment. He is responsible for the water and wastewater systems throughout the western region of Nunavik. He sits on our board, and we meet with him a couple of times a year. He is aware of some of the issues.

To answer your question to what extent are we the board members aware of your issues, I would say we are probably not very much aware of what the real issues are up there.

Senator Watt: Is it in the western Arctic side of Nunavut that you mentioned that you went to visit?

Mr. Patterson: Yes, in the very western end.

Senator Watt: Are you familiar with the issues in Labrador and Nunavik. Nunavik was known as Northern Quebec in the old days. There are about 50 municipalities all together in that area. Northern Labrador is having a similar problem.

One of our biggest problems is the water coming. The land itself becomes a whole massive lake, not isolated lakes, especially in the springtime. There is always drainage coming from other lake systems into our systems. The other factor is what goes up into the air and comes back down.

We seem to be having a large problem experiencing people dying from cancer, and no one seems to have a real good handle on that matter. Over the last couple of years I have been trying to put together a report so that these issues will make sense. I am about ready to finish that report, and I am hoping to table that here, Mr. Chairman, sometime within the next couple of weeks.

You need to get up there. If your association is to take any form in our region, Northern Quebec, Nunavik, Nunavut and Labrador, including the reserves, you have to have some first-hand information of what is going on. You must know about what is there and what is not there.

The people are dropping off like trees right now. They are dying from cancer. I would imagine it has much to do with the fact that what they intake is not being monitored, not only the water but also the food.

I would urge you to get on top of that problem. I will give you one example from a community that I know well. It is the community that I go back home to every weekend. It does not have a filtering system in terms of drainage or in terms of the water waste. It is pumped into the land and is seeping into the brooks and the creeks, which have fish. It is going into the major rivers. That is a totally ungoverned area.

It is not an isolated case. It is a problem throughout all the communities in the North. I would imagine that it also applies to the reserves.

We have done very well at ruining our environment down South, and we are on the way to ruining it in the North as well. It is an urgent matter.

Mr. Patterson: The community that I visited had a population of about 1100. They trucked the sewage waste seven kilometres or eight kilometres out of town to a stream flowing away from town, and they dumped it there. That was the best practice available to them at the time.

Senator Watt: That is still the practice today.

Mr. Patterson: It is not a proper practice.

Senator Watt: We are starting to witness people dying from the bacteria that they consume.

Mr. Patterson: There might be some way that we could work with the federal government for technology exchange.

Senator Watt: When the question is raised, the federal-provincial jurisdictional problems are always the obstacle whenever we are trying to move ahead and achieve something.

As far as I am concerned, the federal government has the sole responsibility in regards to the reserve. I do not think that there are provincial implications there. That would probably also apply Nunavut. However, Nunavik is of a special nature because we are administratively under Quebec provincial jurisdiction. I believe that Labrador is in the same category as Nunavik.

There is no excuse for the federal government to tap in on what is up there, but they would need people like you to help identify those problems. You should see it for yourself and press it as an urgent issue.

I would like to come back Bill S-18 because I got the feeling that you were not supporting Bill S-18 when you were making the presentations. I, was looking for some instrument to be put in place by the Government of Canada. If the Government of Canada is going to use the argument that it is not their responsibility, it is a provincial responsibility, it becomes border line conduct, especially when dealing with Aboriginal communities.

I was looking towards an instrument that would be put in place by the Government of Canada, something similar to Bill S-18. If I understand you correctly, you are saying to me that I could use this as a way to make the government aware that there is a problem and that it has to be addressed but not necessarily in the fashion that this bill is being carved.

You also discussed a proposal that was made for water material drinking safety act. This is not in place at this point, I believe. You would rather see this being moved ahead because you feel this is going to get us to where we want to go. Could you elaborate on that?

Mr. Ellison: The Food and Drugs Act is a typical federal enabling act, which enables the federal government to set certain standards and to set up an inspection and an enforcement regime to ensure those standards are met. There are many such acts at the federal level.

The difficulty for this association and its members is that there existents a completely parallel set of provincial statutes that address exactly this situation. The advantages we see from a Drinking Water Material Safety Act, which was tabled twice and died on the Order Paper, is that it sets up the provisions for the federal government to do things, including research in order to set standards for additives and contaminants, but it does not set up an inspection regime that would duplicate, and perhaps conflict, with the provinces.

This was one of the reasons why the associations supported the bill when it was being proposed and why the provinces found it agreeable. The bill filled a gap in the overall legislative framework that the provinces were unable to deal with. They could deal with it within their own province, but we would have no national standards for additives, contaminants, drinking water system components and things of that nature. The non-threatening manner of the approach favoured the drinking water material safety proposed legislation, possibly with some changes.

The Chairman: The manner may have been non-threatening, but it did not accomplish anything. The bill died on the Order Paper. I am wondering, if this bill were passed if that would force them to go back and address your concerns, have you thought of that?

Mr. Ellison: The bill died on the Order Paper, and I will speculate about this because I was not privy to the conversations involving Mr. Rock and the ministers in support of it. However, there was widespread opposition to the bill from the manufacturers of drinking water treatment units, other point-of-use devices and the plumbing industry who saw this as something that would address the question of the contaminants coming from brass used in taps and valves. Perhaps the issue could be looked at again.

The essential feature that we want to see firmly entrenched legislatively, is the area of health risk assessment and the management that comes through the technology sectors.

The Chairman: Your first choice would be that other instrument rather than this one. Is that correct?

Mr. Ellison: This instrument does not deal with the technology issue and the other one did.

Senator Watt: Are you saying that we are dealing with something that needs to be dealt with, but at the same time we might be focussing on the wrong area when a new method of technology may be the one we should focus on to try to find a solution? For example, chlorine is used to purify water. Is that the only technology in the world?

Mr. Douglas: No, chlorine is not the only technology. As a side issue, there is much encouraging research with UV.

Senator Watt: I am not talking about new research. I am talking about what is used today.

Mr. Douglas: Yes, chlorine is used in almost every water supply.

Senator Watt: There are companies out there that are trying to come up with new technologies to purify and filter the water. You said that you would like to see the federal government more involved in finding solutions rather than just the regulatory aspects. It takes time for those people who have new methods of technology to get their technology tested or approved. Sometimes they do not know where to go.

Mr. Douglas: Much of that research is going on. Canada is certainly a leader in water technology research. It is happening at universities across Canada as well as private sector companies. Canada is a strong leader in the field of UV, or ultraviolet disinfection. We are a strong leader in membrane technology that is ideal for small systems, not unlike those used in Northern communities. Research is also taking place at utilities. Health Canada is another area where we are recommending research be supported at that level.

I do not wish to underplay the importance of the Canadian drinking water guidelines. We did not bring a copy of them today. However, this is a body of work as Mr. Ellison would tell us, which has been years in the making, with a tremendous amount of science behind it. We wish to ensure that we maintain that and support that research.

Right now, there are 104 contaminants or substances that are regulated through those drinking water guidelines. That becomes the bible for drinking water in Canada. In the case of Ontario, they basically adopt those guidelines lock, stock and barrel. They become provincial guidelines, with the possible addition of a few parameters. They have become an important foundation upon which all Canadians can get a consistent level of drinking water quality. I do not want to downplay those. I am not sure that the prior bill did not touch the water guidelines. That is a different focus.

Mr. Ellison: The former bill, as proposed, specifically authorized the research programs that are necessary to produce those guidelines. The concern is that the guidelines are just health-risk based. The guidelines contain statements that recognize that municipalities or utilities may not achieve those guidelines, and perhaps should not because of the technological, cost and the importance of other parameters that should be adhered to first. This is where the risk management phase comes in. You must decide how much money you will spend to manage which risks. We know that there are some chemical parameters, such as, boron and arsenic, which are prevalent in some communities at reasonably high levels compared to others, but perhaps not to where they are causing an acute health risk. They may be causing chronic health risk, but we have time to develop the technology to develop those parameters.

By making the guidelines subject to the Statutory Instruments Act, they would then be subject to the regulatory impact analysis statement, which says that you must be able to demonstrate that there is a clear benefit that exceeds the costs. Those benefits are sometimes difficult to measure because they talk about the value of life or the value of a healthy life versus the cost. We are making those health risk management judgments from the time we decide to get out of bed in the morning to the time we go back. Should we have this high cholesterol steak tonight? Should we get in the car? Should I have a second drink?

By making the guidelines through the legislation a statutory instrument, they are subject to this kind of rigorous assessment of the risk management possibilities.

Senator Watt: After the regulatory guidelines are set there will be implementation that needs to take place. Are we in a sense delaying a chance to implement something meaningful if we do not address the infrastructure and the technology when we are addressing the guidelines instead of leaving it for the second stage?

How can we use one bullet to hit two at the same time with your network that you have now? How can we express that this is an urgent matter? What is the infrastructure that needs to be in place? What is the technology that could be adaptable which is not being used today? That is my concern. I feel that we are too slow.

Mr. Douglas: The situation in Ontario is the most familiar to me. Since Walkerton, new regulations have come into being in Ontario regarding drinking water. Those regulations state that the Canadian drinking water guidelines must be achieved. Through a review, auditing and certificate of approval process, they can sit down with Ottawa to determine the areas where they are falling short. There is a two-year period to bring in those technology changes, to effect whatever capital and infrastructure improvements are needed to bring it up the level. This is not a drop-dead date, but there is some phasing in. Clearly, we are moving faster on projects because of that process.

That is a case where federal guidelines were used and applied with some pressure within the province for a progressive benefit in drinking water quality. That is an example.

Mr. Proulx: Senator, in reply to your specific question and in consideration of the geographic constraints that these small communities experience, the policies that we are promoting may well conflict with the reality of those communities. In all likelihood, special requirements will be necessary. That is probably beyond the scope of our organization. Notwithstanding that, we will do what we can to help you. However, I sense you have some unique problems that need to be addressed.

Senator Watt: Not only are we killing the people, but we are also killing the environment and the fish and natural habitats.

The Chairman: I notice that the title of your organization is the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association. That is intriguing. As a Westerner, I distinguish between sewage water and wastewater. If you ever buy an RV, they will have wastewater. That is what you wash out of the kitchen sink.

Surface run-off water is what contaminates our watercourses, and that is a big problem, as was evidenced in Walkerton. Fertilization of lawns and different types of chemicals used affects the quality of drinking water. If you cannot control the pollution of water through surface drainage, it will be extraordinarily difficult to control the quality of drinking water. Has your organization worked much with wastewater?

Mr. Proulx: For clarity, in our title the word wastewater means sewage. It is the treatment of the municipal sewage that -

The Chairman: Do you leave out the treatment of surface run off?

Mr. Proulx: I will come to that. In the operation of a water utility, we protect the utility in a three-phased approach. The first phase is source water protection. If it is a surface reservoir, we will institute measures to protect it from surface run off. If it is a ground water supply, we institute, in my particular case, a ground water protection strategy to limit activities in the area that might in the future pollute the ground water. For example, intensive livestock operations are not permitted in the areas immediately around the well source.

The other two platforms are the disinfection of the water and the maintenance of an adequate and properly operated distribution system. It is a three-phased approach. They are all important, but source water protection is every bit as important as the other. In Walkerton, one of the problems was the source water protection aspect of the situation was lacking.

Senator Buchanan: As a provincial politician of 25 years, I may look at things in a provincial rather than that federal way, but I am changing. I suspect that the majority of the provinces would not be in tune with this bill. It appears to me that this bill will bring confusion for not only the provinces, but also the municipalities and could be costly in the end result.

With the present system in this country of federal-provincial dialogue, and federal-provincial committees and ministers groups, we could end up with regulations that overlap. We have had enough of that. We have had many situations where there is so much overlap that the people involved and the stakeholders are so confused that it does not make sense.

The Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment should be involved in this discussion rather than a bill in the Senate or the House of Commons. I may be off base, but I suspect the provinces would not be in agreement with what is going on here.

Mr. Proulx: In our written presentation, you will see that we recommend enhancing the existing process. We believe the existing process is working well and is being refined on a regular basis. Perhaps it will always need to be refined as different issues arise.

If there is a weakness in the existing process, it is the fact that most Canadians are not aware of how the Canadian drinking water guidelines are developed, or are not aware of what the current Canadian drinking water guidelines encompass.

We recommend in our written brief that the federal government go on a publicity campaign to try to tell the Canadian public the process we have entered into. We believe it is a good process. We know the process because we work with it five days a week. We believe most Canadians are not aware of the process. We think there is some room for action there. You will see that in the written presentation.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Testing is inexpensive in Quebec and any citizen can have his water tested and have the results quickly. Is that service available across the country, so that if you want to monitor your own water you could?

Mr. Proulx: For microbiological testing, which is the biggest concern of most of the public, you will receive the results usually within a couple of days. Is that universal across Canada? No, it is not. It depends on the municipalities across the province.

I know that Ottawa does it and most of the large municipalities will do it. Even though EPCOR is a private company, I assume that they do it for their constituents as well.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Even if a company or municipality is testing, I would not trust them. We need some external provincial laboratories to check. Is that available?

Mr. Douglas: The Ministry of Health would usually offer that service. When a customer phones us with a concern, we investigate, take samples and give the results. The key difference is that we have to do it through an accredited lab that is audited by the Canadian council. That is the quality assurance. We do the testing, but it is done through an accredited process.

Senator Finnerty: They refuse to test the water in the lake at my cottage. They say they will test a well, but not lake water.

Mr. Douglas: Are you using the lake water?

Senator Finnerty: It is a spring-fed lake, but we have beaver in the lake, which is why I want it tested. They refuse to test it.

Mr. Douglas: If you are using that water for potable purposes, I think the health department should be testing it.

Senator Finnerty: If things are working so well, why are we getting so many advisories to boil water?

Mr. Douglas: That is a good question. The regulations have changed, especially in Ontario. We do 125,000 drinking water tests per year in Ottawa. If any one of those tests shows anything unusual or anything that exceeds any one of the 104 guidelines, it must be reported to the medical officer within minutes and we must also notify the Ministry of the Environment and provide all sorts of documents.

We are not seeing all these boil water advisories because the water quality has changed. It is because the regulatory and reporting process has changed. Previously, when we got a positive sample in those 125,000 tests, we typically resampled. The positive test could be as a result of a contaminated bottle or a lab error. If upon retesting we confirmed the presence of something, we would consider a boil water advisory.

Post-Walkerton we are erring on the side of complete caution. We advise the public in case there is a problem and check later. That is why you are seeing media reports of boil water advisories. I do not think the water has changed; I think the reporting process has changed.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. You have been most informative and interesting.

Mr. Proulx: Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.

The committee adjourned.