Summary of the Water Discussion Group, Nov 21, 2003

Participants:

Ralph Stanley, Peel Public Health
Helen Doyle, York Health Department
Manny Mahesh Patel, Toronto Public Health

Overall

Concerns

1. The federal act seems silent on jurisdiction for drinking water haulers and tanker trucks for transportation of bulk water prior to further processing.

2. There was no reference to the proposed Code of Hygienic Practice for Commercial Prepackaged and Non Packaged Water (June 2002). This document should be referenced in the background materials and this code should have been be put together by Health Canada with input from the private sector and not driven by the private sector as part of the process to develop this code.

Specific Recommendations

1. Definitions Associated with Drinking water would be helpful for example a definition of "Potable Water" on page 45 B7.2 under food there is a specific definition for food which includes drink, B7.2.1.1 it was felt that the sections on food and water need to be cross referenced to one another. For example the existing foods and drugs act applies to all water, including water used in manufacturing of food/soft drinks, and water sold in bulk to consumers who bring in their old container. Reference page 8 the Making it Clear documents (renewing the federal regulation on bottled water August 2002 Health Canada and the CFIA).

2. The act should be clear indicating clearly that treated tap water is a provincial / municipal responsibility.

Questions Raised

1. Why is section B12 titled "Water" and not Drinking Water? It could be perhaps there is an expectation that this section will also include standards associated with recreational beaches and body contact recreation.

2. Why is the "Making it Clear" document not included in renewing Federal regulations on bottled water, (Health Canada August 2002)?

Canadian Health Coalitions Document a citizen's guide to Health Canada's Health protection legislation they make a few good points in the following areas:

• Paradigm protection versus regulations/safety there appears to be a shift from health protections strategies to a risk management system which is ok from a public health perspective, however; we question if the risk management system should be run by the private sector? - Public Health should not support this approach.

• Health Canada should maintain an in-house investigative lab. Capacity and multidisciplinary teams for surveillance of difficult issues. This service is very valuable to Public Health and from time to time we use these services in very difficult and stressful investigations case in point "Walkerton" tainted water supplies.

• Section H of the document talks about different regulations that the government is proposing and some related enforcement issues, this section should have standards for water listed under regulations.

• The act does not clearly define the word Health? A definition should be provided.

• The whole issue of jurisdiction between Health Canada/CFIA and local health units that needs clarification for example during emergency events on Federal lands who takes the lead during after hour emergencies Federal Government needs to clearly recognize the role of local Public Health or provide their own services.

ustice O'Connor's Walkerton Inquiry Report Part Two, May 23, 2002:

This report offers some excellent recommendations pertaining to legislation and standards to ensure the safety of drinking water, which have been referenced throughout the above document and have a good fit into this proposed federal piece of legislation

Recommendation #20 in the O'Connor Report , Talks about drinking water research and Health Canada's role to develop detailed definitions of the susceptibility of vulnerable groups to drinking water contaminant exposures to all appropriate adjustments in drinking water quality guidelines. The workgroup supports this recommendation and would like it to be referenced as part of our comments.

back to top

B 7 Categorization of Products

Specific Recommendations

1. The fit with water is not clear in this section, while the existing food and drug act includes food and drink, Water should be also included on its own and the definition of food to include water.

Questions Raised

1. How is water to be classified as a product? Does this include home water treatment devices and drinking water materials which are used as additives?

2. What is the category of risk to be applied to water? for example bottled water consumption can have some risk.

back to top

B 8 Review Process

General Comments

The transparency/public input of the review process is very important for development of water standards. This point is also stressed in the Part#2 report of Justice Dennis O'Connor's - Walkerton Inquiry report- Recommendation # 21, "recommends that the federal-provincial process for proposing drinking water guidelines be refined to provide for greater transparency and public participation".

Specific Recommendations

1. We support the development of independent advisory committees for example in Ontario the model of the Advisory Committee on Environmental Standards (ACES) worked very well and provided a panel of experts who maintained transparency and provide public consultation. Justice O'Connor's - Walkerton Report in Recommendation #25 calls for the Ontario Minister of the Environment to establish an Advisory Council on Standards, this recommendation remains outstanding!!

2. B5 Tampering and the Review process in B8 Theses sections are applicable to bottled water and water treatment devices and should be incorporated under water.

back to top

B 9 Food

Specific Recommendations

1. Section B9.4 must also apply to all drinking water including bottled water and prepackaged ice etc. i.e. for example B9.4.2 unfit for human consumption!, would also apply to water.

On the Issue of Jurisdiction:

On page 72 the respective responsibilities of Health Canada and the Food Inspection Agencies are discussed. The situation between Health Canada and the CFIA presents a great deal of misunderstanding by local official Health Agencies across Canada. Historically and prior to the development of the CFIA Health Canada's jurisdiction with drinking water and foods were quite clear. Generally Health Canada would look after the importation of foods and drink beyond provinces, imported goods and south of the border. With the formation of the CFIA the lines of jurisdictions with food and water need specific clarifications as per roles and functions in working with Provinces and in particular local Official Health Agencies. The new federal health legislation needs to recognize roles and responsibilities with different jurisdictions in the areas of food and water which will also need specific clarification. Section B9.7 indicates the CFIA and Health Canada can enter into agreements and develop protocols to increase efficiency in the exercise of their responsibilities. This section needs to strengthen the roles and provide clarification with Provincial and local health authorities. There is a need to recognize the health units role in provision of water inspection services and specifically the production of bottled water (food premises) and health department's roles with the education of premise operators and private citizens in the area of private water supplies and home water treatment devices.

For example Health Canada is currently working with local heath agencies under the Tobacco Act which currently allocates funding for inspection programs in local official health agencies who are accountable to carry out these programs cross reference sections (B7.3 .1.10)

back to top

B 12 Water

Specific Recommendations

1. Opening paragraph on page 102 indicates the proposed Act would confirm the authority of the Minister of Health to adopt Guidelines. We suggest that this power should be changed from Guidelines to "Standards" to enhance status and acceptability across Canada. This suggestion is further strengthened by Recommendation #23 in Justice O'Connor's Walkerton Inquiry report- "I encourage the federal government to adopt standards that are stringent as, or more stringent than, Ontario Regulation 459/00 (now Ont.Reg. 170) for all federal facilities?"

2. Note that the goal of GSR is to establish specific health and safety standards not guidelines for products. In addition the Water section needs to also include food. Section B12.2.1 authorizes the Minister of Health to develop guidelines to ensure the quality of water. We recommend that this power should be broad enough to include the development of standards or regulations to protect public health. Post Walkerton in Ontario, The Ontario drinking water objectives have now become standards under a safe drinking water act. In addition, in the US Legislation (USEPA/Health) also incorporates standards into Safe Drinking Water Acts and legislation.

back to top

B 12 / 2.1 - Water

Should the federal government set minimums safety standards for all water distribution systems?

The answer is "Yes," and must base decisions regarding standards on sound scientific information. For example in the new copy of the summary guidelines for Canadian Drinking water quality, (April 2003) A new (MAC) Maximum Acceptable Concentration for private supplies shall have no coliforms "detectable per 100ml". Prior to this document Health Canada standards for total coliforms for decades have been 10 and is now zero. This information was detected only after reviewing the latest copy of the Canadian Drinking water quality guidelines summary. This clearly demonstrates a lack of consultation with local health units and the public. This example also demonstrates a lack of consistency with Recommendation #21 of O'Connor's Inquiry Report requesting the process provide for greater transparency and open public participation. All guidelines need go through a open public consultation process which was previously based on science and established criteria. We would like the government to consult with the public and would like the process to be open and transparent and we would like the documents to support changes in standards (i.e. total coliforms = zero) to be subject to a full open public consultation process.

What Level of Government should be responsible for enforcement?

We believe that the provincial and municipal jurisdictions should be responsible for enforcement.

We believe that the government is not taking responsible action by leaving standards as guidelines, but at the same time we feel that the federal government should not be involved in the enforcement aspect of the standards they should remain with provincial jurisdiction give the strength of a federal standard. The GSR in sections B2.3.9 clearly indicates that the safety standard provides points of protection based on health and safety of water.

In sections B.12.2.1 should guidelines remain in the act the Canadian drinking guidelines should be specified, named, referenced and defined as part of the new act?

The act should state that the standards are under provincial jurisdiction (reference page 32 , the GSR, under product responsibilities at a minimum level to meet such standards.)

back to top

B.12.2.3

Specific Recommendations

1. We feel that the act should also specify standards and or regulations for water treatment devices and ingredients and they should be put into a regulation. These standards have to be more protective and any standards that come from industry must be put through a collaborative process with the public and public health. This section will also relate to Recommendation #34 in Justice O'Connor's Walkerton report which recommends; "The Provincial government should encourage the federal government, working with the Standards Council of Canada and with advice from municipalities, the water industry, and other stakeholders, to develop STANDARDS for materials, including piping, valves, storage tanks, and bulk chemicals, that come into contact with drinking water."

back to top

B 12.2.4

General Comments

In principle we agree with the positions taken./P>

Specific Recommendations

1. The position taken should also apply to other jurisdictions i.e. Municipal Water, Private Water Supplies and these standards should apply to other jurisdictions for their use.

back to top

B 12.2.5

Questions Raised

1. Does research mean work with other jurisdictions on standards for example development of standards for total coliforms and develop maximum acceptable concentrations ( MAC)? We feel it should. In Justice O'Connor's report Recommendation #22. He has also suggested that the Federal - Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking Water focus on drinking water quality guidelines. I encourage Health Canada to commit the required scientific support to the federal-provincial process for proposing drinking water quality guidelines."

back to top

B.12 / 2.6

Specific Recommendations

1. Recreational and bathing beach standards should also be researched to avoid impacts on the environment in which protection of human health depends. It has been several years since Health Canada has reviewed its recreational health water standards for swimming and body contact recreation the water workgroup would support a review of the standard. We should also question how this area is linked under health surveillance and research in connection with drinking water.

Question 78 on page 104: Do you agree with what is being proposed?

"Yes" We do you agree with what is proposed but it needs to be strengthened and made more clearer, transparent with no duplication of jurisdiction and full consultation. In addition, water needs to be clearly linked with food as water is food.

back to top

B.12 / 2.6

Questions Raised

1. Talks about the entire application of the entire life cycle of a product from start to finish. Does this apply for where water process begins i.e. at the water source (surface water, ground water) onto a tanker truck to a water bottling plant where the water is bottled to the end product the consumer. For due diligence, a supplier must show that a product i.e. bottled water complies with regulatory standards (B.2.3.9) not guidelines! This section is cross referenced with page 7 in the making it clearer document Health Canada CFIA August 2002.

back to top