National Defence Committee on Nov. 26th, 2024

[Seth Cain]

We have set out, as a community, a 10-step process that federal real property holders follow. We refer to it as the decision-making framework.

The 10 steps start with identifying a potential or suspected contaminated site. It proceeds through different degrees and levels of evaluation, including sampling and looking at and comparing site results against guidelines, leading to confirmation that it is, in fact, contaminated, at which point a plan will be developed to remediate or put in place risk management measures for a given site. That will be implemented. There will be confirmatory sampling or long-term monitoring and, then, closure of a site.

Those are the broad strokes of how a site is managed from start to finish.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you.

We've heard also that it could spill over into communities sometimes. I'm wondering what the process would be at that point, if a community were to let you know that there was contaminated water or whatever it might be.

[Seth Cain]

That does occur and it is certainly part of the responsibilities of those individual site owners—DND or any other—to understand whether the contamination may have travelled off-site, to inform landowners, stakeholders, the public or indigenous peoples, as required, and then to conduct the testing that's needed to confirm the risk and contaminants that are present and assess those like they would on federal lands. Those are the basics.

It's always important to work with landowners and to consider not just federal guidelines but also possibly provincial guidelines in cases where the contamination has gone off of federal lands.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Carreau, you mentioned that there are several things that Health Canada does in order to protect Canadians from these contaminants, these chemicals. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on what can be added to these measures to better protect Canadians.

[Greg Carreau]

Indeed, Health Canada plays an important role in supporting custodians in remediating and identifying contaminated sites by way of leveraging its science-based programs, whether they be for air pollution, drinking water, chemicals or foods.

Guidelines, advice and technical input are provided to custodians so that they are well aware of the levels of risk that may be present from exposures at contaminated sites and what levels would be considered levels that would reduce that risk over time.

Leveraging that very robust science-based program at Health Canada, I think we're fully confident that the advice and guidance we provide to custodians does reflect consistent and tangible guidance that is reflective of current science on the health effects of these pollutants.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

You also lightly touched on the negative health effects. You said that it affects liver, kidney and the nervous system.

Can you go a little bit more into the worst-case scenario of what the effects would be on health?

[Greg Carreau]

The range of pollutants that may be present at contaminated sites are highly variable, obviously, depending on what chemicals, what pollutants, what exposure scenarios may be present and whether or not they may have disproportionately impacted people on the sites, like toddlers at playgrounds or pregnant people in the environment.

It's difficult to answer that in a very succinct answer, but I would say that many of these chemicals can lead to increased risks of cancer over time. That's why it's important that the health-based input that's provided underpins the actions that custodians are taking on these contaminated sites.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you.

As well, I know that there are different types of PFAS. Which ones are the ones that are most often found contaminating these sites, and which ones are used on these bases?

[Greg Carreau]

I think, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that class of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, is upwards of a 5,000, maybe 10,000, group of chemicals internationally. In the context of contaminated sites, they're predominantly from legacy use of aqueous film-forming foams that are present either for the use of containing fires or for training purposes.

The Government of Canada has been looking at this class of chemicals for over 15 years. There are very well-characterized chemicals, including PFOS, long-chain perfluorooctane sulfonate, and also a range of other very complex but well-studied chemicals.

Health Canada has recently adopted a drinking water quality objective, which cites the most common PFAS that are being monitored at these contaminated sites, and then provides guidance on analytical methods to ensure that sampling is done to detect these chemicals and what treatment can be done, at both the domestic residential scale—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have the answer there, Ms. Lambropoulos.

Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here.

My questions will be similar to those of my colleague Mr. Tolmie. The first one is more for Mr. Cain, but perhaps for Mr. Carreau as well.

Before determining whether a site is contaminated, first you have to identify the contaminant. In many cases, when people use a product, they don't yet know that it's a contaminant.

I'd like to know if you have access to a list of all the chemicals that may have been used in the course of a year at a given site, or whether there's an obligation to give you access to such a list. By that I mean a registry that can subsequently be used to confirm whether a site is contaminated, in the same way as you can issue recalls of certain products. You know to whom the product was sold and can issue a recall notice.

Does that kind of system exist for the purpose of managing contaminated sites?

[Seth Cain]

Thank you for the question.

I am not aware of a registry of that type. The community has been working together for many years and has identified a list of chemicals that are part of the federal contaminated sites inventory.

It is an obligation on the part of the custodians, the real property owners, to be aware of those hazards, those chemicals, and to consider if they may have been used at their sites. In the case of a potential or suspected contaminated site, this leads to making that information public on the inventory.

I think that's probably the most direct answer I can provide to that question.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Since sites may become contaminated, would it be helpful to have them maintain readily accessible registries of all products used on those sites, even those that aren't considered contaminants? In that way, if those products were ever identified as contaminants at a later date, it would be easier to determine which sites are contaminated. Is that a good idea?

[Greg Carreau]

Thank you for the question.

I can add from a health perspective, as you rightly pointed out, that science evolves over time and new health and environmental risks can be identified for chemicals. Oftentimes, Health Canada will develop new standards based on that new science, and that is made available to custodians as a basis to then identify new risks that may be present at their sites. I think that linkage between emerging science, emerging risks, and custodians to identify what risks may be in those areas, as well, will help identify.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Carreau, you're responsible for establishing targets and toxicity levels. However, as was mentioned, products often spread beyond a site to sites that aren't on federal property.

I'd like to know what happens in cases, for example, where federal standards differ from provincial or local standards. For example, the Institut national de santé publique du Québec could have a different standard from the federal one, as a result of which different standards would, generally speaking, apply to a single site.

What's the procedure in that situation?

[Greg Carreau]

Thank you for that question.

Indeed, in the space of environmental health and some of these health contaminants, there is jurisdiction within the provinces and territories that applies to certain contaminated sites. In those instances, there's very close collaboration between the federal government and the province or territory on the advice and guidance that are provided to the custodian.

Ultimately, if the contamination is in a provincial space under provincial jurisdiction, it would be the provincial authority that guides and provides advice to custodians. The federal government would be a very close collaborator in providing support as necessary.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I'd like you to tell us about the precautionary principle. Do you apply the precautionary principle when you don't yet know the toxicity level of an existing product? In other words, when the toxicity level of a product hasn't been reached, do you nevertheless take specific steps to prevent the public from coming into contact with a contaminant?

[Greg Carreau]

Thank you once again for your question.

The precautionary principle features prominently in all of Health Canada's activities to identify the level of risk related to a certain product or chemical. It is entrenched in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. As I mentioned, that is the basis for many of Health Canada's legislative programs.

We've also introduced, through our risk assessments, uncertainty factors that allow for uncertainty and precaution when Health Canada comes up with a toxicity value. A good example of precaution is the PFAS example I just spoke to. The Government of Canada had been looking at a chemical-by-chemical approach but recognized the large chemical.... The drinking water objective brings together that broad class, using precaution as a basis, to protect Canadians from exposure to PFAS in drinking water.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Normandin.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have six minutes, please.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses today. This is an important study.

First off, there was a lot of conversation about the PFAS, but could you talk about the health risks of TCE and hydrocarbons? This is for Health Canada maybe.

[Greg Carreau]

Thank you very much for the question. I appreciate it.

Indeed, TCE is a well-studied chemical solvent that can cause cancer. As you may know, it's been used for many decades, primarily for automotive metal industries, degreasing and cleaning metal parts. Through the Canadian Environment Protection Act, there were regulations put in place to reduce exposure to Canadians and the environment. It is noted that people living in close proximity to contaminated sites may be exposed to TCE in drinking water as well as through air, water and food.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

However, that's part of this fix up as well.

[Greg Carreau]

That's correct. Health Canada does have guidance, both in indoor air quality standards and drinking water standards, that has characterized the health risks from exposure to TCE through those various exposure pathways. That guidance is used as a basis for custodians to manage established contaminated sites.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

As we explore more and more, there are conversations about needing to expand housing and the investigation of maybe using federal lands, like DND lands, for the expansion of that by selling off that property, using it for housing or even just building housing around those areas, which exist in my riding per se.

In her conversation, I think Ms. Lambropoulos asked about this. If the community found out about contamination, because there was water sampling or what have you, then they would approach Health Canada. It is for the holder of the land, the guardian of that land—DND for this example—to actively and proactively inform the community. Is that correct?

It's not just one way; it has to happen both ways.