National Defence Committee on Nov. 26th, 2024

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Carreau, for a very thoughtful answer.

I have quick follow-up.

I think you mentioned a subgroup of PFAS substances that are known substitutes for the Kigali substances. The government has expressed its concern about regrettable substitutions, which is a valid concern for sure.

I'm told that certain industry players are concerned about a possible need to find a substitute for a substitute after millions of dollars in investment. Can you explain to the committee what the process to find viable alternatives entails and what regulatory markers or exemptions the government will consider as we work to find the lowest impact alternative for an undesirable chemistry?

[Greg Carreau]

Indeed, a regrettable substitution is an area that has been a concern of government officials, industry and all Canadians, I would say. An approach moving forward is that a chemical assessment is being done from more of a class-based approach that understands similar chemistry, a similar mode of action and similar uses to be able to identify which of those may be a concern and which of those may not. That would give predictability to industry on the chemistries there are concerns about from an environmental or human health perspective and those about which there are not concerns.

There's also a new mechanism under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act called a watch list that lists chemicals for which there may be concerns from a health and environmental perspective. That is a communication mechanism for industry and Canadians to stay away from that chemistry, recognizing the concerns we have. That's a basis upon which investments in alternatives can be made that would not be in areas of concern identified by the government.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Evans, I just had a conversation. We talked a lot about each of the roles and everything, but there were a few mentions of the collaboration between provincial and territorial governments in addressing contaminated sites and what roles they play.

Can you please tell us in a little bit more detail how that works in the practical terms of that collaboration? That is for either of you, but particularly Ms. Evans.

[Sarah Evans]

I can get started, and then I'll turn it to my colleagues from the expert departments.

When we're setting our standards and our policy for all custodians to follow, we want to make sure we're setting something that meets the federal standards and is aligned with provincial and municipal standards. What I referenced was the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. They set those standards, and we reference those within Treasury Board policy to ensure those common standards apply to all federal custodians.

In terms of how it works practically, I'll turn to my colleagues from the expert departments.

[Seth Cain]

Thank you for the question. To build on that, those standards are set by a working group under the council. It's a contaminated sites working group. It has federal, provincial and territorial participants. Environment Canada, another part of the department, is a lead for that, and we work closely with Health Canada.

In setting those guidelines we are looking to, as Sarah mentioned, set standards that make sense for the country and are going to be used widely.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We have a point of order. How exciting.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I believe that Ms. Evans explained something about the UXO removal. There's a difference between the UXO program and actually the spent ammunition. The spent ammunition has lead in it and is leaching into the ground, so there are two different things.

When you come back with the answers, I would hope that this distinction would be made.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I don't think that was anywhere close to a point of order, but it might be a point of clarification. If it needs clarification, we'll leave it to you to do so.

Before I let you go, to clean up a contaminated site, is that a Crown liability or a departmental liability?

[Sarah Evans]

Through the annual reporting process for the federal contaminated sites inventory all of the departments report their liabilities on a site-by-site basis, and then that's rolled up as part of the public accounts and is reported as a liability of the Crown.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The contamination cleanup, does that come out of the department budget or come out of some other budget?

[Sarah Evans]

The federal contaminated sites action plan is an overarching program, and within that program, each department has a specific allocation. However, as you've noted, it essentially balances it out to a certain extent, so we're reducing liability while we're making those investments.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm not sure I follow that. If I have a $100-million cleanup at Mrs. Gallant's site, is that coming out of DND's budget or is that coming out of some other budget?

[Sarah Evans]

There's a specific program budget for the federal contaminated sites action plan program. There is a portion of the remediation work that comes out of DND as existing reference levels, but there's also funding that comes out through the federal contaminated sites action plan program that's provided to each of the custodians to support that remediation work.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. I think we need to.... Mrs. Lalonde seemed to be able to follow that bouncing ball. I'm not sure I was.

Having said that, I just want, on behalf of the committee, to thank you for your appearance here today and the economical use of your time in giving your opening remarks. Thank you.

With that, colleagues, we're about to adjourn. Minister Duclos and colleagues will be here on Thursday, and then we resume this study next Tuesday and next Thursday.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.