Evidence of meeting #127 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was site.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Have we admitted responsibility when there is a high level, or is there a point of contention as to who caused this?
Director, Contaminated Sites Division, Department of the Environment
It will depend on specific sites and the circumstances.
As with other contaminants, such as petroleum hydrocarbons, the hydrogeology can model and predict how these types of contaminants enter the soil, then move through soil and groundwater. While PFAS have their own unique characteristics, there is a very strong scientific basis for sampling, testing and predicting how these things move through the environment. That's the type of thing Environment Canada supports DND and others with.
DND will be able to speak about specific sites, if you have questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Mr. Powlowski is done.
Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for five minutes.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This time my questions are for both Mr. Cain and Ms. Evans.
Mr. Cain, you discussed the costs associated with site decontamination and the fact that budgets have previously been set aside for that purpose. I'd like to know more about how those funds are used. I'm thinking, in particular, of cases where decontamination activities have to extend beyond the contaminated site and others where contamination victims seek compensation.
How are those guidelines established? Are they unique? Is there a calculation table? Are amounts determined on a case-by-case basis?
In addition, how do you discuss the matter with Treasury Board when you're forced to go beyond previously determined amounts?
I'd like to know how that works when you have to decontaminate a site and perhaps to pay compensation as well.
November 26th, 2024 / 4:35 p.m.
Director, Contaminated Sites Division, Department of the Environment
Thank you for the question.
Underpinning FCSAP and the work each custodian does are the guidelines established by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Those guidelines are designed to be protective of human health and the environment. They very much guide the work each custodian does on its sites, including in cases where the contamination has left a site. Custodians apply those guidelines in a way that is representative of the type of land use intended to occur there in the future. Cleaning a site for a future industrial purpose is different from cleaning it for residential use, for example. These types of things apply as custodians are designing their remediation and risk management plans.
If we go into a space like indemnification, that's an area where it's very much a question we would work through, case by case, with the Department of Justice and the specific custodian. I hesitate to speak in generalities about that topic area.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
You've explained how this works for decontamination, but what about mitigation measures? I'm thinking more specifically of the case involving the Bagotville military base, which concerned the installation of a water filtration system by the municipality, not decontamination of the site. The matter extended beyond the decontamination field.
Are there guidelines for that kind of situation?
Director, Contaminated Sites Division, Department of the Environment
Yes, thank you for the question.
Maybe it's worth spending a moment to differentiate between remediation and risk management.
Remediation, as a concept, is about removing or completely addressing the contamination away. For example, maybe they filter it out of the water on a site in order to remove it permanently.
Risk mitigation tends to be something like putting up physical barriers so people cannot access a contaminated site. It could include capping a site so rainwater is unable to penetrate it and push contaminants into groundwater. Another type of risk mitigation can be breaking the pathway between the contaminant and a human or an animal. Water filtration is a valid approach used. That is the situation you referenced in the city of Saguenay.
I'm not sure if I covered all the elements of your question. Hopefully....
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Are there previously established monetary guidelines for this kind of situation?
Director, Contaminated Sites Division, Department of the Environment
I'm not familiar with that type of scenario, so I'm unable to speak to it. In the case of Saguenay, the federal government has contributed funding and is paying most of the cost for the city to be able to add and operate water filtration. I would point to that as the situation for that community.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Does the Treasury Board Secretariat or your department communicate with the litigation branch at any time if legal action is taken? We've seen that in the past. At what point do parties communicate with the government litigation branch?
Executive Director, Investment Management Directorate, Office of the Comptroller General, Treasury Board Secretariat
I've really never heard of that type of work at the Treasury Board Secretariat. Generally speaking, we work closely with experts. As my colleague said, there may be a few justice department employees who handle those sorts of things, but I'm not really aware of that kind of consultation.
Liberal
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I'd like to go back. We were talking about the guidance that's provided, not the authority on issues....
How often does DND ask for guidance from Health Canada or from Environment Canada to come in and help with that testing in those assessments? How often has that been done?
Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health
I can start. I know that Environment and Climate Change Canada is also an expert department that receives many calls for advice. I would say that it's routine, ongoing and regular in terms of the advice and guidance that's sought by the Department of National Defence.
That will range from help in delineating potential contamination, setting a priority level of how high a priority should be on contaminated sites and determining how to do the risk assessment analysis. What is the level of risk of the current concentration on the contaminated sites? What are treatment or mitigation measures?
Then following, we also support engagements going to communities and other areas to help communicate what the risks are to communities from a human health perspective. I would characterize it as very regular, very collaborative and ongoing.
Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health
It's highly variable depending on the situation.
Director, Contaminated Sites Division, Department of the Environment
I would echo those remarks. I don't have specific data about how often it is that DND reaches out to Environment Canada on specific sites. I would have to request that.
Director, Contaminated Sites Division, Department of the Environment
It's certainly done regularly, but I'd have to ask for data.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I'm a little bit concerned about what we've heard from others—not today—about the lack of monitoring or the auditing of the process. If Health Canada, for example, is concerned that there are human health impact assessments that are mismanaged, say, on a particular site, do you have the option to take that over to then access the test results? Do you have the option to access the site to conduct any independent tests?
If there are complaints from the public that would go through you as opposed to concerns, how would they be managed?
Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health
Certainly there's no proactive role for Health Canada in which it would proactively go and assess, as you've mentioned. However, if there are requests from the public or others, that would be a conversation we would have with the Department of National Defence to see what helping guidance we could provide.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
In terms of that chain of command—and I think Mr. Tolmie was trying to get to this, too—the custodian, I think the term is, is the ultimate authority. Is there no role if there's a concern from Health Canada or Environment Canada? Is there no way to override or to enforce the rulings upon another custodian?
Director, Contaminated Sites Division, Department of the Environment
It can be difficult to speak in hypotheticals.
How I would respond is to say that, if Environment Canada or Health Canada is made aware of a particular case, and DND or any custodian is in need of some supporting detailed analysis, that is possible for us to do. We can review the conclusions.
I think we would discuss it with DND or any given custodian and then assess the science, if that was required. I would point to the accountabilities of each custodian, which we've mentioned, and also to the professional obligations of the staff and the consultants who work with them to meet their ethical and professional requirements.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Ultimately, in terms of this idea of silos within departments, if Environment Canada, say, has these concerns and it goes up its totem pole, because those poles are equal, is there an auditing process? Is there an assessment of who ultimately, at the end of the day, wins for the best-case scenario of public health?
Executive Director, Investment Management Directorate, Office of the Comptroller General, Treasury Board Secretariat
If I may, there are several lines of defence. As my colleagues indicated, it starts at the project level with the experts on the ground who are working on a specific project. There's then a program layer, which is led by my colleagues in Environment and Climate Change Canada. Part of that is, yes, primarily in terms of sharing lessons learned and best practices, but there's also governance there. Then we get to our auditing layer, which is our third party experts. If I understand your question, that is what you're looking at.
National Defence does have its own internal audit function, which is third party, but there are also roles for other third party auditors, such as the Office of the Auditor General. There's the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, who does audits. They've done a number of audits related to contaminated sites. There was one that just came out recently, in the spring.
There are also a number of legal requirements stemming from different pieces of legislation.